I knew Ron Paul was a rare conservative Republican against the war in Afghanistan: outspokenly against. I had seen him in the Presidential debates, and he had seemed too old, and too obsessive about a lot of more quirky issues: I didn't take him seriously.
But when he rose to debate the war in Afghanistan this year, he was oddly elegant. He did ramble a bit, but his argument made a lot of sense. Two points stand out: first, the reason we're in these wars is because it's too easy to go to war. The War Powers Act gave the President 90 days of war before Congress could say boo. By then, it becomes an accomplished fact: how can you withdraw and let the x number of soldiers killed, "die in vain?" So, it's hard, once engaged, to get out of a war, as demonstrated by both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Paul's other main point was that by fighting these wars against Muslims, we are fulfilling Osama bin Laden's strategy for winning the region and driving out the US and the West--using the anger we generate among Muslims to recruit support, while bankrupting us.
Ron Paul is predictably critical of the financial reform bill, but he reveals why housing the Consumer Finance watchdog agency in the Fed is not just a convenience: it will be dependent for a budget not from Congress, but from the Fed, itself. It will be controlled by it.
Paul would like to abolish the Fed and fiat money, for gold, which makes him a bit of a kook among most economists, conservative or liberal. However, he's co-sponsoring, with liberal Democrat, Kucinich, a bill that would require the Fed to be audited, a proposal that makes sense.
Paul's opposition to the Afghan war connects with his opposition to the Fed: fiat money finances wars for Republicans and "unlimited welfare" for Democrats, he says, because the Fed can just keep issuing money, indebting us all. He's not entirely wrong about the debt part, but too many Democrats are willing to finance wars, as well, and "welfare" is pretty meager, compared to the money we lavish on wars.
Paul made the same point I've made on this site: empires bankrupt themselves over wars. The Romans, after their peak, had a long and painful decline, because they could no longer pay for the Empire's continuous wars. They lost territory, losing revenue and the loot from conquest. The Empire consumed more than it produced. Sound familiar?
The western Empire fell because it was so bankrupt it couldn’t even pay the palace guard: so, they overthrew the Emperor, and stole what remained of his assets.
It is a valid question, though: how long can the Fed create money for wars and consumption, and persuade the rest of the world that "the dollar is sound?"
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Friday, June 25, 2010
Mechanics That Are Beyond Us
We think we should be able to drill oil, mine coal, or tap natural gas wherever we find it, no matter how difficult the conditions. The technology for surface mining of coal--used in mountaintop removal--is fairly simple, if drastic environmentally. Oil drilling in deep sea, however, must use highly sophisticated technology.
Up until the Gulf disaster, the industry assumed that the redundant safety devices would prevent blow-outs. But they were using the technology at greater and greater depths, both of water and of earth beneath it. Deepwater Horizon is far from the deepest well, however.
They had four devices, each of which, alone, was supposed to prevent a blow-out. The first was a cement plug just above the tapped oil, the second, a similar plug several thousand feet below the sea floor (the oil is 13000' below it). The third was the blow-out preventer, which was supposed to be able to shut off the pipe, and the fourth was a shear in the preventer, that would snap off the pipe and clamp it shut.
All of those safety devices failed. It's argued that a second shear, often installed in a blow-out preventer as back-up, might have worked. It might have.
But, blind faith in a blind shear isn't just blind; it's hubris. Perhaps the technology, as sophisticated as it seems, isn't yet up to the task. Considering that an offshore well like Deepwater Horizon can commit ecocide on a huge scale, we can't settle for 9 out of ten, or 99 out of 100. We have to be absolutely sure that there will be no accidents, or that we can clean up any accident, regardless of size, before any environmental damage.
Or, build solar panels and wind turbines like mad.
I predict we won't do either. After all, well-drillers need jobs.
The Roman Empire contributed to the desertification of North Africa (it had been its granary), because it needed food for its huge population; it deforested the Mediterranean because it had to keep its baths good and hot. Wasteful patterns, once established, are hard to change. It's likely that Rome's ecological wastefulness contributed substantially to its impoverishment. The good counselors of Ephesus pointed out the danger of stripping the hills of trees, but the city's port became silted up anyway: probably, contractors to the baths had to keep cutting wood, until it was gone. And then Romans did the same thing in Rome and Ravenna.
Will we now poison the whole world in our inability to leave oil and coal behind, and use renewable, non-polluting energy?
The oil companies--and the coal companies--need their profits; the drillers and miners need their jobs. The companies are politically well connected. What do you think is the most likely outcome?
How can we change it?
Scream bloody murder--of the Earth. It's that serious.
Up until the Gulf disaster, the industry assumed that the redundant safety devices would prevent blow-outs. But they were using the technology at greater and greater depths, both of water and of earth beneath it. Deepwater Horizon is far from the deepest well, however.
They had four devices, each of which, alone, was supposed to prevent a blow-out. The first was a cement plug just above the tapped oil, the second, a similar plug several thousand feet below the sea floor (the oil is 13000' below it). The third was the blow-out preventer, which was supposed to be able to shut off the pipe, and the fourth was a shear in the preventer, that would snap off the pipe and clamp it shut.
All of those safety devices failed. It's argued that a second shear, often installed in a blow-out preventer as back-up, might have worked. It might have.
But, blind faith in a blind shear isn't just blind; it's hubris. Perhaps the technology, as sophisticated as it seems, isn't yet up to the task. Considering that an offshore well like Deepwater Horizon can commit ecocide on a huge scale, we can't settle for 9 out of ten, or 99 out of 100. We have to be absolutely sure that there will be no accidents, or that we can clean up any accident, regardless of size, before any environmental damage.
Or, build solar panels and wind turbines like mad.
I predict we won't do either. After all, well-drillers need jobs.
The Roman Empire contributed to the desertification of North Africa (it had been its granary), because it needed food for its huge population; it deforested the Mediterranean because it had to keep its baths good and hot. Wasteful patterns, once established, are hard to change. It's likely that Rome's ecological wastefulness contributed substantially to its impoverishment. The good counselors of Ephesus pointed out the danger of stripping the hills of trees, but the city's port became silted up anyway: probably, contractors to the baths had to keep cutting wood, until it was gone. And then Romans did the same thing in Rome and Ravenna.
Will we now poison the whole world in our inability to leave oil and coal behind, and use renewable, non-polluting energy?
The oil companies--and the coal companies--need their profits; the drillers and miners need their jobs. The companies are politically well connected. What do you think is the most likely outcome?
How can we change it?
Scream bloody murder--of the Earth. It's that serious.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Can Governments Represent Us?
The assumption of the right-wing in the US is that government can't work, that it does nothing positive, and that any expansion of government power is simply a "power-grab." They claim governments produce nothing. Yet, census workers, for example, determine who populates the country: information highly valued by corporations.
The assumption of the left-wing is that government can work for good, but that it's dominated by an elite, which works not for the common good, but for the moneyed interests.
In the late Roman Empire, both assumptions were correct. Imperial government was woefully ineffective in deterring crime, violence and barbarian takeovers, but was more effective in representing the interests of the moneyed elite, the Senatorial class. The governments of late imperial Rome look an awful lot like the vision of right wing luminaries like Grover Norquist: they couldn't do squat, except tax the poor and protect the wealthy until the barbarians took over, first in outlying provinces, and finally in Rome in 476.
The assumption of the right-wing is that any time Obama reaches for an effective response to a problem--like controlling health care costs, or forcing BP to set aside $20 billion for damages in the Gulf--he is grabbing dictatorial powers.
The assumption of the left-wing is that Obama is too cozy with corporate powers, and too timid with its protectors.
Yet, there are a few Republicans, like Senator Susan Collins, who might accept compromise. Obama should not be so willing to compromise basic principals for a few legislators' votes, however.
The basic disagreement, is whether government can do anything positive, or whether, as Reagan popularized, "government is the problem." The brouhaha over Rep. Barton's apology to BP, illustrates this division. It's also instructive: the Republican leadership knew his apology didn't look good, so they forced Barton to retract, but Barton was critical of BP when Republicans controlled Congress.
Why did he change his mind? The rightward tilt of the GOP from Tea Party successes may be one reason: all the TP stars either anticipated his position, or tried to outdo it.
But, if government action is no solution, then people are powerless against corporate power. BP's recklessness could be replicated many times over, and no one could stop them. From the corporate point of view, there would be no reason to spend money on safety, if there were no mandates insuring their competitors would also spend money on it. Corporate leaders are legally mandated to maximize shareholder profits, not to protect "the people."
Only governments can represent common interests. They lose power if they consistently don't--even in dictatorships. It's to most people's interests, therefore, that governments become more effective, not less. It's a continual struggle to insure that a government represents the common interest, but no other institution can.
The assumption of the left-wing is that government can work for good, but that it's dominated by an elite, which works not for the common good, but for the moneyed interests.
In the late Roman Empire, both assumptions were correct. Imperial government was woefully ineffective in deterring crime, violence and barbarian takeovers, but was more effective in representing the interests of the moneyed elite, the Senatorial class. The governments of late imperial Rome look an awful lot like the vision of right wing luminaries like Grover Norquist: they couldn't do squat, except tax the poor and protect the wealthy until the barbarians took over, first in outlying provinces, and finally in Rome in 476.
The assumption of the right-wing is that any time Obama reaches for an effective response to a problem--like controlling health care costs, or forcing BP to set aside $20 billion for damages in the Gulf--he is grabbing dictatorial powers.
The assumption of the left-wing is that Obama is too cozy with corporate powers, and too timid with its protectors.
Yet, there are a few Republicans, like Senator Susan Collins, who might accept compromise. Obama should not be so willing to compromise basic principals for a few legislators' votes, however.
The basic disagreement, is whether government can do anything positive, or whether, as Reagan popularized, "government is the problem." The brouhaha over Rep. Barton's apology to BP, illustrates this division. It's also instructive: the Republican leadership knew his apology didn't look good, so they forced Barton to retract, but Barton was critical of BP when Republicans controlled Congress.
Why did he change his mind? The rightward tilt of the GOP from Tea Party successes may be one reason: all the TP stars either anticipated his position, or tried to outdo it.
But, if government action is no solution, then people are powerless against corporate power. BP's recklessness could be replicated many times over, and no one could stop them. From the corporate point of view, there would be no reason to spend money on safety, if there were no mandates insuring their competitors would also spend money on it. Corporate leaders are legally mandated to maximize shareholder profits, not to protect "the people."
Only governments can represent common interests. They lose power if they consistently don't--even in dictatorships. It's to most people's interests, therefore, that governments become more effective, not less. It's a continual struggle to insure that a government represents the common interest, but no other institution can.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
We Shoulda Elected Hillary!
At least she would have been in-your-face. She wouldn't have pussy-footed with BP. I was against Hillary, because she stood for more of the same and she was a hawk, who never saw a war she didn't like.
But what has Obama become? A hawk, even if he talks about beginning withdrawal from Afghanistan next year (don't hold your breath). He's following Bush's policy in Iraq, keeping 50,000 American troops there indefinitely. Would Hillary already be invading Iran? I doubt it.
But on the BP oil disaster, wouldn't she have been more forthcoming and sooner, with a detailed plan for what to do from here?
McCain would have been far worse. Republicans protect the oil companies. House Republican Leader Boehner actually said taxpayers should pick up the tab for the Gulf oil cleanup, not BP!
What did Obama propose? His best moment in his oval office address was when he said he would demand BP set aside all the necessary resources to pay for damages, and that the escrow account should be controlled by an independent entity. Even then, he cited no figure (they've now agreed to $20 billion). He also should have endorsed the initiatives to repeal or raise limits on oil company liabilities from the current paltry $75 million passed in the W administration.
Obama didn't propose much else substantive. Instead, he pledged to clean up the mess--no details on how--and an "effort" to promote alternative forms of energy. He spoke about a campaign, a war-effort, but no specifics.
In other words, except for the escrow account, Obama dealt in broad generalities, despite any number of legislative initiatives he could have promoted. He also continues to entertain the fantasy: if he "reaches across the aisle," he'll gain bipartisan backing for some, unspecified, initiative that will set us on the road to alternative energy independence. When have Republicans given any indication that they would work with the administration, except on promoting the "Defense" budget?
Perhaps he didn't endorse Kerry-Lieberman on climate change and energy, because it's not a very good bill: it gives away way too much. But if he doesn't really like Kerry-Lieberman (not clear), he also didn't offer any alternative, any guidance for what he would support and work for--except that he would oppose inaction.
How do you oppose a negative? Hillary would have laid out a detailed plan.
An 81-year old friend, a Democrat, said despairingly, "We're going down!"
Every time, I hope, this is it: Obama will finally seize the moment, and lead the way as he did so brilliantly in his campaign, it's mostly words; he acts as if someone is holding a gun to his head. Possible? Palace guards killed Valentinian III (455), deposed Emperor after Emperor afterwards, and overthrew the Roman Empire in 476.
Corporations hold a big gun. I'm afraid my older friend is right: We're going down!
But what has Obama become? A hawk, even if he talks about beginning withdrawal from Afghanistan next year (don't hold your breath). He's following Bush's policy in Iraq, keeping 50,000 American troops there indefinitely. Would Hillary already be invading Iran? I doubt it.
But on the BP oil disaster, wouldn't she have been more forthcoming and sooner, with a detailed plan for what to do from here?
McCain would have been far worse. Republicans protect the oil companies. House Republican Leader Boehner actually said taxpayers should pick up the tab for the Gulf oil cleanup, not BP!
What did Obama propose? His best moment in his oval office address was when he said he would demand BP set aside all the necessary resources to pay for damages, and that the escrow account should be controlled by an independent entity. Even then, he cited no figure (they've now agreed to $20 billion). He also should have endorsed the initiatives to repeal or raise limits on oil company liabilities from the current paltry $75 million passed in the W administration.
Obama didn't propose much else substantive. Instead, he pledged to clean up the mess--no details on how--and an "effort" to promote alternative forms of energy. He spoke about a campaign, a war-effort, but no specifics.
In other words, except for the escrow account, Obama dealt in broad generalities, despite any number of legislative initiatives he could have promoted. He also continues to entertain the fantasy: if he "reaches across the aisle," he'll gain bipartisan backing for some, unspecified, initiative that will set us on the road to alternative energy independence. When have Republicans given any indication that they would work with the administration, except on promoting the "Defense" budget?
Perhaps he didn't endorse Kerry-Lieberman on climate change and energy, because it's not a very good bill: it gives away way too much. But if he doesn't really like Kerry-Lieberman (not clear), he also didn't offer any alternative, any guidance for what he would support and work for--except that he would oppose inaction.
How do you oppose a negative? Hillary would have laid out a detailed plan.
An 81-year old friend, a Democrat, said despairingly, "We're going down!"
Every time, I hope, this is it: Obama will finally seize the moment, and lead the way as he did so brilliantly in his campaign, it's mostly words; he acts as if someone is holding a gun to his head. Possible? Palace guards killed Valentinian III (455), deposed Emperor after Emperor afterwards, and overthrew the Roman Empire in 476.
Corporations hold a big gun. I'm afraid my older friend is right: We're going down!
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
The Dirty Bargain
The Greeks didn't sign onto it: now their debt has been driven to junk bond status.
The closer you get to Wall Street, or the City of London, the more likely you are to see the bargain in action.
In 1933, FDR closed the banks. When they reopened, government had created rules that maintained financial stability until the 1970's. The result: financial crises were negligible and under control.
Beginning in the 70's, there was a sustained and successful attack against those rules, culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which had kept taxpayer-insured money separate from investment banking speculation. Since the 70's, we've had a series of financial crises, culminating in the 2007-8 collapse. That's no coincidence.
Unfortunately, neither W, nor Obama "took over" the banks. They revived the banks with trillions of government dollars. Now, banks are so strong they can weaken, or stymie any thoroughgoing financial reform: there will be no Glass-Steagall, and banks will be too big to fail. Governments will have to bail them out when risk-taking gets them in trouble.
In addition, the elites are able to control enough of the information people depend upon, that they have changed the conversation: it's no longer recovery, and jobs, but solvency and cutbacks. Deficit reductions and cutbacks don't come at the expense of the banksters who got us into this mess, but at the expense of the victims: the people thrown out of work, or working 60 hour weeks just to pay the bills.
And it isn't just the banksters. It's the elites generally. Health reform comes at the expense of the insured, who will see their premiums soar, even though the reform will hand providers a whole new government-subsidized market.
What are some of the elements of this "bargain?" When decision-makers propose raising a stock-transfer tax, their government's bonds will be besieged. When politicians suggest raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for the needed recovery, capital flees the country.
Have you noticed that huge amounts of capital have washed up in the US? Despite Obama's stimulus, with a deficit and debt rivaling that of Greece in GDP terms, US Treasury rates are still extremely low. There has been no need to raise rates to find buyers. That's because formerly liberal leaders like Obama and Cuomo have bowed to the bargain: no new taxes on the wealthy. Republicans would never raise those taxes in the first place.
The "tea party movement" is a political expression of the media power of capital. People who are hurting--the financial system robbed them blind--are persuaded that big Government did it.
The Tea Party is Wall Street's insurance, but if a genuinely progressive movement gained power, we'd face a capital strike like the one that brought down Greece.
The financial/corporate elites, the selfish class I've written about on this site, now rule most of the world: through extortion.
The closer you get to Wall Street, or the City of London, the more likely you are to see the bargain in action.
In 1933, FDR closed the banks. When they reopened, government had created rules that maintained financial stability until the 1970's. The result: financial crises were negligible and under control.
Beginning in the 70's, there was a sustained and successful attack against those rules, culminating in the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which had kept taxpayer-insured money separate from investment banking speculation. Since the 70's, we've had a series of financial crises, culminating in the 2007-8 collapse. That's no coincidence.
Unfortunately, neither W, nor Obama "took over" the banks. They revived the banks with trillions of government dollars. Now, banks are so strong they can weaken, or stymie any thoroughgoing financial reform: there will be no Glass-Steagall, and banks will be too big to fail. Governments will have to bail them out when risk-taking gets them in trouble.
In addition, the elites are able to control enough of the information people depend upon, that they have changed the conversation: it's no longer recovery, and jobs, but solvency and cutbacks. Deficit reductions and cutbacks don't come at the expense of the banksters who got us into this mess, but at the expense of the victims: the people thrown out of work, or working 60 hour weeks just to pay the bills.
And it isn't just the banksters. It's the elites generally. Health reform comes at the expense of the insured, who will see their premiums soar, even though the reform will hand providers a whole new government-subsidized market.
What are some of the elements of this "bargain?" When decision-makers propose raising a stock-transfer tax, their government's bonds will be besieged. When politicians suggest raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for the needed recovery, capital flees the country.
Have you noticed that huge amounts of capital have washed up in the US? Despite Obama's stimulus, with a deficit and debt rivaling that of Greece in GDP terms, US Treasury rates are still extremely low. There has been no need to raise rates to find buyers. That's because formerly liberal leaders like Obama and Cuomo have bowed to the bargain: no new taxes on the wealthy. Republicans would never raise those taxes in the first place.
The "tea party movement" is a political expression of the media power of capital. People who are hurting--the financial system robbed them blind--are persuaded that big Government did it.
The Tea Party is Wall Street's insurance, but if a genuinely progressive movement gained power, we'd face a capital strike like the one that brought down Greece.
The financial/corporate elites, the selfish class I've written about on this site, now rule most of the world: through extortion.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
All We Knew Was Wrong!
In the 1950s, our knowledge of how the world works was so advanced: my father knew he had the best diet imaginable when he ate eggs and bacon for breakfast and steak well-marbled for dinner. He died of his second stroke at age 60. My mother bottle-fed me: formula was so scientifically advanced. Nursing was primitive.
In the 1950's, we knew we lived in a new era in which there were unlimited sources of cheap energy. Oil gushed out of the ground (not the bottom of the sea); soft coal was so cheap it was better for heating your house than wood; nuclear power would soon give us unlimited energy so cheap we'd hardly have to pay for it.
We knew in the 1950's that swamps were just a waste of land and should be drained, so we could use them: nature was messy. That included the Everglades, and the channels of the Mississippi: we drained, channeled and controlled them, because we knew how to improve on nature.
Government authorities told uranium miners, citizens living downwind from nuclear testing, and nuclear weapon workers that the low doses of radiation they received were harmless, maybe even beneficial. Everybody trusted the government.
We knew that forest fires were always bad, so all over the nation we suppressed them (building up tinder for worse fires later).
We knew that predators like wolves could subvert our scientific agriculture, so we hunted them down. We were just beginning to learn to use antibiotics on meat animals. We applied DDT to the crops we ate and the front lawns where children played. We held all pests at bay.
Lead was added to gasoline, so that our bigger and better cars wouldn't knock; no one thought about all the lead spewing from them.
We built 1,000's of nuclear weapons because the USSR was trying to catch up. We did wonder about a world that could be destroyed instantaneously, but we just did "duck and cover" drills in school.
We didn't need chemical weapons, so we sent them to the bottom of the sea: we knew they'd do no harm there.
We lobotomized people for emotional problems. We were so, so advanced. We knew so much.
And now we know that if we take the right "precautions," we can still drill for oil, even at the bottom of the sea! At least, that's what Congress and the Pres and BP keep telling us.
Often, conventional wisdom is not wise. It only prevails because it is conventional, but everything we thought we knew was wrong!
Now, conventional wisdom could kill--most of us. Let's see: if climate change makes large parts of Earth inhospitable to agriculture through drought and extreme weather, and we poison the seas, what's left?
We won't have to worry about an "American Empire," or even "America."
In the 1950's, we knew we lived in a new era in which there were unlimited sources of cheap energy. Oil gushed out of the ground (not the bottom of the sea); soft coal was so cheap it was better for heating your house than wood; nuclear power would soon give us unlimited energy so cheap we'd hardly have to pay for it.
We knew in the 1950's that swamps were just a waste of land and should be drained, so we could use them: nature was messy. That included the Everglades, and the channels of the Mississippi: we drained, channeled and controlled them, because we knew how to improve on nature.
Government authorities told uranium miners, citizens living downwind from nuclear testing, and nuclear weapon workers that the low doses of radiation they received were harmless, maybe even beneficial. Everybody trusted the government.
We knew that forest fires were always bad, so all over the nation we suppressed them (building up tinder for worse fires later).
We knew that predators like wolves could subvert our scientific agriculture, so we hunted them down. We were just beginning to learn to use antibiotics on meat animals. We applied DDT to the crops we ate and the front lawns where children played. We held all pests at bay.
Lead was added to gasoline, so that our bigger and better cars wouldn't knock; no one thought about all the lead spewing from them.
We built 1,000's of nuclear weapons because the USSR was trying to catch up. We did wonder about a world that could be destroyed instantaneously, but we just did "duck and cover" drills in school.
We didn't need chemical weapons, so we sent them to the bottom of the sea: we knew they'd do no harm there.
We lobotomized people for emotional problems. We were so, so advanced. We knew so much.
And now we know that if we take the right "precautions," we can still drill for oil, even at the bottom of the sea! At least, that's what Congress and the Pres and BP keep telling us.
Often, conventional wisdom is not wise. It only prevails because it is conventional, but everything we thought we knew was wrong!
Now, conventional wisdom could kill--most of us. Let's see: if climate change makes large parts of Earth inhospitable to agriculture through drought and extreme weather, and we poison the seas, what's left?
We won't have to worry about an "American Empire," or even "America."
Monday, June 7, 2010
Israel Is Always Right
I've been having a "dialogue" with an old friend of mine, who accepts everything the Israeli government claims, about the flotilla assault, the Gaza blockade, etc.
He accused me of never having to worry about my personal security, while many of his Jewish forebears were wiped out in the Holocaust. That's why he knows: you've got to be "realistic." War is war. International law is rarely honored, and besides, some Turkish so-called peace activists were actually militants. One of those killed had a black belt in Tae Kwondo: he was a deadly weapon--until the IDF shot him.
Personal safety? I pointed out that my son had been working on Times Square until only months before the attempted suicide bombing. I forgot to mention that he'd also been within 20 blocks of ground zero on 911, so I did perceive threats to me and mine.
But why were the militants--the 911 bombers, the Times Square bomber--eager to volunteer? Why are Americans and Europeans volunteering? There is a perceived grievance that al Qaeda exploits: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank does affect our security.
That's why, I told him, Israel's occupation, its siege of Gaza, and its Bantustan-like control over the West Bank was going to blow up in Israel's face. America won't (can't afford to) indefinitely support Israel, especially when it is a real obstacle to peace and a liability to the US.
Would Israel survive without US support? Probably, but cut loose, it would have a terrifying potential to become a rogue nuclear-armed state. Israel has been urging the US to attack Iran for years. If Israel attacked, instead, it could draw the US into a new war, along with the rest of the Middle East.
Yet, only Israel believes strongly that Iran is not only developing nuclear weapons, but would use them to destroy Israel. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear war-heads, more than enough to obliterate Iran if it were foolhardy enough to attempt attack, but a nuke or two would protect Iran from Israel--or the US. It's not clear, from nuclear negotiations and available intelligence, whether Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, or only medical nuclear isotopes (concentrated to 38% vs 99%) and bluster. It pays politically.
There is bluster and threats on all sides.
How do people get so paranoid? For my friend, war-is-hell and the Holocaust justify whatever Israel does. What Israel did in 1947-8 and since, justifies many Muslim militants, and so it goes. There are a lot of paranoid people in the world. Paranoia can become self-fulfilling, especially if two or more play the same game.
They're playing it all over the world.
The US qua empire is no longer able to stop these games, even when it's a participant: we have an emerging Post-American World. When the US buys into the games, it makes the world increasingly unsafe for everyone.
He accused me of never having to worry about my personal security, while many of his Jewish forebears were wiped out in the Holocaust. That's why he knows: you've got to be "realistic." War is war. International law is rarely honored, and besides, some Turkish so-called peace activists were actually militants. One of those killed had a black belt in Tae Kwondo: he was a deadly weapon--until the IDF shot him.
Personal safety? I pointed out that my son had been working on Times Square until only months before the attempted suicide bombing. I forgot to mention that he'd also been within 20 blocks of ground zero on 911, so I did perceive threats to me and mine.
But why were the militants--the 911 bombers, the Times Square bomber--eager to volunteer? Why are Americans and Europeans volunteering? There is a perceived grievance that al Qaeda exploits: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians. What Israel does in Gaza and the West Bank does affect our security.
That's why, I told him, Israel's occupation, its siege of Gaza, and its Bantustan-like control over the West Bank was going to blow up in Israel's face. America won't (can't afford to) indefinitely support Israel, especially when it is a real obstacle to peace and a liability to the US.
Would Israel survive without US support? Probably, but cut loose, it would have a terrifying potential to become a rogue nuclear-armed state. Israel has been urging the US to attack Iran for years. If Israel attacked, instead, it could draw the US into a new war, along with the rest of the Middle East.
Yet, only Israel believes strongly that Iran is not only developing nuclear weapons, but would use them to destroy Israel. Israel has an estimated 200 nuclear war-heads, more than enough to obliterate Iran if it were foolhardy enough to attempt attack, but a nuke or two would protect Iran from Israel--or the US. It's not clear, from nuclear negotiations and available intelligence, whether Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons, or only medical nuclear isotopes (concentrated to 38% vs 99%) and bluster. It pays politically.
There is bluster and threats on all sides.
How do people get so paranoid? For my friend, war-is-hell and the Holocaust justify whatever Israel does. What Israel did in 1947-8 and since, justifies many Muslim militants, and so it goes. There are a lot of paranoid people in the world. Paranoia can become self-fulfilling, especially if two or more play the same game.
They're playing it all over the world.
The US qua empire is no longer able to stop these games, even when it's a participant: we have an emerging Post-American World. When the US buys into the games, it makes the world increasingly unsafe for everyone.
Friday, June 4, 2010
A Progressive for NY?
A friend of mine announced he was running for Governor of NY. He's not Andrew Cuomo. He's Joel Tyner, a Democratic County Legislator, running until a progressive with more credibility steps forward.
Joel has no money and Andrew Cuomo is highly popular, but, as Joel said in his speech, "I don't want to have to tell you, 'I told you so,' a couple of years from now."
Andrew Cuomo represents a disturbing trend among Democrats, and it's hard to say whether it's tactically or ideologically driven. Socially, Cuomo is somewhat progressive, proposing independent redistricting, ethics reforms and marriage equality.
It's obvious New York State needs reform. It still hasn't passed a budget (due March 31st!); it underwent a Republican "coup" in the Senate, then a Democratic counter-coup; it has seen the former Republican Majority Leader convicted of graft, a Democratic Senator, one of the two coup leaders, convicted of slashing his girlfriend; the AG (Cuomo) is suing the other for "looting." In addition, the state faces growing budget deficits (between $8.2 and $9.2 billion).
So, admittedly, the state is in dire need of better fiscal management, and ethics reform. But this is the state with Wall Street. Wall Street made over $61 billion in profits last year, paying out bonuses of $20 billion in cash!
But Cuomo has pledged "no new income taxes on the wealthy," "capping state spending" and "freezing state employee salaries." Worst of all, Cuomo calls for a property tax cap, despite the horrendous 20+ year experience of a property tax cap in California (Prop 13), where California's services have had to be slashed repeatedly--yet California is in worse fiscal shape than New York!
Joel Tyner points to an initiative by Assemblyman Kevin Cahill as a better solution for property taxes (NY's are nearly the highest in the country): Cahill would fund counties and schools with a version of what New York City already has: progressive local income taxes.
Tyner also points to the stock transfer tax, collected since 1915, but rebated to Wall Street for the last 30 years: a quarter of it would collect $4 billion a year, and would reduce incentives for wild stock speculation.
Taxes on millionaires' income were 15.5% until the early 70's; they now pay 9%. The middle classes pay 11% in local taxes, the wealthy 8%; income inequality has risen, so, raising millionaire's taxes is justified, would reduce inequality, and since Wall Street is in such bad odor, it could be popular. It would also fund the deficit.
Cuomo, however, is pandering to Wall Street and the "Tea Party," (the Selfish Class, like the one that brought down Rome). Other Democrats are, too.
Why? Are they all afraid of Fox and Limbaugh?
Joel offers a progressive alternative, but has no money. Yet, Democratic timidity could strand us in a real Depression: you don't get out of recessions by cutting jobs and expenditures.
We need an FDR, not a Democratic Hoover.
Joel has no money and Andrew Cuomo is highly popular, but, as Joel said in his speech, "I don't want to have to tell you, 'I told you so,' a couple of years from now."
Andrew Cuomo represents a disturbing trend among Democrats, and it's hard to say whether it's tactically or ideologically driven. Socially, Cuomo is somewhat progressive, proposing independent redistricting, ethics reforms and marriage equality.
It's obvious New York State needs reform. It still hasn't passed a budget (due March 31st!); it underwent a Republican "coup" in the Senate, then a Democratic counter-coup; it has seen the former Republican Majority Leader convicted of graft, a Democratic Senator, one of the two coup leaders, convicted of slashing his girlfriend; the AG (Cuomo) is suing the other for "looting." In addition, the state faces growing budget deficits (between $8.2 and $9.2 billion).
So, admittedly, the state is in dire need of better fiscal management, and ethics reform. But this is the state with Wall Street. Wall Street made over $61 billion in profits last year, paying out bonuses of $20 billion in cash!
But Cuomo has pledged "no new income taxes on the wealthy," "capping state spending" and "freezing state employee salaries." Worst of all, Cuomo calls for a property tax cap, despite the horrendous 20+ year experience of a property tax cap in California (Prop 13), where California's services have had to be slashed repeatedly--yet California is in worse fiscal shape than New York!
Joel Tyner points to an initiative by Assemblyman Kevin Cahill as a better solution for property taxes (NY's are nearly the highest in the country): Cahill would fund counties and schools with a version of what New York City already has: progressive local income taxes.
Tyner also points to the stock transfer tax, collected since 1915, but rebated to Wall Street for the last 30 years: a quarter of it would collect $4 billion a year, and would reduce incentives for wild stock speculation.
Taxes on millionaires' income were 15.5% until the early 70's; they now pay 9%. The middle classes pay 11% in local taxes, the wealthy 8%; income inequality has risen, so, raising millionaire's taxes is justified, would reduce inequality, and since Wall Street is in such bad odor, it could be popular. It would also fund the deficit.
Cuomo, however, is pandering to Wall Street and the "Tea Party," (the Selfish Class, like the one that brought down Rome). Other Democrats are, too.
Why? Are they all afraid of Fox and Limbaugh?
Joel offers a progressive alternative, but has no money. Yet, Democratic timidity could strand us in a real Depression: you don't get out of recessions by cutting jobs and expenditures.
We need an FDR, not a Democratic Hoover.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
A Crucial Moment for the American Empire
One of many reports on the Israeli siege of the Gaza-bound flotilla of Turkish and other peace activists, ended with Hamas's pitiful, defiant response: they shot a rocket into Israel--it harmed no one.
On the other hand, the Israelis did assault a ship, in international waters. Why were they surprised that those on board resisted? Why should the members of this flotilla, set up to challenge Israel's 3-year blockade of Gaza, not resist when soldiers suddenly rappelled down from helicopters? The IDF were carrying guns, and demanding control of the ship. They assumed the peace activists were unarmed. What surprised them: a few had knives, grabbed metal pipes, or took pistols from the invaders, to drive them off.
So, the Israelis, unprepared for physical resistance to their superior military force, responded with "disproportionate" violence: estimates range from 10 to 19 flotilla members killed, one IDF man shot, apparently with a pistol taken from him or another Israeli soldier. Most of those killed were Turks: Turkey was the unofficial sponsor of the flotilla, but also, until recently, Israel's reliable Muslim ally. No longer.
Israel doesn't even offer apologies. It justifies itself by saying that it was merely enforcing its Gaza blockade, and that the flotilla could have been terrorists, or, if they were allowed to land, that others, terrorists would follow. If this were any other country, not only would there be international condemnation, but it would be enforceable by the UN Security Council. The US would sign on, but this is Israel.
My bet: Israel will get away with this latest outrage because, Democrat or Republican, Bush or Obama, Israel is the third rail of US international policy: you can't touch it. The Israelis know this. AIPAC, and the right-wing media will trumpet Israel's story: that Israeli soldiers "had to" kill 10-19, because activists threatened them with "weapons." But their assault was on an unarmed vessel in international waters: a blatant violation of international law.
The assault did demonstrate, however, that the Gaza blockade, more than three years old, is indefensible. It has imprisoned, impoverished and nearly starved the whole population of Gaza. Most of the international community now decries Israel's actions; its assault on the flotilla, underscores the outrage of its Gaza blockade.
However, for any US President, especially a Democrat, to take a strong stand against Israel, Obama will need iron-clad proof of Israeli culpability. Why? The importance of Middle East oil to American hegemony underscores Israel's central role as our "faithful" ally there. It's also why BP was drilling in the Gulf of Mexico: to find non-Middle East sources of oil, no matter how costly. It will be costly, indeed!
The big question: will Obama finally take a stand against Israeli arrogance? If not, will this be the moment when US influence in the Middle East takes a dive? American credibility everywhere hangs in the balance.
On the other hand, the Israelis did assault a ship, in international waters. Why were they surprised that those on board resisted? Why should the members of this flotilla, set up to challenge Israel's 3-year blockade of Gaza, not resist when soldiers suddenly rappelled down from helicopters? The IDF were carrying guns, and demanding control of the ship. They assumed the peace activists were unarmed. What surprised them: a few had knives, grabbed metal pipes, or took pistols from the invaders, to drive them off.
So, the Israelis, unprepared for physical resistance to their superior military force, responded with "disproportionate" violence: estimates range from 10 to 19 flotilla members killed, one IDF man shot, apparently with a pistol taken from him or another Israeli soldier. Most of those killed were Turks: Turkey was the unofficial sponsor of the flotilla, but also, until recently, Israel's reliable Muslim ally. No longer.
Israel doesn't even offer apologies. It justifies itself by saying that it was merely enforcing its Gaza blockade, and that the flotilla could have been terrorists, or, if they were allowed to land, that others, terrorists would follow. If this were any other country, not only would there be international condemnation, but it would be enforceable by the UN Security Council. The US would sign on, but this is Israel.
My bet: Israel will get away with this latest outrage because, Democrat or Republican, Bush or Obama, Israel is the third rail of US international policy: you can't touch it. The Israelis know this. AIPAC, and the right-wing media will trumpet Israel's story: that Israeli soldiers "had to" kill 10-19, because activists threatened them with "weapons." But their assault was on an unarmed vessel in international waters: a blatant violation of international law.
The assault did demonstrate, however, that the Gaza blockade, more than three years old, is indefensible. It has imprisoned, impoverished and nearly starved the whole population of Gaza. Most of the international community now decries Israel's actions; its assault on the flotilla, underscores the outrage of its Gaza blockade.
However, for any US President, especially a Democrat, to take a strong stand against Israel, Obama will need iron-clad proof of Israeli culpability. Why? The importance of Middle East oil to American hegemony underscores Israel's central role as our "faithful" ally there. It's also why BP was drilling in the Gulf of Mexico: to find non-Middle East sources of oil, no matter how costly. It will be costly, indeed!
The big question: will Obama finally take a stand against Israeli arrogance? If not, will this be the moment when US influence in the Middle East takes a dive? American credibility everywhere hangs in the balance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)