Archives for Blogs from August and after, 2007

Oct. 2, 2007 We Are All Burmese

It looks now as if there is nothing the protestors or pro-democracy groups in "Myanmar" can do; the military has cracked down and will continue to wield absolute control.

What is new, since 1988, is the use of the Internet, and of cellphones, but still, the military has prevailed. All we have to do is look over the border into China to see that the Burmese military's approach can also work in an extremely large country: China has about four and a half times the US population, as large and diverse a territory, and a thriving capitalist economy. Yet, when there were democracy protests back in 1989, the Tienanmen massacre stopped them in their tracks.

We are all Burmese in the sense that "it could happen here." Consider the size of the US military: as Mike Gravel pointed out on PBS, the US spends more on its military than the rest of the world combined. We spend over $600 billion a year; the Chinese may spend $60 billion, and I'm sure the Burmese spend less than a tenth of that, even though they control their country absolutely.

Now, look at the behavior of the "Democratically controlled" US Congress. Even though the majority was elected on an antiwar surge that is still growing stronger, Congress does not dare cut the military budget, nor even, apparently, to stop the absurd war "supplemental" that has now been "authorized" but not yet "appropriated" to the tune of $150 billion.

We need to look at Burma--and in our mirrors. While neither Bush nor Cheney is a general, they are every bit as much military rulers as those in Myanmar: the military can get almost anything it wants through them. It seems that the Democrats will give it almost anything it wants, as well. The idea of questioning the size of the military and of the amount of money we squander on it does not even occur to our "representatives."

Despite our tradition of civilian control over the military, Burma could happen here. The administration has insisted it can detain anyone it wants, a la Burma, has let contracts to build huge detention facilities and takes the position that Posse Comitatus is outmoded: the military can be used to "keep the peace," or, less euphemistically, "to pacify" the populace.

You have to hope that "civilian control" still works. I pray that the next president will cut the US military back to size, but what are the odds?

Sep 28, 2007, War With Iran?

Sept. 27, 2007 Political Abuse

For example, we have the No Child Left Behind Act, which leaves a lot of children behind, i.e. underserved by schools, their schools punished because they serve underprivileged communities. We have the Clear Skies Act, which allows polluters like coal-fired power-plants to continue polluting our skies. We have the Patriot Act which makes us all potential suspects in the Global War on Terror; GWOT is not global; it is confined largely to Iraq, where there were no terrorists until we invaded, and to Afghanistan (distinctly second fiddle despite the presence of al Qaeda there)--and here at home.

We also have abuse of fear. FDR warned the nation "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself …." Yet Cheney, Bush, Fox News, et al have used fear over and over again, much like later Roman Emperors, to get what they want. For example, there was a "terror alert" this summer for a purported attack on the nation's Capitol that was based on what "Homeland Security" knew was a bogus source; it was timed to scare Congress into giving the government permission to wiretap without going through the FISA court.

We have an abuse of news, much like the Imperial spokesmen of old. Over and over again the Democratic majority has gained impressive majority votes for stopping the war in Iraq, and for issues like restoring Habeas Corpus rights and broadening child health insurance, yet the news sources always present these votes as: "Today, Congress blocked a vote on…."

Congress didn't; a determined Republican minority in the Senate refused to allow a vote, using the threat of a filibuster, the same tool that they wanted to eliminate when they had a majority.

Abuse of news creates a different reality. The Democrats are stymied by the smallness of their margin, by a reluctance to go for the jugular, perhaps, but Congress isn't "failing" to end the war; it is the Republican minority and the President who are. Yet Democrats have been blamed now, along with Republicans, in part because of the way the news has been framed.

It is also true that Democrats' timidity is created by the unfair and unbalanced "news" presented by Fox News and right-wing chatterers, which they realistically fear would present any refusal to fund the war as "not supporting the troops."

We need news sources and political leaders who do not "spin" the American people: telling us one thing when the opposite is true.

Sept. 21 Fall of the Dollar?

The Saudis are worried. Bush's oily friends are concerned that the dollar will lose credibility. If oil, which is now priced in US dollars all over the world, loses its "dollar peg," then expect all hell to break loose. Oil priced in Euros would become more and more expensive to Americans, and the US balance of payments would shoot up like a rocket; it's already unsustainably high.

Bernanke's cut in interest rates only made sense when you excluded the rest of the world, but the US economy is massively dependent on virtually everything abroad--and on the money we borrow abroad. Thanks to Bernanke's predecessor, and the "free trade" policies of the last four Presidents, encouraging large corporations to send production overseas, even most "made in the US," products aren't made here anymore. Most US corporations now have integrated global production, which is why we've been plagued by "outsourcing" and "offshoring" for years. Now this process is going to come home to bite us--you know where. Everything imported is going to cost more as the dollar sinks, but people won't be able to borrow against their homes, since they are losing value. That means inflation and recession. Back to "stagflation!"

Why should the dollar fall? While the Euro community is raising interest rates, the US is lowering them, but we continue to borrow. Why would international investors put money into US denominated bonds, when they can earn more from Euros or pounds? US Treasury bonds were the safest place in the world to park money. No longer.

The US was expected to need $850 billion this year (to cover its balance of payments deficit) even before this debacle. Now, why would foreigners provide it? Therefore lower interest rates might not be sustainable--unless we go for a major devaluation of the dollar.

This means that Americans will no longer be able to buy so freely with borrowed money. Can interest rate cuts and cash infusions to banks overcome the sinking dollar? I don't see how.

The Roman Empire devalued its currency for centuries before it went bankrupt, because its ruling class stored gold instead of spending it, or paying taxes. The fall of the "almighty dollar" won't take that long.

Sept. 20 Corruption and Stalemate

Back in Roman days no one worried about a little corruption, or even a lot, or of using slave labor--it was a slave economy. It seems as if the Bush administration, especially in its imperial persona, really would like to take us back to the ways of the Roman Empire.

At least Henry Waxman, Democratic chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is attempting to investigate. We'll see whether Krongard ducks the Oct. 16th hearing; it's likely he'll try.

On almost every issue these days, the Congressional majority is trying to move against the government's massive abuses and disastrous policies. Its actions beyond oversight, however, are blocked, especially in the Senate, by the small margin held by the majority: witness the failed Senate vote (56 for) on requiring the military to give soldiers as much state-side time as that spent in Iraq. At every step it is blocked: by the Senate minority still voting in lockstep with the President, and by the President's veto power, which requires 67 votes to override.

Except for the investigations, there are only a few things the Democrats can do. They could use the power of the purse, but Democrats are still afraid of the "popular" reaction that would be orchestrated by the government's media pets, like Fox News, if "Democrats withheld funds from the troops." In other words, if the Democrats gained a majority for funding only the withdrawal, they still couldn't pass it, because of the minority. What can they do? Refuse to consider another funding bill? They could, but they're afraid of what Fox and the right-wing chatterers would do to them if they did.

Agreed, they're far too timid, but another kind of tactic is now being tried with the Justice Department. Bush wants his nominee confirmed, but Democrats vow they won't play unless the documents relating to Attorney-gate are released to them, and they get firm commitments from Mukasey to depoliticize the Department. This is the kind of game-playing that Democrats need to develop on war policy, too.

Then maybe they'll get somewhere.

Sept. 18, 2007 Billions Lost

I wrote about this first in my book, The Selfish Class (pp50-51) in 2005, based on an article by James Cogan on World Socialist Website; not the most reliable source. Now the claim that $2.4 billion in cash was airlifted to Baghdad in 2004 has been confirmed by an article in Vanity Fair (Oct. 2007), which follows not only that shipment (June 22, 2004), but a series of earlier shipments totaling over $12 billion in cash, airlifted in shrink-wrapped pallet loads from the NY Fed to Baghdad. Probably the most cash ever sent anywhere.

It turns out that the cash belonged to Iraq (it was frozen assets from oil revenues turned over by the UN) and over $9 billion of it is still unaccounted for.

The shipments to the CPA (occupation government) began soon after the 2003 invasion, and continued until days before the elected Iraqi government took office.

What were they for? Some of that cash was used to jump-start an economy with no legitimate currency, an acceptable use since Saddam's dinars were no longer of value. But, what that $9 billion really represents is the Spoils of War.

Accounting was "lax." In occupation offices, officers and men played football with "bricks" of 100 dollar bills and kept them in cupboards, refrigerators and old-fashioned office safes. A lot of the money was probably intended to buy allies, something we did in Vietnam, too. Some of it ended up in the hands of individual American military and civilians serving in Baghdad and environs; one story has an enlisted man taking some tens of thousands with him to blow on gambling in Indonesia when on leave.

But we shouldn't worry about it, should we? It was just Iraq's money, not taken from American taxpayers.

A lot of it probably ended up financing the Sunni insurgency and the Shiite militias, so that's one reason for concern.

Probably a good portion was skimmed off by light-fingered Americans and foreigners working in Iraq; there may be suddenly wealthy people lolling on beaches in resorts all over the world, no questions asked. Wartime loot.

When Julius Caesar set off for Gaul, he was heavily in debt. When he returned as conqueror, he was one of the wealthiest men in Rome, so this is a very old story.

What this absurdity really boils down to is this: imperialism is an oft-told tale, and it is primarily driven by greed, even when the American President claims that we are only in Iraq to promote Democracy. Even Alan Greenspan, in his new book, recognizes this: the war, he said, was fought for oil.

It's way past time to get out!

Sept. 14, 2007 Petraeus For President?

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

His figures for sectarian violence, for example, exclude all deaths by gunshot to the front of the head, all car bomb deaths, all suicide bomb deaths, and purport to distinguish sectarian violence from all others; that's because the combined figures appear to have gone up, not down.

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

At least the Democrats don't accept the "troop withdrawal" proposal as real, since it isn't. It's simply reverses the surge at the end of the tours of the surgers. So, by this time next year there would be as many soldiers in Iraq as there were a year ago. That's Progress!

It turns out that Petraeus is quite a fellow; a General whose triumphs in Iraq are also associated with a horrendous reverse plus a major miss-assessment. His touted success in Mosul collapsed into the arms of the insurgents months after he left, and his claims that the Iraqi army was making impressive progress turned out to look highly suspect when he went on to his next post. Further, he's seen by his superior officer, Admiral Fallon, as a pushy political sycophant; Fallon even thinks Petraeus's ideas endanger the US military. Even stranger, Petraeus apparently discussed at length, with an Iraqi Army officer in Baghdad, his own ambitions to be President! He is what has sometimes been referred to as a "political General."

So, Bush has found his man, the willing hero in uniform, who will do his bidding, no matter how many other generals have given the opposite advice. And Petraeus hopes he has found the first few rungs on the ladder to the oval office--if he can force Congress to continue to fund the war.

The Republicans are so desperate for a viable candidate, maybe he should run!

It's astounding, but he really believes his story, despite all the bad news that belies it, even the rather pointed destruction of the top Sunni leader in Anbar: Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha was the most prominent Sheik allied to the US there, and he was blown up the day of the General's testimony. Petraeus had lauded the progress in Anbar made possible by the Sheiks' alliance.

But if Petraeus and Bush do prevail, if the war continues undiminished, the General's star will be in the ascendant, and who knows.

We could have a Roman Emperor yet!

Sept. 12, 2007 A Wartime Recession?

The US economy isn't in such good shape even with 3% growth. If people lose their jobs because of the mortgage mess, and the downturn in demand caused by it, we could enter a full-blown recession.

This isn't comparable to Rome's 476 (see Fall of Rome page), but a wartime recession does indicate major economic problems. After all, despite the anti-Keynesian economic orthodoxy of the Bush-Cheney regime, it has pumped huge amounts of money into the economy for the so-called Global War On Terror, especially for the war in Iraq (over $3 billion a week). Most of that money (except for graft) is spent here with American corporations, contractors and soldiers. That's a lot of extra demand the economy has needed up until now just to maintain the relatively jobless "recovery," even with no wage hikes.

But obviously it's not enough. Wartime spending isn't going to rescue us. People losing jobs and homes because of the sub-prime mess is bad, but when the golden goose--housing equity--turns to brass, that could cut off the economy at the knees. You can't refinance your home to buy groceries or a new car. Americans with anemic wages (most of us) will find it hard to live within their means; so will the economy.

Ironically, if Congress forced a withdrawal from Iraq tomorrow (it's not going to happen), the recession could suddenly get a lot worse before it got better, because war spending would slow. New ways to spend some of the "peace dividend" would take time to develop. Nevertheless, in the slightly longer run, money spent on almost anything non-military creates more jobs, and therefore more demand for goods and services, than defense dollars.

It's time to think about a Peace Economy! If we could redirect money spent in Iraq to alternative energy and energy savings, for example, the US could generate many more jobs, and finally join the effort against global warming. Since our infrastructure is deteriorating, our schools are failing, and health care is unaffordable for many, there are a lot of other areas where we could also better spend our money.

This is just one more reason why we've got to get out of the business of empire. We can't afford it.

Sept. 11, 2007 "Maybe if we Stayed

Well, that's what Bush wants, isn't it; for the US to stay at least for a generation?

The point is, despite the cosmetic numbers provided by General Petraeus, the surge isn't making enough of a difference. That was what the sergeant meant. It may make a minimal difference in some places--it may have slowed down the civil war, but mostly the surge has just displaced it--to other parts of that sorry country.

What does Bush really want in Iraq?

He says he wants to "prevail," to proclaim victory, but I'm sure that even he knows there won't be any such thing, so the question really is an important one: what is the motivation behind Bush's insistence on staying in Iraq?

I have written previously in this blog that as an oil man, the reserves under Iraqi soil must be a powerful incentive to Bush, since they could be the largest in the world.

But something else is going on now. Can even Bush really believe his rhetoric about "success?"

What is most plausible now is that Bush persists, and insists on dragging the country after him, simply because he wants to leave the mess to his successor. He doesn't want to be blamed for the disaster that US troops are only barely staving off.

It is probably true that when the US leaves, and, really, it must sooner or later, the Iraqis will be at each others' throats even more ferociously than they are now. The state of Iraq, which was troublesome before the war, could completely collapse after it, but the US really does not have the means to hold it together. Our ground forces are stretched almost to the breaking point.

We have played the part of Pandora, opening the box that is Iraq, releasing all the evils that Saddam had kept under the lid: Shiite-Sunni hatred, Kurdish ambitions, Islamic extremism among both Sunnis and Shiites, local ambitions, personal rivalries--and now they are out there for all to see.

To think that the US can be an honest broker among all these feuding groups is ludicrous: we opened the box AND we are the occupiers.

Maybe, after we leave, ordinary Iraqis will rebel against the extremists; maybe the extremists will have to fight each other to exhaustion. Or maybe some honest broker can be found out there: Swedes, perhaps, or Thais, or the UN. But not the US. Bush has completely discredited the US in the eyes of the world.

That is his legacy.

Sept. 5, 2007 Elections Past and Future

The same thing might have happened in 2006, except that the electorate shifted towards Democrats more decisively than the vote manipulators apparently figured when they tried to fix the elections in early September (there is a substantial lag time to fix a national election).

I am not sanguine about the elections in 2008; the same thing could happen, since there is only one state now, (my state of New York), that has not yet adapted some form of highly vulnerable electronic voting machines. That these machines are extremely vulnerable to manipulation has now been officially demonstrated in California; the Maryland House actually voted unanimously to jettison touch-screen machines.

There is a reform bill working its way through Congress (the Holt bill) but one of the major problems with its new incarnation, despite mandating a paper trail, are that it permits continued privatization of elections, letting private companies count the ballot with secret, proprietary software. Who's to say that companies don't have sophisticated logarithms built into that software that favors whichever party its proprietors want; the software is proprietary, secret and inaccessible. And strange things did happen in Ohio (many more Republican votes than registered voters in some precincts) in Florida (where a hundred thousand votes for Congress weren't counted) and perhaps in other places.

The Romans had elections. In the late Roman Empire the army elected the Emperor by acclamation; the Senate only ratified the military's decision. If private election companies (mostly controlled by Republicans) can take over the whole electoral counting process, then our elections will be even less meaningful than those of the clamoring Roman field army.

Microsoft, apparently, inspired a re-write of Holt's reform bill to protect a company's source code from scrutiny. If the bill passes, it will enshrine proprietary elections controlled by election machine companies; the companies are answerable only to their shareholders, not to voters. Can we then still say we have free elections and a democracy? Can we then be sure that the people's will is going to be faithfully recorded?

August 29, 2007 US: Oil Dinosaur or Renewable Leader?

Long Island Light has cancelled an offshore wind farm, and the Cape wind farm will probably be cancelled, too. Why? First of all, US costs for building such wind farms are higher than in Europe and elsewhere, because we haven't been building them until now; second of all, because costs are compared without calculating real costs to all of us of fossil fuels.

The market price for gas, oil or coal does not include the costs borne in tax breaks, which are massive (depletion write-offs, exemptions for foreign royalties and more) and in government subsidies. The oil and gas industry would not be viable without our world-wide defense establishment, a subsidy that approaches half a trillion dollars a year (or a good part of our "defense" spending). Much of our coal would not be half as cheap if the government didn't almost give away federal land to mine companies.

Further, the costs of fossil fuels include: global warming, borne by everyone; polluted air, degrading our health, water pollution from mines and massive land degradation, and for nuclear the huge security apparatus needed to protect it, and the still unsuccessful, but government-provided spent fuel storage facilities, which will cost all of us many billions of dollars, without insuring that somewhere down the line we won't face radioactive leaks.

If fossil fuels and nuclear were not subsidized by Federal and state governments at all, they would be substantially more expensive and the US taxpayer would save a bundle.

That's one reason why the US should dismantle its empire (largely in place to safeguard sources of oil) and spend the money saved, or some of it, on a massive, nation-wide effort to convert to renewable energy sources as rapidly as possible. Forget 10% or 20% by 2020. Why not make 20% the minimum?

I recognize how radical this proposal sounds. But the US Empire is doomed, just as the Roman was, albeit for different reasons. If we continue to pursue empire, especially in the Middle East, we are subsidizing our status as the energy dinosaur of the world.

Whether the empire will fall through bankruptcy and collapse (looks more possible, doesn't it), through military defeat, through obsolescence, or because global warming will continue unchecked and take us all down (the worst scenario), the US Empire is bound to come to an end, and soon.

Wouldn't it be better to abandon it and use our still tremendous wealth to jump to the head of the pack on renewable energy?

Aug. 27, 2007 Iraq Disconnect: Hello? Hello?

"Due to the constant pressure and depletion of their leadership, extremists have been pushed out of many population centers and are on the move, seeking other places to operate within the country," Odierno said last week.

"As a result, we are now in pursuit of al-Qaida and other extremist elements, and we'll continue to aggressively target their shrinking areas of influence." Steven R. Hurst, "Iraq Body Count Running at Double Pace," Associated Press, 8/26/07

This quote is at the end of an AP account of what is happening in Iraq: the Iraqi body count (as opposed to American soldiers) is higher than it's ever been (the American count is going back up); militants have expanded north, demonstrating that overall US control of Iraq is unlikely; sectarian deaths in Baghdad have stayed about level (the surge has only kept it from rising); Shiites fight each other for control in the south; some provinces have disconnected themselves from the national power grid; and national politicians refuse to deal with each other.

I don't know about you, but to me it feels like the nation has schizophrenia and hallucinations over Iraq: two very different stories are told simultaneously.

Guess which picture is painted for the politicians' "briefings" in Baghdad!

Hillary says the surge is "working in Anbar." Some Democratic Congressmen, previously voting to get us out of Iraq, now say: because of the "success" of the surge, they won't vote for a withdrawal deadline. Forget about that withdrawal vote passing in September.

Those of us aware of events in Iraq are living on a different planet than pols given Green Zone military briefings in Baghdad. Don't they monitor the news?

How to explain the timidity of some national Democrats in the face of the hype for this disastrous war? It's still Bush's war, since he and his minions lied us into it; it hasn't yet become a Democratic war. Do Democrats fear the pro-war media, especially the propaganda organ, Fox News? Do they fear the military officer class?

The military is supposed to be under civilian control; it's questionable who controls whom right now, especially in Iraq: Bush or Petraeus; the civilian government, or the Pentagon?

In the late Roman Empire the military controlled more and more, even as it became more German than Roman, until (General) Odoacer abolished the Empire and became King of Italy.

We're getting closer, and the controlled media is helping all it can.

Aug. 24, 2007 Iraq Parallels to Vietnam

What about the cost to Iraqis if we stay? Bombing, strafing, over 600,000 dead already; men, women and children brutalized, impoverished and hungry from our house to house searches, detentions and our destruction of their infrastructure?

There is another parallel to Vietnam that is playing out politically right now: calls to replace PM Maliki. Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam, was as ineffective as Maliki is now. The military coup which overthrew Diem was certainly agreed to, probably facilitated by the US. The result? A succession of unstable military governments--the leaders Minh, Ky, and Thieu following in quick disorder--making it clear that the "government" we supported was no government at all.

The same could be said for Maliki's government; its writ doesn't run beyond the green zone. If we replace Maliki (a typical Imperial position is that "we" have the right to do so), then it is likely that successor regimes will be even less effective.

Here are two options.

Since Hillary now fatuously says "the surge is working," but Iraqis are still killing each other and the politicians still aren't talking, the imperial (Roman) option would be: abolish the Iraqi government. The US could go back to an occupation government like Paul Bremer's. The advantage: Bush's cronies could make even more money, and the US military could go about savaging all factions without the restraints they now complain about when going after Maliki's allies. Of course we would inflame all sides, in and outside of Iraq, but no matter: we're the United States: we don't make mistakes; other people do, especially when they oppose us. We'll just use our "overwhelming force" to level the opposition. That's the Roman imperial option. Don't you foresee high-rises along the Tigris for the victorious Americans--like the Roman colonies built all over the Roman Empire?

Or, we could just get out: declare a military victory and leave. We could say: "the Iraqis now have the freedom to choose their own government, courtesy of America's liberation, and anything that happens after our departure will be their responsibility." Ethnic cleansing, genocide, corruption, racketeering, well, (shrug) that's their choice; it is anyway.

Since it's unlikely we'll do either (the first option isn't viable unless we forsake all restraints to become like the Roman legions of old) we'll probably just hold on--until we're thrown out on our ears.

Aug. 23, 2007 American Emperor

From Texas Bush brought it to the Federal level, where Padilla was reduced to little better than an automaton from his torture.

And then came news of the Presidential Advance Manual, written in 2002. It was just made public as the result of an ACLU suit. According to the Washington Post article (8/22/07), the manual outlines methods to exclude dissenters from Presidential events--unless they are safely out of sight and sound. The case which brought this manual to light was the arrest and temporary jailing of two people wearing anti-Bush shirts at a Presidential rally in 2004.

Yes, I wrote 'rally.' Presidential events under Bush are staged rallies, more sophisticated than the Emperor's events in late Imperial Rome, or than the Nuremburg rallies of Nazi Germany, but rallies. Even the crowds are scripted; organizers are admonished to cover protester signs with larger ones wielded by their own people, to ferret out anti-Bush signs, to be on the lookout for folded cloth signs, and to insure that only those who are "extremely supportive of the Administration," will be allowed closest to the President, in reviewing stands and nearby. Organizers are also given suggestions of what their people should chant to drown out any protests.

Security, of course, is trotted out as the rationale for all these strategies, but that clearly isn't what's going on. Presidential events, no matter how unpopular the President, must make the President look good, not just protect him from assassination. In the Roman Adventus, in the fifth century, the Emperor was arrayed in the richest jewels and gold, arriving in a gold-encrusted coach, of course, but heavily armored limos, helicopters and space age stages are the American equivalent, and they probably cost even more.

Things have gone further than I thought. They've gone so far, that it's likely that the next President, regardless of which party, will continue building the power of the office, until we truly do have an American Emperor--unless an aroused citizenry (or impeachment now) can stop him--or her. My only preference for a Democrat would be that she, or he, might be somewhat less insulated from reality, and therefore more vulnerable to popular persuasion.

Aug. 20, 2007 Cheap Gas!

It's not just the Chinese and Indians who are buying more oil; it's all of us, and there's more and more of us: that's one reason for the rise in oil prices. But there is another reason. We have reached the point where most of the oil in the world will have to be fought over, dug deep for undersea, or tortuously produced from tar sands and their equivalent. In other words, oil is getting harder to find and more expensive to produce, just when there are a whole lot more of us who want to use a whole lot more of it; it's called peak oil and the population crunch.

And then there is global warming telling us to use less and less.

The central question is: does the US pursue control of this dwindling and polluting resource, or not. To control it, the US will have to spend more and more on "defense," which profits the few, but ultimately pursuit of an empire of oil will be a losing proposition; no matter what we do there will be less of it; it will be more expensive, and it promotes more global warming.

Better that the US abandon the control of oil and massively invest in renewables, especially solar, wind and the hydrogen that can be produced by both. Bio-fuels, so far, not only use too much oil to produce, their promotion can also create hunger and destroy forests.

The US should put its wealth in the future, a new Manhattan Project. But if it is like other Empires, like Rome, for example, it will fight to control the resources it knows, those of the dying age: in our case fossil fuels. In Rome's case it was slaves.

With renewables, however, the US wouldn't need an empire; it wouldn't have to control far-flung sources of oil and the sea lanes connecting us to them; it would not have to stave off collapse of unstable regimes in the oil patch, like our creation in Iraq.

Solar and wind are in everyone's backyard; the US has an abundance of both.

Aug. 15 Rising Wages?

That's why investors want the Fed to cut interest rates, which would make stock prices go up; it would also help those who bought sub-prime mortgages, as well as the poor mortgagees, who are in danger of losing their homes.

But here is where the real world comes in. The Fed is unlikely to lower interest rates: higher interest rates combat inflation, which is the Fed's first concern, not either low income mortgagees, nor recklessly speculating hedge funds. Further, we live within a global trading system, and the US dollar is already under pressure, is already losing value relative to the Euro, the Pound, and other world currencies, because of our escalating trade debts.

However, I should also point out that because of that world market, corporations might have to "share" higher wages with workers rather than raise prices, because American goods (and services) are massively competing with the rest of the world in the US market. So, profits would go down, since prices could not go up very much.

What "the market" would really like to see would be a return to stagnant or falling wages, and rising productivity. In other words, the stock markets will do much better if you and I are not doing very well.

However, investors need not worry. First of all, a good part of the 8.9% rise in labor costs can be accounted for by outsized bonuses, stock options and salaries paid to executives, only 0.6% actually went to workers. Secondly, wages by 2006 had fallen to 51.6% of the nation's income, the lowest percentage on record, while profits had risen to 13.8%, the highest share on record.

That investors are worrying is more corroboration, if any were needed, that the US is dominated by what I have labeled "the selfish class" (see the book of that title on the E-books page). There are other consequences of that domination, none of which augur well for our future, but I will point out only one example here: the US's failure to maintain its infrastructure (bridges, sewer and water systems, roads, rails), because to do so would create a huge demand for labor, which would really raise wages.

Aug. 8, 2007 Wiretaps For All

That describes the Democrats and Republicans in Congress, doesn't it?

Despite controlling a majority in the House, enough Democrats (mostly blue dogs) caved to Bush's scare tactics and voted for his enhanced wiretapping programs; virtually all Republicans voted for it, so it passed. Democrats were scared into voting for it or face blame for another terrorist attack. There is only one word to describe politicians like that: craven.

Essentially, what they were doing was giving the highly compromised Attorney General Gonzalez the power to wiretap without warrant, supposedly for six months, but actually for a year. They approved, in other words, the program that the court had struck down as in conflict with the FISA act, and had handed its control to the much maligned Attorney General, in whom only President Bush has confidence.

So, now the administration can spy on you and me without a warrant, with no court review until long after--as long as we're calling or emailing someone overseas.

This was an outrageously craven act for the Democrats. Do they really think that the Republicans will get away with blaming them for an attack? Isn't it as if the White House were saying: "we've got the terrorists all lined up; you don't pass this bill and we'll unleash them, and then you'll be sorry." After all, let me remind those craven Democrats and everyone else: we haven't had an attack since 9/11/2001 and the tools in place have apparently been adequate to stop them for six years.

Further, Gonzalez is the last person any Democrat should trust with this kind of power. He's demonstrated over and over again that he lies unashamedly, and that he's completely loyal to President Bush, not to the law, or the Constitution. Do Democrats really put it past this government to use this new, unnecessary power for political purposes, especially in an election year? After all, Bush and Gonzalez have already heavily politicized the Department of Justice. That's what the hearings about the firings of the US Attorneys is all about.

The power granted in the law is temporary, but it could be used to bury the Democrats in the election, or to co-opt them. If either takes place, then we are certainly marching in lockstep towards 476 (the date Rome fell).

So the blue dog Democrats have capitulated, groveled, before the most unpopular president in history, because he and Republican Congress people succeeded in scaring them. If they didn't pass the extended wiretap "fix" of FISA, then he would hold them responsible for a terrorist attack. And Mitt's holding Clinton and Obama responsible for voting against!

It's as if Bush and Mitt had an attack already scheduled. "This is what I'll use to make sure one of the GOP zombies will succeed me," Bush might be saying. The consequences are that all of us could be subject to an NSA wiretap. I could have been tapped for arranging a hotel room in Turkey!

This six month fix could actually be in place longer, since arrangements made could last for up to a year.

But not only were the blue dogs craven whining curs, but so was the Congressional leadership that allowed this bill to be voted on in the first place.

After all, for all the talk of undoing, reforming, fixing the bill in the fall, it's hardly likely that Bush will sign anything that will undo the powers he's been given as legitimate, legal cover. It's hardly likely that the Dems will get 60 votes for a real reform in the Senate.

So, I predict that it will be in place through the election, and Bush and Gonzalez cannot be expected to restrain themselves from using it politically--to insure that a Mitt or Rudy, or other Republican zombie will succeed him.

What do you think?

Do you have an opinion on this issue? Please share it.