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!
Monday, December 28, 2009
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Barack Obama: A Mighty Wind
A little more than a year ago, on election night 2008, I blogged about being proud that the people had elected Barack Obama and expressed the hope that now the country might be able to seek a new direction, a more inclusive, progressive and peaceful direction. Sadly, it took only a year for any illusions regarding the direction the President would choose to be finally dispensed with. While Obama's recent decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan might be thought of as the last straw, it was becoming clear much sooner that Obama is perhaps the biggest political wind-bag to blow into Washington in many a decade. On virtually every major (and minor!) decision, Obama has demonstrated with his actions, the only true indicator of intent, that his is an administration of the status-quo, not one of change. It might not be so deflating if he had run a more "technocratic" campaign, but no, Brand Obama was all about "the change we need," and the "audacity of hope," a claim to change the way Washington works, etc., etc. It must now be clear to all but the most deluded groupies that this was mostly all smoke and mirrors, merely reflecting the way political campaigns are executed these days. That is, one says to the people whatever one needs to say to get elected, but upon election one governs at the behest of America's corporate oligarchy, regardless of what was said. Where to begin?
It didn't take long for my hopes to begin to fade. You see, what with the extreme economic crisis, financial corruption on a massive scale, and all this prior to Obama's inauguration, it should have been pretty clear to a "candidate of change," that some new economic thinking was in order, or that, at a minimum, those who stood by, or at worst, collaborated in the economic dissolution of the country, should not be entrusted to manage the aftermath. So, naturally, our candidate of change installed an economic team made up of precisely the same crowd who had either placed the charcoal in the grill, fanned the flames, or had watched happily while it all went up in smoke. The prime culprits here being Obama's chief economist Lawrence Summers and the current Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. No change spotted here. More recently, because of his superb job in doling out trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to his banking buddies, "bailout" Ben Bernanke, the same Ben Bernanke who had been completely asleep at the Fed tiller as an economic tsunami engulfed the nation, was, rather than shown the door, nominated to another four year stint at the head of the Federal Reserve! To understand why Bernanke should absolutely be replaced as Fed chairman, see the comprehensive indictment by Nomi Prins. In nominating Bernanke for another term Obama noted the desire to "reassure the financial sector." Reassure them of what!? That the money spigot wouldn't be turned off? Maybe the financial sector could do with some assurances that change was coming down the pike! No, definitely not change.
Further to our economic mess, as billions of public funds were being transferred to the banks, we were reminded over and over that this would not be allowed to happen again, and that "business as usual" was finished. We were told that new regulations would get tough with the banks and other corporate crooks. Well, what happened? Guess what, it's back to business as usual! Indeed, Wall Street outfits like Goldman-Sachs will out-do themselves in corporate bonuses this year, scarcely twelve months after literally walking off with the public's strongbox. While talk of new regulatory authority has been heard in Congress, at the moment there has been no new legislation to address the incredible corruption that is now endemic in the US and international financial system. At present Obama appears to be AWOL on this issue. One might think that perhaps, as a first start, it would be prudent to go back to the old regulatory regime that was in place prior to the "financialization" of the US economy. I'm thinking Glass-Steagall here, that piece of quaint, Depression-era legislation that actually worked! Imagine that, it kept banker and corporate rapaciousness somewhat in check. You guessed it, naturally there can be no return to such "old" schemes. Summers and Geithner will see to that, it wouldn't be "prudent" to go back to an "over-regulation" of the banks. Remember, these guys are Obama's guys. Still no change spotted.
Chief among Obama's campaign rhetoric was talk about overcoming the "cynicism" in Washington, and changing the way business is done. He talked endlessly about removing the political sway of lobbyists, and incorporating a new openness in government. Let's take a look at these goals in the context of the administration's health care reform agenda. Well, before even proposing a plan Obama met with insurance and health care industry executives many times in the White House, presumably to try and reach some accommodation with them regarding reform. He also cut a deal with Pharma, the pharmaceutical industry trade group, in some attempt to try and "bring them on board" to the reform effort. When word of such meetings hit the press, Obama's White House, rather than engaging in the new openness, tried to conceal the White House visitor logs from the public. Before the fight had even begun, Obama was seeking to make accommodation with the pharmaceutical lobbyists. Was this necessary, an end to the cynical ways of the past? Doesn't sound like it to me. If anything is clear from the health care reform saga it is that Obama, and the Democratic party in general, has had as its first agenda a desire to not upset the insurance and health care delivery industries. Rather than seeking to enact changes to benefit the public at large, the primary constraint seems to be to appease the health care insurance lobby at all costs. More of the change we need? Sorry to say so, but I don't see it.
During the campaign Obama repeatedly, and rightly in my opinion, attacked McCain and the Bush administration with regard to their approach to civil liberties and foreign affairs, suggesting that once elected he would reverse the trajectory established by Bush, Cheney and the Republican Party in these areas. So, after a year in office what can we see. On virtually every decision with regard to civil liberties, the Obama administration has argued for the same policies and interpretations that Bush so infamously enacted. Bush notoriously expanded the State's Secret privilege, to shield from view and immunize virtually any government decision or conduct that might reflect poorly on the administration. As Glenn Greenwald has clearly articulated, the Obama administration has adopted exactly the same interpretation of "... these same secrecy and immunity weapons." Even in cases where the Obama administration had nothing to do with the original conduct, he has sided with the Bush interpretation. Such conduct is deeply troubling, and the fact that it goes against the rhetoric he used to "sell" himself on the campaign trail makes it even more disturbing. While Obama has seemingly moved to close the extra-legal prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, at present it remains opens, as do numerous other extra-legal CIA "black sites," that Obama apparently is content to see remain open. He has also re-affirmed the right, first decreed under Bush, to detain essentially anyone deemed to be a "terrorist," or "enemy," indefinitely. While he has appeared to place some additional legal restraints on such detention, the basic principle of indefinite detention appears to be fine with Obama, and this from a one-time Constitutional scholar. Based on the campaign rhetoric, it's hard to argue that this represents significant change.
Another early decision that was very disturbing from one who had professed to bring about profound change was his decision to keep Robert Gates on as Secretary of Defense. Gates was Bush's choice to replace Rumsfeld, and while just about anyone would be an improvement over "the Donald," that's hardly a ringing endorsement. Gates was, and still appears to be, one of the last of the Cold Warriors. His public service career is exceptional in that he was wrong about virtually every major international development during the time he served at the CIA. So why would Obama see the need to keep in office such a mediocrity? Was it all about the bipartisanship? An effort to placate "unplacatable" conservative wing-nuts in the Republican Party? We see how well that's turned out. If Obama was going to implement a really new direction in US foreign policy, then why enlist an old Cold-war, Bush-appointed re-tread to do it? After all, it seems pretty clear that Gates never met a war he didn't like. And if it was one thing that separated Obama from the other presidential wannabes, it was his apparent anti-war credentials, and while this was prefaced with opposition to "dumb wars," such as Iraq, one certainly got the sense from the rhetoric that Obama would chart a new direction in foreign affairs.
Which brings us to the last straw, Obama's recent, awful, despicable, Afghanistan speech. Let's start with the location. While nothing can compare with George W. Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" photo-op, Obama's decision to use US Army cadets as cheering "props" to announce his escalation of the Afghanistan war has disturbing similarities. Then consider the whole frame of the speech. Bush's neo-cons could have written it. It represented a virtually complete acceptance of the Bush rationale for the "global war on terrorism," all the tired, refuted canards about how US "security" is threatened by, as an Afghan woman put it, "... by those skinny, lice covered, illiterate, dirty men in those craggy hills of this broken country?" From the man who brought us the "audacity of hope," all we got was a "dose of fear." We could have gotten that from George W. Bush, and at least we would have known what we were getting. And then, towards the end he had the audacity to suggest to us that we should come together, in unity, around this ludicrous policy? A policy that at the same time would both escalate and set a withdrawal date? That we should just further bankrupt our future and ruin another generation of over-deployed soldiers, not to speak of the innocents that are sure to die in Afghanistan? No thanks Mr. President, we can see the cynicism in that, and we're not buying. We got all this, but not before invoking more of the worn out, ridiculous, and deadly myths of American exceptionalism; we don't seek to dominate, we don't seek to occupy, blah, blah, and this from a man who should and probably does know better, but, who, ever the political cynic, was happy to try them out again on the American public. Amazingly, Obama will be presented with the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize in less than a week's time. Truly, war is peace. Change? hardly.
Obama's first term is scarcely 1/4 over and already he has done enormous damage to efforts to redress the nightmare of eight years of Bush - Cheney rule. He has adamantly decided to "look Forward," and has made it clear that bringing accountability to those who ran roughshod over the Constitution is not among his interests. Rarely have I ever seen a situation where the rhetoric of a political figure has been so at odds with his actions. It is hard not to reach the conclusion that Obama pulled the wool over many people's eyes. How destructive is this? It represents a powerful debasement of the political process, even when compared to Republican malfeasance, and simply further breeds the cynicism that he ostensibly claimed to be ending. Obama seems to be intent to drive away most of the support that brought him to office. Almost unbelievably, he seems to be governing at the whim of precisely those interests that he railed against in the campaign. He may still have time to reverse some of these trends, but based on his actions from one year in office I have seen no indications that he plans to do so. No, it seems Obama is basically Bush-lite, but with the dangerous ability to craft persuasive sentences and to deliver them as if he really believes them. Or perhaps he does believe them, but is simply so weak as to be unable to stand up for what he believes in. Either way, Obama and the Democratic Party had seriously think about the path they are traveling down, because for their sake and that of the Country, it's looking like a dead end.
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.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Out of Thin Air
What is money? It sounds like a simple question, right? Better yet, where does money come from? Doesn't it come from, as my wife jokingly said, "... the ATM?" While you can get money from an ATM, that is clearly not it's ultimate source. In reality the concept of money is not all that complicated, however, I'm willing to bet that many readers have some serious misconceptions about it. I would also argue that this is no accident. For the most part we are not taught nor encouraged to think in detail about the more fundamental concepts around money, and more broadly, economics. I think this is partly so because the corporate elites in our society, those who control most of the money and its power are more than happy for us to stay ignorant. What better way to push through outrageous bailouts, bonuses and job cuts than when most people are content to shrug their shoulders and mutter, "well, these guys are really smart, right, they must know what they are doing, right?" Moreover, if people understood better, understood the outrageous injustices present in our economic and monetary systems they might get so pissed off as to march off and change it! After all, we still live in a political democracy, and with enough mobilization and commitment the will of the people can still be a powerful force.
So, this will begin a series of posts where I attempt to focus in on some common misconceptions about our economic system, and why I think it needs to be reorganized around the needs of people, and not the needs of money. Before beginning I have to confess to harboring from a rather young age a strong dose of skepticism around the wonders of "free market" economics. In college I remember taking a first economics course and upon finishing deciding I could not stomach any more. I think this revulsion was largely a combination of two factors. First, it often seemed that the simple models of how our market driven system was supposed to work were so crude and simplistic as to be virtually worthless when applied in the real world, and second, even in spite of this apparent crudeness the implication was that these economic "laws" were somehow akin to physics. The assumption being that they held as much predictive power as, for example, the laws of gravity. This is very serious indeed, because I think many people are of the belief that they are natural laws and thus could not be changed, when nothing could be further from the truth. Anyway, let's get back to the topic at hand, money.
Let's start with a somewhat silly, but rather illustrative example. A group of 10 people are midway on a trip across a vast desert when their vehicle fails and they find themselves stranded. After stretching their legs for a bit the vehicle suddenly explodes and all the provisions they had with them are destroyed. They decide that in order to survive an "economy" will have to be set up. They find 100 pennies amongst the whole group so they decide to issue 10 to each as their new "currency." Each agrees they will work to provide some useful service or product that will help them survive. Joe decides that he will make simple pottery vessels to store and transport water. He is able to make ten in a week, and he sells nine for 1 penny each and keeps the tenth for his own use. He uses his money to buy necessary items from his colleagues. The pots work well but break rather easily. Joe starts to get the hang of making his pots and he finds he can double his production, making now 20 a week. His mates now would like to buy two each but they do not have enough pennies to pay the previous price of 1 penny per pot. Joe is faced with a dilemma, he will have to cut his price in half if he is to sell his pots. His colleagues face a similar situation, price deflation, and must cut their production, or rather, have no incentive to increase production. This is a result of scarcity of their "money" supply. The group endures and eventually multiplies, but the total number of pennies remains the same. Joe cannot feed his offspring on the poor income from his pots. He has the capacity to produce more, but is shackled by the "tight" money supply. Joe asks to borrow pennies from a friend, but he also needs his money and will only agree to lend if Joe pays him interest. But are there enough pennies in the money supply to pay this additional interest fee? The money supply is fixed. If one of the group were able to lend his coins in this way, using compound interest, it is not hard to see that eventually this one individual would own the entire money supply, all the others would be flat broke and probably in debt bondage to the one "banker." If this scenario sounds a little bit like the beginnings of industrial capitalism, when the money supply was tied to a limited, controlled commodity, like gold, then you are right. Those in charge of such a tight money supply understand that they can control everyone and that over time more and more of the money will accrue to them if they lend it with interest compounded annually.
Now, consider changing the scenario slightly. Rather than fussing about the pennies, one of the group volunteers to act as group accountant and goods merchant. He will issue a small wooden stick to record the production of a good or service by his mates, and they will bring their goods to him for distribution and purchase. The group agrees that the accountant should be "paid" for this service, so he gives himself 10 sticks per week as a salary. Now, when Joe produces a pot, he is paid a stick, and there is no arbitrary limit on how many pots he can produce, he just gets a money stick for each one. He now has an obvious incentive to increase production. The accountant can easily make sticks from the trees and bushes. The sticks themselves are plentiful and have no intrinsic value, but they keep account of the production of goods and services and can be traded for them, they are the group's "money." All the others do the same, as they increase their production their money supply grows along with it, they all have more purchasing power and can now buy multiple pots from Joe at the penny per pot price he initially set. There is no inflation or deflation, prices can stay stable, and the amount of money simply grows with the increase in production of goods and services. The stranded group finds it is able to prosper and multiply.
The above examples are borrowed, with some paraphrasing, from the book The Web of Debt, by Ellen Hodgson Brown. I read this book recently and was frankly astounded with how well these simple examples highlighted both the basic concepts around money as well as the stark differences in systems where the money itself is thought of as the thing of value rather than simply the productive capacity of every individual. In the first example, the productive capacity is strangled because there is not enough money to go around. Naturally, under such conditions it is easier for the supply of money to be unscrupulously controlled by a small minority of the community, enriching itself at the expense of the rest of the group. Sound familiar? The second example shows what money really is, it is just an agreed upon system to account for the production and distribution of goods and services, it has no intrinsic value of itself, but serves as a medium of trade and accounting, providing the lubrication for the gears of commerce. When money comes into existence with the production of goods and services there is never a shortage of it and the supply of money simply grows with the increase in production, so that supply and demand increase together, without price inflation or depression of output.
Another paradox that comes into sharp focus in the above example is the so-called "Impossible Contract." Put simply, when money is lent at interest the money supply is not increased to cover the additional costs of the interest. The result is that there is never enough money to pay off the interest, or put another way, there will always be losers. Someone will always have to go to debtors prison. The system sets up an economic dog-eat-dog mentality, with the bankers eventually controlling all the money. The Impossible Contract was understood by many ancient cultures and is perhaps partly responsible for the ancient proscriptions against usury, and Christ's famous eviction of the "money changers" from the temple. Closer to home, it was also recognized by Benjamin Franklin, who was a proponent of state "banks" that would lend and spend money, without interest, directly into the community. His own State of Pennsylvania having successfully done this in the years prior to the American Revolution.
But perhaps the most astounding revelation in Hodgson-Brown's book is that the right to "coin" money, a right designated to Congress in the US Constitution, has been given over almost completely to private, for profit banks, the principal culprit being the Federal Reserve System (or Fed, for short). The Fed and the US Treasury department have for years reported several indicators of the US money supply. The simplest of these just count the notes and coins in circulation, and at most account for only a few percent of the total money in the system. The vast majority, measured as M3, represents loans issued by commercial banks (including the Fed). Where does this loan money come from? The answer is that it comes out of thin air! When a bank makes a loan it simply adds an accounting entry on its books for the amount of the loan (and not including the interest to be paid). Normally when we think of borrowing and lending we are thinking about things that already exist, like your neighbor's milk or eggs, but the banks don't actually have the vast majority of money that they lend! It is really your money! Your agreement to pay back the loan based on your productive capacity, but with additional enormous interest costs! The banks are largely just unproductive middlemen who extract an enormous cost from all of us as we go about our productive lives. Curiously, the Fed is no longer reporting the value of M3. Now I wonder why that could be? Let's look at the impossible contract again. So where does the additional money come from that must eventually cover the interest charges? Well, it can only come from additional bank loans, but these are also issued with interest due, so we have a pyramid scheme of gargantuan proportions, that is slowly but steadily inflating the money supply, and simultaneously devaluing the purchasing power of every dollar in your pocket. If by now you are muttering that I must be crazy, just look at this figure which shows the value of the US dollar over time. Also note that from the time of the Federal Reserve Act the value of the dollar in real purchasing power has been steadily declining, as it must based on the above reasoning.
Our present monetary and economic system is slowing but steadily impoverishing the public at the expense of a small minority of private banking and corporate fiefdoms. As the simple examples demonstrate, the system cannot endure, and indeed appears now to be teetering near the verge of collapse. While many additional factors also contribute to our present, unjust system that has "monetized" the productive capacity of the people and turned it over to a private minority, it seems clear that a first step towards regaining control of our economic future is to regain control of the monetary system for the benefit of all and not the enrichment of a small minority of parasitic "bankers." More about that to come.
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.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Extraordinary Injustice
It is likely that most Americans still do not recognize the name of Maher Arar. Based on yesterday's decision by a majority of judicial, boot-licking bureaucrats of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit--to call them judges immeasurably degrades the term--it is likely that few more will recognize it. This infamous decision in the Arar saga does much to illustrate the depths to which justice and the rule of law have sunk within the United States. Mr. Arar is a Canadian citizen who in September 2002 while en-route to Canada through the US was kidnapped--no other term adequately describes his plight--by agents of the United States government on the flimsiest of evidence and "rendered" to Syria where he was detained for a year and brutally tortured. As in Orwell's "1984," words themselves are abused, thus "war is peace," and in a similar vein, kidnapping becomes "rendering." Released after a year in Syrian detention Arar was neither charged with a crime nor offered any explanation or apology for what effectively was the ruining of his life. Read more about the details of his treatment in Glenn Greenwald's column here.
A subsequent investigation by the Canadian government confirmed that Arar was completely innocent and resulted in it accepting its share of blame in providing the US government with erroneous intelligence on Arar, although it maintained that Canadian officials did not improperly acquiesce in his abduction. He was offered a formal apology by the Canadian government and received a cash settlement to provide some redress for the treatment he received and the violation of his rights. Since then Arar has sought redress in the US courts in an attempt to bring some accountability to the individuals and government responsible for his abduction and ordeal. His efforts have so far been in vain, with the most recent setback provided by the judicial rubber-stamp of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Indeed, in a despicable display of imperial arrogance the United States still refuses Arar entry into the country, and he was even forced to provide testimony to a Congressional inquiry regarding rendition via video link! Details of Arar's attempts to bring suit in US courts can be found here at the Center for Constitutional Rights' (CCR) website.
Given such circumstances, it is appropriate that Lady Justice is blindfolded, so as to hide the tears that must be streaming down her face when such decisions are rendered. The issues in the Arar case are so stark because if the Law cannot protect a completely innocent man; if the Law can simply be abrogated by the powerful; if wrongs once perpetrated and brought to light cannot be fairly adjudicated and grievances redressed by the Law, then what is the point of having laws to begin with? We are as medieval serfs helpless in the face of the arbitrary power of kings. It was against such power that the US Constitution was in part crafted, but these so-called justices of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals make a mockery of the Constitution and have long forgotten the meaning of justice. Let's read them out, the roll-call of judicial shame on the Second Circuit; Dennis Jacobs (Chief Judge), Joseph McLaughlin, Jose Cabranes, Reena Raggi, Richard Wesley, Peter Hall, and Debra Livingston. Shame on all of you. These pathetic apologists for the National Security State comprised the seven judge majority that dismissed the Arar appeal. They should all turn in their robes in shame. I commend the four judges who penned dissenting opinions in the case; Guido Calabresi, Rosemary Pooler, Robert Sack, and Barrington Parker. At least there are some judges remaining who can see right from wrong through the legalistic mumbo-jumbo.
The seven judge majority essentially ruled that the US government can detain anyone under virtually any conditions, can transfer them abroad, even with the knowledge that they will likely be tortured, if it simply says that it is doing so for reasons of national security. It does not need to convince a judge that such statements are valid and have substance. It is simply enough for the government to assert that it is for reasons of national security. Having done so, the victim has no avenue for redress of grievances in US courts. None. This ruling grants to the executive branch and the President the same power of kings that the US Constitution was crafted to abolish! Agents of the government can act with virtually absolute power and absolute impunity. If that is not cause for concern, then I don't know what is. And these justices took an oath to uphold the Constitution? Have these so-called judges even read the Bill of Rights? Ironically, the majority argued that the separation of powers created in the Constitution did not allow them to intervene on the Executive's foreign policy powers in this case. But what of legality, the judiciary are supposed to uphold the law and provide a check on the executive. If not to protect innocents, then under what circumstances would the Court see fit to intercede?
Perhaps equally disturbing has been the Obama administrations stance on the so-called state secrets privilege. Recently, the Obama Justice Department has argued for exactly the same interpretation of the privilege as that favored by the Bush administration. It is hard to reach the conclusion that the Executive branch under Bush and now Obama is simply attempting to erect a permanent shield between itself and the law. Such actions are anathema to the rule of law and can only hasten the demise of already crumbling democratic institutions.
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.
Friday, October 2, 2009
Olympic Wing-nuts!
Alright, this should be the last time that anyone should have to listen to the tortured ravings of right-wingers spewing forth about their patriotic love of America. All the self-styled leaders of conservadom at present; Limbaugh, Beck, Kristol, Drudge (pick your poison), have been literally dancing with glee about Chicago's failed bid to host the 2016 Summer Games. All these mental midgets (and many others), were literally beside themselves with rapture that America's entry to host the Games was rejected. We get it guys (and gals), deep down you just apparently really despise America, so let's not hear ever again a single word about your patriotic fervor. Not one single word, ever!
It's actually really sad when you consider that this is about the only thing the rabid right has to puff out its chest about, the Olympics, a sporting event. It's really quite pathetic. Just consider a couple of their recent ravings. Weekly Standard editor John McCormack, who apparently routinely walks around in some alternative universe devoid of reality, crowed, "As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation, I'm glad that the Obama White House's jingoist rhetoric and attempt to pay back Chicago cronies at the expense of undermining our relationships with our allies failed..." Keep in mind that this drivel is from the editor of the very same paper that cheered and beat the drums for Bush's illegal invasion and domination of Iraq! Iraq, as in, another nation. Second, what does supporting your nation's one bid to host the Olympics have to do with undermining relationships with its allies?? Oh, that's right, nothing! It's hard to imagine how anyone could concoct a more ridiculous utterance. McCormack wouldn't know reality if it was a bat that someone used to beat him over the head. Then we have this headline from Matt Drudge, "WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND. THE EGO HAS LANDED." Only in the tiny mind of Matt Drudge could a small, insular, idiosyncratic clique of old men (the IOC) be confused with the WORLD. Apparently this entire wing-nut crowd is functioning in the few-neuron regime.
As most sanguine commentators have noted, the single most important factor in the decision to award the games to Rio is that the Games have never been hosted in a South American country. Sorry folks, no World rejection of Obama, no undermining of relationships with allies. South America never had Olympics, Rio in South America, get it? I didn't think so.
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.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Failure to Learn
The hubris knows no bounds. The United States is now approaching eight years of its Afghanistan adventure, with a thoroughly predictable outcome. Defeat. The Taliban were so easily "defeated" initially because, as indigenous forces are wont to do, they simply melted back into the country-side, and decided to bide their time, to fight another day. Six years of waiting and gathering strength, coupled with six years of American neglect and incompetence have now provided the conditions where the Taliban feel they will be able to reassert control over much of the country. What did the United States do with it's initial "victory?" Did it turn the bulk of its aid to Afghanistan to economic and social development for that desperately poor country, to win the support of the population? Did it support the nascent democratic organizations and institutions that had existed before the Taliban, to empower these groups to lead the political and economic development of the country? No, the United States did none of these things. The bulk of its aid remains military assistance. It installed a corrupt government, and did nothing to reduce the influence of warlords and militias on average Afghanis. It routinely resorted to massive firepower, including indiscriminate air-strikes, when engaging Taliban militants, with the predictable killing of many innocent Afghan civilians. The latter has done much to turn the population against the American project and is a veritable recruiting boon to the Taliban. One would be hard-pressed to devise a more counterproductive strategy.
While the US has made no end of mistakes with regard to its policy in Afghanistan, the most important mistake can be traced back to the Bush administration's decision to react to the September 11, 2001 attacks with a primarily military response. The solution to the extremism that fosters terrorism is not a military one, it is primarily political, educational and social. Terrorists themselves are best dealt with in the context of international law enforcement. A heavy-handed militaristic response simply exacerbates the conditions which lead to radicalization and extremism.
However, as a self-styled sole-superpower, the United States tends to approach much of its foreign policy from a military point of view. This is where its perceived strength lies. On the other hand the US is relatively weak politically. Whereas talk of democracy is always heard, what sort of development model does the US really have to offer? As in Afghanistan, much of what passes for foreign "aid" is used to further the interest of American corporations, or simply ends up enriching a small minority at the expense of the impoverished majority. Much of the developing world no longer sees the appeal of such an "American Plan."
So what is the US really doing in Afghanistan? And how is it that it's government and political leaders could even consider a further escalation so soon after the disastrous and ongoing occupation of Iraq, not to mention the shameful history of the Vietnam war? Are our leaders incapable of learning anything? Or are they simply blinded by imperialistic hubris and the myth of American exceptionalism? Even a man as obviously capable and intelligent as President Obama seems unable to escape the suffocating shackles of the "mainstream" consensus that cries for "victory" in Afghanistan. The ostensible argument offered by Obama recently is that the US cannot allow a "safe haven" for terrorists in Afghanistan. But what does that mean? The argument is completely ludicrous. Moreoever, how is it possible to deny "safe havens" to terrorists in general? Would one need to occupy the entire world? Throughout history Afghanistan has been the "graveyard" of empires, what is it about American hubris that leads us to think we can impose our will on this country when all others have failed?
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?
Saturday, September 26, 2009
"No Matter What Your Purpose Is..."
What happens when the cops are the criminals? What happens when lawless cops with truncheons, mace, tear-gas, hobnailed boots, and "less-lethal ammunition" decide that you are no longer allowed to simply walk the streets of your own campus? This is what happens. Welcome to the Police State known as the University of Pittsburgh campus.
The only criminals evident in this video are the "rioting police," whose Chief apparently decided that he had the authority to suspend the US constitution, and, by fiat, to deny the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The segments of the video where the police commands are being broadcast are truly chilling. Where is the option for redress of grievances as it is declared that, "The Chief of Police has declared this an unlawful assembly." By what authority does the Chief of Police suspend the highest law in the land, and deny people the right to peacefully walk freely about? Then, "no matter what your purpose, you must disperse..." One can only guess at what the phrase, "other police action," is meant to suggest. No doubt a baton to the head, a taser dart to the chest or a rubber bullet to the back. This is the most chilling type of arbitrary authority imaginable, and would be unthinkable in a true democracy.
Is it really necessary for black-clad stormtroopers to invade the peaceful University of Pittsburgh campus, and attack students just walking and gathering? True, the G-20 summit is taking place in Pittsburgh, but that gives Police the right to riot and attack innocent citizens? The behavior of these cops is simply appalling, but who does one turn to when the cops are the criminals? What justice will these common thugs face?
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?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)