America Now--Roman Empire Then

Jan 25, Banks To Get Tap on the Wrist

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 23:40:15 GMT

Here are some revealing figures: because of the housing boom and bust, created by the recklessness of the large banks and their associates: mortgage service companies, rating agencies, etc., there is $700 billion in negative equity in the housing market today. About 3.5 million Americans are homeless, 18.5 million homes sit vacant, and since 2007, more than 7.5 million homes have been foreclosed. Here are some more revealing figures: last year, Wall Street lavished $147 billion on bonuses to its executives. Estimated assets of the six largest banks: $7.29-8.7 trillion (with a T) in 2010. Meanwhile, Obama's US Attorney General Holder is pushing the 50 states' Attorneys General to sign on to a negotiated settlement with the banks, in which the banks will pay penalties to aid in restitution of the housing market they destroyed. The total penalties: $20 billion, a large figure, but compared to the amounts of money controlled by these banks, it's miniscule; compared to the damage they did, it's like swatting at a fly on a raging bull. What makes this proposed settlement even more outrageous: the banks wouldn't pay that $20 billion out of their own pockets. "Paying" means they can raise the money by devaluing the Mortgage Backed Securities on their books (but owned by investors), not the mortgages owned by the banks. So, the banks would only pay a tiny fraction even of the bonuses they lavish on themselves, and they wouldn't even use their own money! Besides the insignificant punishment: the important part for the banks is a guarantee against further investigations into the banks' wrongdoing. There are piles of evidence, and witnesses that crimes of fraud, theft and extortion were committed widely, against millions of homeowners and hundreds of thousands of investors. But with no more investigations, the banks can just keep on doing all the things they did before, like robosigning, fraudulent foreclosures, wrongful evictions and mis-allocation of funds. Worse, the agreement pushed by Holder and probably supported by Obama, would grant the banks and their officers immunity from additional suits for damages: immunity for the corporations and people who drove this country into the ditch, and hugely enriched themselves in the process! They might still be liable for criminal prosecution, but the terms haven't yet been agreed to. No wonder New York's AG, Eric Schneiderman, and about nine other state AG's, refuse to sign on to the proposed settlement; more are considering joining them. Why would Holder negotiate this? His former law firm works for five of the six banks. Why would Obama? Wall Street provided a large portion of his campaign funds in 2008. Super-pacs can raise unlimited amounts of money for his Republican opponent. If Obama blasts Wall Street rhetorically, but makes a deal with them, he could still raise enough to win. So, our Roman Senators go scot-free, their dominance remains unchallenged and everyone else is impoverished--and has no recourse, just like fifth century Rome. Comments? Click below.

Jan 24, Lockouts: Capitalism 2012

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:11:47 GMT

Corporations, or rather, their CEO's, are feeling their oats. They're sitting on mountains of profits and can see, from their corner window offices, the endless reserve army of the desperate, just waiting to be asked: work, no matter how badly paid, is better than no work at all. So, more and more corporations aren't tolerating their union workers any longer: they're locking them out, or threatening to do so. If unions attempt to negotiate for their members, corporations refuse to listen. Instead, they demand: lower wages and benefits; they don't budge. It doesn't matter that their corporations have high profits at current wage levels; they want to cut wages, cut benefits, and claim they'll go out of business, or relocate, or offshore, if they don't get their way, or simply will hire replacement workers. After they make their claim--unsubstantiated by their balance sheets--they lock the doors if unions don't cave. Seventeen have done so in 2011, but before this year, lockouts were rare. It's the new face of management: take it or leave it: capitalism 2012 style. What managements want is clear: higher and higher profits, huge salaries for themselves and higher dividends if that will enhance the value of their stock, and incomes. What is also clear: workers may do the work necessary to the corporation, but workers are now fungible, just like money. They can be traded in for cheaper models, just like retiring high interest loans for lower cost ones. There are just so many willing to work, and so few jobs available. Manufacturing is supposedly reviving in the US. This may be one reason: highly skilled, educated, hard-working (willing to work way more than 40-hour weeks), American workers come cheap, now that unions have been beaten down to the point where they are weak, almost impotent. Strikes are no threat to many corporations: replacement workers, what unions call "scabs," are willing and ready to take the place of strikers, and the authorities will send in the police, armed, armored and dangerous to insure the safety of replacement workers and corporate property. Strikers are no match for them. There are few political representatives, in this supposed democracy, to stand up for workers' rights. The Occupy movement represents the helplessness many feel in the face of corporate aggression and no countervailing force. What do we get instead? Obama will now take a more populist tone, will pledge to reinvigorate "the middle class," (no one speaks of "workers") and Romney, Gingrich, et al, clearly represent corporate interests and people like themselves with high incomes--Romney's unearned income came to over $20 million in each of the last two years! This does look like the takeover of a class very like the fifth century's Roman Senators, with inequality growing, not receding. It's a prescription for stagnation and decline--just like the late Roman Empire. Comments? Click below.

Jan 19, Romney, Roman Senator

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:33:47 GMT

You wouldn't think that in 21st Century "democracy," one that has stood the test of two and a half centuries, that we would emulate the Roman Empire of the Fifth Century, but Willard (Mitt) Romney is the perfect Roman Senator, like the ones that ran the Empire in its dying days--ran it into the ground. Perhaps, historically, he's most like Petronius Maximus, the Roman Senator who became Emperor after he arranged the assassination of Valentinian III. He was reputed to be the wealthiest of the wealthy, and Roman Senators (a legal class) had pretty much cornered the wealth of the Empire, in land, slaves, serfs and gold. Maximus lasted less than a year (455). He was literally ripped apart by the mob, in response to the Vandals landing at Ostia, before Vandals earned the meaning of their name, sacking and pillaging (vandalizing) Rome. Just like those Roman Senators, Willard is to the manor (or manner) born, and just like them, he is a master at draining off wealth from those who have created it. He calls it "creative destruction," but the trail of ruined, looted businesses and lost or down-priced jobs, is a tale of predation. He hasn't made his case that he's created wealth--except his and that of his class, through financial wizardry and exploitation. Willard is not the richest of the wealthy, but he's definitely high up in the modern senatorial class, at somewhere around a quarter of a billion dollars; he's not yet a billionaire. His candidacy, however, is emblematic of that class, and of its urge to take over this nation, and as much of the rest of the world as it can. With Citizens United giving that corporate/senatorial class the perfect tool (its money) to take over, the only thing that stands in its way is Barack Obama and some Democrats, who may not represent the senatorial class quite so slavishly. There is the People, but with our modern version of Roman circuses, the people are lulled into passivity, or taught to follow their natural leaders. Only if Americans can awaken to what is happening in the United States, center of an undeclared, retreating global empire, can the people counterbalance the surge of money on the one side, and the weak reeds on the other. Romney and the Republicans clearly represent the modern Roman Senators, what the OWS labels "the one percent." The Democrats, while partially bought off, still have some predilection to represent a larger portion of the population. The GOP is explainable in Marxist terms, as I pointed out previously: the party of the emergent super-rich, eager to wield their power. It would take too much space, this time, to explore the likely results of a GOP takeover, but it could be like the destructive reactionary politics that drove the Empire in mid-Fifth Century Rome. The western Empire "fell" in 476. Comments? Click below.

Jan 13, Reaction and Sharing: Romney, et al

Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:40:54 GMT

Reactionary means someone whose politics could be characterized as "an action in a reverse direction or manner." Our whole politics is reactionary! Santorum, and Romney have both endorsed "personhood" legislation: it would ban most methods of contraception. Even conservatives haven't been against contraception for about three decades! Dewey, Eisenhower, Nixon all accepted the New Deal. Nixon expanded the Great Society. Yet, since Reagan, Republicans have progressively dismantled parts of both, helped by Milquetoast Democrats. Now, they want to repeal the Progressive era: cut and flatten taxes further and repeal all regulations. The Republicans are driven by ideology and money, big money. Romney has recast himself as a conservative, from his moderate stance when he was Governor of Massachusetts, one of the most liberal states in the nation. Reaction may be his more natural mode: he's a very rich man, son of a very rich man, and became wealthier as a predator capitalist. Why would Republicans drive so far right? Marx would have a good explanation: they represent the rise of an extremely wealthy class, which has cornered (stolen) most of the growth in productivity for the last thirty years. They have done so through corporate-friendly policies, favorable taxation, easy government contracts, imperial protection and the lax oversight they buy. Romney, who never saw a pink slip and never imagined one until he blithered about it while electioneering, likens criticism of the wealthy expropriating more and more as "the politics of envy." People who envy the wealthy, don't advocate fairer taxes, they play the lottery and vote Republican. It's people who object to the deck being stacked against them, who advocate progressive policies. They don't want hand-outs, they want fair wages, salaries and opportunities. They want the kind of health care that can keep them healthy. They want their children to have the chance to meet their full potential, too, just like the Romney boys, and they want to be able to retire when they're old and tired, to enjoy what's left of their lives, just as the elder Romneys have done. That's not envy; that's equal opportunity and humanity. Perhaps, one of the most disturbing aspects of the Republican primary campaigns is the sense that all of the Republican candidates think that equal opportunity is unfair to them; they don't really want to share their cozy little world. Linked with this is an unspoken assumption that we live in a zero-sum world: if the hoi-polloi get more, then they will get less. They would get less power; they might get less money and they might not, but living in a more egalitarian society has benefits: lower stress, greater safety, more stability, greater predictability, higher productivity and more happiness--for them, too. Studies demonstrate this. They wouldn't lose their riches, but they might save their necks: from revolution, or fascism. But, like fifth century Roman Senators, our selfish class doesn't want to share. Comments? Click below.

Jan 8, Only His Hairdresser

Sun, 08 Jan 2012 16:34:53 GMT

…knows for sure. After seeing the ABC debate in New Hampshire: both Jon Huntsman and Mitt Romney must dye their hair, including those carefully crafted perfect gray temples connoting wisdom. Neither projects a real person. Rick Santorum manages to look chinless, despite his long face; he's not quite as robotic as Romney, but still there is something not real about him. Gingrich, the Newt, projects a real person, albeit an unpleasant, even a nasty one. My wife found Rick Perry the only candidate who was at all attractive, but he was oh, so dumb! And then there's Ron Paul: he's not stupid, and he's real, but he's crazy, like a crazy older uncle. I find it unbelievable that the 1% hasn't found a more personable representative than any of the above, especially Romney, to whom the major money seems to be flowing. Republicans should hire a real actor, like Reagan. The ABC panel lobbed such softball questions. The classic: Do you, Rick Perry, believe that because you served in the military you'd be the best to lead this country as Commander in Chief? What's he going to say? "Of course not; I wasn't a General?" Gingrich claims to empathize with every soldier he would send to war, because he was an Army brat growing up. He brushes aside the claim that he got five deferments. Gingrich came across as the most articulate--and cantankerous--but he made a major booboo at the end: he said he'd be watching Saturday night basketball; it's still the football season. Every GOP candidate except Ron Paul acts as if he's raring to attack Iran. Each, again except Paul, also states as fact that Iran is developing nuclear weapons: there is no proof that it is, only data that imply it's keeping the option open. Santorum goes everyone one worse. We should attack Iran: our credibility is at stake. All of the candidates, excepting Ron Paul, also deplore Obama's proposed cuts to Defense: Romney and Santorum want to spend more, although they make pro-forma noises about cutting the deficit. Only Paul addresses our fundamental budget problem with Defense--maybe that's why he collects significant campaign funds come from rank and file military--but his solution--cut almost everything government does--would usher in the Dark Ages, like the Goths' takeover in 476. If any one of these men becomes President, we'll have a disaster that makes 2008 look like a minor rehearsal. Slash regulations to unleash business--like the deregulation that led to the 2008 collapse? We need more regulations. Cut taxes on "job creators," cut or eliminate the corporate tax--and the "death tax?" Who will pay for the expanded military, the police to enforce abortion and immigration laws and the support for unwanted babies, generated by banning abortions and Santorum's desired elimination of contraception? The "99%." These "leaders" are as awful as Honorius and Valentinian III at the tail end of the Roman Empire.

Jan 4, Ron Paul vs Obama

Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:03:56 GMT

Ron Paul says we should get out of the Middle East (and everywhere else), but is also for dismantling the so-called 'social welfare' state and the IRS! If Ron Paul were a major candidate, instead of consigned to the "loony right-wing fringe," we could have a real debate: on foreign and military policy, on civil liberties and national security policies, on drug policies and on the function of government. What is more important: protecting (minimally) the already shredded safety net, or personal liberties? Obama is for the former. However, Obama signed the NDAA, with its provision for indefinite detention by the military of anyone, anywhere in the world, deemed to have some undefined relationship or alignment with al Qaeda, with no right to trial or even Habeas Corpus. Obama is no protector of civil liberties. He has signed the death warrant for democracy, as we have known it. Just as in the Roman Empire, the military has been given the power of judge, jury and executioner, even though emperor Obama and his successors are supposed to approve their actions. During most of the Roman Empire, the military chose the Emperor: that could happen here. As of now, someone like Ron Paul, who is judged "anti-military" could never become President. Could an anti-military Caesar have become Emperor? Ron Paul opposed the NDAA, and its predecessors, the Patriot Act and FISA, because they infringed on our civil liberties. He's opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our involvement in wars and conflicts all over the world. He would dismantle our overseas military empire! Obama is only "winding down" our involvement in the two wars, but is an interventionist in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and the South China Sea. Ron Paul has not been particularly forthcoming about racist statements in past newsletters attributed to him. He would also eliminate, like any other Republican, whatever safety net Democrats have already eviscerated. And his economic policy of abolishing the Fed, the IRS and reinstating the gold standard would be disastrous. But Ron Paul advocates an end to the drug war, legalization, and points out what most black people know and white people deny: the war on drugs is racist and fuels the prison-industrial complex. He was labeled racist, because he was against the Civil Rights Act, ironically, because he's against government controlling everyone's behavior--which is also why he's against drug laws! He's also been tarred with anti-Semitism, probably because he's against slavishly supporting Israel's every policy, but that's also a position with which a lot of progressives, and progressive Jews, agree. Maybe Ron Paul is racist, anti-Semitic, a disastrous economist and against even Social Security, but he brings into political discussion many issues that have been "off the table" for far too long. He would be the most interesting Republican nominee--he'd likely lose--but he'd bring the empire--and a whole lot more--into question.

Dec 28, Campaigning Against the 1%

Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:20:35 GMT

What will it take for putative progressive politicians to realize what a gift the Occupy Wall Street movement has offered them? While campaigning against "the one-percent," the OWS has begun to awaken the slumbering giant that is the American public. I wonder, however, if elected leaders will get the message. I have a friend, Joel Tyner, who holds a position in the local legislature. He now sees his chance: he's campaigning for Congress; his opponent, the incumbent, is a Tea Party Republican elected in the 2010 wave. I'm not sure my friend will have what it takes, which is a ton of money and good organization, even to be heard, even to be part of the electoral debate. It's no secret that the Republican will not only have sufficient campaign funds, he will also be supported, if necessary, with piles of corporate money. My friend will probably reject special interest funding, and doesn't know many likely wealthy contributors. He'll do things like hold demonstrations outside the Congressman's office; he's known for his publicized hikes to highlight political grievances, yet not even the local newspaper covers him most of the time. The American political system, as presently constituted, favors the wealthy, and rewards those who side with them. Charles Beard, an American revisionist historian, made the case that the American Constitution was a counter-revolution by the propertied, looking out for their special interests. Their interests included "worthless" war bonds and deeds to western lands issued to Revolutionary War veterans in lieu of pay. George Washington and others bought them up for tiny fractions of their face value. The Constitution insured that the new government would protect their new lands and honor the war bonds, making the speculators--many in the Constitutional Congress--extremely wealthy. Today we have a continuation of that tradition in Congress's immunity from insider trading laws, which is probably one of the reasons why most Congress-persons and Senators are much wealthier than their constituents. Any reform, let alone revolution, has to overcome this. Further, it will have to overwhelm party establishments that are set up to protect special interests, rather than represent popular concerns. Only sustained popular mobilization, like the civil rights movement and the suffrage movement, has overcome the entrenched status quo. Effective leaders can help promote change, but our complicated structure tends to keep things the way they were. If far-reaching reform doesn't happen, the American system ultimately may be overthrown by an enraged 99%; it's what happened in France, Russia, China, etc. Alternatively, the US political and economic system could continue to become increasingly dysfunctional, until it collapses of its own weight, like the Roman Empire. Rome went bankrupt because its Senators refused to raise taxes on themselves: they had extracted all the available wealth from everyone else, but had no sense of obligation to the Empire or society as a whole. Sounds like Wall Street, doesn't it?

Dec 20, The NDAA: Plunging Downhill

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 15:50:07 GMT

Regardless of who is President, once grabbed, the executive branch never gives up power without a fight: the Imperial Presidency. In other words, Obama will sign the NDAA, which may authorize the President to detain citizens indefinitely (they'll leave it up to the courts to decide if a President can do this) and that's okay, because Obama says he won't use that power! Would anyone, trust a President Gingrich or Romney with that power? Hell, no one knows what either of them think, especially Romney, who the big boys don't like, but for whom they may have no choice. They don't trust Gingrich, who's fading, and would never consider anti-militarist Ron Paul; their money is where their mouths are, and he'd also disrupt the corrupt games of their primary constituents: the financial industry. But I'm not so sure Obama wouldn't use those powers in the NDAA. One of the things that seems to be happening worldwide, is that global protests are now being suppressed with greater and greater ferocity. First, Occupiers were tolerated, then they were penned and arrested, then they were driven out of Zuccotti Park, and a whole lot of other, similar encampments in places like Oakland, Seattle, Tampa, Washington, DC, and even places like Poughkeepsie, NY. Some violence in New York, more in Oakland, pepper spray apparently everywhere, but nothing compared to the beatings and bludgeoning of women in Tahrir Square, and not by police, but by the Army. Their actions were preceded in Bahrain, spearheaded by the Saudi Army. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both recipients of tons of American weapons, and training by the US military. Now, the NDAA gives power to detain indefinitely, and who gets to take the primary role in combating "terror" in the US? Not the police, not the CIA/FBI, it's the military. If I were paranoid, I'd think the American military was getting ready for a coup d'etat, gaining the power to carry one out legally. I'm not paranoid, and I don't like conspiracy theories as explanations, but I do think the NDAA is setting us up, even if no General or Admiral, or Secretary of Defense even dreams of a military takeover: it makes a military takeover much more possible. I also think that Obama as President is more than the man, he is the institution, which has a terrible logic of its own: increase the power of the Presidency whenever possible. It's this kind of progression that led to the absolutism of the Roman Emperors and the totalitarianisms of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. But we're starting late down that road: the Empire is beginning to self-destruct. The military is still determined to maintain world dominance, even when we can no longer afford one war against insurgents in one of the poorest nations on the globe. In 476, the victors against Rome were barbarians. Now, they could be American soldiers. Comments? Click below and scroll down.

Dec 18, Cash on the Barrel-head

Sun, 18 Dec 2011 14:29:17 GMT

The world is too much with me now and then: The pipeline revisited, the NDAA indefinite detention, perhaps me and thee. Methane fountains in the Siberian Sea-- nothing to worry about says he, A Danish scientist. Who pays his bills? Obama temporizes, his party caves, Republicans tie the noose and the pipeline is saved. Job-killer they'll say, if he vetoes it, Earth poisoner, greens'll say, if he signs it. The environmental President owned by coal and oil; 350 parts per million long gone but then, Gingrich the kook could say: it's all for sale. That's how we do it in the free market! Comments on this or any other blog-post: click on "more info" below and scroll to bottom of current post.

Dec 15, Congress and Obama
Sabotage the US Constitution

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 02:22:42 GMT

Obama is going to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that he earlier threatened to veto. He didn't threaten a veto, because the NDAA declared the whole world at war, including within US borders. His threat wasn't because the NDAA authorized indefinite detention by the military of anyone even suspected of terrorism, even US citizens in the US. It wasn’t because, the NDAA might permit here in the US the kind of assassination carried out against US-Yemeni Anwar al-Awlaki, gunned down by a drone in Yemen. No, the President threatened a veto because the act presumed to tell him that he had to detain through the military by default, instead of through the CIA and FBI: it was a process thing. Well, Congress found a way around that little disagreement, but all appear agreed, that the President, at least, should have absolute power in the truly GLOBAL war on terror. Obama will sign this; the former professor of Constitutional Law will sign it! Whatever happened to right to a lawyer, right to a trial, habeas corpus, the Fifth Amendment's "No person shall ….. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?" This is especially true in capital cases. People must be indicted by a Grand Jury, if they are to "be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime." But since the whole world is within the battlefield, well, Constitutional rights pfff, who needs them? Said Senator Lindsay Graham of detainees, "They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer." Huffpo 11/29/11. Thought that just applied to swarthy guys with black beards or heavy five-o'clock shadow? Think again: the enemy isn't specifically described; it could be anyone, if somehow they are suspected--not proven--to be a terrorist threat. Then, there is one hearing, before military officers, but no trial. You could be put away in Guantanamo, or one of the other hell-holes our boys (and girls) have devised--in places like Afghanistan, or converted top security prisons here--and left there for the rest of your life--with no recourse. Doctor Manette in Tale of Two Cities,, lost his mind during his indefinite detention in the Bastille. That’s the kind of thing that's made legal by the NDAA that Obama now says he will sign. Roman Emperors held powers that were even more arbitrary, but they couldn't effectively wield them far beyond Rome or, later, Ravenna. Obama could carry out this new writ in any corner of the world. Except, political analysts say, he's really signing it to forestall Republican criticism that he's soft on terrorism. Right. He still might use it, even against peaceful Occupiers, or Tea Partiers. Who can say no? Congress gave him the power. And think what could come next: think of President Gingrich with this power! Comments? Click below, then scroll down.

Dec 13, Life is Complicated For Obama

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:51:37 GMT

President Obama claims a number of accomplishments, but some are like finally agreeing to bring US troops home from Iraq. His Defense Secretaries tried hard to keep them there. Obama can also claim rescinding Don't Ask Don't Tell; he touts his flawed healthcare law and rescuing the economy from collapse, even though the subsequent recovery is like a depression. He hasn't yet raised taxes on the highest incomes, but insists they need to be, not lowered as Republicans demand How would Obama see himself? I'll bet his greatest disappointment is that despite all his efforts to promote a more civil politics of centrist good sense, his opponents hate him and are doing everything they can to defeat his re-election bid. He also knows that it's not only partisan; it's also racial, plus the Senate and Congress are bought and paid for by the biggest bucks on the planet. He must love to hear about the sorry parade of Republican candidates, their mishaps and stupidities, but he must grind his teeth to hear Fox's commentators falsifying what's actually happening. He may, finally, be getting it: he will never reach agreements with Republicans, unless it's to tie the noose around his neck. Boehner and McConnell are subtle, but, secretly, they wish they could lynch this uppity black man. Why has Obama actually intensified the war in Afghanistan and the drone war over Pakistan? The military and Hillary were for the surge; Biden was for the drone war and against the surge. So, compromise! Have both! I wonder if Obama credits himself that they got bin Laden: probably. Hillary joked about it. The Republicans try to claim that it only happened because of what George W did before, but they're wrong; Bush closed the bin Laden Section; Obama reopened it. Obama is a disappointment: he tried to compromise, tried to be the "adult" in the middle, instead of the leftish statesman he projected on the campaign trail. He had progressive ideas, but he's probably more conservative than Nixon, "our last liberal President." Every Republican, however, is to the right of Hoover and even of Coolidge, or Taft. Yet, it's not at all clear that the majority of Americans are conservative, even many self-identified as such. Most are like the tea partier whose sign shouted: 'Keep your hands off my Medicare', what they want demands liberal, not conservative policies. Except for the crazy religious, most are also socially liberal: hence the abolition of Don't Ask, and the spread of same-sex marriage. Maybe Obama represents them better than he realizes, in these last years of a tired, crazy, polarized Empire, How many years until the re-play of 476, when the Barbarians took possession of bankrupt Imperial Rome? If Obama is reelected, we'll have a slightly better chance of avoiding that scenario: the Barbarians could be Chinese bankers.
From: MilitaryEducation.org

Dec 9, Occupy Poughkeepsie Comes Home

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 03:41:35 GMT

Well, a few of its members, who were evicted in the cold, rainy early morning hours when everyone was trying to sleep: 3:30 to be precise. The City had issued eviction notices last week, but when 200+ people showed up to support the Occupiers, the police stood down. They waited and planned patiently. Wednesday morning early, when only about seven Occupiers were onsite, sleeping, at the occupied park, the police came, announced that all of them had to leave and tore down their encampment. They also confiscated all their equipment: blankets, sleeping bags, tarps, anything the seven didn’t immediately grab and carry with them. The Occupiers were in shock. We got a call in the morning: could we pick up some of them, since we'd offered a place for them to rest and recuperate. When we went down to the library, where several were waiting, only one man decided to come with us. It was interesting to get to know him a little. He's in his early 40's, has traveled all over the world, lived in intentional communities, graduated in Sociology, done academic work in Germany and had just been thrown out by his mother; he's also divorced. He doesn't have a job, and finds it difficult to look for one without a phone or a computer. He's obviously bright, thoughtful and very lost. One of the other Occupiers was younger, hoarse from shouting, and apparently a bit off in the head. He stayed behind to hold signs at the site of the eviction, but had just been downloading something on a library computer about which his colleague remarked: "He claims he can make a billion dollars from it." While Abe was older and needed a rest, the younger man was bursting with energy, and couldn't leave. The Occupiers were anything but the stereotyped "dirty hippies," and their occupation had turned the park into a community meeting place, instead of a drug market, its previous incarnation. Crime rates in the area reportedly went down. Yet the police had to evict them, or rather, the City Manager decided that they had to go. This isn't a meaningful sample of Occupiers. But still, it illustrates something that the Occupy movement exemplifies: the terrible waste of human talent and energy created by our economic and political system. I've seen this before, when I worked in prison. The men I got to know both in nonviolence workshops and in my college classes were bright, engaged, high energy, but barely literate. If they had gotten adequate schooling, what a resource they would have been! Instead, they were costing the State over $40,000 a year. Maybe empires--Roman, British, Soviet, American--are lost because such people are squandered and thrown away. The OWS is in search of a different solution, where everyone is valued. I hope they/we can find it. Comments please: click below.

Dec 5, Job Destroyers II

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 16:08:09 GMT

In a previous post, I wrote that CEO's and takeover specialists like Mitt Romney are the very opposite of job creators: they are job destroyers when they lay off workers, "downsize," pit American workers against foreign workers and "offshore" jobs. The banks are job destroyers, too, as is the Pentagon. The banks provide capital to enable CEO's to offshore, for example, and loot industries through the kinds of scams that brought about the derivatives collapse. That particular scam, precipitated by the sub-prime implosion, dried up the booming construction sector, killing many more jobs. Banks also finance the corporate takeovers that cause companies to shed thousands of jobs. They promote these job-killing programs, because they can make handsome profits from them. The Pentagon is also a job destroyer. That may sound strange, because politicians, especially those with defense industries or military bases within their districts, instantly complain that area jobs will be lost when anyone proposes cuts to defense programs. The economic principle here is 'opportunity cost.' Numerous studies have found that defense jobs require twice as much capital per worker as non-defense jobs; they are capital intensive. They also don't produce things that enrich the nation; they produce instruments for destruction, mostly for use elsewhere. Incidentally, the move to legalize indefinite detention or assassination of American citizens in the US might mean that the destruction we finance could be our own. In any case, it costs twice as much to employ a defense worker, or a soldier, as it does to employ a non-defense factory worker and three times as much as employing a teacher or healthcare worker. In some cases, the opportunity cost is much higher: a soldier in Afghanistan costs $1 million a year; it's probable that same million could employ ten teachers. The non-monetary cost is even greater: teachers educate the next generation, soldiers kill people abroad, or terrorize them, or, at best, help foreigners maintain security in their own countries. Meanwhile, children at home are crammed into larger and larger classes, getting less and less of the attention and help they need. What benefits do we get for sending our military all over the world? Oil is probably cheaper here because of it, but think of what it costs us to accomplish that: three quarters of a trillion dollars a year. Walmart gets its goods mostly from China, where we don't have military influence, but perhaps imported goods would be costlier if there were no global American military presence. Considering the effect cheap imports have had on our economy and our jobs, I rest my case: the military destroys millions of jobs. Who benefits? The military brass and the owners of defense industries: the latter are our contemporary Roman Senators, described by the OWS as "the 1%." Republicans call them "job creators!" Comments? Click below.

Dec 5, 93-7 Guantanamo Here We Come!

Mon, 05 Dec 2011 15:53:59 GMT

That was the margin of passage of the Defense Authorization bill (NDAA) in the Senate, the one that declares the whole world, including the United States, as a global battlefield (between Good and Evil?). This enables the military to take out, by assassination or indefinite detention and torture (therefore 'Guantanamo'), anyone, anywhere in the world, even American citizens in Peoria, if the President secretly declares them a danger to national security. Remember those novels: The Tale of Two Cities and The Count of Monte Cristo? People were imprisoned indefinitely in dungeons, on the whim of a nobleman. That's what we are approaching today. Due Process? Forgeddaboudit. Innocent until proven guilty? Hah! Right to a jury trial and a lawyer? We lost both some time ago. It's astounding what rights Americans have given up without a whimper! Because we're terrified of terrorists? Aside from 9-11--a terrorist's wet dream come true--there have been only a few hundred people killed by terrorists in this country and abroad. Many times that number are killed every year on our nation's highways, and nearly as many more are murdered in our cities and towns. Modern societies, especially imperial ones, should be vigilant and able to protect themselves. But if everyone is to lose their rights, then there is nothing left to defend: we might as well elect the Taliban to a majority in Congress, or elect a dictator, who can order us shot at will, and have himself re-elected for life. That's what ushered in the Roman Emperor, even though times were good. The Roman Senate's succession and election machinery didn't function: a dictator was better than civil war. Why are we so scared, now, that we're so readily giving up our freedoms? Less than a hundred Americans may have gone off to fight for a branch of al Qaeda (in Somalia or Yemen), and we're terrified they'll come back and--what? Stage another 9-11? Security here, already, is enough to stop all but the most determined individual maniac. No security will ever stop every fanatic. A woman asked Benjamin Franklin, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, if the US would be a republic or a monarchy. "A republic, if you can keep it," he replied. We've not crowned Obama, and we're unlikely to crown Gingrich or Romney, either (I hope), but we're headed towards elective dictatorship with the NDAA. Obama, by the way, has threatened a veto, because it "micromanages" war against al Qaeda. So, unlike Augustus, Obama may have little stomach to be Imperator. But Newt or Mitt? A salamander or a baseball glove? The NDAA is a caricature of 1984! It's parallels 31 BC (when Augustus was crowned, replacing the Republic with the Empire), except that this empire is in decline, more like Rome's decades-long run up to 476 (when it "fell" in bankruptcy to the Goths). We have to stop the NDAA any way we can. Comments welcome: click below.

Dec 1, Job Destroyers I

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:11:54 GMT

The US Chamber says Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown and John Tester are anti-employer, so, it will spend millions against their reelection. Maybe Brown and Tester are pro-employee, i.e. for most of the people who vote, most of the people who live paycheck to paycheck. That's most, especially now, when wages have been stagnant for 30 years (yes, you read that right; since 1980, when Reagan brought the counter-revolution to the White House). Sherrod Brown is reputed to be progressive; John Tester says he's a small Montana farmer, and I expect that neither claim he's a businessman. Oh yes, we want Senators who represent employers, says the Chamber. Why can't employers see that they're killing their golden egg? If no one pays Americans enough for them to afford the "American Lifestyle," then it will go away; has gone away. Henry Ford's brilliant idea to pay workers enough so they could buy his cars, that's gone away even for Ford. CEOs cut jobs and get bonuses for doing so. Now, can't afford means can't afford to buy the goods businesses sell, not piling more on your credit card. Actually, people did just that on Black Friday, apparently, but that can't go on: wages actually went down last month, and escalating personal debt is what got us into the Great Recession. Let me emphasize: it was personal debt as in mortgages, and the scams run by banks, not public debt. It's true, as conservatives argue, there were policies encouraging banks to lend to lower income people, who were necessarily higher risk. But the reasons for the policy were to promote equality, not a bad reason. However, the banks, in response, invented the sub-prime mortgage, and its very creation built into itself the logic for the financial implosion. Sub primes were inherently unstable, with low sucker introductory payments, and then balloons, or variable interest rates that suddenly escalated. They were also being tendered to people who likely couldn't make the payments unless everything went right. Nevertheless, "the one percent" saw sub primes as a grand new market to exploit--until they needed Uncle to bail them out. Our equivalent of the Roman Senators of the fifth century, were grabbing more and more of the nation's wealth, with outsourcing and offshoring (destroying jobs, not creating them), so, it was less likely for the sub-primers that things would go right. Inevitably, the unstable market finally collapsed, and all its derivatives with it. Republicans speak of the 1% as "job creators;" most are the opposite. Mitt Romney is a good example: while running Bain Capital, he oversaw corporate takeovers that stripped down companies, sold off parts, and jettisoned chunks of the workforce. He got rich by destroying jobs! Republicans are the true heirs of Goebbels: if you say black is white often enough people begin to believe it. Yet, Democrats, said Cornel West last night, are "milquetoasts." Will our Roman Senators prevail with either party? Comments? Click Below

Nov 24, Game Over O' Canada!

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:00:04 GMT

The Tar Sands in Alberta: Now that the US pipeline is delayed, Robert Redford, at a Toronto Film Festival, exhorted his Canadian colleagues to save Canada, by stopping the Canadian government from permitting a western pipeline route, over the Rockies and the Cascades, through British Columbia's pristine wilderness and an unspoiled coast, to export the dirty oil to China. Maybe he was wasting his breath. Canada may be more liberal than the US in some ways, but its parliamentary Federal government has been more thoroughly taken over by Karl Rove's type of conservatives than, so far, in the US: both chambers are controlled by absolute Conservative majorities. The Prime Minister closely controls the majority, even vets every public statement made by his Ministers. And who paid for the Conservatives? Western (Canadian) oil interests (probably also the Kochs, etc.), the interests turning swathes of Alberta's boreal forest into a wasteland, while they mine and cook the tar sands. The tar sands will still be piped out. Capitalism will hang us all, even after a hard-fought, much touted victory by environmental groups, spearheaded by Bill McKibben's 350.org, to persuade Obama to stop the XL Keystone pipeline from being built from the tar sands to the Gulf of Mexico. Obama, under pressure, put off a decision till 2013. Republicans will probably yell that Obama gave American jobs to Canadians. But the real point is: that tar sand oil is going to be developed, no matter what Obama decides, or climate scientists say. It was James Hansen, formerly NASA's top climatologist, who said that if the tar sands are exploited (the equivalent of Saudi Arabia's oil, but much, much dirtier) that for the climate it's "game over." I hope I'm wrong, but unless there is a massive popular protest in Canada, that physically blocks the westward pipeline, James Hansen may prove prescient. We already see climate change all around us. In the US northeast, there was both freakish weather, including over a foot-deep snowstorm in October with thunder and lightning, and trees turning color later, or curling up brown weeks too early. We've had too much rain, while Texas was literally burning up with drought this summer. Violent storms and tornadoes became more frequent, and hurricanes strengthen more easily. There is no conspiracy of scientists pushing global warming theory so that governments will be forced to become more socialistic. The money is all on the denialist side, as it is in Canada. Protests in Canada are just as violently repressed as in the US, and their Prime Minister, Harper, is a fundamentalist Christian. This is what the US will look like if Republicans win both houses of Congress and the Presidency. The environmental disaster caused by the Roman Empire (Mediterranean deforestation and desertification) will look miniscule compared to the destruction of our benign and livable global climate, unless, somehow, the tar sands exploitation is stopped. Comments? Click below.

Nov 23, Dodging the Bullet

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:23:41 GMT

At least the Democrats on the super-committee didn't cave to the intransigence of the Republican members. The Republicans claimed that they proposed a compromise, in which they offered tax/revenue increases of $300 billion over 10 years, in addition to their demands to cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, but their proposal was misleading. It was no compromise, because they also demanded tax cuts totaling many times the $300 billion, by lowering the top income tax rate to 28%. Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems to buy the Republican line: neither side was willing to compromise. That wasn't true. The Democrats and Obama offered cuts to Medicare that were too large and were offset by tax increases (on the top income earners) that were too small. It's a good thing that Republicans rejected the Democrats' compromise proposals as too much of a tax increase, and it's a surprise blessing that the Democrats didn't counter with even more capitulation to the Republican agenda of slash, burn and fill the pockets of the super-rich. Perhaps, finally, Democrats are getting the message that you can't compromise with ideological absolutists, who are bent on destroying virtually all programs that benefit anyone but our modern day Roman Senators. Republicans have become the equivalent of fifth century panegyrists; they sang the praises of the Roman Senators: they had pillaged through politics, instead of legions. Now, we have Republican Congressmen and Senators who yawp about "job creators," even though they're not "creating" jobs. Entrepreneurs and/or corporations do not "create" jobs, they hire people when there is demand for whatever it is they're selling--usually not their creation, either. With the exception of someone like Steve Jobs, most inventors have had their creations ripped off by "entrepreneurs," and haven't profited from their genius. Capitalism rewards people who know how to make money, not people who know how to make things, or think original ideas. In the fifth century the 1% controlled even more of the wealth: there was much less of it to control. They didn't create wealth; they sequestered it in gold or land. The 1% today can't possibly spend their earnings, nor can they find worthwhile investments in developed nations; they can speculate--hence the wild gyrations of the stock market--and they can invest in developing nations like China, or increasingly, in nations like Vietnam or the Philippines. When they invest in factories, or partnerships in these countries, or service industries like tech assistance in India, they may be hiring, but not in the US. If they create demand, it isn't here; they are sequestering the wealth, just like the Roman Senators, and just like them, they can't see that the end is coming, because their dominance is unsustainable. Fairer income distribution, what Republicans label "Socialism," would energize the economy, stimulate demand and wipe out unemployment--and most of the deficit. So, workers should be paid more and executives a lot less. How would we accomplish that? Comments? Click below.

Nov 17, Eviction Does NOT = Defeat

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 03:38:50 GMT

What's to become of the OWS movement? The evictions in New York, Oakland, Seattle and other places almost simultaneously bespeak national coordination that was confirmed, inadvertently, by Oakland's mayor, Quan. But the movement isn't about encampments in various cities. It is about the problems we face as a society, in which a tiny proportion (the one percent) monopolize the growth of wealth in this potentially wealthy world; they demand that people whose incomes are stagnating, or worse, pay the price for any amenities society offers--or do without. This has been coming for years. Private luxuries proliferated, like toll roads for those who can pay to avoid traffic jams when they commute. Libraries are underfunded, because the wealthy don't need them; they have their own. The same is true of health care: the CEO's etc. have costly insurance policies paid for; why would they be for universal health care that might cost them higher taxes? An old New Dealer used to say FDR saved Capitalism, because he realized that only by giving people a chance, a stake in the system, could the US in the Great Depression avoid either a Communist revolution or a Fascist takeover. We face the same choices in this Great Recession. Republican conservatives don't recognize that people will revolt, if their only choice is rebellion or misery. Timorous Democrats hardly offer an alternative. Occupiers, now ousted from some of their encampments, were not slackers, were not losers by choice, when the effective unemployment rate is twice the official rate of 9%, and youth unemployment is higher than that. In addition, young workers are deeply in debt because student aid was reduced and student loans follow you to the grave. What are people supposed to do, when jobs have been outsourced, along with opportunities? Only the owner class has chances, but even they depend upon people somewhere buying what they're selling. So, occupiers have made a basic point: the system is not working--for them--nor for most who are one job away from disaster. The Roman Empire had a similar problem, created by the massive import of slaves from its conquests: Roman citizens were driven from jobs and land and the only solution Senators provided was "bread and circuses." People don't want bread and circuses; they want dignity, meaningful work and a fair share of society's riches. Empires don't provide that; they breed the kind of inequality we're facing, because the tiny international elite, like Halliburton and Xe, grabs all the wealth ripped off in imperial adventures, while honest jobs at home are destroyed. Evicting the Occupiers won't make that go away; it'll wake people up: the elite don't think about anyone but themselves. The rest of us, the 99%, have to look after each other, have to prevent the modern day Roman Senators from continuing to rip us off and have to claim the wealth we can create together. Comments? Click below.

Nov 13, Syria and the American Empire

Sun, 13 Nov 2011 03:56:20 GMT

I'm a great admirer of Gandhi and of MLK and of the notion that non-violent protest, civil disobedience, passive resistance are far better than violence. But those strategies take even greater courage and determination, and especially, patience, than facing your oppressor/murderer with your own gun. But I can understand how men grow impatient, and then lash out violently, or seek out someone who will organize them to do so, even when their movement, or protest, has been overwhelmingly committed to non-violence. Short of another Gandhi, an almost messianic leader, it's unlikely that Syrians can avoid a more violent revolution. We're witnessing the beginning of this transition in Syria, when it becomes clear that the murderous intent of the government seems almost limitless (kill the country to save it). Qaddaffi had the same intent, although it's possible, hallucinatory as he was, that he really believed what he said, i.e. he was defending The Libyan People. It is sad to see people with power act so ruthlessly, and it's sad to see that the only rational response is to fight. In this case, it looks like it is (the only rational response), but unless there is international support, the opposition will get nowhere against a well-armed security force and army. That's why Syrians rebelled nonviolently in the first place. So, unless other governments or private entities (like Saudi oil sheiks) support the insurgents, it's more likely that they'll all be captured or slaughtered than that they will prevail. I am not suggesting that the US aid the insurgents, and I'm especially not suggesting that the US and/or NATO do what they just did in Libya. What's a good thing? The Arab League just endorsed sanctions against Bashar al-Assad, without (as far as we know) any US intervention. This is the one area in which I'm in almost total agreement with the right-wing perennial Republican Presidential candidate, Ron Paul. The US should stand back and let these regional groupings solve their own problems. Sooner or later, the neighborhood is going to have to do something about a disorderly neighbor, and outsiders should let them sort it out. That would also be a vastly more democratic foreign policy than the US has ever had, and it would effectively dismantle the whole imperial edifice. Americans, soon, would not have to support a 3/4 of a Trillion dollar a year military, there would be no budget deficit, and debt would automatically shrink as the nation raced forward with growing civilian business and burgeoning civilian jobs (more than twice the number of defense jobs that would be lost). But Ron Paul won't win: the imperial side will, in both parties, although Obama may not have been a part of it, at first. There's too much money to be lost by the powerful, who are now identified as the 1%. The Roman Empire got bogged down in Syria, and we could too. Comments? Click below.

Nov 8, Extraordinary Times

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 18:55:04 GMT

There are crowds massing in the streets in places as far-flung as Nashville, TN, Oakland, CA and New York City, protesting inequality, corporate control and an unresponsive political system. On the other hand, despite clear poll support for government to do something to create jobs, the Republican House and Senate Minority block any part of Obama's proposed jobs bill, persistently and repeatedly. Some Democrats are too scared of them to vote for jobs, either. A Republican town council votes to raise property taxes by 29%: building revenues are down and the local government has decided to buy, move and renovate "historic" buildings, while also laying off employees. When challenged for the insensitivity of their action, one of the council members stated: "This isn't a democracy; it's a republic," explaining that they were elected to decide our best interests. He also stated that no one in the Town would have difficulty paying the increased taxes! He continued to insist on this, even after several townspeople rose to say, tearfully, that the tax increase would be an incredible burden for them, because they were barely hanging on as it was. A Republican analyst has noted that Republicans gain their vision of 'reality' from talking to other Republicans, and that Herman Cain's ignorance of the world was simply a reflection of this self-referential loop. If Herman Cain's insists that a 9% flat tax, corporate tax and national sales tax will be sufficient to pay for everything government does (his 9-9-9 proposal), while benefiting everyone, then Republicans accept Cain's argument, even though none of it is true. If Rick Perry and the rest claim that cutting taxes will increase government revenue, then Republicans repeat the claim, although it has been proven false on every occasion after JFK's tax cut. It was the reason for the massive deficits under Reagan, and then under Bush W, but still, Republicans repeat it as gospel. McConnell and Boehner reject all tax increases on the wealthy, because, they claim, they are the "job creators," even though they're not creating jobs and taxes are already at historic lows. Every Republican repeats the tag "job creators," and no tax increases. A takeover is taking place: Republicans are manipulating redistricting, and voter eligibility, so that millions of voters--mostly poor and Democratic--will be excluded from the polls. At the same time, Fox and radio personalities deliver a skewed worldview: people aren't hurting, they're simply whiners demanding handouts from the "real producers"--welfare cheats threatening virtuous corporate leaders, who are paid hundreds of times their workers pay--more if they fire hundreds or thousands of them. Are we being taken over by a cult? Republicans remind me of the Roman Church, which took over the fragments of the Roman Empire, after barbarian devastation in the Fifth Century. It ruled with magical thinking, too, all through the medieval period. Maybe the Occupations are our chance for reclaiming the 21st century. Comments? Click below.

Nov 3, Dollar Collapse!

Thu, 03 Nov 2011 17:01:19 GMT

It hasn't happened yet, but financial gurus are predicting the dollar will collapse, and "your American lifestyle" with it--unless you follow their prescriptions. These gurus are describing a real problem: US indebtedness to the rest of the world. But the Fed didn't cause this, and it's not because The Government spends too much money; it's because we all do--abroad. "Free Trade" agreements have advantaged American corporations. They have been able to export their manufacturing and services to lower wage, lower tax countries with lax or no regulations. They've driven American wages down and unions out, because American workers can only compete by earning less: wages have stagnated since the 1970's, while corporations have earned higher and higher profits. Furthermore, everyone buys imported goods and services, even when a product claims "made in America." Most have a huge amount of imported components, even if assembled here. So, what can workers do? Until the bust, they adapted by working two plus jobs, depending on other family members working, and when these strategies weren't enough, they borrowed from their homes. Wall Street was awash in cash, encouraging wilder and wilder speculation--before the collapse, and after. That's why so much of the economy migrated to the financial sector; workers were providing it money through debts, and corporations were providing it money through overseas profits going to the 1%, who "earn" too much money to spend; so, they "invest" it. Free trade means freedom for corporations, not freedom for workers, and it means importing nearly everything. So, how do we pay for the goods and services we no longer produce? We borrow through fiat dollars, which have, greatly depreciated since Nixon closed the "gold window" in 1971. Gold sold for between $1,726 and $1,743 on 11/2/11; but its price was set by the US until 1971 at a guaranteed $35 per ounce. Money supply has increased 13-fold since 1971. Fiat money is designed to inflate a little bit each year: the Fed's target is about 2%. Moderate inflation stimulates the economy; deflation would accelerate depression. But the real problem is: we are paying dollars created by the Fed, for goods and services abroad, while not selling enough to earn the Euros/Yen/Yuan, etc. to pay for those dollars. The "Free Trade" agreements, and policies encouraging corporations to export jobs and import goods have created the huge trade debt. The trade debt causes government budget deficits, especially when the only people enriched by "free trade" (our Roman Senators) don't pay enough taxes, while everyone else is impoverished by it and needs help: "bread and circuses." The dollar and the economy would regain strength, if Americans stimulated domestic production, creating jobs, got off imported oil and penalized corporations exporting jobs/production. It appears, however, that the "one-percent," like the Senators of the late Roman Empire, don't want to allow such reforms. Perhaps the OWS movement can force their hand. Comments? Click below.

Oct 27, Billions, Anger and Inequality

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 02:14:12 GMT

Back when I taught in Florida, I was attempting to explain why progressive taxes made sense, when one resource-enhanced student exclaimed: "If the poor don't like being poor, then why don't they get rich!" My explanation was not as simple as the viral U-Tube of Elizabeth Warren, but I did explain that everyone benefits from society, and the rich benefit more. Progressive taxation means that if you get more from society, enabling you to become rich, then you should also pay more: you didn't do it alone. Furthermore, a good portion of government services, including police and our imperial military benefit the rich disproportionately. But the United States is still cursed with its "pioneer" heritage, memorializing people like Daniel Boone, who went out into the wilderness and thrived. Of course, even the Daniel Boones depended on others to raise them, teach them to shoot a gun, even get dressed. Most had mothers and fathers, at least. Most were also aided by fellow pioneers, and, surprisingly, by indigenous people they encountered along the way: even they didn't do it alone. However, that's the story we tell ourselves in these disUnited States. That's why Herman Cain, and now Governor Perry, are proposing to replace our (very mildly) progressive income tax with a flat tax. A flat tax implies that everyone benefits equally from the present configuration of society. Lenin pointed out that the poor also benefit from bridges: they can sleep under them. Cain's 9-9-9 proposal would not benefit everyone equally. The poor, the elderly and those on fixed income, would see their taxes rise considerably, most others would see their taxes rise, too, but the wealthy would see their taxes fall even more. There would be huge savings for the ultra-rich like the Koch brothers, even though they pay lower tax rates than most taxpayers pay already. Their main sources of wealth are capital gains and the hedge-fund traders' special loophole for their outrageous profits, and in both cases, since Bush W's tax "reforms," they are taxed at lower rates than work. In fact, that's what the OWS movement is about: the unfair advantages of those who don't work, except with numbers: from hedge-fund heads, to bank honchos, to corporate CEO's, to speculators, to inherited wealth; these are the 1%. Thing is, it's been that way for years, and getting worse. While productivity has doubled since the '70's, wages have remained stagnant. Guess where all the extra money went. The US today, has the most unequal income of all developed countries: we match Turkey! We've been on a trajectory towards a society like fifth century Rome, divided between all-powerful Senators holding all the wealth, a vanishing middle class, and the Senator's serfs. Cain and Perry know where they're headed. Thanks to OWS, a growing number of Americans are opening their eyes, even some Democratic politicians. Let's hope corporate billions can't undo their anger. Comments? Click below.

Oct 19, Blog Archives 7

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:15:27 GMT

Blog archives from Sep 2009 to Aug 2011

Oct 18, Occupy Wall Street Goes NY City

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 01:06:37 GMT

This is beginning to look like the real thing, a movement that could undo, or begin to undo, the damage done in the last 30 to 40 years! It also begins to look like something that could energize the enervated Left, of which I am not proud to call myself a member. There is no parallel to the occupy Wall Street movement in the Roman Empire. The closest goes all the way back to the Spartacist uprising in the late Republic, and that's not a very promising parallel at all. Spartacus and most of his fellow rebels were killed, committed suicide, or were captured and executed. The movement was crushed by the professional military. Slaves--and serfs--never did mount a meaningful rebellion afterwards, let alone a revolution, until the French Revolution at the dead end of the feudal system, inspired by our own, more moderate American Revolution. Feudalism evolved in the later Roman Empire, when slavery became less viable, but the super-wealthy Senators could enslave their tenants instead, making them slaves of the land (servae terrae) instead of personal property. Spartacus was not forgotten, however. The powers-that-be were so afraid of his return, that no slaves were recruited into Roman armies until nearly the end of the Empire and then, only because they were so desperate for anyone who could carry a weapon. If you read the Occupy Wall Street statement, on the Occupy New York page I've just added, you'll see that their vision is broad, and consistent. I was a Quaker for about 15 years, so I'm familiar with, and impressed by this movement's inclusive consensus process. They hit a long list of issues, but they're all expressive of this general statement: "all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies." The declaration lists myriad corporate wrongs and my only caveats are: The declaration uses the term "colonialism at home and abroad," and I'd argue that imperialism is a better term: imperialism denotes the international corporate system of mutual dependence between our military and the large, "defense-related" corporations, the non-defense-related trans-national corporations and the US's open pursuit of global control of oil, other resources, and markets. My other caveat is when the declaration states: "They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas," it doesn't include the torture, and murder of prisoners here, in the US, especially in "private prisons." It happens, not infrequently, but Americans rarely hear about it: prisoners while dying in custody, of their beatings, or while "attempting to escape." The big question is: what happens next? One possibility: even local towns and cities are rocked by protests, like the one brewing in my conservative hometown, about the huge outlay for moving and "preserving" an historic building to use as town office space, with little public input, while at the same time laying off employees for "lack of money." Town Democrats couldn't even find candidates this year!

Oct 17, Occupy New York City Declaration

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:45:03 GMT

A declaration to Occupy New York City, adopted by Consensus Sept. 29, 2011, by the Occupy Wall Street Movement in New York City

Oct 13, Military vs Police Action

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 14:52:30 GMT

People really do conspire to blow up other people, but the FBI is on the job. The story, of an Iranian-American caught conspiring to use a hit-man from a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Saudi ambassador in Washington--and anyone else in the vicinity--illustrates an important point. It's government doing its job, which is protecting people from murder and mayhem. And it didn't do it with troops and aircraft carriers, but with good police work. Given the times, and the propensity to blow up people, whether they are Iranian or Mexican, Arab or Tamil (Tamils in Sri Lanka began the whole suicide bombing thing), we do apparently have to protect ourselves from would-be terrorists. But it's police work, not the military, which was most effective here. Even with Osama bin Laden, while it was Navy Seals who carried out the assault, what made for success was undercover police/intelligence work, and the use of informers. But informers can lead down a slippery slope. In the Roman Empire of the Fifth Century, spies were everywhere; they were the only effective policing tools available and everyone informed on everyone: not exactly a democratic or human rights outcome. Democracy had disappeared centuries before, anyway. Fifth Century Rome was not like contemporary America in many ways, but it presents a picture of the direction in which we may be heading. We live in a dangerous world. Much of that danger has been caused by America, as in unnecessarily attacking Iraq and Afghanistan. American actions have also promoted violence, such as the CIA coup in Iran that brought in the Shah, the Mullahs, and ultimately our would-be bomber. Our meddling in Afghanistan in the 80's to undo the Soviet takeover, and in Guatemala, Chile, Vietnam and so on, each contributed to more violence. But, as I noted above, suicide bombing began in Sri Lanka independent of US intervention. However, the creation of religion-based states first became legitimate among modern states with Israel (sponsored by the US) and Pakistan (supported by the UK), and then, in reaction, spawned many more, and with it a new, uncivil, international system. I won't argue that religion-based states were the proximate cause of terrorism, but they did make it more likely: true believers are more absolutist in their thinking, and absolutists will stop at nothing to promote their beliefs. Religion-based states like Israel, Pakistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia do appear to spawn terrorists, either in support--as in Pakistan and Iran--or in opposition--as in Israel and Saudi Arabia. Would a more peaceful US deter terrorists? Possibly; between our military and our militarizing police, our response to terrorism doesn't really defeat it; it creates martyrs and sympathizers. One terrorist killed by drone--with "collateral damage--" ten inspired to fight back. The Occupy Wall Street movement--if it has lasting effect--could enable less coercive policies; that might promote dialogue, instead of police repression or military adventure.

Oct 10, Rapture sickness

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 16:39:27 GMT

The rapture may have made more sense to the Christians who were being persecuted under Nero. Yet I think it is something that not only did not happen

Oct 5, Romney, Wall Street Occupation and Obama

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:23:59 GMT

After three weeks of protests, or "occupation," the Wall Street movement (for want of a better term) has begun to pick up enough momentum that even Mitt Romney noticed: he griped it was "class warfare." In Egypt, the demonstrations at Tahrir Square met with some police violence, just like the Wall Street protests, but they were largely peaceful and prevailed in the end. In Bahrain, the King called in the Saudi army to suppress the protesters. One hopes our military is more like the Egyptian than the Saudi; it's largely American, at least. In some ways, the Wall Street grievances are not comparable to those of the Middle East. There, all the governments were openly corrupt dictatorships. The elite that has taken power in the US has used more subtlety. First of all, there really was a counter-revolutionary coup, but in stages. It was first partly successful with Reagan, and the selfish class steadily gained power even with Clinton. The rate of takeover accelerated with the Supreme Court coup that put Bush II into the White House, and has hardly been retarded by Obama. Obama's capitulation to the corporate position on the environment (against science and his own EPA) and at least temporarily on taxes is symptomatic: the Obama "revolution" hasn't happened yet. A friend of mine, more centrist than I am, was outraged when I remarked I wasn't going to donate or work for the Obama campaign the way I did in 2008. Then, I not only gave money, many times, I also volunteered to work in the campaign out of Poughkeepsie, NY and also in Pennsylvania. I'll still vote for him, probably, if I vote, unless there really is the possibility that a more liberal/anti-war, pro-New Deal third party could emerge. But, and this is a warning to others similarly inclined, the one time I did vote for a third party candidate, because I was disgusted with the Democrat, was the Reagan election against incumbent, Jimmy Carter. Either Obama is much less progressive than he made himself out to be, or he was overawed by "the experts," professionals (both civilian and military), and by the selfish class elites. Obama is very bright, but he naturally seeks out compromise, even when the other side was considerably weaker (before 2010) and intransigent. To seek compromise under such conditions only ensures that radical conservative positions tend to become even more radical. FDR's advantage was that he was Old Money, and couldn't care less if members of his class hated him. Obama is an arriviste; he's too impressed/overawed by the Lawrence Summers and Tim Geithners of this world. That's why the Wall Street protests are on target, and why Mitt Romney's remark is an indication they are beginning to hit home. Maybe Obama will finally get it. We still have a chance to escape the fate of Fifth Century Rome, but Obama needs to turn into another Truman, not another Carter.

Sep 29, Occupy Wall Street and the Nation!

Thu, 29 Sep 2011 02:18:23 GMT

Progressives in the US vainly tout a financial transaction tax, a tax on stock transactions; Europeans are now suggesting such a tax to finance the necessary bailouts of the Euro's financial troubles. "Mainstream" politicians in the US, however, don't even mention such a tax, yet it's already collected--on every stock transaction--and then refunded! This tax raises hundreds of billions, but costs traders only a fraction of a cent. And then, it is refunded, so that it won't hurt those poor bank trading sections, or those poor billionaires who make millions of trades. A financial transaction tax would actually be a near ideal tax: it is progressive, in that it would tax those with highest incomes most heavily, painlessly, but it would not hurt "job creation," because it is on stock trading, which trades assets: speculation doesn't create many jobs. The tax would be a slight disincentive to speculation: a positive effect. Further, the one argument against a transaction tax--that it would make us uncompetitive with European markets--could become irrelevant if the EC adopts it. Ironically, the Brits argue that the tax would make them uncompetitive with us! Why are taxes on the wealthy so difficult to accomplish politically? There has been a profound and radical upward redistribution of income and wealth since the "Reagan (counter) Revolution," one of the reasons why the wealthy need to be more heavily taxed, but it's also why it's so difficult to do so politically. The lightly taxed top 5%, 1% and .01% have aggressively used their burgeoning wealth to: build a "conservative" empire of propaganda tanks, media outlets, and political clients that have changed the conversation so radically that reality is no longer reflected in the information accessible to most Americans. A union publication, Solidarity, has a headline on its current cover: "America's NOT Broke": the subheading explains that the problem with our economy isn't out-of-control spending, but an unfair tax system. This is only partly true. Most of the debt and unjustified deficits were caused by Bush II's tax cuts, his illegal wars and the unfunded Medicare Part D, providing prescriptions at prices drug companies can inflate with impunity: Medicare is not allowed to negotiate prices. The wars, the bloated war/"Defense" budget, and Medicare's gifts to Big Pharma have all increased the inequality promoted by the tax "reforms" from Reagan to Bush II (and not rescinded, yet, by Obama). Deficits caused by recession are justified, but they should have been large enough to get us out of it. We live in a world in which the Selfish Class can megaphone with millions of dollars, while ordinary people are beaten and arrested (on Wall Street), even if they "peaceably" assemble, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (guaranteed by the First Amendment). Our contemporary Roman Senators have all but won control: will The People win it back? The Occupy Wall Street movement is only a small beginning. We need millions in the streets. Comments? Click below.

Sep 24, Execution, the More Horrifying the Better

Sat, 24 Sep 2011 12:56:30 GMT

Guillotines were more humane than lethal injection, my lovely wife, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out, when we were discussing the legal murder of Troy Davis. Chop and it's over, instead of your whole body burning up as the poison slowly paralyzes you. This led me to thinking about why we punish and legally kill the way we do. As I've noted in a rather long chapter in my book The Selfish Class (available onsite), Romans of the Fifth Century devised more and more visibly excruciating methods of execution. This was in part because the Empire had reached a stage ahead of where we are today, but where the Tea Party would have us go. The government couldn't provide services like an adequate police force (the imperial government had been defunded much the way Grover Norquist advocates today: the wealthy Senators hoarded all the wealth), so the Empire substituted progressively more horrific punishments for those people its security forces captured as either opponents or criminals. As crime escalated (times went from desperate to worse: banditry was the better alternative to enslavement or death), as the government became increasingly incapable of enforcing order, the methods of execution became as brutal as executioners could devise. Decapitation was too honorable for humble folk (it was reserved for the upper ranks). Crucifixion, used for centuries, was a low-cost death by torture, but no longer acceptable, once the Empire became Christian. Death under the claws of a lion or bear was dramatic, but perhaps too distant for most spectators, and not painful, or prolonged enough. Somehow, the Emperors' executioners had to invent something much worse. A form of drawing and quartering was tried, but the Late Empire hit upon an even more horrifying death: by slow fire where everyone could see the victim die in utmost agony, torches to light the streets. The Tea Party, radical Republicans, are certainly with the program: they cheered to hear how many Governor Perry had executed (235). The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles was with the program, too, but then Troy Davis was a black man convicted of killing a white policeman, even if 5 out of 7 witnesses recanted the testimony that convicted him. Long ago, in 1994, New York's newly elected Republican Governor, Pataki, summarily closed all prison college programs (I taught in one), because prison, he opined, should be punishment, not rehabilitation: never mind that the program halved the recidivism rate among its enrollees. So, we are now coming to a debate about capital punishment--abolishing it on one side, and making it easier to carry out, on the other. And isn't it interesting that we've gone from hanging and firing squad (quick deaths both) to frying in an electric chair, to burning up internally with poison--it took Troy Davis 14 minutes to die. If we wanted to be humane to the condemned, we'd use the guillotine. Comments? Click on "more info."

Sep 22, Standing Up On Their Hindlegs

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 02:14:19 GMT

And finding, yes, I think, a little spine in there. I'm referring to both Obama and the Democrats in Congress. Obama insists on tax increases for the wealthy, including his Buffett Rule, that millionaires should pay taxes at the same rate as the middle class. He came out with a surprisingly muscular jobs bill, although it is still far from enough. And then he issued a veto threat (his first?): against any super-committee budget agreement that doesn't include tax increases as well as cuts to programs. His proposal actually is estimated to come 40% from tax increases on corporations and the wealthy, 60 % from expenditure cuts. Republicans for months have been insisting that: "you can't raise taxes in a recession." Nor on "job creators," their euphemism for the stinking rich, so Obama's position is no longer compromise; it's confrontation. It's as if somebody finally got to him and said: "They'll compromise with you only if it'll guarantee their chances of defeating you in 2012. They're not sincere; give up trying. Maybe he's given up trying. The Republicans, especially the House backbenchers are every bit as crazy as the radical Republicans after Lincoln's assassination. It's definitely better to show Americans what they really are. Which brings us to the US House Democrats: they voted against the short-term budget, and so did enough sane Republicans that the government could shut down beginning next Tuesday. Sane to shut down the government? Democrats? What the Democrats were voting against was the insistence by the Republican majority that, counter to all past practice, disaster relief should be "paid for" by cuts to other programs. A program Republicans were going to cut was for developing more highly efficient vehicles: it was already creating jobs and was highly popular. Now, Speaker Boehner is going to have to find a majority, not among the radical cutters, but among the sane. Insisting that disaster relief has to be "paid for," is like saying: "If I help him, I'll have to take the money from you." That's not going to be very popular. With accelerating greenhouse gas emissions, and Republican crazies denying that humans have anything to do with climate change (it's just sunspots), disaster relief may become our new growth industry. But if you're going to accelerate disasters, at least you should help out the victims. The polluting companies and their shareholders should fund disaster relief from their excessive profits, even if the Kochs, et al deny any responsibility. The debt-deficit mania, the austerity abroad, military stalemate, the increasingly polarized (and irrational) politics both in the US and in Europe spell rapid decline, not just of the American Empire but of any kind of western pre-eminence. We do still have a chance to turn things around: Democrats standing up on their hindlegs is a start.

Sep 15, Why the "Lost Decade"?

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 18:00:51 GMT

Social justice is a different concept for many of the people who control corporations or large fortunes. "We'll always be rich," is a common refrain among today's "Roman Senators." They not only protect themselves, but their abundant funds insure they have the best governments money can buy. The Census Bureau simply releases figures: they show increases in poverty from 14.3% to 15.1%, and a median income lower than it was in 1996. Today's poverty rate is as high as it was at the beginning of Clinton's administration (1993); median incomes of working age Americans are as low as they were (in inflation-adjusted dollars) in 1973 (after Nixon, who would be a "liberal" today)! The New York Times (9/14/11) lead story doesn't ask why. The Times simply observes that things began to get worse after 2001 and have continued to do so, thus the "lost decade." These trends coincide with the rise to dominance of conservative policies under Reagan. There was some improvement during the Clinton years, partly because the wealthy actually paid a bit more in taxes, and everyone else received more in government services. Bush II did his best to dismantle Clinton's small improvements. Economic policy makes a difference: so does political worldview. What the dramatic increases in poverty, etc. demonstrate is that trickle down economics doesn't work, while the mild '90's redistributive economics did work. Also an administration that believes government can do good things, will administer more effectively (FEMA is an example, comparing Katrina with Irene). If social justice is giving everyone a decent chance, and rewarding those who excel, while helping those who need it, we have an increasingly unjust political system and economy. In practical terms, we'd all be better off--except for the top 0.01% of income earners--if we had a more equitable tax system and a governing philosophy that represented the interests of most people, instead of a small elite. This would not only increase social justice, but it would likely grow the economy faster--and create jobs. When labeling the last ten years "the Lost Decade," the Times neglected to point out that this is when conservative economics and policies triumphed: lower tax rates for the wealthy; increased deregulation; permanent war; cutbacks in services; "free trade;" the resulting race to the bottom for American workers and the further weakening of unions. Obama has barely modified most of these policies. Any progress his minimal proposals might have had, were cancelled out by Bush's recession. "Conservatives," however, advocate less or no government action to help the "less fortunate." Social justice, they maintain, means helping those who "deserve it," the supposed "job creators" imagined by Ayn Rand, and touted by Speaker Boehner. Their worldview holds even when (as demonstrated by the new census figures) the real world results show that all but the selfish class have become markedly worse off. Social injustice (poverty, inequality) will grow as long as their worldview remains dominant.

Sep 11, 9-11 Commemorative Blindness

Sun, 11 Sep 2011 01:33:52 GMT

Osama won--in the West. He drove the idiots in power to do just what he'd hoped: alienate Muslims world-wide with our cowboy-frat-boy military aggression--and at-home persecution. Think about it: we spend hours on TV and radio talking about what 9-11 meant; about the pain it caused the survivors; about what we were doing on that day, or the day before or the day after. And it's true: the death of almost 3,000 at ground zero was a wrenching experience for many times that number. So, what did Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld do about it? Attacked Afghanistan, which is not where the attackers came from, nor where they trained, but only where their spiritual/financial leaders had gained sanctuary before the fact. And then they (we?) attacked Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9-11 (but has oil). We lost 3,000 in one day, but how many did we kill in Baghdad's "shock and awe?" (Virtually all were civilians). Well over 100,000 lost their lives in Iraq over the course of that war, initiated by the American invasion, although estimates range up to a million. Further, Wikileaks has documented 24,498 fatalities in Afghanistan, including at least 4,000 civilians. Now, think of all the Afghan and Iraqi stories of what happened to their loved ones and when, and what they were doing on that day, and the day before and the day after, and asking why me, Allah?. Now, consider that Afghanistan has a population estimated to be 29.8 million by the World Bank, while it estimated Iraq's population at 31.5 million. US population in 2000 was 281,421,906. I won't bother to reduce the fatalities of each to a percentage of their respective populations, but obviously, our 9-11 hit was tiny compared to the devastation the US has wrought on others, ostensibly because they had something to do with 9-11. In fact, Iraq had nothing to do with it: none of the hijackers were Iraqi, none trained there. Saddam had kept al Qaeda out of Iraq, because it was a danger to his power. All but one of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, so why didn't we attack the Saudis? Because, Saudis were Bush family friends? Because the oil was already in US hands (more or less)? Osama won by instigating the US (and the UK) to wade into the Middle East maelstrom with guns blazing; he drove the American cowboy into aggressive-defense, which has not only nearly bankrupted us (like the USSR), but has cost us most of our liberties, as well. If Reagan had a hand in bankrupting the USSR and driving it out of business, then Osama bin Laden could claim something similar: the American Empire is near collapse, aided by his ministrations vis a vis 9-11, other attacks sponsored by al Qaeda and his proclamations against us. But we spend years deciding on the order of names of the fallen at ground zero!

Sep 3, Jobs and Obama

Sat, 03 Sep 2011 03:40:31 GMT

Is Obama the "only adult in the room," or is he unconsciously submitting to bullies like Boehner? The go-round with the Speaker of the House about the day of his jobs address is emblematic--proposing Wednesday, rejected by Boehner ostensibly because of the scheduled debate of Republican Presidential candidates--accepting Thursday, which conflicts with the much more important seasonal kickoff of NFL football. Boehner didn't act with due deference to the President, either, even kept him waiting for an answer for 24 hours; then Obama accepted his counter-offer, disadvantageous as it is. I don't watch football, or any other televised sport, but it is a male institution. Isn't it likely that a lot will prefer to watch NFL's opener, rather than the President? What is the likelihood Obama will propose dramatic new job-creating ideas? I doubt dramatic. I'm afraid he'll offer a little here and a little there, and claim he's being responsible; that's his style. Democrats are pressuring him to offer a big program. Will he dare offer ideas Republicans would automatically reject? Obama really should have nothing to lose even if he proposed some New Deal-type jobs program. Republicans would reject any proposal, in any case. They could be painted as anti-jobs, maybe even pro-double-dip recession. Especially given last month's stagnation, the proposal would be popular: people want jobs and prosperity, not losing government services and rising unemployment. No net new jobs last month might make a dramatic proposal more likely. But Obama instinctively seems to avoid confrontation and seek compromise, even if it means giving up his own principles (if he still has any). The odds are strongly against him proposing something like the WPA. The closest he might come would be the infrastructure bank he's already mentioned, which might provide extra money for rebuilding bridges, repairing or upgrading roads, and retrofitting public buildings like schools. At this point, it's clear: nothing Obama proposes will see the light of day in the House, and can be blocked by the 41-vote minority in the Senate. But I can't see Obama campaigning against Congress a la Harry Truman. No one pushed Harry Truman around. Obama is increasingly ineffectual, in part because he allows others to push him around; it not only looks weak, it is weak. Obama is becoming progressively like one of the later Roman Emperors. Despite his obvious intellect, he seems as incapable of leading us away from disaster as was Emperor Honorius, who retreated from Rome to Ravenna to shelter from the marauding Goths. Poets memorialized him, anyway. Does it have to be this way? Nearly a thousand picketed the White House today, to insist that it doesn't; their target was the proposed dirty oil Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta, Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Just for climate survival, we need them to win. To comment, click "more info."

Aug 31, Going Downhill

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 13:53:04 GMT

When I was born, liberal New Deal politics was dominant. As I grew up, Republicans first made headway using the Red scare, McCarthyism and anti-union propaganda: "union bosses," vs "corporate statesmen." The first chinks were Taft-Hartley, the McCarran Act, and Cold War hysteria. Still, Ike, a Republican, continued New Deal policies (including top-end tax rates of 91%) and sponsored large government programs like the Inter-State Highway system. Then, the John Birch Society was at the right-wing fringe of politics, inveighing against the Communist threat, and seeing liberal movements like civil rights for blacks as Communist conspiracies. Ron Paul keynoted last year at the 50th anniversary of the Birchites, and yet it appears the only reason that conservative Republicans ignore his Presidential campaign is because he says things like: the empire is nearing its end. On other issues, Paul is even to the right of Bachman and Perry. He's against all abortions, even pregnancies caused by rape. In effect, he'd enable rapists to pick the "carriers" of their babies. He'd also abolish the Fed and the income tax, both of which date to the Progressive era before we entered WWI, yet he's even popular among some progressives. How did we get here from there, from a political system in which a relatively conservative Texas Democrat--LBJ--could propose and pass Medicare, Medicaid and the voting rights act? Part of the answer has to be the success of a reactionary slice of the wealthy, which sank billions of dollars into think tanks, educational institutions and the media, beginning as a reaction against LBJ's Great Society, and Nixon's continuation of it--and Nixon's elimination of the last remnant of the gold standard, (which Ron Paul would undo). Part of the answer is the successful demonization of "big government" as partial welfare state, when the demand-driven inflation from the Vietnam War, met the supply-driven inflation caused by OPEC. And part of the answer is the successful recruitment of front men: Reagan, especially, and a whole series of young, conservative Supreme Court Justices. And then, along came Bush II. He may not be the culmination of this conservative counter-revolution, despite the crash, in part because liberals/progressives did such a poor job recruiting their own front men. Obama is determinedly non-ideological and appears constitutionally incapable of confrontational politics. I bemoan Truman's absence: he was re-elected by bashing the "Do-nothing Republican Congress." Even if Obama is re-elected, he'll stand for little but the lesser evil. Perry, Bachman and Ron Paul offer small government premised on the dominance of the super-wealthy (the selfish class)--who wish to eviscerate government services, because they don't need them--they only want profitable government contracts. It'll be a privatized world of crony corporations. However, they won't create jobs when there's no demand (only government would do that). It's doubtful they can resuscitate a dying empire, either. Maybe they'll try to "outsource" and privatize it.

Aug 26, Buffett's Good Deed

Fri, 26 Aug 2011 04:24:49 GMT

Whee, it's great to be a billionaire! You can do good and make even more money at the same time! I'm writing about Warren Buffett: he sinks $5 billion into Bank of America preferred stock, which pays a guaranteed 6% dividend, gets a warrant for buying 700 million more shares at $7.14: the stock opens at $8.29 and still closes at $7.65. Buffett supports a bank that has a legion of lawsuits against it for its alleged fraudulent mortgage vehicles; it lost 36% of its stock value because of its overexposure to those same mortgages; it's made worse by the continued decline of the housing market, and its over-investment in European sovereign debt: Greece, Ireland, etc. Buffett is viewed as doing the administration a favor, by helping to rescue a bank that looked as if it might lead to a replay of 2008. Credit Default Swaps on BAC had reached higher spreads than it faced at the height of the financial panic in 2008-09. So, Warren Buffett is not only a rich man getting richer, he's a hero to the administration, especially since he just advocated (in a New York Times op ed) that Congress should raise taxes on people like him. If he weren't so old, perhaps Obama should ask him to run for Vice President, or other Democrats might urge him to run against Obama. Billionaires. Have you noticed that billionaires seem to be taking over our politics? On the "left" we have Warren, George Soros and--(are there any others?), in the center there is Michael Bloomberg, and on the far right there are the Koch brothers, among many, many others. Does that tell you something? One of our two political parties refuses to raise taxes on the wealthy. On the other hand, the GOP wants, in effect, to raise taxes on the middle class. It advocates discontinuing the payroll tax cut put in place last year to stimulate the economy, while insisting on extending the Bush tax cuts permanently. The Bush tax cuts disproportionately favor the wealthy, which is one of the reasons why there is such a proliferation of billionaires, and other super-wealthy. Not only are the top tax rates the lowest they've been since the 1920's, many dividends are exempt, and capital gains are taxed at less than half the top rate--lower than middle class incomes. On the other hand, the payroll tax is a flat tax with a cap at a bit over the first $100,000 of income. A cut in its rate disproportionately favors those earning under that, but, those with million dollar incomes only pay the tax on one-tenth of their income. The tax cut hardly matters to them, so, the GOP wants to scrap it. Why? Perhaps to drive the nation back into recession, to enable Republicans to beat Obama, to dismantle the New Deal and to insure that the wealthy rule. The takeover of the new Roman Senators: it could happen here.

Aug 25, Rip-off Artists

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:53:30 GMT

The King of Kings is on the run, but it doesn't really matter. Qaddafi started out with apparent promise, ruling for the common man, so he claimed. But really, he just ended up ripping people off in novel ways, while attempting to control their lives. What does matter is that the Wall Street banks are not on the run, and they are also ripping off the common man in novel ways. Now, paralleling the obstructionist extortion of the GOP in Congress, the banks are "negotiating" with the states' Attorneys General, who are also being pushed by the Arbitrator-in-chief, for a quick, painless settlement (for the banks). The primary issue is the robo-signing scandal, in which millions of mortgage defaults were falsified, but the other questionable, probably illegal, practices of the banks are also in question. Some State Attorneys General, Eric Schneiderman of NY chief among them, insist that there must be thorough investigations of the fraud, before any settlement can be reached. But the banks, those same huge banks that drove us into the "Great Recession," the same banks that are now falling all over themselves with mega bonuses, are offering a paltry $50 billion or so. to help defaulting homeowners keep their homes in some circumstances, or help them move to an apartment in others. But the banks did over $750 billion in damages to homeowners, and are worth trillions. What are they asking in exchange for that $50 billion? Immunity. In other words, this whole "negotiation" on what really amounts to massive banking fraud, is like the plea deal that prosecutors strike with some felons, in order to convict other felons. Except, in this case, they're all buying immunity, and for that they're willing to pay $50 billion. If they can't get Schneiderman and four or five other state Attorneys General, to sign on, however, then they'll offer less, not even $50 billion. Administration officials are urging the AG's to sign on: their model seems to be, everybody rich and powerful should be protected, but those whom the R and P have exploited, can't be helped, except with rhetoric, or that measly $50 billion. House underwater and you've lost a job because of the banking debacle, well, too bad. There's only that tiny fund to go around for all of you. Schneiderman has just been kicked off the AGs' committee negotiating with the banks, because he's not willing to give them immunity; he wants to investigate them, and is doing so. The New York Times applauded him, but it's likely that, with three or five exceptions, a settlement will be reached soon; it will not hold the banks responsible, will not investigate and will not permit any party to the agreement to investigate the banks further. It looks like Schneiderman will try to hold our contemporary Roman Senators accountable; his chances aren't great, given his opponents' resources. But that's the 21st century, more and more like the 5th.

Aug 18, Empire or Republic?

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 03:10:00 GMT

--the crippling costs of a defense policy that makes global hegemony a mindless imperative. Salon, 8/13/11: "The Pentagon's New China War Plan." Congressman Chris Gibson, R, NY, comment: "America is a republic, not an empire." The Pentagon, it appears, is an independent entity that throws its weight around. It is much like the field army of the later Roman Empire, which operated independently of the Emperor. The major difference: the field army enthroned and dethroned Emperors; the Pentagon only controls the President. Just Foreign Policy News notes that on Pentagon spending, the President is to the right of conservative Republican Senator Coburn. Obama's Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta, is insisting now that any cuts to his budget beyond the $420 billion already passed in the budget-ceiling agreement will "hollow out" the military. He and his underlings are also attempting to persuade Iraqis that we should keep 10,000+ troops in Iraq after the end of the year, when they're all scheduled to leave, as per Bush's negotiated settlement. Iraqis are resistant, as well they should be. Senators like Coburn and Congressmen like Gibson may be very conservative and even pro-military (Gibson was a Colonel, and served 4 tours in Iraq), but their positions on the military budget are getting closer to anti-war Democrats: spending has to be cut, and the military should bear the brunt of it. Coburn apparently approves of a cut of a trillion dollars to defense, which is what the fall-back position of the debt-ceiling agreement will call for if the "super committee" fails to reach agreement on cuts. This "new China war policy?" It appears that our military is moving to protect their perceived global hegemony. Cuts to troop strength in the Middle East are matched by naval and air force deployments to places like Guam and Diego Garcia. One observer commented on the buildup of those two island bases: twin anchors for maintaining global supremacy. Further, the military appears intent on picking a fight with China. It sees China's new assertiveness, especially in the South China Sea, as a threat. Why? Perhaps China would be a threat if it muscled in on the eastern Pacific rim, or the Caribbean, but do we have to protect the Communist Vietnamese from the Communist Chinese? The military thinks in military/strategic terms, but doesn't appear to consider their economic impact, nor their political/psychological impact, either. All they see is the global map: land masses, sea lanes, communications routes, resources and potential threats to "their" people, which includes global corporations and US clients, regardless of how corrupt or exploitative they may be. The military is oblivious to their effect upon the US, but some American conservatives are beginning to get it: the military will drive us into bankruptcy if it gets its way, bending Obama and Panetta before it.

Apr 25, just a guy

Mon, 25 Apr 2011 01:40:32 GMT

Its amazing how history repeats itself. However you actually paint a somewhat hopeful picture. I tend to disagree with the idea of just quietly retiring.

Mar 29, Political False Advertising

Tue, 29 Mar 2011 00:01:51 GMT

Radical Republicans won elections by claiming that they would create jobs. People in the US either fear losing their jobs, or don't have them at all (about 16% when "discouraged workers" and part-time workers are counted). Therefore, people thought they were voting rationally. But despite their rhetoric, the radical Republicans had a very different agenda: not job creation at all. Of course, it's not just Republicans who do this. Back in 1964, I hurried back from Europe after the Army, because I felt I had to vote for LBJ to prevent the fire-breathing Goldwater from committing us to a "quagmire in the Asian jungles." That's what LBJ campaigned against. Once elected, he escalated the Vietnam War! This was despite LBJ's apparent belief (revealed posthumously) that the war was doomed. Luckily for me, I was never re-called. We then went on to elect Nixon, who claimed he had a "secret plan" to stop the war! He didn't. In the current situation, we have Republican Congress-people, Senators, state legislators and Governors, who, once elected, have proceeded to carry out radical agendas that have nothing to do with creating jobs. How does legalizing the murder of abortion providers create jobs? South Dakota legislators proposed this. How does direct state abolition and takeover of local municipalities create jobs? Michigan's new governor has proposed this. How does abolishing collective bargaining among public employees create jobs? Wisconsin's Senate passed this late one night, in a rump session; Indiana, Ohio, New Jersey and other states are in the process of passing similar laws. How does redefining rape to require proof of violence create jobs? Congressional Republicans withdrew this proposal, but still want to pass more stringent anti-abortion laws. How does cutting spending on services for poor people, and for their children (like the cuts to food stamps and head start), create jobs? These are part of a campaign to bash the poor, the unions, and any government institution unpopular with conservatives. All have been promoted or passed in the US House, despite Democratic opposition. None create jobs; they destroy them. The measure that began this process was extending the tax cut for those earning over $250,000, which passed in the post-election session of the last Congress. If the Republicans hadn't extorted that concession from Obama and Reid, there would be $600 billion more in revenue, reducing the need for budget cuts considerably. Their fiscal austerity costs jobs; it doesn't create them. Further, the moneyed won't hire because of lower taxes; they will hire when there is demand for their products or services. Even then, they might hire in China or Vietnam, not the US. They're rolling in money, anyway: they've stolen virtually all of America's productivity gains for themselves since the 1980's. Justice would demand a fair share returned, but monopolists are like the Roman Senators of the Fifth Century, (when Rome fell): they want it all--and they think they've purchased it--with their new governments. Click: Post Comments.

Mar 24, Libyan Dilemma

Thu, 24 Mar 2011 16:53:59 GMT

Libya is a progressive's dilemma: the arguments in favor of intervention are humanitarian, but nothing is clear, including the goals of the intervention. The UN Security Council endorsed all actions to protect civilians--presumably from their murderous ruler--yet there is no mandate for ousting Qaddafi. So, the mission, lobbied for by some of the revolutionaries and Sarkozy, and reluctantly agreed to by Obama and others, is vague and easily expandable. On the other hand, there is clearly a need to stop the megalomaniac from massacring his own people. In terms of Obama's assertion of Presidential power, I deplore its arbitrary exercise, but Clinton did it and so did W. At least Obama did it multilaterally and urged the Europeans to lead. That the US has to do the initial heavy lifting demonstrates that we're the only nation stupid enough to invest in so much war-making capability. Worse is that there is no real exit agreed to, and the Libyan opposition seems to be a feckless lot that any professional military would sneer at. I share Friedman's worry that Libya is no nation, but a collection of tribes that could murder each other for generations--just like Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Bahrain. So, will that mean that the US and its European allies will be bogged down in another civil war? We can't afford it. What Libya demonstrates most of all, is the danger of a budget and a war machine that's good for little else. Money drives both sides. Qaddafi reportedly didn't invest in his army (he didn't trust it), but in his loyal tribal militias and mercenary forces; he airlifted the latter from operations elsewhere. Money also drives the initial US leadership of the intervention: we have a plethora of the weapon systems needed and the skills to use them, paid for by huge Defense budgets like the approximately $750 billion allocated this year. Trouble is what the empire buys with all this money. Probably, without international intervention, Qaddafi would have prevailed; he would have unleashed terror on his opponents. Possibly more would die than will die from the intervention. But it's not clear that the intervention will prevent Qaddafi's homicidal repression in large swathes of Libya, unless the intervening powers insert "boots on the ground." By opposing Qaddafi with weapons, the rebels gave him the advantage. Qaddafi relies on elite militias and mercenaries: only if they defect, would armed revolutionaries gain the advantage. If, like the Egyptian rebels, Libyans continued non-violent resistance, they would have been more morally persuasive than the feckless armed volunteers, who run from tanks and artillery. If Libya were more of a nation, nonviolent protest would have united them as it did in Egypt and Tunisia. Empires on the way down get sucked into conflicts that bankrupt them. Libya may be another one of these.