Leaks Spill Empire

The latest wiki leaks spill awful confirmations of what so many have been saying for so long: how sleazy is the Imperial enterprise.

I'm hoping it's the beginning of a graceful end to the American Empire. Since it does not legally exist, I cannot be accused of treason to say I'd love to see it go. The United States is a great Republic, not an Empire. Empires make nations into exploitative, brutal machines, which enormously benefit a very few, at the expense of nearly everyone else.

It happened with the Roman Empire, and the Spanish, and give a gander to the grand estates the British gentry showed off to each other. Those former empires are now prosperous states, more or less, if the bond speculators and the supine governments don't bring them all down.

Think what it would be like if the United States of America, the USA, was just an ordinary country. It would still be just as beautiful. The very rich might be less so. But everyone else would be better off. Consider, first of all, that we spend something above $750 billion strictly on "Defense." That's about ten times, what the Chinese (our nearest competitor) spends, although we borrow it from them, in effect. A good bit of the components we buy from them, too.

If we weren't spending most of that money on weapons and wars, on the ability to destroy, and actual destruction; if we weren't spending so much of that money overseas (700-800 bases in 80 countries), we could employ our people, taking advantage of their skills, we could rebuild our crumbling and out-of-date infrastructure, and afford the services everyone should have.

In addition, a constant drain to our balance of payments would be plugged. We could also enjoy the spectacle of the rest of the world trying to take care of themselves through the UN, or regional groups like NATO, in which the US is only one member. Nope, don't have the troops, don't have the airlift, either. Got rid of it. You'll just have to work it out--if you think it's important enough. How delicious that would be!

So, what brought on this vision of a Post-Imperial world? Why, Wikileaks, of course. The Wizard of Oz has been shown for the charlatan he is; the whole international "community," it seems, is crammed with small and cunning minds, constantly conniving. (I passed the written Foreign Service exam; I am so thankful I flunked the interview! I was in love, but that's a different story.)

Of course, heads of states and their flunkies, and especially Secretaries of State, etc. are extremely unhappy. Wikileaks exposes their pettiness and hypocrisy, and renders the USA less trustworthy than she was during the worst of Bush.

And after all, what is the ultimate currency of an empire? Belief that an empire will act like one.

If people laugh, it's all over.

Bees and People

I keep bees; three hives. Elizabeth asked me if I could describe them.

The oldest hive is laid back; it's the only one that had only two filled supers, but had filled some of the hive body. I left it one super. The next hive, I had assembled from bees and a replacement queen I bought from Sam's Anarchy Apiaries. Sam eschews bee-veils and gloves. He's handled hives barefoot and sleeveless. This hive is not anarchic; it works hard, but it's very gentle. With it, I could probably get by without gloves (never without a veil). It produced three supers. I harvested the two least full. The last hive was a volunteer, a gift. It swarmed into one of my spare hive bodies and it stayed. It is the most productive; it over-filled three supers and had honey down below. I took only two supers. It's always fierce, ready to defend its hive. Its bees have stung me several times.

So, here we have three collectives, each comprising at least 100,000 members, replaced by a new generation of workers every six weeks in summer, and yet each has a collective identity I can readily recognize. Other beekeepers have confirmed this: hives have personalities.

So, do cities. So, do nations. Over time, the personality of a hive may change. The laid back one has become more productive, but it's a survivor of lean years when I had to feed it. France has been fractious since at least the French Revolution, but despite its latest round of strikes, it's calming down.

The USA was big, brash, and wasteful. It's still brash, and it's hard to change its spendthrift ways, despite straitened circumstances. Americans have had a tendency to blame late arrivals for their troubles. Now, that the US is no longer so exceptional, now that nations like China and India are growing rapidly and it is not, blaming the victims flames higher. It could become a nasty wildfire, burning out of control all over the world.

The victims are immigrants, deviants from "normal," like gay men and women, and Middle Easterners, victimized by US imperial meddling.

While Obama and "moderates" think they are trying to restore order to a chaotic world, right-wing hawks want to wade into countries like Iran, or Venezuela: our primacy is threatened; those nations' governments are unfriendly.

The impulse is not pacification, not order, but assertion: "who's boss," like Paladino, defeated for NY Governor; he was going "to Albany with a baseball bat."

Palin represents that spirit, albeit with a smile and a wink: similar resentment drove Fascism and Nazism. Can she carve the American hive into a stinging, vindictive force? The American Empire on a last rampage?

I hope not.

Democracy as Distraction

Democracy As Distraction

What do you call a political system in which a tiny wealthy class trains most of society not to think? What do you call a politics that can be bought and sold, but costs more than any but the wealthiest can pay?

It isn't democracy.

The amount spent on the mid-term elections, (over $4 billion) was staggering, and the sources of much of that money may never be known. We do know that a collection of European firms ponied up almost a million. We also know that a multi-millionaire spent millions on a personal vendetta. We know that two billionaire brothers funded groups like 60 Plus, purporting to be just ordinary folks, accusing sitting Democratic Congressmen of supporting heinous provisions supposedly in the healthcare law: they weren't in it, the Congressmen didn't support such provisions, but that didn't matter. Fifty of 53 Blue Dog to outspokenly progressive Congressmen and women attacked by groups like 60 Plus were defeated.

There was no "mandate" won in this election, unless it was for deceit and misinformation. People weren't voting based on facts, but because ad campaigns generated anger and rejection--of anyone tarred with the Democratic majority, or Obama. Fury was learned amnesia. The hard times were caused by laissez-faire economics, but voters voted for laissez-faire Republicans, because Democrats, elected in 2008 to fix the economy, had failed to fix it fast enough, except for the financial industry: unemployment and job insecurity are far too high. So, egged on by negative campaigns, voters flailed out wildly against Democratic incumbents.

Democracy is a mere distraction, Elizabeth Cunningham pointed out (links to her books onsite). The real power has been grabbed by a tiny, wealthy elite; they are like Roman Senators of old, exercising power through their wealth, and through the institutions they control: in this era, corporations, financial funds and the military. They can use unlimited funds to unleash attacks on any candidate who looks at them cross-eyed.

We still think we live in a democracy? Not all anonymous funding paid off: the campaign against California's climate law went down to defeat, despite piles of oil money thrown against it. Perhaps it was defeated because anonymous donors were identified--energy companies--and voters knew the companies opposed climate change legislation for one reason only: to protect their profits.

The "Green" referendum was an exception. Ad campaigns succeeded when their funding sources remained undisclosed; they succeeded among voters who didn't pay attention to politics until a few weeks before the election and among voters who depended for information on TV "news" (which made billions on the ads).

Unless there is a genuine mass movement, laws to require disclosure of funding sources (like the Disclose Act), and a revival of real journalism, we will be ruled by money until the selfish class bankrupts the nation. Then, when the US is a burnt-out cinder, it will move on to "pleasant climes" somewhere else.

Government "Overreach" and Powerless Emperor

My friend told me: "We are not an Empire. Empires were ruled by one man called Emperor. We are a Democracy, however flawed and inefficient."

It depends on one's definition. An empire, to me, is any state entity that attempts to rule over other states, or peoples, with or without their consent. A Democracy, on the other hand is a state ruled by the people. I suppose that's still formally the case, as it was even after Augustus took over in Rome, but the two are not mutually exclusive, again true in both the early Roman Empire and today. Augustus was formally elected. So was Obama. In the latter case, it was a genuinely democratic election, but that doesn't make much difference: the military apparently has the last say, anyway.

In the US, we have a President who made a great effort to go against "military wisdom," and decide that American troops should begin withdrawing from Afghanistan in the summer of 2011, and that the US would abide by the treaty signed by Bush to withdraw from Iraq in the same period.

Yet, already, General Petraeus and Secretary Gates are undercutting those stated policies. Petraeus is pushing for the President to back down on his Afghan commitment, and Gates told the Iraqis that "we" would happily stay longer if they asked. In addition to the rhetoric, actions on the ground speak louder: the huge, imperial-like embassy in Baghdad, and the huge embassy now to be built in Kabul do not bespeak withdrawal; they express an expectation that we will stay, as do the huge, self-sufficient "permanent" US bases.

We can spend three-quarters of a billion dollars to construct these imperial edifices and employ thousands in both Iraq and Afghanistan to build them (and $1,000,000 per soldier/year) but we can't spend money for jobs at home: that's government "over-reach" say the newly elected GOP Congressmen and Senators.

The "emperor" will not be able to spend money at home to stimulate job creation, or to green grow the economy; that's only possible in a non-imperial nation, like China?

So, instead, the Fed attempts to re-stimulate the economy through "quantitative easing," but everyone from bond speculators to the "mad-and-can't-take-it-anymore" crowd think this will roil the dollar into an inflationary spiral. On the other hand, what should policy-makers do? Let the nation--and probably the world--slide into a double-dip recession, and not only recession, but a new Great Depression, complete with trade war?

Note: there is no inflation, despite price rises in energy and commodities, which probably means that there is deflation in a lot of economic sectors.

Unless the President/Emperor can act decisively to stop the slide, we will descend into misery, and beggar the world, too. Will the US Empire collapse?

An emperor without power is the worst of all possible alternatives.

A Vet Who Wishes There Was No Veteran's Day

A veteran on Veteran's Day
wishing there wasn't any such thing.
What good does war do?
Why are humans so violent?

We are the most deadly predators
That ever evolved.
We dominate the planet,
Kill anything that challenges us, like wolves,
Or hunts us, like cougars, or steals our food,
Like rats.

And we treat each other the same way!
And yet, humans wouldn't survive
if they didn't cooperate.
We need food others grow, clothes others make, houses others build, cars others put together, computers others design, skills others know, and the list is almost endless, isn't it?
We make or do something in return.
That's called the economic system.

But some people have always been predators,
Others become prey.

From the first century BC to the fifth century CE,
Romans were the primary predators
in the Mediterranean and European world, at least.
From the fourteenth century to the 20th
the Europeans were the primary predators worldwide
lording it over, and ripping off "the natives."

In the 20th century, an upstart settler nation
That styled itself unconsciously on Rome,
but sprawled across a new continent,
Became the hero and then the new predator,
Dominant, globe-straddling, ideologically benign
in its exploitation and destruction: we destroyed
the village in order to save it, was their motto
in the third to last of wars that would bleed
its people white

and enrich its wealthy, who can leave the ruin
of the USA--for their homes in pleasant climes
and beautiful places, anywhere in the world but here.

The 21st century will not be American; it might be
Chinese, or Indian, or maybe Brazilian.
Maybe the 21st will be the century of the BRIC

Maybe, finally, it will be a century when Veteran's Day
Is no longer a big deal.

Plutocracy?

Corporatocracy? Is it big corporations, or wealthy individuals who have stolen democracy and poisoned citizens' minds? It's both, of course. All I know is: people like Russ Feingold bit the dust, because they refused to play to the big donors, the corpocrats who were funding entities like Crossroads GPS.

Plutocracy means rule by the rich, and by that standard, the election of Ron Johnson over Russ Feingold, certainly looks like a plutocratic takeover. Feingold was not only not wealthy, he was fastidious about where he got his campaign funding, and he was notoriously independent when it came to the needs of the wealthy. So old fashioned: he insisted that ordinary people and their concerns mattered. The man who defeated Russ, Ron Johnson, is a millionaire plastics manufacturer who never held office, but was not particularly fastidious about where the money came from, and was the beneficiary of almost all the anonymously funded ads (most out of state); they either promoted his positions, or attacked Feingold.

On the other hand, Feingold raised significantly more money than Johnson (all from small donors, apparently), and spent more, perhaps more than Johnson and the out of state ad campaigns combined. The election in Wisconsin, and in many other states, has been described as "rejectionist." It was like that voter in my Election District who demanded a list of all the incumbents, so he could vote against them all. See my earlier blog for that story.

Except maybe the election wasn't really rejectionist. My two Democratic Senators were reelected easily, even if my Congressman lost. My Senators, Schumer and Gillibrand, are probably acceptable to what some are beginning to call the plutonomy, i.e. the wealthy, corporate movers and shakers. They have both been friendly enough to Wall Street.

The system we appear to be evolving towards looks increasingly like the end days of the Western Roman Empire. That was a true plutocracy, however, because there were no corporations. This, in some ways looks more insidious. The wealthy get what they want, which includes turning everyone else into the equivalent of serfs, but they also get to set their serfs, in far-flung parts of the world, against each other, competing for the lowest wages. And, because of mass media, they can persuade them that this is the way things have to be.

"The best democracies money can buy" means plutocracy, or corporatocracy on a world scale.

A fellow graduate student (long ago) was asked, while on a Political Science panel, what he thought about Revolution. Pointing to his small stature, he said, "I'm a small Political Scientist, so I don't like violence." I'm small, too, and I agree.

But I wonder how much misery people will willingly endure--before they erupt. Is that what suicide bombers are doing already? Are they the beginning of our era's barbarian hordes?

Government by Default

Corporate leaders, right-wing media moguls, speculators, bankers and hedge fund managers were all cheering as the election returns rolled in. Oh, they had their little disappointments, both in California and New York. The oil companies suffered the most, having spent well over a $100 million to repeal California's global warming law: their proposition failed.

Generally, big business won, defense won, and the American people were sold a shoddy bill of goods. What did the people vote for? Kicking the bums out. According to Pew's polls, the economy, i.e. jobs, was by far the most important issue (to 61%): what people wanted was more of them. Repealing health care reform, or substantially changing it was important to only 21%.

However, John Boehner, new Speaker-designate, vowed that a health care repeal bill was the first order of business. And what will Republicans propose as stimulus, to create jobs? Cut taxes, or specifically, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, including tax cuts for those poor mites who earn more than $250,000 a year, and even for those heroes of enterprise who earn a $100 million or more. That is supposed to create jobs, but corporations are already rolling in money, even as they lay off more employees.

The Fed's response is to go big ($600 billion) on Quantitative Easing, or creating money. Fed chief, Bernanke, nearly pleaded with Congress for greater fiscal stimulus, but he could see that Congress isn't going to pass one. Ironically, it may increase the deficit by cutting taxes and pushing for a more aggressive defense policy. Cutting "waste" is a fraud, and even Republicans know that.

So, how are Republicans going to solve the jobs issue? They can't; they will make it worse, so they will continue their diversionary politics--and blame all our troubles on Obama.

Meanwhile, the corporations are getting exactly what they paid for. Stalemate in Washington means: no interference, unilateral control over their own multinational estates and their pursuit of maximum profits, everywhere.

What corporations really want? Government to concern itself only with protecting them and their assets, both at home and abroad, but certainly not to concern itself with the people's welfare: ultimately, corporations want to control that, too, for a profit.

How would workers fare under unrestrained corporate rule? Forget about minimum wages, maximum hours, safe working conditions, or safe food and drink. Forget about a chance to "make it rich," an American dream that fools many into supporting the corporate agenda. Only a tiny elite will "make it," and most of them will come from the already elite. Everyone else will be overworked and underpaid, or cast off to survive however they can, including crime. Security companies should thrive! So should private prisons.

America's Roman Senators just took a giant step towards our equivalent of the Fall of Rome.

Elections and Anger

"Quick, I want a list of all the incumbents, so I can vote against them!" the voter told me, at the election "in-take" table in our rural-ex-urban Town Hall.

I said I couldn't help him; it's against election law for an election inspector to politic. The Republican inspector sitting next to me remarked, "If he doesn't know who the incumbents are, maybe he should have paid attention for the last couple years; probably, all he did was complain."

The voter, a youngish middle-aged man, was angry and frustrated, but he epitomized, for me, the mood of the electorate, not just locally, but nationally.

There was also the older voter, who was clearly confused by the new voting system (New York recently installed optical scanners and paper ballots to finally comply with the HAVA federal election law; most people wanted their lever machines back). The old man couldn't believe he actually had to blacken ovals by each candidate, and after requesting bipartisan assistance, said he'd wanted to vote for Cuomo, but now he was so frustrated he'd just vote the straight Republican line; anything else was too complicated.

The scanner did break down, repeatedly, and, after several hours wait, was replaced by another from County headquarters. At least, the "emergency" ballots voted in the interim, were easily retrieved and scanned once the new scanner was up and running. Paper ballots are a sturdy paper record.

Our incumbent Democratic Congressman was voted out; the operative mood was simply 'throw the bums out,' even though the 'tea party' gubernatorial candidate, Paladino, was soundly rejected. My Republican colleague pronounced him "crazy."

Republicans swept to control the House of Representatives, but despite tea party rants, there was no clear mandate, not only because Democrats retained the Senate, but because what voters were reflecting was the inchoate anger and frustration of my angry voter, who had no idea what he wanted, except: throw the bums out.

How can the US govern itself as a democracy, when voters have no idea what they want? Voters chose rejection, not direction.

But then Democrats, after campaigning in 2006-08 for Change, were not capable of delivering sufficient positive change, nor, especially, of undoing the economic damage wrought by Republicans and Bush. So, now we get Republicans, aiming to restore the previous, unregulated economy, even though it led to the economic collapse that caused voter anger. There even might be enough spine-challenged Democrats in the Senate to go along.

Will the US experience long-term stagnation, like Japan? Likely--unless Obama, or a rival presidential candidate, promotes war as a solution. The Washington Post has suggested Iran! Let's add Somalia, Pakistan, Venezuela, Bolivia and Yemen: WWIII. The US could lose its empire through bankruptcy and defeat, just like Japan and Rome.

Then, American elites could move to China, Brazil, or?