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.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Guitar tracks
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.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Bad Banking
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.
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.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Depressed
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.
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.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
History!!
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!!
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!!
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Spreadin' it Around
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.
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.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Cratering Party
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)