Blog Archives1 Sept. 2006-Aug. 2007

Aug. 7, 2007 Hillary and War

She sent a letter to the Pentagon in May asking Secretary Gates to provide briefings on Pentagon plans for safely withdrawing the troops from Iraq. Instead of a straightforward response, she was accused by Under Secretary Edelman of "reinforcing enemy propaganda" even for asking. While Secretary Gates disavowed Edelman's letter, and agreed that Congressional oversight was called for, Cheney took up the cause, accusing her of helping the enemy on Larry King Live.

So, Hillary can defy Cheney's fulminations, be against the war by asking about withdrawal plans, and also be "supporting the troops." She can place herself firmly in the anti-Bush camp, while protecting herself from the accusation that she isn't anti-war enough.

Can Edwards' appeal to "the people," "the poor," and labor? Perhaps, perhaps not, but it looks from here as if Hillary has made the anti-war issue her own, at least for now. Yeah, the others are against the war, and Barack keeps on pointing out that he was against it from the beginning, but Hillary (pause one beat) has been accused by the snarling Veep!

Now, what does this have to do with the Roman Empire? The increasing inevitability of Hillary furthers the likelihood that our next regime will be even more authoritarian, like the late Emperors, with either Giuliani or Hillary, but it will also be more competent than the current one, not necessarily a good thing.

Since it looks as if there will be no impeachment, Hillary, if she won the Presidency, would have all the powers already grabbed by Bush/Cheney. Since she is much more experienced, she could be much more effective than Bush--but she wouldn't really lead in a different direction.

The Roman parallel would be someone like Theodosius, "the Great," setting up the empire for its ultimate destruction; he was competent, but led in precisely the wrong direction: reinforcing Senatorial, barbarian and Church control, continuing imperial wars, while doing nothing about the deteriorating environment and infrastructure.

A DLC liberal like Hillary could lead us to greater corporate dominance, more militarism, other imperial ventures (she's got to prove she's macho) and environmental devastation camouflaged as clean energy: nukes, liquified coal and palm oil bio-fuel marshaled to "combat" global warming, leading to our own 476. I hope I'm wrong.

Aug. 3, 2007 Bridge Collapses

How many hundreds of billions will it take to rebuild the bridges and the crumbling highways and the levees, and the water and gas mains in our big cities? Or, are we too distracted, and our budget too strained, by this unnecessary, futile and disastrous war?

We have to realize: this is the cost of empire. Do we really want to keep on paying it? Maybe we could consign most of our fancy military hardware to a new permanent UN peace-keeping/making force and give up being the world's policeman. After all, that's what our taxes are paying for; they could be paying for so much more that would help all of us: universal health care, affordable housing, a better education, retirement security, and much more. If the US could, (heaven forbid) get the idea that it was not an extraordinary country, but simply a country, a beautiful, abundant, open-hearted country, a part of the world community, we would all be a whole lot better off. Just as the Roman common people would have been much better off if they had never embarked on Empire.

Aug. 1, 2007 Military Coup

So, who's really in control? Petraeus? Bush? Cheney?

It's reminiscent of the Roman general Aetius, and his relations with Emperor Valentinian, whom he could overawe--until the Emperor killed him in the throne room getting rid of his best general, making his own assassination inevitable. The Empire never recovered.

But even Petraeus isn't really in charge. If he told the President that the surge was lost and we had to get out, Bush wouldn't accept that, even from him. Of course Petraeus won't say that, because he's committed to the surge; it's the reason for his prominence. And it's almost inevitable that he'll say the strategy needs more time. Want to know why?

Because it isn't working: the Iraqi Parliament is not cooperating, not negotiating compromises; the Prime Minister and Petraeus have shouting matches and are in fundamental disagreement; the Iraqi troops that are supposed to replace the Americans are fewer than they were last March; instead of 10 active battalions there are now only six. Further, sectarian violence has not diminished, just relocated to avoid the additional American troops.

But what General Petraeus will tell us is that we have to keep as many troops there as we have right now through 2008 and into 2009, when I suppose he might hope that President Giuliani will escalate the war even further.

So, what is the end-point for the US occupation of Iraq?

There isn't one! Bush and Cheney want the US to maintain a strong military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Why else would they have built 5 or so permanent bases as large as townships, and an American Embassy as large as Vatican City? Only by dominating Iraq for a generation could we dominate the Middle East and its oil, especially Iraq's oil, potentially the largest unexploited reserves on the planet, but it's not going to happen.

Perhaps Bush hopes that the disaster will be laid at the feet of his successor. This is probably the most rational reason for his insistence against withdrawal. There are many irrational reasons, of course--like the fear of admitting failure to Poppy, who didn't actually approve of his son's adventure, even if it did get his own back against Saddam.

July 11, 2007 Doom!

There are some Iraqis who believe the US intentionally does that, so the US oil companies can steal their oil. No, no, I didn't say I believed that, but it's possible, isn't it that the Bush regime has mixed motives, ergo its incompetence.

Well, the war looks pretty bad, the Prez looks more and more like my favorite Roman Emperor, Valentinian III, who played house with his courtiers' wives, but now…

the economy. Well, sure the stock market has been doing quite well until July 10th, but it stubbed its toe on the housing market and suddenly, things don't look so snappy, do they? Especially with the Euro and Pound hitting highs against the dollar.

Could it be the beginning of the end for Bush?

I'm not that optimistic, but there is an air of hope in the air, that doom, finally will come down upon those who deserve it most. Unfortunately, a lot of the rest of us will get hurt as well. I think that the longer this disaster of a regime hangs on (is not put into receivership through impeachment, or actually survives until the end of its stolen term) the worse this accelerating disaster will get.

And the economic and political are linked, after all: the sub-prime debacle was at least partly because of the conservative project to deregulate everything--and let the corporations run everything, even our elections, and maybe our lives. GW didn't begin it: he's the culmination of it, even as Valentinian was the culmination of another decadent regime.

We are ruled by someone as corrupt as Valentinian III. The only difference is that GW is corrupted by money, and sheer power, Valentinian by sex--and power.

Valentinian was persuaded by his Cheney, a Senator by the name of Maximus, that the Emperor would not be able to wield his rightful power until he got rid of his best general. Valentinian killed him himself, in the throne room. Valentinian no longer defended, Maximus was able to take him out in three months; Maximus lasted only six months as Emperor, himself.

Is this a model?

No, but that I would even think of such parallels is a measure of how plausible it would be that this supremely successful world capitalist system could stutter and fall.

July 8, 2007 Live Earth Hype

It must have been a lot: all to get Al Gore in front of, what a billion or two of the plugged-in? To tell us what? Buy compact fluorescents (CFL's) "to save the Earth." And to take a pledge.

Give me a break.

If global warming unchecked is going to lead to changing the Earth's climates enough that human survival is at stake, and it might, then CFL's are only a blip in our downward spiral.

Whereas an Inconvenient Truth did at least show us the results of unchecked development so far, no world leader has really spelled out what the needed reductions in CO2 will mean for all of us: a completely different lifestyle.

If we are to get there from here (I'm a skeptic), radical measures will have to be taken, more radical than those imposed upon us in the last 20 years by the radical right. I mean more concentrated settlement patterns, effective mass transit, commuting by bicycle, more locally-based production, and of course, alternative, zero-emissions energy replacing all fossil-fuels. It will be harder for the US to do this than for practically any other nation, yet we must lead if China and India are going to follow.

We've lost at least eight years. In that time, not only has the US dramatically increased its per capita consumption of oil and electric power (generated mostly by coal), but China and India have made giant strides in the same direction. China opens a new coal-fired power plant every ten days.

Politics does matter: if a more responsible leader like Gore had headed the US in the opposite direction (from 2001), the pressure on the Asian giants to do likewise would have been overwhelming before they developed.

Democracy is both an opportunity--the People can lead--and a challenge: every large status quo economic interest (like the oil and coal companies) will invest huge resources to defeat changes that threaten their markets. Some might not be above assassination; that could happen if a leader or movement inspires people to change their lives enough to stop an acceleration of global warming. Yet that kind of leadership is what we need.

There was one moment like this in the late Roman Empire when huge changes were needed, but Emperor Majorian threatened the powers-that-be (See my book: The Selfish Class, on this website, below); Majorian, "elected" for life, lasted four years and four months.

July 5, 2007 Bush/Cheney Mafia Don

I included Cheney in the heading, because Libby is his man, and what he could reveal would be of most immediate threat to Cheney. Further, it does look as if, from Bush's hurried commutation and inarticulate defense of it when pressed, that it was someone else who insured it would happen. Since Cheney has been known to sidestep virtually all the different layers of staff to go directly to Bush and come away in record time with whatever it was he was seeking, it is possible, even likely that the commutation was at his insistence.

Without commutation, Libby might have been induced to deal with Congress, tell them what they want to know under immunity. Without a pardon, he knows that he's dependent on Bush and that he better not say anything, no matter what Congress offers.

The question is: what are they hiding?

This isn't the late Roman Empire, yet. There is now a Congress that was more or less elected by people that the administration did not control, and the Congress itself is becoming less and less likely to be bought off by the President; its own powers are at stake--one of the geniuses of our separated powers. Even though individual Democrats can be induced to support no timetable on the war, or other administration outrages, virtually any Democrat, and many Republicans, will resist Bush/Cheney's assertion of Presidential power as superior to Congress.

So, they've got a lot to hide, since Bush/Cheney/Rove have spent six years attempting to drive out from positions of power anyone but their gang, people they trust. Why?

Does it still seem outrageous to claim that Bush/Cheney is a Mafia-type gang controlling the country for its own power and profit?

They should be shaking in their over-sized shoes, though, about the prospect of the next election--unless they think that between their support from election counting companies and their "Bushie" US Attorneys they can throw the election to one of the GOP puppets who are angling to replace them.

At this point, I think it's still an open question whether the 2008 election will really reflect the people's will. Impeachment seems the best option to insure that it will be, and it's much more justified than it ever was with Clinton, Nixon, or Andrew Johnson.

July 3, 2007 Libby's Crony Justice

Law is irrelevant. You want to "get" Ambassador Wilson? Break a law and out his covert CIA operative wife (thereby destroying her career and endangering agents or CIA contacts). Then lie about it. But going to jail for that is "excessive" punishment. There was no talk of excessive punishment when the Republicans were gunning for Clinton and using the same perjury laws, but that was different: they were Democrats.

This personalization of government is reminiscent of the Roman Empire of the 5th Century, when government was really about pleasing the reigning idiot (um, Emperor: Honorius, then Valentinian III) and ensuring that your people were protected. It was a corrupt system then, and it didn't survive. This is a corrupt system now, and if it is not stopped we might as well accept that the fabled "American Constitutional System" has not survived, either, and that the US Empire could be headed for the fate suffered by Rome in 476.

"Excessive punishment" was 2.5 years in jail. How is that excessive when Libby was convicted of obstruction of justice in a case in which he and his cohorts (perhaps even including the President himself) endangered a whole covert network established by Valerie Plame in her position as head of a CIA working group on nuclear non-proliferation?

It's only excessive because the real people responsible are Libby's bosses: Cheney and Bush. For this crime alone they should be impeached. Because of all the other crimes in which they have been implicated the case for their impeachment becomes stronger every day.

In order to re-establish the principle of Constitutional government, the impeachment of both Cheney and Bush now becomes imperative; either impeachment of both, or forget that we are supposed to have The Rule of Law.

June 29, 2007 Who (Really) Still Has Power?

Don't you love it when the most partisan leader of all accuses others of "partisan politics?" At issue is whether Cheney as VP is subject to classification rules set up for the executive branch. He claims he's not in the executive branch, or he's also in the legislative branch because of his role as presiding officer of the Senate. Therefore rules don't apply to him?

And then there's Mitch McConnell, the GOP's leader in the Senate: "Republicans will remind our constituents about the fact that Democrats proposed to strip workers of their voting rights," McConnell said.

What he meant was: Republicans have protected the right of corporations to propagandize and browbeat their workers in run-ups to union elections. But the support for unions in this country is very high: even 57% of people earning over $75,000 think unions are necessary to protect workers (according to Pew Research) and 53% of the public think unions are good for the economy and only 34% side with corporations (according to Gallup). So, who are these constituents McConnell mentions? Corporations, especially large ones, ones with money.

Right here this tells you who has power in this country. We had an election in 2006, but the Democrats won too narrowly and with too many "pro-business" Democrats to prevail on issues like the Iraq war, or labor unions, or responsible government. In each case they can be blocked easily by the need for 60 votes in the Senate. The pro-business interests don't care what 'the people' want; they care about where their campaign funds are coming from, and they care about who controls the media: those same corporations.

The only way this will change will be when 'the people' wake up, and Democrats wake up; the votes are there if a candidate can discover a way to reach them.

In the late Roman Empire information AND government were also controlled by the very wealthy few, so much so that there was never even the possibility of a rebellion/revolution despite the increasing hardships everybody else faced.

We do have one major advantage over the Roman plebeians; we still have an electoral process that can register major changes (like the swing to Democrats in 2006), but we also face tremendous obstacles to any real change: money in campaigns gives disproportionate power to corporate owners/managers; oligopolies control the mass media, i.e. most people's information; the electoral system is badly compromised by politicizing DOJ and privatizing the vote count.

Real progressives could win and institute major change, but only if they can overcome those obstacles.

June 21, 2007 Iraqi Refugees

Oh, yes, there are Iraqis who have worked as interpreters for American troops, were under fire with them, and were then targeted by the insurgents for working with "the occupier," but do you think they might be undercover al Qaeda? Maybe that's why they can't get visas!

I bet some people in this administration think that way.

Or does the administration simply not want to admit the dimension of the disaster it has visited upon that unhappy country? Or is the niggardly response an expression of their contempt for "ragheads?"

I suppose another way to look at the refugee crisis is to see it as part of the immigration puzzle that Congress and the President have not yet been able to unravel. After all, to open the door to Iraq's refugees could have significant impact on overall immigration, just as did welcoming 900,000 refugees from Southeast Asia after the Vietnam War.

That parallel brings up another reason why the administration might have been so chary of admitting Iraqis: to do so could be seen as admission of the kind of defeat visited upon the US in Vietnam.

The small numbers of Iraqis admitted into the US certainly is not for lack of need. The numbers who have left that country are staggering: 2.2 million. And many more probably want to leave, have already been forced to leave their homes. And the chaos in Iraq leaves no one safe. But the refugees lucky enough to have escaped Iraq are mostly stuck in Jordan, Lebanon and Syria, none of which have the resources to handle them, nor the employment opportunities to enable them to make new lives.

Of course Rome didn't worry about refugees; they just carried off captives for slaves. I suppose the US can't do that these days, but then slavery is a bad idea if only for the economics of it, so, scratch that.

Remember the Statue of Liberty? Remember Emma Lazarus' words inscribed on its base: "Give me your tired, your poor/ Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free?" In the light of our refugee policy towards Iraq, those words sound pretty ironic, don't they?

It will be interesting to see whether S.1651 "The Refugee Crisis in Iraq Act," will gain traction in the Senate and House. Even more interesting will be to see whether GW will sign it if it passes.

June 20, 2007 Café Whining

So far, their lobbying has succeeded in persuading Congressman Dingell to shelve his committee's CAFÉ standards until the fall.

But their claims are amazingly disingenuous. Anyone who spends an hour or so a week watching commercial TV should realize: automakers create the demand for oversize SUV's and trucks through intensive advertising.

The real reason why automakers (and oil companies) are against CAFÉ standards is because they earn disproportionate profits from the larger, more fuel-intensive vehicles, and oil companies, of course, want to maintain demand for their product.

Neither gets it: high petroleum consumption (far higher per capita than other industrial countries) may bolster their profits, but other than that its consequences are only negative: gas guzzlers increase our dependence on foreign oil; increase our trade imbalance; increase air pollution and, of course increase our disproportionate contribution to global warming. It also threatens to bankrupt domestic automakers, which can't compete globally because of their atavistic policies, and threatens to convert today's oil giants into tomorrow's dinosaurs.

What the automakers should be doing is designing vehicles that: use alternative energy, and that sip, not guzzle. Then they can build demand for them through their advertising campaigns. If they do their jobs well enough, they can also take back market share ceded to more efficient foreign-produced vehicles, and they may even be able to take back export market share, as well.

Oil companies should back out of the oil business for alternative, renewable energy. Exxon alone has enough money squirreled away to finance tremendous technological advances; instead of becoming a dinosaur in the next decades, it could remain a leader, but that would require radical change.

Perhaps that's the main problem: large corporations are like the Titanic: they take a long time to turn. They are like the late Roman Empire, which did not change rapidly enough to survive.

June 18, 2007 Privatize or Profiteer

Some of these are really bad ideas. Private security companies in Iraq are driven by profits that have nothing to do with winning. They have incentives to avoid paying premiums for necessary skills, to scrimp on protections for their employees, and they certainly don't want the war to be won: their (cost-plus) gravy train would shudder to a halt.

The assumption that private companies motivated by profit will be more efficient than government bureaucracies is conservative ideology. It's only sometimes true. Social Security has an overhead of less than 5%, while privatizing schemes propose 10-20%. Municipal trash collection has lower costs than private haulers and Canada's single payer health system costs much less than our private system, while serving everyone.

The worst privatization scheme of all is to turn elections over to private corporations. This process has been enshrined in HAVA (Help America Vote Act, passed by the previous Republican Congress). Private corporations contract to provide election systems. The more expensive, the higher their profits, so they've pushed for touch-screen DRE's, despite a lot of problems with them.

The "vendors" have little incentive to insure absolute accuracy--who's checking? But the worst aspect of electoral privatization is that the companies--not public entities--count our ballots. Not only that, but they count them with secret, "proprietary" software that is inaccessible to election commissions or other public elections officials. The code cannot be checked for accuracy, or for manipulation.

While proponents assume that private elections corporations are in business for the profit, they are being disingenuous: Diebold, ES&S and most other major elections companies are controlled by executives who are openly partisan. The head of Diebold was GW's campaign fundraiser. We cannot assume he had no reason to manipulate vote counts in places like Ohio and Florida. Apparently his company's machines have proven vulnerable to manipulation, especially by the owner of the proprietary code and the hardware. But if there was manipulation, it's untraceable. It's very possible that Bush's 2004 election was stolen with major help from Diebold, but we'll never know for sure.

What we are beginning to have is not really democracy; it is rule of the people, by and for the corporations. The elections machine business would like to ensure that it stays that way.

Jun 15, 2007, The Sunni Perspective a Crucial Detail

"They[the Shiites] are the ones who called on the United States and the British to invade Iraq by inventing lies about weapons of mass destruction. The Americans have finally discovered their lies and are angry at having been dragged into this quagmire. This government denigrates the opposition and everyone who denounces its sectarian and racist policy." Interview With Hareth Al-Dari, Secretary General of the Committee of Muslim Ulemas, Cecile Hennion, Le Monde, 12 June 2007

So, according to Al Dari and many others, the Iraq war was really a Shiite and Kurdish plot, and the US fell for it. Rather different point of view, isn't it?

In fact you could make the case that since much of the falsified intelligence and rosy projections were supplied by Shiite opposition leaders who had spent significant time in exile, much of it in Iran, the war could even be seen as…an Iranian plot! Bush and Cheney as Iranian dupes! No wonder Dick wants to git those Iranians!

What would be Iran's motivation for drawing the US into Iraq? We would get rid of their most determined enemy, Saddam Hussein, and we would help put in place a majority government (since we are ideologically committed to elections and majoritarian rule), which would naturally be dominated by their fellow Shiites, most of the leaders of whom had long histories of collaboration with Iran.

And it worked. The Bush administration was hoodwinked by Iran into doing their work for them in Iraq (which it had not been able to defeat even after a long war).

So, now the US is touting a series of agreements with Sunni tribal leaders in Al Anbar to fight al Qaeda forces there, but we're still being hoodwinked, this time by the Sunnis. According to the interviews with Al Dari and other Sunni leaders, both in Al Anbar and abroad, reports of the much touted agreements of Sunni tribal leaders to unite to fight al Qaeda in Iraq have left out a crucial detail.

They never said they wouldn't continue to support the insurgency against what they see as an illegitimate government and its foreign supporter, "the occupier." In other words, sure, they'll fight al Qaeda in Iraq, because they see it as another foreign force attempting to take over their country, but they also declare that they won't stop fighting "the occupier" and what the US calls "the Iraqi Government."

As the Romans found out when doing business with Alaric the Goth, depending upon surrogates can be a tricky business: Alaric ended up sacking Rome.

Click for more info

________________________________________

Jun 14, 2007, American Political Prisoner

Iron Thunderhorse is an American political prisoner, not in Guantànamo, not in Abu Ghraib, not in some secret prison in Eastern Europe. He's a prisoner in Texas, and he's been locked up since 1978. He was framed for kidnapping and robbery, crimes he couldn't have done (he wasn't there); able to prove this in court, his 99 year sentence was unilaterally reinstated by the Texas prison system.

Why is he a political prisoner? Iron is a Native American activist of unusual ability: linquist, prison lawyer who has prevailed, from prison, in suits for his people in Connecticut and elsewhere, philosopher and published writer. He has insisted on his right to practice his native religion, to grow his hair long, to identify himself as grand sachem of the Quinnipiacs and to be an advocate and spokesman for the oppressed.

It is clear from his own account that what enrages prison authorities is his very existence, and his insistence on his political rights. It is also possible that as a Vietnam Vet in Special Forces he knew things that could prove embarrassing; it is likely that it is his knowledge of the Texas prison "system," and his ability to articulate its abuses that keeps him behind bars. He claims that the abuses now publicized in Guantànamo and Abu Ghraib were first developed in Texas.

Thunderhorse survived Special Forces without injury, and was in top physical shape when he went to prison. Prison abuses have severely crippled and blinded him.

Texas prison officials probably don't want someone like him out in the general population. Not only is he living proof; he is also very able and articulate, someone who could make his case, make the State of Texas pay, and put a very human face on torture in American prisons.

Yes, I said torture in American prisons. It exists. It's probably not rare, either.

I taught in prison for about 14 years and also did volunteer work there, and in relatively enlightened New York State I heard many accounts of prisoner abuse.

The United States has more prisoners behind bars than any other industrialized nation excepting China and possibly Russia. Solzhenitsyn described the Soviet prison system in Gulag Archipelago; we have our own archipelago of gulags, which is the American Empire's version of the Roman system of brutalization in its coliseums; our "archipelago" has the same end in mind: to suppress unacceptable dissent--while also maintaining a lucrative system (prisons create jobs, which is why rural communities support them the nation over).

For more on Iron Thunderhorse: Following the Footprints of a Stone Giant: the Life and Times of Iron Thunderhorse, by Ruth Mahweeyeuh Thunderhorse, Info@buybooksontheweb.com

Click for more info

________________________________________

Jun 13, 2007, Freedom's Just Another Word

In Bush's usage, freedom means something quite different from what you think.

Jun 11, 2007, Dollar Dive

People traveling to foreign countries notice: the dollar isn't buying what it used to. While there have been some exceptions, like the yen, most exchange currencies have been rising against the US dollar for some time now. The dollar is not as good as gold any more.

It makes sense that the dollar should decline. The US debt load to the rest of the world is staggering, the size of it only somewhat mitigated by the enormous size of the US economy. But the dollar decline also reflects higher and higher domestic debt. Domestic debt is higher than it was just before the Great Depression (1929), helped perhaps by wilting real estate.

What will a declining dollar mean to the US? Everything we buy abroad will cost more; everything we sell abroad will bring home fewer dollars, but US-made goods (if we still make things) will be more competitive. On balance, the fabled "American way of life" is endangered.

Is disaster imminent, disaster of the kind outlined in The Selfish Class? Probably not yet. Our international financial system will stick its collective finger in the dike, but won't strengthen it. So, the dollar will continue to decline. At some point it's likely that the oil nations of OPEC will demand a switch to the Euro as the currency for posting oil prices.

That won't go down well in Washington. "The perfidy of OPEC!" "Our erstwhile European friends!"

The death knell of empire.

Already, there are reports that China is diversifying its financial portfolio (as it should) by shifting from US Treasury instruments to Euro-notes, but that's a slow process.

Of course China could have its own implosion. Its speculators could finally get scared of its huge bubble (it almost happened a week ago), and the Chinese stock market could bring down stock prices around the globe.

At least the Chinese speculative frenzy is based on solid growth.

Since our dollar is declining, and our debt is rising, and we seem to be importing more and more goods, and exporting fewer, it is the wonder of imperial economics that the US stock market is also rising, posting record gains.

The dollar decline may be one short term reason for the market's rise, but the empire is the real reason: the swollen war profits (from huge deficits), and imperial exploitation are behind the rising profit reports, that and the irrational assumption that we can continue shambling along without major change. Our troubles in Iraq should tell us, though: this empire is not going to last.

Jun 8, 2007, Imperial Parallels

Almost two years ago in CounterPunch I drew parallels between GW and a fifth century Roman Emperor, Honorius, who spent most of his "quality time" in a chicken coop. I'm sorry; I was wrong.

I was thinking he's more like Napoleon III, the tin pot emperor who presided over France's Second Empire. Napolean III outfitted his praetorian guard in colorful, imperial-looking uniforms, while also sending his armies unprepared into battle against Bismark's Prussians, who created the German Empire on his ignominious defeat (he, himself was captured at Sedan).

Wrong again. Bush is much more brutal, more like another Third, Valentinian III, except that Bush (as far as we know) doesn't seduce his courtiers' wives. You see, Valentinian was the last western Roman Emperor of the last (the Theodosian) dynasty, and his regime was marked by incompetence even more blatant than Bush's. And ongoing war.

Are there departments in the Bush administration that are not marked by cronyism, incompetence, corruption and partisan plots? DOJ, EPA, Defense, FEMA, HHS and the list goes on and on. And yet the Emperor is well pleased: with Brownie, with Gonzalez, with Gates, and so on. One would assume he is NOT pleased with the fawning courtiers who jumped ship, like Tenet and Comey.

Do the historians among you remember what happened to Valentinian III? He killed his most powerful general (Aetius) in the throne room; he was persuaded to do so by a prominent Senator, Maximus, that only then could he wield real power. Instead, that assassination was the beginning of the end. Without Aetius he had no protection, and Maximus' men finished him off within six months. After that the Empire went downhill even more quickly. "Emperor" Maximus lasted about six weeks.

It would have been better to impeach Valentinian, and it would be better now to impeach George W. Bush--before Rove's men at DOJ and in the several statehouses accomplish an electoral coup to engineer a succession to, um, Emperor Giuliani, or Emperor Mitt!

Note: the machinery is in place; the money is there; why do you think Bush keeps on raising campaign funds for his party? Gotta make sure that whoever succeeds him is willing to use the Pardon Power rather freely.

Click for more info

________________________________________

Jun 6, 2007, In Iraq Forever?

Nassar al Rubaie, the head of Al-Sadr bloc in Iraq's Council of Representatives, said, "this new binding resolution will prevent the government from renewing the UN mandate without the parliament's permission. They'll need to come back to us by the end of the year, and we will definitely refuse to extend the UN mandate without conditions." Rubaie added: "there will be no such a thing as a blank check for renewing the UN mandate anymore, any renewal will be attached to a timetable for a complete withdrawal." By Raed Jarrar and Joshua Holland, AlterNet, 5/6/07

In addition, the nationalists, the majority in Iraq's assembly, will push for a complete withdrawal even before December.

So, why does the US remain in Iraq?

Obviously they (the Iraqi people) don't want us there; we (a majority of the American people) don't want us there. So, why are we still there? Why has a majority of Congress, made up of a minority of Democrats and (almost) all Republicans, given Bush funds to keep troops there through September without any real preconditions or timetable?

Two men stand in the way of beginning withdrawal: Bush and Maliki, the one dependent for his position on the other; without American support, Maliki would have been gone a long time ago.

So, the whole war comes down to Bush (and Cheney, the grey eminence behind him) and the economic interests he represents: the war contractors, the mercenary forces, and the oil companies.

If this isn't a naked example of imperial politics, I'd like to know what is.

What is clear now is: the US is not in Iraq to bring democracy; we oppose it; the US is not in Iraq to prevent chaos: the chaos is what we created; we are not there to bring peace: the US troop presence instigates extremist responses and promotes terrorist recruitment.

What is the US there for? To control the Middle East from its permanent bases, to insure that US oil companies get to exploit Iraqi oil on their terms, and to guarantee its war industry (it's not a "defense" industry) enjoys obscene profits. In other words, the US is there to create a new empire a la Rome. Bush won't have "Triumphs" though. That would be bad form. Americans are so much subtler, or more hypocritical.

But the unending Iraq war could be the straw that breaks the US's financial back, and destroys democracy here, since, it seems, only a President can get us out of there.

I wonder if a President Hillary or Obama would actually do so; empire is so seductive to those with power.

Jun 4, 2007, Democrats and Republicans Are Different

"Socialistic Democrats" (like Hillary Clinton!) goes a NY Sun comment; Democrats "threaten our way of life," says Rush; "we'll wave the white flag [of surrender] in Iraq," says Rudy of the Democrats.

He and his fellow Republican candidates (with one notable exception: McCain) endorse "enhanced" interrogation techniques; one of them even backed waterboarding! The Democrats condemn torture.

All of the Democrats, in their debate last night, said they are for ending the war in Iraq, but with some differences. Senator Biden voted for the war appropriation without a timeline, explaining that because of Bush's veto power only the election of a Democratic President will stop the war. Hillary voted against, but still won't say her vote for the war authorization back in 2002 was wrong.

The commenter at the Sun referred to Clinton's (socialistic?) proposal to rescind Bush tax cuts for incomes over $200,000, a position that Rudy Guliani refers to as "a staggering tax increase."

Right. Don't tax the wealthy, especially those sweet bonuses on Wall Street. Just increase, um, other taxes down the road, like sales and property (states and localities have to run on something) and maybe user fees, and of course cut Social Security in whatever way you can. Anything to raise money from those who don't have it, that is, which is what Rush refers to when he mutters about protecting "our way of life." Republicans don't say it, but the inference is that the US should continue to borrow as if there's no tomorrow.

So, the Presidential candidates of the two parties do look very different, when you see Republicans targeting middle-of-the-road Hillary as "socialistic." They haven't even gotten to Obama, yet (except for the flurry about his name), but Edwards they already excoriate, a self-made man who does the unpardonable: campaigning for the poor and workers, the class from which he emerged. He made his fortune as a lawyer defending them against large corporations. It's all right for Giuliani or Romney to live in mansions, but it's not for Edwards.

The Democrats are far from perfect. I would like to see them debate whether the US should forego imperialistic foreign policy; whether we should be spending more than the rest of the world combined on defense (10+ times more than China); I would like to see them question Republicans' use of "terrorism" as a tactic to keep people cowed--while the government doesn't even try to monitor the huge volume of shipments into the country, but instead increases instability abroad (al Qaeda's primary recruitment tool) through its war and trade policies.

But still, the Democratic candidates are a start.

Click for more info

________________________________________

May 31, 2007, The Barbarians

Rome fell not from an onslaught of barbarians, but because they had taken over large parts of the Empire's armed forces.

There are many candidates for "barbarians" today: the child soldiers of Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Congo come to mind, but they are too remote from the US to have much impact; there are also the eager foreign recruits for US imperial adventures, from Zalmay Khalilzad to the grunts from El Salvador and the mercenaries from South Africa and Serbia.

In the Roman Empire any people not socialized into Greco-Roman culture were considered barbarians, but the definition was flexible. Senator Sidonius considered some Gothic Kings to be almost Roman, except that they weren't. The Senator had a whiff of treason about him in his early life, because he ingratiated himself with one of them.

In the US, a nation even more multi-national than the Roman Empire, "barbarians" may be everywhere. There are certainly candidates in the armed forces (instant citizenship to attract foreigners to join, for example) but a "barbarian takeover" of the 476 variety is unlikely for the moment. The military will have to disintegrate further, under pressure from the Iraq occupation, for its barbarization to follow the Roman pattern; that's not impossible, but not a near-term likelihood.

But the US's attachment to the rule of law may be under siege by native and foreign "barbarians" alike. Gonzalez, Yoo, Bush, Cheney and most Republican candidates for President all opine, for example, that "enhanced methods" of interrogation are acceptable against "terrorists." Never mind that US and international law defines these "methods" as torture. In fact, barbarians can be native-born; they can be from WASP, Hispanic, African-American, or from any other group.

I suggest that the barbarians are at the gates.

One of the markers of the barbarian takeover in 476 was the loss of whatever restraining value "the law" had had up until then. Now, with people like Alberto Gonzalez and John Yoo, the law is becoming what it was in the 5th century: what the ruler and his minions said it was. The political conversion of DOJ into an arm of the Republican permanent campaign is a related example (rule by party, not by law), as is the push to force Ashcroft in 2003 to agree to unrestrained domestic wire-tapping (he refused).

Most Republican candidates for President appear to subscribe to "extraordinary" methods for "fighting Terror." There is some question whether Democrats have the courage to undo them.

If Democrats do not, then barbarians will have already taken over, the GOP will be able to manipulate its re-election and we might as well re-title the "winning" Republican presidential candidate as King.

April 19, 2007: News Does Not = Reality

What is remarkable about McConnell's statement is that it is exactly the opposite of the reality: Republicans blocked, by voting for cloture, the Senate bill that would have allowed the Secretary for Health and Human Services to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies over the prices of prescription drugs provided in Medicare Part D (the vote, 55-42 was short of the 60 needed).

Therefore, because of the Republicans' generosity of spirit--to big Pharma--seniors will continue to be charged whatever the drug companies think they can get away with. Medicare will go bankrupt that much sooner.

What is also remarkable is that the newspaper (The Hill) that reported McConnell's bald-faced lie, simply reported what McConnell said as if what he was stating was fact.

The complicity of the news media in distorting reality for the government's purposes is astonishing! It is truly like Rome of the fifth century, when the only "news" was provided by the professional panegyrist, the official announcements of the Emperor, and the games in the Colloseum and the Circus.

At least that's what the government and the Republicans would prefer. Isn't there any way to get these damned bloggers under control?

April 17, 2007: Are US Taxes Fair?

But the personal income tax is only one of the many taxes we all pay, to all levels of government. So much attention is paid to the income tax, because everyone is supposed to pay it by April 17th, and because everyone must figure out what they earned in the previous year, must go through their bills and cancelled checks to determine if they should itemize deductions, and whether they will have to pay the AMT.

The income tax gives Americans the mistaken impression that our tax system is more or less progressive, i.e. that people with more money pay not just more taxes, but a higher proportion of their income in taxes; they don't. The Wall Street Journal had a series of articles arguing that the wealthy pay more than their fair share; it skewed the figures, but in addition the WSJ neglected to look at the other taxes people pay.

When you add in property taxes, school taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes and the payroll tax, the share of taxes paid by the wealthy is roughly equivalent to that paid by the poorest in society. In other words, we really do not have a progressive tax system; perhaps one that is proportional. Is that fair? I would argue that it isn't; here's why.

The wealthy gain their wealth because there is an ordered society, regulated banks and financial exchanges, police, and an army to defend their wealth. Lenin remarked that the law treats all equally; it allows neither the rich nor the poor to sleep under bridges. But especially in the days of George W. Bush, the wealthy become wealthier because of what government does, like wage war, hiring the profitable services of the defense industries, and encouraging corporations to export jobs and import goods. The poor don't benefit half as much and they die in those wars.

It's always been like that; it was like that in the Roman Empire, too, but in the 4th and 5th centuries the wealthy didn't pay taxes at all.

The people who benefit most from government should pay taxes to the point where taxes are as much a burden to them as they are to the poor and the middle class.

Dick Cheney and GW Bush should pay about 95% of their incomes in taxes. That would be a fair tax.

April 14, 2007: Attorney-Gate: Democracy or Empire?

Menendez won, but that corruption probe was the kind of action that US Attorneys for this administration were being pressured to pursue--in order that Republicans keep control of Congress. The attorneys that didn't play the game, or, even worse, investigated Republican corruption, were the ones who were fired. The New Jersey US attorney was playing the game, as was the Wisconsin Attorney going after the Democratic governor, and the US Attorneys who pushed voter fraud cases, intimidating minority voters, who voted Democratic.

The controversy over firing US Attorneys is really about democracy. The administration is trying to cover up an obvious policy: to use the Department of Justice as auxiliary of the Republicans' perpetual campaign for "permanent majority," instead of being legal defenders for the American people; it is almost as if they were trying to set up a system that would guarantee their majority, democracy be damned.

The real question is: having suffered the setback of losing Congress, do Rove's Republicans still have the tools to capture the next election? I use the word 'capture,' rather than steal, because their method is to poison people's minds, to prevent people from voting, and to miscount votes when an election is too close.

You see, the US Attorneys--all of whom now meet White House criteria for "loyalty--" are a frontline in the political battle to scare or disillusion people Republican again, so that after this there won't have to be any more risky elections.

This is one instance in which the historical parallel is not the Roman Empire of the fifth century, but Rome at the end of the Republic, when the most powerful leaders--Sulla, Pompey, Caesar--found ways to make elections more easily manipulated, the masses more easily bought. Then Emperor Augustus took over the elected office of Tribune, doing away with the only representative the people had--and their veto power.

So, it's not just about those 8 US attorneys, or that the Administration is trying to cover up what it clearly was doing. It's also about, can the administration do it again?

These guys need to be watched very closely.

April 11, 2007: Lower Interest Rates? Why?

Yes, it would have been nice for stock traders and home-buyers if interest rates were lowered, but unemployment is not high and inflation might be a problem in the future. Yes, housing is sinking into distress mode.

There is a whole dimension of monetary policy that doesn't seem to occur to most folks writing or talking about the Fed's decisions. It's called "the rest of the world." Has everybody forgotten that the US is running continuous trade deficits larger than any country has ever recorded and that our foreign debt, escalating since 1981, is probably larger than all other countries' combined? Also, the value of the dollar has gone down consistently against the Euro in the last two years and against other major currencies. It's going down for good reason; it's called "debt," or buying abroad more than you're selling abroad, a temporary "benefit" of empire.

When you have high trade debt and falling currency value, international monetary policy typically calls for higher interest rates and austerity policies (the IMF was famous for this--as long as it was not prescribing to the "super-power").

However, in order to sell more abroad to offset the trade gap, you do need a cheaper dollar--or a recession to dampen domestic demand for foreign goods. Paul Volcker precipitated a deep recession in 1981 in order to slash inflation--by allowing interest rates to rise.

To get our international finances in order the US now may have to bite the bullet and raise interest rates; it's a cost of globalization. We really can't continue to operate as if there is no "rest of the world."

There may be one major reason why the US dollar has not yet collapsed (which would destroy global markets and send interest rates sky-high): foreign creditors, like the Central Banks of China and Japan, help prevent a collapse; a precipitate fall in the dollar would erode (or destroy) their assets. (China is discreetly divesting from US T-bills, instead). Foriegners helping to maintain our dollar is another temporary benefit of empire.

Yet, as long as the dollar is (relatively) over-valued, we find it difficult to sell enough goods abroad to offset what we buy. How do you keep the dollar in demand, and maintain its value? Raise interest rates, and/or reduce the supply of money.

So, it's actually more surprising that the Fed didn't raise rates not that it didn't lower them. Why?

April 8, 2007: Corporations and Chinese Workers

The point is that those listed above, and many other "American" corporations, do not act with American interests in mind: not at all. It is estimated that 66% of Chinese exports are actually on behalf of "American" corporations, so the huge trade surpluses enjoyed by China (and US trade deficits, which are also driving down the value of the dollar), have, in large part been created by these same corporate entities, or their "business partners."

And, these companies use the leverage of low wages and poor working conditions for Chinese workers to drive down wages and working conditions in the US and other countries.

In other words, these corporations are in large part responsible for the deteriorating position faced by workers everywhere, and they will use their economic clout to prevent improvements in China, or elsewhere, so that they can continue this process, which ultimately involves a massive transfer of wealth from workers to owners.

How does this work? Simple: insure that Chinese workers have no rights and low wages, then threaten workers in the US, or Mexico, or wherever, that if they don't bow to concessions demanded by the corporations, then the corporations will transfer the work to China, or other low-wage countries. The result: while US worker productivity rose by well over 100% in the last 25 years, wages remained more or less stagnant, or actually declined in purchasing power, so that the wealth created ended up in very few, very wealthy hands. No wonder the top 500 wealthiest in the Forbes listing this year were all billionaires.

But note: the selfish class did not get where it is simply by "natural market forces;" corporations are constantly working to maintain these conditions world-wide--at the expense of workers everywhere.

April 8, 2007: Sub Prime Lending--to Suckers

I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about the details of the business, but the costs of these mortgages are significantly higher to the poor schmuck taking out the loan, than a comparable prime loan. Preying on the vulnerable by sweetening the loan with initial low rates that then go sky-high, or by the low cost of the transaction and the high hidden costs, is just another way that people with a lot of money are targeting those with very little, especially blacks and Latinos.

The rationalization offered was that sub prime lending opened up homeownership to those struggling working people who otherwise couldn't afford it. The problem with that argument is that many of them can't afford it at those prices, so the percentage of defaults are high, and the mortgage payments are high as well.

Who loses? The poor schmuck who can't keep up his payments. The sub prime lender doesn't lose; he pockets the high payments as long as they come in, and then sells the house when they don't; so he gains.

Redistribution of income goes from poor to rich--until the whole system unravels, which it seems to be in the process of doing right now. Then the bondholders can lose as well. That's when our news media notices, not before.

It reminds me of the fifth century, when peasants and middle class alike pleaded with the Senators to take them into their estates, to protect them, because they couldn't pay their taxes. The Senators usually did take them in, but they exacted a terrible price: these people became little better than slaves, serfs, property of the Senator.

People driven into bankruptcy today can end up little better, especially with the new bankruptcy law, written by the credit card companies, which can require, in effect, a kind of wage-serfdom as part of the settlement. The sub prime market pushes more of them into it.

Isn't unfettered capitalism so humane! It may be, that just as the quasi-capitalist mercantile system of the late Roman Empire collapsed into feudalism, we could also be heading in that direction.

Kirk Kerkorian: Roman Senator: April 6, 2007

Kerkorian appears on the scene with a $60,000 stake. Did he win it in Las Vegas? There he begins a series of gambling and entertainment hotels, each one larger and more profitable than the one before--in other words good ol' Kirk was separating money from the boobs ever more spectacularly, until his hotel business merged with entertainment in Hollywood.

Kerkorian is also famous because he tried for years to take over GM; he claimed he wanted to mend it of its losing ways. It didn't mend. Not long after giving up and selling his shares, he offered to buy Chrysler from Daimler. So, now he's trying to rescue our home-grown Chrysler from the Krauts.

But the point about Kerkorian, and his parallel to a Roman Senator, is the sheer magnitude of his wealth, amassed from what? Gambling and entertainment, offering the plebeians their circuses, their gladiatorial shows, their baths. Or, considered another way, he's been very clever at separating lots of people from their money, but they've enjoyed themselves, apparently, while he's doing it.

Ever watched an ATM machine near a gambling establishment in Las Vegas? That cash pours into his hands, but now he wants to use it to rescue Chrysler.

Is he going to redesign Chryslers to put a slot in every car?

This question points out another parallel. Kerkorian is Roman in another sense: after all, what does he know of the auto industry? Roman Senators didn't know anything that might qualify them to run the empire, but they ran it. Unlike Kirk they were over-educated in the classics, but they had little practical knowledge; they depended on their overseers, slaves, and imported professional bureaucrats.

Kirk, I assume, would have an underling run Chrysler if he won his bid.

Just Say "Teddibly Soddy!" April 3rd, 2007

But there are no agreed upon boundaries!

In other words, both the British and the Iranians are blowing hot air, but since it was the British who were patrolling in waters that weren't clearly theirs to patrol, and since it is the Iranians, not the British, who feel aggressed upon, and probably do think it was their waters, the most commonsense response would have been for the British to say: "Teddibly sorry!"*

That would do a lot to clear the air. But I get the sinking feeling that the British don't want to clear the air; Blair seems to want it filled with missiles and war planes--a parting gift perhaps, to his buddy Bush before he goes into retirement. And Bush does appear to want to find a pretext.

Why can't the leader of a "civilized" nation act more civilized, provide a model for the "lesser breeds" and so on? Why is Blair's immediate response that the Iranians are in the wrong? Someone should tell him, "Uhh, those are unmarked waters, really."

Neither side is in the right, and both are acting like hyper-active four-year olds.

As I pointed out in an earlier blog (Feb 22, 2007, Tonkin Gulf, Here We Come!) Vietnam started with a rigged provocation in which my Uncle-in-law certified that the Tonkin Gulf "incident" was in international waters, when it was actually in North Vietnam's. Here there are no international waters, and no agreed upon boundaries, but the parallels are uncomfortably obvious.

C'mon fellas, act like grown-ups! Must we go through this all again?

*Suggested by my wise woman.

Congratulations: March 28th, 2007

If Bush vetoes, he'll have no money for the war, and as much as he'll fume that the Democrats are choosing defeat, he'll either swallow his pride and sign, or he'll be blamed for not "supporting the troops," and then it will begin to matter, when men and women are killed for lack of equipment and ammunition.

Alternatively, he'll sign with a signing statement that denies Congress the right to set a timeline--and then the only course would be impeachment.

That's really what impeachment is about, folks: to prevent the executive or judicial branches from taking too much power away from Congress. That's what will get their dander up: the President acting as if they had no power. And that's why the Constitution writers put it in there: to prevent tyranny.

The Left Prefers to Eat Its Own, March 22, 2007 When the Republicans were in control of Congress, they were savvy at attacking Democrats, and keeping their own dissenters in check. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot, when Democrats have cobbled together something that has a few (albeit gnarled and stubbly) teeth in it, in terms of demanding "benchmarks" and a date for US withdrawal from Iraq (for most of our troops, at least), who mounts the most determined opposition? The most outspoken Democrats of the Out of Iraq caucus!

I agree that voting for ANY funding for this war is obnoxious. I agree that the Democratic leadership could put up Congresswoman Barbara Lee's proposal to fund only withdrawal of troops. But, be serious. How many votes would it get? The Pelosi-Murtha proposal has a real chance of winning a majority in the House, and something similar might even get a majority in the Senate--if it can somehow get past a Republican filibuster--and then Bush would be forced to sign a spending bill which sets up a withdrawal date for Iraq, or he vetoes it and has no money to pursue his war. Yes, it's true that he'll try to find ways around the timeline and the benchmarks, but this is where genuine Congressional oversight could be effective. And our military and the Iraqi government would be on notice. If the left scuttles this effort, it is much more likely that Congress will end up passing a supplemental without strings and the war will just go on, and on. After all, you can't vote against "supporting the troops!"

There is something to be said for the discipline that was enforced by the likes of Gingrich, Delay and Armey on their party. In fact it's notable that even though there are some Republican Senators and Congressmen who are vocally against the war, almost none have voted with Democrats on this issue. On matters such as this, Pelosi should demand something similar for the Democrats, and our left should stop eating its babies!

Halliburton Leads The Way, March 13, 2007

It is probably true that Halliburton's move is more about a shift in the center of gravity of its main business in the oil services industry--to the Mideast and Africa--than it is about fleeing the US, but it is convenient, politically, legally, and for tax reasons.

What Halliburton's move illustrates is something I have written about on this site: corporations are global, not American, even if registered here, (Halliburton will maintain its Delaware incorporation). Their interests transcend borders. CEO's can administer them from anywhere in the world, and can live in any pleasant place they choose. David Lesar can not only run Halliburton from within the Mideast oil patch, he can sun himself on artificial islands all year round and also go skiing on an artificial hill even in July, without leaving Dubai. And corporations there don't pay taxes. Pretty good, huh?

But think about the implications for other "US" corporations. The wealthy class that owns and runs American corporations need not be concerned about the welfare of the United States, and can be expected to view it instrumentally, not patriotically: if US policies bend to their advantage, well and good, but if they don't, they may have no reason to stay, even in New York City, or LA. After all, already a lot of "back office" business even in those "world-class" cities is being done in places like Bangalore and Shanghai.

This leads to a further observation: a large share of US foreign debt (probably difficult to document how large) comes through corporate outsourcing, much through their own subsidiaries. In other words, a large part of the huge and growing international trade debt of the United States is due to the global nature of "US" corporations. I'd bet that a good portion is motivated by US tax policy.

US trade, tax and regulatory policies ought not to begin from the premise that corporate entities have US interests in mind; they don't, they have in mind only the corporate bottom line.

Ultimately, the only way to bring global corporations under control, rather than allowing them to control the rest of us, will be through international regulation, which will require an international body with the teeth to enforce it.

Illegal Aliens and Free Trade, March 12, 2007

They are linked in two ways: Illegal aliens are simply the expression of free trade--in people. If goods can travel freely across borders, allowing corporations to seek lower cost labor anywhere to produce them, then labor will cross borders as well.

But, if you're for free trade, then you'll have to put up with illegal aliens--unless you legalize them--because free trade displaces workers everywhere. "Free trade," which is better described as corporate-controlled global trade, has massively displaced workers in the US, yes, but also in Mexico and Latin America. Europe is also facing the same problems with people from Turkey, Senegal, Algeria and so on, and for the same reasons: "free trade" has disrupted traditional economic relations and turned massive numbers of people loose without a safety net.

To take just the Mexican case: NAFTA has done huge damage to small Mexican farms and farm-workers, because subsidized US corn has undercut local producers, and cheaper or higher quality US goods muscle out home-produced ones. Some of the people displaced have become workers in newer industrial-style farms producing tomatoes, etc. for the US market, or in the maquilladoras along Mexico's northern border, but the latter are now reeling from Chinese competition, and are laying off workers. So, since they can't work, or feed their children at home, many leave for the rich neighbor to their north, which is also at least partly responsible for them being displaced.

They also find jobs that most Americans don't want: evidence of illegal aliens taking jobs from Americans is very limited, while there is massive documentation by corporations that they need these workers to: cut meat, pick crops, etc. In places like LA, they are the only source of household workers.

In other words, illegal aliens are a consequence of global free trade--and the inability of the many governments involved to adapt to the highly destabilizing effects of the radical pro-corporate agenda that is transforming the world economy.

To build walls and fences, to man them with well-armed border guards will not keep people out. Given the economic pressures, human ingenuity can be boundless. So, it would be better to find some way to regularize (and document) immigration, instead of shutting doors. Regularization (eliminating or drastically expanding quotas, welcoming entrants with valid documents) would permit more control, more effective policing of borders and facilitate the prevention of criminal or terrorist elements from entering.

Tonkin Gulf Here We Come! Feb. 22, 2007

The administration is doing this by putting two carrier groups (with another on the way) into the Persian Gulf, knowing full well that the Iranians are also having war games there.

Iran has brought its war games maneuvers over the past year into busy shipping lanes in the Straits of Hormuz, the narrow mouth of the Persian Gulf through which two-fifths of the world's oil supplies pass, the top U.S. Navy commander in the Mideast said.

The moves have alarmed U.S. officials about possible accidental confrontations that could boil over into war, and led to the recent buildup of Navy forces in the Gulf, Vice Adm. Patrick Walsh said in an interview with the AP and other reporters in Bahrain.

The carrier USS John C. Stennis - backed by a strike group with more than 6,500 sailors and Marines and with additional minesweeping ships - arrived in the region Monday. It joined the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower after President Bush ordered the buildup as a show of strength to Iran.AP 2/20/07

In other words, US actions can really only be looked upon as provocative, the Admiral's logic (above) notwithstanding.

If the US wants to create another Tonkin Gulf, I know exactly what they have to do.

Note: I knew the guy who falsified the Tonkin Gulf. The legal issue involved was whether the US warship attacked was in international waters, which would have made it an act of aggression by North Vietnam; it wasn't; it was in North Vietnam's waters, making it an aggressive act by the US, which was met by North Vietnam's defensive action. However, my wife's uncle, top legal in State, certified that the ship was in international waters, thereby giving Johnson the legal basis for saying North Vietnam had attacked the US.

Attack Iran! February 15, 2007

Aren't people "once bitten, twice shy?" Apparently not.

Look at these Aol "poll" figures: These figures are NOT scientific but poll people hooked into the MSM: 87% think Iran is aiding anti-US militants in Iraq, and 52% support a US military strike on Iran. This is a dramatic turnaround from even a few days ago, when about 60% in the same polls consistently supported the idea of getting OUT of Iraq.

The credibility of Americans is astounding.

There are very good reasons why they shouldn't believe Bush; and they don't even have to do with Bush's credibility (low, I should think), but with the idiocy of the premise.

After all, Iran is the premier Shiite nation; it is not going to aid Sunni insurgents to fight the Shiite-dominated government in Iraq. It is likely that elements within Iran are supplying the Iranian militias, however. In fact it's not just likely; it makes perfect sense, since all of the major Shiite political leaders, and the militias associated with them, either spent exiles in Iran, or were aided by Iran during Saddam Hussein's rule. It would be a bit like American Protestants aiding Mexican Protestants, if a Catholic Mexican government was trying to drive them out and massacring them. Those ties are still important.

Furthermore, the US government knows this perfectly well, and is still supporting the Iranian-friendly Iraqi government.

The most likely weapons suppliers for Sunni Iraqi insurgents? The blackmarket. You can buy weapons from anyone--including members of Shiite militias hard up for cash--hence the likely source of weapons of Iranian provenance. I bet the US forces also pick up a lot of insurgents' weapons and ordinance made in the USA, or the old USSR; Iraq is awash in both. Money, on the other hand, gets to the insurgents through kidnappings, robberies and maybe sympathizers--in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. The Iraqi state--and Iranian sympathizers--probably supply the same for the Shiite militias, the former through the ministries controlled by their factions.

But these details are unimportant. What is important is that the mainstream boobs seem to be buying the President's argument once again. For anyone who wants to stop this war talk: we should know that the Iranian arms are a red herring.

The Media Spoonfeeds Pap

Here we are engaged in a war the controlled media walked us into--at government instigation--and ramping up to walk us into another one, yet we have to take a time out for more important business: a murderous female astronaut stalker in a diaper, and, in parallel, a big-breasted blonde beauty, maybe worth half a billion dollars, who dies suddenly of unexplained causes.

Hold the presses! Sex and death sells! Maybe this is why I don't "watch" the news, why I read it online.

The "news" is our source for what goes on in the world. If we get BS like this, instead, and meanwhile the drumbeat for war, this time with Iran, keeps on pulsing harder, well, that's not important because: The stalker and sudden death stories are "what our viewers want."

This does remind me of the Roman circus, of games that diverted the proletariat, so that the big boys could be free to decide on the unimportant things: like war.

Gee, if we had more Lisa Marie Nowaks and Anna Nicole Smiths we'd probably not even know, until it was too late, that our "decider" had unleashed American might on Iran, and then it would be just a great fireworks extravaganza on the evening news.

A deep male voice: "At dawn, US forces attacked Teheran, and its nukular facilities, in a dazzling display of military prowess."

Nothing you can do about it.

Circa 432, besieging Vandal forces broke down the city walls of Cirta, in North Africa, but the Roman authorities did not interrupt the city's games; they were afraid of a riot. Instead, everyone was captured; most were enslaved by the conquering Vandals.

-------------------------------------

What He Says is Not What We Get

"We have made significant progress in reducing the deficit. The Budget I am presenting achieves balance by 2012_. [The budget] promotes key domestic priorities, such as No Child Left Behind [and] enhanced energy security. The 2008 Budget provides significant new resources and other reforms that will result in continued progress. It also directs more funding to high schools."

It is interesting, and dispiriting, to look at actual budget figures to see if Bush means what he says.

He doesn't. While the Bush administration spins one thing--providing "significant new resources"--for the NCLB, its actual figures tell a completely different story. In Bush's budget, the totals for elementary and secondary education for 2006 spent, 2007 estimated, and 2008 projected are: $39.688, $37.622, and $38.052 billions respectively; in other words they went down slightly. For the overall education, training, employment and social services budget, the proposed allocations fall significantly from a 2006 total of $125.880 billion to $85.493 billion in 2008. Why? Because the family education loan program for college is slashed from $28.065 billion to $3.870 billion, and most other programs are trimmed. That loan program is precisely what Democrats want to subsidize further.

As for energy security, there is a 2007 estimated outlay of $572 million for the strategic petroleum reserve, essentially a gift to the oil companies both in sales and because the purchases will drive the price higher.

As for achieving a balanced budget, the projected deficit is higher than in 2006: $430.505 billion (actual), or 2007 $459.643 billion (estimated); it comes in at $470.655 (proposed). Bush is accurate, however, when he says, "My Budget invests substantial resources to fight the Global War on Terror." In fact, this is a war budget; it includes funds for his current escalation and for expanding the military, and "to meet the new threats of the 21st Century," which could mean Iran. He proposes increases in the "Defense-related" portion of the budget from $617.155 billion actually spent in 2006 to a projected expenditure of $647.166 billion in 2008.

And remember: he insists on making his tax cuts permanent.

This does not look like Bush stretching hands across the aisle, to meet Democratic concerns. It looks as if it's just the opposite: a declaration that this president will not be deterred by a little thing like opposition control of Congress and overwhelmingly low approval ratings.

He's going to tough it out.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/pdf/budget/overview.pdf

Note: website(above) and others below are not hyperlinked because they may or may not still be valid.

------------------------------------------------------

Actions Speak Louder

The 2008 Budget supports our troops fighting terrorism abroad, strengthens our military for the future, enhances our international diplomacy, and protects our homeland from attack. The Budget invests substantial resources to continue the transformation of our military to meet the new threats of the 21st Century. It also fully funds the Global War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan through 2008 and fully funds the implementation of the President’s new strategy in Iraq. [Overview: President's 2008 Budget]

Despite hype about strengthening education, etc. all you have to do is look at proposed figures, and you see: this is a war budget. Bush intends to tough it out.

Bush proposes increases in the "Defense-related" portion of the budget from $617.155 billion spent in 2006 to a projected expenditure of $647.166 billion in 2008. Those figures include commitments to increase the size of the Army and Marines, to fund escalation in Iraq and to meet "new threats." Attacking Iran?

You can divine foreign policy priorities by comparing what was spent in international aid, and what Bush proposes to spend; nothing added on Iraq relief, and the only large increases are for the "Millennium challenge corporation" and for the global HIV/AIDS initiative. But almost all other aid programs and foreign policy expenditures increase only marginally, or will fall. Largely because of those two programs, "Humanitarian assistance" goes up, from $15.18 in 2006 to $17.285 billion in 2008.

Some programs are cut substantially. The Corps of Engineers, and all other water resource programs, spent $13.305 billion in 2006, but the projected allocation for 2008 is $5.909 billion, despite the huge needs for rebuilding and strengthening levees on every coast. The Commodity Credit Corp spent $16.078 billion in 2006, but will be allocated only $8.573 billion. Total education and training programs spent $125.88 billion in 2006, but are allocated $85.493 billion in 2008, a substantial cut, despite hype about No Child Left Behind.

Bush was unable to cut Medicare drastically, because the mandated costs are $386.376 billion of the total $391.866 billion, but he proposes legislation to increase fees and premiums by $573 million. He was able to cut Medicaid and related programs from $238.602 to $229.134 billions. He describes his economizing thus:

My formula for a balanced budget reflects the priorities of our country at this moment in its history: protecting the homeland and fighting terrorism, keeping the economy strong with low taxes, and keeping spending under control.

The joke: while there is a projected deficit of over $470 billion, up from $430 billion in 2006, he claims: "We are now positioned to balance the budget by 2012." And that, he points out, includes making his highly inequitable tax cuts permanent.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/

-----------------------------------------------------------

What Does it Cost US?

Feb 5, 2007

When we spend an extra $70 billion on a larger army, what does it cost us?

Not just the $70 billion. There are the added costs down the road, for pensions, education, health care and so on that are easily quantified. Also there are the added costs of the debt all the expenditures will require, and therefore the interest to be paid, probably to other countries, since we have such a low savings rate at home.

But there are other costs, too, less easily reduced to dollars and cents. One is that the qualifications of the troops will have to be downgraded, if the Army and Marines are going to recruit more troops, when they are unable to meet recruitment quotas already. So, more of the new troops will likely be: less educated, with significant health problems, with criminal records, and/or foreigners. In any case, these new troops will also likely be less amenable to discipline, and more likely to commit abuses.

One large cost is the fact of the investment itself in more war-making potential. Ninety thousand more troops is probably the equivalent of several times that number in World War II terms, or in comparison to other military forces around the world, because American troops are the most efficient killing machines in the world. It would mean that the US is investing in the greater ability to destroy, all over the world. That would also mean that the US is committed to continue using its armed forces to "solve problems" all over the world.

That is the largest cost. Another way of putting it is that by enlarging the size of the standing armed forces, the US is investing in empire, that is in projecting its coercive ability around the world, and is investing that much less in its own citizens, in their health, their education, their skills, or in the environment and alternative energy sources, especially if these troops are going to be used as the troops are now: to ensure US access to oil around the globe.

Do we need more troops to fight "terrorism?" It is because we had such a large military, that Bush-Cheney, et al, thought we could chase bin Laden, and still take over Iraq. In other words, a larger military is counterproductive when dealing with terrorism; terrorism can only be controlled through a combination of creative foreign aid and brilliant police work. To me, in terms of this website, it is as if we are choosing to follow the path of the Roman Empire: to bankruptcy and war, war waged by forces beyond our control.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/12/20/bush.main/index.html --------------------------------------------------------------

Not MORE Troops!

Why do we need a larger military? It's already the most formidable--and by far the most expensive--in the world. Answer: it depends upon what the military is to be used for.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates [Jan. 12] proposed adding 92,000 troops to the Army and Marine Corps, initiating the biggest increase in U.S. ground forces since the 1960s.

The permanent increase of 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines would cost more than $10 billion annually and take five years to achieve. Washington Post, 1/12/07

It is true that soldiers and marines already serving are getting battle-weary. But this proposal is not for replacements for worn out materiel and weary troops, but for additional troops.

If you begin from the premise that the American military must do more of the same, all over the world, then it makes perfect sense that the US needs more troops; it is already hard pressed to come up with 21,500 more to deploy to Iraq.

But why should Democrats accept this premise? US troops have been used in two pre-emptive wars: look at the results. With more troops the impulse of Presidents would be to use them for more imperial ventures and further afield. More Iraqs.

The problem with the failing war in Iraq was that we had troops available for intervention and that we dealt with a largely political and police problem (the war on non-state terrorists) by military means. The result: we have not run al Qaeda to ground. Use of the troops has instead disrupted two fragile Middle Eastern countries, and laid Iraq open to terrorist recruitment and training, when before it had been largely closed to al Qaeda.

Look at our use of military force in Somalia, another war in the making. The US military, so far, has failed to apprehend suspected al Qaeda members, but it has blown up civilians, thereby further alienating Somalis from the US.

If we had more troops, it might seem plausible to military leaders that we could invade another country. Choose one: Iran, Syria? Without those additional troops, such a broadening of the war(s) in the Middle East appears not feasible (I hope).

Now consider: on top of the already huge military budget, we'd have to spend an additional $50 billion, just in our initial commitment to adding more troops (not counting education costs, family costs and pensions down the line). What do we get for this investment?

Unless you buy the argument that the US has to control the rest of the world with its military forces (and we can't), a very good argument could be made that we don't need more soldiers and marines; we need fewer of them.

The US would get a much greater bang for its bucks if it were not shooting and blowing people up with them, but instead was helping them to grow more food, gain an education, and live better lives.

---------------------------------------------------

Sitting Ducks

Now, let me get this straight: we are fighting in Iraq--forget all those previous reasons given by Our Leader--to ensure that Iraqis can live normal lives in a country governed by representatives of their choice. To do this we are going to send more Army and Marine soldiers not just to "clear" Baghdad's streets of insurgents and other law-breakers, but to maintain security there. Since we are sending soldiers, who are not Arab speakers (reportedly we only have six in our huge embassy there), who do not know the country, or its traditions, and who will probably only receive a cursory training in civil policing, what we are really doing is sending highly armed, frightened (I would be, too) young men and women to patrol streets that are already being patrolled by people from the country--who we may not like.

How long before these trigger-scared troops spray bullets (1000/minute) down these streets, because they don't know what's really happening? How long before they bust down doors and arrest people--and cart them off to the US's notorious detention centers-- people who are simply in the wrong place at the wrong time, speaking the wrong language? How long before the remaining citizens, who want American soldiers to go home (over 90%), acquiesce in, or actively aid bombers and mortar teams in attacking those American sitting ducks? After all, unlike the current operation, these poor escalated troops will be under orders to hold a neighborhood; they won't be able to sweep through and then get out; they will be sitting ducks.

Perhaps George W. knows that his escalation makes no military sense. Perhaps he knows that he's setting the US up for US casualties beyond anything we've yet experienced in Iraq. What then? Does he think he will win a mandate to evaporate the whole country with A-bombs? He can't send in many more troops; there aren't any to send.

Just what does he think he's doing?

There is really only one sane response to Bush's escalation: it must be stopped and he must be stopped. S233, sponsored by Senator Kennedy, is only a start. Isn't insanity sufficient grounds for impeachment?

Or does the US have to follow the precedent of the late Roman Empire, in which incompetent and unstable Emperors (Honorius and Valentinian III, respectively) drove the Empire to the wall, and nothing was done about them until it was way too late?

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20070114_chris_hedges_war_of_shadows/

----------------------------------------------------------------

Gold!

When I was born, gold was officially sold at $35 per troy ounce. For many years, until 1968, the price only rose by less than a dollar. Then it began to fluctuate, hitting a one time high of $850 in 1980. It remained in the $300-450 range until 2005 when it closed the year at $517. In late 2006 it hit a high of $730, and is now trading, as I write in 2007, at $626.70, slightly higher than its close on the November day when it peaked at $730.

What does this mean? According to the Money Changer, gold could go to $900 or even $1000, but the real question is why? Why do people trade in gold?

The Senators of the late Roman Empire had major holdings in gold, which served them well, given the long depression in the imperial economy, until their lack of support of the Empire--because of hoarding that gold--led to its downfall. Afterwards, their caches of gold were easily discovered by raiders, thereby disproving the canard "safe as gold."

But gold is the refuge that people seek when their economy appears to face risks in the future, which is why the rise in the value of gold is not a good sign. The Money Changer, Franklin Sanders, who certainly trades in gold himself, said in his New Year commentary, "Make 2007 the year you (1) get out of all US Dollar denominated investments & (2) stock swaps for silver and gold. Or, alternatively, you could begin to practice spending your latter years in poverty."

Admittedly this is Sanders' business, but the rise in gold price cannot be argued with. It means, at very least, that confidence in the US dollar is weakening, as well it should, since the US trade deficit remains high, and the US external debt is unsustainably high ($8.8 trillion as of June, 2005, $10.3 trillion as of Sept. 2006, according to the US Treasury), and still growing rapidly.

So, stay tuned. You will probably hear that gold is going higher. Just remember: that's not a good thing.

----------------------------------------------------------

Mercenaries For America

"Washington - The armed forces, already struggling to meet recruiting goals, are considering expanding the number of noncitizens in the ranks - including disputed proposals to open recruiting stations overseas and putting more immigrants on a faster track to US citizenship if they volunteer - according to Pentagon officials." Boston Globe, 12/26/06

In the Roman Empire they had a similar problem recruiting soldiers. What Italian or Greek city-dweller would want to sign up for 20 years of hardship and danger? And their solution was similar, although citizenship became less of an incentive as the Empire shrank. By the fifth century, whole tribal units were recruited, officered by their own chiefs. They were often paid with land grants, which resulted in Europe becoming a patchwork quilt of petty kingdoms, long before Rome actually fell to one of the