America Now--Roman Empire Then

Mar 10, The Filibuster as Empire Buster

Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:11:14 GMT

Progressive Democratic Senators Bennet, Harkin and others are promoting a bill to reform the filibuster. However, important Democrats, like Dianne Feinstein, are against it, and the Republicans are obviously against it: they control the Senate's business with 41 of the votes. That's a pretty good trick, when you think about it. Republicans have used more filibusters in Congress since 2006, than have ever been used before; they're using them to block virtually all legislation, except Defense bills, rendering elections meaningless and government ungovernable. So, it's easy to understand why no Republican Senators will vote for filibuster reform. But why won't Democrats like Senator Feinstein and fellow caucus member Senator Lieberman vote for reform or abolition. Lieberman did once endorse getting rid of the filibuster, but that was years ago--before he became a pivotal vote. That should be a clue right there. There is a reason why even a reform of the filibuster (let alone it's abolition) is unlikely. Senators are there for the power; that's what makes them tick. With the filibuster, all of them, every single one, has much more power than they would with simple majority rule and no power to block. With the filibuster, Ben Nelson can hold up the nation for his state alone, and so can Lieberman, and so can Jim Bunning. Each, then, gains enormous power--negative--but useful to gain things like the Medicaid in Nebraska deal. So, why would any power-mad Senator want to give that up? That's the point: power. And each Senator thinks that if he retains that power for himself, he'll be better placed for re-election, regardless of what happens to the government or his party. Think of all the things he can do for his state, which could insure his re-election (he/she hopes), if he retains that power. Instead of being a faceless member of the majority, Ben Nelson wheels and deals for his state. Instead of being a retiring and faceless member of the minority, Jim Bunning becomes a national byword. Maybe not all Senators are motivated solely by power. Maybe some genuinely believe they are doing good for their state and The People, but at the same time, their egos are being massaged, and probably their bank accounts, too. Also, it may be true that the filibuster could be eliminated by a majority vote (50, plus Biden), but the Senate, as an institution, is very conservative. Also, the abolition of the filibuster might be met by more Republican obstruction: they could refuse to agree to a legislative calendar, thereby blocking all business. Democrats threatened that in 2005, when Republicans proposed abolishing the filibuster with the "nuclear option." Still, it's too bad the Republicans didn't go through with it. The Roman Senate led to the downfall of Rome, literally. If the US Senate cannot reform, or legislate, it could be instrumental in the downfall of the American empire, as well. A State that does not govern, does not survive. Comments?

Mar 8, What If Nothing Works?

Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:07:18 GMT

What if the Democrats pass healthcare reform and we find that the back room deals have made it meaningless? What if Iraq explodes into renewed civil war, and the US stands powerless to stop it? Our guy Maliki was the one who signed on to banning Sunni and secular candidates. What if Iran announces it will build a bomb, and enough companies and countries are willing to buck or veto sanctions that Iran can't be stopped? What if Obama and Democrats are unable to re-stimulate job growth, and we are stuck at near 10 unemployment? What if the Republicans are unwilling to cooperate, and unwilling to lead if and when they regain power in Congress? What if Afghanistan after Marjah is simply more of the same: a corrupt government takes over in daylight, and the Taliban comes back in at night? Does President Obama lie awake wondering what to do about all these problems? Last night, as I imitated Harry Reid, it occurred to me: why did Democrats elect such a wimp as their Senate leader? With his soft-high voice, who would ever listen to him; who would ever change their vote hearing his limp-wristed entreaties? I yearn for a Senate leader like LBJ. He could twist arms, make deals, and carry out a Democratic agenda even in the face of a (moderate) Republican President. And then ram through civil rights legislation and Medicare when he was President. Unfortunately, Harry Reid symbolizes Congressional Democrats, so it's no wonder that Congress is held in contempt by huge majorities of Americans. On the one side: timorous Democrats, afraid even to vote for what they believe in--think of Harry's soft high voice. On the other: Republicans who refuse to compromise and insist on playing victim to the big bad Democrats: think of John Boehner, whose voice is made for accusation and flippant denial. Polarization is worse now than it was when Obama first started to campaign against it. The US Congress will drive the US into "failed state" status, unless it mends its ways, unless party discipline overcomes petty ambition and un-petty corruption. Ironically, the peace president faces bipartisan support only on the wars. So long as Obama plays the generals' game, he'll get enough Republican votes to offset liberal, anti-war Democrats. No wonder he resists calls by Kucinich and Feingold to buck this rare consensus by adopting time-certain withdrawal plans for Afghanistan! The US as failed state, except as bully-boy for global corporations. That is what it looks like--and the emerging nations will take over, like the Barbarians. They'll do business with whomever, ignoring global warming--they didn't cause it--until we--and they--are burned to a cinder. It doesn't have to be this way. All that's needed is a little courage to act like commonsense human beings facing perennial disasters, instead of grasping idiots. Comments? Click below.

Feb 27, Predator Banksters

Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:38:50 GMT

There has been outsized brouhaha about Goldman's and other bankster bonuses--made possible by Fed and bailout (taxpayer) money. There has also been some attention paid to the kind of "investments" that have bloated Goldman and JP Morgan profits: huge bets using the Fed's free money. Now, it turns out that those same kinds of bets are behind a lot of the continuing instability in international financial markets. Greece is an especially egregious example. It is likely that the Greek government has been feckless, and its public employee unions have been unreasonable. It is also true that Greece is in the exact same position as California, New York, and many other American states: it can't create its own money, so it can't do what the US Federal government can do: issue money to cover shortfalls (and more). Its currency, the Euro, is controlled by the limited government in Brussels, itself steered economically by its two largest players: Germany and France. Both major countries are understandably reluctant to follow even easier money policy than they already have: in Germany's case, its Mark meltdown in the 1920's and '30's makes it doubly wary. However, there is something else going on, and it has to do with the banks, or rather the banksters. An article from the New York Times, 2/25/10 pinpoints the problem: Credit Default Swaps (CDS). "As banks and others rush into these swaps, the cost of insuring Greeces debt rises. Alarmed by that bearish signal, bond investors then shun Greek bonds, making it harder for the country to borrow. That, in turn, adds to the anxiety and the whole thing starts over again." That is, CDS's raise interest rates that Greece (and Portugal, Spain, Ireland, etc.) will have to pay to fund their obligations. That will make their budget-balancing task harder, and the misery of the ordinary man/woman in the street that much greater: governments will have to lay off millions in order to pay off their debts, and will have to curtail the public services that have raised their nations' standards of living. But Wall Street doesn't mind. Why? Because, its traders can make huge profits on the backs of Greek (and other nations') misery. Wall Street did the same thing to Lehman and to AIG, and its traders are probably sharpening their knives for Portugal, Spain and so on. This is only one more reason why financial regulation is imperative: banks will only return to the civilized world, and abandon their rapacity, when deposits and Fed/FDIC guarantees are stripped from their speculative arms, when the wall between depository and speculative institutions set up by Glass-Steagall is re-established and when CDS's (and other "exotic" financial instruments) are regulated. If the banksters succeed in defeating reform, they will eventually succeed in bringing down the whole financial system, something they almost succeeded in doing in 2007-8. And then? Comments: click on link below.

Feb 22, The Fifth Century's Appeal

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:46:46 GMT

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

Feb 17, Cut The Deficit?

Wed, 17 Feb 2010 14:58:06 GMT

An overwhelming majority of small businessmen polled in northern New York, said that their greatest concern was the government's growing deficit. They said the government needed to cut expenditures, not increase them. It should also (somehow, not specified) encourage business. Analogies were drawn between a household and the government; one couldn't live beyond one's means as a family; nor could government, they insisted. It's as if Keynes never existed! A healthy portion of the deficit is from automatic stabilizers, like payouts for unemployment; the more unemployed, the more payments. Two benefits flow from this: people are not thrown into utter misery, and they still buy things, thereby sustaining some demand for goods and services. Without unemployment insurance, food stamps and other support payments, the Great Recession could easily have become the Second Great Depression. How do you stimulate business when there is too little demand in the economy for whatever reason--in this case because of financial collapse? Do you cut government expenditures? How, logically, would this help? If consumers aren't buying and businesses aren't selling--or buying materials, etc., how does cutting government expenditures solve this problem? Doesn't it make more sense that if government bought things (highway paving, bridge materials, labor), it might stimulate business, even if it meant a short-term increase in the government deficit? Governments are not households; that's a false analogy. Households can't create money, or destroy it; governments can and do. Furthermore, if one household saves money, it is being thrifty, but if everyone saves money, if nobody spends, everyone becomes poorer. This is called 'the paradox of thrift.' It's what happened in Japan for the Lost (two) Decade(s): savings rates were too high. Business floundered. It could happen in the US, and will, if there is no further stimulus and real jobs bill, or, if the only growth in the national budget is for "Defense." Defense spending is a poor stimulus. Not only does it use large amounts of capital for each job, it spends much of it abroad--"stimulating" Okinawa, for example, or Afghanistan. Also, it doesn't make the nation more productive, except at killing. And yet, no politician would dare suggest cuts to "defense," the largest discretionary item in the budget. Obama pretends he's listening: he's cutting discretionary spending in about 1/8 of government--for 2011--and yet he knows that what the nation needs is more stimulus. The government should spend more, not less, until we're in a solid recovery and unemployment is steadily receding. If there were no more stimulus to promote business, or prevent state and local government lay offs, then demand would fall and we'd be right back where we started: it's called a "double-dip" recession. That happened in 1937, and in the Third Century. In Rome, that double-dip went on for hundreds of years. Comments: click below.

Feb 16, The Marjah Model

Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:08:22 GMT

The Afghan offensive, despite attempts to safeguard civilians, is still an offensive in what we have proclaimed to be a war. In wars, lots of people get hurt, or worse. No matter how 'careful' or not an invader may try to be, he is still an invader. He is still causing local people to be killed, even if they're blown to bits by a mine their own people set. Obama's Afghan war might end well, but only if Obama uses a temporary success (if there is one) to begin negotiating with the Taliban leadership. The Afghan government has already indicated that there is a way to do this (by calling a loya jirga to which the Taliban are invited). The Karzai government has promoted the idea of negotiations; NATO allies are receptive. There have been "feelers," and "signals" that even Mullah Omar is willing to talk. The Pakistanis have also offered to mediate with the Haqqani network, as long as they're assured of continued (renewed?) influence in Afghanistan. And now the Pakistanis and the CIA captured the "number two" leader, who favors negotiation. There is only one important player who is still too skeptical to embrace negotiations: the Obama administration, or the American military. This is shortsighted, especially in political terms. If Obama wants to re-elect Democrats, and gain re-election, tangible movement towards getting out of Afghanistan would be a tremendous boost. Obama should engage in the necessary diplomacy to assure an honorable withdrawal (ignoring the screams from the crazy Right). At the same time, he and Congress should direct huge resources to stimulating job growth (again, ignoring the idiots shouting "Socialism!"). He should also bring the banks to heel. Obama and the Democrats in Congress must present voters with tangible progress on the economic and military fronts. Then Republicans wouldn't have a case--they offer no real alternative. Saying 'No' to everything does not solve, or even respond to what most people perceive as huge problems--joblessness, unstable, untamed banks, two wars, climate change and manufactured fear. Marjah models what Obama needs to do domestically: impose as little pain as necessary, but not shrink from the probability that some will oppose whatever he does. Bipartisanship is dead: Republicans won't compromise when obstruction wins them votes. Obama and Democrats, especially Senators, should press on, using the Reconciliation process when necessary. Obama needs to use recess appointments, too, to neutralize Senatorial "holds." Obama must be flexible, tough and unequivocal. What are the chances from a "centrist," who specialized in "bringing people together?" Either, a progressive, activist government begins to solve our problems, or we'll be faced with stalemate--Obama will be replaced by a reactionary like Sarah Palin--and the Empire will self-destruct a la 476. Post comments at site below.

Feb 11, Declare War: Win Election

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:47:00 GMT

Republicans and Tea Partiers are outraged that Khalid Sheik Mohammed would be tried in a civilian court. Saying he would be a danger, and we'd be "giving" him rights we had fought for is ludicrous. The Bush administration prosecuted about 300 terrorists in civilian courts. Further, courts for over a generation have safeguarded whatever "secrets" the state may have used in order to gain conviction. In addition, the Supreme Court found the military commissions unconstitutional; their reconstitution has been difficult. Those 300 terrorists were dealt with more harshly in the courts than the terrorists who went through military commissions, from which some were released to places like Yemen! The tea party conspiracists, at the same time, seem to believe that the Obama administration is setting up machinery to make mass incarcerations of tea partiers. The same rumors went the rounds during Bush II--about concentration camps under construction for leftists--now the right has paranoia, instead, and is paranoid about Northcom, the US command set up in the US for domestic disasters--like hurricanes and earthquakes! Health care reform, these same crazies say, is a conspiracy for a government takeover, even though Obama, Pelosi and Reid have cut smelly deals with almost, but not all, of the corporate participants in the health care industry (Pharma, the AMA, hospitals). I wish it were a government takeover; instead, it creates a new, subsidized market for health insurance companies! The right-wing lunacy has a megaphone far outweighing any shouting on the left: corporate media are perfectly happy to help bring down an administration that is even slightly anti-corporate. That's why we've heard a lot more about Tea Party and Republican outrage than about the outrage on the left: on Afghanistan, Guantanamo, health care compromises, Obama's unwillingness to investigate past war crimes, his continued use of extraordinary "wartime" powers. So, now we have the "41st" vote held by Brown, who closely aligns himself with the lunatics! Krugman in an op-ed in the NY Times, concluded, "We are doomed!" If the party of No prevails in the 2010 elections, we will be; it offers no real solutions and is not interested in governing, only in posturing in order to win power. On the other hand, the Democrats still have no spine: Schumer caved on the KSM trial, for example. Sarah Palin, in effect, recommends that Obama "declare war" on Iran, if he wants to win re-election--against her or other Republicans. Perhaps she's suggesting that Republicans use that threat as their campaign theme? Given the GOP's lack of ideas, and unwillingness to deal with any real problem, this pronouncement of hers may prove prescient: look for it as the Republican meme in 2012. Is this the Empire's death rattle? It sure looks like it: instability, ungovernability, overreach and bankruptcy.

Feb 9, Nuclear "Ambitions?" Iran?

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 13:44:11 GMT

I'm being treated with radiation (I have an early cancer), and the radiation comes from highly concentrated uranium (about 20), used to create treatment isotopes. You have heard of Iran's nuclear "ambitions:" it's been bruited all over the news since Ahmadinejad announced Iran would begin further enriching some uranium--to 19.7. Iran is a member of the NPT (non-proliferation treaty), is inspected by the IAEA, and openly declared what it was doing. The announcement does not remotely imply that Iran is determined to develop a bomb. Weapons-grade uranium is enriched to above 95; medical grade is enriched to 19.7. To reach 95, Iran would have to build huge complexes--visible from the air. Radioactive isotopes are used to treat cancer. Iran buys isotopes from abroad, but why shouldn't it produce its own? Japan and South Korea do, Brazil does, Argentina did; none of these are nuclear powers. It's true that all the nuclear powers (including Israel) also produce radioactive isotopes with enriched uranium, but there is a faulty logic to the assumption that this latest action proves that Iran is bound and determined to produce the Bomb. It does nothing of the kind: granted that all possessors of nuclear weapons produce radioactive isotopes, but not all producers of radioactive isotopes are nuclear powers. What is telling, however, is that Clinton and Obama are using this non-issue to jab at Iran's leadership and make them sweat (through "targeted sanctions"). It is also telling that China doesn't want to go along with sanctions: she needs Iranian oil, but she also doesn't see Iran as a threat. Who does? Israel for years has been trying to drum up support for bombing Iran's nuclear plants. The US, even under Bush, had to restrain her. It's the primary reason why Iran has begun to put its nuclear facilities underground. Why does Ahmadinejad and his government appear so intransigent? I would be too, if I were abiding by the rules, wanted to modernize my country and was told 'No, No' by the international community. No nation under IAEA's inspection regime has surreptitiously become a nuclear power. We'd know if Iran were really trying to produce nuclear bombs: it would kick out the inspectors first--before it tried. The other reason for intransigence is that it plays well domestically in Iran: it's not about an effort to build nuclear bombs. Ahmadinejad is posing for his nationalist constituency. Why does the US push for sanctions, then? Perhaps the most important reasons are: to restrain Israel (see, we're doing something!) and to appear tough back home: if you can scare people, they'll support you! They'll also support huge defense budgets: no one will talk about cutting those now. Iran, a poor nation of 70 million, is threatening the American Colossus? Get real. Comments: click on link below.

Feb 8, Political Instability?

Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:04:51 GMT

Nations painted "politically unstable," make investors wary; they hire ex-CIA for expert assessments. 'Developing' countries have faced this difficulty repeatedly. The talk in Davos, at the World Economic Forum, was of political instability--in the US. The movers and shakers may be onto something, although it might better be termed political stalemate. The United States faces huge economic problems, and those problems, now worldwide, spread from America. China is stimulating its economy and so are European nations. Governments are acting; their people are not stopping them. In the US they are. First, Obama's stimulus was too small and poorly targeted, because of the compromises and deals he made to move it through Congress. So, unemployment is over 10, instead of the 8 he promised. A logical response would be a second, better-targeted stimulus, but conservatives are screaming that even the first should be cancelled. If it were, unemployment would surge, probably past 12, and we'd plunge into a renewed Depression. Second, the deficit has escalated; Republicans and tea partiers say government spending must be cut--across the board--except (of course) for Defense. If it were, we'd be in for a "double-dip" recession, not a limp recovery. Third, Obama's legislative initiatives (health care, financial reform, cap and trade), aimed at rectifying problems that led to this crisis, appear to be dead in the water. Yet, Obama was elected by a respectable landslide a little over a year ago, and was wildly popular at his inauguration. Furthermore, he brought with him a huge majority to both houses of Congress. Scott Brown's upset win in Massachusetts, "the bluest state," has blocked whatever momentum there was for Obama's reforms. In polls, generic Republicans beat Democrats easily--only one year after that landslide. So, Democratic legislators are afraid to act. If Democrats do nothing, they will lose. What alternatives do Republicans offer? The extensively tried and failed "free market" and tax cut policies (for the rich) that drove the world into this hole. And then there is the Tea Party movement. People in it blame both parties, but offer about the same Republican stale beer, except that the beer is laced with anti-bank, anti-government populism. Meanwhile "progressive" Democrats rebel against Obama's compromises, withhold votes on the Senate healthcare bill and cap and trade, while other Democrats mutter about losing Wall Street campaign funding--if they pass financial reform. Exacerbating this, the Supremes just rewrote the political rules: corporations can now dominate even more. If the Republican 'No' party gains Congressional control--then what? Will Obama compromise to return to reward-the-rich, laissez-faire policy? Or would he block it? We'll face either stalemate, or the ruinous return to Selfish Class control. Only assertive reform will undo this downward spiral. Comments? Click on permalink.

Feb 6, We Don't Want Yer (Foriegn) Money!

Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:59:00 GMT

My wife, Elizabeth Cunningham, is trying to sell books ( The Passion of Mary Magdalen) and her CD ( MaevenSong ) across borders as well as nationally. But her local bank, Rhinebeck Savings, can't even handle a Canadian postal money-order in US dollars! Canada is only 5-hours drive from there. We go to Canada often, both on business and to visit our daughter. Have you tried to change Canadian Dollars into US in this country? In Canada, you can change either way at the border, and in many banks; in the US, I found one gas station, where they took Canadian, because they had enough Canadian customers from 5 miles across the border. But no banks will change Canadian (Pound Sterling, Euros, whatever), unless you go to a major city, and often only if they have a foreign currency department. Guess we don't want their money. We spend enough abroad; you'd think we'd welcome imports of foreign cash to pay for it: foreigners buying American, even if only $l2 dollars at a time. Ever have trouble changing dollars abroad? I haven't, except 40 years ago in India, when I had to make a special arrangement between an American bank in Delhi and Bank of India in the small city where I was doing research. Back then, BoI still used huge leather ledgers to record each transaction; each had to be cosigned by the clerk, his manager, and the bank president--carried from one to the other by the bank "peon." It feels as if American banks haven't progressed much further, despite all their computerization. Other countries want to receive foreign currency; from selling their goods and services to a foreign country, bringing in foreign reserves. It seems as if American banks do their best to discourage money from coming in--unless a huge corporation, like Amazon, controls it. We are also the surliest nation when it comes to foreign tourists crossing our borders. Everyone from abroad is suspect. No wonder we have such huge trade deficits! Other countries support exporters, their banks bend over backwards to welcome foreign exchange and tourists; US banks do their best to discourage transactions such as charging $50 for routing a $12 money-order back to Canada to an American bank, then back. Why $50? Why only American banks? My wife had to forego payments from Canada. At very least it would have been money entering this country: she tore up the money-order in front of the incompetent bankers. Why are they like this? Imperial hubris makes Americans hidebound: only American banks can transfer dollars? It will turn us into dinosaurs. Or a poor, Third World country.

Feb 5, Deficits Are Good For You

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 01:16:00 GMT

Some deficits, that is. Liberal economists from the 1930's on made a distinction between good deficits and bad ones. The deficits FDR ran in the '30's and in WWII were good deficits. Bad deficits were the kinds under both Bush's and Reagan. Why, the difference? In the first case, FDR was investing in the future, first in regaining productivity, and then our literal survival as a nation. And the investments paid off: the US became the world's powerhouse, and industrial champion, and by far the richest nation on earth. But not all wars are equally good investments; ones in which you are not fighting for survival, but are fighting for economic control (called the free market), these, paradoxically, are not good investments. We will never get a return on the Iraq investment, nor on the Afghan one, although some American corporations will--not the oil companies, however. So, the deficits we racked up on those, and on tax cuts that made a few very rich, did not build a stronger, more prosperous America: quite the opposite. The people, who are screaming hardest about the deficits Obama's government is running, didn't complain so much when the deficits were driven by tax cuts to the wealthy--now expiring. And yet, look what those deficits brought us: the de-industrialization of America, and the greatest income inequality among (post) industrial nations. And then, the economic crisis was brought upon us by the deregulation frenzy of Friedman's disciples, who never saw a regulation or a government agency they approved of. Obama's deficits are good deficits: if they derive from the stimulus, because those are investments in the financial stability and future wealth of the nation. But to the extent that the deficits are driven by two wars and the most expensive military in the whole world combined, those are bad deficits. Does American productivity and wealth depend upon controlling other countries, or does it depend on its people, in the United States? A few profit enormously from our imperial adventures, but other countries do a lot better in trade, without spending almost $700 billion on defense. China spends less than $70 billion. If Obama really wanted to cut the deficit, he'd find any graceful way he could to get out of Iraq more rapidly, and Afghanistan, too. And then cut back on the military's imperial bloat. But maybe he doesn't dare. The last man who tried that was JFK. Cut the military and use the money to create jobs to meet the needs this country has put off for too long: by the Federal government, if no one else seems willing to try. Businesses could be energized by even more federal contracts, more reconstruction projects, more investment in the technologies of the future, like biotech and green energy. That's what China is doing. The government should invest in the American people, for a change-you can believe in. Is that so bad?

Feb 3, A Bankrupting Empire

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 02:58:28 GMT

Stein's law: If a trend cannot continue, it will stop Budget deficits growing over the next 10 years, is that possible? Obama has come clean with his budget; what Bush covered up, Obama reveals, with a point: US budgets are going to grow inexorably, in part because of the programs upon which I depend, (Social Security and Medicare), but there is another huge program which doesn't pay for itself, at all. This cannot continue. Let's posit that things could change. One change would be if the health care reform passed: it would streamline Medicare and Medicaid. Unfortunately, the deals Obama made with big Pharma and the Hospitals would keep costs rising almost as fast--no price negotiations with drug companies, for example. That could change. The point of Obama's budget projections, however, is to demonstrate that they will have to change. We just can't keep going on the way we have been. There is another major contributor to the deficit, however: the military, the largest item in the discretionary budget. The reason it takes up more of the discretionary budget than anything else, is not just two unjustified wars, but because it is stretched all over the world. We have bases in a majority of the 195 countries. Why? It looks like we're not only fixated on controlling outcomes in the Middle East, but in Latin America, Oceania, the rest of Asia, Europe and, most recently, Africa. Do Americans benefit from all this military activity? We're not spread all over the world to fight terror; most of the extent of American military involvement predates al Qaeda, but the latter has certainly helped extend our military even further. Actual terror attacks are stopped by police work, not the military--or not stopped as in the case of the underpants bomber. You can't exterminate terrorism militarily. Why are American troops everywhere? To protect American business interests, but those interests often conflict with ordinary Americans. Sure, Walmart imports cheaper goods (mostly from China, from whom our military protects us?), but American corporations, including Walmart, export jobs, because the military protects them wherever they do business. So, when politicians, including Obama, say that in order to gain control of the deficits, we must discover how to save money on Medicare and Social Security, I say: at least those programs have their own payroll taxes: those can be re-jiggered. And reforms would probably cut costs, especially if drugs and fees could be negotiated. But that won't control the discretionary budget. To do that, our whole military mission must be re-assessed, otherwise the deficits will continue out of control: we can no longer afford to patrol the world. Either we will recognize that and drastically cut the American military, or we will go bankrupt. Then we'll have to cut the military, anyway.

Feb 2, Prisoner at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave

Tue, 02 Feb 2010 01:41:29 GMT

Is Obama prisoner of corporate interests, Wall Street, the Senate, and government bureaucrats? Perhaps. Perhaps not. When Obama explained how he worked to the Republican House caucus, it became clear how much he (and any other President) was dependent on so-called "experts," in places like the Congressional Budget Office, and on people like Tim Geithner, who know the ropes. This is a kind of prison. For example, he pointed out that the Republican idea for tort reform as part of health care reform, would "only" result in a billion or so in savings (over 10 years?), because that's what the CBO told him. Talking to the caucus, he didn't cover his escalation in Afghanistan (which Republicans favor and many Democrats oppose), but the same kind of prison may be operative. Pro-war counter-insurgency proponents in the Pentagon and uniformed services presented most of the policy options. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry, a retired General, did propose a counter-argument along with the VP, but they were clearly outnumbered, and Obama had said, in the campaign, that Afghanistan was the war "we" had to win. Has Wall Street imprisoned the President? While Obama rails against "fat cats," Geithner, his man, is also a Banker's banker, and Larry Summers is his other main source of financial services expertise. In other words, Obama appointed "experts" who were not neutral at all. While he proposes some reforms, even some form of reinstating rules like Glass-Steagal to separate commercial and investment banking, his proposed arbiter on Wall Street would be the Fed, already highly compromised as the Banker's Bank. Wall Street Banks are flush, unemployment is still high, perhaps growing, not yet declining, because banks can make more money on speculation than on investments creating jobs. Right-wing populism is a natural result; the left is compromised by collaboration with Obama. Obama's jobs program could have been proposed by Hoover. Again, it's probably in large part a result of Obama's advisors, mired in an anti-government milieu: it also protects him from the right, but will it work? What is needed is a program that will create 10 million jobs, fast, because, in effect, employers are on strike. FDR created the WPA, CCC, etc., but Obama has been told that similar programs would be political poison. Would they? Proposing one would win a lot of the disaffected. But nothing will pass: Republicans are betting on obstructionism. Could Obama become a Truman, campaigning against the "Party of No," the way Truman did against the "Do Nothing (Republican) Congress?" There is something bloodless about Obama, unlike Truman. He's brilliant, a great orator, a thinker, a wonk. He reminds me of the last good Emperor in Rome: Majorian, who tried to reform abuses, but ended up getting killed.

Jan 29, Judicial Fascism

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:30:07 GMT

Counter-revolution just happened and it's worse than most realized. Not just judicial activism, but judicial takeover. The case (Citizens United vs FEC) had no standing on the issue ruled upon; the defense had already waived it. Yet, the 5 told the plaintiffs and defense to prepare to debate that point: corporate money in elections. Additionally, in the decision, the 5 asserted that they had the (future) right to rule even if there was no issue, or no case. In other words, these supposed "strict constructionists" are actually "fabulous constructionists," creating law with the wave of their wands. Clarence Thomas even went further, and said this is only the beginning. But, I bet you that the mainstream media will concern themselves only with who will win and who will lose from this decision. Will any of them, will any political leader, including the President, stand up to them and say: NO! This is an unconstitutional seizure of power! All Obama said in his State of the Union address was that Congress has to pass a law, unspecified, to rectify the unspecified problems with this decision--he also noted an important point: foreign corporations would be able to spend money, too--at which point Justice Scalia mouthed the words: "This is wrong." One thing that's unlikely to happen: Congress, or the people, will pass a constitutional amendment to undo this decision in time to prevent further damage to our "democracy." Too much money is arrayed against it. The 2010 elections will be dominated by corporate money; how can they not be? The airwaves will carry all manner of outright propaganda, mostly against incumbent Democrats. Since the media is already controlled by corporations, it's unlikely that most Americans will know that the "information" delivered to them is misleading and self-serving. The only silver lining in the decision is that it leaves in place the requirement that sources of funding must be revealed. Republicans should be allowed to hold a filibuster, so that Democrats can pillory them as the cat's paws of the big corporations. But you know that won't happen. Apparently, Democrats don't want to have to be there for a quorum call, because they are too busy raising money for the next election. And they're afraid of the corporations--for good reason, especially now: corporate money may drown out all other voices. What the Democrats, and specifically President Obama, need to do is make people aware that this corporate takeover is not about freedom of speech, at all: it is about the freedom to buy elections and elected officials, which will result not in more democracy but in Fascism (the merger of state and corporate institutions). Then an amendment, or impeachment of Justices, might be possible, but people would have to be highly aroused, willing to revolt, before anything like that could happen.

Jan 26, Ski Cross and Gladiators

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 02:42:50 GMT

I'm a skier, so, I pricked up my ears when the radio reporter told of an accident happening on the slope, as she spoke. She was reporting on a new winter event tryouts at Lake Placid preparatory to the Winter Olympics in Vancouver. Ski cross? Ski cross is racing downhill, over a course, without gates, against three other racers: they all start at the same time, and they all jockey for position, all the way down the mountain. By jockeying, I mean, driving your competitors off the hill by virtually any means, as you all hurtle downward. I raced downhill in High School, and I know the rush, the incredible speed, the feeling almost of floating, even as your skis grate across patches of ice, worn down by previous skiers. I can't imagine racing against three others. At my age, I know I'm too breakable. The competitors in this new sport have to be very good, for starters, at just plain downhill racing. But add in the other racers, each vying for the best line, the best angle, and also trying to drive the others out of it and you have a race on many dimensions--at fifty miles per hour (or more). You also have the recipe for horrendous accidents. The one reported on radio, was a French racer, who was sent home with a broken disk and possible spinal injury. So, why, you wonder is this new sport now becoming an event at the Winter Olympics? Darren Rawls, a top US hopeful said it was wonderful fun, but then he's been winning more than losing, and has only gotten "beaten up," sometimes. The real reason: it's "fun to watch." Think of watching it on a big little screen; it won't be just one racer, but four, all battling it out all the way down the mountain. You can watch them all the way, and you get to see the accidents, too! Possible "career-ending injuries" around every corner: think of the drama! Why this is better than seeing gladiators slug it out with sword and trident! Better than cheering on bestiarii as they slaughter wild beasts in the coliseum. You get the picture? Yes, this new, oh so dangerous (but fun) event is very like those historic events, except that injury and dying is left up to chance (so much more suspense that way); it's also peopled not by slaves, but by "amateurs," who probably can make money on their careers--if they survive. But the reason for the event is the same: entertain the masses; keep them happy: now, glued to the box. When the Vandals besieged Cirta, in North Africa, the authorities kept the games going--so that the Vandals breaching the walls wouldn't upset the citizens. The Vandals captured and enslaved them. (click Permalink)

Jan 24, Blog Archives 7

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:42:42 GMT

Blog archives from Sep 2009 to Jan 2010

Jan 24, The Imperial Dilemma

Sun, 24 Jan 2010 21:40:19 GMT

In the Bollywood film, Lagaan, it is very clear: a vast and expensive Imperial establishment is dependent upon the sweat of a mass of poor people, who fear they will get insufficient rains to grow their crops. How can they pay their tax to the Imperium without starving? In the Fifth Century Roman Empire, taxes were the food ripped from peasants' hands, and many did starve. But as the evil British officer tellingly remarked, he had to maintain his cantonment, whether it rained, or not. In the modern Empire, war is as profitable to some interests as occupation, and far more profitable than direct rule. However, the modern military still has to be fed, whether it rains (the modern equivalent is depression), or not. The American military is like Jan Slepian's Hungry Thing; it must keep eating, and more and more. This explains why the Defense budget (or the War budget) keeps on growing larger each year; it explains why Obama can't get troops out of Iraq; why he was forced to send in more troops to Afghanistan, and why we now seem to be spreading our military tentacles into places like Ecuador, Bolivia and Yemen. The military has now gained virtual control, in tandem with the corporations that sell to them. The economy doesn't really matter to them, similar to the way the British cantonment didn't care if Indian peasants went hungry, as long as they paid the lagaan: the peasants had to pay their "share" of the cost of being "protected" by their oppressors: the British Raj. This equation lays bare the true nature of imperialism: its subjects must submit--and pay--regardless of their impoverished state. After the fall of Rome, the relations between ruler and ruled became transparent: the conquering Germanic leaders demanded tribute in return for not ripping off everything else of value. It's true they "protected" their subjects from other marauders, but only because they were protecting their own extortion racket. That's really, what they are: extortionists: "nobility" and imperial rulers, anywhere. They live off the sweat of others, or, in the modern case, off the wealth in or under their land, or the wealth their geographic location makes possible (like Afghanistan and the trans-Caspian pipeline) . Lenin was right on this, even though he was wrong about so much else--especially wrong that revolutionary elites would be the "vanguard of the proletariat." So, in Afghanistan, we are there to maintain the imperialist colossus, which is not the United States, but its military-industrial sector. We can't get out, because the military needs a raison d'tre, not just for its maintenance but also for its expansion. This way madness--and bankruptcy--lies.

Jan 21, America's Coup d'Etat

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 21:57:03 GMT

Did you hear about the coup d'etat? It happened in Washington, DC today. The political system was effectively taken over by the largest corporations in the land. As predicted on this site, the US Supreme Court majority (5 to 4) ruled against democracy, today. In Citizens United vs the Federal Election Commission, the court ruled that corporations and labor unions could fund specifically political material, i.e. ads for or against candidates running for office, out of their own treasuries, and in the heat of elections. The ostensible reason for the ruling was free speech, as in deciding that money=speech in political discourse, and therefore cannot be prohibited for particular classes of speakers, in this case corporations or unions. This ruling busts the political system wide open in favor of the overwhelming funds held by large corporations (unions are second rate in this game). For example, in the last month of an election, Goldman Sachs could spend billions, if it wanted to, against all candidates favoring bank reform and regulation. Exxon could do likewise against candidates for climate change policy that might crimp its profits. The lead dissenter, Justice John Paul Stevens, excoriated the court's decision, saying it could "undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation." It's unlikely that the lame legislative branch could marshal the will to overcome the court's decision with a Constitutional amendment. This is a legal coup d'etat even more outrageous than the one in which the court selected the Bush-humanoid for President. And this decision won't be with us just for eight years, either. In legal terms, it's outrageous, since the decision overturns precedent (two previous court decisions), and rests on the misreading of a court statement (not a decision) from the 19th century, which took the position that corporations were legal persons. It is radical, and wholly anti-democratic. It's precisely what Roberts and Alito were chosen to do: preside over the creation of a new corporate fascism. On the left, we have written and spoken reams against the untoward influence of deep pockets on the current (and past) Congresses and on the Senators and Congressmen bought by corporate lobbying. We ain't seen nothing yet! So, the election of Scott Brown, the tea party movement, the privatization of elections (who actually controls the vote counting in the computerized systems?), are only parts of a piece of a wholesale corporate takeover, that now has seen its newest and boldest step. Democrats will tremble, Republicans will applaud, and corporations will become the most powerful forces in the nation, and government. Forget reform; forget dealing with climate change; forget our very survival--if it risks diminishing some corporation's profits. Forgeddaboudit!

Jan 21, Obama's or China's Military?

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:29:00 GMT

Heard of a military agreement between the governments of Colombia and the United States? Under its terms, the U.S. is permitted "to upgrade, expand and use seven Colombian military bases for the purpose of increasing the operational capabilities of U.S. armed forces throughout South America." Colombia is next to Venezuela and Ecuador, in easy flying distance to Bolivia, those hotbeds of radicals. Oh, just for drug interdiction? Columbia is the most important country controlled by an anti-revolutionary regime. Honduras has now joined it, and the US seems to be covertly backing the counter-coup successor regime there. This is Obama's policy? We're allying ourselves with the landlords, gangsters and drug lords--and American business interests. And, it seems we're getting more involved in Yemen, although with no "boots on the ground," just CIA, or similar, and training units. Did you notice how many soldiers and marines we're sending to Haiti, supposedly for humanitarian purposes? Did you see their humanitarian equipment? They all carry M-16's, at least, "without ammunition." Then why carry them at all? And why in combat uniform, i.e armor? We're already occupying Iraq, although perhaps we can get out soon. We're pouring troops and mercenaries into Afghanistan and Pakistan. In Pakistan, they're all in civvies, in Afghanistan, we're the man to beat, and the Taliban are doing pretty well at doing so. Oh, and we have a new Africom, to coordinate all American military activity in Africa. What military activity? We don't know yet, but we'll probably find out that we have bases all over the continent, in strategic countries, just as in Colombia. What the hell does the American military think it can do? Control the whole world? We'll get our asses whipped in Afghanistan--unless we have the wisdom to talk our way out of there, and that's one of the poorest countries in the world. Parenthetically, we've contributed to its poverty by promoting the civil war that's lasted over forty years; it began against a Soviet supported regime that was genuinely progressive. We whipped up the crazies, and the Taliban and al Qaeda are the result. It's worse than you or I know. The American military and our CIA are everywhere; they're supporting corrupt, authoritarian forces fighting against change, reform and peace that isn't the peace of the prison. Yes, the Taliban are brutal; so is Karzai's government, but it's corrupt, as well. There is one country where there are few American military: Israel. We give them billions, the most military aid in the world, to keep down the Palestinians (that's its practical effect, anyway). We can't afford to do any of this. Why do the Chinese lend us the money to keep on going, getting deeper in debt? This is no longer an empire; it's a military enterprise, a huge business. Ultimately, the Chinese, Germans, Japanese, etc. are loaning us hundreds of billions, so they don't have to do it. But why should the US police the world?

Jan 19, The Radical MLK

Tue, 19 Jan 2010 03:28:08 GMT

The Martin Luther King we hear about is the non-violent leader of the Civil Rights movement, who must be so proud that a man of African descent sits in the oval office. We don't hear of the later King, the man who realized that the legal rights in the process of being won for African-Americans and all other minorities, was far from enough. So, while he might be pleased that Obama is in the White House, he would hardly be pleased to hear that militarism has only increased many-fold since his day, nor that Obama is asking for a substantial Defense budget increase in a budget already greater than all the budgets of all the other militaries in the world combined. King would be in the opposition, but not like the Republican party of NO. King would be with the anti-war activists, especially against the surge in Afghanistan; he would be with ACORN: he'd march for justice for homeowners; he would be pressing for radical reform for the banking system, including the breakup of the large banks and re-negotiation of all the at-risk mortgages. He would be advocating for radical tax reform to make the income tax a progressive tax, again. Like many current critics of the Afghan war, King would argue that the war takes money away from needed social change, that it increases poverty; by 1965, he was beginning to make the argument that we should get out of Vietnam for that reason, among others. In 1967, he called the U.S. government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." He drew the connection to capitalism, and said, "There must be a better distribution of wealth, and maybe America must move toward a democratic socialism." If Martin Luther King, Jr. were alive today, he might try to persuade the President, and Congress to institute real reforms (including Single Payer healthcare and more equitable taxation); he would urge them to get out of the Middle East. He might also be on the barricades. He wouldn't be a happy old man because a black man is President. He might be even more outraged at the mess Obama and the Democrats have made of popular reforms, and especially, by their timorous collaboration with the war-party on our Vietnam--Afghanistan. With King and then Bobby's assassinations, any hope of real change died in 1968, not because individuals are so important, yet symbolically they were: if you advocate real change, you get killed. The counter-revolution began then; it prevailed in 1980. Obama is no revolutionary, so the counter-revolution, the system of wealth-in-control is still in place. That's why a timid reformer like him is in danger of being a one-term President. Then the (Roman) Senators will continue to dismantle the Empire, for their own profit.

Jan 14, Haiti and the Devil

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:13:17 GMT

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 12, Avatar: a Metaphor

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:19:05 GMT

James Cameron made Pandora look more like Vietnam than Afghanistan, and the goddess-worshipping people were more like American plains Indians than like the Taliban or the Vietcong, but still there are parallels. In this case, the American military--in contemporary uniform--with hi-tech equipment, were apparently employees of a faceless mega-corporation, bent on extracting a rare and expensive mineral from this distant planet/moon, and on pushing the "blue monkeys" aside to get it. What was different was the avatar program, which created Na'vi people who were under human control--until Jake's avatar, and then others, joined the Na'vi. Their pantheistic goddess worship was an embodiment of the Gaia Principle, that all beings are connected to the planet. The humans had no sense of this, but it was the very power and life of the Na'vi. There was a Hollywood ending, including the wonderful final battle, in which all the fearsome creatures of the planet combined with their sometime antagonists, or prey, to drive out the invaders. If a European filmmaker had made this film, it might have echoed past history; the indigenous people would not have prevailed. It would have been a poignant tragedy, in which you came out of the theater lamenting their demise. For anyone with a sense of history, Avatar had a tragic feel to it, despite the ending: it was about all the indigenous cultures and people brutally shoved aside, controlled or exterminated by European and/or "modern" conquerors (Chinese and Japanese, too). And, no coincidence, they were shoved aside for the riches beneath their soil, or those above it, just as the Na'vi of Pandora were about to be shoved aside, their land raped. But the parallel with Afghanistan was made particularly poignant because military and civilians looked and spoke like contemporary Americans. Perhaps Cameron offers a caution, a whiff of the future. Unlike past conflicts, Cameron may mean, the West will have to withdraw, either peacefully, or in defeat. This is a different era. While the Na'vi looked like ten-foot tall aboriginal Americans, or pre-Roman Celts, they had the equivalent of modern communication, by (literally) plugging into the Mother tree. Unlike the Na'vi, Afghans, Yemenis, Iraqis all have modern communications, but the effect is similar; their people are bound together, and, for good reason, are at best skeptical of the invader, even if he says he's a friend; he might not have their best interests in mind. Some analysts describe the Afghan Taliban much like the gathering of tribes in Avatar's final scenes: locals defending their turf, not for ideological reasons, but because it is "we" vs "they." If true, how can the US overcome this, even with several 100,000 troops? Why should it? Unlike Pandora, Afghanistan looks hellish. Let them have it.

Jan 8, No title no master

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:31:24 GMT

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

Dec 8, Climate Change

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:25:12 GMT

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.

Sep 12, Blog Archives 6

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:51:27 GMT

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

Sep 1, Attila and Other Books

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:38:37 GMT

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, Special Interests Block Real Change

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:05:26 GMT

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

Jul 5, socialism

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:03:50 GMT

this all sounds great until you need my money. I will be investing in non socialist economies. When I hear that a trade union is moving in, I will

Jun 2, Lakshmi Mittal Reverse Imperialist

Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:09:51 GMT

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

May 29, Blagojovich and the Free Market

Fri, 29 May 2009 17:02:29 GMT

Blagojovich demonstrates why free markets need to be regulated.

Apr 6, Attila was Not Osama is Not Attila

Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:55:04 GMT

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

Apr 3, Twitter and Facebook

Fri, 03 Apr 2009 15:35:12 GMT

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