America Now--Roman Empire Then

Subscribe here to receive updates on the parallels between the Roman Empire and America now, including responses to current events.

Jul 27, 2010, We are not a well-governed society

We are not a well-governed society, and that's our problem. We are at the mercy of corporations run for profits, enabled by a privatized congress that

Permalink -- click for full blog post "We are not a well-governed society"

Jul 27, 2010, War Absurdity

What would happen if Obama said, 'Okay, I get it,' and insists on winding down the Afghan war as quickly as possible? The right wing would be predictably outraged. However, the large majority of the electorate, according to polls, feels the war wasn't justified, or worth fighting. Could the right-wing media machine whip up enough rage to convert majority anti-war sentiment to pro war?

Almost everyone, after slogging through Wikileaks' released war documents, has already pointed out the absurdity of the Afghan war. It's the hopelessness of the enterprise that comes through, the sheer complicated, mindless destruction on all sides. The Taliban is horrible, the Afghan government is corrupt, incompetent and almost as brutal; the US and NATO are efficient killing-machines, even when policy dictates restraint to protect civilians.

And then, there is Pakistan and its ISI, often labeled "Pakistan's CIA." The ISI is Pakistan's CIA, FBI and military Intel units all rolled into one: it's closely linked to Pakistan's army. The ISI, in these released documents, has been openly implicated in supporting elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Neither a revelation, nor a confirmation, it just makes public what the US military thinks: that its ally, Pakistan, is playing both sides. Many experts on the Af-Pak war have said so for a long time.

This may be changing, because now Pakistanis realize: the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and its allies work together. Both of the latter have attacked the Pakistani Army and the government as its enemy. The army has waged all out war against parts of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier--but it has not attacked others. Why?

Elements within the ISI have been Taliban patrons ever since the US abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's. They see factions within it as useful tools in their contest with vastly larger and wealthier India. A friendly Afghanistan would protect Pakistan's rear. They may be right: their strategy may pay off, when the US leaves.

It's not a question of 'if' the US will leave, but whether it will begin to leave in 2011 as Obama promises, and whether this 'beginning' will amount to really getting out, or not. The sheer, numbing reality of this stupid, awful war, as illustrated in the Wikileaks documents, argues that any sane person would begin leaving now, not a year from now.

What will be illuminating is Obama's response, and of those on the fence in Congress (more or less pro-war Democrats). Excepting Ron Paul, all Republicans are dead-set against withdrawal, but then few of them seem rational, anyway.

My bet? The military will say withdrawal isn't practical, and Obama will be afraid to oppose them, leading us towards the kind of bankruptcy that ended in the fall of the Roman Empire in 476.

Comments? Click below.

Click for more info

Jul 23, 2010, Tax Cuts For the Wealthy!

That seems to be the refrain of conservatives, Republicans and Tea Party activists: they advocate making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Yet, at the same time, they rail about the admittedly huge government debt. Making the tax cuts permanent, would, it's estimated, increase government debt in the next ten years by well over $2 trillion. And Boehner, the House Republican leader, actually said the tax cuts don't have to be paid for!

Republicans are attempting to gain political traction with the "all debt is bad" crowd, while also currying favor with wealthy fundraisers, and indulging in the you-can-get-it-for-nothing thinking that created the disastrous 2007-8 collapse.

Cutting taxes has stimulated the economy, and increased revenue in some limited situations. It worked with JFK's tax-cuts, because tax rates were very high then (they are very low now), and their reduction made money available for consumption and therefore created incentives for investment (from the added spending boosting demand). They didn't work so well from Reagan through Bush II, because wages did not keep pace, consumption was based on adding to private debt; foregone taxes benefited the wealthy, who saw "investment" opportunities in financial speculation, or foreign production. So, the famous Bush tax cuts doubled the US debt, and led to speculative excess that caused the collapse.

Obama's stimulus spending has almost doubled the debt again, but without the stimulus we'd be calling this a Great Depression, not a Great Recession. Maintaining tax-cuts for the wealthy would create greater deficits, but would not stimulate the economy. Why? Banks and individuals are sitting on hoards of cash already, rather than investing, because there is little demand for new production: investment in the face of low or shrinking demand is usually considered foolhardy.

Conservatives have an ideological rationale for high-end tax-cuts: encouraging investment and cutting down the size of government. The former works in limited instances, but won't now. As for the latter, when in power conservatives have increased government size, while still cutting taxes--hence creating structural deficits, i.e. deficits in good times.

A deficit in bad times is a natural outgrowth of need--people need support and can't pay taxes when unemployed--and partially counters the decline in demand: it is an investment for better times. A deficit during a boom is like living high on your credit card.

Tax cuts to the wealthy, now, would inflate speculation, but would not increase consumption enough to stimulate growth. They would balloon the deficit even further. They might also, finally, drive the world away from the dollar as world reserve currency: Americans would have demonstrated their financial recklessness once again. (The US caused the global downturn by encouraging out of control speculation).

Flight from the Dollar could end the American Empire as we know it.

Comments? Click on comment site, below.

Click for more info

Jul 20, 2010, US Empire Pushes String

How do you push a string? How do you make a nation govern itself effectively, when its history of governance up until now has been tribal, feudal and by self-selected warlords?

Tomes cram libraries on development, development finance, development economics, and political development. Most should be pulped. What we don't know about development could fill many more libraries.

There are many success stories, nations like China, Japan, India, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and many more, but there are no notable formulas. China has used government directed markets and state promoted industrialization, but it had a very strong, effective political system before its recent successes. India has a lively, if sometimes chaotic, political system: its economic development has been more a mixture of political direction and foreign investment.

Nations like Afghanistan or Somalia or, most egregiously, the Congo, don't have the luxury of established, effective political systems.

Well-meaning Americans and Europeans try to help these nations learn to govern themselves. In the case of Afghanistan, they are doing so while also fighting a persistent insurrection/revolution on behalf of its largely dysfunctional government.

Some of the development success stories, including Vietnam, tell how revolutionary movements, anti-western, or anti-American, created the necessary political foundation for development in their countries: imposed governments did not.

From the era of colonialism until now, western, or "developed" nations have attempted to impose their kinds of governance on "less-developed" nations, sometimes for their own national interest, sometimes for more altruistic reasons. Western-style "democracies" flourished in Europe and Japan after WWII, because there had been long-established and effective governments before the war.

But consider the case of China: the allies supported a weak, corrupt authoritarian government (Chiang-kai Shek), and attempted to counter a revolutionary movement; our attempts failed. The Communist government lurched from famine, to war, to succession crises, but it also established a political system so strong that it could mobilize nearly a billion Chinese to kill off the flies in their nation--mostly by hand! That government still governs, and by adopting western-style economics, has become wildly successful.

Ours is really a post-imperial world waiting to happen: the US can only maintain its world-straddling military by borrowing from China. Yet, it can't create civil societies in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia no matter how many troops it stations in those nations. All it can do is exacerbate tensions, which favors forces of destruction, like al Qaeda.

Yet, the military has gained enough control of American policy that it continues to expand, regardless of economic distress faced at home, or lack of success abroad.

Our foreign policy goals are wildly unrealistic: you can't push a string. Continuing our military-foreign policy abroad will not create international stability; it will only impoverish and bankrupt us.

We have a choice: a vibrant nation without an empire, or a broken nation still attempting to hold onto one.

Comments? Click on link below.

Click for more info

Jul 16, 2010, The Politics of (Class) Resentment

The Right does resentment really well. They teach their constituents, and fence-sitters, too, that the other side is treacherous, or under-handed, unfair and taking advantage of them, in essence, taking away their American Way of Life. But they don't target the people who are doing this; they target: illegal aliens, unions, big government, regulation. While most people resent bankers and Wall Street, the Right protects them, yet attacks Democrats in Congress for supporting them. It certainly doesn't talk about inequality, or the extravagant salaries and bonuses of the financial elite. Now, it advocates tax-cuts for them!

The left doesn't do resentment well. Yet, a true left-wing populist could use the politics of resentment to good effect. Obama is no populist, nor a true lefty, but he has the potential for populism--in the run-up to the 2012 election--if he sees the electoral potential.

At this point in Roosevelt's first term, his major jobs creation program was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which looked like Fascist central control of the private economy; it was a failure, and unanimously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Come the election in 1936, and Roosevelt found his populist calling, campaigning against "the economic royalists of our time."

Can you imagine Obama reaching that point?

But even FDR couldn't persuade Congress to allocate enough money to truly finance a recovery. Only patriotic fervor for war did that.

I wonder what is different now, than it was in 1935. The media was less concentrated, but there were many right-wing media outlets condemning Roosevelt as a Socialist or a Communist at every turn. People of means referred to FDR as "that man in the White House." Obama is that man from Kenya, and--the epithets are legion.

Could a left-wing populist shove Obama aside? If Obama were challenged from the left, he might respond--much the way Roosevelt did, in 1936.

Someone on the left needs to exploit the politics of resentment: resentment of those Wall Street "fat-cats," first of all. They were bailed out, but help themselves to more; resentment of the subsidies oil and coal companies receive, while Americans can't get jobs or unemployment insurance; resentment of huge disparities in salaries between top executives and workers; resentment of the way they are taxed: class resentment.

While people may disagree on abortion or gay marriage, immigration, or the financial overhaul, almost all of them hate Wall Street. For good reason: Wall Street siphons off an increasing share of US wealth for no discernible benefit--except to itself.

Resentment is a negative word, a negative focus, but it has a visceral appeal, and one that could lead to a positive outcome: a more egalitarian and prosperous society.

But to get there, the Left needs to be as cynical as the Right. Is that possible?

The best lack all conviction, While the worst are full of passionate intensity.

Comments? Click below.

Click for more info

Jul 13, 2010, Pearl Harbor, Afghanistan and Tea Parties

A film version of Pearl Harbor reminded me of how the Japanese military in 1941 controlled Japan. At the same time, on the other side of the globe, the Nazis preached hate, and attacked with their apparently invincible war machine. Americans didn't want to see what was coming: it took us over two years to wake up. Both systems depended on conquest; the US was at peace.

Now, the whole world system is upside down. It is the US, which makes war everywhere, has a military that dominates the nation, and spends more on "defense" than all other nations combined. It is also one of many nations in which hate and xenophobia are on the rise: both the Tea Party and anti-immigrant rage. In addition, we have one, two, many Goebbels: Beck, Fox, Limbaugh, etc., and a host of large corporations willing to spend billions to buy elections for corporate sympathizers-- "corp-symps."

They may all come together. The right-wing Tea Partiers support the dominant military against any civilian threat, and can blame all our troubles on "terrorists" and illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic, or Arab: America's equivalent of the Nazi's Jews. Other scapegoats, or targets, can also be marshaled to draw in homophobic right wing Christians, or?

So, in the US now, we have: a military just barely contained by civilian leadership, and the rise of a political movement, which in its use of propaganda and racism, looks eerily like the Nazis. So far, neither Sarah, nor anyone else has been as successful as Hitler at whipping up militant fervor. But then Hitler took awhile, too (more than 10 years--1921-1933).

It's hard not to see Obama and Congress as the ineffectual Weimar Republic, which could not withstand the Nazis' popular mobilization and intimidation. Passive Germans, lying propagandists and charisma defeated Weimar. Could it happen here?

In Japan, the military took over the government behind the scenes. No one could withstand its power; Tojo was a military dictator controlling a civilian administration.

If radicals gain control of the Republican Party, and then the government, a short-lived march to greater imperial conquest could doom this country either to defeat, like Germany or Japan, or more likely to impoverishment and bankruptcy--possibly both.

The result could look like the declining Roman Empire of the Fifth Century: and no wealthy will reach into their pockets to fund our survival, any more than the Roman Senators did in 476.

The US will not prosper if the Zanies gain power, but some people will: corporate leaders, wealthy owners of capital, a small political elite. The same was true of Nazi Germany--and of the later Roman Empire. Ordinary people will have a choice: join the military and/or the movement, or be increasingly impoverished.

We need to take the corporations, the military and the Tea Party seriously: together they are a threat to Democracy.

Comments? Click on "for more info" (below).

Click for more info

Jul 7, 2010, Heat and Idiocies

It's high 90's; the humidity is climbing. We try to shelter in our cooler houses, go to air-conditioned movies, or are almost thankful we're at work in air-conditioned offices.

It's hot here in the northeast.

Do people ever consider the plight of people in places like Baghdad? There, the temperatures soar into the 120's and 130's, and, in the city, where you'd expect air-conditioning, most people consider themselves lucky if they get a few hours of electricity.

Why? Before the US invasion, Baghdad had power outages, but electricity was generally available. The US, back in 2002, was going to make things better for the Iraqis, by driving out Saddam Hussein. We drove him out; his own people executed him. Meanwhile, Baghdad suffers heat we can hardly imagine. It has no air-conditioning, because when we invaded, we destroyed their power plants. Many billions of dollars later, many power plants have not been successfully repaired, nor the distribution system.

Meanwhile, American troops in their big bases have air-conditioning, hot and cold running water, all the amenities. Probably, in most forward operating bases, Americans enjoy air-conditioning and hot showers.

But the Iraqis do not.

The story is probably similar in Afghanistan, except that there was less to destroy, so Afghans may be less worse off after our invasion than the Iraqis.

What have our invasions accomplished? In Iraq, we got rid of a bad guy, who had been a CIA client, and we also killed a lot of people, destroyed a lot. We so totally destabilized the society that we had to stop a civil war. It could break out again once we leave.

In Afghanistan, we drove the Taliban from power, restored education for girls in a very few places, and put in place an ineffectual government that is one of the most corrupt on the planet. We also killed (and continue to kill) many Afghans, both combatants and non-combatants. But we failed to destroy the Taliban. Despite its unpopularity, Afghan majorities now believe it will return to power in some form; they also want the US and NATO to leave, because we're repeating Vietnam: destroying villages "in order to save them."

Which Afghans want us to stay? The ones who have grown fat on US contracts, or US-funded bribes, are maintained in power by our military, or are allied with those who are: a small minority.

Why do we stay--in either place?

Is it because our military craves large budgets and opportunities for promotion? Is it because defense contractors sell larger and larger contracts?

Meanwhile, the long-term unemployed can't get jobs, and the Senate refuses to extend their benefits--because of budget deficits. The largest discretionary budget item is Defense: $680,000,000-1,300,000,000. (Social Security/Medicare is larger, but self-funded and not discretionary).

Our best plan for a stimulus would be: cut bases worldwide and get out of both wars; spend the money at home.

Click for more info

Jul 2, 2010, When Government is Small Enough

We've heard a lot about the conservatives' drive to cut government spending, and functions. Famously Grover Norquist said that his aim was to make government small enough that he could "drown it in a bathtub."

In other words, the ideal was no government at all. It's an interesting idea, especially since we see examples of it in various places around the world.

Somalia, for example. In Somalia, there is a government, but its writ is extremely limited even in the capital city of Mogadishu. Nevertheless, the US and the UN are supporting it--even though it has been caught using child soldiers in its national army. But there is virtually no security, except in some of the rebel-held areas, where strict, extremely brutal "sharia" law is arbitrarily enforced. If someone is starving, and he grabs a loaf of bread, having no money--there is no viable currency--he could have a hand and foot hacked off by al Shabaab, a fundamentalist insurgent group.

So, if you travel in Somalia, you need at least a couple of bodyguards, armed (at least) with AK47's. If you want to send a letter out of the country, you're out of luck. If you're near one of the local businessmen-warlords, who has a local private mail service, you might be able to send a letter within parts of Somalia.

If you want to send your children to school, in most of the country you'll just have to forget about it. One of the reasons for Somali piracy is that there is no security for the nation's fishing areas, so the international fishing industry has moved in, and the Somalis make a living by commandeering unprotected shipping. It's become a big business.

Nations without governance for large parts of their territories are vulnerable to freelance armies like the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army), which bills itself as a rebellion to replace Uganda's government with a Christian theocracy, but ranges over four nations, killing, raping, looting, and recruiting boys to fight and girls as sex slaves. The LRA reminds me of the worst aspects of medieval freelance armies: it really isn't interested in holding territory, simply in maintaining (and enriching) itself. It has ranged free for years, because northern Uganda, southern Sudan, Central African Republic and DR Congo have large territories without government control. The LRA is like Attila's Huns.

The Congo has also been vulnerable, especially its eastern territories, to the same kind of freelance armies (a lot of them): government hardly functions there. Africa (and other ungoverned parts of the world) are like the period during and after the fall of Rome in Europe, when barbarian hordes roamed free, ripped off whatever they could carry, killed any resisters, recruited malcontents and kept on moving. That era has been labeled "the Dark Ages."

They illustrate what No government looks like. Is that what Grover wants?

Click for more info

Jul 2, 2010, Gulf of Mexico: ONLY Oil Wells

Gee, why don't we just write off the Gulf of Mexico as anything but an oil production site? Why stop drilling?

We've already committed ecocide there. Dead zones all over the place as oil and gas escape at huge volumes from BP's blowout. They'll continue to spread and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. Even if the first relief well succeeds in tapping into the blown-out well, there is still the possibility that BP won't be able to plug it, and we won't even know if that's a success until August--if more hurricanes don't disrupt the process until after the hurricane season (June-November).

So, we should simply write off the whole non-oil Gulf Coast economy. Just open the whole Gulf to extensive oil drilling, and who cares if there are more blow outs? America needs the oil. Isn't that what Republicans, tea-partiers and others are saying? We can't have a moratorium! Oil drillers' jobs will be lost.

Since we've already screwed the Gulf, we might as well just continue doing it. Shrimpers, et al, aren't going to recover for years, so expand the oil patch and hire them as oil drillers.

We should not, under any circumstances, sanction those poor oil companies: they have so much on their plates, and if we look cross-eyed at them, why they might go and despoil the Nigerian delta, instead.

Oh. They already have.

Well, all the more reason why all oil-drilling regulations and limitations should be removed. We're competing with Nigeria, but we want the oil in our backyard. Who cares if a little bit is spilled?

Is anyone calculating the effects of the trillions of cubic feet of methane being released by the blowout? Will it accelerate global warming? But then there is no such thing. One of my favorite right-wing bloggers warns that the criminal conspirators who control the world--including Obama's White House, of course--have decided that they haven't been able to sell global warming, so they'll try to persuade everyone that the real danger is Global Cooling!

Now, if it's global cooling, then the oil spew disaster is no disaster, at all: it helps solve the problem. It releases huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere, thereby helping to hold in the precious heat this planet is in danger of losing. And polluting industries, cars, etc. all help stave off the imminent ice age.

Now that we've solved that problem, let's move on to the financial system: obviously, there should be no regulation of those poor banks. Who knows how much profits Goldman would lose!

Right-wingers unite! You have nothing to lose but your tenuous grip on reality! Somalia is our new model: no government at all.

Click for more info

Jun 29, 2010, Ron Paul: Anti-war, Anti-Fed

I knew Ron Paul was a rare conservative Republican against the war in Afghanistan: outspokenly against. I had seen him in the Presidential debates, and he had seemed too old, and too obsessive about a lot of more quirky issues: I didn't take him seriously.

But when he rose to debate the war in Afghanistan this year, he was oddly elegant. He did ramble a bit, but his argument made a lot of sense. Two points stand out: first, the reason we're in these wars is because it's too easy to go to war. The War Powers Act gave the President 90 days of war before Congress could say boo. By then, it becomes an accomplished fact: how can you withdraw and let the x number of soldiers killed, "die in vain?" So, it's hard, once engaged, to get out of a war, as demonstrated by both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Paul's other main point was that by fighting these wars against Muslims, we are fulfilling Osama bin Laden's strategy for winning the region and driving out the US and the West--using the anger we generate among Muslims to recruit support, while bankrupting us.

Ron Paul is predictably critical of the financial reform bill, but he reveals why housing the Consumer Finance watchdog agency in the Fed is not just a convenience: it will be dependent for a budget not from Congress, but from the Fed, itself. It will be controlled by it.

Paul would like to abolish the Fed and fiat money, for gold, which makes him a bit of a kook among most economists, conservative or liberal. However, he's co-sponsoring, with liberal Democrat, Kucinich, a bill that would require the Fed to be audited, a proposal that makes sense.

Paul's opposition to the Afghan war connects with his opposition to the Fed: fiat money finances wars for Republicans and "unlimited welfare" for Democrats, he says, because the Fed can just keep issuing money, indebting us all. He's not entirely wrong about the debt part, but too many Democrats are willing to finance wars, as well, and "welfare" is pretty meager, compared to the money we lavish on wars.'

Paul made the same point I've made on this site: empires bankrupt themselves over wars. The Romans, after their peak, had a long and painful decline, because they could no longer pay for the Empire's continuous wars. They lost territory, losing revenue and the loot from conquest. The Empire consumed more than it produced. Sound familiar?

The western Empire fell because it was so bankrupt it couldn't even pay the palace guard: so, they overthrew the Emperor, and stole what remained of his assets.

It is a valid question, though: how long can the Fed create money for wars and consumption, and persuade the rest of the world that "the dollar is sound?"

you-tube of Ron Paul on war, below.

Click for more info

Jun 25, 2010, Mechanics That Are Beyond Us

We think we should be able to drill oil, mine coal, or tap natural gas wherever we find it, no matter how difficult the conditions. The technology for surface mining of coal--used in mountaintop removal--is fairly simple, if drastic environmentally. Oil drilling in deep sea, however, must use highly sophisticated technology.

Up until the Gulf disaster, the industry assumed that the redundant safety devices would prevent blow-outs. But they were using the technology at greater and greater depths, both of water and of earth beneath it. Deepwater Horizon is far from the deepest well, however.

They had four devices, each of which, alone, was supposed to prevent a blow-out. The first was a cement plug just above the tapped oil, the second, a similar plug several thousand feet below the sea floor (the oil is 13000' below it). The third was the blow-out preventer, which was supposed to be able to shut off the pipe, and the fourth was a shear in the preventer, that would snap off the pipe and clamp it shut.

All of those safety devices failed. It's argued that a second shear, often installed in a blow-out preventer as back-up, might have worked. It might have.

But, blind faith in a blind shear isn't just blind; it's hubris. Perhaps the technology, as sophisticated as it seems, isn't yet up to the task. Considering that an offshore well like Deepwater Horizon can commit ecocide on a huge scale, we can't settle for 9 out of ten, or 99 out of 100. We have to be absolutely sure that there will be no accidents, or that we can clean up any accident, regardless of size, before any environmental damage.

Or, build solar panels and wind turbines like mad.

I predict we won't do either. After all, well-drillers need jobs.

The Roman Empire contributed to the desertification of North Africa (it had been its granary), because it needed food for its huge population; it deforested the Mediterranean because it had to keep its baths good and hot. Wasteful patterns, once established, are hard to change. It's likely that Rome's ecological wastefulness contributed substantially to its impoverishment. The good counselors of Ephesus pointed out the danger of stripping the hills of trees, but the city's port became silted up anyway: probably, contractors to the baths had to keep cutting wood, until it was gone. And then Romans did the same thing in Rome and Ravenna.

Will we now poison the whole world in our inability to leave oil and coal behind, and use renewable, non-polluting energy?

The oil companies--and the coal companies--need their profits; the drillers and miners need their jobs. The companies are politically well connected. What do you think is the most likely outcome?

How can we change it?

Scream bloody murder--of the Earth. It's that serious.

Comments? Click below

Click for more info

Jun 22, 2010, Can Governments Represent Us?

The assumption of the right-wing in the US is that government can't work, that it does nothing positive, and that any expansion of government power is simply a "power-grab." They claim governments produce nothing. Yet, census workers, for example, determine who populates the country: information highly valued by corporations.

The assumption of the left-wing is that government can work for good, but that it's dominated by an elite, which works not for the common good, but for the moneyed interests.

In the late Roman Empire, both assumptions were correct. Imperial government was woefully ineffective in deterring crime, violence and barbarian takeovers, but was more effective in representing the interests of the moneyed elite, the Senatorial class. The governments of late imperial Rome look an awful lot like the vision of right wing luminaries like Grover Norquist: they couldn't do squat, except tax the poor and protect the wealthy until the barbarians took over, first in outlying provinces, and finally in Rome in 476.

The assumption of the right-wing is that any time Obama reaches for an effective response to a problem--like controlling health care costs, or forcing BP to set aside $20 billion for damages in the Gulf--he is grabbing dictatorial powers.

The assumption of the left-wing is that Obama is too cozy with corporate powers, and too timid with its protectors.

Yet, there are a few Republicans, like Senator Susan Collins, who might accept compromise. Obama should not be so willing to compromise basic principals for a few legislators' votes, however.

The basic disagreement, is whether government can do anything positive, or whether, as Reagan popularized, "government is the problem." The brouhaha over Rep. Barton's apology to BP, illustrates this division. It's also instructive: the Republican leadership knew his apology didn't look good, so they forced Barton to retract, but Barton was critical of BP when Republicans controlled Congress.

Why did he change his mind? The rightward tilt of the GOP from Tea Party successes may be one reason: all the TP stars either anticipated his position, or tried to outdo it.

But, if government action is no solution, then people are powerless against corporate power. BP's recklessness could be replicated many times over, and no one could stop them. From the corporate point of view, there would be no reason to spend money on safety, if there were no mandates insuring their competitors would also spend money on it. Corporate leaders are legally mandated to maximize shareholder profits, not to protect "the people."

Only governments can represent common interests. They lose power if they consistently don't--even in dictatorships. It's to most people's interests, therefore, that governments become more effective, not less. It's a continual struggle to insure that a government represents the common interest, but no other institution can.

Comments: click link below.

Click for more info

Jun 17, 2010, We Shoulda Elected Hillary!

At least she would have been in-your-face. She wouldn't have pussy-footed with BP. I was against Hillary, because she stood for more of the same and she was a hawk, who never saw a war she didn't like.

But what has Obama become? A hawk, even if he talks about beginning withdrawal from Afghanistan next year (don't hold your breath). He's following Bush's policy in Iraq, keeping 50,000 American troops there indefinitely. Would Hillary already be invading Iran? I doubt it.

But on the BP oil disaster, wouldn't she have been more forthcoming and sooner, with a detailed plan for what to do from here?

McCain would have been far worse. Republicans protect the oil companies. House Republican Leader Boehner actually said taxpayers should pick up the tab for the Gulf oil cleanup, not BP!

What did Obama propose? His best moment in his oval office address was when he said he would demand BP set aside all the necessary resources to pay for damages, and that the escrow account should be controlled by an independent entity. Even then, he cited no figure (they've now agreed to $20 billion). He also should have endorsed the initiatives to repeal or raise limits on oil company liabilities from the current paltry $75 million passed in the W administration.

Obama didn't propose much else substantive. Instead, he pledged to clean up the mess--no details on how--and an "effort" to promote alternative forms of energy. He spoke about a campaign, a war-effort, but no specifics.

In other words, except for the escrow account, Obama dealt in broad generalities, despite any number of legislative initiatives he could have promoted. He also continues to entertain the fantasy: if he "reaches across the aisle," he'll gain bipartisan backing for some, unspecified, initiative that will set us on the road to alternative energy independence. When have Republicans given any indication that they would work with the administration, except on promoting the "Defense" budget?

Perhaps he didn't endorse Kerry-Lieberman on climate change and energy, because it's not a very good bill: it gives away way too much. But if he doesn't really like Kerry-Lieberman (not clear), he also didn't offer any alternative, any guidance for what he would support and work for--except that he would oppose inaction.

How do you oppose a negative? Hillary would have laid out a detailed plan.

An 81-year old friend, a Democrat, said despairingly, "We're going down!"

Every time, I hope, this is it: Obama will finally seize the moment, and lead the way as he did so brilliantly in his campaign, it's mostly words; he acts as if someone is holding a gun to his head. Possible? Palace guards killed Valentinian III (455), deposed Emperor after Emperor afterwards, and overthrew the Roman Empire in 476.

Corporations hold a big gun. I'm afraid my older friend is right: We're going down!

Comments click below.

Click for more info

Jun 15, 2010, The Dirty Bargain

The Greeks didn't sign onto it: now their debt has been driven to junk bond status.

The closer you get to Wall Street, or the City of London, the more likely you are to see the bargain in action.

In 1933, FDR closed the banks. When they reopened, government had created rules that maintained financial stability until the 1970's. The result: financial crises were negligible and under control.

Beginning in the 70's, there was a sustained and successful attack against those rules, culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which had kept taxpayer-insured money separate from investment banking speculation. Since the 70's, we've had a series of financial crises, culminating in the 2007-8 collapse. That's no coincidence.

Unfortunately, neither W, nor Obama "took over" the banks. They revived the banks with trillions of government dollars. Now, banks are so strong they can weaken, or stymie any thoroughgoing financial reform: there will be no Glass-Steagall, and banks will be too big to fail. Governments will have to bail them out when risk-taking gets them in trouble.

In addition, the elites are able to control enough of the information people depend upon, that they have changed the conversation: it's no longer recovery, and jobs, but solvency and cutbacks. Deficit reductions and cutbacks don't come at the expense of the banksters who got us into this mess, but at the expense of the victims: the people thrown out of work, or working 60 hour weeks just to pay the bills.

And it isn't just the banksters. It's the elites generally. Health reform comes at the expense of the insured, who will see their premiums soar, even though the reform will hand providers a whole new government-subsidized market.

What are some of the elements of this "bargain?" When decision-makers propose raising a stock-transfer tax, their government's bonds will be besieged. When politicians suggest raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for the needed recovery, capital flees the country.

Have you noticed that huge amounts of capital have washed up in the US? Despite Obama's stimulus, with a deficit and debt rivaling that of Greece in GDP terms, US Treasury rates are still extremely low. There has been no need to raise rates to find buyers. That's because formerly liberal leaders like Obama and Cuomo have bowed to the bargain: no new taxes on the wealthy. Republicans would never raise those taxes in the first place.

The "tea party movement" is a political expression of the media power of capital. People who are hurting--the financial system robbed them blind--are persuaded that big Government did it.

The Tea Party is Wall Street's insurance, but if a genuinely progressive movement gained power, we'd face a capital strike like the one that brought down Greece.

The financial/corporate elites, the selfish class I've written about on this site, now rule most of the world: through extortion.

Comments welcome: click below.

Click for more info

Jun 10, 2010, All We Knew is Wrong!

In the 1950s, our knowledge of how the world works was so advanced: my father knew he had the best diet imaginable when he ate eggs and bacon for breakfast and steak well-marbled for dinner. He died of his second stroke at age 60. My mother bottle-fed me: formula was so scientifically advanced. Nursing was primitive.

In the 1950's, we knew we lived in a new era in which there were unlimited sources of cheap energy. Oil gushed out of the ground (not the bottom of the sea); soft coal was so cheap it was better for heating your house than wood; nuclear power would soon give us unlimited energy so cheap we'd hardly have to pay for it.

We knew in the 1950's that swamps were just a waste of land and should be drained, so we could use them: nature was messy. That included the Everglades, and the channels of the Mississippi: we drained, channeled and controlled them, because we knew how to improve on nature.

Government authorities told uranium miners, citizens living downwind from nuclear testing, and nuclear weapon workers that the low doses of radiation they received were harmless, maybe even beneficial. Everybody trusted the government.

We knew that forest fires were always bad, so all over the nation we suppressed them (building up tinder for worse fires later).

We knew that predators like wolves could subvert our scientific agriculture, so we hunted them down. We were just beginning to learn to use antibiotics on meat animals. We applied DDT to the crops we ate and the front lawns where children played. We held all pests at bay.

Lead was added to gasoline, so that our bigger and better cars wouldn't knock; no one thought about all the lead spewing from them.

We built 1,000's of nuclear weapons because the USSR was trying to catch up. We did wonder about a world that could be destroyed instantaneously, but we just did "duck and cover" drills in school.

We didn't need chemical weapons, so we sent them to the bottom of the sea: we knew they'd do no harm there.

We lobotomized people for emotional problems. We were so, so advanced. We knew so much.

And now we know that if we take the right "precautions," we can still drill for oil, even at the bottom of the sea! At least, that's what Congress and the Pres and BP keep telling us.

Often, conventional wisdom is not wise. It only prevails because it is conventional, but everything we thought we knew was wrong!

Now, conventional wisdom could kill--most of us. Let's see: if climate change makes large parts of Earth inhospitable to agriculture through drought and extreme weather, and we poison the seas, what's left?

We won't have to worry about an "American Empire," or even "America."

Click for more info

Jun 9, 2010, Crime and Punishment

Harsher punishment has been adopted for crime, but it is really a means of increasing government control

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Crime and Punishment"

Jun 8, 2010, Israel is Always Right

I've been having a "dialogue" with an old friend of mine, who accepts everything the Israeli government claims, about the flotilla assault, the Gaza blockade, etc.

He accused me of never having to worry about my personal security, while many of his Jewish forebears were wiped out in the Holocaust. That's why he knows: you've got to be "realistic." War is war. International law is rarely honored, and besides, some Turkish so-called peace activists were actually militants. One of those killed had a black belt in Tae Kwondo: he was a deadly weapon--until the IDF shot him.

Personal safety? I pointed out that my son had been working on Times Square until only months before the attempted suicide bombing. I forgot to mention that he'd also been within 20 blocks of ground zero on 911, so I did perceive threats to me and mine.

But why were the militants--the 911 bombers, the Times Square bomber--eager to volunteer? Why are Americans and Europeans volunteering? There is a perceived grievance that al Qaeda exploits: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank does affect our security.

That's why, I told him, Israel's occupation, its siege of Gaza, and its Bantustan-like control over the West Bank was going to blow up in Israel's face. America won't (can't afford to) indefinitely support Israel, especially when it is a real obstacle to peace and a liability to the US.

Would Israel survive without US support? Probably, but cut loose, it would have a terrifying potential to become a rogue nuclear-armed state. Israel has been urging the US to attack Iran for years. If Israel attacked, instead, it could draw the US into a new war, along with the rest of the Middle East.

Yet, only Israel believes strongly that Iran is not only developing nuclear weapons, but would use them to destroy Israel. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear war-heads, more than enough to obliterate Iran if it were foolhardy enough to attempt attack, but a nuke or two would protect Iran from Israel--or the US. It's not clear, from nuclear negotiations and available intelligence, whether Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, or only medical nuclear isotopes (concentrated to 38% vs 99%) and bluster. It pays politically.

There is bluster and threats on all sides.

How do people get so paranoid? For my friend, war-is-hell and the Holocaust justify whatever Israel does. What Israel did in 1947-8 and since, justifies many Muslim militants, and so it goes. There are a lot of paranoid people in the world. Paranoia can become self-fulfilling, especially if two or more play the same game.

They're playing it all over the world.

The US qua empire is no longer able to stop these games, even when it's a participant: we have an emerging Post-American World. When the US buys into the games, it makes the world increasingly unsafe for everyone.

Comments? Click below!

Click for more info

Jun 5, 2010, A Progressive for NY?

A friend of mine announced he was running for Governor of NY. He's not Andrew Cuomo. He's Joel Tyner, a Democratic County Legislator, running until a progressive with more credibility steps forward.

Joel has no money and Andrew Cuomo is highly popular, but, as Joel said in his speech, "I don't want to have to tell you, 'I told you so,' a couple of years from now."

Andrew Cuomo represents a disturbing trend among Democrats, and it's hard to say whether it's tactically or ideologically driven. Socially, Cuomo is somewhat progressive, proposing independent redistricting, ethics reforms and marriage equality.

It's obvious New York State needs reform. It still hasn't passed a budget (due March 31st!); it underwent a Republican "coup" in the Senate, then a Democratic counter-coup; it has seen the former Republican Majority Leader convicted of graft, a Democratic Senator, one of the two coup leaders, convicted of slashing his girlfriend; the AG is suing the other for "looting." In addition, the state faces growing budget deficits (between $8.2 and $9.2 billion).

So, admittedly, the state is in dire need of better fiscal management, and ethics reform. But this is the state with Wall Street. Wall Street made over $61 billion in profits last year, paying out bonuses of $20 billion in cash!

But Cuomo has pledged "no new income taxes on the wealthy," "capping state spending" and "freezing state employee salaries." Worst of all, Cuomo calls for a property tax cap, despite the horrendous 20+ year experience of a property tax cap in California (Prop 13), where California's services have had to be slashed repeatedly--yet California is in worse fiscal shape than New York!

Joel Tyner points to an initiative by Assemblyman Kevin Cahill as a better solution for property taxes (NY's are nearly the highest in the country): Cahill would fund counties and schools with a version of what New York City already has: progressive local income taxes.

Tyner also points to the stock transfer tax, collected since 1915, but rebated to Wall Street for the last 30 years: a quarter of it would collect $4 billion a year, and would reduce incentives for wild stock speculation.

Taxes on millionaires' income were 15.5% until the early 70's; they now pay 9%. The middle classes pay 11% in local taxes, the wealthy 8%; income inequality has risen, so, raising millionaire's taxes is justified, would reduce inequality, and since Wall Street is in such bad odor, it could be popular. It would also fund the deficit.

Cuomo, however, is pandering to Wall Street and the "Tea Party," (the Selfish Class, like the one that brought down Rome). Other Democrats are, too.

Why? Are they all afraid of Fox and Limbaugh?

Joel offers a progressive alternative, but has no money. Yet, Democratic timidity could strand us in a real Depression: you don't get out of recessions by cutting jobs and expenditures.

We need an FDR, not a Democratic Hoover.

Comments please! Click below.

Click for more info

Jun 1, 2010, A Crucial Moment for The Empire

One of many reports on the Israeli siege of the Gaza-bound flotilla of Turkish and other peace activists, ended with Hamas's pitiful, defiant response: they shot a rocket into Israel--it harmed no one.

On the other hand, the Israelis did assault a ship, in international waters. Why were they surprised that those on board resisted? Why should the members of this flotilla, set up to challenge Israel's 3-year blockade of Gaza, not resist when soldiers suddenly rappelled down from helicopters? The IDF were carrying guns, and demanding control of the ship. They assumed the peace activists were unarmed. What surprised them: a few had knives, grabbed metal pipes, or took pistols from the invaders, to drive them off.

So, the Israelis, unprepared for physical resistance to their superior military force, responded with "disproportionate" violence: estimates range from 10 to 19 flotilla members killed, one IDF man shot, apparently with a pistol taken from him or another Israeli soldier. Most of those killed were Turks: Turkey was the unofficial sponsor of the flotilla, but also, until recently, Israel's reliable Muslim ally. No longer.

Israel doesn't even offer apologies. It justifies itself by saying that it was merely enforcing its Gaza blockade, and that the flotilla could have been terrorists, or, if they were allowed to land, that others, terrorists would follow. If this were any other country, not only would there be international condemnation, but it would be enforceable by the UN Security Council. The US would sign on, but this is Israel.

My bet: Israel will get away with this latest outrage because, Democrat or Republican, Bush or Obama, Israel is the third rail of US international policy: you can't touch it. The Israelis know this. AIPAC, and the right-wing media will trumpet Israel's story: that Israeli soldiers "had to" kill 10-19, because activists threatened them with "weapons." But their assault was on an unarmed vessel in international waters: a blatant violation of international law.

The assault did demonstrate, however, that the Gaza blockade, more than three years old, is indefensible. It has imprisoned, impoverished and nearly starved the whole population of Gaza. Most of the international community now decries Israel's actions; its assault on the flotilla, underscores the outrage of its Gaza blockade.

However, for any US President, especially a Democrat, to take a strong stand against Israel, Obama will need iron-clad proof of Israeli culpability. Why? The importance of Middle East oil to American hegemony underscores Israel's central role as our "faithful" ally there. It's also why BP was drilling in the Gulf of Mexico: to find non-Middle East sources of oil, no matter how costly. It will be costly, indeed!

The big question: will Obama finally take a stand against Israeli arrogance? If not, will this be the moment when US influence in the Middle East takes a dive? American credibility everywhere hangs in the balance.

Comments welcome: click below.

Click for more info

May 27, 2010, Progressive Narrative

A progressive narrative is needed to counter the pervasive conservative story.

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Progressive Narrative"

May 26, 2010, Tax Madness

Any suggestion of raising taxes meets howls of resistance, not just from tea partiers in these dark times: states are going bust. Yet, Wall Street financiers pay themselves even fancier bonuses than they did last year, bonuses made possible by taxpayer money.

Financial firms oppose taxing hedge fund managers' income at the rates working people pay. The parallels are striking with the Roman Empire at the tail end of its history. Go to Taxes (http://www.roman-empire-america-now.com/taxes.html) on this website. Roman wealthy didn't pay taxes, and hedge fund traders, some making as much as $1 billion a year, are taxed at a flat 15% rate, while most of us pay between 20% and 39%.

Hedge fund managers have also been part of the Wall Street lobbying onslaught to prevent financial reforms. They scream that regulation will cost profits, when it was their ruthless pursuit of fast profits that nearly destroyed the whole world economy!

NY's Governor Paterson, formerly liberal, has summarily rejected a "billionaire's tax," despite the huge state deficit he's desperately trying to close. And he and the US Congress, refuse to consider a stock transfer tax, a cent or two per share traded, despite the fact that the tax would not only raise very needed revenue (a state tax might make up NY's deficit), it would also discourage the kind of hyper-speculation that led to the near financial collapse.

Wall Street is practically apoplectic at the idea of either tax, and yet, they almost drove us off a financial cliff, and cost the US 15 million jobs it will take many years to replace. Both taxes would discourage the kind of antics that led to the collapse--and raise revenue where it is most needed to continue an economic recovery--for a state budget that otherwise requires drastic cutbacks, laying off even more jobs.

Liberals are scared shitless advocating for any tax, even if they know it would be good policy. Why? Because the right-wing media have whipped up a frenzy about raising any taxes, and Republicans have jumped enthusiastically on board.

The furthest Democrats in Washington dare go, is to let the Bush tax cuts lapse. Republicans scream, that's a tax increase! It is, but only for taxpayers earning over $250,000 a year. I'd be very comfortable on half of that: most people will never come close to it.

Does nobody remember? In the Eisenhower years, top tax brackets paid over 90% above a cutoff, but the 1950's were booming, and we weren't fighting two wars. Historically, more highly graduated tax rates correlate with higher growth as well as with greater economic equality, despite conservative economic theory to the contrary.

The hype about "raising" taxes is madness; raising rates on the higher brackets would reduce US inequality (worst among developed nations)--and restore the economy. Will that happen? Only if liberals find some cojones.

Click for more info

May 18, 2010, Publisher, Gary M. Zelenko

Iam a writer/publisher currently researching for a book, God's Story (being part of it)and in the last chapter,The Lions are Coming I'm looking at the

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Publisher, Gary M. Zelenko"

May 18, 2010, Assyria?

I thought this website was supposed to be about the parallels of the US and Roman Empires, but sometimes there are historical parallels that make more sense than the Roman.

It's beginning to look, to me, as if the US isn't going to go the way of Rome, slowly diminishing, losing power, replaced by a less civilized elite.

The US is heading towards a fantastic blowout, unless it stops, looks around, and does things very differently.By this I mean, the Assyrian parallel, a short-lived, colorful and brutal empire.

But, unlike the Assyrians--more like the Romans--we face no new rival empire which will defeat us militarily.We face ourselves, our own hubris, that led Americans to think they could create and maintain a Pax Americana even more extensive and powerful (and almost as self-serving) as the Pax Romana.

And don't worry about those Terrorists, only about our own imposed terror, both on many other nations and upon ourselves.

If the US leaves foreign parts, our apparent enemies will leave us alone: they will be too preoccupied with trying to control their own devastated countries (Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen for starters).

If their values are horrible, it's still not America's responsibility--or within her ability--to prevent them: the US does not control the world, never did and never could.

We'd be a lot better off if we stopped trying the impossible, stopped placating the military-industrial complex and brought our troops home from almost all of our international military bases and the formal and informal wars we're waging.

Just think, Tea Baggers: if we weren't an empire, we could lower taxes! We could relax our VIGILANCE; and a vote-getter among teabaggers, I'm sure: we could more easily balance the budget, still pay out full value of Social Security/Medicare, and spend our taxes on making life better and more productive right here in our own country.

The rest of the world might be sad to see us go because of import/export sales lost. On the other hand, they might more readily emulate us if we weren't "permanent" top dogs anymore.

May 18, 2010, Politics, Economy: Does Anything Work?

The bank bailout and stimulus package worked--up to a point. While the former did rescue the banks, and the latter spared us the depths of the Great Depression, neither has "fixed" the economy.

The big banks made money, but mostly on speculation with the cheap (almost free) Fed/bailout money, but they haven't been lending enough to genuinely rescue the economy. In fact, there is a real danger that bank speculation could trigger a worse financial collapse, unless Congress passes laws empowering government to regulate the whole financial industry. Because of widespread American distrust of government, however, and because of intense bank lobbying, re-regulation of the finance industry is difficult to get through Congress (banks were much more regulated before the wave of deregulation that began with Carter and Reagan, and continued through Clinton and Bush).

Further, the stimulus was too little. While some millions of jobs were saved, and something less than that were created, the number of jobs lost, and the number of jobs needed is far larger, so the stimulus limited the damage, but didn't go far enough. The stimulus also saved the housing market from collapse: it is slowly recovering, but many are still losing their homes to foreclosure, many of those due to job losses, many others because house values plummeted and mortgage holders were left "underwater," owing more than their houses were worth.

No wonder people are unhappy and grasp for "solutions," like the Tea Party movement. Ironically, the solutions offered: abolishing the Fed, going back to the gold standard, free marketeering, abolishing regulations already in place, would make things worse.

The gold standard would drastically reduce the money supply, which would destroy more jobs; further deregulation would permit more speculation by the banks, which may be why the tea party is so well-funded, but it would further reduce the money available for job creation. And budget-balancing would subtract still more.

The real problem (Dollars and Sense: May-June, 2010), is that the whole global trading and financial system is seriously out of whack: the dollar no longer works as the world's reserve currency, which requires the US as importer of last resort, a high dollar, imports of goods, exports of dollars and the destruction of US manufacturing. This creates huge trade deficits, consumer debt, high finance and high unemployment.

What is needed: regulate finance and reduce its importance, revive manufacturing (especially to combat climate change), an active government in the economy, a low dollar, not a high one, and a new international reserve unit to replace the dollar.

This might end America's imperial hegemony, but we've already gotten to where we can't afford it; it has destroyed the US economy. The jobs we most succeed in creating, wreak destruction world-wide. We'd be much better off as "just another country." Otherwise, we might end like the Assyrian Empire: brilliant, brutal and short.

Click below to comment.

Click for more info

May 13, 2010, Deficits You Can Hate or Love

There has been an almost unending stream of propaganda and false news about the horrendous deficits the US and now the EC are facing. Britons just tossed out its Labour government partly because of the hype about its deficit. The EC just went through a process for bailing out Greece (and potentially other nations) because of its large deficit. Right-wing media thumps out a drumbeat about the deficit in the US, and may win control of Congress in November, if people don't realize all the holes in their argument.

They argue that families can't borrow their way out of trouble, so the nation can't either. But families do borrow: when they take out loans to finish college or undergo training, for example. Both cases will enhance their ability to pay back the loan. On the other hand, to borrow in order to maintain a lifestyle beyond their income is unsustainable, whether it's to buy a house they can't afford, or to go out to dinner five days a week.

The same is true of governments. Greece's debt was unsustainable, because it was supporting a lifestyle, was not enriching the nation, and was not being paid for by the people with money: the wealthy, who avoid taxes.

The deficits in the US, insofar as they are paying for jobs protected, or jobs created, are investments in the future, and enable the recipients, and others downstream to pay back the money with interest as taxes they would not otherwise have been able to pay. Deficit spending to fund alternative energy, or highway construction and repair, are also investments in the future. They do not impoverish the nation: they enrich it.

On the other hand, deficits spent on wars that do not involve national survival, but instead are for imperial expansion (Iraq, Afghanistan), are like borrowing so that you can eat out every day of the week: the nation is impoverished by them in the long run.

US debt, while large in absolute numbers, is smaller, relative to the size of the economy (GDP) than most developed nations. But the deficit and debt hide both productive investment and wasteful consumption. The two ought to be separated and the latter should be cut to the bone, the former boosted to truly stimulate the economy.

The deficit we should be most concerned about is not mentioned much: it is the trade deficit. We buy more abroad than we sell abroad, in part because large corporations export jobs. That international debt comes back as speculation, boosting the stock market artificially; it does not employ more than the few thousands on Wall Street, but it impoverishes the nation.

So, cut war spending, boost job creation and stop outsourcing jobs. Then deficits become investments and the nation will become wealthier, instead of the Empire going bankrupt.

Comments? Click "click" below.

Click for more info

May 12, 2010, Russian Roulette on the Gulf

Some people have likened the oil mess in the gulf to a "gusher." Since any 'leak' at 5000 feet down is going to be under tremendous pressure, and near freezing temperatures, it's a bit like opening a bottle of champagne, except no one is celebrating, and we don't know how big that bottle could be--and it's definitely not champagne.

In fact, our whole vocabulary for describing what has happened with the oil well explosion has so far proven inadequate. It's not a 'spill', and it's not a 'leak'; it could be a 'gusher', or it could be something else. The gulf oil catastrophe is not a spill, because spill implies a container that tips a bit, and slops a bit over the side. It's not a leak, because leaks imply a bit oozing out, but not the amount in question: more than 200,000 barrels of oil a day are flooding out of these holes in the ocean floor and have been now for 22 days, for a likely total of at least four and a half million barrels of oil!

Offshore drillers grumble and moan about new regulations this catastrophe will cause; the Obama administration holds off on new oil leases and talks about new regulations and administrative restructuring to prevent a re-occurrence. Some coastal state Senators propose reinstituting some kind of ban on offshore drilling, while others, and their conservative competitors, continue to promote offshore drilling as a way to "wean" ourselves from foreign oil.

Another way to look at this, however, is that the risks are just too high. That explosion in the Gulf may have been like opening a tap on an oil reserve that could poison not just marshes, crab and shrimp beds and beaches in the Gulf, but the whole world's ocean ecosystem: it's all connected, after all, by the Gulf Stream and the Loop Current.

I hope BP, et al, can plug the holes, stop the gusher, but how many times must we risk global catastrophe before we stop? If you think of that exploded oil well as blowing the cap on an underwater sea of oil, under 5000 feet of pressure, then to do this again and again, even with all the safeguards in the world, is like playing Russian roulette not just with the future of humanity, but with the future of most life on this planet. The costs are just too high.

If we don't want to go the way not of the Roman Empire but of the dinosaurs, we need to take this as a wake up call: build renewable energy sources now through a crash program that would make the Marshall Plan and even our WWII mobilization look like peanuts.

Drilling offshore as a "transitional" program is just plain crazy! We have to get off fossil fuels NOW!Comments? Click on "click" below.

Click for more info

May 10, 2010, The Afghan War and US Politics

Karzai, Afghan President, wants to open negotiations with the Taliban, even with Mullah Omar.

Until now, the administration has said that it has to stay in Afghanistan and beat up the Taliban before we (or Afghans) can talk. Yet, Obama insists he will start removing troops next year. Either we are fighting for the Afghans or we're fighting against them: a majority of Afghans want peace talks, according to the latest polls.

Karzai is visiting Washington this week. In fact, a good part of his cabinet has come with him.

Last I checked, a majority of Americans felt that Afghanistan was not a fight worth fighting (about 52%). Further, the latest attempted NY bombing came out of Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The precipitating factor in that attack probably was Obama's intensified drone war in Pakistan.

Obama has had trouble maintaining his popularity in the face of right-wing media attacks, and a signal to the elected government of Afghanistan to go ahead and negotiate, might drive the right wing crazy. However, despite Fox's attempt to spin it as "weakness," peace negotiations would be popular.

It wouldn't be popular with the generals. McChrystal might hate it, and Gates might have to hold his nose (or resign, not a bad thing). But Obama should consider: Democrats, in the run up to the Congressional elections could run on: a recovering economy and negotiations leading to withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Democrats could also push the Feingold-Kaufman amendment (again), to facilitate breaking up the big banks. Then they could run on: Peace, recovery and fixing Wall Street. Let the Republicans run against all that!

In any case, now is a golden opportunity to seize the populist initiative temporarily lost to the Tea Party crowd, by coming down on the side of peace in Afghanistan.

Why not? If the administration continues to lean on Karzai to forego top-level negotiations, then we should all know who is really in control here: it isn't Obama, and it isn't the Democratic majority in Congress, either. It's the Imperial caucus: the generals, the defense industry fattening on the wars, and the right wing media machine that hypes them.

Think about it, President Obama! You won election by being against the war in Iraq, and polls show a majority of Americans against the Afghan war. Your support has slipped with your base, partly because of that war. Your support among independents has slipped because of the emotional attacks on "government takeovers" by the right-wing media.

Yet, you can legitimately claim you saved the economy through your actions. What you and Democrats can't claim, yet, is that you have brought peace. Your base will be lukewarm until you can.

Tell Karzai, "Okay. Negotiate." Then hype it and see your poll numbers surge. And the chances for Democrats in the Fall would improve as well.

So, is it Empire, or electing a Democratic Congress?

Click for more info

May 7, 2010, An Anniversary We Should Learn From

What Dien Bien Phu meant, and what it means today.

The French air fortress established there to interdict supplies coming to the Vietminh through Laos, fell on May 7, 1954, after a protracted battle. It was a terrible defeat for the French, and not only mobilized the Vietnamese, but empowered those in France, who had campaigned to end the Indochina war.

The French withdrew from all of Indochina within a year, and although the US attempted to take up the slack in South Vietnam, well, we know the outcome. The significance of Dien Bien Phu is similar to the battle of Adrianople, in which Germanic (barbarian) cavalry overran the Roman army, and captured the ruling Emperor in 378. Colonial empires continued after 1954, and (in the American variant) do to this day, and the Roman Empire lasted for another 98 years in the West, after Adrianople. But both battles demonstrated that new powers were in the ascendancy, and the old were in retreat.

We still are.

In 476, a whole new order, less civilized, less technologically advanced, but more warlike, took formal control of all of Western Europe. After 1954, the French, British, Dutch, Belgians and Portuguese were slowly driven out of their "possessions," and the US attempted to take their place--in Vietnam, especially, and also, tragically, in the Middle East, in Iran.

Afghanistan could create another Dien Bien Phu, if we don't recognize that 'non-western' peoples will control their own fates, even if they have to overcome the incredible barbarism of some of their leaders, like Jalaluddin Haqqani and Mullah Omar.

We may not like what the Taliban stands for--extreme male chauvinism, brutality, fundamentalist Islam--but even if many Afghans hate the Taliban, they are a significant native force in their nation. The NATO and US forces are foreign. We are invaders, perhaps attempting to create a more humane Afghan society, but the inescapable fact is: we are foreigners. Many Afghans, even those who vehemently oppose the Taliban, fear that the US really wants to control their country, which resisted Imperial rule during the whole colonial era. Tragically, they may be at least partially right. American leaders want a "friendly" Afghanistan, meaning one that will bend to American interests.

The US cannot control the world, any more than the French could control Indochina, or the Romans could continue to control all of Europe.

It is because of America's attempt to maintain--and even expand--world hegemony (creating a new Africom, for example), that draws extremists to attack us as in 9/11, and as in the recent Times Square attempt.

The colonial era died at Dien Bien Phu. US imperialism has been attempting to ignore that ever since.

Comments? Post after clicking below.

Click for more info

May 6, 2010, Blog Archives 7

Blog archives from Sep 2009 to Jan 2010

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Blog Archives 7"

May 4, 2010, Arizona, Global Warming And 2 Billion Headed North

What does immigration have to do with US foreign policy?

Why do illegal immigrants have a moral right to work in this country?

The Arizona law is outrageous, but not entirely so. Its justification is ineffective enforcement of immigration laws by the Feds, which in turn is due to the insupportable nature of the laws themselves.

Immigration, especially of the illegal variety, is caused by US imperial policies. With NAFTA, CAFTA and "anti-Communist," "anti-terrorist" or drug war policies, the US is massively involved in destroying jobs in other countries.

When the US insists that large US agribusiness can export subsidized corn to Mexico, for example, it causes massive displacement of campesinos from their farms. This displacement was intended to create cheap labor for the maquiladoras near the border, but not enough jobs were created. The excess jobless have nowhere to go but to el Norte.

When the US helped local elites stave off or drive out democratic governments in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and most recently, Honduras, something very similar occurred: the repressed and displaced have nowhere to go but el Norte.

When the US wages wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen, it creates huge disruption--and large numbers of refugees. The only reason we don't see more of them is distance.

When the US and other "advanced" nations do too little and too late to address climate change, disproportionately caused by us, but disproportionally affecting less developed nations, we will see even more massive dislocation of populations. If the monsoon rains fail because of climate change (there is good reason to expect this will happen) then large parts of South Asia, Southeast Asia, south China and Africa will be unable to support their huge populations.

Where will these "climate refugees" go? Two billion people or more could be headed north, to Europe, Canada, Russia and the US. And the reason would be the failure of the above "developed" nations to come up with a climate change treaty that would alleviate or reverse climate change: climate change they largely caused with two centuries of industrial development!

If climate change was largely caused by us (and Europe), and if its worst effects are felt in places like India and Bolivia, doesn't that make us morally responsible?

This is why the poor, developing nations demand "reparations:" to alleviate the effects of runaway climate change, and to respond to it, despite their own poverty--exacerbated by developed nation policies (led by the US and its corporate elites).

We should stop fooling ourselves: our imperial meddling creates illegal immigration. Two billion more could surge north, because of our inability to deal adequately with climate change. It would be like the Age of Migrations, which brought down the Roman Empire.

The corporations, which profit so handsomely from our imperial policies, should be taxed to fund developing nations' reparations.

Click for more info

May 1, 2010, May-day, May-day!

It's the first of May, and oil is spewing out of more than one hole at the bottom of the ocean, a manmade disaster that will only get worse--and still Obama insists that we should expand offshore drilling!

At least the Democratic Senators from Florida and New Jersey are sponsoring a bill to prevent test drilling off both the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts, the areas opened up for exploration by the President.

Here in the Hudson Valley, I'm close to the land, and I know the climate is getting screwed. We hold a 'bringing in the May' celebration of May eve each year. One of our rituals involves bringing in locally blooming flowers and blossoming boughs. Each year until now, we've brought in loads of forsythia, shadblow, wild apple, quince and daffodils. This year there were some daffodils, but most had passed; there was one apple tree still with blossoms, no quince and no forsythia, except with flowers already dried up. Until now, the height of the apple blossoms (this is still apple orchard country), was mid-May, when the dogwood also blossoms. This year, most of our flowering boughs were dogwood, not quite past. Further, the maples have mostly leafed out already, something that isn't supposed to happen for another two to three weeks!

It's a beautiful Spring, but knowing how much the climate has changed does put a damper on our appreciation of the season's beauty. And now, on May 1st, it's going to be in the 80's! The temperature might not set a record, but it's warmer than it used to be.

We've had two manmade disasters in the last two weeks: the mine explosion and the undersea well explosion. We should sit up and take notice. One involves coal, the other oil. Fossil fuels: the same fuels that are doing most of the damage to our climate.

The oil companies will continue to pour millions into lobbying and campaign funds, the coal companies likewise. It seems as if they're even paying off the President if he can say with a straight face that "safeguards" will somehow insure against future disasters, or that "clean coal technology" will be effective in combating the global warming effects of burning coal.

So, it's up to us. First of all, we need to insist: no offshore drilling, period and no new coal-fired power plants.

We, individually, can use significantly less energy and burn less oil and coal (or none at all), but government action is needed to ramp up alternative sources, especially wind and solar and to support electric cars.

Obama's resolve to continue with offshore oil-drilling is not promising. Nor is the Kerry-Leiberman-Graham climate bill, even if Graham returns as co-sponsor. Our political system seems incapable of making rational policy.

Soon, we'll celebrate Spring in February--with a couple billion climate refugees.

Maybe the Empire will fall first.

Comments? Click permalink.

Click for more info

Apr 29, 2010, Far-Left Socialist--Obama!

Ralph Reed's Faith & Freedom Coalition sent me a "survey" to "To Stop President Obama's Far-Left Socialist Agenda for America." FFC announced that it was sending this out to five million "American taxpayers," to send a message, and to raise money. Their goal: $30 million.

The first two questions (on how Obama is doing his job, and what you perceive his ideology to be) might seem fairly standard, except that the second question's answers range from conservative to communist to fascist.

Then the "survey" gets down to its main business. Before question 3 there is an "issue summary" that creates an "issue" almost out of whole cloth: claiming Obama wants to impose a "fairness doctrine" on right-wing talk radio in order to shut it down. The question is then asked (Question 3), whether the respondent thinks Obama will succeed in shutting down Beck, Limbaugh, et al.

The next issue summary states that Obama is as hostile to anyone questioning his agenda as Soviet leaders, and that he marshaled "union thugs" to beat up opponents at Town Hall meetings on health care! Where does this stuff come from? So Question 4 asks: Do you think President Obama respects free speech, or did union thugs act on their own "without any coordination with the Obama political machine?"

After question 6, there is another "issue summary." It states as fact that Obama and Congressional Democrats are "determined" to "loosen up" the border with Mexico, to enroll millions of Mexicans as new citizens as fast as possible, "so as to increase their voter base and cement their hold on political power." The question: how concerned are you about this "development?"

This is Ralph Reed's latest vehicle for raising money from right-wing know-nothings, as well as propaganda--of the Goebbels variety: repeat big lies often enough: people will take them as truth.

Reed turns ("Anti-American Communist Dictator") Chavez's joke about "Comrade Obama" to the left even of Fidel Castro into a serious issue ("issue summary"): do you think Obama is an ally of theirs? How much danger do you think "liberty" faces with Obama's Socialist agenda: More serious than World War II? More serious than the threat from the Soviet Union in the Cold War? More serious than the Civil War? Respondent can check more than one.

Question 12 asks the respondent to pledge to vote in the Congressional election and to bring three friends. Question 13 asks for his email address!

And then he is supposed to send his "emergency freedom-saving donation," to the Faith & Freedom Coalition.

Americans actually think like this!

Most Romans did in the fifth century, because of Imperial propaganda at least as blatant. If the US really goes in this direction, if this kind of Right-wing wins, then I fear for any reality-based politics at all.

Then we can really have an Emperor!

Comments? Click on "more info" below.

Click for more info

Feb 22, 2010, The Fifth Century's Appeal

The fifth century fascinates, because government didn't work and something very different took its place.

Permalink -- click for full blog post "The Fifth Century's Appeal"

Jan 14, 2010, Haiti and the Devil

Haiti's earthquake, declared Pat Robertson, was a result of its people's pact with the Devil, back when Boukman Dutty at Bois Caiman, a Voudun, led a slave rebellion in 1791 that grew into the successful 1804 revolution against the French slave-owners! What he was really denouncing was Voudun, what we call Voodoo.

Pat Robertson has come out with insane declamations before--like 9-11 caused by the prevalence of the "homosexual lifestyle." He thinks he's an Old Testament prophet, so, he should inveigh against all manner of "wickedness," including, apparently, rebellion against slavery! Slavery worse than our South. How racist! And he's still popular among right-wing "Christians."

His citation of the devil recalls the thinking prevalent in the early 5th century, when the Roman Church marshaled finger bones, clavicles, whatever, of supposed martyrs, in order to defend the Empire against barbarian hordes.

The Church didn't stop the barbarians: far from it. Later on, it supported the Franks, barbarians who had converted to Catholicism. The finger bones hadn't worked.

The fifth century was the beginning of the Dark Ages. It was the beginning of the dominance of the Medieval, magical thinking Pat Robertson exemplifies and others mimic. It has been marshaled by the religious right wing's fight against same-sex marriage. Its latest triumph was in New Jersey, using similar tactics to the earlier defeat in New York: money to spread fear and misinformation about the "gay lifestyle." Or menace.

I hope it's not the wave of the future.

Actually, if there was a devil's curse on Haiti, it was imperialism, white devils. The French didn't take the loss of their most profitable colony lying down. Not only did Napoleon send unsuccessful expeditions to re-take it, but King Charles X, in 1825 mounted a large naval armada to re-conquer Haiti. President Boyer had to buy him off with reparations (indemnifying France for the profits from slavery the French had lost!). The total was 150 million francs, a huge sum in those days.

Expeditions by British, Germans, French and Americans, and even occupations (the US from 1915-1934), also stole wealth from the Haitian part of the island, often directly from the government's vaults.

The poverty that resulted, built the shoddy buildings that fell about people's ears in the earthquake. It has been building ever since the French were forced to leave their most prosperous colony in the 1790's. The poverty isn't because of a black devil's curse, or the fecklessness of the hard-working population; it's because imperialists saw Haiti as an easy prey. American corporations still do.

Think of Haiti as the victim of imperialism. Like many other places on earth, it will be a lot better off when all the empires fall.

Jan 8, 2010, No title no master

Charles Peguy dead in 1914 playing soldier said something like that: Nations are always defended by the poor ones and sold by the rich ones. Some

Permalink -- click for full blog post "No title no master"

Dec 8, 2009, Climate Change

If there is no global agreement about climate change, large parts of the world become uninhabitable and the ensuing migrations will make the Germanic invasions of the Roman Empire look insignificant.

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Climate Change"

Sep 12, 2009, Blog Archives 6

Blog archives 6, of posts from January to Sept. 2009

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Blog Archives 6"

Sep 1, 2009, Attila and Other Books

Several hundred people have downloaded Attila or The Selfish Class from this site, for free. I hope you've read them.

I would welcome comments (See Comment form). I might email back!

I have two other books available on smashwords.com, just published: a thriller, Body Destiny, and a mystery, From Renata With Love.

Check 'em out. They're available in almost any e-book format now out there, including I-phone and Blackberry.

Jul 28, 2009, Special Interests Block Real Change

special interests make the US muscle-bound when real changes are needed.

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Special Interests Block Real Change"

Jun 2, 2009, Lakshmi Mittal Reverse Imperialist

Lakshmi Mittal demonstrates reverse imperialism on American workers, and inststs on a reverse stimulus, too.

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Lakshmi Mittal Reverse Imperialist"

May 29, 2009, Blagojovich and the Free Market

Blagojovich demonstrates why free markets need to be regulated.

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Blagojovich and the Free Market"

Apr 6, 2009, Attila was Not Osama is Not Attila

There are many parallels between Attila and Osama, but there are also some significant differences.

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Attila was Not Osama is Not Attila"

Apr 3, 2009, Twitter and Facebook

twitter and facebook technologize vapidity, but people may twitter when armageddon comes.

Permalink -- click for full blog post "Twitter and Facebook"