Blog Archives: July-December 2008

Dec. 31, 2008, Obama's Questions

The transition team at Change.gov has set up a questions page, in which respondents can pose questions to the new President and his team, and vote on those questions, but to me it seems less open than it first appears.

First of all, there does not seem to be any provision for anyone to answer the questions. Secondly, the format of the voting is peculiar; you are asked not if you agree with the question, or the point of view of the questioner, but only if it's a "good question," or a "bad question."

Given those limitations, and the fact that there were, at last count, 13,180 questions on the economy alone, 46,016 on all topics, I question how this will create a responsive political system. On the other hand, the quality of the questions is impressive, and most are strongly progressive in tone.

According to the website, the facility will be open to questions until the end of Dec. 31, the end of the year, and then the transition team will close this question period and attempt to respond to them.

If nothing else, this process ought to sensitize the new administration to people's concerns on a wide variety of issues: economy, foreign policy, national security, education, health care, energy and the environment, science and technology and other questions like LGBT and drug policy. I wonder, however, given the apparent "centrist" bent of Obama's appointees, how these more progressive questions will be dealt with. For example: on health care the leading questions promote single-payer, or with eliminating the insurance industry and doing away with the employment link, while with national security a preponderance of questioners asking about Afghan policy point out that a surge in Afghanistan will probably be disastrous.

It's appropriate for the incoming administration to solicit questions ahead of the New Year, 20 days until it takes office, but the affect of this process is still to be seen. Will the new administration use these questions to buttress more progressive policies than the "powers that were" think are "sensible?" Will single-payer and decriminalization of marijuana really be considered?

It is more likely, it seems to me, that the Obama administration will pay attention to the myriads of questions about establishing transparency in the bailout grants and its uses, and in getting out of Iraq as expeditiously as possible.

In any case, the questions page records the number of "yes" and "no" votes, so that the Obama team might get some idea of the priorities of these various issues: economic ones seem to elicit the most votes.

Dec. 29, 2008, Stimulus, or Handout?

Handing out all the created money that the Democrats and the Obama transition team are talking about--now up to $900 billion in addition to the $350 billion still to be spent from the bank bailout--has gotten some people saying: why not just distribute it evenly, as payments to every man and woman in the land ($40,000-$60,000 apiece?) enough to prevent foreclosures, to finance college, or to pay off gargantuan debts.

And then what would we do about the falling down bridges, the deteriorating roads and railroads, the schools with leaking roofs, and all the other public goods that have been shortchanged for far too long? What would we do with another rebate? Put it in the banks that have nearly ruined us?

Congressional Republicans are against any spending; they want to cut taxes again(!), and maybe even eliminate the capital gains tax, so that the wealthy speculators who got us into this mess wouldn't have to pay any taxes if--if they had capital gains? In this market? What world do Republicans live in? Not only would tax cuts not work as effectively as direct spending, they would put extra money into hands that would hoard, not spend: the scared wealthy who have enough, but aren't going to risk losing it until things get better.

Why are large public programs needed? They fulfill public needs, insure that the money is spent in the country, not put aside, but all of it boosting demand, and would employ three millions, Obama claims. Those programs can also go part way to re-orienting this country in environmentally beneficent directions: to renewable fuels, to higher efficiency, away not only from dependence on oil, but away from other polluting non-renewable energy sources, like coal and nuclear as well.

For far too long we've listened to the siren song of greed is good. To distribute stimulus money, i.e. money borrowed from the taxpayers, to the taxpayers would increase demand for goods less than public programs, but would change no pattern of spending where change is needed. Distribution to individuals would be less efficient because many would save it, or use it to pay down debt, not to increase demand for goods and services, creating jobs. And rebates would not create public goods, wouldn't even prevent layoffs of teachers and police. Government grants to local governments most surely would.

The fall of Rome happened in part because the wealthy held onto their wealth, instead of funding needed public works and military pay: hoarded private money did not restore the public good; it led to the collapse of the western empire.

Dec. 16, 2008, Not Bailing Out Detroit?

We were without power for five days. Five days in your own house with no water, no lights, no TV, no Internet and no news. It was cold outside, and dark from 4:30 in the evening to 7:30 in the morning.

Mother nature showed us: a huge rain-storm, then temperatures dipped below freezing, and it sounded like war out there with all the limbs snapping off from the ice. Our seemingly civilized lifestyle vanished in about 20 blinks of the lights.

An ice storm makes you realize how vulnerable we all are, and how dependent on forces outside ourselves, the complicated web of relationships that bind us all together. If one of those strands break, so much else won't work.

That's what's at stake in the stalled big three bailout. We are dependent on GM, Chrysler and Ford surviving. If they go down, that's three million more unemployed, three million more who can't buy consumer goods, can't pay the mortgage, or their bills. That would bring down a lot more people, and businesses, a body blow to the economy.

Why did Republican Senators kill the bailout? From their rhetoric it's pretty clear: they want to destroy the UAW and the idea of a unionized workforce. I have my own beef with the UAW. I was a member until last month, as member of their adoptive stepchild, the National Writers Union; the UAW is effectively destroying it. However, for autoworkers the UAW has won tremendous benefits.

That's not bad; that's good. The big three shouldn't be destroyed because they were forced to pay middle class wages, benefits and retirement. The US needs well-paid workers, so that people can buy goods without going into debt. A major reason for the financial mess is that workers were underpaid; they went into debt to maintain the great American consumption machine, until more debt was just no longer viable.

True, the management decisions of the Three were awful; their management should be sacked, but autoworkers are not responsible for that mess; they are among the most productive American workers. That their retirees cost the companies is not a bad thing, either; that's how people should be treated after their working lives are over. When Alabama's non-union Toyota workers reach retirement age, what then? Throw them on the ash heap?

Anti-union politicians, like Senator Shelby from Alabama, are acting out of class prejudice and animosity--as well as self-interest (supporting the foreign automakers in their states).

Maybe we'll soldier through this. Perhaps Bush will actually do the right thing for once: allow bailout funds to be used for a Detroit bridge loan. Or maybe the forces for destruction are just too strong.

Dec. 9, 2008, Class Warfare With Bailout

This is why the bank bailouts aren't helping ordinary people. Republic Windows and Doors gave three days notice to its workers that it was forced to close and could not pay them severance. The workers rebelled, took over the Chicago plant and have refused to leave.

So far, this sounds like a Depression era confrontation. What links it to the bailout is this: Republic announced that it reneged on its obligations because Bank of America, would not extend them the necessary line of credit. Yet Bank of America had just received $25 billion in bailout money, taxpayer money handed it by the Treasury for the express purpose of enabling banks to extend the lines of credit necessary to keep the economy running.

The problem is: Paulson and his cronies never extracted promises, or requirements that the banks lend out the money, instead of sitting on it, buying out each other, or paying themselves handsomely. Here is where it becomes obvious that the Bush administration is once again playing favorites: rich people versus people who work in factories. It seems that it's much easier to lavish money on the big guys than to give working people the pay they're owed, much easier to lavish golden parachutes than to permit workers severance pay when they've been given short notice.

Again, as in the auto company rescue debate, it's the people who shower after work, rather than before who are the ones left dangling in the wind.

Class warfare.

A larger proportion of workers than of fat cats elected Obama. His campaign was financed by a broad swathe of the electorate, not just bankers. At very least, he should speak up, decrying Bank of America's refusal to extend credit, and denouncing Republic Windows, a company from his hometown, for reneging on its obligations to its workers. He should declare that neither banks nor manufacturers would get away with this kind of behavior when he takes office. It's the least he can do. He should also announce that Tim Geithner, his Treasury designate, write up new rules for the banks as recipients of bailout money, requiring them to use the money to extend credit to businesses like Republic Windows and Doors. He should also propose stiff penalties for any firm that attempts to stiff its workforce.

If this workers' occupation is ignored, or worse, if workers are driven out by the police, then this could be the first step in a revolution.

Is this is why KBR/Halliburton contracted to build detention camps for the Government? Not for "terrorists," but to keep those pesky workers down.

Dec. 8, 2008, Depression Not Recession

This isn't some little "economic downturn." When job losses are projected to rise to 9 or 10%, when hundreds of billions of bailout funds still haven't stopped the losses--they just keep getting bigger--clearly this is something we haven't experienced in most of our lifetimes. My 95 year-old mother has a memory of the last time: she graduated from college in 1933.

Next question: why did it happen? It wasn't greed alone; it was the whole political system and the financial system, and Main Street all colluding to: dismantle all the regulations and barriers to unrestrained speculation set up the last time; to ship jobs overseas, drive wages down and to turn debt--what people need when they don't have good paying jobs--into a highly leveraged commodity and the basis for rising consumption. It was a shaky structure built on a house of credit cards--and mortgage money.

The current political system, even with Obama's victory, seems reluctant to admit that labor unions, when they were more powerful, played a positive role. They insured that the people who "take showers after work, and not before," are paid decent wages and benefits. That was the solid basis of the American consumption economy that first emerged after World War II.

When people grouse about the high pay of the UAW workers, do they realize that CEO's pay is, on average, almost 500 times as much, and that people being bailed out by Paulson, who shuffle paper (or computers) instead of making things, are paid a good deal more than those "cosseted" autoworkers?

Why do unions get such a bad press? Could it be because almost all our news outlets are owned and run by people who hate unions, because they subtract from their power and profits?

If we're going to get out of this mess, we're going to have to think a lot differently about a lot of things: fair pay, fair trade, and labor unions, as well as regulating the financial system so that speculative fever does not drive our economy into another ditch.

This isn't just a wake-up call; this is a huge opportunity to get things right. Obama will have more than half a trillion dollars (in deficit money) to spend us out of this depression and I hope he spends it wisely: on creating a new green economy with sensible regulation of the markets and fair pay for all.

Spending wisely should also mean getting out of Iraq as soon as possible, and winding down the war in Afghanistan. The empire loses us too much money; it's time to wind it down, as well.

Dec. 3, 2008, The Irony of The Great "Recession"

The economic collapse just prior to the election has created a great irony. Obama inherits far more capital (the literal kind) than is currently available on the government's books. This is because almost everyone agrees that deficits no longer matter; the government has to spend lots of money, and has to create it out of whole cloth. How can it do that? I used to upset my Economics classes by explaining that our fiat money was just a fiction created by government and that it works as long as everyone believes in it. So of course you can create more, or un-create it, at a notation of a debit or credit to the Fed.

Obama has more largesse to distribute than any other President coming into office. He also has a mandate to spend it on state aid, infrastructure and green tech that can be distributed throughout the country. And he has wowed the governors into lobbying him for help. He lobbied them, too; he's now enlisted most--because they need the money.

He has also named pragmatic centrists to his cabinet, but circumstances will pull them away from interventionism, while even conservative Republicans will be pulled left, because government intervention is necessary--and he will have the money.

The major fly in the ointment is the strong imperial subtext of his security "team." If he can enlist them to defuse tensions, and defeat terrorists by other means than military, then he will be a wonder worker. But if Obama is drawn deeply into Afghanistan--into an even worse morass than Iraq--he could end up like LBJ after his landslide election, hamstrung in his vision to transform the US into a more humane nation by the war in Vietnam. Apparently, LBJ didn't want to fight that war, but he didn't run for a second term because of it.

Don't forget: after LBJ came Nixon. We could still end up with a Fascist state.

That's why Afghanistan is so dangerous. The terrorists can terrorize, but they can't destroy western civilization: only we can do that. We can do it by continuing to do what the terrorists want: transform their puny attacks into a global war that amplifies their strength a thousand-fold and bankrupts us. We would also do it by curtailing our own freedoms in order to fight their cramped view of the world.

Instead, we should buy them out. Obama should do in Afghanistan what he's just promised to do in Nebraska: flood it with aid, but insure it gets into the hands of the people, not the greedy paws of the oligarchs.

Dec. 2, 2008, Think Like Mumbai Terrorists!

The terrorists want war between India and Pakistan. If the attacks on Mumbai by the Pakistani terrorists succeed in driving India and Pakistan to war, they will have accomplished their objectives. Pakistan, threatened by India, would remove its considerable troop deployments from the Afghan border in their west, and move them east to face India. Everyone but the terrorists hopes that India and Pakistan will not tumble into another war. If they did, it would be dangerous for everyone, not only because both have nuclear weapons, but because war would unleash Islamic extremists, already growing stronger.

Even if there is no war, the Taliban and al Qaeda insurgents will continue their war against the West in Afghanistan, but if the Pakistanis move troops east, then the Taliban will have almost no restrictions on cross-border action. Ultimately, this is dangerous to all the nations in the region; it would give the militants room to maneuver against both the Pakistani and Afghan governments, as well as against NATO and the US.

Additionally, the task of getting some Taliban to the table becomes infinitely more complicated, another likely goal of the terrorists. Peace with some Taliban would mean the remainder could be defeated more easily by the Afghan government, which would make Pakistani efforts to defeat their own insurgency that much easier, as well.

What Indians, Pakistanis and Westerners need to do is learn to think like the terrorists--then do the opposite. Collaboration by the two traditional enemies would be the opposite, and it probably would be more effective than either going it alone; it would also build trust.

However, Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, the Pakistani equivalent of our FBI and CIA combined, is a rogue institution. I noted (August 5, 08 Pakistan in Afghanistan: archives 5) that the new civilian government tried and failed to gain control over it. There are elements within ISI that are unfriendly to civilian control, and are closely aligned with the Muslim extremists, possibly even the terrorists in Mumbai; Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group, or a faction of which, may have sponsored the attacks, was supported by ISI to combat India in Kashmir.

NATO and the US need to persuade both India and Pakistan that they would be better off cooperating than confronting. It's no coincidence that India-Pakistan relations were described as very good before these attacks disrupted them.

Obama: empire is complicated and costly. Better to withdraw not surge; we'll get bogged down in an unwinnable war in Afghanistan, made worse by ISI machinations and Indo-Pak hostilities. We should buy peace with aid, diplomacy and counter-terror cooperation, not war.

It would be the right step away from Bush's global empire.

Nov. 26, 2008, Not Gates!

As long as Obama keeps to his policy of withdrawal in Iraq, I suppose it doesn't make much difference in Iraq whether he keeps Gates.

However, Gates was deputy director of the CIA in Bush I's tenure, and he messed with the "product" at that time. Bush Senior's Secretary of State George Shultz once told Gates: "I wouldn't trust anything you guys said about Iran no matter what. I feel an effort is made to manipulate me by the selection of material that you send my way." So, I'd not trust him to provide policy direction for Afghanistan, where I'm afraid Obama is headed in the wrong direction.

Afghanistan/Pakistan is the real security problem. The Iraqis can and should solve their own problems, and maybe Obama's going to let them. But the Afghans, as well, are more likely to solve their problems than we are. Massive American reinforcement there will only make "the invaders" more unpopular and the Taliban, and even al Qaeda, more popular. Already, we seem to be more in the habit of blowing up wedding parties (and funerals) than of catching or defeating insurgents. With more troops in Afghanistan it will only get worse.

Given our economic problems, we should get out of both places, but I doubt Gates is going to counsel that.

I don't have a good feeling about this. I know Barack is supremely self-confident that he can maintain his agenda while surrounded by strong people: Gates, Clinton, Richardson, Geithner and so on, but Gates does not appear to be straightforward.

It's possible that he could queer intel on Afghanistan, calling for intensive intervention, while discounting possible rifts between Taliban factions, for example. Some NATO leaders have already recommended attempts to negotiate with parts of the Taliban, saying that the military option isn't working; it clearly is not.

In the last year, according to the reports I've seen, US intensification of the battle against Taliban and al Qaeda on and near Pakistan's border has had the effect of turning more Afghans against us. Afghans have fought off every invader since Alexander the Great; we're likely to be no exception, especially in our parlous economic condition. What would probably work much better--and cost much less--would be some withdrawal, added support for Karzai's military, and large doses of economic aid to wean Afghans from poppies and insurgents.

Otherwise, Afghanistan could become to Obama what Vietnam became to LBJ, only this time our trip downhill will be faster, because of our economic troubles, and this website will not be out of business; we'll be marching straight to 476, like the Roman Empire.

Nov. 23, 2008, Obama's Green Works

Things seem to be turning in the right direction for Obama to carry out a broad green economic development program: the bank bailout is mired in incompetence, the economy is limping, and the nation is waiting with baited breath for Obama to reveal what he's going to do about it. His statement on Saturday was about as specific as he could be, given the earliness of the hour, but it made substantive sense: we don't have to hire people to dig holes and fill them; there is much work to be done simply to repair our infrastructure, but why not do it in ways that facilitate the environmental restructuring needed given global warming and lost competitiveness in the global marketplace.

One major roadblock to greening was Congressman Dingell, Democratic warhorse who saw his mandate as protection of the auto industry regardless of its losing ways; so Dingell is gone and Waxman, the new energy committee head, is rated as not only an environmentalist, but as one of the most effective and energetic of established congressional leaders.

I would like to know more specifics about Obama's program. Will there be government institutions created to carry out the green works tasks like the WPA and the CCC of the New Deal, or will there be massive government contracts to new and existing private firms to carry out the programs?

I suspect the latter. One danger, which must be guarded against has been the practice of defense and security contractors to pad the books, overcharge the government and walk off with exorbitant profits. Will there be encouragement of start-ups, small, nimble firms with commitments to a green economy? I hope so.

Since Obama has indicated with his tax policy that he wants to redistribute income to the broad mass of the people, it would be counter to his purpose to allow the kind of privatization of government that Bush-Cheney have promoted--payoffs to cronies, sky high executive salaries, bonuses, stock options and anti-union policies. If private contractors are to carry out these new programs, important safeguards of the public's money must be put into place and the intention of redistributing income downwards must be built into the Green Works programs, i.e. wages that are at least at living wage levels, and work conditions that permit if not encourage widespread unionization.

Whatever its form, green development programs designed to refurbish and rescue the economy at the same time, administered by a government committed to governing and favorable to unions represents a dramatic departure from W, and even from the Clinton administration.

If Obama is a "centrist," his policies are yet the dramatic change 'we can believe in.'

Nov. 21, 2008, Ditch the Status of Forces Agreement!

If Congressional anti-war Democrats have spine, they'll bring the SOFA before Congress, even if Bush kicks and screams. Since the agreement authorizes war-making, and hands off some command authority over US troops to Iraq, I would hope for a parliamentary finding that it's a treaty that has to be approved by two-thirds of the Senate. Then, Good Luck, George!

I don't care if our forces there are cast into legal limbo. They can come home; we could leave all our "stuff" behind. Even if Barack is inclined to keep some troops in Iraq, Congress can push further, when it's apparent that there is no viable basis for legally remaining.

As for the chaos that might erupt if Americans don't patrol, I wouldn't count on it, at least not right away. There are a lot of issues the Iraqis have to settle among themselves, but maybe they can settle them without going back to civil war.

American troops now, by their presence, weight all Iraq decisions in favor of the Shiite-controlled pro-Iranian government, which may have about as much support as Ngo Dinh Diem had in Vietnam. So, Maliki is bound to try to hold onto US troops if he can; they're his lifeline to power. On the other side, the Sunni Awakening groups have brought peace to their neighborhoods in Baghdad and in the countryside, and cities and regions have become segregated by sect through the ethnic cleansing our troops permitted, so conflict is minimized. Neither Sadrists nor Sunnis support the Maliki government, and Kurds will do so only as long as they are left alone.

When American power is removed from Maliki, the whole power equation in Iraq will change dramatically. Nevertheless, we can't prop him up forever, especially since we can't afford the $10 billion a month to do so.

The American people decisively rejected Bush in the election. His attempt to establish future conditions in Iraq should be rejected, also. Once SOFA were ratified, conditions would be difficult to change, according to a reading of the agreement draft. Withdrawal could be initiated earlier (than the agreed date: Dec.. 31, 2011) by the US or Iraq, but the other party would have to agree: even if popular demand pushed Obama to withdraw troops earlier, he'd have to get the Iraq government's approval first.

Imperial entanglements are difficult to untangle. Obama and Congress should do so at the earliest opportunity, not risk a further expansion of the Empire later on. Now is the time to get rid of empire, not hold onto what's untenable: blow up what you don't want the Iraqis to have, but Leave!

Nov. 19, 2008, Obama's Political Coup: Lieberman

I've called Joe Lieberman a turncoat, and he is. However, upon reflection, I think Obama made a wise political move, by intervening with the Senate leadership to insure Lieberman would keep his Homeland Security Chairmanship.

What was most telling was Lieberman's public gratitude for Obama's intervention: he owes the new President big-time. Now think what this means, not just in the short term, but in the longer term.

First of all, the chairmanship is a place of power. From it, Lieberman can dispense many favors, both back home, and in the Senate, and you can be sure that most of his supporters in the Senate were already recipients of his favors. Joe knows that he'd have no chance of re-election if he lost that post.

So, the question becomes: what did he give in return? There may not have been a formal, or even spoken agreement, but Lieberman knows the chit will be called in. He can help with across the aisle negotiations with Republicans, but there is more than that.

Lieberman is most outspoken about Iran and Israel. At some point soon, Obama will need to begin negotiating with the regional powers, including Iran, for any settlement in the Middle East. Being beholden to Obama may not keep him quiet about Iran within the caucus, but it is likely to inhibit what Joe says publicly about Obama's Middle East diplomacy, and likely also that he will feel obliged to help smooth the way with Israel's moderate right wing government. In other words, keeping Lieberman on is a coup for Obama, because it will neutralize one of his most outspoken critics on Iran.

Keeping Lieberman on is also advantageous in the lame duck session; his exclusion from the Democratic Caucus would lose the Democrats their slim pre-election majority. Even so, the Republicans will block any major modifications to the felonious bailout, including a homeowner rescue, or a package for the auto companies. A lame duck Republican majority, however, would be a two-month disaster. The GOP has nothing to offer, and would be unable to respond in any constructive way to the crises facing us, but it would make the interregnum much more difficult.

Keeping Lieberman in the Democratic Caucus may look weasely, but it makes political sense. Some argue that this will make Democratic Party discipline more difficult, but his retention is always provisional and dependent on Presidential favor.

Obama is acting like the good Roman emperors, who used a slippery courtier to buttress their power. If he continues with wise moves like this, I hope I'll have to hang up this website. We won't be marching lock-step to 476.

Nov. 18, 2008, Bailing out the Auto Industry

Until Walmart, GM was considered a model for a company, because it took care of its workers. If more companies were like GM and unlike Walmart, people wouldn't have had to borrow to the hilt just to keep up their standard of living, and therefore the credit crisis would not have become a world-wide collapse.

Where GM and Ford and Chrysler went wrong was not in their treatment of their workers, but in the planning for their products. In fact you still see it in their all too common ads for muscle cars and trucks, even now after oil has only recently receded from $147 a barrel. GM destroyed the electric car; it fired the executive who developed an efficient car for the Chinese market and made money for them; it continued to churn out SUVs and trucks, and used its political clout to lobby against higher fuel efficiency standards and for special easy standards for "light trucks," hence the proliferation of the absurd behemoths that carry Americans to work by the millions. That's what it should be held accountable for. Congressman Dingell, should be held accountable, too.

The American auto companies collectively are responsible for measurably increasing our dependence on foreign oil, by pushing for larger and larger vehicles and persuading Americans that that's what they want. They went that route because to pursue fuel efficiency would have cost more, and would have required a different marketing approach. SUV's and trucks gave them higher per unit profits, so they simply ignored the fact that they were continually losing market share to the Japanese.

If Uncle Sam aids them, they'll need to mend their ways and contribute to the amelioration of global warming, rather than doing everything in their power to increase its severity. The idea of an Automobile Czar should be tried. Maybe Al Gore.

Yes, workers should also bear the burden--all employees in the auto industry, including CEO's should bear the burden of any bailout, BUT workers should be compensated for their sacrifices the way Executives often are. They should earn shares of the companies for any give-backs they agree to, so that when the companies do turn a profit, the workers share in the proceeds. If they forgo present wage hikes, they should be credited with shares of the companies equivalent to their sacrifices.

Also, Uncle Sam should take over voting shares in return for any bailout--to insure that the companies operate in the national interest. Government overseers should be on the Board of Directors, or the Auto Czar should be an uber-CEO.

If that's Socialism, bring it on!

Nov. 16, 2008, Why the Collapse
And What to Do About It

Low taxes on the wealthy, and a wealth-friendly government, created excess capital because wages were low and profits were high; productivity gains were pocketed by the wealthiest; the people, who had too much, got more, but had nowhere to spend it; they invested it. The people who didn't have enough could only borrow; ultimately they couldn't borrow enough to keep the consumer economy afloat.

That's a consequence of free trade policies that de-value workers, encourage firms to export jobs, look the other way at (cheap) illegal labor, and of anti-union policies that enable companies to pay less and profit much more. That does two things: it means consumers have less to spend, but borrow more, and it means that a few have too much, and the only place they can park it is by buying debt.

The problem begins with class warfare. We should call it like it is. The wealthy and corporate class has done their best to screw everyone else--and the current financial/economic collapse is the logical consequence.

In the case of the Late Roman Empire, the wealthy class won--enabling the barbarians to take over. The Goths and Franks made a terrible mess of things. Talk about a Depression!

Maybe, just maybe Americans have learned: you can't leave everything up to greed. When only the greedy prevail, even they will lose. The Wild West doesn't work. Rules and regs keep people honest; functional markets require regulation. The wealthy depend upon everyone else for their wealth--and owe a good part of it to them, at least as much as a mildly progressive tax would extract.

It's true that high tax nations do as well as low tax ones; it's true that equitable societies have less social stress, or more social peace; it's true that social justice calls for relative income equity. None of that is as important as this: a market system cannot function effectively without some measure of social and economic justice: otherwise, who is going to buy the goods it produces? That's what this collapse is really all about.

If the above holds true, then stimulus programs must be broad-based, and must drive towards creating better jobs at better pay, while taxing high incomes to help pay the burden--and lessen the inequality that Republican tax policies helped produce.

In New York the formerly liberal governor now demands cuts in expenditures and blocks a surcharge like the "millionaires tax," but this is misguided. Paying for their damage is the least the wealthy can do, especially since it would help create a more equitable, productive society--and ultimately increase their wealth as well.

Nov. 13, 2008, Prevent Obama's Missteps

I relish saying "President Obama," but already he has made potential missteps.

Obama's main task, when he takes office in January, is to wrestle the economic conundrum, but there are a number of foreign policies he's campaigned for that he needs to push, because they'll make the economic problems easier. One is Iran. Merely the fact of his middle name (Hussein) should make his task towards Iran that much easier: Imam Hussein was the great hero-saint of Shi-ism.

If Obama can speak with Iran's leaders, not only should he be able to calm fears and scale back confrontation, but he should be able to enlist their support in containing the war in Afghanistan, and restoring peace and normality to Iraq. All three initiatives would save lives and money. It should not be forgotten that Persian Shiites are no admirers of Osama bin Laden, a Sunni who wishes to impose his extreme version of Islam world-wide. Iran could help in finally bringing him to bay.

Another puzzle in this foreign policy complex can be found within the US Senate: the turncoat, Joe Lieberman. The latter has been one of the most vociferous enemies of Iran. Despite Obama's preference for political civility, Lieberman really has crossed the line: the Democratic VP candidate with Gore, turned on him during the 2000 recount, then fawned on Bush. He even spoke at McCain's convention. As an independent, he should be unwelcome in the Democratic caucus and Obama should rescind his tendered olive branch for the sake of peace abroad. With 56 or 57 Democratic Senators, he is disposable, and he could be made an example of what is needed: Democratic Party discipline.

Afghanistan is the rock that could break President Obama. It is an unsolvable insurgency as long as the main strategy is military confrontation. Obama's campaign position was for a "surge" there, but given Afghan's historic habit of repelling all invaders since Alexander the Great, more troops will only broaden support for the insurgents, especially since our bombs blast civilian wedding parties more easily than insurgents. Better to scale back and negotiate, and by cooperating with Pakistan, with the Pakistani Taliban as well. Military confrontation strengthens them; economic aid to Afghans and Pakistanis would weaken them. Development aid also costs less than military action.

In dealing with the economy, I hope Obama can moderate his call for a larger military. Many more jobs can be created through the green development and infrastructure programs he's also advocated; a larger military would demand more military actions around the world, not less.

We must pull Obama leftward and prevent the selfish class from pushing him to continue self-defeating imperial policies.

Nov. 11, 2008, The Army of the Republic

is the title of a Nov.el by Stuart A. Cohen set in a near-present alternative United States, in which the regime is far worse than Bush, or the McCain successor regime we just so miraculously escaped.

There are three different narrators: Lando, militant leader of the eponymous Army of the Republic; Emily from a democracy group and James Sands, a billionaire aspiring to monopolize water services; his Water Solutions is one of the targets of both groups. However, all three narrators are linked, though only one knows it until the climax. Meanwhile James Sands has hired Whitehall for security. The equivalent of Blackwater?

A criticism: all three narrators are in the first person and little distinguishes them in style or language. It is sometimes difficult to know who is speaking.

What James Sands buys from Whitehall is a lot more than basic security: it's a full-fledged private counter-terrorist program. Law enforcement agencies look the other way, or cooperate; the President is involved.

In this alternative United States everything is privatized. Corporations enrich themselves through monopolizing water, timber, oil, propaganda, or anything else, and they receive government largesse in the process--and by renting out private armies and intelligence services to private companies and the government.

We should congratulate ourselves that we elected Obama. In Stuart Arthur Cohen's Nov.el, they had no such luck. The Regime rules by lies, stolen elections and the military, and finally "delays" elections when it can't steal them. In The Army of the Republic, democratic resistance is necessary, and ranges from organizing non-violent demonstrations to guerrilla strikes by militants (like the AOtR). More attacks are threatened. The Regime, meanwhile, uses repression and propaganda to maintain control. Corporations are the government's junior partners in "putting down the terror."

Cohen is brilliant when he describes how the regime provides timber to the timber industry from the Siskiyou forest preserve: a result is private profit at huge government cost: this deal is a paradigm for the whole corrupt system--and a clear parallel to our own.

The face on the cover is made up of hundreds of lines of print: each line repeats: "You can't silence me," which is the other main theme of the Nov.el. It might even be hopeful: people do mobilize against repression.

Perhaps people will here if repression re-asserts itself. I hope the latter won't happen. Obama's election is the kind of democratic renewal that makes possible the dismantling of the terror system the Bush regime has built and directed at the world and at Americans. Cohen's book is a cautionary tale and maybe even a blueprint, if worse does come to worst.

Nov. 6, 2008, Stop Them Stealing Missouri!

Obama faces an opportunity, or the chance of a serious misstep, with the unresolved Missouri election. The count won't be resolved until the thousands of absentee ballots and affidavit or provisional ballots are counted.'Missouri won't determine the election, thank God, but it is still important: here's why. We know that Gore's election was stolen in Florida. We also know that the Kerry loss in Ohio was engineered in part through the huge number of voters turned away and the 100,000s of (provisional and absentee) votes thrown out as "ineligible." Many also blame Kerry inaction on Ohio's recount for his loss. The same kind of election theft may be happening in Missouri right now--with lesser immediate consequences. And if Republicans can get away with this electoral tactic in Missouri, they will repeat it there and elsewhere.

That's why the Obama team needs to step in aggressively to insure that the counts of those provisional and absentee ballots (each one can be challenged, and thrown out) is fair, not just legal but reasonable: adequate matches to ID data--not perfect matches--should determine eligibility. The counts of absentee ballots used to favor Republicans--people affluent enough to travel--while provisional ballots favored Democrats--people with inadequate identification. With Obama's cross-class appeal both may favor him, but the election's outcome is less important than the principle. In any case Obama's legal people must insert themselves into the count to insure Missouri isn't stolen, and to insure that Republicans aren't emboldened to keep attempting the same tactic there and elsewhere.

The Obama campaign was a triumph of democracy, but a stolen Missouri would weaken the triumph and invite future subversion of our democratic system.

Obama's victory was also a vindication for the seriousness of governing, not the petty-minded politics of wedge issues and smear tactics. The more McCain and his surrogates accused Obama of suspicious associations and radical politics, the higher went his support. He out-performed the last polls nationally, none of which showed him at more than 51% only days before the election, so some of his last minute supporters may have been driven away from McCain by Republican negative campaigning. It's the ultimate repudiation of Rovian tactics.

That's why the prevention of election theft in Missouri is so important: that feature of Rove's vaunted political tactics ought to be repudiated as well, once and for all. Anything less, and we invite the selfish, self-serving and unprincipled to continue their political games, like the self-interested Senators of the Late Roman Empire, who ultimately connived in the Empire's fall.

Nov. 3, 2008, The Bailout: A Gift to Banks

An analysis for the Steelworkers Union uncovered the seamy side of the bailout; banks were paid by the Treasury twice what the market would have demanded for their preferred stock: a gift of $62.5 billion paid for by you and me. William Greider pointed out this outrage in an article in the current Nation.

Paulson is rewarding his friends on Wall Street, and his former employer, Goldman Sachs, at our expense. It's what people warned against, those both for and against the bailout.

Some comments on Grieder's article imply that Obama has been bought by Wall Street; to an extent that might be true. What is different about Obama, however, is that he has also been bought by us, every one of us who gave money to his campaign, and who knocked on doors and made telephone calls from telephone parties or through his campaign's amazing phone-from-home web-pages. Three million just giving money, $25-100 at a time.

It may be only campaign rhetoric, but I choose to think it is not when Obama says over and over, "I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington--I'm asking you to believe in yours." In other words, as he's said in many other ways, he will be open to the expressions of the people, and especially of those in his movement.

So, it is incumbent upon all of us to scream: "I'm being robbed!" as soon as (I hope) he's elected. In fact we are being robbed, and if the lame duck Congress won't right this wrong (lame duck Republicans will filibuster to the last minute if they can, Bush will veto), and the many other aspects of the "bailout" that reads more and more like "swindle" with each passing day, then we must pressure Obama to correct it within days of coming into office. Progressives shouldn't give up just because Obama collected a lot of campaign money from Wall Street; he also collected a lot from everybody else.

This bailout is a classic selfish class initiative. Money was needed, and the credit markets are still sluggish, but the wealthy saw the Paulson plan as a way to get even richer--at taxpayer expense. If McCain is elected, he might make a drama of firing Paulson, but you can bet he'd sign on to the giveaway. He's not against "spreading your money around," when "around" means his friends and the members of the moneyed class most responsible for this crisis in the first place. It's like Roman Senators taking all the wealth in the fourth century and impoverishing everyone else.

The money must be in everyone's hands, not the favored few.Click for more info

Oct. 30, 2008, The Emperor Expands His Powers

In my last blog I wondered who had been so stupid as to attack Syria, especially at this particular time. I speculated: was it a rogue unit, or Cheney? Well, we got the answer today.

Defense Secretary Gates announced a new extension of Bush's "doctrine," which included exactly the situation in Syria: he says Bush has the power as President to send troops across national boundaries when he determines that there is a threat: he provides, according to spokesmen, "a rationale for conventional strikes on militant targets in a sovereign nation without its consent" - if the nation is unable or unwilling to deal with the threat itself.

Which is precisely what happened the day before in the attack on Syria! In other words, George W. Bush is the crazy one, or they all are! One of their most fervent goals in these waning weeks of their administration is to set in stone their agreement with Iraq regulating the American occupation, something that the Iraqis resist, although those in power are still largely dependent on the American military.

An attack on a neighbor and possible friendly nation by the foreign occupying force is not going to endear the Iraqis to their overlords. It demonstrates that until the Americans leave, they are not in control of their own country, a humiliation.

And at the same time the Bushies want to close the deal on the Status of Forces Agreement?

The Iraqis know the Bush administration doesn't want to leave Iraq; the Iraqi government needs the American forces, but only as support in their campaign to take over the country and subdue recalcitrant groups. But the ruling elite also knows that the Americans must be held at arm's length. No self-respecting nationalist wants to be too close to the occupier, not in Iraq.

Ah, but the Special Ops were pursuing terrorists.

Here is a problem: the US is declaring that it will pursue terrorists wherever they are, and has the right to do so, but it alone decides who is a terrorist.

There is a long history of alleged terrorists becoming heads of governments. Even Nelson Mandela and Israel's Menachim Begin were accused of being terrorists. Who is a terrorist? There may be no objective measure. Who bombs civilians? Who kills civilians in a firefight with their opponents? Who jails and tortures their prisoners? Who pushes civilians around? Terrorists, or the government, or the invader?

The expanded Bush Doctrine posits war by the US against all--whenever the US President, in his wisdom, deems it justified. Who said the President wasn't Emperor?

Oct. 29, 2008, Attacking Syria

Now we're raiding Syria? Bush's America is acting like fifth-century Huns! Why did Special Ops go across the border from Iraq and kill eight people? We say they killed a terrorist leader; Syria says they killed civilians. Regardless, we did break international law, which we also seem to be doing routinely with incursions into Iran--from Iraq--and into Pakistan--from Afghanistan. There was no UN mandate, no international agreement that US troops could hop into a neighboring country simply because they had information that a certain terrorist was hiding there.

The raid was stupid even from the military's own point of view, since the Iraqi government was against it: it could queer negotiations for a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq, leaving the US with no legal justification for the occupation beginning in 2009. It also strains what had been the beginning of better relations with Syria, which had been cooperating on some intelligence operations.

Sounds to me as if our military is grabbing the interregnum of the elections to settle some scores--when no one is looking. When the military makes policy, we're all in trouble. The depth of this inanity makes me cast about wildly for reasons and motives: are the special ops a rogue unit, the tail that tries to wag the dog? Or is Cheney making military policy; he doesn't talk to the "state department" types, because he knows they'd oppose his raids, but he's "gotta get'em!" and no one's gonna to stop him while he still can. Is this why cross-border raids into Pakistan by Predator drones have increased so much in the last months, as well?

It's all Barack Obama's fault: if he weren't poised to win the election, the special ops and Cheney would be more laid back about the next week. But if they can kill Osama--or surrogates--they might be able to stop Obama, or so the desperate may think. Then maybe McCain-Palin could still win, and their jobs wouldn't be in jeopardy. That's about as plausible as anything.

If you depended upon fear to make your billions, or your chances of promotion, or your juicy defense job, wouldn't you do everything you could to stave off an Obama presidency? Maybe it's independent interests like those, following vague orders from the disappearing man, who just want to do anything they can to stop Obama: even launch rogue cross-border attacks. Who cares about broader consequences.

It was military dominance, and civilian greed that brought down the Roman Empire. It could happen to the US, too.

Oct. 27, 2008, Trickle up, Not Trickle Down

The Roman Empire fell because the Senators, the only wealthy, evaded all taxes, then refused to bail out the Empire when the Ostrogoth palace guard demanded a pay-raise. The Senators connived with the Goths, whose General became King of Italy. Then things got even worse. The lead up to the fall came from a hundred years when the wealthy concentrated ALL the wealth in their few hands. Trickle down didn't work then, either.

Our billionaire Wall Streeters are not unlike the Roman Senators. They cornered wealth, prising it from the middle class and poor. They'll take all the profits from the bailout, too, unless the US Treasury/Fed are a lot more careful.

The central lesson of the years from 1945-1975 was that economies thrive when workers are paid well enough to buy the goods produced by them. The central lesson of 2008 is that debt does not substitute for adequate wages. It just builds houses out of cards. Since workers were deprived of the full value of their work, they borrowed to keep up minimal American standards. And borrowed more. Some twisted genius on Wall Street saw how he could make billions from all that escalating debt.... The rest is history.

If we don't want to follow the Roman model, we better find a way to pay workers what they're worth, and use debt only to liquefy necessary transactions, not to substitute for wages. That really does mean that corporations should be severely limited on exporting jobs, that unions should be encouraged, that labor standards (as well as environmental standards) must be internationalized, and finance should come under national and international control: money should no longer slip across borders without regulation. Capitalism in its current form has failed. Something more humane and stable must take its place: it doesn't matter what we call it.

In terms of the current election, Obama represents a departure from the past 28 years (at least), even if he has run a centrist campaign. While McCain is not only tied to Republican policies, he also subscribes to the anti-regulatory, trickle down theories of his party; the only thing different about him is that he's impulsive, and has tacked from right to left and back to right on a few issues like campaign finance reform, often for political advantage as he sees it.

Obama, however, will not be tied to past policies; he will be faced with solving problems caused by them. He is cautious, but reasonable; slogans will not sway him. He has outlined only a few of the changes he'd like to make, but the new departure begins from his central premise: the policies of the past haven't worked. We need new ones.

Oct. 24, 2008, Election Fraud Or Democracy?

Rich Roman Senators and Knights bought elections during the late Republic. I'm sure there was election fraud, but more common was election corruption. By the time of the Late Empire (5th Century), the hereditary Senate held the only "elections", and they were pro-forma ratification of the top General's choice for Emperor.

Now, Republicans play the role of the Roman Senators, but because they can't easily buy votes, they try to suppress them. There are many ways: purging registration rolls of new registrants whose data does not match 100% (you left a Jr. off your name, but it's on your Social Security data); purging all people with the same names as someone with a felony conviction; challenging minority voters whose homes have been foreclosed, or who were on duty in the National Guard when a postcard was sent to their address; officials warning (misleadingly) that anyone voting with outstanding traffic tickets will be prosecuted; anonymous notices that Republicans vote on Tuesday, Democrats on Wednesday; and, the favorite of Ohio in 2004, providing too few election machines for heavily Democratic districts. This is predicted now for my county, traditionally Republican, but now tilting Democratic.

In addition, the whole thrust of the new election law (HAVA) has been to privatize vote counting, by handing that process over to electronic voting machine vendors, who have (so far) been shielded by legal claims of proprietorship over the software they use to do the count. This is despite demonstrations that prove that the machines are not only subject to breakdown and massive mistakes (like losing thousands of votes in a Florida Congressional district, thereby handing the election to the Republican instead of the Democrat), but that they are easily hacked, i.e. manipulated through the software to count the votes to favor one side or the other, or actually "flipping" votes (a vote for Obama registered as a vote for McCain, already complained about in early voting in West Virginia and Indiana).

This may be why Obama will campaign hard right down to the wire, despite polls that show his lead growing daily; he may need a landslide to overcome the vote suppression and election fraud.

This is a sad reflection on the "greatest democracy on earth."

There is already anticipation that, whatever the outcome, there will be violence on the day after the election, and perhaps on the day as well--already, McCain backers have jeered early voters.

If the election outcome is in doubt, given the polls, you can be sure that all of the above methods have been used to steal it. Protests would be in order. Obama has organized a vast legal defense network.

Democracy is in the balance.

Oct. 23, 2008, More Billions to the Rich

The managers of the banks, especially the investment banks, the insurance companies the firms involved in transferring funds--the ones involved in selling mortgage derivatives in more and more sophisticated iterations, the hedge fund managers, these are the people who should be punished for bringing the nation to the brink of economic collapse. Think how many trillions of dollars they have destroyed, dollars from your pension and my retirement fund. It is as if they robbed every one of us through their reckless pursuit of endless wealth.

So, are they marched off to jail? No. Are they stripped of their jobs? Well, sometimes, but those unfortunates get "golden parachutes" for a soft landing--just like the families out on their butts from their foreclosed homes? And those who remain, why they're the ones who are going to be paid billions of dollars to buy up the bad credit they created.

Apparently executive compensation is not limited by the bailout.

Where is the outrage? It's been channeled into fear that we'll get more of the same, so we don't go after Obama on this; it's fear that we'll end up with McCain, not only an arrogant rich man, but an impulsive and angry one.

I don't pretend to know why Obama wasn't stronger on executive compensation. He did talk about it. If there are no safeguards, or few, then it was because Democratic collaborators in Congress felt they had to go along with the administration proposal, only make it better. They did improve it, compared to Paulson's first draft.

Obama did push for it, because something needed to be done, and fast, or at least everybody still thinks so. But Obama did not suspend his campaign, like McCain, to hover over his party leadership. He left the details to them, while he talked with committee chairmen and Paulson, and Bernanke on the phone. The devil's in the details.

So we should demand correction on executive pay for the bailout law as soon as possible: a civil service rate of pay would be appropriate for bank officials in nationalized banks, because they're working for the government, too. And they shouldn't be rewarded for getting us into this mess.

I bet the bill would pass the House, possibly the Senate, but we'll have to wait for the next session of Congress and hope Obama wins. He'd sign it, at least if his progressive base makes noise, which we should, but Bush would never, never, in a million years.

Nor would McCain: with him the takeover of the selfish class would be complete, just like the Senators of the late Roman Empire taking all the wealth for themselves.

Oct. 21, 2008, Door to door in Pennsylvania

The woman who opens the door
of the two family house
(both porches with old, unpainted boards
crammed with broken furniture and
full ashtrays) is young, young
children in her wake and yet
looks old. Long hair without luster
and teeth going bad. "Honey,"
she says, as if I was the young one,
"Nobody's gonna vote for him."

An old man comes out to his porch
on the shady side of the street.
to cough up his lungs, it sounds like.
Hello, I say, nice day, warmer
than yesterday. "Nice day," he agrees,
"A good day for breathing."

Cruzmaria
opens her welcoming door
(for God welcomes all)
to her sturdy brick house
and says come in, you've
come at just the right time.
She makes me coffee while
I look over her absentee ballot
application and tell her how
it works. Her four-year-old
grandson (who might
have downs syndrome)
hovers nearby while we talk
making imaginary coffee, tea,
and ice cream for his grandma.
"I hope you don't mind,"
I ask her, after we discuss
various symptoms of menopause.
"I am supposed to ask
if you support Obama."
"Of course," she says, "I love him.
He is like Jesus. He reaches out
to everyone and does not judge."

A man on the street
wearing a US mail shirt
("I am a US Male," he says,)
wants to know why I support Obama
and he tells me why I am wrong
and will deserve what I get
if he wins. But what he really
wants to say is that he and his
wife lost their child at eight months.

Another mailman and I
criss-cross all the way up
Seybert street. He never tells
me his politics but does
explain that court means alley
and tells me how to find
# 218 Perry Court,
a shack with trash in the yard
and balled up clothes
on the steps. Sorry I missed you,
I write on the pamphlet,
and leave it under a sports jersey.

An old man invites me in
out of the cold, and says
he's always been a Democrat
but he heard Obama wants
to take away his gun. No,
I say, he's Mr. Constitution
and supports the 2nd amendment.
"That's all I needed to know,"
says the man, shaking my hand.
And so maybe I helped secure
one vote for Barack.

Oct. 21, 2008, Report From the Trenches II

This is my second time to PA, this time with my wonderful wife, Elizabeth (poem above). She doesn't like the salesman role, so canvassing was hard for her, but we both did our bit--for Obama, of course. We canvassed in a small city, Hazleton, and a large town, Lehighton. We also saw some beautiful landscape to and fro, especially when we passed through Jim Thorpe--strange for a town to be named for a person like that, but it has one of the most dramatic settings in the East: three-story Victorian two-street downtown folded into a steep, sharply curving ridge carved by a river.

We knocked on many doors in Hazleton and Lehighton; we spoke to less than a third, left personal notes for the rest. Of the people we spoke to, more were leaning or definitely going to vote for Obama, although both places are troubled by racism. Hazleton's Mayor, "Lou," Barletta is nationally famous for an anti-immigrant ordinance, but appears very popular and has a good chance of unseating the Democratic Congressman.

One couple: the unhealthy, overweight fiftyish man said he was undecided and didn't want to talk about it, but agreed to call his partner to the door. Her pounds had melted into a sagging mass, held in by not very clean pink pyjamas, but it was what she said that was memorable: "Obama! Like Osama? NO, NO! No one's going to vote for someone with a name like that! Not after 911!" Her partner looked on amused.

My wife met a woman like that as well. And a Republican heckler on the street; she tried to talk with him.

But I also pointed out to a young English-speaking Latina that Obama was only raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000, and she agreed with a chuckle that she didn't earn that much. I think she decided right there; I'd already left both an English and a Spanish brochure at their door.

I feel as if we each changed a couple to maybe six votes from not sure to pretty sure and pinpointed another five or so to pay more attention to. In one case, at least, Colin Powell definitely helped. I think his endorsement will help with many more. I think we both helped, too, in being non-confrontational but friendly.

But still, we're teetering on the knife-edge of a ridge, above a place like Jim Thorpe: global civilization. McCain could be the massive boulder that crushes the pretty little town from above; Obama might be a builder, instead, who helps resuscitate it from the ground up: we face the Roman Empire's 476, or another chance.

Oct. 17, 2008 US Empire Falling For Lack of Money?

When the US owes so much, will it be able to continue to dominate, as it has since WWII? Or, will the US be forced, as it forced many other nations in the recent past, to adopt "structural adjustment" to cut back its overseas indebtedness?

Structural adjustment in the case of the US, especially if required by nations like China, would appropriately come in the form of cutting back US military expenditures, now more than all the rest of the world combined, not domestic spending. That retrenchment will mean that we won't be able to continue to police the world, and won't be able to settle disputes to our liking.

For example, both British and French may be edging towards accommodating a "moderate" Taliban in Afghanistan, since the Karzai government seems non-functional and the insurgency grows stronger with every additional allied attack. Would a President Obama be able to make the kind of major military investment there that we might have done in 2003? We don't have the money.

With the US dependent upon the reluctant and increasingly expensive funds of China, Japan and the Saudis, it's conceivable that they could say, "No! We won't fund more foreign adventures." We'd be stuck, just as Britain was stuck at Suez in 1956, when Eisenhower told PM Eden that he would withhold aid funds until the British withdrew from Egypt.

Barack Obama are you reading this?

The US is no longer in a position to control the world; we can't afford to. The American empire depended upon US economic dominance, and then the US dollar, and then the ability to borrow. It can't do that now. The US is having difficulty getting the massive funds it needs to cover the financial collapse; no one knows how much more will be needed.

Both McCain and Obama have pledged to increase the size of the Army and Marines, but we won't be able to afford luxuries like that. I doubt McCain would accept limits to the US military, but Obama is more likely to understand: we're facing a new global order; Bush and Alan Greenspan destroyed the old one. In the new order, the US will not be the hegemon it once was; we owe too much money.

The US has a choice: accept its more limited power, or go bankrupt, like the Roman Empire.

Oct. 15, 2008 Is Pakistan the New Front in the War on Terror?

In the same region, the NATO/US battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan is going badly. While US attacks occasionally kill insurgents, it seems that the majority of people killed are Afghan civilians. No wonder the Afghans are more than upset! British and French envoys in Afghanistan have said that the attacks are counter-productive and that a more fruitful course would be to begin negotiations with "moderate" Taliban leaders--those who have gone over to the insurgency because of the attacks.

That seems like a sensible course. It should at least be attempted, but, the more urgent and dangerous situation is in Pakistan.

The sensible course in Afghanistan would probably help defuse anti-American feeling in Pakistan, but more non-military initiatives need to be embarked upon. That's where India comes in.

The Pakistani army is still focused on India. After all, India defeated it in too many wars, and anti-Pakistani feelings have been fueled in India by terrorist bombings that are probably linked to Islamic extremists. Really, the Indians and Pakistanis face the same enemies, but you wouldn't know it from the way both attack each other in their newspapers.

Here is where the new US administration could make a positive difference as an honest broker. Our relations with India are now very good because of the nuclear deal. We should do two things on the strength of this: point out to both India and Pakistan, through diplomatic and security channels, that they are both being attacked by the same enemy: Islamic extremists. Second, we should pressure India to start peace initiatives with Pakistan, to further pursue the series of normalization measures already embarked upon, and to offer aid (intelligence, transport, financial, whatever) to combat al Qaida and the other Islamic extremists in Pakistan.

What would this do? It would strengthen those elements in Pakistan's military that want to confront the extremists, but most importantly, it would remove the perception of India as their primary enemy; it could then engage the Taliban.

Better for the US and the world if it did not engage in more imperial wars, which we clearly can't afford.

Obama take note.

Oct. 9, 2008 Better Times When?

Obama called for a more balanced approach, for re-regulation, for punishing the perpetrators--like the sub-prime loan-sharks, and for putting money directly into tangibles, like alternative energy (both seem to have to include nuclear and "clean" coal, but Obama pushes solar and wind, McCain pushes nuclear). He also included spending for healthcare and restoring our infrastructure (bridges, roads, railroads, internet). Obama had clear priorities. McCain couldn't even say what he'd do first; he'd do it all.

McCain softened his foreign policy a little in this debate, but he's been confrontational with practically everyone, including Russia's Putin. He's been described as "Bush on steroids" in foreign policy. Plus, he's known for the volcanic temper he's had since childhood. He could easily set off global war in one of his tantrums; even some long-time Republicans say he's dangerous for that reason alone. However his answer on Pakistan seemed almost reasonable.

In terms of personal energy, Obama is gracious, charming and open, smiling easily and genuinely. McCain is tightly wound, caustic, and he looks angry, even if he doesn't fly off the handle; his smile is a grimace. He stumped around the stage like a stick man when Obama was talking, and even got in the way of the moderator's teleprompter at the end. He never looked at Obama, except one time when he pointed at him, calling him "that one," when saying "and guess who voted for it!" He doesn't come across as trustworthy.

I don't think it was a tie. I think McCain's aggression, even if it didn't sink to the level of his veep (Palin claiming that Obama palled around with "terrorist" Bill Ayers), he still attacked; that made him look petulant, and without ideas. This was especially true because Obama easily deflected the attacks, and then went on to positive statements on whatever topic was at hand.

The pollsters didn't think it was a tie, either. Obama won, but it was not necessarily on substance.

Can he win election and survive? Will the Secret Service protect him, or will the hell-hounds unleashed by Palin shoot him before, or after, the election?

Oct. 4, 2008 Is the Money Mess Like the Fall of Rome?

In Rome, the Senators made the rules, too, for themselves, and they kept all the wealth for themselves, as well. Productivity growth in the US since the 1990's has been huge, but virtually none of it showed up in wages. Where did it go? To the few: CEO's, financiers and to the owners, those already wealthy. Which was why inequality increased so dramatically.

In Rome, when the Empire faced bankruptcy, did the Senators, who had cornered virtually all the wealth, who were the equivalent, almost literally, of our billionaires today, did they help pay to bail it out? No. In 476, the Senate connived with the German palace guard to overthrow the Emperor, because otherwise they would have to pay taxes!

In our own money mess, Secretary Paulson tells us that we must bail out the wealthy, or we'll all go under. Has anyone, except for Senator Sanders suggested that the perps should be forced to pay? Why should the taxpayers pay, if Wall Street suffers no penalties commensurate with their crime: ripping off almost everyone, all over the world?

Just like the Roman Senators of old, the financial titans of today have no intention of paying for their crimes. And their most faithful representatives in Congress (the Republicans of the House) even proposed that the way to solve the problem was to eliminate the capital gains tax: meaning that the wealthy would pay virtually nothing in taxes, leaving the rest of us to pick up the tab!

In 1932 the nation chose not to go the route of Rome; the wealthy were curbed, taxed, regulated, and the nation recovered from the Depression. In 2008 it appears as if we're following the Roman path instead: bail out the financiers with taxpayer money from the non-wealthy; do not ask the rich, the perpetrators of this money mess, to pay for any of it.

Until the financiers are regulated, and penalized, the economy will continue to be at risk.

Oct. 2, 2008 Bailout: Both Sides Are Wrong

Neither side seems to realize that it is the housing market, not the financial markets, that they should support. Most of the credit drying up is because the underlying values of most of the derivatives are derived from mortgages. As Dean Baker points out in an Oct. 1 Truthout piece, it is because the values of homes are going down, not up (as everyone expected), that mortgage-based securities are losing value, or becoming just pieces of paper. But it is not just because of the subprime mortgages, any longer. With the defaults of the sub-primes, housing values started to fall, but that affected all housing, not just property at the low end.

So, people holding adjustable rate mortgages for $200,000, living in houses that are no longer worth that, hit with escalating interest and therefore sharply higher payments they can't afford, may find it easier to default than to keep on struggling--their house is worth less than the mortgage.

That affects any financial institution that owns paper based on a defaulted mortgage, and reverse leveraging means the paper begins to lose even more value. After all, if you bundle 5,000 mortgages into interest-bearing paper, then create more paper based on those papers, and more paper based on those, each earning the seller huge fees and creating additional paper value, you have leveraging in which say $50 million becomes $500 million.

At which end should the support be supplied? At the $500 million end, it could cost you $500 million, or nearly, and the beneficiaries would be the owners and sellers of all this highly leveraged paper. That's why Congress and Paulson are talking about $700 billion. But if you shore up the mortgages, perhaps by guaranteeing the values of all homes as of June, 2008 (yes, this would be a subsidy), you would also be providing a base for all the leveraged paper. Some of it would still be nearly worthless, but the creators, promoters and sellers of it are the ones who should be stuck with the losses; homeowners should keep their homes. And there would be a real basis for credit once again.

Bernie Sanders, Independent Senator, says the millionaires who caused the crisis should be taxed to pay for it, but just as in 5th Century Rome, they won't tax themselves.

Instead, the Senate goes along and the selfish class will borrow from China to bail it out and hopes that will work. It probably won't.

Sept. 30, 08 The Bailout Tanks

Looking at who voted no, I was struck by some familiar Democratic progressives: Kucinich asked if this was Congress, or Goldman Sachs' Board Room? My own first-term Congresswoman, more moderate, also voted against; she's running against a well-financed Republican in a conservative district. But two-thirds of Republicans, (only 40% of Democrats) voted against. They represented the conservative, small government wing of their party.

The Democrats who voted against were the more progressive--and those in tough races--but the Republicans were voting against their own administration. Their solution: eliminate capital gains taxes!

Speaker Pelosi's speech--that this bailout was necessary because of the failed policies of the last 8 years--could not have caused Republican nays, although it ruffled their feathers. The nays might have been because the bailout represented to these Republicans all the things wrong with Bush big government Republicans. The bailout was for a lot of our money, certainly, and for intervention in the sacred "free" markets, something Wall Street and corporate Republicans--and corporate Democrats--might feel comfortable with, but it was antithetical to small government.

Progressive Democrats, on the other hand, didn't want to bail out billionaires; they wanted to help "Main Street." Pelosi's speech was meant to rally them; perhaps it did. She claimed, after the vote, that Democrats kept their part of the bargain: a majority of Democrats voted Aye. But the Republicans bailed.

They already had an ad ready to blame Democrats for the sellout to Wall Street!

But the leadership agreement had been that each party conference would deliver a majority of its votes, because, while modified, this was a Republican administration's bill, unpopular with both parties. Democrats did not want to be stuck with sole responsibility; Republicans were to take the heat, too; but they wanted to mousetrap Democrats, instead.

A House Republican bill would offer only insurance for funds and minimal intervention; a Democratic bill would focus on homeowners' relief and taxpayer equity; it would have taxed stock transactions to pay for any financial bailout. Perhaps neither would pass both houses. Wall Street is stronger in the Senate. So, any bailout will have to offer assurance, at least, that credit markets won't be allowed to fail.

Both Presidential candidates stressed the need for bipartisan action--while McCain stooped to blame Obama.

What's next? Rosh Hoshana.

Either the Democrats should offer a truly Democratic bill that really protects homeowners, modifies mortgages, taxes Wall Street for any funds bailout (a tax would also discourage speculation) and regulates them, or let Republicans offer a non-interventionist alternative, but require them to pass it (with all their votes and a few Democratic ones).

Or Depression here we come! Then maybe a new New Deal?

Sept. 19, 08 Finesse Financial Turmoil
Gamble Pakistan

"If only," I can imagine Bush or Cheney thinking, "we could kill bin Laden, our people could win, instead of that awful black man."

Our foreign policy has been driven by this kind of thinking even pre-Bush, but he does it in spades. This is especially true in this time of financial turmoil; people's attention is fixed on the economy, so it's a good time for the administration to carry on some high profile undercover ops overseas.

It's a gamble, but I'm not sure the Bushies know that. Pakistan is capable of turning to China and Russia for help (they have more money than we do). The Bush administration is driving them there, because they just think Americans can do whatever is in their national--or political--interest anywhere in the world. If you aren't with us, you're against us: we're the sole Superpower.

Bombing Pakistan's Tribal Area increasingly despite the growing political reaction all over Pakistan (it was, and is again, a more or less democratic country), may also demonstrate how desperate the Bush administration is to prevent not just that black guy, but Democrats generally, from actually gaining control of the executive branch. It would leave them like sitting ducks--after all the crimes they've committed.

Desperation also shows in their bailouts of Bear Stearns, Fannie and Freddie, and AIG and now proposing to take on all bad debt--better to socialize finances than to allow Socialism!

Maybe people will buy it. Maybe they'll kill bin Laden before we edge into war with Pakistan; maybe the bailouts will calm things down; maybe McCain can win.

And he might, just because he's white and more familiar.

If that black guy wins we might all have a chance--just a chance--of building a more equitable, humane and prosperous society, and one that leads the world on global warming, new energy and green technology.

It's only a chance, a gamble, too.

But the gamble Bush/McCain are taking (I'm sure McCain's briefed--and pumped) is for limited political ends: to keep power by any means, and to protect their real base, the Selfish Class, so like the Roman Senators of fifth century Rome; wealthy Romans refused to pay taxes even to prevent the destruction of the Empire in 476.

But they'll pay for 527's to savage that black boy. Oh yes, they'll spend money to insure they continue to get all the favors the Republicans have tendered them over the years. The bail out is just a continuation. And when America goes down the tubes, they can always move to Dubai, or some other delightful place--and continue to act as if they own the world.

Sept. 18, 08 Political Drilling For Oil

Actually, the bill is Speaker Pelosi's attempt to placate enough of the "70%" of Americans who supposedly are demanding "Drill here, drill now!" It actually calls the Republicans' bluff. The oil companies won't commit resources for most of the areas "opened up to drilling," and the President won't sign a bill that takes away the tax-breaks and royalty gifts loaded on his friends, the oil companies. Yet Democrats are saying: "Go ahead, drill now if you want to, and we'll use the money you were taking (we think unjustifiably) to subsidize the alternative sources of energy we'll need in the future."

The bill muddies the waters. Pelosi no longer stands in the way of drilling, yet it still won't happen because the President will veto, even if the Senate passes the bill, or some version of it. That's unlikely. It's unlikely because the Republicans, taking their cue from the White House veto threat, will block it. So, Republicans will be voting against offshore drilling! Sweet.

The Republicans hitting upon the "drill now" mantra was politics, too, since it would not have provided enough oil, and none for over ten years, and the Republicans pressed for it for only two reasons: it was a good slogan that stupid people bought (most Americans?), and if it did come to pass, their friends, the oil companies, would make out like bandits. But not with this bill. Yet this bill would go a long way to defusing the Republicans' slogan.

It still makes Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress look like spineless opportunists: first they're against drilling, and then they're for it! The credibility of Congress will sink even lower--if that's possible (at 9% approval it seems unlikely). The one thing this may do for the Republicans is bolster their unlikely attempt to take back the House, or the Senate; even that is probably mathematically doomed.

That's why Democratic Congress-people supported the bill. It takes away the one issue the Republicans thought they had. And now, with the financial collapse getting worse and worse, the economy looks better and better--for Democrats. Democrats, except for President Clinton and Robert Rubin, resisted deregulation of the financial markets championed by Republicans (including John McCain). Even Rubin is now re-thinking the need for regulating the "shadow economy" that brought us here.

Note: On January 23rd I wrote after the sub-prime collapse that a depression was possible; it demonstrated the destructiveness described in The Selfish Class (e-book available on this website). Now other people are scared it could happen.

Sept. 16, 08 Lying Works, Caution Doesn't

A Report From the Trenches. No, not Wall Street: Allentown, PA.

The number of undecided among people identified by Obama's campaign as "persuadable" was frustrating and disturbing, and although there were more outright Obama supporters than McCain supporters among this sample, there were even more in between.

What were their questions? That was the frustrating part: almost half didn't have any particular questions: they just had doubts--about both candidates. Did Sarah Palin figure into their vacillations? Only to question Obama's judgement in not picking Hillary. But there was something else going on. One mid-30's man told me "they'd" kill Obama, and Biden was a loser, "they" being white "crazies."

Most people did accept the idea that "change" was needed, and after the turmoil on Wall Street I'm sure that need is perceived as even stronger. How, then, were they vacillating between the old warhorse, McCain, and Obama who has been running on the need for change for more than two years?

As I indicate in the title: lying works. McCain is now running as the change agent, the reformer, and so far people seem to be buying it, even though he offers no real substance as reformer and has been around Washington since Obama was in High School. What the undecided voter wants to know: what does Obama mean by change? No one expressed much curiosity about McCain's "change" agenda.

Beyond what people were saying in the upscale suburbs where the campaign sent me, I sensed distrust: distrust of all politicians, and therefore distrust of anything any politician said. One of the assets Obama had through the primaries was that he was perceived as someone who answered questions directly, who had integrity, who was inspirational but also cautious, or careful.

Two things have changed that: Obama's move to the center after the primaries on issues like FISA and the war in Afghanistan, and McCain's ads, including the whispering campaigns. Ironically, at the moment, despite McCain's repeated gaffes (underreported), his campaign theme unsupported by any substantive positions (reform, but no reform proposals), and his risky, hurried and controversial choice of Palin as his running mate, it is Obama who is viewed with suspicion.

If I were to advise Obama, or his campaign, I would say: you need to be daring, not cautious; you need to offer an exciting New program, like cleaning up Wall Street, or Washington, or "investing" in a jobs program perhaps linked to alternative energy, or to all three.

If lying works, this website will seem even more prescient: the selfish class will prevail again, as it did in Rome, and we will all go down the tubes.

Sept. 11, 08 "Sexism" Dominates News-cycle

What did these "balanced" or "liberal" shows headline? McCain's attacks on Obama for "sexist" language, when he said that McCain's (not Palin's) policy proposals were "lipstick on a pig." Both shows demonstrated that McCain had used the same phrase multiple times when attacking Hillary Clinton's healthcare proposals;. No one accused him of being sexist then.

MSNBC did show a clip of Obama rejecting the attack as a diversion from the issues they should both be addressing; Obama also appeared on Letterman for the same purpose.

But the media fell for McCain's ploy; it didn't talk about the tanking economy; it didn't talk about the differences offered by the two candidates, or even about the Republicans' popular but absurd energy "policy" ("drill, baby, drill!"). It didn't talk about health care or education or the wars, despite the apparent fact that one is in quiescence while the other (Afghanistan) is getting worse and US policy is proving counterproductive.

The media--even the "liberal" media--seems easily manipulated by the McCain campaign, which also showed an ad that completely misstates Obama's sex education legislation and makes him look like a pervert.

Olbermann wondered whether the media was finally sitting up and taking notice of the pattern of lies and sleaze connected with McCain's latest campaign ploys. I doubt it.

The Republican gang has used the media to take power, to keep it and to enrich themselves. It has done this through precisely these tactics: diversion from real issues to gossip and lies, beginning with Reagan, famously with GHW's racist ads against Dukakis, and W's allies' Swiftboating of Kerry. These tactics have brought us the disaster of Bush-Cheney. Yet McCain, running as "the change agent," is now trying to replicate 2000 and 2004, even though he publicly denounced those tactics in 2000 when he was a victim of them in South Carolina.

Maybe it won't work, but as one commentator pointed out, it was a tactic that dominated the news-cycle, demonstrating the stupidity of the media, and how its power can be harnessed through subterfuge and lies often repeated, even the "liberal" news media.

In the Roman Empire of the fifth century, information was only government sponsored, but government acted in the same way: diverting citizens from their real problems so that there never was opposition that could have forced the Empire to respond. Rome's collapse was the consequence. Will the US follow the same road?

Sept. 9, 08 What Obama Should Do

Race does have something to do with it.

McCain's advantage comes despite the worsening economic picture, which should hurt him, especially since neither he nor his party has offered anything meaningful to respond to it. And his new "change" mantra is despite the indisputable fact that his party is responsible for the policies that led to the downturn in the first place; he offers nothing substantively different.

Obama has offered moderate fixes for the economic slump, including a jobs program and infrastructure investment, but now, with the economy getting worse, he should beef up those proposals with a national investment and jobs program to improve and repair our sagging infrastructure. It would directly reduce rising unemployment and put upward pressure on declining wages. He could finance some of it through the windfall profits tax on oil he previously proposed. He should campaign hard on it.

What would be the Republicans' response? The oil companies are McCain's primary funders; he would be put on the defensive. McCain is also ideologically opposed to government action like a jobs and infrastructure program; he'd attack it as Big Government, but that would fly like a lead balloon, demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the Republican economic policy responsible for the financial mess. It won't go away by the election; it will get worse. Obama should bet on it. So, forceful action will be necessary.

In addition, Obama would be acting like a Democrat, rallying all those losing their jobs, as well as all those anxious for their jobs, or their homes. He'd also rally the old line Democrats; they'd work doubly hard for him.

If Obama came out swinging for a huge investment to rebuild and repair roads, railroads, mass transit, bridges, and ports, cast it as a program to generate a million jobs, financed in part by a windfall oil profits tax, implemented by local construction firms, not multi-nationals, he'd have a winning issue. It would make 'drill, baby drill' and Sarah Palin passe.

A jobs and infrastructure program was what the Roman Empire needed back in 450 or so; roads were crumbling and unsafe, ports were silting in. The Empire fell because the selfish class in control resisted any effort that would raise their taxes. McCain and Palin, despite their vague populist rhetoric, represent the same selfish class, even to cutting taxes for the wealthy instead of for the people who need it.

Sept. 3, 08 The Tabloid Ticket

The story about Sarah Palin has concentrated on the most irrelevant parts of her political history: her tangled family. The tabloid frenzy obscures her sorry record in Alaska, as mayor and governor.

Her hand was out for pork from Sen. Stevens--until it was politically smarter to denounce it (and him). She demanded loyalty oaths (in Wasilla!) and fired those she felt weren't heartfelt in their loyalty. Arbitrary firings appear to be her style.

Before her first position, as Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin campaigned as a "fiscal conservative," and has since. But she raised regressive sales taxes, while cutting progressive property taxes. She raised revenues 38% and city expenditures 33% and then went on to demand that the city borrow $15 million for a stadium (on land with unclear legal title), and $1 million for a park. She recommended borrowing for sewage and road improvements as well. She inherited zero debt on becoming mayor and left office with $22 million in debts for Wasilla.

Further, her history of administrative expertise is made suspect by the following: when her summary firings generated a recall petition, Republican party leaders demanded that she turn over administration to a City Administrator. As Governor in charge of the budget, she gave the legislature no direction or guidelines, then grandstanded by line-item vetoes of the state budget, cutting everything she said was "pork." Most of her cuts were of needed programs of which she was ignorant, demonstrated by the fact that most of the expenditures were restored by the legislature over her vetoes.

Her popularity in Alaska stems in part from her rep as an enemy of pork, perhaps because she champions hunting everything and snowmobiling everywhere, but also because she took Alaska's surplus (generated from oil) and returned it to the taxpayers, despite the need for improvements to roads. She then recommended that the state borrow the money for infrastructure improvements.

One of the reasons why much of this negative history has not come out until now is that Palin earned the reputation of ruthlessness; she goes after enemies and even those who first helped her, like the city counselor who first showed her the ropes in Wasilla. People are afraid of her.

Put this together with Palin's vehement opposition to abortion, her championing of Abstinence Only sex education (look how it worked for her daughter!), her position as unabashed proponent of drilling in the Alaskan Wildlife Refuge (McCain was against), for drilling everywhere and her insistence that human activity had no impact on global warming, and she looks worse than Bush. In addition, she has zero international experience.

Quite a pick: McCain's first important decision.

August 14, 08 Next: American Troops in Georgia?

The plot thickens. One of Georgia's most avid promoters has been Randy Scheunemann, former lobbyist for its government who has long been McCain's top foreign policy advisor. McCain has been pugnacious about Russia and its leader, Vladimir Putin, suggesting that Russia be expelled from the Group of Eight and prevented from joining the WTO. And now he has Georgia to sound off about.

Bush has taken positions that buttress McCain's bluster, including sending American troops to Georgia to oversee its use of the emergency aid he is also sending. Gee, maybe we should occupy Georgia, so that Russia would have to attack us if it wanted to further humiliate the country!

Actually, if Georgia was part of NATO, the US and all other NATO members would be obligated to defend it: we could have a land war with Russia--what a great idea!

The Russian military might be no match for individual NATO units, but be realistic: this would be in Russia's backyard; NATO would have to ship its troops great distances; meanwhile, Russia could cut off natural gas to Europe. And it does have nuclear weapons, a re-generated military, and lots of money.

Do we really need to manufacture an enemy like Russia? My wife was surprised that Russia isn't part of NATO. Why not, this is post-Cold War, isn't it? McCain acts as if he'd rather the Cold War were re-ignited. Consider why anyone would think like this:

With the Iraq war winding down (and Iraqis demanding us out of there), we'll have only Afghanistan and "terror" in combat. What will happen to the military budget? Defense industries and service companies have gotten fat on the GWOT, but this river of gold could dry up. Better shop around for another enemy, for one that will stimulate "defense" spending even beyond what we've expended for Iraq; no point in just standing still: onward and upward--with "defense" profits.

Yes, Georgia attacked South Ossetia and it is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have ordered this without some kind of reassurances from America, or NATO--or McCain's Scheunemann.

McCain stands for expanding the American Empire regardless of whether we can pay for it. Need I point out that the military--and the wealthy--bankrupted the Empire, which precipitated Rome's fall in 476?

August 12, 08 Georgian Limits to Empire

Just think: they aren't fighting two wars; their young people aren't under fire from supposed allies, and their country probably has as much influence with Russia and Georgia as we do, i.e. none at all.

The Georgian war shows the bankruptcy of Bush-Cheney-McCain foreign policy. We encouraged the Saakashvili government to pursue NATO membership; Georgians had the mistaken belief that the West would protect them from Russia. Saakashvili stupidly marched into South Ossetia, despite a recently reinforced Russian army "peacekeeper" presence.

How any Georgian, knowing any of their past history--a tiny country, long dominated by Russia and then absorbed by the USSR--would think they could get away with this is mysterious, unless Saakashvili truly believed that NATO troops would be right behind him. Did the American Ambassador encourage him in this idiocy, the way we encouraged the Hungarians in 1956?

The US really has no leverage. We are in debt, our troops are over-stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the West is in a burgeoning recession. Meanwhile, Russia is resurgent from oil and other raw materials; it is re-asserting its power over its neighborhood, and all the US can realistically do is say, "Please stop."

It has been pointed out ad nauseam that Saakashvili is the popularly elected President, but if Georgia is a real democracy (unlike the US), his people should throw him out of office for the stupidity of his attack: what was he thinking? That would also mollify the Russians, who have no reason to go away unless they get at least some of what they want: a more friendly Georgian government.

As for the US Empire: you see how much good it does in the world? Our meddling causes mischief almost everywhere.

I know this is a very unpopular position, but someone has to say it again and again: the US should dismantle its military bases around the world; it should renounce empire and concentrate on rebuilding "the homeland." We could become a "boring country" like Sweden or Canada, and we'd all be a lot better off. So would the rest of the world.

What are the chances of this happening? Considering that our military-industrial complex dominates this nation, and depends upon our imperial reach to justify itself, and considering that its expenditures (funded by you and me) amount now to almost three-quarters of a trillion dollars, chances are low to nil--until our economy, and our funders (China, Japan and the oil-nations) force us to retreat--like Rome in 476.

Then it will be too late.

August 6, 08 Oil Drilling Politics

I told him people were being misled by Republican propaganda, that drilling offshore would bring negligible results and only after ten or twenty years. No, he insisted, there was "this pool off California that has as much oil as Saudi Arabia!"

I was skeptical, but I did the research later--there is one pool that might have 11 billion barrels in it, according to oil industry geology--not proven oil, though some blogger, a not very informed critic, was saying there was 82 billion, enough for an 11 years supply.

My steamfitter agreed when I pointed out to him that we had to reduce oil use to curb global warming, but insisted that most people didn't care. Is this true? He said that most of his co-workers, when re-filling big refrigeration units, didn't use the required, elaborate recapture mechanism when taking out the old gas--it took too long: they just released all those CFC's into the atmosphere, despite the international treaty protecting the ozone layer. "They" might have been the speaker. After I made choking noises, he thought about it, then opined that there was a $10,000 reward to anyone who reported a violation like that. Has no one been prosecuted for doing this, despite the hefty reward?

Anyway, back to the oil-drilling conundrum. The Republicans think they've found an issue, and can please their oil-patch friends at the same time: both win. But the rest of us lose--if they get away with it.

Democrats need to come up with alternatives: another rebate targeted to the people who are hurting could be funded by a windfall profits tax on the oil companies.

We do need to cut oil consumption, and high gas prices are already accomplishing that. Opening up offshore oil drilling, would only profit oil companies down the road--unless they were taxed for any windfall profits. Would they drill then? In this vein, here's a cute idea: Drill anywhere, but

"...open drilling season comes with a simple quid pro quo. The oil industry gets slapped with a windfall profits tax that takes away any revenue in excess of $3 a gallon. Since we know it takes time to search for oil and drill wells, we can even give the oil boys a six-month grace period before the windfall tax takes effect. [Dean Baker, Truthout, 8/05/08]

How about it Obama?

August 5, 08 Pakistan in Afghanistan?

In a significant development noticed by very few, the civilian Pakistani government attempted to take control of the ISI (Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA and FBI rolled into one). The move had been in response to the recent bombing of India's Afghan embassy in Kabul, which American investigators blamed in part on Pakistan's ISI, working with the Taliban.

Pakistan's ISI, or elements within it, may be a major participant in the Afghan war behind the scenes.

BUT the government failed in its takeover! The civilian government's directive was rescinded when the military objected.

Up until now, the ISI has been nominally controlled by Pakistan's military, or perhaps vice-versa (the army's commanders have lately been former heads of the ISI).

The plot thickens: why would Pakistanis work with the Taliban? Back in the 1980's the ISI, aided by the CIA, helped the mujihadeen fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. The CIA even resurrected the Muslim League's catchy slogan: "Islam In Danger!" to rally Muslim fundamentalists against the Soviets. The most aggressive mujihadeen later formed both al Qaeda and the Taliban--and I wouldn't be surprised if both have maintained ties to the ISI. Our covert war has come back to bite us.

Like Vietnam, the Afghanistan government's control outside the capital is sketchy, and like Vietnam there is a determined nationalist opposition, whose appeal now is partly that it opposes the foreigners supporting the government. Afghanistan differs from Vietnam in that neither government nor Taliban control large areas of Afghanistan; regional warlords do; many represent the central government only in name.

The Taliban (overthrown by NATO) opposes the government installed after NATO intervention, but it also opposes most warlords; it is now fighting where the central government's control is in dispute, or buttressed by foreign armies, but it's probable that if the Taliban overthrew the government, it would then go after the warlords; it did before. Still, the resources of the warlords are not readily available to help the government against the Taliban.

Why? The government is largely Pashtun, as is the Taliban, but Pashtuns only account for 35-42% of the population, while the northern warlords represent other ethnic groups: Tajiks are the main rival group (29% to 33%), then Uzbeks and Hazara, but there are others, too.

Afghanistan is an unpromising place for Empires. Not only ethnically divided, its mountain people are isolated and insular, fighting off invaders and each other for millennia. Russian, British and Soviet empires foundered in their attempts to control it; the USSR's demise was hastened by its Afghan war.

Will the US be next? "Winning" is not in the cards; the Afghan brew is too complicated.

July 30, 08 "Moral Leadership?"

Today we are not even looked upon as particularly civilized. Our public services are pitiful (compare American trains with European or even Indian trains); our laws are draconian (how many other developed nations execute their citizens; while we execute even women, and did execute children); is there another developed country that spends so much on healthcare and still doesn't cover significant portions of the population? How many other "democracies" have as low an election turnout as we do, and how many have turned their vote counting over to private companies' "proprietary" systems? Do we even have free elections?

What makes the US exceptional today is the huge investment we make in war-making, to the profit of a tremendous number of international corporations--most, but not all, headquartered in the US. We spend more than the rest of the world combined, but that's not moral leadership, that's stupidity. Not even the Pentagon can keep track of all the money it spends.

How can the US offer the world "moral leadership," when it goes around bombing and invading countries just because it's decided their regimes should be "changed," because they are counter to American "interests?"

Our Constitution is globally admired, our Bill of Rights offers the strongest protections to our citizens, but it was breached long ago: recently Congress approved Bush's nearly universal warantless wiretapping.

The Bush administration even spent legal resources on justifying torture (which they called "enhanced interrogation techniques"), and on determining that it could detain anyone indefinitely without cause . The Court did rule against the latter, thankfully, so unlimited tyranny was averted by one Supreme Court vote.

Who is really in charge?

A clue was a report on the privatization of the military and the security services. For example, NSA is dependent upon one contractor for more than half of all its work. Privatization has placed power in corporate hands.

If Obama is elected (still a big if), he would have a lot of work to do before the US again can offer the kind of moral leadership that it could in say 1945.

July 22, 08 Leader as Idiot

McCain says he's learning "to do a google." He's confessed many times that he doesn't know about economics and he just had to fire his primary economics advisor because of bad press: Phil Gramm said the recession was a moral problem and the US was a "nation of whiners."

Further, McCain wants the Bush tax cuts made permanent--they've done so much good! He wants to expand Bush's war-policy: staying in Iraq indefinitely, while pursuing "pre-emptive" wars all over the place; never mind about paying for them: he doesn't do economics.

So, why is McCain even a credible possibility for winning election? Why do the polls put him only somewhat behind Obama, who, on virtually any of the above issues is much closer in his positions to large majorities of Americans' concerns?

McCain has a reputation as a "maverick." He bucked his party on a few issues: regulating campaign finances (somewhat: McCain-Feingold is now on the books and campaign finance regulation is wildly ineffective); initially opposing Bush on torture--before compromising away his position--and recognizing that we have to do something about global warming (his policy positions on this are much too little, and too industry-friendly, but do represent a small difference from Bush).

There are two other reasons. One is obvious: McCain's friendly relations with reporters and media, generally. This is not accidental: McCain has courted the press for years. Would that Obama could have such easy give and take with reporters. Because of his good press relations, McCain can get away with the most outrageous miss-statements (like his oft-repeated confusion of Shiite and Sunni in Iraq) or ridiculous policy proposals, like his response to rising gas prices: open up more drilling offshore, even if environmentally sensitive, so oil companies might find more oil there someday; if they brought any to market, it would be after the beginning of the next presidential term.

McCain claims more foreign policy expertise than Obama, but his miss-statements belie that, and he would apparently rather bomb Iran than speak to its leaders.

In addition, the press has overlooked a serious "character issue" re McCain: his explosive temper, even displayed on the Senate floor. He'd have his finger on the trigger!

There is one issue that gives McCain a stealth advantage: race. He's the white guy; Obama's not trans-racial to many voters; he's black, but people won't talk about this.

The American Empire could self-destruct from the racist legacy of slavery. To put McCain in power because he is white is to be "hoist by our own petard," like Roman Senators denying, to the end, that Rome could fall--until it did.

July 18, 08 The Right-wing Implies
Obama Supported Terrorists!

So, now there are claims, published by the New York Sun and the Spectator that Obama provided support to an "Islamist," Raila Odinga, when the latter ran for President of Kenya! Further, Odinga is supposed to have signed a Memorandum of Understanding with NAMLEF, the Kenyan Muslim organization, committing him to transform largely Christian Kenya into a Muslim state governed by Sharia law like Saudi Arabia! The subtext was that Obama is a covert Muslim.

First of all, Obama is not Muslim, and neither was his father. His grandfather was a convert, and one of his (many) half-brothers is, but the closest Obama ever came to being a Muslim was when he was enrolled (at age 6?) by his step-father in a public school in Indonesia; the school recorded his step-father's religion as Muslim, at a time when not being identified as a Muslim meant he was a Communist. Hundreds of thousands of Communists had recently been killed by Suharto's military regime.

Further, adding to the absurdity of the allegations, Odinga is a Christian, as is about 80% of the Kenyan population. Also, the supposed Memorandum of Understanding, Wikileaks points out, is an obvious forgery to which no Kenyan presidential candidate could possibly agree: all its purported conditions were unconstitutional, as well as politically impossible to realize. The government party opposing Odinga probably forged it; its intent was to discredit Odinga with the large Christian evangelical population.

But there had been a Memorandum between NAMLEF and Odinga: it was an agreement by Odinga to look into the cases of about 100 Muslim Kenyans who had been extraordinarily renditioned, probably under Bush-Cheney sponsorship, either to Guantanamo or to nations of convenience like Somalia, where they could be interrogated by torture. The Kenyan government had been a willing collaborator in Bush's covert war on terror; Odinga was campaigning against its abuses.

So, Obama supported a candidate who was critical of Bush's East Africa policies, a candidate who was Christian and campaigning for democracy; he is now Prime Minister of Kenya. Officially, Kibaki's government proclaimed election victory, but Odinga had won. The stolen election resulted in widespread protests and an internationally brokered compromise placed Odinga at the head of government; his rival, Kibaki, remains as President.

Confirming the more realistic version of the Memorandum, the Muslim leaders reminded Odinga, after he took office, that he needed to pursue the case of the Muslim Kenyans in Guantanamo.

What amazing fantasies conservative news outlets spread as truth, to cement in people's minds that Obama is a closet Muslim, an ally of terrorists. It doesn't matter to the right wing if it's pure fiction!

Will the real terrorists please stand up!

July 16, 08 Saying The Economy is Strong

Obama would say the second part. In fact he's been saying it for quite some time. Perhaps no President could say the first part, although FDR was responding to an economic crisis when he said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

But it's not presidential to say your country is in deep doodoo. Besides, if a President said that, the stock market would dive through the floor.

That's why a President wouldn't say it.

This gets to the whole question of what a President can say, and what he can't. He can't really "say it like it is." Too much hangs on his words. Early in the primary season, before Edwards dropped out, Obama argued that words matter, while Hillary insisted that only actions were important. As this case points out, words matter a lot.

Imagine what Obama would say, if he were President now, and what would McCain say if he were?

The only Roman Emperor after Diocletian (284-305) who proclaimed that things were bad and actually tried to do something about it was Majorian (457-461), who was assassinated for his popularity. McCain and Bush both remind me of the ineffective Emperors who led Rome downhill without ever acknowledging the danger: Honorius, Valentinian III, Maximus, Avitus, Libius Severus, Olybrius, etc. down to Romulus Augustulus. McCain supporters, and especially the economic poobahs who proclaim that all we need is more free trade and less regulation, remind me of the wealthy of the 5th century; they assumed that Rome was eternal, until suddenly it wasn't.

McCain insists on following Bush's economic and foreign policies, but that will lead us in the same downward spiral.

We need something different. Could President Obama say, at least, "We've been going in the wrong direction; we need to change course." He's already said it. We need a President to be like FDR, not so much a visionary as a charismatic who can lead, and is willing to experiment until we find a way to deal with the crisis. We don't need someone who assures us that this tanking economy is "fundamentally sound."

July 9, 08 Obama's Right-wing Budget?

But on the budget, Obama is a progressive when he derides McCain's claim that he'll balance it, while Obama makes no such claim. He says, there are too many important things that require expenditures that will keep us in the red. Like universal health care and better education and infrastructure. Which goes to show that he's more progressive than the Clintons.

Think about it: who benefits from a balanced budget in a recession? Possibly the banks, which would see lower interest rates, and possibly investors--but with some important caveats. Investors won't invest if there is no rising demand for the goods or services they could produce, and besides, they may be more likely to invest in China or Vietnam instead of in the US, especially if McCain prevails, since he's for expanding "free trade" even further.

On the other hand, spending on health care, education and infrastructure would bolster domestic demand directly--as it did when FDR began deficit spending to get us out of the Depression. And, with oil prices likely to keep rising, with the sub-prime mortgage credit crunch still not hitting its peak and the dollar still falling, it's likely our recession won't be far from Depression levels. Or will settle in with stagflation.

So, deficit spending domestically makes sense--unless inflation begins to soar--because the three factors above (oil, credit and the dollar) all subtract from demand--as does money going overseas to the war in Iraq. Since Obama has not "tacked" away from withdrawal from Iraq--he assures us--the savings from the war could finance at least some of his initiatives; allowing Bush's tax cuts to expire would finance more.

Progressive economists were upset when Clinton signed onto budget balancing, because a lot of progressive initiatives were lost through that decision. What was gained? Bush took the surplus and spent it on war and tax cuts, the first depleting our wealth, the second skewing it upwards.

Budget deficits don't make sense when the economy is booming, and they don't make sense when spent on unnecessary wars, or on tax cuts that finance elite pyramids of gold. They do make sense when a nation's schools, roads and health are in disrepair and the economy is in recession, but only a progressive appears to recognize that.

5th century Roman Senators would arrange for the assassination of any Emperor who proposed taxes on them; that's why Rome fell.

July 8, 08 Patriotism For Dummies

Is it true that the new stadia have fewer, more expensive seats? A long-time Yankee fan told me this; it's because it was necessary to make more space for the ridiculously expensive "sky-boxes" leased to large corporations--their CEO's have to have better venues for entertaining their friends and clients.

Meanwhile oil trades at over $140 a barrel. I wrote a blog not six months ago pointing out the likelihood of $100 oil. The dollar falls against the Euro and the Yen, and keeps on falling, especially since the European central bank has decided to raise interest rates to discourage inflation; inflation is hitting here, too, along with rising unemployment, a tanking stockmarket and scarce credit.

But we'll get a bigger Yankee stadium, and maybe we'll be able to sell more of whatever it is we still produce, because of the lower dollar.

Good times.

Dean Baker pointed out in Truthout that "free trade" agreements are really all about creating conditions which pit American factory workers for jobs against Mexican and Indian or Chinese workers, i.e. the agreements are for driving wages down, as well as exporting jobs.

One of the insights that we were supposed to have learned with the New and Fair Deals (FDR and Truman, respectively), was that you needed a prosperous middle class, made up even of factory workers, to fuel the consumer economy necessary for the modern industrial and post-industrial age.

The reason the world economy is on the skids is because American decision-makers have lost sight of that central idea. That's why "supply-side" economics superseded Keynesianism; it's why almost all economic management has been ceded to the Fed. Oh, I forgot about "the stimulus checks." My mother's went to pay another installment in last year's hospital bill (after Medicare). Ours? Who knows; we haven't gotten it yet.

With more and more people falling out of the middle class, the great American consumer engine is sputtering--but we get new and better stadiums. And New Orleans still hasn't been rebuilt, but it looks as if it will exclude poor and minorities when it does. Is that trickle up?

The stadium thing is like the Roman Empire's penchant for "games" and "circuses:" it's much more important to entertain than it is to improve peoples' lives. In Rome, that's all the proletariat was left with: games, the dole and baths. It kept them relatively quiet.

Gee, what a great idea!

July 2, 08 Obama's 1980, 1992--or 1932

Krugman of the NY Times points out that the era feels like one of the former, and it's Obama's choice. He's on target: Obama could be a transformational figure like Reagan, but on the left, or he could be a transitional centrist like Clinton.

So far, while his primary campaign appealed to the Democratic base and "change-oriented" youth, independents and minorities, his post-primary campaign finds him edging toward "the center."

Obama voted for funding the wars to the tune of $162 billion, without any requirements for withdrawal from Iraq; he's avowed support for the FISA renewal bill, even though he's against telecom immunity (or has been) and the bill purportedly provides it in a way that saves face for "centrist" Democrats.

There does seem to be room in the bill as written, however, for criminal cases against both the companies and the administration, so perhaps it's not as bad as it's been made out to be.

Obama also proclaimed qualified approval of the disastrous Supreme Court gun control decision, presumably to appeal to people like my neighbors: there is a shooting range within earshot of my house.

But Obama's appeal, like both Clinton and Reagan, arises largely from the potentiality he represents. I've argued (on this site) that despite his relatively moderate positions, Obama's movement could provide more effective pressure from progressives than was possible after Clinton's election.

That said, Krugman made the point that Reagan campaigned for identifiably conservative positions, so that when he was elected overwhelmingly, there was a definite mandate for them. Clinton, on the other hand, was rather vague about his program, and what there was of it was decidedly incremental; he did not offer sweeping change, and we never got it.

Obama, programmatically, sounds more like Clinton so far: offering incremental, not sweeping change. That's too bad, because the country feels ready for more than Clinton redux--so much has gone wrong since W took office. Even a lot of Hillary voters supported her because a woman President would represent major change.

The point of this website is that business-as-usual will lead us closer to what happened to Rome in the fifth century, whereas we (and the world) would be a lot better off if we began gracefully to extricate ourselves from Empire, to follow the British rather than the Spanish or Roman path. That requires sweeping change, however.

Actually, I hope the real parallel to this era is 1932--economically, Bush is most like Hoover. FDR offered hope, not specifics, a more conservative economics, and then ushered in the New Deal; 1936 was the real change election,