Tod's Blog

In Search of Our Humanity

2011-11-19T22:03:00.022-05:00

Never has that bumper sticker saying been more true, "If you're not upset, you're not paying attention." Those in the streets with the Occupy Movements have simply been paying attention. Our political and economic systems are corrupt, dysfunctional and imploding on themselves. Nowhere is the evidence of this more stark than in the virtually complete absence of ethics and morality in the actions of our political, economic and cultural institutions. Corruption? How did that whole financial meltdown treat you? Dysfunction? How is that Congressional "super-committee" working out for you? Implosion? Virtually half of the population of the United States, arguably the richest country on the planet, is now economically insecure, meaning that while technically above the so-called poverty level, they struggle to regularly find the resources for the basics of existence; food, housing and not to mention health care. This is beyond shocking. Yet, in the face of this evidence both major political parties are pushing austerity, a further cutting back of resources, as the solution, and one of these Parties is so corrupt, immoral and self serving that it wants to further reinforce the political priorities that brought about this state of affairs, ie., further slashing of spending, and cutting taxes on the wealthy even more.

The higher up the power ladder one goes the more widespread is the moral vacuum. There is a vast chasm between how I believe most of us act and wish to act in our private lives and how the institutions of power force and mold us to act. These are ostensibly our institutions but we have completely lost control of them. The priorities and values that they have set, that they continue to set, within our political and economic systems are completely at odds with those, for example, that the overwhelming majority of us would wish to pass on to our children. We want our children to be fed and clothed, educated and cared for. We want the sick treated. We want to live in a peaceful world, to see, in the words of Bob Dylan that the "cannonballs are forever banned." And we want to see this also for our neighbors. Yet these priorities are now almost completely absent within the institutions we have constructed, particularly at the highest levels.

The levers of power are now firmly in the control of those who view human existence as a struggle to amass ever more wealth, power and control, who view their fellow humans as simply means to the end of domination and control, and not ends in themselves. This is the culture of empire. It is rooted I believe ultimately in the psychology of fear. The access routes to its institutions are carefully guarded and there are powerful incentives to not "rock the boat," or upset the status quo. Only those who are properly conditioned before hand can reach the upper echelons. You must first demonstrate your "seriousness," your ability to cast aside the ethics that you were most likely raised with, and make the tough but "pragmatic" decisions in service of empire. If you can't, your conscience gets the best of you, or you decide to act on what Lincoln called "the better angels of our nature," then there is no shortage of remedies, from loss of your job, to a jail cell, or a shower of pepper spray to the face. You have to show the proper allegiance to the propagandistic symbols of control, wear your flag pin, beat your chest and rah-rah the troops, proclaim the greatness, indeed, the exceptionalism of your tribe, and never, ever, examine your own conduct and that of empire.

There is a long struggle ahead to reform our institutions and take back the levers of power to the service of humans as ends and not means. The Occupy Movement is an example of this struggle, but events over the last year have clearly shown that the struggle is indeed global. The dominant economic system of limitless capitalism has entrenched our culture of empire, and it is ultimately at the heart of our moral corruption. But so as its guiding principle is to consume, and then consume more, it will also eventually consume our own humanity, and we will have destroyed ourselves, or at least that which is best in ourselves, in the process. Redemption lies in freeing ourselves from this culture of empire, in reclaiming our collective humanity. The path has already been laid out, by those such as King and Ghandi, we simply need to find it again beneath the wreckage of our own fear. The Occupiers have found that path and we need to start walking it with them. It is the only way to a future with any real freedom.

The Time is Nigh to Occupy

2011-10-08T10:23:00.023-04:00

Even if your only news outlets are corporate megaphones Fox News and CNN you must still be aware of the ongoing Occupy Wall Street protests, demonstrations and organizing taking place in lower Manhattan. Indeed, the spirit of resistance appears to be spreading faster than a Texas wildfire as similar encampments have sprung up all over the country. To gain a sense of the scale you can check out Occupy Together, which is providing a collection point for access to information on the various protests that have been created, and are being created, in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street.

What began as a modest sized gathering in "Liberty Plaza" in lower Manhattan has steadily grown to encompass large scale mobilizations in cities across the nation. We need to nurture and foster this growth, because such direct demonstrations of real democracy are the only way the majority, all of us, will be able to exert any kind of political and economic power in what now can only be described as the Corporate Oligarchy of the United States.

If pulling a voting booth lever every 2 or 4 years remains your only participation in what passes for our democracy, then it's time to switch the TV channel to something other than Fox News or CNN. If you still need convincing, still think that vote has meaning, just consider the shape that the 2012 presidential election (as an example) is taking. It is more than a year away from the elections and one can already describe the nature of the choice that one will be confronted with upon entering the voting both. If you remain committed to self destruction then you are likely to be tempted by one of these shining examples of human thought; Mitt (corporations are people, yes, really they are) Romney, Rick (let's just pray for rain) Perry, Herman (I will stand against Sharia Law) Cain, Michelle (minimum wage, we don't need no stinking minimum wage) Bachmann. That's not the full list of Republican candidates, and I didn't even get to Rick Santorum, or Newt Gingrich, but you get the point. So, if you can't find the intestinal fortitude to connect the arrow for one of these corporate clowns what other option do you have? Well, sadly, that "other" option is also largely a corporate clown, President Obama. Elected ostensibly to usher in "change," Obama has shown himself to be a staunch defender of the status quo. He has done more to foster cynicism and extinguish hope within his own political base than any Republican could have.

There is no meaningful choice here, "elections" in the US have largely become public relations exercises whose primary goal is a manipulation of voters so as to cynically ratify an intolerably unjust system that has abandoned the needs of the vast majority of the population in order to extract ever more profits for a privileged minority of super-rich and their lackeys.

As the election cycle gears up, billions of dollars will be spent--billions of overwhelmingly corporate dollars--to "purchase" candidates and influence the outcome. Endless hours of vacuous punditry will be spoon-fed to the population by the corporate media to convince us of the "excitement" and "importance" of the election. You see, when the outcome is so rigged in advance, the game at least has to look convincing or else too many might realize the true nature of the charade being perpetrated. And while at least theoretically a candidate might still be elected who would provide some challenge to the corporate oligarchs, their virtually bottomless electoral war chests serve to reduce those odds to a virtual impossibility. And as additional insurance against even marginally meaningful elections, those ostensible lovers of American democracy just can't wait to pass laws making it harder for people to vote.

The corporate media's response to all this has been anything if not predictable, and follows the standard playbook. First, attempt to ignore the protests. What, there are protestors? What, there are problems that might actually justify protests? Second, when it becomes impossible to ignore the situation, then attempt to criticize, denigrate and dismiss the protestors and distort their message and reasons for demonstrating. Typical of the latter tactic was the abysmal performance of CNN's newest "anchor" Erin Burnett in her debut show on the network where, rather than attempt to explore the issue in an objective way, she simply attempted to mock and dismiss the protestors as "...dancing...and bongo playing...hippies..." See also Glenn Greenwald's total evisceration of Burnett and with it the bulk of what passes for American journalism these days.

But of course the corporate media doesn't get it. Consolidation of media ownership has left a handful of large multinationals in control of the news outlets from which the majority of Americans regularly get their information. Any pretense of public service has long since been eroded with the effective sedation of the regulatory responsibility of government. After all, regulations are "job killers," if we are to believe the right wing meme that is repeated endlessly, and never challenged, in the mainstream press. Public service gets in the way of profits. Can't have that. So naturally these corporate media conglomerates are just another cog in the edifice of oligarchy, and an important cog at that.

If you're one of those still harping about "liberal media bias," then it's long past time you dusted off the remote and did what's left of your brain a favor and switched off Fox News. The only bias in the corporate media is that which slavishly supports their own corporate and economic interests, which, more often than not are in direct opposition to the interests of the vast majority of citizens. The media's "celebrity" and outrageously compensated anchors are for the most part members of the same economic and political cohort as the corporate CEOs and managers that finance them, so naturally they tend to identify with the same ideology.

With the ballot boxes bought and paid for the only way to halt the slide into further plutocracy and possibly fascism is direct democratic action, like the Occupy Together movements. It is a fundamental right of the people to peaceably assemble to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Corporate elites recognize this, hence the several decades long war against any avenue for collective democratic action, such as unions, fairer labor practices, and enforcement of workplace safety regulations.

It increasingly appears likely that our only route to a saner, more equitable and more sustainable future is via direct democratic actions. Occupy Wall Street is leading the way. Let's get behind them and push. We are the 99 percent.

Tribute to Lonnie Johnson

2011-09-04T14:52:00.004-04:00

Here's some more guitar music. This is "Tribute to Lonnie Johnson," another arrangement from Stefan Grossman. Lonnie Johnson was an influential blues and jazz musician from New Orleans whose career spanned from the 1920's through the blues-folk revival of the 1960's. His guitar playing was extremely influential, and he is credited by some with pioneering the rock and blues solo guitar styles that are so common today, including a lot of string bending and vibrato. This is a multi-section instrumental played in dropped-D tuning, where the low E string is lowered a full step to D. I really like the lick which closes out each section.

"Burglary Tools to Criminals"

2011-09-03T20:26:00.014-04:00

Occasionally a right winger will go "off script" and we get a rare treat, we get a peek at what some of these folks really think, and more often than not it isn't pretty. Such is the case with this hate-fest from the pen of unrepentant fascist Matthew Vadum, and excerpted here at Talking Points Memo.

While suppression of the voting rights of their political opposition remains a persistent right wing goal--Republican "dirty tricks" prior to elections have been a commonplace, including the recent attempts to suppress and confuse Democratic voters during the recent Wisconsin recall elections--such overt anti-democratic sentiment has typically been couched in the rhetoric of trying to reduce voter fraud. But perhaps worrying that such tactics are yielding diminishing returns, we now have this vile screed from Vadum which dispenses completely with any pretense of trying to stop fraud and just gets right to the heart of the matter. Vadum has the following to say about poor people, "... registering them to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals. It is profoundly antisocial and un-American to empower the nonproductive segments of the population to destroy the country." And, according to Vadum, "... the poor can be counted on to vote themselves more benefits by electing redistributionist politicians. Welfare recipients are particularly open to demagoguery and bribery." Well, at least he's not shy about telling us what he thinks of democracy. Apparently it's un-American to allow a certain segment of the American citizenry to vote, the "wrong" segment that is. While he's not completely explicit about who the real target of his ire is, with references to ACORN, Obama's ostensible support for welfare recipients and a quote from an NAACP official, it's not that hard to connect the dots. Not only is this a vile screed, it's a vile racist screed to boot.

In the remainder of the piece Vadum then goes on to lay out the "infamous" Cloward - Piven conspiracy. According to Vadum, this is how the poor will "... destroy the country ..." You see, a modest, reserved liberal academic (Frances Fox Piven) who has done activist work in the past in support of poor, disenfranchised communities is pulling the strings of a vast, evil, liberal conspiracy that will bring down America. This fantasy, made famous by the ravings of none other than Glenn Beck, ostensibly came within a hairs breadth of bringing down capitalist western civilization and seemingly all the good in the world to boot, and will no doubt succeed next time if we let our guard down and fall into such traps as, say, letting the poor vote. Or so Vadum would have us believe.

What a pile of excrement. Vadum's hatred of the poor is apparently only eclipsed by his hatred of poor welfare recipients. This is just classic fascist scapegoating, nothing less. Not surprisingly, the piece is shot through with distortion and hypocrisy. For example, one might be tempted to ask if Vadum harbors a similar hostility for those myriad other kinds of welfare recipients, like bank CEOs and their corporate clients who had to be rescued and bailed out with serious multi-trillion dollar welfare, or the oil company CEOs and board members whose annual take in corporate welfare is in the tens of billions of dollars. But Vadum is presumably happy to see these folks keep their voting privileges, because their redistributionist politicians are shoveling it to the "right" folks. Wing-nuts like Vadum just love to have their cake and eat it too.

Of course the majority of the poor are productive working people and are not poor by choice. Why should they not have the right to vote? They are for the most part kept poor by a system that the insipid Vadum and those of his ilk worship, that values the rights of money over the rights of human beings to a decent living. But Vadum is on the wrong side of history and knows it, and that explains much of the fear-mongering from his crowd. These folks hate democracy because it is an avenue by which the will of the majority may be implemented and some measure of economic justice ensured for all. Now that's worth voting for.

Debt Ridden? Obama and the Destruction of the Democratic Party

2011-07-29T21:39:00.030-04:00

The current debacle over the raising, or not, of the US government's debt limit, as well as the train wreck nature of the current budget negotiations in general, is just further evidence of a political and economic system that is broken and corrupt to its core. The debt limit has been raised by Congress some 80-odd times in the last 70 years. It has been done by both major parties, rather routinely, and, perhaps in recognition of the 14th amendment (section 4) prescription that US debt's legally obligated by Congress shall not be questioned, has not been the focus of substantial partisan rancor, at least until now. We largely have brain-dead, hypocritical, corporate-boot-licking Republican ideologues and their frothing tea-party accomplices, to thank for this, but with significant assistance from an absolutely rudderless and incompetent Democratic Party that is ostensibly led by none other than the President, but which in reality is effectively leaderless.

The current hysteria about the debt (and deficit) begs some questions. 1 ) When did the Republicans become so obsessed with the debt? Was it when they were running it up faster than you can say "blank check?" Apparently not, since the bulk of the current deficit largely consists of huge war and defense-related expenditures (think Iraq and Afghanistan), massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy (think Bush tax cuts), a huge prescription drug giveaway to pharmaceutical companies (yup, W again), and a dismal economy that has severely cut into tax revenues. Guess who we have to thank for all that? That's right, Republican administrations. Finally, was the deficit a concern to Republicans as the budget-busting Bush tax cuts were set to expire? Not in the slightest. And Obama, sadly, also seemed more than happy to accommodate this massive increase to the Federal debt.

The Bush administration, with it's deregulating, hands-off, gung-ho Capitalist cheer-leading happily watched as the financial system imploded under massive corruption and malfeasance, taking down the rest of the economy with it. Was the deficit then a concern as Hank Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary, floated a straw-man bill before Congress to grant him (Treasury) a multi-trillion dollar blank check with which to bail out his bankster buddies? Indeed, the deficit was irrelevant when it came to bailing out the core Republican constituency of wealthy banking fat-cats (sadly a chief Democratic constituency as well). How obscene now their desire and attempts to balance the budget by slashing social and health programs for working people, seniors and children.

One of the biggest myths about the current Republican Party is that they loathe big government. They love to say it, but talk is dirt cheap, their record of deeds indicates otherwise. Republicans love big government, as long as it's "bigness" consists of distributing public money to their wealthy corporate cronies, and restricting the political power and freedoms of working people.

No, with the Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives, a result for which we largely have President Obama to thank, they see that they can now hold the rest of the country hostage to their professed desire to see the deficit reduced. This is just a smokescreen, and an attempt to use a manufactured debt "crisis" as a cudgel that they hope to use to eviscerate programs which they have long despised, Social Security and Medicare, for example.

While we're at it let's explode another myth that mindless, lapel-flag-wearing Republicans hold dear, that their patriotism is unassailable. Patriotism? Are you kidding me? There are many adjectives one could use to describe the budget hostage-taking currently being carried out by congressional Republicans; selfish, reckless, insane, childish. I'm sure you have your own favorites, but patriotic is almost certainly not among them. Indeed, forcing such a confrontation which has the very real possibility of doing serious harm to the financial and economic security of millions of US citizens is more treasonous than patriotic. You might think at this point that the shame of it all would eventually kick in and force an about-face, but you'd be wrong, because shame is no match for ideological fundamentalism.

If all this has you thinking about Greek tragedies, then let's consider a second question, regarding the nature of the US debt. 2) Who holds the debt of the United States? And perhaps a corollary, how is it that the US government can actually be "in debt." As it turns out, a majority of the US debt in the form of US Treasury bonds is held by US citizens and institutions. Much of it is held by private US chartered banks, specifically, the Federal Reserve banks. So, in some ways the federal deficit is debt owed to ourselves. Not all of it, perhaps 35% is held by foreign institutions, say, like the governments of Japan and China. Needless to say, the majority of those holding US bonds are and/or represent wealthy, private corporate interests. Indeed, the Federal Reserve (or Fed for short) is one of those classic government double-speak terms, kind of like the Defense Department (which used to be known by the more accurate moniker, War Department), because it's not really Federal (it is privately owned, though with some very loose governmental oversight), and it's certainly not a Reserve (of, say, money!). So, if the debt is largely a debt owed to US citizens, why didn't the government tax more substantially those wealthy interests directly, rather than issuing debt which then must also be serviced with interest payments?

Another amazing fact about the Fed is that it doesn't really have the money it lends. The Federal Reserve act of 1913 established the way in which the US monetary system is organized. The Fed, indeed, private banks generally, can simply create money as bank account entries (loans) which can then be spent, but the US government (ultimately its citizens) is essentially placed in debt for this. But that's not all, for the privilege of essentially creating "money" out of whole cloth these institutions also demand the right to charge interest payments! If this sounds like the sweetest deal you've ever heard, then you'd be close to right.

So, for example, let's look at the recent economic calamity. The financial system implosion of a few years ago was largely the result of the issuing of massive amounts of fraudulent loans by private banks and financial institutions, followed by the repackaging and sale of those loans as securities, again under corrupt and fraudulent circumstances. That is, these were loans that private banks knew would or could not be paid back, and they were packaged and sold again as vastly overvalued securities. Note that such loans (money) are created in the same way that the Fed creates money, simply as new accounting entries on their balance sheets, that is, largely out of whole cloth. After the system collapsed these same private interests (and their sponsors within government) were not held responsible, rather, they contrived to have these fraudulent loans paid back dollar for dollar at the public trough. If they weren't paid off we would all face an economic armageddon, or so we were told. This was and remains, in effect, a vast shakedown scheme whereby public tax dollars, the bulk of which are now supplied by lower and middle income Americans, were and are redistributed to wealthy private interests.

The ultimate source of "money" in our present economic system is the full faith and credit of the US government, which is finally represented by the sum total of the productive capacities of it's tax-paying citizens. The government, our government, has effectively turned this credit, our credit, over to wealthy private interests (banks, financial institutions and their corporate patrons). They can issue loans at interest, often with usurious rates, backed by our blood and sweat. Yes, in effect, banks create money out of thin air, backed in the end by our productive labor, and expect interest payments in return. While there do exist some constraints on the system (the scheme of fractional reserve lending, as it is called, limits to some extent the amount of such money creation), this is essentially what the current debt "crisis" is all about. It is about whether the productive work of the vast majority of Americans will serve their own needs (the public's needs), or those of wealthy, private, corporate interests. Indeed, in the current standoff, the Republicans are attempting to extort their demands by effectively holding hostage the full faith and credit of the United States, something which is not theirs to begin with! That's what you call chutzpah!

If the Republican's succeed in enforcing massive budget cuts, and increasingly it seems that Obama and the Democrats are more than content to proceed down this road, then we will have our answer, and many Americans will be pushed further down the path to eventual indentured servitude. Needless to say, you would be hard pressed to hear any serious discussion of the above on Fox News or most other corporate media outlets.

3) So how did we get here? That's quite a long story, so I'll stay with only relatively recent events. As summarized above, after eight years of reckless Republican rule, and the economy shattered, Obama was elected with a large majority to change things. Not only did Obama have a strong electoral mandate, he also had Democratic control of both houses of Congress. But from day one he has governed almost completely in the interests of corporate America while largely ignoring the constituency that elected him. He was faced with crippling economic circumstances upon taking office, but his appointed economic team was largely representative of those who had created, or at least enabled the financial collapse. He made the banks whole but could only manage a watered-down and anemic stimulus package completely inadequate to the economic need. And as a result he has been more or less forced to accept the Republican meme that the "stimulus" didn't work, because, well, government stimulus doesn't work. Of course, it did work, to the limited extent that it could given its size. Indeed, much of the stimulus package was a further capitulation to Republican and conservative themes, with more tax cuts and less spending. The same was true with Obama's health care plan. It is largely a Republican plan (similar to that enacted by Mitt Romney while governor of Massachusetts). This is an entrenched theme of the Obama presidency; while ostensibly representing the Party in opposition to Republicans he has adopted conservative views and Republican framing on almost every issue. Because of this, Republicans know that if they just protest a little louder or longer, then they will get what they want. This is glaringly obvious in the current circumstance as Obama has swallowed whole the Republican "debt crisis" meme and has in fact offered the largest spending cuts, including cuts to ostensibly core Democratic programs such as Social Security and Medicare, programs which have not created the current deficit. Is this what he was elected to do? From day one in office Obama has not led, rather, he has simply reacted to whatever circumstances arose, and these have largely been engineered by Republican and conservative desires.

Several conclusions are possible. First, that Obama is asking for and getting exactly what he wants, that he is, in effect, more or less a conservative at heart. If true, it means that essentially his entire campaign was, at best, a massive deception, and at worst, a wholesale fabrication. Second, he would like to achieve more progressive ends, but he is completely unwilling to fight for them, which, if true, begs the question, why did he want to be President to begin with? Likely there is some truth in both. He operates within constraints imposed by our current money dominated political system, but clearly Obama seems totally unwilling to upset corporate interests that fill his and his Party's campaign coffers. He seems most comfortable in doing all he can to not rock the boat. In either case, he has shown himself to be thoroughly devoid of serious leadership skills.

Indeed, the Democratic Party has largely been decimated by Obama's "leadership." Having alienated his core of support it was no surprise then that the Republicans were able to achieve gains in the Congress during the low-turnout mid-term elections. This was also aided in no small part by Obama's complete refusal to confront Republican ideas and policies in any forceful or organized way. Again, any messaging that he has attempted has largely been framed from conservative viewpoints. This only further alienates potential supporters.

So, having ignored and alienated the majority constituency within his party, he now threatens to cut core Democratic programs as part of a desire to win "bipartisan" support for a horrible budget cutting deal that will shatter the lives of many of his ostensible base constituency, and resign the country to a future of stagnation and decline? This deal is "bipartisan" only in the sense that it is exactly what conservatives have been craving, and what Obama will apparently try and force congressional Democrats to vote for against their better instincts. In reality, this deal is a suicide pill for congressional Democrats and they would be wise to oppose it with as much vigor as they can muster. Obama seems to think that in agreeing to this fools errand he will be seen as some great conciliator that saved the country? Who does Obama think is going to vote for him come November 2012, all those people whose futures--and their children's futures--he has resigned to economic misery? If so, then he and his advisers are dangerously delusional.

So where does this leave us and our future? Any hope lies in the fact that comfortable majorities of Americans actually want to see the country move in what would be accurately termed a more progressive economic direction. This includes majority support for universal health care access and a return to more progressive taxation of the rich and corporations, among other things. The conundrum is that the necessary political organizations do not exist at present to force such changes. They do not exist largely because our political institutions are essentially under the control of a wealthy, corporate oligarchy, and the vast power that such wealth controls. The Democratic Party was at one time an avenue for the interests of the working majority to be acted upon, but this is clearly no longer the case, and indeed, if Obama "succeeds" in forcing an austerity budget on the country, then that will be the end of the Democratic Party as we have known it. It is time for progressive Democrats to confront their own leadership, and force a change. If that does not succeed, then new political organizations outside of the Democratic Party must be formed. The only alternative is a bleak future.

Time to Fight the Class War

2011-02-27T21:40:00.013-05:00

Who does Wisconsin's little "tin horn" dictator/governor, and his Party of neo-fascists think they are? First they pass huge state tax breaks for corporations, and then they use the supposed budget "deficit" that is created to try and take away the fundamental rights of workers to organize and bargain collectively, a right that was not given by governments nor the robber baron oligarchs who exploited workers--and would again if permitted--with abysmally low wages, dangerous working conditions, and indeed near indentured servitude. Such rights were won with the sweat, blood and indeed lives of workers who fought back against the profit seeking corporate vultures whose only goal is to amass wealth at the expense of their fellow human beings. Does Walker believe that American workers will simply sit back and applaud as he tries to deny them rights earned over decades of labor struggle? Of course he does, for the Scott Walkers of the modern Republican party know nothing of labor history, all they know about is their political religion of unfettered corporatism. They want to take the entire country back 100 years, to the good-ole days of sweat shops, rampant poverty, company stores, Pinkerton-backed strike breakers, and 50-ish year life expectancy. Well, screw that! Wisconsin workers are right to resist this pathetic corporate toady with everything they can muster. Indeed, all of America needs to wake up and resist this relentless assault on working people and the middle class.

Make no mistake, the power grab currently being effected by the miserable Scott Walker and his band of Republican know-nothings is simply the latest salvo in a 30+ year class war that has been waged against working people by today's equivalent of the robber barons of the gilded age. Their war has been immensely successful, for them, and disastrous for the majority of Americans. Yes, the vast majority of Americans are working people. While the myth of unlimited upward mobility still seems to have a hold on many Americans, it is indeed a myth, and most people must work to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

The evidence of this war is all around us, if we would simply turn off our TVs long enough to weaken the grip of the mind-numbing propaganda and dumbed-down programming endlessly peddled by our corporate media. Here are just a few of the most obvious symptoms. 1) Income inequality is at record levels. Not since the pre-Depression era of the "roaring" twenties has so much of the national wealth been concentrated in so few hands. 2) Real wages of American workers have barely budged in 30 years, while, over the same period, the productivity of American workers has steadily risen. That means people have worked longer and harder for the same wage. Guess where all the productivity gains went? That's right, into the pockets of the oligarchs. There was a day when organized labor exerted more influence and productivity gains went at least partly into increased wages, but Reagan saw to the end of that. No wonder he is now deified as some kind of Capitalist saint. 3) The money of the oligarchs has completely corrupted American democracy. A Supreme Court packed with conservative activist justices concludes that corporations deserve the rights of people, and unleashes the virtually unlimited funds of the oligarchs into the electoral process. Trillions of dollars of the public trust are instantly made available once big banks and other corporate looters blow their markers at the Wall Street casino and torpedo the economy, but they are asked to bear absolutely none of the costs, not even a miserly financial transactions tax. Indeed, tax cuts for the wealthy are further extended, and the suddenly important budget deficits that result must be balanced, we are told, with cuts to public programs and the freezing of wages of public employees. 4) Poverty in America is at epidemic levels and indeed, 1 in 5 children, in the wealthiest nation on earth, lives at or below the poverty level. The priorities evidenced by these conditions are beyond obscene.

At present, total acceptance of the "electoral process" as the sole avenue of democratic expression is a fools errand. Both major parties are almost completely in the hip pocket of the corporate interests that fill their campaign coffers. The only difference is that the Democratic Party still has a modest handful of politicians who try to represent the interests of working folks, just a few mind you, but when push comes to shove the only interests that matter, meaning in the context of actions and deeds, not words, are those of the corporate wing of the Party. The most glaring example of this is none other than President Obama. He was elected with a large turnout and broadening of the Democratic coalition, combined with a clear signal to turn away from the disastrous results of eight years of George W. Bush. The 2008 vote was clear, it was a strong call by the people for change. Obama has failed at virtually every turn to deliver anything even remotely resembling change. He followed through with the Bush Administrations bailout of the banks, he passed a health reform bill crafted to the interests of drug and insurance companies, he has largely implemented the very policies that he ran against as a candidate, two recent examples being the budget-busting extension of the "Bush" tax cuts, and the personal mandate to buy private insurance as the basis for health care "reform." Obama also bragged during the campaign that he would "walk the picket lines" with workers,

"And understand this: if American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you as president of the United States of America, because workers deserve to know that somebody’s standing in their corner."

Uh huh, sure Mr. President. This would be a no-brainer, a win-win for the national Democrats, if they had any intention of really standing with working and middle class Americans. I won't hold my breath for Mr. Obama to find those comfortable shoes. So far, while there have been some supportive statements from Mr. Obama, that's typically what the Democratic base has gotten from him, lots of hot air, and little action. Indeed, Obama's credibility gap is so huge, that he faces long odds in his re-election bid. Expect to find his opponents--could there be a primary challenge--running ad after ad with direct statements from candidate Obama, only to be followed with the contradicting statement as President Obama.

Having essentially abandoned a significant fraction of the voters who elected him, these same people then decided to largely stay away from the polls at the mid-term elections. Hence we have a Republican "landslide," and an "epic shift" in the electorate according to mainstream media. This is the dilemma faced by the American voter. They vote for change, giving the Party ostensibly of working Americans a chance to govern ON BEHALF of working Americans, but once elected this Party utterly fails to do so. This triggers even larger scale disaffection with the electoral "remedy." Many Americans feel elections are useless, and they are largely right, it's a rigged game; heads and corporations win, tails and corporations win. This is why the Wisconsin protests are so important. It's long since time for a direct confrontation with the oligarchs and the politicians who support and enable them. If our elected officials won't support us, then it's time to do some politicking in the streets.

Sister Kate

2011-02-26T22:34:00.005-05:00

Here's some more guitar music. This is "Sister Kate" an old ragtime tune. The basic arrangement is again from Stefan Grossman's Complete Country Blues Guitar book. It should be played up tempo, and I'm giving it my best shot. A fun song to play.

To fight or not to fight: the NHL's image problem

2011-02-13T11:56:00.017-05:00

OK, my first post was about hockey, so maybe it's time for another one. First, let me say that I am a huge fan of hockey and have played it most of my life. I also follow the professional game quite closely, so I'm not some newcomer to the sport. As I mentioned in my first post, I'm a big fan of the New York Rangers.

You probably know the old joke where someone says they went to a boxing match and a hockey game broke out? Hockey (when I say hockey I mean ice hockey) is the only major professional sport where violent fisticuffs are not only allowed, but are actually sanctioned and codified within the rules. You'll here endless talk from hockey commentators, some of whom I would call "old-school" types (think Barry Melrose) about how fighting is a part of the game, and we could never think of trying to remove it. Indeed, it's fair to say that most of those involved today with managing and coaching the professional game are probably content to see that fighting remains "a part of the game." While the National Hockey League (NHL) has made great strides in promoting the game to a broader audience it will, in my opinion, always remain a second tier professional sport, and the butt of many a joke, as long as such violence remains within the game.

Indeed, there is almost a "professional wrestling" aura surrounding fighting in hockey. Some people who are not familiar with the game may even think that fighting is somehow staged. While there are unwritten "rules" surrounding fighting in hockey, I can assure you, when two players drop the mitts they are swinging for real, as a few of the images here will attest. While many fights end with no real injury to either player, there are also many where someone is not so lucky.

An important point to consider is that fighting has largely been removed from the game, it is only tolerated at the professional level, and in Canadian junior leagues, which feed many players to the professional system! When I played youth and recreational hockey, fighting was not allowed anymore than it would be in a little league baseball game. So, why can't the NHL take the high ground and lead by example? Consider the dilemma that the NHL faces if it continues to ignore this problem. The league has spent a lot of resources in trying to develop the spread of youth hockey, but how can the league expect to reach parents whose kids can tune into an NHL game and see this. How does mommy explain to her young hockey playing son Johnny that hitting and punching is never allowed, oh, except when you're playing hockey! How can the NHL expect to have any credibility with parents when fighting in hockey HAS BEEN eliminated at most every other level, except for the "professional game." It's simple, they can't, and they don't (have any credibility). Indeed, the fact that fighting is not tolerated at every other level (youth hockey, college hockey, etc.) means that eventually the NHL must go in that direction. It's simply a matter of when.

The video in the link in the previous paragraph shows highlights from the NHL's latest "black eye." The recent meeting between the New York Islanders and the Pittsburgh Penguins descended into a nasty slug-fest as the Islanders attempted to find some "frontier justice," after a previous meeting between the teams had resulted in several injuries to their players, including facial fractures to their goaltender Rick Dipietro in a one-punch fight with opposition goalie Brent Johnson, and concussion symptoms to forward Blake Comeau. So, how do such situations come about?

An argument often given in support of fighting is that it is a way for players to "police" themselves, to maintain a sort of crude balance of power on the ice. What it comes down to is this, if you are going to "mess" with one of my teammates, then you best expect to be "messed" with in return. A related argument you will here is that if fighting is removed, then players will resort to retaliation with their sticks. You will also here talk about a players "honor code," meaning you only fight when challenged, etc., etc. Now, at some level this might make some sense, there is a deterrent effect if you know that an opposing player will retaliate if you cross some perceived line. But thinking about this a little further leads to the conclusion that this is certainly not what you want. You do not want players deciding on and dispensing perceived justice because it is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence (the Isles - Pens matchup is a glaring example of this), and secondly, each team is not exactly impartial in their assessment of what constitutes justice! No, just as in every other major sport the league and its officials, that is the referees in any particular match, need to "police" the game. To those who insist that the "players can police themselves," I would simply ask, so, it seems to be working well?

This is the fundamental problem with excessive violence in the NHL, it is the league's unwillingness to acknowledge the existence of the problem at the level required. Now, there are a number of factors involved, but in my opinion the most glaring problem is the unwillingness of league officials to seriously crack down on illegal (meaning against the rules of the game) hits. This also has the most serious implications for the concussion epidemic in the sport. Here are some recent examples (a warning to the squimish, some of these hits are indeed brutal and not pretty to watch); Cooke on Savard, Talbot on Comeau, and Richards on Booth.

The 2nd of these examples was the one that led the Islanders to attempt retribution on the Penguins, and thus was the principle cause for the escalation of the recent violence. Now, those were just some recent glaring examples, but I'm sure you could find more with some easy searching on the internet. All of these hits were in my opinion illegal, and I will explain why in a moment, but only one of these hits actually drew an on-ice penalty (the Richards hit on Booth). Now, why were the other two hits not even penalized? Actually, at present they probably would be because of new guidelines involving hits to the head, but the real problem with these hits is that they were all late, meaning they occurred after the player had already given up possession of the puck. The NHL rule book is clear, although you have to look under "restraining fouls (Interference)," rather than "physical fouls;"

Possession of the Puck: The last player to touch the puck, other than the goalkeeper, shall be considered the player in possession. The player deemed in possession of the puck may be checked legally, provided the check is rendered immediately following his loss of possession.

According to the rule book a player can only be checked immediately following loss of possession of the puck. In each of the examples above the hits were well after immediately. After a player passes or losses possession they are not expecting to be checked and often are not protecting themselves as much as if they sense a check coming when in possession. This is when concussions frequently happen, when players are hit when they don't expect it. Again, you will hear old-school types arguing, well, Cooke or Talbot or Richards were just "finishing their checks," but there is nothing in the rulebook about "finishing checks." No, the rulebook is clear, such a late hit is sanctioned as an interference penalty, and indeed stiffer sanctions can be enforced if such fouls result in injury to the opposing player. Others may argue that there was not time enough for the player to "ease up" from the check, but this is also nonsense, as anyone who has played the game at a high level could attest. Players make split second decisions routinely all over the ice. They know when a player has passed or lost the puck. In particular, Cooke's hit was illegal, not to mention dirty, in that it was late (after loss of possession from Savard), and he stretched with his elbow and lower arm to hit Savard in the head. I think the same can be said for the Talbot hit, it was late, such that Comeau was not suspecting a big collision and was in an awkward position. When players "get away" with these illegal hits, then the opposing team is rightfully angry and within the current framework of the game, there is a perfect recipe for escalation of the violence. The lesson? The NHL needs to enforce its own rules!

The NHL has begun issuing suspensions for hits to the head, but so far these have not been strong enough to act as a sufficient deterrent. Consider the case of Cooke, his hit knocked Savard out for essentially the remainder of the season. Savard returned briefly in last years playoffs, but he is clearly not at the level he was, and after suffering yet another concussion this year his career appears to be over. Meanwhile, Cooke is still "stirring" things up for the Penguins, and he's a multiple offender, having been suspended several times for illegal hits. So, to cut to the chase, why is Cooke still playing in the NHL? Suspensions of 2-5 games are not sufficient, in order to show that it is serious about protecting its players and getting the mayhem out of the sport the length of suspensions need to be much longer. At a minimum, if an illegal hit results in injury and loss of playing time, then the culprit should be suspended for at least as long as the other player is out of action. But the nature of "late hits" still seems to be unclear and should be clarified by the league. There is, and should be no such thing as "finishing your check," you are either late or not, and this cannot be an excuse for leveling an opponent who is not prepared to be hit. Unless the league does this, then such hits will continue and teams will retaliate, as the Islanders did, leading to such "wild west" games.

In the wake of the Isles - Pens dust-up the NHL quickly issued its version of discipline. The Islanders were more heavily sanctioned, with two players receiving suspensions and the team being fined $100,000. However, the principal initiator of the mayhem, Talbot's late hit on Comeau went unpunished! So what signal is the league sending? That late hits are still tolerated, but that the subsequent retaliation--that they know will come--will be sanctioned. So, this is an admission by the league that such situations will occur again, it's just a matter of when the next one happens. The NHL seems willing to admit that sometimes violence in the game gets out of hand, but there seems to be no willingness to effectively reduce the kind of dangerous violence that can lead to, for example, serious head injuries. Probably this is so because the league recognizes that at some level violence sells tickets. And it's true, crowds tend to erupt at the outbreak of a fight. But isn't there enough action, speed, and yes, physicality in the game already? We don't need to see players knocked unconscious and blood on the ice to know that the game is rough and tumble. It is exciting enough already, the spectacle surrounding the violence of fighting just detracts from the game more than it adds to it. Maybe a minority of fight-loving fans would walk away from the game if fighting were eliminated, but it's hard to see this being anything but a minority. Are these the fans that the league desperately wants to keep, rather than the many more fans that could be attracted to a game where fighting was marginalized rather than glorified.

Another issue with fighting is that it sets up a tier system amongst players. Let's face it, currently teams still have to keep "enforcers" on their rosters, tough guys, "goons" in the old days. These guys are ostensibly supposed to do the fighting and "dirty work," to protect a teams more skilled players. But the lines can get blurry, and sometimes the "skill" players who recognize that they are more protected by officials, can decide to get into the rough stuff a bit. Then, to coin a phrase, "all hell can break loose." Wouldn't it be better if teams could actually fill out their entire roster with the very best players, not the very best fighters? Again, the physical nature of the sport would not have to change, big talented players could still use their power, etc. but the overall quality of the game would improve. Isn't that what the league should be about?

So, here's my recipe for how the NHL can reduce and eventually wean itself from fighting and dangerous violence in the game;

1) SERIOUSLY sanction dangerous late hits and hits to the head. SERIOUSLY means suspensions that run to a significant fraction of a season, particularly if the hits result in the opposing player missing games due to injury. Similarly enforce other dangerous acts such as using the stick against another player with the same level of seriousness.

2) Officials need to re-enforce the rule around hitting after a player gives up possession of the puck. The notion of "finishing ones check" needs to be eradicated, particularly in the minds of "old school" types (again, think Barry Melrose).

3) Increase the sanctions against fighting. I'm not suggesting an immediate outright ban. Some suggestions; fighting results in a 5 minute major penalty and a 10 minute misconduct penalty. Second fight in a game is an automatic match penalty with review toward possible suspension in subsequent games. Sanctions against fighting have increased compared to 20 years ago, this just needs to continue.

4) The League needs to understand that there is much more to be gained in eventually eliminating fighting than by keeping it.

And in case you think I'm alone in these sentiments, this is what Mario Lemieux, the co-owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins, and arguably one of the best players in the game, ever, had to say about it;

“Hockey is a tough, physical game, and it always should be. But what happened Friday night on Long Island wasn’t hockey. It was a travesty. It was painful to watch the game I love turn into a sideshow like that. The NHL had a chance to send a clear and strong message that those kinds of actions are unacceptable and embarrassing to the sport. It failed. We, as a league, must do a better job of protecting the integrity of the game and the safety of our players. We must make it clear that those kinds of actions will not be tolerated and will be met with meaningful disciplinary action. If the events relating to Friday night reflect the state of the league, I need to re-think whether I want to be a part of it.”

Now, maybe Mario was upset that the League was not harsh enough with the Islanders, but the statement does not specifically refer to that, and overall, his comments are pretty much in line with what I discussed above. Predictably, the League essentially ignored Lemieux's statement, saying it was completely satisfied with the way the situation was handled. Of course they were, because the present leadership is completely blind to the problem. What, we have a problem? There's nothing wrong with our league. And with attitudes like that, the NHL will continue to be the butt of jokes, and will always struggle for mainstream acceptance. It doesn't have to be that way.

Nobody's Dirty Business

2011-02-11T20:46:00.016-05:00

Here's another guitar video. I'm playing a version of Nobody's Dirty Business, a popular blues from the '20s. This version is based on the arrangement in Stefan Grossman's "Country Blues Guitar Book," and was at least partly inspired by the playing of Mississippi John Hurt. It's in the key of C. You're playing just 3 chords in first position, C, F and G, but there's a quick move up to the 5th fret which can be a little tricky. I'll occasionally post new videos to my YouTube channel, you can find them here, or there is a link below my profile.

Tearing Down the Myths

2011-02-01T12:08:00.021-05:00

We are currently witnessing extraordinary scenes across the Middle East as people are rising up to demand an end to decades-old, Western-backed despotic regimes from Tunis to Cairo, and the revolt now shows signs of spreading into Jordan and Yemen as well. These revolts give renewed hope to peoples everywhere who yearn for freedom, democracy and economic justice.

There are no doubt a range of factors involved, but a proximal stimulus would appear to be simple economics. As people's living circumstances become more desperate, then they can be moved to take more forceful steps to try and change the status-quo. What might appear to be a desperate act to one with some food on his table becomes a necessary act for one whose children are starving. As an example, it appears that in Egypt a significant percentage of the population routinely subsists on something like the equivalent of $2 a day. Given such precarious economic circumstances a sudden increase in food prices, as has been occurring across much of the world, can be devastating. More succinctly, poverty and repression cannot be tolerated indefinitely.

As usual, the depiction of events unfolding in Egypt have been greatly distorted by the filter of the US media. Indeed, by far the best coverage I've seen on the Middle East rebellions so far has been that of Al Jazeera (I'm speaking specifically of the English language edition, since I can't comment on the Arabic version). While Al Jazeera English is apparently widely available in Canada and Western Europe it presently has little distribution on US cable networks. Somehow this doesn't seem surprising given the US media's increasing concentration in fewer and larger multinational corporations, and their general subservience to US government interests. For first rate coverage, then also check out the reporting from Sharif Abdel Kouddous at Democracy Now! who is on the ground in Egypt with an eye-witness and first-hand perspective on events.

As we watch these events unfold and see their refraction through the prism of US media outlets we can begin to see cracks in a number of longstanding myths on which US economic dominance and control in the Middle East and beyond is founded. One of my favorites is the notion of "regional stability." We hear this term endlessly from US media pundits. As in the following illustrative example: US Media Hack #1, "The US can't afford to lose the support of a pro-Western, stable Egyptian government," or, US Media Hack #2, "the toppling of Mubarak would just sow regional instability." So lets look a bit more closely at what this notion of stability actual implies.

Here's how the game works;

1) when a regional government is supportive of US government interests, that is, behaves as a good client and generally "knows how to follow orders," then, by definition, such a regime is "stable."

2) It is virtually irrelevant whether the government in question is democratic, autocratic, monarchical, tyrannical, plutocratic, oligarchic, theocratic, or any suitable combination thereof, by axiom 1) it is still a "stable" government. And just so that "stable" doesn't appear to be too overused, one can also substitute "moderate."

Note that by US government interests above I mean those of the economic elites--largely corporate interests and their patrons--within the US that for the most part influence and control the US foreign policy agenda. Also bear in mind that these interests are not necessarily the same as, and often are directly opposed to, those of the vast majority of the American people.

Now, what is the actual nature of many of these "stable" US client regimes? Well, it would take a book to cover all of them, but looking at the most recent "dominoes" to teeter in the Middle East should be sufficient. You would be hard-pressed to find any serious commentator arguing that either Tunisia or Egypt be considered as democratic states. Rather, these regimes were/are best described as autocratic, repressive oligarchies, in which a small ruling elite has enriched themselves through corruption at the expense of the vast majority of their citizens. They also routinely employed violent suppression of any and all political opposition, often with the use of arrest, torture, or worse. In reality, the societal and political conditions created and fostered by these "stable" regimes could not be more unstable! That is unless you consider vast income inequality with epidemic poverty and violent political repression to be stable economic and political models.

And of course the corollary rules apply. Any regime unwilling to play ball by our rules is "unstable," or if they really attempt to conduct their affairs with independence from Washington, and, heaven forbid, outside of the Capitalist model, then they may even be "radical." Again, the nature of the regime itself is irrelevant, what only matters is their stance towards US interests, if they are willing to put US interests above those of their own people, then of course, they are a "stable" regime. An example of a "radical" regime in this context was the democratically elected, but left-leaning government of Chile under Salvador Allende. Allende was overthrown and murdered in a US-backed coup that installed decades of "stable," vicious autocratic rule under General Augusto Pinochet. You see, a "stable" dictatorial government is always preferable to a "radical" democracy. Chile under Allende could not be tolerated mostly because it might represent the "threat of a good example," and worse yet, right in America's own backyard. That is, a nation that develops outside the Western-dominated model, with development actually serving the interests of its population and not those of international capital.

Another crucial myth that must be continually reinforced is the notion that the US is the bastion and guarantor of true democracy throughout the world. This is axiomatic among news talking-heads and the punditocracy in mainstream US media. While there is abundant evidence to the contrary, it is all completely irrelevant. Just consider the case of Egypt's Mubarak, supported through 30 years of one-party (indeed one-man), iron-fisted rule by multiple US administrations. You see, when government officials understand that this myth is virtually unassailable, then they can get away with the kind of bare-faced lies like those spouted by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued in a recent CNN interview, "We are on the side" of the Egyptian people, "as we have been for more than 30 years." The Egyptian people know better Ms. Clinton.

But you can understand that in such circumstances US officials have to be careful, they don't want to be seen as completely on the record in their support for a dictator whom a million Egyptians are out in the streets to try and remove. And on the other hand, if they still see a fair chance for the survival of their client, Mubarak in this case, well, then they don't want to openly call for him to depart to quickly. This is where obfuscation becomes a real asset, and there are few better at it than US State Department Officials. Consider this gem from Clinton herself, in response to a question about the US's stance on Mubarak, "This is a complex, very difficult situation," said Clinton, "We do not want to send any message about backing forward or backing back..." Backing forward? Backing back? Well, I'm glad that cleared everything up. One has to show some grudging admiration for someone who could so torture the English language, but that has been the nature of much of US commentary so far, obfuscation.

We can also learn a great deal by comparing the US response to the present rebellion in Egypt to that which occurred last year following elections in Iran. Now, according to our rules of the game, Iran is clearly not a "stable" regime. On the contrary, Iran is a "radical" regime that sows "instability" in the Middle East. In the summer of 2009 when large numbers of Iranian citizens protested the outcome of elections in their country, then US officials were more than vociferous in their support for the democratic rights of the protesters in Iran. But now, when faced with similar conditions in Egypt, and the apparent demise of one of its own lynch-pin clients in the Middle East, US officials can only talk out of both sides of their mouths and call for "restraint," and other such neutral platitudes. While Iran's theocratic government is objectionable on many levels we have to keep in mind that it had its roots sown in the overthrow of another "radical" democratically elected regime, that of Mohammed Mosadegh, deposed in yet another US-orchestrated coup, that installed the dictatorial rule of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi. I guess you can say what goes around comes around.

At present, the Mubarak government appears to be digging in its heals, and may not go without trying to first exact a terrible price from the Egyptian people. Let's hope that doesn't happen, and that the Egyptian people can attain a democratic future.

Fare-Thee-Well Titanic

2011-01-17T12:33:00.007-05:00

Here's a video showing some of my guitar playing. The tune is an arrangement by Stefan Grossman, called "Fare Thee Well Titanic." It's played in the key of C. The video was shot with a small Canon elph, and the audio could be better, but you can still hear the tune reasonably well, I think.

Shoot the Messenger, but Never, Ever, Examine Our Own Conduct

2010-12-10T22:30:00.001-05:00

Wikileaks, 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 pressure and threats 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.

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 eloquent defense of democracy and Wikileaks pretty much sums it up.

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 assassination 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 publicly called 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.

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.

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 many civilians, including 21 innocent children. 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?

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 rather eloquently makes this point, that the leaked cables demonstrate first and foremost the real distaste for democracy exhibited by our political elites.

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 no harm 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 explains precisely how the game works.

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 increased 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, "waste deep in the big muddy, and the big fool says to push on."

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 desperately in search of a crime 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 war criminals and torturers 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.

And perhaps justifiably the State Department itself easily wins the irony grand prize with this announcement concerning World Press Freedom day 2011! Enjoy.

The Mother of All Political Fails

2010-10-30T13:42:00.000-04:00

We 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 eloquently 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 serfdom, 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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

More World Cup Drama

2010-07-02T20:20:00.005-04:00

Well, 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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Why FIFA is Currently Football's Worst Enemy

2010-06-27T17:11:00.006-04:00

Well, 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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

World Cup Heartbreak!

2010-06-26T18:04:00.012-04:00

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!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?!

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.

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.

"How could we know; it was unforeseeable"

2010-05-15T14:14:00.011-04:00

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.

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 send-up from the Daily Show.

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 below the surface in the water column, and would not be seen at the surface.

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 many times 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

All Aboard!!

2010-03-26T20:20:00.014-04:00

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 had signed into law when he was in office. That is, a lot of Republicans were for it before they were against it.

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 were spat on and defamed with the Big-N; members of Congress were threatened, and their offices vandalized; 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,

REP. STEVE KING: 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!

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 "real" America 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!

All that was bad enough, but it may seem mild compared with the results of a recent Harris poll 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;

67% of Republicans believe that Obama is a socialist.
57% of Republicans believe that Obama is a Muslim.
45% of Republicans believe that Obama was not born in the United States.
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,
24% of Republicans say that Obama may be the anti-Christ!

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.

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!

Carrying the Insurance Industry's Water

2010-03-12T19:46:00.007-05:00

Barack Obama just postponed his Asian swing to Indonesia and Australia in order to hang around Washington for a few more days, ostensibly to try and pass a health care "reform" bill. Let's review. No, there is too much, let's sum-up. The House passed a somewhat decent bill, that included a so-called public option that would represent at least some attempt to keep private health insurance corporations honest. The Senate passed a stinker of a bill which basically reflected the desires of such political miscreants as Joe Lieberman. Yes, the Senate bill is the legislation that was more or less agreeable to Holy Joe, so no wonder it is not very popular as a whole! Importantly, both bills rely on the mandate, that is, citizens will be required to purchase private insurance or ostensibly pay a penalty. Those who can't afford to pay will receive some subsidy so that they will be able to pay. Note, this was the kind of plan that Obama ran AGAINST in his campaign. Moreover, note that these bills essentially guarantee something in the vicinity of 20 -40 million new, captive, customers for private health insurers, particularly the Senate plan, which offers no government insurance alternative. Further, the legislated subsidies for those unable to afford private insurance premiums, already exorbitantly priced, amount to a windfall from the government (from your tax dollars), into the private coffers of for-profit health insurance corporations. Funny, but this doesn't quite sound like the reform that Obama sold many Americans on during his campaign. No, it sounds more like the "reform" that insurance companies might agree to having realized that some changes were unavoidable.

Now, the Democrats, and Mr. Obama in particular, have expended so much political effort and capital on this issue that at this point they feel they must pass a bill. Attention has focused on the Senate bill since it was presumed that 60 votes would be needed to overcome a Republican filibuster. Actually, just the "threat" of a filibuster, since the Senate no longer requires anyone to actually do the filibustering. But with the 60 votes looking very unlikely with the arrival of Scott Brown as Massachusetts newest Senator, Democrats have seemingly become resigned to the reality that a bill will have to be passed using the reconciliation procedure, which only requires a simple majority (50 votes, since Vice President Biden would break a tie, presumably in the administration's favor!). It should have been obvious months ago that this was needed, since Republican opposition to ANY bill was a given. Take note that Republican screams of "foul" against reconciliation are pure hypocrisy, since when in power they were more than happy to pass legislation using exactly the same process.

But who is this reform really serving? What about the reform that Obama actually campaigned on? What about the public option, a government sponsored insurance plan that was supposed to provide some competition to private insurance corporation expense and malfeasance? Well, it should be pretty clear by now that the Democratic leadership is more or less content with the Senate bill. While there was no end of Democratic talk about the public option, when push came to shove the leadership clearly sided with the interests of their corporate sponsors in the health insurance industry, the needs, wishes and desires of Democratic voters are clearly much less important. This is the nature of governance today, corporations and other monied interests call all the shots, ultimately it is these institutions for which the government functions, not the people. In a recent article, Glenn Greenwald exposes the game, and really calls out the Democratic leadership for the cowardly, despicable scam they are now playing with the very voters responsible for their being in power.

While the Democratic leadership carries water for the insurance industry, American voters grow more and more angry and cynical. If the Democrats think that this pathetic excuse of a health care reform bill is going to energize their voting base come November, they are sorely mistaken. Obama and the Democrats can expect heavy losses in the mid-term elections. And this is what American voters have to look forward to. Either a vote for the Party of No, that doesn't want to do anything except further lower the already ridiculously low taxes of rich people, or a vote for the Party of Nothing, because that's what the Democratic leadership apparently believes in, Nothing. It is a state of complete and utter dysfunction. Is it any wonder vast numbers of citizens simply check out from the entire process. As Bill Quigley points out, it is long past time for ordinary citizens to make some serious noise.

A Brief Letter to Maryland's Senatorial Delegation

2010-01-30T18:44:00.007-05:00

Here is the short letter I sent to both of my Democratic Senators. If you feel similarly about this or some other issue, I suggest considering a similar course of action. We still have the right to vote, it's time to send anyone packing who doesn't meet even a minimal standard of competence or integrity.

Dear Senators Mikulski and Cardin,

Hi, I'll keep this brief. I am an Independent who tends to vote Democratic, but no longer. Your vote to confirm Ben Bernanke for a 2nd four-year term as Fed Chairman is the last straw. I have voted for both of you in past elections, but never again. Anyone who would reward such catastrophic failure with another four years has completely lost touch with reality and what it means to govern. Good luck with your re-elections, I suspect you are going to need it, as many other Independents, and dare I say Democrats, will reach the same conclusion that I have. You and many in your Party have become a sorry spectacle. I will not support you again.

Regards,

Tod Strohmayer

Howard Zinn: An Exemplary Life

2010-01-28T22:36:00.006-05:00

I was saddened to hear today of the sudden death of Howard Zinn at the age of 87. Unfortunately, many Americans probably know little of Zinn, or worse, may have never heard of him at all. To the extent that this is true we can thank our cowardly, corporate-driven media that systematically excludes and distorts all but the most narrowly defined commentary. But known or not, Zinn was in many ways the conscience of our nation. He served as a bombardier in World War II, and was decorated for his service, but it was apparently that experience which, in his words, "crystallized his opposition to war."

He has been an eloquent and vocal critic of war since that time, and is perhaps best known for his opposition and protest of America's involvement in the Vietnam war. For a more recent example of his eloquence and persuasive logic with regard to the immorality of war, read a contribution he wrote for the Progressive magazine some months after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and during America's bombing campaign in Afghanistan. The relevance to our predicaments today is glaringly obvious.

His voice could often be heard on Democracy Now! and other independent media outlets, and it's more than worth it to watch or listen to their tribute to him aired during today's broadcast.

Howard Zinn was America's "people historian." He told the events of our history not through the eyes of the powerful, but through those of ordinary working people, who through extraordinary commitment, struggle and tenacity were able to make a better life for all of us. Think the 8-hour day, or the five day work week, but also very much more. He told the stories that were more often than not absent from the "approved" history texts. Most of all he told the truth, even when it was an unwelcome and inconvenient truth. This is what we call integrity, an attribute that is now almost universally absent from our political classes. His "A People's History of the United States," is about as close as one can get to required reading. So, if you haven't, go out and get a copy, get reading, and then, as I'm sure Zinn would have agreed, get involved!

Clearly Not Getting It: Obama Channels Hoover

2010-01-26T19:46:00.025-05:00

In my last post I lambasted the Democrats as the Party of stupid. I did so with a rather general critique, and did not wade into the details too much. Suffice to say that they had abandoned most of the allies responsible for their majority status and have essentially governed as corporatist Republicans might have. While "change" was Obama's over-riding mantra, he has delivered precious little of it. The ever eloquent Glenn Greenwald filled in some of the details, and Norman Soloman pointed out that the Dems have simply emboldened the right-wing populists with their Clintonian triangulation. I concluded with the speculation that the Dems would not draw the correct conclusions from their Massachusetts debacle, but rather would conclude exactly the opposite, that they should govern more "from the center," meaning more like Republicans, and to their own electoral demise.

Well, that was a week ago, and I think we have now seen enough of the Democratic response, and particularly the actions of Mr. Obama, to conclude that I was right, and that indeed, the Democrats are completely without a clue. Of course in immediate reaction to the events in Massachusetts one of the first things Obama did was to ratchet up a little populist rhetoric, talk tough to the banks a little bit. But the banksters and most Americans now know that this is just more meaningless huffing and puffing from Obama. If anything can be gleaned from his first year it's that Obama can certainly talk a good game, but when it comes to actually backing up all that talk with action, well, he seems much less adept at that, or a more cynical conclusion might be that he rarely intends to put into action that of which he speaks. This has become such an obvious pattern that, as Bob Herbert has pointed out, he is very rapidly exposing a "credibility gap" with many voters, but particularly with left-leaning, traditional Democrats. One might think he would want to reconsider such actions, since these people were after all largely responsible for his election! But apparently re-election is not a primary concern for Mr. Obama, if comments to Diane Sawyer are to be believed. No, he would rather just be a "good President." Fair enough, but a good President for whom, Wall Street bankers?

The Democrats are so inept, or maybe it's simply corrupted by corporate money, that they can't even recognize when someone comes bearing political gifts. In the wake of the populist rage in Massachusetts a number of Democratic Senators still had sense enough to be able to read the tea leaves (or was it tea bags?) accurately and decided that come November they didn't want voters to see their name next to a reconfirmation vote in the affirmative for "Mr. Bailout" himself, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke. Indeed, stiffer opposition to Bernanke arose quickly after the Massachusetts special election, and even from within Republican ranks, including no less than John McCain. Heck, if it's one thing Republicans are good at it's shameless political opportunism. If ever there was an obvious gift to Democrats then this was it. As a first step toward showing the people he was really serious about all that tough talk with the banks, Obama could have accepted the gift from these Democratic Senators who bravely tried to throw him a lifeline. Why not let Bernanke's term lapse, and then appoint a more Main-Street-friendly Fed chairman. Well, that's what Obama should have done. What did he actually do? Believe it or not he has now spent what little political capital he has left and gone on the record expressing "full confidence" in Bernanke, and is now essentially demanding that the Senate confirm him for a second term, or else! Or else what may you ask? Or else the markets will become "unsettled." Perhaps even more laughable was word of Obama's Treasury Secretary, Wall Street insider and ethically conflicted bank servant Timothy Geithner, also demanding that Bernanke be confirmed, or else! Or else what, no more bailouts for Wall Street gamblers? I can see the Republicans quaking in their boots after that threat, Not!

Judging from these actions it seems clear that the Democrats must really have no idea of how this is playing with regular working folk, nor how well the Republicans will be able to use this to their electoral advantage come November. No, they don't seem to fathom the problem with hooking their caboose, and the Nation's economic recovery, to the guy who helped usher in the second coming of the Great Depression. Moreover, while Bernanke dished trillions of dollars of taxpayer cash to the banks, who are now writing record, business as usual bonuses, an unemployment disaster descended on America, and has yet to be adequately addressed. Who does Obama think is going to re-elect him come November, a handful of rich, greedy bankers, or millions and millions of struggling Americans who see their economic dreams being trumped while billions go to aid banksters? One could scarcely imagine a more delusional and self destructive political calculation, but there you have it. We are talking about Democrats here after all.

But it gets worse. Apparently in an attempt to try and re-capture the mythical "center"--what that center might actually be I have not the slightest idea--Obama has announced a "freeze" on some Federal discretionary spending. You got it. At a time when we need more than ever the spirit of FDR, Obama is channeling Herbert Hoover so as to tame the awful deficit, and demonstrate to the folks that matter (ie. bankers and other corporate elites), that he is a true fiscal conservative. Of course, off the table from the get-go is all "security" spending, meaning that the already obscene defense budget (war budget would more accurately reflect the nature of the spending) will simply continue to grow. It already amounts to more than the combined defense expenditures of most of the rest of the world. With such profligacy you might think that evil hordes were swarming the national territory on every border, while in reality we are kept in mortal fear and told we must spend our children's inheritance because of, "... those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of a broken country?" While any real effort at reigning in spending would have to look at the defense budget, there are lots of other arguments against this ludicrous plan, and many were articulately made by none other than Obama himself during the 2008 presidential campaign! So, thanks to the wonders of YouTube, we now have Obama arguing against his own plan, before he's fully announced it! He doesn't have a credibility gap, it's a credibility ocean!

With all this it's hard not to think of FDR, who taught us that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. If only Obama would begin to listen to those instincts, the instincts of a community organizer that he must have harbored in his heart at one time, rather than the pratings of Rahm Emanuel, Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner and other denizens of the corporate bubble that suffocates Washington, perhaps we could hope for a more people-centered governance from here on out. I wouldn't hope to hard though, for that may be Obama's greatest failing since taking office, he has done more to kill hope than any Republican could have. No doubt we will hear some additional details, and excuses, during his first State of the Union Address tomorrow night. I however, would simply sum it up thusly, FUBAR.

Party of Stupid

2010-01-19T21:47:00.014-05:00

Well, they did it. Martha Coakley, the Democrats mediocre--at best--candidate for the vacant Massachusetts Senate seat formerly held by Teddy Kennedy, was defeated by truck-loving Republican Scott Brown. No one would have believed it possible a few months ago, but never ever again underestimate the depths of stupidity that the Democratic Party can sink to. Only the Democratic Party could be so blunderingly, incompetently stupid as to lose the Democratic Senate seat held by Edward (Teddy) Kennedy for almost four decades. And the irony is even richer that they would lose the seat after rather shamelessy pushing through the special election law while a Republican occupied the Massachusetts State House in order to keep the other Massachusetts seat--that held by John "vanilla" Kerry--blue. Talk about your just desserts, I hope the stupid Dems find them tasty!

While no doubt Coakley ran a lackluster campaign (lackluster may be too kind), and the Democratic Party will try and lay all the blame at her feet, my sense is that the real failures go up a lot higher. This massive fiasco by the Dems reaches all the way up into the White House and the circle of "New Democrat" incompetents that Barack Obama has surrounded himself with, starting with his choice of White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Here's what stupid Democrats can't seem to get through their stupid skulls; the country was sick and tired of governance under the Republican rule of Bush and company. Bush was roundly despised, with approval ratings in the mid-20's, and Republicans in general were not far behind (and still aren't). Voters wanted a change in direction, the change that Obama ran on and said he would deliver. So, after Obama and his Democratic team deliver another year of essentially unchanged Republican-like governance, the Democrats are suddenly shocked and dismayed to see that the voters are not so happy with them?! I mean come on, how stupid can they be? Oh, that's right, we're talking about Democrats here, the Party of stupid.

Now, you might think that after this kick in the pants the Dems might get some smarts, but you'd be wrong, because smarts don't come easy when you're this stupid. You might think that this wake-up call would get the Dems reconnecting with the voters who sent them to Washington with large majorities in the Congress. However, I'm willing to bet that this is not what the Democratic leadership is thinking. No, I bet they are thinking exactly what Joe Lieberman is whispering in their ear, "that they need to shift back to the center." That is, that they need to govern even more like Republicans. Well, you know where this is leading. Expect a Democratic "blood-bath" at the mid-term elections if they listen to old Holy Joe (and odds are they will). Yup, you can be almost certain that Democrats are stupid enough to listen to their "ally" who campaigned for John McCain and Sarah Palin, and is vowing to derail their health care efforts, rather than the voters who elected them. One should expect nothing less from the Party of stupid.

Framing the "Security Debate"

2010-01-08T22:18:00.022-05:00

It's now officially an election year, and Republicans sense they may have an opportunity to redress some of the substantial losses they have sustained as voters began to turn away in droves from the corrupt and incompetent governance they ushered in during the long nightmare of the George W. Bush era. That this is even conceivable, given the depths to which they dragged the country over the last eight years, is testament to how sorry the Democrats have been since achieving majority status. And the fact that the entire American political system is at present more or less a basket case.

The "conventional wisdom" in the mainstream media is that Republicans are "strong" on defense and Democrats "weak." Note that more often than not the conventional wisdom will have nothing to do with reality, but it is endlessly passed off as such by the conservative media echo chamber. So much so that to even suggest otherwise is to be labeled as crazy, or even worse, a liberal. Nevertheless, the Bush administration's oppressive, heavy handed and counterproductive tactics in the so-called Global War on Terror had begun to eat away at this perceived strength on defense.

Not to worry, a favorite Republican tactic, nearly perfected by Karl Rove, is to attack directly at the perceived strength of the adversary, and on an issue where you would appear to have a significant, and growing weakness. Perhaps the most audacious example of this strategy put into practice was the "Swift Boating" of former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Here we had a decorated Vietnam vet, who was actually shot at and wounded in service of his country, and that very service was being questioned on behalf of Republican chickenhawks George W. Bush and Dick Cheney who had actively schemed to avoid serving on the front lines. An important aspect of the strategy is that the actual "swift boating" is not done directly by those who seek to benefit, but by surrogate allies. This allows the candidates to feign ignorance and distance themselves from the mud-slinging.

In recent weeks we have begun to see perhaps the most astounding levels of chutzpah in an attempt to regain the "strong on defense" mantle for the Republicans. First, on Fox News former Bush press secretary, and notorious low-wattage bulb, Dana Perino suggested, and I quote, "We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush's term..." Oh really? Recall that the September 11, 2001 attacks occurred about 9 months into Bush's first term, and took place following numerous warnings, one of which, in the form of a Presidential Daily Briefing, was entitled, "Bin Laden determined to Strike in US." Yes, the worst terrorist attacks in our history occurred on the slumbering watch of Republican President George W. Bush, as much as apologists like Perino would have us remember differently.

Since Perino's effort to stand the truth on its head, a Nigerian man attempted, unsuccessfully, to bring down a Northwest Airlines plane with his underwear, or rather, with a bomb sewn into his underwear. Sensing the opportunity, and not to be outdone, the frame has most recently been taken up by "Mr. 9/11" himself, "America's Mayor," the insipid Rudy Giuliani. While being interviewed recently by ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Giuliani again suggested that, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush, and one under Obama..." Lest you are still one to believe in "liberal media bias," take note, that Stephanopoulos, like Hannity before him, was happy to give Rudy a pass on this factual howler. Only in Giuliani's twisted mind, and those of his ilk, could a failed, attempted act be an "attack."

Just a coincidence you think? Not hardly, this is right out of the Republican "Swift Boat" playbook, and you can bet that these forays by Republican surrogates are just the opening salvos in a propaganda war that is likely to ramp up and continue right through the mid-term elections. The main goal of this campaign will be to instill fear in you, the fear that if Democrats stay in power then you'll end up dead, killed by the "terrists." Don't fall for it, and just remember who was asleep at the wheel when 3,000 Americans were killed by terrorists; Republican majorities in the Congress and the White House.

This is Not an Amish Heater Blog

2009-12-28T18:48:00.006-05:00

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

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

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

Barack Obama: A Mighty Wind

2009-12-05T14:28:00.017-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of Thin Air

2009-11-11T22:14:00.033-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extraordinary Injustice

2009-11-03T22:00:00.010-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

Olympic Wing-nuts!

2009-10-02T21:57:00.004-04:00

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

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

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

Failure to Learn

2009-09-30T20:51:00.012-04:00

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

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

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

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

"No Matter What Your Purpose Is..."

2009-09-26T16:33:00.005-04:00

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

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

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

With Friends Like That...

2009-09-17T19:48:00.013-04:00

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

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

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

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

Because Nothing Inspires Confidence Like Failure

2009-08-25T08:39:00.014-04:00

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

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

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

A Democracy in Name Only

2009-08-14T23:04:00.023-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to Idiot America

2009-08-08T10:17:00.037-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knuckle-scrapers in the House

2009-07-19T09:21:00.017-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Torturing the Truth

2009-05-24T19:31:00.022-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "Bow" Situation

2009-04-11T17:44:00.009-04:00

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

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

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

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

Kickin' Up

2009-03-21T09:25:00.019-04:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jindal's World

2009-02-26T21:52:00.010-05:00

This was not a fair fight. No, this was more along the lines of Ali - Liston. Bobby Jindal was completely over-matched, and it showed. Rather than getting bludgeoned by speedy fists, he was furiously pelted by someone who knows how to craft a sentence above the 8th grade level. This, apparently, is not something that can be said about Jindal's speech writer! Maybe Jindal can at least use that old excuse, "hey, I didn't write it, I just had to read it."

It's hard to know what planet Bobby -- "Americans can do anything" -- Jindal, and by implication the bulk of the Republican Party, has been living on for the past few years, but it clearly has not been the same one the rest of us toil upon. This short speech, all of 12+ minutes, was an exercise in self delusion. Jindal attempted to blame Democrats for "Big Government," deficit spending only a month or so after the end of a singularly disastrous period of Republican governance. A period in which Jindal's party took Clinton surpluses and proceeded to run them up into the most fantastic deficits in our country's history. Jindal argued that "... Democrats have spent our children's money on things we don't need." How quaint, apparently Jindal is not familiar with such prudent Republican spending as, say, the IRAQ WAR?

About mid-way through his remarks, Jindal, seeking to thump away on that old GOP meme about how government is really the problem, uttered this bit of balderdash from between his lips, "THE STRENGTH OF AMERICA IS NOT FOUND IN OUR GOVERNMENT." Wow, at a time when many Americans are really facing difficult and uncertain times, only the Republicans would stoop so low as to try and further alienate people from the one remaining institution that can and should be a source of aid, their very own government.

If we are indeed a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, then what else can we draw from this shocking statement other than that Jindal does not really believe we are a strong people, and with compassion, should help one another through our shared government. Moreover, aside from the astonishing nonsense of what he's saying, if Jindal and other Republicans really believe this tripe, then why do they want to be a part of our government, that is, to govern? Why does anyone in Jindal's Party want to be part of the government? As far as I'm concerned they can do the rest of us a big favor and just stay home and leave the governing to adults. We'd all be a lot better off, Republicans included.

Jindal then moved on to a few other hot-button issues, notable among these was health care. He had the chutzpah to suggest that Republicans want, and by implication are working for, universal health care for all Americans. This was classic right-wing smoke and mirrors. This bald-faced fib comes from the spokesman of the Party that had been in power for eight straight years--with control of both the Congress and White House for most of it--and that did exactly NOTHING on health care!! Indeed, they clearly love health care so much that Jindal's own President vetoed health care for children, twice! Now that's what I call tough love.

According to Jindal, "Americans can do anything." While I generally share Jindal's professed belief in the resilience of my fellow citizens, I was always taught that one should also be honest when making self assessments. Indeed, given the current state of affairs in the Nation, it would appear to seeing eyes that there are a few things that Americans cannot seem to do. These would include, for example; 1) Managing banks. 2) Managing large manufacturing enterprises, such as, for example, car companies. 3) Finding weapons of mass destruction. 4) Providing health care for all our citizens. Interestingly, of the first three items listed I'm willing to bet that the particular Americans who can't seem to do these things are overwhelmingly registered Republicans. Funny how that is. Moreover, these are examples where government was taken "out of the way," so to speak, so as to let those enterprising Americans in charge of our corporations lead us all to financial nirvana. Isn't it just a tad ironic that after working so vigorously to "get government off their backs," these Americans whom Jindal argues can do anything are the first to run to Uncle Sam to get on the public bailout dole?

Maybe the strength of America really should be and needs to be in it's government? At any rate, it presently is most certainly not found in it's Republican-stuffed corporate board-rooms! While that conclusion should be as emphatically clear as an Ali jab, you can be sure that you would never hear it cross the lips of Bobby Jindal.

Guitar tracks

2009-02-15T19:15:00.002-05:00

In one of my first posts I indicated that I am a guitar hobbyist, and that I would try and post some examples of my playing. So here are a few songs. Please comment if you like, but keep in mind that the operative term is hobbyist. One of the tracks has my son doing back-up vocals of a sort, he was whining about how hungry he was, hence the name. Just click on the title, and you should find the mp3 files. I also added a link above my blog-list. Enjoy.

Bad Banking

2009-02-12T18:36:00.000-05:00

If even after what seems a never ending string of financial debacles you were still not completely convinced that the status of the US economy was anything but abysmal, then ruminating on the following chart for just a few seconds should help to remove any remaining optimism. The figure, compiled by Speaker of the House Pelosi's office, shows the run of job losses for several recent recessions and compares them with our current economic downturn. You can easily pick out the "Republican Depression" (ie. our current economic nightmare), it's the green curve that is heading South faster than a jackrabbit fleeing the gun sights of Dick Cheney. The scary thing, other than there being no evidence for a slowing in job losses, is that it's not even clear that the rate of job losses has reached it's peak. That is, the next few months could see the economy shed even more jobs than the last few.

Having gotten their proverbial butts kicked in the recent election, the Republicans were keen to make some changes to show voters and their constituents that they had not become completely irrelevant. Thus, newly elected National Committee Chair Michael Steele's first public utterances were basically along the lines of, "wrong? what's wrong? there's nothing wrong with our party, we just have to do a better job of selling our ideas." Yes, I kid you not, it was the old, we're just not good salesmen routine. Well Michael, good luck with that.

But not to worry so much, the Republicans did manage to latch onto what they argued was a "winning" political issue, watering down and stalling what almost all reputable economists consider a vital government spending program to stimulate the "rigor mortising" economy. Not a single House Republican saw fit to vote in favor of Obama's economic recovery plan, that's right, not a single one! And over in the Senate, mental steam engines such as Mitch McConnell were arguing that the bill did not have, wait for it, enough tax cuts! Even in the face of overwhelming data that shows that the fastest way to stimulate the economy, read add jobs, is by direct government spending--and essentially everyone agrees that creating more jobs is our most pressing economic need--the Republicans are still calling for more tax cuts. Word has it that the new Republican leadership is also working on the tax cut cure for cancer bill. Maybe they should get Michael Steele working on that.

Unfortunately, the Democrats, and President Obama in particular, have not done a good job of explaining why the spending plan is so important, nor countering the specious arguments put forth by Republicans and their echo chamber of talking heads in the main stream media. Rather, Obama seemed to be selling a "bipartisanship" stimulus bill, almost as if "bipartisanship" would feed hungry mouths, and keep roofs over people's heads. "Johnny, be a good boy and pass me another helping of the bipartisanship, please." Of course, there is nothing inherently problematic about seeking votes and allies across the aisle, however, it should not be a requirement for passage of a bill, particularly when the other side preconditions its support on the same failed policies that wrecked America in the first place. In such a case, the President needs to be much more aggressive in pushing the right ideas and facing down the Republicans when they propose the same useless and counterproductive policies. Indeed, Obama's desire for the illusive "bipartisanship" has resulted in a bill out of the Senate that cut too much useful spending and included ineffective tax cuts, simply to get all of three Republican votes. No, if Republicans cannot see fit to do the right thing, then Obama needs to get tough and go directly before the American people and hammer the Republicans as the Party of Herbert Hoover, that, having driven the ship of state over a cliff, are now unwilling to aid in its recovery.

Of course, with the Republicans having suddenly discovered a voice for fiscal restraint (after running up the biggest deficits in history, and amidst a depression no less), it was not much of a surprise that they could find many a willing media servant, who, if not mouthing Republican talking points verbatim, could at least be counted on to completely obfuscate the truth. Most notable in this regard was the vanilla-brained Charlie (don't call me Charles) Gibson of ABC News. In perhaps a record low moment (among many) Gibson, while questioning President Obama couldn't seem to get his little head around the concept that government spending is, by definition, economic stimulus. Gibson argued that, "a lot of people have said it's a spending bill and not a stimulus." So much for not being able to grasp perhaps the most fundamental fact surrounding the issue. Not even able to grasp this truism, how could we expect anything more but pablum from Gibson. As economist Dean Baker so eloquently put it, "Spending that is not stimulus is like cash that is not money. Spending is stimulus, spending is stimulus. Any spending will generate jobs. It is that simple. ... Any reporter who does not understand this fact has no business reporting on the economy." How much is ABC paying Charlie Gibson?

Meanwhile, all is clearly not the "Change We Need" in the White House. Evidence of this is clear in Obama's selections to head his economic team. Both Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and chief economic advisor, and ex-Clintonista, Lawrence Summers are so deeply entrenched in the policy and regulatory regimes that helped to fuel and precipitate the crisis, that one can still see the umbilical cords connecting them with Wall Street. Indeed, Geithner only just recently "announced" his new plan for Treasury to prop up the collapsing banks. I put announced in quotes because when you discuss a plan but then give essential no specifics, it's not really much of an announcement is it? The response from investors was swift, they either couldn't figure out what Geithner was actually talking about doing or they felt that it perhaps wasn't the "sweet-heart" deal that they had quite hoped for from the former Wall Street man. Either way, the stock market took another significant vacation in a southerly direction.

From Geithner's terse statements and pronouncements since, it has become clear that one aspect of the new bailout plan is the formation of a fed-run "bad bank" that will essentially accrue to itself much of the toxic securities that many banks find in abundance on their rose-red balance sheets. Of course, the name is telling, because the joke's on us, guess who the "bad bankers" are? That's right, it's just us poor tax paying suckers who are going to get stuck with all the bad debts made by these rich folks for whom the requirement of being restricted to, say a paltry salary of $500,000 a year is a travesty to scarring to bear. And what do we get for assuming all the risk in this little transaction? In real capitalism those who assume the risks stand to receive the biggest rewards, but not so much in this case. There is no indication that Geithner intends to obtain stakes in the bailed out banks for the government, so that taxpayers would get some compensation if and when the banks become profitable. But this is certainly not "real" capitalism. No, what we are witnessing here is more socialism for the rich, and social Darwinism for the rest of us. This is effectively the same dynamic that has led us to this point. Profits are privatized, but losses and risk are subsidized with the public's money. Put more simply, gamblers get to play at the table with someone elses money. Not the kind of system that you would expect to generate probity and restraint is it? Nope, the operating term here is corruption of the highest order.

At this stage a much more sensible, equitable, and arguably effective plan would be for receivership (ie, nationalization) of the failed and failing institutions. Indeed, many of the economists who foresaw the devastation and were ignored are calling for nationalization as the most effective solution, but the voices of those who best understood the situation and saw it coming continue to be largely ignored. A good example here is Nouriel Roubini, professor of economics at the Stern School, NY and no communist he, who argues eloquently that from a pragmatic standpoint the only remaining workable solution is nationalization. Let's see how long it takes the likes of Geithner and Summers to reach the same conclusion. I won't be holding my breath.

Depressed

2008-12-20T11:18:00.001-05:00

As the Nation sinks deeper and deeper into the Bush Depression and the professed "small government" conservative ideologues of the administration throw around more and more billions of dollars of "bailouts," the priorities of a corrupt and wretched economic system are brought into sharp focus. The capitalist system has but one master, money. Decisions are taken such that the only consideration is that those with money can make more money. If that means that others would suffer so that "Capital" can profit, then so be it, money knows no ethics but money. There are essentially no rules. While a giant edifice of "lawfulness" has been erected around the system, at it's core it is the essence of lawlessness, take from others so that I may profit. How else to see the massive frauds that are routinely perpetrated on the powerless by the powerful. How else to see a world where 5% have accumulated most of the wealth, while 4 billion people toil in misery day in and day out. As long as the interests of money are served, then essentially any means can be justified.

That people are fed; children clothed, sheltered and educated; the sick cared for, then it is only a secondary outcome, as these basic human rights barely enter into the calculations of how money will seek more money. Indeed, such is the situation in our Nation today that the seeking of money will effectively determine if the sick are cared for. A more profoundly anti-human principle can scarcely be envisioned, yet our economic masters preach that it is the only way, as if the right of Capital to seek ever more profit were a natural law, akin to gravity or electrodynamics.

The worship of money is clearly seen in the recent response to the implosion of the Wall Street investment banks and the more recent, impending bankruptcy of the US automobile industry. The Wall Street financiers were provided with upwards of 700 billion dollars of bailout funds, and nary a single bank executive was required to appear before Congress to account for their catastrophic mismanagement, corruption and malfeasance, or explain how the public's largesse would not end up in the same rat-hole as the rest of their capital. No, the bailout was passed in a near-frenzy of media-induced panic, and subsequently, it seems not to have had any of its professed effects, the economic crisis only deepening, and banks remaining largely unwilling to lend. It did, however, manage to burden future generations with an even larger mountain of debt, and to transfer a huge sum of public funds to private hands, one of the few things that the Bush administration has been any good at. Maddeningly, perhaps as much as 1.6 billion of the funds went to the CEOs of bailed out institutions, in the form of bonuses and other compensation!

Consider next the treatment of the leaders of the US automobile industry. They were seeking a mere 30 billion dollars or so, a sum twenty times less than the titans of finance were bequeathed, but the Big Three auto CEOs were required to testify at congressional hearings, during which they were chastised and skewered for their abysmal management of their companies. It didn't help matters that they flew into Washington in the lap of luxury aboard their corporate jets. It would seem that no level of failure is sufficient to abrogate certain executive privileges. Indeed, in order to sway the Republican side of the aisle, the execs were required to submit a plan that would demonstrate how they planned to return to profitability. Moreover, this was apparently also an opportune time for Republicans to blame unionized American auto workers, and insist that they grant wage and benefits concessions which would put them on a par with their non-unionized brethren toiling for foreign automakers on American soil. Particularly repulsive was the sight of southern Senators, such as Kentucky's insipid Mitch McConnell, carrying water for foreign corporations like Toyota and Honda that employ non-unionized workers in their states. Here we had US politicians, with flags pinned to their lapels, insisting on reduced wages and benefits for American workers in the interests of foreign-owned companies. McConnell's "Grinchiness" did not escape the ire of many labor organizations, including the California Nurses Association. Indeed, it might be argued that the tax breaks and cheaper labor offered by southern states like Alabama and Kentucky to attract foreign manufacturers has been part of the demise of the US auto industry. Ah, but that's the "beauty" of the free market, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. Presumably, corporate bag-men like McConnell will not be satisfied until all American workers are toiling at subsistence wages, purely in the interests of Big Money.

A deeper irony is that the "success" of the financial industry represents the victory of the "paper" economy over the "nuts and bolts", manufacturing economy. It used to be that American wealth was founded on the manufacture of durable goods, but with the globalization of capital, manufacturing has been steadily "out-sourced" to regions with relatively low wages and lax labor laws. The factories of China and the maquiladoras of Mexico come to mind. This left finance and service industries as the remaining growth areas, but these industries are not truly generators of new wealth, they just tried to tap into existing wealth, or worse, financed the perpetuation of America's consumption economy on a mountain of debt. That debt is now burying us all, and as the bills come due, we are witnessing a steady contraction in US economic output.

Another irony is that none of this is new. We have seen the inherent instability in the capitalist system now for more than a century. The struggles of working people have managed to dull the sharp blade of capitalist downturns, winning many battles that acted to civilize the workplace, among these the 8 hour day and the 5 day work-week, and to erect a meaningful, if shaky, safety net in the form of government assistance programs and controls on capital. How quickly we forget though, and given the opportunity and their enormous financial power and the political influence it can buy, economic elites have been quick to attempt to redress the gains of working people and once again put everyone at the service of capital.

Although times are hard, a window of opportunity can be opened with the education of more people to the true realities of an unregulated capitalist system. With a new President about to take office, a President willing to listen to the needs of working people, we have a chance to try and address the fundamental problems with our present economic system. We should insist that economic decisions be based on real human values, and not simply the desire to maximize profits at all costs.

History!!

2008-11-04T23:08:00.000-05:00

What a night. What a night! The major networks have called the Presidential race for Barack Obama, and it looks like he will comfortably surpass the 270 Electoral College votes needed to claim the presidency. In fact, McCain is now conceding as I write this.

An African American, a black man has been elected President of the United States!! When one considers the long history of slavery, hate, oppression and bigotry that black Americans have suffered, I am almost driven to tears by the thought. It is at least the beginning of the end of an eight year long nightmare. Tonight I am very proud to be an American. It is a night that all peace-loving Americans should celebrate. It is a hopeful sign that the forces of hate and intolerance are being slowly, but steadily driven back. There's an enormous amount of work to do from here, but tonight is a night for celebration!!

Spreadin' it Around

2008-11-01T20:40:00.000-04:00

So the end now is finally in sight. There really can be no acceptable reason for such an endless Presidential campaign season. In case you missed it, a little more than 2 weeks ago Canada held national elections, approximately six weeks after Prime Minister Steven Harper called for the new vote. Imagine that, a campaign in six weeks, what a concept. Almost no time to sling the mud, just enough to lay out a program and let the voters decide. And in Canada you have more than two choices, and even the "minority" parties will have seats in parliament, and a real voice in the affairs of government, not so in the USA, where our politics has essentially been reduced to a vote for Dweedle Dum or Dweedle Dumber.

Moreover, after almost a years worth of campaigning recent polling suggests that perhaps as many as 7% of Americans are still undecided with regard to the Presidential race. Undecided?? How can anyone still be undecided about this race? My question to the undecided is along the lines of, what are you waiting to hear? What is it that would push you off the fence? Will it be the last 30 second distortion of a campaign ad that you hear before going to the polls? Will it be a last minute "gaffe" from one of the candidates? A coin flip?? In my opinion, anyone still "undecided" at this point should probably do the rest of us a big favor and not bother voting, since it would seem likely that their vote in the end is likely to turn on some ridiculous bit of minutiae or spin.

With such a long campaign there is that much more time for those so inclined to truly sink into the depths. The McCain campaign has arguably set a new standard for debasing a campaign; trotting out all the most despicable aspects of human nature in its last ditch effort to win at all costs. After this campaign, McCain should never again be allowed to even whisper the terms honorable or maverick in reference to himself.

What would appear to be their last hope has been to try and label Obama a socialistic "spreader of the wealth." This charge is so ridiculous, so devoid of substance, so pathetic, that it has had virtually no effect on the race, but it does serve to highlight the nature of Republican campaigning these days. Having literally "wrecked America," this crowd has no substantive issues to run on, so their tactics are reduced to name calling. The logic is this, Obama must be defeated at all cost, therefore, he is a socialist. No evidence is required for a Party driven by dogma and ideology. So, what is the ostensible "evidence" that Obama is a closet Marxist? Apparently it is his tax plan, that proposes to raise the tax rate on those incomes above about $250,000 by, wait for it, a Leninistic 2-4%, while modestly cutting taxes for the remainder of the citizenry. So, Obama's plan cuts taxes for upwards of 90-95% of Americans, and marginally raises rates on the top 5% of the income distribution, this "proves" without a doubt that obviously he must be a commie. The new higher rate is essentially the same as that pre-Dubya, under that obvious Marxist Bill Clinton. Based on these charges it becomes crystal clear just who McCain and Co. think are "real Americans," that would be those in that top 5% of incomes, a very small fraction of the total population, but clearly part of the Republican base!

Even more astonishing is the irony of McCain, and Republicans generally, charging Obama and Democrats with being "spreaders" of the wealth, when Republicans have engineered arguably the largest transfer of wealth in the nation's history, but this transfer has been from the bottom up rather than the top down. From the Bush tax cuts for the rich, to no-bid contracts, to corporate welfare and tax loopholes the rich have essentially robbed everyone else to the tune of many hundreds of billions of dollars. Then, we can consider the work of Governor Palin in her home state of Alaska, which each year cuts a check for several thousand dollars to every resident derived predominantly from tax revenues on oil companies operating in the State. In her own words Sarah Palin described this little socialistic redistribution thus, "we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs." Share collectively in the wealth eh, so we see that none other than right-wing ideologue Sarah Palin herself is at heart a socialist too, how wonderful. Based on this we know exactly where to put all these Republican charges of "socialism" against Obama, in the toilet where they belong.

Of course much of good governance is about collectively using resources for the benefit of the nation and society as a whole. All modern democracies have long since reached this conclusion, as it is grounded in fundamentally basic human values, but apparently not yet the politically Neanderthal Republican Party and its right-wing, Cro-Magnon apologists. Consider just one example, the Social Security program, all workers pay into it in order to guarantee at least a minimum level of retirement support and other benefits for the population, and Americans seem to think this is just fine, Social Security being one of the most well-liked government programs ever enacted. Just imagine if George Bush had gotten his way and succeeded in privatizing the Social Security system, and tying the retirement incomes of millions of Americans to the whims of financiers and the stock market. Can you say mega-disaster? I knew you could.

I live in Maryland, a state that will very likely go heavily for Obama over McCain. Nevertheless, I am often bemused and perplexed by the numbers of McCain/Palin lawn signs that I see. So, I will close this pre-election post with my satirical take on the standard McCain lawn sign. As they say, vote early, and vote often (if the past eight years have challenged your funny bone, that was a joke). In case you haven't guessed, I will be voting for Barack Obama, I hope many others will be doing the same.

Cratering Party

2008-10-17T19:22:00.000-04:00

In his now famous snubbing of David Letterman, John McCain excused his own absence by stating that he needed to rush to Washington in order to rescue the "cratering" US economy, and thus wouldn't have the time to appear on Letterman's Late Show. In its current colloquial use the term cratering refers to a spectacular failure, and while it is an apt description of the current state of the US economy, it also perfectly describes the state of the Republican Party and its last eight years of catastrophic governance.

Now with the curtain drawing down, and what passes for an election entering its final and most ugly stage, we get to see the real nature of this Party, as well as its corporate and media apologists, as they try desperately to cling to power. So, now we are treated to the scenes of Sarah Palin and John McCain attempting to label Barack Obama a "terrorist" for the most tenuous association imaginable with one-time Weather Underground Organization (WUO) leader William Ayers. The "logic" at work here, such as it is, would appear to be at the same level as the mental machinations of Mrs. Palin who tried to argue that since she could see Russia from her state of Alaska, then she was an expert on that country with all the experience of a seasoned foreign policy wonk. For the mind that could concoct that tortured argument, it is not much of a stretch to something like, if Obama once saw the "terrorist" Ayers, then he must be a "terrorist" too!

Let's recap some of the pertinent facts surrounding this pathetic, McCarthyite attempt at guilt by association. First, Obama was an eight year old boy at the time of Ayer's involvement with the Weathermen! For most reasonable people, that should completely end the argument. Obama had precisely NOTHING to do with Ayers' alleged terrorist activities within the Weathermen. Second, the characterization of the Weathermen as terrorists is itself problematic. While the organization did engage in violence, it made a point of targeting property and not people. In general, warnings were issued well in advance of WUO bombings, and Ayers himself has stated that they were very serious about limiting injuries to civilians. Moreover, there is no evidence that any of Ayers' actions resulted in injury or loss of life, and indeed, no such charges were ever brought against him. This is not typically the behavior of truly terrorist organizations.

Now, some will no doubt argue that the violence itself, the bombings and rioting, are evidence enough of "terrorist" behavior, and no doubt this argument will find sympathetic ears with some readers, however, this conclusion ignores the fact that the relatively small-scale violence perpetrated by the WUO was a response to the truly massive violence being perpetrated by the US military in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, the scale of which completely dwarfs anything the WUO could have brought about. Moreover, the violent actions carried out by the WUO were an attempt, though perhaps ill-conceived and naive, to try and stop the much greater crimes being perpetrated in Southeast Asia by the American government with its imperial war in Vietnam. While Ayers has over the years expressed regrets with regard to some of the WUO's violent tactics, he has consistently refused to accept the terrorist charge, "The reason we weren't terrorists is because we did not commit random acts of terror against people. Terrorism was what was being practiced in the countryside of Vietnam by the United States," he has said. Of course, in their attempts to smear Obama by association with Ayers, Republicans completely ignore all of this important contextual information. Moreover, McCain himself has had past associations with such criminals (some might say terrorists) as the infamous G. Gordon Liddy, he of the Watergate break-in and burglary. Indeed, it was none other than "journalist" David Letterman who actually questioned McCain regarding his associations with Liddy.

Since his radical days Ayers has been a productive member of society, working as a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, College of Education. He has done much to help improve the plight of public education in Chicago, and in 1997 Chicago awarded him its Citizen of the Year award for his education work in the city. In many ways he has worked to redeem himself from his violent past. Ironically, this is a theme that Republicans love to trot out when it suits their needs but are loath to accept in political enemies. Take McCain for example, we are meant to believe that he has "learned his lessons," and has fully redeemed himself from his past transgressions with regard to his associations with Charles Keating and the Savings and Loan scandal. Forget for the moment that McCain apparently learned nothing from the scandal, except to be more careful not to get caught in the future, as his penchant for deregulation remained unabated. Similarly, the out of wedlock pregnancy of Sarah Palin's daughter is spun as a story of redemption and lessons learned, but Republicans would never think of extending such forgiveness to the pregnant daughters of inner-city black Americans, for example. The double standards are stark indeed.

While McCain and Palin have recently tried to make the Ayers affair the center-piece of their campaign, polling around the third debate indicates that most Americans can see through the lies and distortion, and in fact, it appears likely that it is now hurting McCain more than helping him. With Ayers fading away the McCain campaign needs to find other "issues" with which to attempt to smear Obama. The latest, and perhaps most desperate (and laughable) attempt by the McCain campaign and its surrogates is to simply label Obama and anyone who might consider voting for him as anti-American socialists and Marxists (see the nice visuals at Bad American). Indeed, CNN's daft and insipid Glenn Beck was kind enough to remind us that, "The problem with all of these guys is they're all Marxists -- they're all Marxists. They'll all spread the wealth." Here, "they" presumably refers to Obama and anyone with the temerity to consider voting for him. Predictably, Beck presented not a shred of evidence to back up this ludicrous charge, but that's the great thing about being an insta-pundit, evidence is never required, and for loopy right-wingers it's much easier to just start making stuff up. I wonder if Beck has ever considered that the Bush administration, with it's tax cuts for the rich and free-wheeling, deregulatory mania, has been spreading the wealth like crazy, but in this case it has been the wealth of the lower and middle classes being transferred to a tiny fraction of the population at the top of the income pyramid. The most recent instance of such spreading being the $850 billion Wall Street bailout boondoggle! One suspects that this attempt to smear Obama as a Marxist will be about as successful as the Ayers ploy, meaning not very.

And now today we have been treated with the spectacle of Minnesota Republican Representative Michelle Bachmann's statements that Barack Obama and his wife Michelle are "anti-American," and "couldn't be trusted in the White House." Remarkably, Bachman went so far as to resurrect the spirit of Joseph McCarthy with her call for news media outlets to investigate other members of Congress to, and I quote, "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." This is the most despicable form of demagoguery imaginable, but it is a tactic that this Republican party has turned to again and again. In similar fashion, just the other day Sarah Palin expressed her delight at visiting "pro-American" regions of the country. The unstated implication being that, in her view, some parts of the country are "un-American." Apparently, that would apply to St. Louis, MO, which today hosted a rally for Barack Obama which was attended by upwards of 100,000 people!

As is so often the case such Republican rhetoric simply stands the truth on its head. For eight years now our Nation has been governed by a political party that has put its own interests ahead of those of our country and its people. That is essentially the definition of treason, and the Republican Party is so charged. Any dissenting opinions to its reckless, incompetent, criminal and destructive course have been labeled unpatriotic. Those who dared oppose the self-annointed "true and only Americans" were dismissed as traitors. And now, with the end of their miserable rule in sight, their only recourse is the same tired demagogic attempt to slander opponents as un-American. There are only two words to describe this Party, pathetic and despicable, and in a little more than two weeks I will have one thing left to say, good riddance!

The Great Shakedown

2008-10-02T19:58:00.000-04:00

It's been remarkably refreshing to see the power struggle unfolding in the Congress this week over the attempt to pass bailout legislation for the Wall Street robber-barons. Faced with a tidal wave of righteous indignation from voters in their districts enough principled Democrats, and two thirds of the Republican House caucus--who arguably were largely voting for the preservation of their own seats--spectacularly voted down on Monday the Paulson-Bush $700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout boondoggle. Since last week the Capitol Hill switchboard and internet servers were being relentlessly hammered by irate Americans vowing to throw under the bus any Representative with the inclination to vote for this massive giveaway to the rich. For once the Congress actually expressed the will of the majority. What is it they call that, democracy?

It's been equally remarkable to watch the extent to which President Bush has been completely emasculated politically. One could not imagine a duck more lame than Bush the mallard. And what of other senior administration types, like Cheney and Rice? Completely invisible. No, it appears that King Henry Paulson is in charge these days. While the irrelevance of Dubya is fascinating, he should not feel alone, because almost equally impotent have been the Democratic Congressional leadership. There was House Speaker Nancy Pelosi trying to play the dutiful, mainstream, bipartisan pragmatist, and pass what was essentially the administration's bill. Why the Democrats would try to enact this weak, discredited, corrupt administration's proposal is almost beyond comprehension. Particularly in the face of strong condemnations of the plan from many mainstream economists. There was never any attempt by the House leadership to have hearings or a substantive debate on the many alternative proposals that had been presented in the independent media. Instead, Finance Committee chair Barney Frank obfuscated Paulson's three page fascist power grab with a smokescreen of almost meaningless, toothless conditions, and then argued they had put strong oversight and executive pay restrictions in the bill. Americans were not convinced, and neither were a significant fraction of Pelosi's own caucus.

But, with the bill defeated in the House it was predictable that the Wall Street apologists would look to the Senate, a veritable House of millionaires, for smoother sailing. And so, Wednesday evening, after a series of hysterical, sky-is-falling speeches predicting the coming of Armageddon, and, get this, the adding of $150 billion in additional provisions, mostly various tax breaks, because, go figure, the original bill was too fiscally conservative! the Senate dutifully passed the bill by a 74-25 margin. Also instrumental in passage of the bill has been the pathetic reporting in the mainstream media concerning opposition to the bailout. The overriding media narrative has been that any opponent of the bill must be either crazy, or un-patriotic, or both! There has been very little accurate reporting of the many alternatives to the Paulson give-away plan, and that, most interestingly, a consensus has emerged among many American economists that this bailout bill will not address the fundamental problems in the financial system. Particularly sad and frustrating was the sight of a fear-mongering Barack Obama, sounding very much like George W. Bush, scaring Americans into thinking that failure to pass THIS rancid bill would result in their financial and economic ruin, and usher in a long, painful and deep recession. Note to Obama, we are already in the midst of what will likely be a long and painful recession, and gifting irresponsible Wall Street financiers with $700 billion borrowed dollars is not likely to change that fact one iota. At a time when strong leadership is desperately needed; at a time when the Presidential front runner should be decisive, and side with the American people, all we get from Obama is the cautionary, equivocating, weakness all to evident in the Democratic Party. Make no mistake, John McCain has arguably been even worse, but the behavior of both candidates simply emphasizes that the two major parties have simply suffocated the democratic process in our country. Americans should persist in their opposition to this criminal shakedown of their childrens' futures and insist on Congressional action that actually addresses the root causes of the problem; principally the foreclosure crisis; and does so by making those responsible foot the bill.

The Bailout Express

2008-09-27T19:22:00.001-04:00

Why does the Congressional Democratic leadership appear so hell-bent on getting a Wall Street bailout bill passed? Word from Capitol Hill today is that the framework of a deal is close to being agreed upon, but that some contentious aspects still need to be hammered out. However, opposition to any bailout of Wall Street with taxpayer funds apparently runs deep, on both sides of the political spectrum. Indeed, Republicans appear to be scared shitless to vote yes on such a massive transfer of government funds. I don't think it is hard to see why. They already face the daunting task of getting re-elected in the midst of a massive economic meltdown, and add to that the eight years of disaster under Dubya, and you can see that this would likely be the last nail in the coffin for many a Republican congressman. They would prefer not to have to go back to their districts to face an angry constituency, and explain how this Republican administration just cooked up the "mother of all waffles," to the tune of $700 billion dollars,

“We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.”

-- 2008 Republican Platform

That pretty much sums up the state of the Republican Party, don't you think? Thanks to Craig Markwardt for forwarding that gem. Still, we are left with the question of why the Democratic leadership seems to want to take ownership of this noxious bill. A number of leading economists have recently questioned the need, indeed the usefulness, of the scheme outlined by Paulson. The ultimate albatross around the neck of our economy is debt, so it is not at all clear that borrowing nearly a trillion dollars to throw at the perpetrators of the debacle will be of any lasting value. More likely, it may simply speed up the flight from the dollar in the long run, more like gasoline on a fire rather than water.

Nevertheless, in the face of all of this opposition, the Democratic leadership still appears to be more concerned with the wishes of the administration and the so-called wizards of Wall Street than the average American. For one thing, Democrats should simply consider the source of this massive request. When was the last time Bush and Co. were right about anything? But for some reason, even with historic levels of dissatisfaction with Bush and the Republican party, there would appear to be nothing the Democrats in Congress would deny the Mediocrity in Chief.

While the times clearly call for strong leadership, all we continue to get from Pelosi and Reid is caution and unwarranted bipartisanship. Indeed, it has become the hallmark of this pair that the appearance of so called bipartisanship seems to be their raison d'etre. No matter what horrendous legislation they are passing, as long as they can appear "bipartisan", they seem to think that the American people will sit back and applaud. This is a calculation Democrats have been making now for a long time, and what success has it brought them? Very little. They still appear weak and unprincipled, and too willing to act in the interests of big money rather than their supposed base of support among working Americans. Before passing perhaps the biggest public bailout of corporate interests, the Democratic leadership needs to go before the people and clearly explain how and why this bailout will work, how it will be done, how it will be overseen, and how it will be paid for. If these issues are not clearly addressed in a rush to pass something, then the Democrats will also, rightly, face the ire of many outraged voters in November.

A Financial Patriot Act

2008-09-21T15:50:00.000-04:00

Twice in the George W. Bush era a catastrophe has had its epicenter on Wall Street. We know all about the first, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. The second, the financial "storm" engulfing our corrupt banking and financial system, will now play itself out over the weeks and months to come. Already it has claimed hundreds of billions of dollars of the public trust, and the end may be nowhere in sight. The circumstances surrounding these two events, ironically, have much in common.

With it's head in the sand, ignoring ample warnings suggesting that strikes inside the US were likely being organized--recall the title of that Presidential Daily Briefing, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US"--the Bush administration sleep-walked while the 9/11 attacks were being prepared and executed. The political results of that negligence we know all too well, expanded government powers; legislation gravely treading upon Constitutional liberties; a disastrous change in US foreign policy; torture, extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo Bay (to name but a few). Bad legislation was pushed through Congress and equally bad policies were foisted on an America kept fearful and ignorant by administration propaganda and deception. In a state of fear Congress rushed through the Orwellian-named "Patriot Act," provisions of which any true patriot would find unconscionable. Let us recap this sad tale. Those who were negligent, and by their negligence at least partially responsible, were left ultimately unaccountable, moreover, they were left in power, unchecked and with free reign to manage the aftermath of 9/11, to the disastrous ends we all now must live with.

Now, the American people, seemingly without a memory, are allowing a replay of this scenario to unfold, perhaps to equally disastrous ends. After eight years of corruption, deregulation, dismantling of any oversight and enforcement regime, and cheer-leading for corporate greed and excess, the same administration that napped while terrorists plotted, has been comatose while a largely foreseeable financial meltdown that may ultimately match or exceed the Great Depression, has been allowed to happen. And now, with the crisis at its apparent zenith, with fear and the professed need to act at near fever pitch, drastic solutions are being discussed by the administration and the Democrat-controlled Congress. Indeed, the first details of Treasury Secretary Paulson's proposed bail-out legislation has been made public this weekend, and from the looks of it has every indication of being a financial version of the Patriot Act. The remarkably terse text of the bill, essentially grants Paulson and the administration, a rolling $700 Billion slush fund with which to buy up the bad mortgage-related debts of ANY financial institution based in the US. How's that for broadly defined? Although it might seem that the $700 Billion is a cap, the text indicates that this is the amount that can be outstanding AT ANY GIVEN TIME. Thus, the total sum which American taxpayers could be on the hook for could be significantly more, say, several Trillion dollars! Now that's some serious coin! However, the most sinister and outrageous clause in the text is the following;

"Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency."

Yes, you might want to read that again. Decisions made by the Secretary regarding this Act would be NON-REVIEWABLE, by ANY agency, court or entity. This would be Congressionally mandated and approved fascism, nothing less. It would grant virtually unlimited financial power to the agents of the President without any accountability! Moreover, it would grant this authority to those who, Nero-like sat back, watched and indeed, precipitated the crisis with their disregard of their regulatory functions and pro-Wall Street legislation. But it would do even more than that, it would privatize the ill-gotten profits of these corporate criminals, while socializing all of the risk, on the backs of our kids, perhaps for decades to come. This is beyond outrageous. As Glenn Greenwald and others have pointed out, this should arguably be something of a "pitch-fork" moment, something that might actually get people out into the streets protesting, that is, if protests were still allowed. This must not be allowed to happen. Every thinking, responsible American needs to get on the phone and contact their representatives in Congress to oppose this monstrous draft bill.

While it may be true that some form of Government-sponsored bail-out is needed to stabilize the economy, all Americans should insist that it meet several conditions;

It must not reward the perpetrators of this catastrophe. That is, the Wall Street fat-cats who gambled with the public's money, lost, and now wish to be repaid!
It must be largely financed by those who sought to profit and brought about the conditions that precipitated the crisis. It must not be financed on the backs of the middle class and lower income Americans. This point has recently been emphasized by Independent Senator Bernie Sanders. Taxes should be raised on corporations and the wealthy, at a minimum.
Any deal must be conditional on major changes to the current administration. At a minimum, those economic "stewards," the Treasury Secretary (Paulson) and Federal Reserve Chairman (Bernanke) who were so demonstrably wrong must resign. However, a more reasonable requirement for Democratic approval of some bail-out would be resignation of the President and Vice President.
It must be accompanied by a return to close regulation and policing of the banking and finance industries, indeed, of all corporations. There can be no return to "business as usual." A new commitment to a corporate culture that benefits society must be enforced.
Those responsible for the debacle must not be allowed to manage the aftermath, and must be held accountable for their negligence and malfeasance.

If the Democratic controlled Congress cannot insist on these conditions, then it will have shown itself to be in the thrall of the same corporate pay-masters that run the Republican Party. If that is the case then voters should vote the whole sorry lot out of office.

Socialized Capitalism

2008-09-16T23:00:00.000-04:00

The last few days have seen some rather astonishing developments coming out of the Treasury Department of the Bush administration, what with the collapse and bail-out of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the 500 point implosion of the stock market on Monday, followed by the death or sale of several big-name Wall Street financial institutions including; Merrill Lynch, Lehman Brothers, and now most recently, the insurance giant AIG. But not to worry, we can all rest easy knowing that none other than that economic genius John McCain has decreed that our economy has "sound fundamentals." I'm so glad, just imagine what unsound fundamentals might look like!

We are truly fortunate, as over the last few weeks we have been witness to the perfection of a new kind of political economy. This new form of governance can only accurately be called "Socialized Capitalism." And who have been the authors of this new kind of socialism for the rich? You guessed it, none other than the self-styled free-market, Capitalist, Republican administration of George W. Bush! Here's how it works. Powerful corporate and wealthy interests essentially take over the functions of government. This was easy, as the die was cast when the Republicans came back to power with the 2000 "election" of Bush. These elite, wealthy special interests are essentially the constituency of the Republican party (though the Democratic Party does not escape all blame here either). With the reigns of power in hand, or at least in the hands of their surrogates, corporations can then re-write regulatory law and weaken the oversight and enforcement functions of the government. In the context of the financial sector, this gave banks and investment firms carte blanche to freewheel and make a killing, selling "derivatives" and bundled, mortgage-backed securities, while overexposing themselves to substantial debts from an ocean of bad loans in the process. Then, when the bill finally comes due and the pyramid scheme collapses, that same corporate-run government that initially rigged the game, allowing and enabling the plunder, provides billions and billions of tax-payer dollars to bail out those poor ailing corporations. It's a perfect confidence racket, and every tax-paying citizen is a chump with the word "sucker" written right across their forehead. Not just you, your young children will be saddled with this debt for years to come. These hucksters have mortgaged our kids futures to enrich their already rich constituents. Almost enough to make one boiling mad, eh?

And all this is brought to you by that very same Republican Party that loves to talk about free markets, small government, personal responsibility and the wonders of unfettered Capitalism, the same Republican Party that becomes apoplectic when anyone even breathes the words liberal, socialism or, god forbid, welfare. Of course all this Republican talk of free markets etc. is a steaming pile of guano, and maybe after being fleeced for eight years by Bush and Co. enough Republican-voting "suckers" out there will finally get the message? Republicans love big government, especially the kind that is doling out huge sums of cash to their constituents. They love free markets for the other guy, but hate them if it means they would have to compete fairly. And personal responsibility? Republicans are NEVER responsible, that's also for the other guy. In fact, when you're a Republican it's always the other guys fault. Make no mistake, this Republican administration is practicing rampant socialism for all its corporate constituents. Forget about welfare queens, Bush, McCain, and all their Republican supporters are the welfare kings, the kings of corporate welfare. We let them stay in power at our own peril.

Mendacious Maverick

2008-09-05T21:30:00.000-04:00

It's pretty obvious that national political conventions have become little more than highly staged media events, designed to, in the words of George W. Bush, "catapult the propaganda." While this is now largely true of both major political parties, the recently concluded Republican convention has clearly broken new ground in terms of outright deception, Orwellian abuse of language and the overall debasement of our political culture. Indeed, it was as if, protected by some kind of force field, the Excel Center in Minneapolis became a kind of twilight zone, with no memory, impervious to history and fact, a virtual tabula rasa on which the Republicans could hope to re-write the failed legacy of eight years of disastrous rule. Nowhere was this more evident than in the remarks from John McCain on accepting the presidential nomination of his traitorous Party.

Since it would take an epic tome to document all the dissembling and deception evident in McCain's speech, let's just hit some of the major themes and highlights and see how they hold up to some reality-based thinking. Perhaps the most astounding claims from McCain revolve around the notion that the Republican ticket represents the agent of change in the upcoming election. McCain's first change pedigree, he would have us believe, is his choice of a virtually unknown, largely inexperienced, right-wing, neophyte governor, none other than Alaskan governor Sarah Palin. As McCain boasted, "I'm very proud to have introduced our next vice president to the country. But I can't wait until I introduce her to Washington. And let me offer an advance warning to the old, big-spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd: Change is coming." But wait, who exactly are those old, big-spending, country-second Washington hacks? If you're thinking they are exactly the same Party that was nominating McCain, then you'd be right, and McCain was and has been a major player in this me-first crowd for the past eight years. McCain would have you believe that he and his Party, the authors of eight years of perfidy, are the ones to "clean up the mess" in Washington. If you are willing to swallow that pile of bull, then I know a bridge for sale, cheap. The only truth here in McCain's statement is that there really is a mess in Washington, but he (and his Party) is the mess! The contradictions in McCain's message were succinctly highlighted by The Nation's John Nichols, who pointed out, "Even as he (McCain) was pledging to 'change the way government does almost everything,' the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same."

McCain's next big theme was of course "defense" (actually, offense might be a more apt description). McCain boasted about his supposed key part in authoring and implementing the so-called "surge" in Iraq, and further boasted that, "Thanks to the leadership of a brilliant general, David Petraeus, and the brave men and women he has the honor to command, that strategy succeeded and rescued us from a defeat that would have demoralized our military, risked a wider war and threatened the security of all Americans." The notion that "the surge" rescued us from a defeat in Iraq is fanciful, as Tom Engelhardt has pointed out. It is an indication of the depths to which the Republican Party has sunk for its present leader to brand an unnecessary, immoral, illegal and devastating war, that has killed hundreds of thousands of people and laid waste to an entire country, a success, indeed, it is an obscene characterization. Also, McCain is apparently unaware that many in our military are already demoralized by this war, as this short video from the Guardian's Sean Smith demonstrates, and that it is the Iraq war itself, and American military adventurism, that threatens wider war and the security of Americans. By any measure; moral, economic, political, the Iraq war has been nothing less than catastrophic. To suggest continuing it to some undefined, unattainable "victory" is nothing less than insanity.

McCain, however, doesn't see fit to stop with Iraq, he further brandishes the saber at both Russia and, of course, Iran, a favorite Republican "whipping boy." But McCain really starts to lose it when he attempts to tongue-lash Russia for its "invasion" of Georgia and, in his words, "reassembling the Russian Empire." He then further castigates Moscow, arguing that, "we can't turn a blind eye to aggression and international lawlessness that threatens the peace and stability of the world and the security of the American people." The irony here is rich indeed, as McCain has been a cheer-leader for just such aggression and lawlessness with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. However, one of the benefits of being a Republican is that it comes with an immunity to irony. If McCain had any legitimate security bonafides he might also consider the effect of unnecessary NATO expansionism in intimidating Russia toward a more belligerent posture with respect to its neighbors. Further, insisting on an unnecessary and dangerously destabilizing (and arguably useless) missile defense system in Eastern Europe, is also needlessly isolating Russia. McCain also contradicts his own CIA in perpetuating the favorite Bush administration canard that Iran is dangerously close to developing a nuclear weapon.
Clearly McCain doesn't know half as much about real national security issues as he likes to claim. As his own fellow traveler Pat Buchanan put it, if elected, "McCain will make Cheney look like Ghandi." Trust me, we can do without that.

Jack-Booted Thugs

2008-08-31T19:32:00.001-04:00

We live in a Police State. While many would likely consider such a statement hyperbolic, how else to describe the despicable abuse of police power evidenced in Minnesota last night and this morning by the jack-booted thugs of the St. Paul police department and Ramsey County Sheriff's Office. Overnight and this morning a number of sweeping "raids" were carried out in which heavily armed police, including SWAT teams, invaded homes and detained and intimidated citizens doing nothing other than assembling peaceably in their homes and pursuing their First Amendment rights and political freedoms. The houses raided were targeted because they contained, in the words of the police, suspected protesters and "anarchists." One group targeted, I-Witness, has made a name for itself by simply documenting the behavior of police at large public gatherings and protests, such as the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York. Indeed, the group was instrumental in documenting NYPD police misconduct and their work resulted in the release and acquittal of upwards of 400 people wrongfully arrested at the convention. Another group facing harassment, the "RNC Welcoming Committee," was apparently planning some protests for the upcoming convention, but since when has a public protest become a crime!? According to Bruce Nestor of the Minnesota chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, none of those detained, harassed or questioned had committed any violent actions or crimes, they were simply targeted for "suspected" behavior, guilty, apparently, of thought crimes, at least in the minds of the fascist police in St. Paul. See Glenn Greenwald's blog for additional discussion of these raids.

Make no mistake, such raids and police tactics are illegal and are meant to intimidate people from expressing their political views and aims. More to the point, such raids are nothing less than state-sponsored terrorism. How else to describe the pointing of loaded weapons at innocent citizens? What right do the police have to abuse their power, to burst in on peaceful citizens, brandish weapons and arrest and detain people? Indeed, to place law-abiding and peaceful citizens at risk of death and serious injury. Such behavior is anathema to a democratic nation, indeed, it is nothing less than that expected of such totalitarian regimes as Nazi Germany, and must not be tolerated in a free society. Those who conceived, organized, approved and executed these raids must be brought to account, including the judges who would sign such frivolous warrants, and the contemptible cops who would carry them out.

If our democracy was functioning as envisioned we might hope that the Justice Department could step in to investigate such abuses of police power and provide a means to redress the grievances, but can one hopefully expect such a response from the Justice Department of Bush consigliere Michael Mukasey? Not likely, indeed, it is exactly this kind of Surveillance State that George Bush has created and glorified with his warrant-less spy program and never-ending "war on terror." In fact, as one might have guessed, it now actually appears that the FBI was also involved in the raids. Surprise, surprise!

Unfortunately, there seem to still be lots of Americans with their heads in the sand muttering something like, "you're talking crazy Tod, that could never happen here, I don't have anything to worry about, I'm a law abiding citizen." We can only hope enough of these people get their heads out of the sand before it is too late. Increasingly I feel, however, that it is already too late.

Income Inequality and the "Skills Gap," Who Knew?

2008-07-29T21:18:00.000-04:00

I'll confess right at the outset to being no fan of David Brooks. He's the kind of "conservative" that has done plenty to help bring about the economic conditions we currently have to live with, but will then go and tell us it's all our fault for not bringing up our kids in the proper educational environment. In a recent Op-Ed in the New York Times, Brooks makes just this case, that a principal cause of the massive gulf between the haves and have-nots in the US is a "skills gap" resulting from the woeful state of education in the country. He partly bases his arguments on a new book from Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz, “The Race Between Education and Technology.” While few would argue about the importance of education in enabling a productive economy and just society, it's clear that rather than explore the responsibility of three decades of conservative, quasi- laissez-faire policies on the current economy and income distribution, Brooks would much rather lay the blame at the masses who have not raised their kids, in his words, "...bathed in an atmosphere that promotes human capital development ..." Man, I'm glad my mother didn't raise me that way!

We could tear down Brooks' straw-man easily enough, but let's just make a few observations. First, wages have been stagnant or declining across the class/income board for more than 20 years now. That is, even the well-educated have been sliding down the ladder, although they are of course relatively more economically secure than their unskilled brethren. Meanwhile, studies show that Americans are among the most productive workers on the planet, and yet few of the productivity gains over these last 20 years have been put back into pay-checks. Now why is that? Where did all that money go? Somehow the corporate classes keep getting richer and richer. These facts do not point fundamentally to an education problem, rather, a much more accurate diagnosis would be class warfare!

Of course we need to better educate our children, but what Brooks and his ilk fail to explore is WHY we are not able to adequately educate all our citizens. Predictably, Brooks tries to dismiss some big issues, such as globalization, outsourcing and predatory capitalism, stating that, "the populists are going to have to grapple with the Goldin, Katz and Heckman research, which powerfully buttresses the arguments of those who emphasize human capital policies. It’s not globalization or immigration or computers per se that widen inequality. It’s the skills gap."

It's hard to know where to begin with such statements. It's as if all the economic choices, decisions and policies put in place by Republican administrations, beginning with Reagan (with significant Democratic assistance, or at least acquiescence I might add), that have been the fuel on the fire of income inequality for almost 30 years now never happened! Nope, it was the "skills gap," who knew? Although education is certainly a piece in the puzzle, I would argue that conservative economic policies, essentially placing all corporate interests over those of workers, including the resulting widening income inequality, are the primary causes of any "skills gap," not the other way around.

But for me, the biggest "whopper" in Brooks' whole piece is his overarching premise, stated in the first two sentences, I quote, "Why did the United States become the leading economic power of the 20th century? The best short answer is that a ferocious belief that people have the power to transform their own lives gave Americans an unparalleled commitment to education, hard work and economic freedom."

This is just so much conservative drivel. Just like every other major industrial power, the US grew by protecting it's markets, having a strong state-sponsored sector, and maintaining unfettered access to resources basically around the globe (and a productive citizenry). The nonsense that Brooks is peddling here is this pernicious myth of American exceptionalism. This is the same myth that enables a mediocrity like George W. Bush to talk about bringing democracy to Iraq (or insert currently relevant country), and our political class will basically cheer-lead. I have yet to go to another country and find people not committed to education, hard work and economic freedom. These values are evident in most every culture I have ever encountered, therefore they cannot be the PRIMARY reasons for the United States economic success.

Much can be learned about the state of our politics and society that this kind of mumbo-jumbo is placed on the Op-Ed page of one our most influential newspapers, rather than in a landfill, where it belongs.

Police State

2008-07-26T10:03:00.000-04:00

It's one of the unchallengeable myths of political and major media discourse, that the United States is among the most democratic of societies. Politicians and pundits alike heap praise on American democracy and consistently tout our brand as without peer around the world. Such thinking is virtually axiomatic in the mainstream consensus, however, the weakness of American democracy can be seen in many areas, not least of which is the degree to which public dissent or protest have been marginalized, especially in the past decade.

An important aspect of such marginalization is the use of local, state and federal authorities to harass and intimidate anyone with the temerity to challenge authority or present an alternative to the ossified status quo. Particularly egregious is the targeting of those working for and promoting peace. This goes so far as to lead to the Orwellian labeling of pacifists as potential "terrorists."

If one thought that such activity ended with the exposure of COINTELPRO in the '70s then one would be wrong. The most recent revelations, based on documents obtained via an ACLU sponsored Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) suit, reveal that in 2005 and 2006 the Maryland State Police (and the Department of Homeland Security), were infiltrating and spying on a number of Maryland peace groups and the anti-death penalty group Campaign to End the Death Penalty. These groups were simply exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights, and, indeed, many of the group members were and are avowed pacifists, including long-time Baltimore-based peace activist Max Obuszewski. Another person caught up in the surveilance was progressive sports writer Dave Zirin, a member of Campaign to End the Death Penalty. Read Zirin's eloquent and defiant response to this official lawlessness here.

These documents show that Maryland State Police agents had covertly infiltrated numerous meetings of these groups, and had created extensive, classified dossiers on many of their members. One result of this surveilance is that several individuals from the groups, including Obuszewski, were entered into law enforcement databases whose ostensible purpose is to track drug offenders and terrorists. The suspected "crimes" that Mr. Obuszewski was allegedly included in the database for included terrorism. When non-violent opposition to war becomes "terrorism," then everyone should feel a chill run up their spine.

The surveillance of these groups was persistent. Even after agents spent days at meetings at which nothing more "threatening" than carrying clipboards down the street or participating in tablings at farmers markets, they still recommended the spying continue. Is this what trained police agents take for criminal activity? I would hate to see whom untrained agents would implicate in alleged criminality! Can there be any legitimate excuse for such surveillance? Obviously the police must know that such activity is lawful, not threatening and indeed is protected by constitutional rights, yet they do it anyway, which begs the question why? Former Maryland State police superintendent Tim Hutchins attempted to defend the practice by arguing, “you do what you think is best to protect the general populace of the state.” But this is laughable, any simple investigation of these groups, not requiring covert infiltration and surveillance, would have been sufficient to determine that they were engaged in completely lawful activity. So whom are the Maryland State Police really protecting? It seems clear that the police in these cases are acting largely to support the interests of those in power, and not simply to uphold the law. This is an outrageous abuse of authority and one which should not be tolerated in a truly democratic society.

Democratic Surrender Monkeys

2008-06-21T09:55:00.000-04:00

Unconditional surrender! That is the only accurate phrase to describe Friday's passage by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives of the so-called FISA Amendments Act of 2008. This bill, the bastard child of House majority leader Steny Hoyer (Md) and Senate intelligence committee chair Jay Rockefeller (WVa) gives the Bush administration everything it wanted on the domestic spying front, and more! As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, the bill gives to the administration what it could not have even hoped to obtain from a Republican-led House. It greatly expands the powers of the government to spy on Americans, and in its most odious sections grants sweeping immunity to telecom companies and their Bush administration allies for breaking the existing FISA law. It retroactively excuses, and attempts to put a stamp of approval on half a decades worth of administration law breaking. It does this by placing a so-called "requirement" on the administration that makes a mockery of the rule of law and the Constitutional separation of powers. Essentially, the bill requires that existing law suits be dismissed if the telecom companies simply show that they were directed by the President or his agents to carry out the spying, and/or that the administration "certified" that it was legal! Talk about handing the fox the keys to the chicken coop. This legislation grants to serial lawbreakers the power to decide legality, and reinforces the theory perpetuated by this administration that if the President says it is legal, it is! A more dangerous, and un-Constitutional precedent can hardly be envisioned.

Moreover, the bill provides for broad secrecy surrounding the dismissal of lawsuits, the government simply having to invoke the magical phrase, "national security," to shield the details of the law breaking from the eyes of the public. The section of the bill granting this sweeping immunity is entitled, "Protection of Persons Assisting the Government." Orwell himself would have struggled to come up with that one, but it was apparently duck-soup for the Democratic enablers of Bush administration lawbreaking.

Let's try and get our heads around the magnitude of this capitulation. It's not that easy, so stay with me. The Democratic-controlled House just handed this stunning victory to perhaps the weakest sitting President in history; a President that can barely maintain 25% approval ratings; a President whose Party is also now widely, and justifiably reviled and rightly fearful that they will be thrown from office in large numbers come November; a President and Party that have treated the Democrats with utter disdain and contempt for almost 8 years, who have called them "traitors" and most recently referred to their presumptive presidential nominee as an "appeaser" like those who appeased the Nazis. It is this President and Party that the Democratic leadership, over the opposition of more than half of their caucus, including many committee chairmen, handed such a victory! Politics is wondrous strange indeed.

What could be the mental calculus at work in the minds of such "leaders?" Indeed it is hard to fathom how the majority Party in the House could rend itself asunder so and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. One is forced to conclude that there are basically two reasons for such a wholesale capitulation. First, the current Democratic leadership is largely beholden to the same Corporate interests as the Republican Party. Put simply, the big telecoms fill many Democratic coffers with cold hard cash. And if anything is clear from the status quo in Washington it is that money talks. So, it's simply too easy for them to grant immunity and not upset the apple cart, or perhaps the gravy train is a more accurate phrase in this case. Consider the signal this sends to many Americans, that Corporate money is much more important to the Democratic Party leadership than the Constitutional freedoms of their own constituents. This is a craven and cowardly calculation if ever there was one. Second, it seems that the senior Democratic leadership are still so fearful; so cowardly and fearful. They somehow believe that surrendering the rule of law will make them look "tough on terrorism." In fact, what is plain for all to see is that it simply makes them look weak, craven and without principles or honor. That is, it makes them look just like Republicans!

The reality here is far different from the "tough on terrorism" pretext being offered by the capitulators. Passage of this legislation will not do anything to increase security against terrorism. The existing FISA law was and still is entirely adequate to enable the government to obtain the necessary intelligence to protect the Nation. Moreover, this administration's actions in the so called "war on terrorism" have not made us safer. Far from it, their reckless foreign policy has only bred more fanaticism abroad, and they have neglected common sense strategies to strengthen our domestic security posture. Even in the face of mountains of current polling data suggesting that American's attitudes are sharply opposed to the direction that this administration and its Republican Party rubber stamp have steered the country, the fossilized and inept Democratic leadership still believe that in order to win elections they must look more and more like Republicans. Since it is now absolutely clear that they will never learn this lesson, perhaps because they ultimately share most of the same priorities as the Republicans, the final remedy must be to vote the whole pathetic lot of them out of office. If you are interested in helping in this regard, check out the campaign being organized by Act Blue.

Supreme Ideologues

2008-06-14T08:57:00.000-04:00

With another 5 - 4 decision the Supreme Court has recently upheld basic provisions of the Constitution while simultaneously sending a stinging rebuke to the Bush administration's "enemy combatant" detainee policy. The Court was reviewing a challenge to the Military Commissions Act which had stripped habeus corpus rights from detainees in the wake of the Court's previous decision on detainee policies in Hamdan vs Rumsfeld. This was the third ruling over a six year span in which the Court has made clear that the administration's manufactured legal "system" surrounding detentions at the Guantanamo Bay gulag is un-Constitutional (read illegal). However, after each previous rebuke the Administration was able to work with it's Republican allies in Congress to pass legislation defying the Court's decision. Shamefully, the infamous Military Commissions Act that this most recent decision strikes down was passed with significant Democratic support as well.

Justice Kennedy, who has recently become the "centrist" swing vote on the Court, joined with the more liberal Justices; Ginsburg, Souter, Stevens and Breyer in arguing that, “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times,” and asserting that the Court is the final arbiter of what the law is, not a self-styled unitary executive commander in chief. In many ways this decision was rather straightforward. The most relevant section of the Constitution, the so-called "Suspension Clause" (Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2), states, "The Privilege of the Writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The great writ is a cornerstone of English law, and came about as a response to the arbitrary power of English kings to exert the right to hold anyone for as long as they liked without ever having to explain to anyone why. Indeed, the drafters of the Constitution, having recently experienced the excessive and unjust powers of a king, in this case George III, felt strongly enough to enshrine the right to habeas corpus directly into the wording of the document. The clause is quite clear, the only exigencies that might abrogate it being invasion or rebellion, neither of which situation exists today by any reasonable interpretation of those words.

One might then reasonably ask how the Court could be so divided on this apparently basic issue? It essentially comes down to the idea that one either believes in the rule of law, or the rule of men. The four Justice minority in this case; Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas, have left no doubt where they stand on this notion. They have consistently supported the "theory" that Mr. Bush as commander in chief is essentially the law, and can do as he pleases. They voted as a block in all the previous detainee cases, except for the Hamdan case for which Roberts had to recuse himself, since he had previously ruled against the habeas petition while sitting on the US Court of Appeals for the DC circuit. So, there can be little doubt what his decision would have been had he participated. This gang of four has consistently shown where their loyalties lie, not with the Constitution, but with a political party and it's extreme rightwing, neofascist ideology that is in thrall to power, whether it be executive, governmental (as in their own power on the Court), or the private power of corporations.

In his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Roberts claimed that the Bush administration's detainee policy represented, “the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants.” That these ostensible "protections" violate the supreme law of the land apparently carries no weight with Roberts. Moreover, the "procedures" put in place by the administration allow Bush to, by fiat, declare anyone an "enemy combatant" without a meaningful, independent judicial review. This is hardly the due process envisioned by the drafters of the Constitution when they added the Suspension Clause. And to think that we must suffer this Chief Justice for perhaps decades to come. While in his confirmation hearings Roberts pledged reasonableness and objectivity, his decisions on the Court since then suggests the exact opposite.

Of the other dissenting opinions that of Antonin Scalia was, not surprisingly, the most outrageous. Scalia argued that the decision, “warps our Constitution” and, went as far as to suggest that it will place American lives at risk, “The game of bait-and-switch that today’s opinion plays upon the Nation’s Commander in Chief will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed,” he argued. Of course, the only thing warped and twisted here is Scalia's logic. That a decision which restores an important right guaranteed by the Constitution represents a "warping" of it strains credulity. And isn't it ironic that Scalia, who helped halt the 2000 Florida recount that ensconced Bush in the White House, should then argue that this decision will cost more American lives, when his 2000 decision helped to set in motion the disastrous Bush presidency, that has cost many thousands of American soldiers their lives, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. We can be thankful that there are still at least five Justices with some commitment to the Constitution and the rule of law, and it should be absolutely clear that the country can no longer tolerate the appointment of political idealogues to the Court. The stakes are far too high for that.

Dirty Laundry

2008-05-30T19:33:00.000-04:00

Propaganda, from the White House? Really!? Now who would have thought that possible? Scott McClellan, one time White House press secretary, is the latest in a long string of Bush administration insiders to publicize in book form the dysfunction at the heart of the Bush inner circle. McClellan is scathing in his criticism of Bush and his top aides, in particular Condoleeza Rice, in spinning the country to war with Iraq. He also takes aim at a sycophantic and "too deferential" Washington press corps that was too quick to swallow all the bull being shoveled. While McClellan deserves some plaudits for finally coming clean, or at least beginning that process, he appears to be far too uncritical of his own complicity in propagandizing the American people. After all, for years he was the point man, the go-to-guy, the "Maytag Man" in the Bush spin team. Who can forget the seemingly endless press briefings from the White House, with McClellan standing there sweating like a bridegroom, torturing the English language in order to get his talking points spinned just right. I for one couldn't stand to listen to him for more than five minutes at a clip, so impenetrable was the dissembling.

While media coverage of McClellan's mea culpa (such as it is) has been rather significant, most of the attention has been of the tit-for-tat aspect, that is, the story has been about the "sensational" aspects of an insider coming out of the White House and criticizing the administration. Predictably, however, there has been very little additional discussion of the actual substance of McClellan's charges. This is perhaps not too surprising since a major focus of the criticism has been the media itself, so, major news outlets are not particularly keen on focusing a spotlight on their own substantial shortcomings.

However, the biggest aspect of the story that has been "missed" is that we knew all this stuff already! Essentially all of McClellan's charges have for years now been the focus of significant reporting from independent media outlets (like Democracy Now!) and the liberal blogosphere. In fact Karl Rove had the temerity to proclaim that McClellan now sounded like a "left wing blogger." Actually, that would be about right, since many such bloggers had long been documenting the propaganda campaign leading up to the war and beyond. However, if that's not "main stream" enough for you, then just consider that only a few weeks ago the "Paper of Record," published extensive reporting on the Pentagon and administration's use of retired Generals in an extensive propaganda campaign to support the Iraq war. Such propagandizing of the people by their government is of course illegal, but since when did the law ever trouble this crowd. But, you may not have been aware of that either, since this story has also been declared largely untouchable by the major outlets, for the same reason just mentioned above.

So, rather than entertaining right-wing talking heads to "debate" whether McClellan is right or not, or, in the case of Fox News, just arguing how he is wrong, the major media could simply do a little real reporting, like actually reading a newspaper, and they would find ample evidence to conclusively establish that the bulk of McClellan's charges are true. Oh, but that's right, the big media don't actually do any real reporting anymore, they just ask vacuous questions of equally vacuous pundits. Indeed, in a rare moment of candor on the Today show, three of the biggest (read, most overpaid) TV anchors recently absolved themselves of any blame as "enablers" of the Iraq war. See the post by Glenn Greenwald for a link to this rather astounding video and some insightful commentary on the complete abdication of journalistic integrity by these so-called media "heavy hitters."

Let Us Not Forget

2008-05-24T17:14:00.000-04:00

It's hypocrisy time. Just as surely as the Sun rises and sets we can be sure that as Memorial Day approaches their will be a steady stream of political double-speak from our leaders claiming to support the troops and "honoring" their service. We can also be sure that the most egregious transgressions will come from the highest offices in the land.

Since Mr. Bush is urging all Americans to mark a moment of remembrance on Monday to honor fallen veterans, let's also take a moment to reflect on the recent past and vow to remember the following the next time this administration speaks about honoring the troops.

Let us not forget that almost 5 years ago Mr. Bush orchestrated an illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq that has now claimed the lives of 4,080 US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Let us not forget that this was the most heinous kind of war, a war of choice. A kind of war outlawed by the UN charter.

Let us not forget that the administration's twin pillars in the argument for war; alleged Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and alleged Iraqi ties to the 9/11 attacks were both fabrications, unsupported by any solid evidence.

Let us not forget the "smoking gun in the shape of a mushroom cloud."

Let us not forget "shock and awe," "mission accomplished," "we don't do body counts," and "bring 'em on."

Let us not forget that Mr. Bush never did complete his service commitment after being accepted in a "champagne unit" of the Texas Air National Guard. This enabled him to avoid the draft and likely service in Vietnam.

Let us not forget that Mr. Cheney had "other priorities," as he obtained five deferments from the draft, thus also avoiding service in Vietnam. Indeed, the number of right-wing chickenhawks is quite astonishing, particularly in that they seem to be more than willing to sacrifice other peoples kids. And for all your Memorial day gift giving, consider the deck of chickenhawk playing cards.

Let us not forget that after one disastrous war, Mr. Bush seems dead set on starting another one before he leaves office.

And, come November, let us not forget the Republican Party that has been in lock-step with this criminal administration every step of the way.

A Tale of Two Clergy

2008-04-29T20:14:00.001-04:00

Unless you've been hiding out in a cave recently you are no doubt aware of Barack Obama's "Reverend problem." Over the past few weeks selective clips and statements from past sermons given by Obama's former pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright have been used against him in a textbook example of guilt by association of which Joe McCarthy himself would be proud.

Wright has been accused of "anti-American" statements, and having "destructive and divisive" notions regarding race relations in America. Obama himself has felt the need to strongly condemn Wright's statements and distance himself from his one-time pastor. However, almost all of the "buzz" around this "issue" has been the result of selective sound bites and excerpts of small portions of the Reverend's statements and sermons. Media talking-heads and pundits on Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, etc. have thrown lots of mud, but they invariably fail to place the excerpted bits from Wright's speeches in the context of his entire statements, nor of the more than 200 year long--and ongoing--history of injustice suffered by blacks in the United States. It is as if the terms slavery, Jim-Crow, separate-but-equal, and red-lining never existed. This kind of historical amnesia in corporate media coverage is now so pervasive, that it is no wonder Americans can consume so much media and still learn so little.

Initially Wright did not feel the need to "go public" to try and defend himself and his church, but in the past week he has given several public interviews (one to Bill Moyers), and speeches (before the National Press Club) in an attempt to get his side of the story out. Not surprisingly, these appearances have also been "sound-bited" and excerpted, and have been seized upon by the same corporate media as "proof" of Wright's wickedness. This has also prompted Obama's strongest yet denunciation of the Reverend and his statements. So, if you've heard the approved "sound-bites" and have swallowed the standard media narrative that Wright is a certifiable "wacko," then I'm also willing to bet good money that you did not listen to any of his full statements. If not, I urge you to do so. Let's consider his recent remarks before the National Press Club (NPC). These have also been excerpted at Democracy Now, which actually presents extended parts of his address and a debate featuring perspectives from black community representatives, not the corporate punditocracy.

In his address to the NPC Wright essentially gave some historical background on black religious traditions in the United States and explained, focusing on his own church, the underpinnings and goals of his faith. While I do not personally ascribe to the religious and theological analysis of the human condition, there was not much to find objectionable in these remarks, indeed, one can argue that the black religious traditions of liberation and reconciliation--with ALL people, regardless of race--are a remarkable, and hopeful response born of a situation of bitter oppression, such as slavery. One need only contrast this with the response of some white Christian denominations in apartheid South Africa, that rather than oppose oppression, constructed theologies consistent with white supremacy and apartheid.

So, if what the Reverend actually said, could not be found particularly objectionable, then what is the source of the venom directed at him, and by association, Obama? As Wright pointed out in his remarks, the notion of reconciliation requires that the wrongs of the oppressor are acknowledged, that amends are made, and that subsequent actions demonstrate a reversal of the oppressive behavior. That is, that race relations are not simply a one way street. This I think is largely the "sin" the Reverend is being accused of, that he has the temerity to point out that while injustice persists, true reconciliation cannot occur. That, and the fact that racial injustice still persists, there can be little denying that.

After delivering his remarks, Wright answered questions, and here is where I think some of his statements and actions perhaps partly undid the positive remarks he had just made. He was a bit defensive and accusatory with his tone in responding to some of the questions, but one might also be willing to excuse such a tone given the nature of the attacks he had been subjected to over the preceeding weeks. At times Wright did seem to be enjoying the attention, and perhaps also having a chance at last to respond openly to critics this may not be to surprising. But he also simply seemed to be trying to make light of a difficult situation, and have some fun, as he tried to make the occasional joke, not always successfully! Essentially all of the questions were of the "gotcha" variety, and were largely based on assumptions and myths that are essentially unchallengeable in the mainstream media. A glaring example of this is the notion that Wright ostensibly believes that America was "responsible" for the terrorist attacks on 9/11. This has become a true "third rail" in American politics, anyone even remotely hinting at this is automatically labelled "un-American," and beyond the pale. However, this attitude completely suffocates any serious attempt to look at the question of why the United States was attacked. Obviously the situation is much more complex than, "they hate our freedoms," as Bush so simplistically put it. The point that Wright, and others, have tried to make is not that the terrorists were justified in attacking, but that the way that US foreign policy impacts other Nations and peoples is important and entirely relevant. Put very simply, if you punch someone in the nose, then it is quite possible that their response may be to punch back. Such comments meet with fierce media resistance because they challenge one of the fundamental myths propagated by US elites; that the US always acts on the world stage with the noblest of goals. Anyone still under the spell of this myth can begin by reading William Blum's, "Killing Hope" , or Chalmers Johnson's, "Blow-back," for example.

Wright has also been criticized for statements suggesting that AIDS was somehow the result of some government "plot" to harm blacks. This is indeed an unfortunate statement. To my knowledge there is no credible evidence to support it, and it does suggest a kind of paranoia with regard to government treatment of minorities. However, here again some context would have been most illuminating. Many Americans are probably unaware that there is in fact a documented, rather sordid history of medical experimentation on Black Americans, the most infamous example of which is known as the "Tuskegee Experiment". To summarize, from 1932 to 1972 the US Public Health Service (PHS) followed the progression of syphilis in about 400 black men. These men were mostly poor sharecroppers, they never gave informed consent, and were never told they had syphilis. By 1947, with the introduction of penicillin, all men still remaining in the study could have been successfully treated, yet it was not until 1972 that a PHS employee went public with information to force an end to the study. Hundreds of black men died unneccessarily, and wives and children were also infected. For other examples, see the book, "Medical Apartheid," by Harriet Washington. Given the context of this historical record we could perhaps be more forgiving with regard to Wright's unfortunate comments on AIDS.

My title suggests a second clergyman, but while most Americans now know the name Jeremiah Wright, it's very likely that many fewer know that John McCain has his own "Reverend problem," or, rather, that if the media treated McCain as they have treated Obama he WOULD have a "Reverend problem." The ecclesiastical albatross that should be hanging around John McCain's neck is the fundamentalist, evangelical Pastor John Hagee. McCain actively sought, and received the endorsement of Hagee for his White House bid. Hagee is head of the evangelical Cornerstone Church in San Antonio, Texas, and sits at the hub of a fundamentalist media empire. He is an equal opportunity offender, having denigrated Catholics with statements suggesting that Catholicism has spawned, "a theology of hate." During an interview on NPR's "Fresh Air," Hagee claimed that Muslims have a "scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews," and later in the same interview claimed that Hurricane Katrina was punishment wrought by God on the sinful city of New Orleans. He holds views that most Americans should rightly regard as deeply offensive, and is perhaps most succinctly described as a spewer of hate. Yet, unlike Obama with regard to Wright, McCain actively sought the endorsement of his Reverend, so as to solidify his standing amongst the key fundamentalist Republican voting bloc. Even more troubling, McCain did a complete flip-flop in seeking Hagee's imprimatur, as in a different political environment he once termed such evangelical demagogues as "agents of intolerance."

While McCain has gotten a little heat from the media for his association with Hagee, it has been nothing like the scrutiny afforded Wright and Obama. McCain has recently gone as far as admitting that seeking Hagee's endorsement was probably a mistake, but nevertheless still being grateful to have it (go figure). How's that for mental gymnastics! Wright and Obama could never get away with such equivocating. The double standard here is indeed stark, and is difficult to understand in other than racial terms. In the end, John McCain is white, and so is "his" Reverend, and that seems to make all the difference.

Crazy Talk

2008-04-25T19:40:00.000-04:00

Obliterate! That's some pretty tough talk. That was the term used by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton when asked to describe what her response as President would be if Iran were to attack Israel with nuclear weapons! Before discussing this further, let's get some hard facts on the table.

1) Iran does not now possess nuclear weapons, nor is it likely to in the near future.

2) Iranian officials have stated that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

3) The US intelligence community has essentially corroborated this Iranian claim, stating in a recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that Iran had suspended any nuclear program.

4) On the other hand, there is a nuclear power in the Middle East, Israel. Israel is one of only four states not to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). It obtained nuclear technology with significant assistance from France, and carried out its weapons program with substantial deception. Israel's official position is that, "it will not be the first state to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East." As it is an "open secret" that it already has, this is rather a deceitful position to maintain.

What does it say about the state of our media that candidates are even asked such a question? How could Iran, not possessing nuclear weapons, attack Israel with them? Even more astonishingly, if Iran had nuclear weapons why would it even consider attacking Israel with them? Such questioning reveals a remarkable double standard. I would go as far as to call it racism, plain and simple. It impugns the Iranians with sinister motives and aims that we would never even think of applying to ourselves or our allies. We of course like to think that we would NEVER strike first with nuclear weapons, but we are more than willing to attribute such behavior to the Iranians (and they don't even have the weapons!). This kind of thinking betrays a belief in the questioner that the Iranians are fundamentally different and "other" than us, put crudely, that they are not human. Only then would it become possible to envisage obliterating them.

And what of Clinton's response to such questioning? Are these the qualities that we want in a President, that he/she would be willing to completely wipe out another country, to almost brag about it? Actually, I would want such a person as far away from the "nuclear button" as possible. More troubling perhaps is that Clinton apparently feels that this is the kind of talk that we, the electorate, want to hear, that our Presidents will be vicious thugs on the world stage. What constituency does she feel she is appealing to with such remarks? Is she appealing to Democratic or Republican voters with such statements? In recent TV ads she has argued that the President must be "ready for anything", and that she, "has what it takes" in this regard. Is her response to the Iran question supposed to prove this to some voters? For me anyway it's done the exact opposite. This is exactly the same kind of fear mongering the Bush administration has perfected, and used to shred the Constitution and our civil liberties. No thank you, I've had more than my fill of such crazy talk.

The Meaning of Success

2008-03-22T21:20:00.000-04:00

The war in Iraq recently entered its sixth year, and the long nightmare of the Iraqi people continues with no end in sight. After five years of carnage; hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead; 4,000 US troops killed; a vast fortune spent; what has been achieved? Events surrounding the 5th anniversary shed some illuminating light on the present state of American democracy. Consider the establishment media. The present consensus narrative, endlessly reinforced by recent Bush administration media opportunities that receive front page and/or prime time coverage on the TV news networks (Fox, CNN, CBS, etc.), is that the troop "surge" is working. Cheney recently made a "stealth" visit to Iraq, and proclaimed that the war, though not without its difficulties, has been a "... successful endeavor." Bush too claimed "success" in a recent speech to Defense Department personnel at the Pentagon. If what we are witnessing in Iraq is success, then one shudders to think what failure would look like! For a less hyperbolic look at what "success" in Iraq looks like, see the sobering report by Dahr Jamail.

Of course the "success" in Iraq would not have been possible without the willing service provided by the American corporate press. Nor would it be possible for those responsible for this catastrophe to continue to claim, five years on, that "victory" is within sight if we simply "stay the course." American media's service to the State with regard to the Iraq war would make former Pravda officials green with envy. Particularly shameful in recent days was the major media coverage--or rather, the almost complete lack of it--surrounding the Winter Soldier hearings held from March 13 - 16 at the National Labor College in Silver Spring, MD. Over four days soldiers who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan gave testimony of their experiences, providing first hand, moving accounts of what American's taxes are paying for in Iraq. This was easily the most important news story concerning the Iraq war in recent months. Here we had those carrying out Bush administration policy giving first hand accounts of what they saw and did. Those actors making the history were providing direct testimony. What better way to "support the troops" than to listen to and tell their stories? The event was covered in great depth by various independent media outlets like Democracy Now and Pacifica radio, but was scarcely mentioned in the corporate press. I did not hear all the testimony myself, but was able to listen to significant portions of it. I would urge everyone to at least watch some of the testimony, which can be found at Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Just as the corporate press missed the story in the lead up to the invasion, they also missed this one. Whereas in depth reporting of the Winter Soldier hearings could have gone a long way toward showing Americans the real costs of this war, and perhaps finally forcing an end to the horrors, the so-called free press still can't seem to get it right, and remain simply a propaganda conduit for the powerful.

One of the most pernicious myths surrounding our corporate media is that they are completely free and unbiased, that they serve the people and are not beholden to the powerful. This is repeated so often that is has become virtually axiomatic, indeed, one is immediately labeled a loon to even suggest the opposite. Occasionally, however, the truth slips out. Read the summary by Glenn Greenwald of an interview that serial anchor Tucker Carlson did with Gerri Peev, the British reporter who revealed Obama aid Samantha Power's referral to Hillary Clinton as a "monster." This little exchange shows precisely the presumed relationship of the press to the powerful in contemporary America, one of subservience. It is only that dynamic that enables utter failure to be called success.

$ 3,000,000,000,000.00

2008-03-01T18:19:00.000-05:00

Well, that's a lot of zeros! Three trillion (yes, trillion) dollars worth to be precise. That is a conservative estimate of the cost of the Bush administration's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as estimated in a new book by Nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University professor Linda Bilmes. It may seem a daunting task, to estimate the cost of the largest American foreign policy boondoggle ever, but as professor Stiglitz indicated, it's basically just an addition problem, so, at least the math is pretty easy, there's just a lot of it! Note that this number is conservative! Stiglitz and Bilmes estimate that a more realistic number for the full costs is in the vicinity of 5 - 7 trillion.

Let's try and get our heads around that number. For comparison, the annual gross domestic product (GDP) of the United States is in the vicinity of 13 - 14 trillion dollars. So, we're looking at a cost approaching 1/4 of the ENTIRE economic output of the country for a whole year. Put another way, that's more than $10,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the United States. I'd call that staggering, but the "Spender in Chief," doesn't seem to get it, for Bush, the wars have apparently been a plus. When asked if he agreed with comments that the war in Iraq is hurting the economy, Bush quipped, "I don’t think so. I think, actually, the spending on the war might help with jobs." Rather ironic to hear a so-called conservative Republican plug the war as a three trillion dollar jobs program! But in Bush-land anything is possible.

Of course, the White House was none to pleased with the fully sourced and documented conclusions of these impeccably credentialed American academics. So they rolled out one of their professional obfuscators, in this case the insipid Tony Fratto, to set the record straight. According to Fratto, “People like Joe Stiglitz lack the courage to consider the cost of doing nothing and the cost of failure. One can’t even begin to put a price tag on the cost to this nation of the attacks of 9-11.” Fratto's comments are appalling in both their arrogance and contempt for the truth. "The cost of doing nothing, and the cost of failure?" Is he serious? The additional cost of doing nothing, at least in the case of Iraq, would be, well, nothing! Zip, nada, the big goose egg. Iraq had NOTHING to do with 9-11, so any cost associated with Iraq "containment" would have been as before. As for the cost of failure, that too would also be zero, since Iraq was an illegal, immoral war of choice. What we are all burdened with now is the cost of the failed policy of the president Fratto defends.

But Fratto didn't have the decency to stop there, he also had this gem, “It is also an investment in the future safety and security of Americans and our vital national interests. $3 trillion? What price does Joe Stiglitz put on attacks on the homeland that have already been prevented? Or doesn’t his slide rule work that way?” Again, Fratto wouldn't know the truth if it bit him on the backside. Our own government has stated that the war in Iraq has resulted in more instability and insecurity, not less. Investment? Remind me to never let Fratto make a stock deal for me. So, with no real facts of his own to refute Stiglitz's claims, the only thing Fratto can do is to try and impugn the reputation and patriotism of one of our most distinguished economists. I'd call that disgusting, but it's just another day in this White House. And perhaps the most Orwellian aspect of these statements is that this is from the administration that sold the war as one that would "pay for itself." All that Iraqi black gold was going to flow in, and it would only cost about 1.7 billion to patch the place back up! So, they were in the ball-park, only off by a factor of 2,000!

Well, since Fratto brought up the notion of investment, let's see exactly what 3 trillion dollars can buy:

~4,000 US servicemen (and women) killed in Iraq
~30,000 US servicemen (and women) wounded in Iraq
Upwards of 1,000,000 Iraqi deaths since the US-led invasion
3 - 5 million Iraqi refugees; either having fled the country or internally displaced
Much of Iraq physically devastated
Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Extraordinary Rendition, Waterboarding, etc, etc.
Stature and Standing of US in the world demolished

Well, you get the picture, and it isn't a pretty one, is it? What if we were to stay in Iraq for, say, 100 years, as presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has suggested might be necessary to achieve "victory" in Iraq? Those costs would make 3 trillion dollars look like walking around money. When such statements are made, and the staggering costs considered, one has to wonder, who among us of right mind could even consider handing four more years to the Republican party that brought us this President, and such a calamity.

The Torture Follies

2008-02-07T21:36:00.000-05:00

Revelations concerning the use of torture against detainees held by the US in the so-called global war on terror (GWOT) have been slowly but steadily leaking out over the past few years. The pace seems to have quickened in the past few weeks, so much so that in recent days the Bush Administration has been rather shockingly upfront in confirming various allegations about the CIA's use of waterboarding (aka water-torture) as an interrogation technique, perhaps as a way of getting out in front of and controlling what appears to be an evolving scandal. On Tuesday CIA Director Michael Hayden confirmed during Congressional testimony that the CIA had indeed waterboarded three detainees, but he also insisted that since those earlier interrogations the "technique" had not been used again. However, given this Administration's record of veracity on the question of torture, it would only seem prudent to take Hayden's assertions with a grain (or several) of salt.

Today the plot thickened even further. Statements from the very top of the Administration, from Tony Fratto in the White House, and from newly minted Attorney General Michael Mukasey, asserted that not only was waterboarding not torture, but that it was actually legal! Moreover, Fratto asserted that the President retained the authority to order its use again should certain conditions be met. The irony here is thicker than mud, as recall that Mukasey faced rather severe specific questioning concerning the legality of waterboarding during his Senate confirmation hearings. One wonders what those Democrats on the Senate judiciary committee who in the end agreed to support Mukasey's confirmation, such as NY's Chuck Shumer, are thinking tonight after his statements today?

All this takes place at a time when the Congress was beginning to feel that it had managed to, if not stop altogether, then at least put the brakes on the Administration's love affair with keeping the torture option available. Passage of the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act in 2006--which ban the use of harsh interrogation methods and require U.S. agencies to comply with the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions--would have appeared to have done just that. However, no one should underestimate the willingness of this Administration to ignore the law, simply look at the record of Bush's recent signing statements if you need convincing.

The most ironic and astonishing thing in all this, including the desire by some members of Congress to pass new legislation banning torture, is that torture is indeed illegal (and has been for decades) under US law! Congress did not, and does not need to pass ANY new laws to make torture a crime. Indeed, under existing US and International laws that have full jurisdiction in US courts, those implicated on suspicion of committing or abetting the commission of torture could be indicted and arrested tomorrow by agents of the Justice Department, assuming, that is, that those in the Justice Department with such authority had any intention of actually enforcing these existing laws and fulfilling the oaths they took to do so upon taking office. Clearly Mr. Mukasey had no such intent or he would have immediately opened a criminal investigation of the CIA after Hayden's public admission of the use of waterboarding by the agency, rather than squelching one.

While recent Congressional actions and legislation provide the impression that Congress is intent upon trying to hold the White House accountable on torture, the details are rather more murky. As noted above the prohibition on torture present in US law prior to the Detainee Treatment and Military Commission acts is unequivocal. Torture has been and is illegal, and the US is bound under that existing body of law to prosecute torturers. Now, the Detainee Treatment and Military Commissions acts contain language that either creates a defense for particular individuals implicated in torture, or forgives past violations of the Geneva Conventions, as Michael Ratner has pointed out. So, you be the judge, do these new acts strengthen or attempt to weaken the legal proscription of torture?

The actions of Congress in regard to the torture allegations (now admissions) have been frustratingly similar to its behavior in the face of other Administration wrongdoing, for example, the clear violations of FISA by the President's warrantless spy program. Rather than forcefully hold the administration accountable to existing law, the opposition party in Congress has repeatably sought to accomodate the law breaking so as not to appear "soft" on so-called Homeland Security issues (read terrorism). Thus, we are treated to statements from Congressional Democrats such as Senator Diane Feinstein (CA), "The national debate over torture will end if this amendment to place the CIA under the Army Field Manual becomes law. At that point, all U.S. government interrogations - military and civilian - would be conducted under the same rules and regulations, and eight specific techniques, including waterboarding, would be prohibited.” Feinstein still doesn't seem to understand that it is NOT a legislation problem. Here she falls for one of the Administration smoke-screens, that particular "techniques" need to be individually proscribed. No, the law bans ALL torture, or cruel and degrading treatment, a laundry list of prohibited conduct is not needed, just as murder is murder, regardless of the means used to carry it out. What is it about Feinstein's new legislation that she believes would "end the torture debate?" In deciding to torture detainees the Administration clearly thumbed its nose at the extensive, existing body of law against torture, what is it that makes Feinstein believe that this new bill will have any restraining effect? It won't, this is simply an "easy out" for the spineless Democrats, they can claim to have stood up to Bush on torture without really having done so. And so, undoubtedly, we have not seen the end of the torture debate, or for that matter, the torture.

State of Disgrace

2008-02-02T17:24:00.000-05:00

OK, I'll come right out and admit it, I can't watch these spectacles anymore. I'm already on blood pressure medication, and such shameful displays from our government as George Bush's final State of the Union address, would just send my diastolic through the roof. I'll read the transcript and a few choice stories about it after the fact, but sit through it? No, I would sooner have some dental work done sans novocaine.

What honest assessment could conclude other than that the state of our Union is nothing short of catastrophic? It seems now that a substantial fraction of Americans have finally come round to this conclusion, judging from recent polling that suggests upwards of 75% of Americans feel the country is on the wrong track. Disaffection with the status quo can also be seen in the much stronger interest in the Democratic presidential race than that of the Republicans. But, you would not necessarily know this if you simply listened to, and worse yet, believed, any of the drivel coming out of Mr. Bush's mouth the other night. Indeed, given the long, documented record of Bush and Co.'s outright lies, distortions and abuse of the truth, one can fairly ask the question, should the media even be obligated to cover such a pathetic spectacle? For in doing so, a strong argument can be made that they are simply providing a platform for Mr. Bush to continue to "catapult the propaganda" (his words). At any rate, perhaps a compromise would be to agree to cover the speech, but only with proper warning labels; "viewers be advised, this speaker has a long history of really shoveling the shit!"

And what of the Senators, House members, and other select government pooh-bahs in attendance? Is it really their "duty" to applaud, indeed, provide the occasional standing ovation, for this mendacious mediocrity? Was there anything he said that was worthy of praise? The gross overstatement of "success" in Iraq perhaps? A "success" that has destroyed a country, and precipitated the death of upwards of 1 million of its citizens. Worthy of applause? I think not. If I should have found myself so unfortunate as to be present in the House chamber, my hands would have been sore from being sat upon. Shame on any Congress member to applaud such suffering; shame, shame.

This version was really more of the same old nonsense: cut taxes, bring the 9/11 perpetrators to justice (really, again, after abandoning Bin Laden in Tora Bora for the invasion of Iraq)! Democratize the Middle East, blah, blah. Predictably, there was also the usual dose of fear. Perhaps Bush's most audacious attempt to browbeat Americans into giving up yet more of their rights was his "threat" to veto a Congressional extension of the FISA law if it does not also contain retroactive immunity for the telecom giants who aided and abetted Mr. Bush's illegal spying operation. Forgive me, I misspoke, the terrorist surveillance program (sounds a lot nicer that way doesn't it). As Keith Olbermann has eloquently pointed out in a recent commentary, this one is truly astonishing. Bush wants us to believe that he absolutely requires the new FISA to protect us--a claim, by the way, that has been thoroughly debunked, most recently by Richard Clarke--but he's willing to veto it if it doesn't also contain the telecom immunity provisions. So, by his own reasoning, he's willing to put defending the telecoms from expensive litigation ahead of protecting us from terrorists! By immunizing the telecoms Bush is providing a de facto immunity for himself and his cronies in crime. Viewed in that light, such a gambit should come as no surprise to most Americans, it simply evidences the impunity and arrogance which have been the hallmarks of this catastrophic administration.

Miracle Amish Heater!

2008-01-18T22:42:00.002-05:00

I was in Boston the other night on some work-related travel, and after a busy day and a nice dinner I went back to my hotel room to decompress a little before retiring. I usually don't read the USA Today, but since it had been delivered free of charge to the room, I thought I would just flip through and see what I had missed all day (if anything). Anyway, I came upon this full page ad in the sports section (shown here in these two images). The more I read through it the funnier it got. If you were not looking at the fine print you might at first think it was a story, right, it looks like a story, but the finer print indicates it is an ad. The title just really caught my attention, "Amish man's new miracle idea..." From the headline and picture you might think that this righteous Amish gentleman had just invented some new heater technology, and now he's bringing it to the rest of the world. Note the well dressed gent with the "coveted" Underwriters Laboratory sign (it actually says coveted in the caption)! However, if you guessed that you would be wrong! For one thing, it's incongruous, the Amish are famous for shunning technology, so how could he come up with some new heater concept if he wouldn't even turn a light bulb on in his lab! Heck, for that matter what lab, about the only thing he could have in there without violating half a dozen tenets of his faith would be a bunsen burner.

Well, if you read the fine print, and look at the rest of the ad (pictured below), you will see that they are in fact hawking heaters, the "Heat Surge" fireless flame (whatever that means) in fact, and from the China coast to boot (wherever that is)! But, the wacky thing is that you don't buy the heaters, you get the heaters for "free" if you just purchase a genuine Amish mantle! According to the ad, the Heat Surge is a $249 value, but if you purchase the genuine Amish mantles, then you get the heaters for free, and it just so happens that the mantles cost $249 too! You have to act fast though, because they are imposing a strict limit of only two per household, wouldn't want someone to get too warm I guess. Apparently "entire communities of Amish craftsmen are straining to keep up with winter demands..."

If we go back to the headline, one wonders what the Amish man's miracle idea was to begin with, teaming up with the UL suit in the main photo perhaps? I like the photo on the right showing a pair of heaters being shipped out by horse and buggy! Also note the US map with the Frigid, Cold and Frost zones, with the Frost zone extending all the way down to balmy Miami.

I don't know if it's funny or sad the way that these advertisers try to "sell" using the Amish "brand." Also, the ad is so over-the-top in almost every respect that one wonders if it's all just a scam and the Amish are not really making the mantles. There is a web-site, but if you look you will see that "mantels" is mispelled, and the English usage is poor in spots, so that suggests to me that they may just be trying to scam on the good reputation of the Amish as excellent craftsmen.

Drive-by Spam

2008-01-13T17:12:00.000-05:00

Since a few months ago, this is what my driveway looks like after only a few days! Suddenly, and I do mean suddenly, we have become the target for every flier, news-daily, pamphlet, you name it! I don't subscribe to any of these periodicals, and in general I don't even look at them, but I do have to pick them up and recycle them, or throw them in the trash because they have gotten soaking wet (which is at least 50% of the time). Although it may seem trivial, there is literally something there everyday, so it becomes a pain to have to deal with it.

I guess I first noticed the increase in these pamplets just prior to the end of daylight savings time. I'm not sure what triggered the onslaught, because prior to then I can only remember getting two such fliers in a week, both local Laurel community newspapers. I didn't read those regularly either, but at least it wasn't a major effort keeping the driveway clear. I've only seen the deliverers of this "driveway spam" on several occasions, but never when they were gracing my driveway with their wares. One time was further up my block, I was driving the other way, and the guy was just hurling them over the roof of his car. Apparently the acceptable "drop zone" is anywhere within about 20 feet of the end of the driveway. Perhaps there's a way to get the deliveries stopped, but I haven't quite reached the level of frustration required to get it sorted. Anyway, if you happen to be driving by my house or pulling into the driveway, watch yourself as you get out, you just might have to duck an incoming pamphlet!

Don't get fooled again...

2008-01-11T21:25:00.000-05:00

Early Monday morning in the Straits of Hormuz several Iranian Navy patrol boats approached or encountered US warships. The subsequent media accounts of the encounter are now well known, and, undoubtedly many Americans believe that the Iranian ships approached the US ships with aggressive intent. The standard media narrative perpetuated by CNN, Fox News, CBS News and others, is that the US ships were within seconds of opening fire on the Iranian boats, and that the Iranians had broadcast a message threatening the US vessels with explosives. Several high-ranking officials in the Bush administration commented on the Iranian "provocation," including Bush himself, and attempted to use the incident to further support the notion that Iran represents an imminent threat to peace in the region. Aside from the quoting of anonymous Pentagon and administration sources, the primary evidence supporting this narrative were rather unspecific video images of the Iranian boats as well as a partly garbled radio transmission suggesting some threatening action. However, nowhere in the video is there any direct evidence of the boats "running at" the US ships. And the audio "threat" is of such dubious quality that it is hard to take it very seriously. This is all beginning to sound like another fictitious naval "attack," that ostensibly occurred in the Gulf of Tonkin, and that was used to justify the bombing of North Vietnam, isn't it?

Now today we learn that the US version of events is indeed unraveling. Gareth Porter reported today several startling revelations concerning the incident:

1) It appears that US officials spliced the audio containing the alleged "threat" onto the video of the patrol boats, in an attempt to suggest that the threat came directly from the Iranian boats. It appears that such audio "chatter" among ships and boats in this war zone is rather common, perhaps not surprisingly so, given the nature of hostilities.

2) US naval commanders in the region confirm that none of the US ship commanders felt their ships to be threatened and felt no need to issue any warnings to the Iranian boats that they would be fired upon.

3) The Iranian government has released videotape (with audio) that suggests a much less confrontational encounter between the US ships and Iranian boats. Just for laughs, this is what one of the Iranian boats looks like. It really is a boat, and not a ship! While fast patrol boats can represent a real threat if armed with torpedoes or anti-ship missiles, these boats are not in that category, and it is difficult to believe that a seasoned US ship commander would regard such a craft as an imminent threat to the safety of his ship.

Based on these revelations it now appears rather likely that the episode was "engineered" by the administration for the purposes of attempting to escalate the rhetoric against Iran, perhaps to politically support Bush's weakened position with his Mideast allies in the advent of the release of the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) indicating that Iran had stopped its nuclear weapons program. It seems reasonable to presume that the Iranian boats did encounter or approach the Navy vessels, but that nothing particularly sinister happened. The event was then seized upon by the Bush administration for its own political purposes, and the servile US media were more than happy to run with the story and blow it completely out of proportion.

Indeed, it appears that it is easier to dupe the mainstream US media than it is to steal the proverbial candy from the baby. How many times has the Bush administration fed the media a pack of lies, and had those lies spread across the front pages? Let's just name a few, WMD in Iraq; Saddam in cahoots with Al Qaeda; and most recently, Iran on the verge of nuclear weapons! Based on these examples, one can safely conclude that the media consider it their duty to simply report whatever Government officials tell them to report, with essentially no independent verification. And the more confrontational and sensational the "story," then so much the better for their ratings. This is more like the behavior of a State-run press, rather than a free one. After the WMD fiasco a number of major media outlets expressed regrets for "missing" the story, and published their obligatory mea culpas, and then it was back to business as usual, "..let's get fooled again."

What other insights can we draw from this incident? Several worthy of deeper inspection are the deeply ingrained stereotypes and double standards exhibited by our media, but also by many of us with regard to other peoples and nations. Consider, for example, the response that would ensue if Iranian naval vessels were to take up patrolling positions in international waters off the coast of say, New York or Washington? We know what the response would be, it would be considered an act of war and it is not hard to imagine that hostilities would inevitably result. Nevertheless, we expect that when we send large Naval task forces into the territorial waters of another nation, a nation we have threatened and whose neighbor we have invaded, that they should show the utmost restraint and respect. The double standard, the arrogance of our position is truly astonishing. Only the brain-washed or willfully blind could fail to see it. Unless we can overcome such deep-seated prejudices, our future as a Nation will continue to be filled with war.