Campaigning Against the 1%

What will it take for putative progressive politicians to realize what a gift the Occupy Wall Street movement has offered them? While campaigning against "the one-percent," the OWS has begun to awaken the slumbering giant that is the American public.

I wonder, however, if elected leaders will get the message. I have a friend, Joel Tyner, who holds a position in the local legislature. He now sees his chance: he's campaigning for Congress; his opponent, the incumbent, is a Tea Party Republican elected in the 2010 wave.

I'm not sure my friend will have what it takes, which is a ton of money and good organization, even to be heard, even to be part of the electoral debate. It's no secret that the Republican will not only have sufficient campaign funds, he will also be supported, if necessary, with piles of corporate money. My friend will probably reject special interest funding, and doesn't know many likely wealthy contributors. He'll do things like hold demonstrations outside the Congressman's office; he's known for his publicized hikes to highlight political grievances, yet not even the local newspaper covers him most of the time.

The American political system, as presently constituted, favors the wealthy, and rewards those who side with them. Charles Beard, an American revisionist historian, made the case that the American Constitution was a counter-revolution by the propertied, looking out for their special interests. Their interests included "worthless" war bonds and deeds to western lands issued to Revolutionary War veterans in lieu of pay. George Washington and others bought them up for tiny fractions of their face value. The Constitution insured that the new government would protect their new lands and honor the war bonds, making the speculators--many in the Constitutional Congress--extremely wealthy.

Today we have a continuation of that tradition in Congress's immunity from insider trading laws, which is probably one of the reasons why most Congress-persons and Senators are much wealthier than their constituents.

Any reform, let alone revolution, has to overcome this. Further, it will have to overwhelm party establishments that are set up to protect special interests, rather than represent popular concerns. Only sustained popular mobilization, like the civil rights movement and the suffrage movement, has overcome the entrenched status quo. Effective leaders can help promote change, but our complicated structure tends to keep things the way they were.

If far-reaching reform doesn't happen, the American system ultimately may be overthrown by an enraged 99%; it's what happened in France, Russia, China, etc. Alternatively, the US political and economic system could continue to become increasingly dysfunctional, until it collapses of its own weight, like the Roman Empire. Rome went bankrupt because its Senators refused to raise taxes on themselves: they had extracted all the available wealth from everyone else, but had no sense of obligation to the Empire or society as a whole. Sounds like Wall Street, doesn't it?

The NDAA: Plunging Downhill

Regardless of who is President, once grabbed, the executive branch never gives up power without a fight: the Imperial Presidency. In other words, Obama will sign the NDAA, which may authorize the President to detain citizens indefinitely (they'll leave it up to the courts to decide if a President can do this) and that's okay, because Obama says he won't use that power!

Would anyone, trust a President Gingrich or Romney with that power? Hell, no one knows what either of them think, especially Romney, who the big boys don't like, but for whom they may have no choice. They don't trust Gingrich, who's fading, and would never consider anti-militarist Ron Paul; their money is where their mouths are, and he'd also disrupt the corrupt games of their primary constituents: the financial industry.

But I'm not so sure Obama wouldn't use those powers in the NDAA.

One of the things that seems to be happening worldwide, is that global protests are now being suppressed with greater and greater ferocity. First, Occupiers were tolerated, then they were penned and arrested, then they were driven out of Zuccotti Park, and a whole lot of other, similar encampments in places like Oakland, Seattle, Tampa, Washington, DC, and even places like Poughkeepsie, NY. Some violence in New York, more in Oakland, pepper spray apparently everywhere, but nothing compared to the beatings and bludgeoning of women in Tahrir Square, and not by police, but by the Army. Their actions were preceded in Bahrain, spearheaded by the Saudi Army. Egypt and Saudi Arabia are both recipients of tons of American weapons, and training by the US military.

Now, the NDAA gives power to detain indefinitely, and who gets to take the primary role in combating "terror" in the US? Not the police, not the CIA/FBI, it's the military. If I were paranoid, I'd think the American military was getting ready for a coup d'etat, gaining the power to carry one out legally. I'm not paranoid, and I don't like conspiracy theories as explanations, but I do think the NDAA is setting us up, even if no General or Admiral, or Secretary of Defense even dreams of a military takeover: it makes a military takeover much more possible.

I also think that Obama as President is more than the man, he is the institution, which has a terrible logic of its own: increase the power of the Presidency whenever possible. It's this kind of progression that led to the absolutism of the Roman Emperors and the totalitarianisms of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union.

But we're starting late down that road: the Empire is beginning to self-destruct. The military is still determined to maintain world dominance, even when we can no longer afford one war against insurgents in one of the poorest nations on the globe.

In 476, the victors against Rome were barbarians. Now, they could be American soldiers.

Cash on the Barrel-head

The world is too much with me

now and then:

The pipeline revisited, the NDAA

indefinite detention, perhaps

me and thee.

Methane fountains in the Siberian Sea--

nothing to worry about

says he,

A Danish scientist.

Who pays his bills?



Obama temporizes, his party caves,

Republicans tie the noose and

the pipeline is saved.

Job-killer they'll say,

if he vetoes it,

Earth poisoner, greens'll say,

if he signs it.



The environmental President

owned by coal and oil;

350 parts per million

long gone

but then,

Gingrich the kook

could say:

it's all for sale.

That's how we do it

in the free market!

Congress and Obama Sabotage the US Constitution

Obama is going to sign the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that he earlier threatened to veto.

He didn't threaten a veto, because the NDAA declared the whole world at war, including within US borders. His threat wasn't because the NDAA authorized indefinite detention by the military of anyone even suspected of terrorism, even US citizens in the US. It wasn’t because, the NDAA might permit here in the US the kind of assassination carried out against US-Yemeni Anwar al-Awlaki, gunned down by a drone in Yemen.

No, the President threatened a veto because the act presumed to tell him that he had to detain through the military by default, instead of through the CIA and FBI: it was a process thing.

Well, Congress found a way around that little disagreement, but all appear agreed, that the President, at least, should have absolute power in the truly GLOBAL war on terror.

Obama will sign this; the former professor of Constitutional Law will sign it! Whatever happened to right to a lawyer, right to a trial, habeas corpus, the Fifth Amendment's "No person shall ….. be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law?" This is especially true in capital cases. People must be indicted by a Grand Jury, if they are to "be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime."

But since the whole world is within the battlefield, well, Constitutional rights pfff, who needs them? Said Senator Lindsay Graham of detainees, "They should not be read their Miranda Rights. They should not be given a lawyer." Huffpo 11/29/11.

Thought that just applied to swarthy guys with black beards or heavy five-o'clock shadow? Think again: the enemy isn't specifically described; it could be anyone, if somehow they are suspected--not proven--to be a terrorist threat. Then, there is one hearing, before military officers, but no trial. You could be put away in Guantanamo, or one of the other hell-holes our boys (and girls) have devised--in places like Afghanistan, or converted top security prisons here--and left there for the rest of your life--with no recourse.

Doctor Manette in Tale of Two Cities,, lost his mind during his indefinite detention in the Bastille. That’s the kind of thing that's made legal by the NDAA that Obama now says he will sign.

Roman Emperors held powers that were even more arbitrary, but they couldn't effectively wield them far beyond Rome or, later, Ravenna. Obama could carry out this new writ in any corner of the world.

Except, political analysts say, he's really signing it to forestall Republican criticism that he's soft on terrorism. Right.

He still might use it, even against peaceful Occupiers, or Tea Partiers. Who can say no? Congress gave him the power. And think what could come next: think of President Gingrich with this power!

Life is Complicated For Obama

President Obama claims a number of accomplishments, but some are like finally agreeing to bring US troops home from Iraq. His Defense Secretaries tried hard to keep them there.

Obama can also claim rescinding Don't Ask Don't Tell; he touts his flawed healthcare law and rescuing the economy from collapse, even though the subsequent recovery is like a depression. He hasn't yet raised taxes on the highest incomes, but insists they need to be, not lowered as Republicans demand

How would Obama see himself? I'll bet his greatest disappointment is that despite all his efforts to promote a more civil politics of centrist good sense, his opponents hate him and are doing everything they can to defeat his re-election bid. He also knows that it's not only partisan; it's also racial, plus the Senate and Congress are bought and paid for by the biggest bucks on the planet.

He must love to hear about the sorry parade of Republican candidates, their mishaps and stupidities, but he must grind his teeth to hear Fox's commentators falsifying what's actually happening.

He may, finally, be getting it: he will never reach agreements with Republicans, unless it's to tie the noose around his neck. Boehner and McConnell are subtle, but, secretly, they wish they could lynch this uppity black man.

Why has Obama actually intensified the war in Afghanistan and the drone war over Pakistan? The military and Hillary were for the surge; Biden was for the drone war and against the surge. So, compromise! Have both!

I wonder if Obama credits himself that they got bin Laden: probably. Hillary joked about it. The Republicans try to claim that it only happened because of what George W did before, but they're wrong; Bush closed the bin Laden Section; Obama reopened it.

Obama is a disappointment: he tried to compromise, tried to be the "adult" in the middle, instead of the leftish statesman he projected on the campaign trail. He had progressive ideas, but he's probably more conservative than Nixon, "our last liberal President." Every Republican, however, is to the right of Hoover and even of Coolidge, or Taft.

Yet, it's not at all clear that the majority of Americans are conservative, even many self-identified as such. Most are like the tea partier whose sign shouted: 'Keep your hands off my Medicare', what they want demands liberal, not conservative policies. Except for the crazy religious, most are also socially liberal: hence the abolition of Don't Ask, and the spread of same-sex marriage.

Maybe Obama represents them better than he realizes, in these last years of a tired, crazy, polarized Empire, How many years until the re-play of 476, when the Barbarians took possession of bankrupt Imperial Rome? If Obama is reelected, we'll have a slightly better chance of avoiding that scenario: the Barbarians could be Chinese bankers.


From: MilitaryEducation.org

Occupy Poughkeepsie Comes Home

Well, a few of its members, who were evicted in the cold, rainy early morning hours when everyone was trying to sleep: 3:30 to be precise. The City had issued eviction notices last week, but when 200+ people showed up to support the Occupiers, the police stood down. They waited and planned patiently. Wednesday morning early, when only about seven Occupiers were onsite, sleeping, at the occupied park, the police came, announced that all of them had to leave and tore down their encampment. They also confiscated all their equipment: blankets, sleeping bags, tarps, anything the seven didn’t immediately grab and carry with them.

The Occupiers were in shock.

We got a call in the morning: could we pick up some of them, since we'd offered a place for them to rest and recuperate. When we went down to the library, where several were waiting, only one man decided to come with us.

It was interesting to get to know him a little. He's in his early 40's, has traveled all over the world, lived in intentional communities, graduated in Sociology, done academic work in Germany and had just been thrown out by his mother; he's also divorced. He doesn't have a job, and finds it difficult to look for one without a phone or a computer. He's obviously bright, thoughtful and very lost.

One of the other Occupiers was younger, hoarse from shouting, and apparently a bit off in the head. He stayed behind to hold signs at the site of the eviction, but had just been downloading something on a library computer about which his colleague remarked: "He claims he can make a billion dollars from it."

While Abe was older and needed a rest, the younger man was bursting with energy, and couldn't leave.

The Occupiers were anything but the stereotyped "dirty hippies," and their occupation had turned the park into a community meeting place, instead of a drug market, its previous incarnation. Crime rates in the area reportedly went down. Yet the police had to evict them, or rather, the City Manager decided that they had to go.

This isn't a meaningful sample of Occupiers. But still, it illustrates something that the Occupy movement exemplifies: the terrible waste of human talent and energy created by our economic and political system. I've seen this before, when I worked in prison. The men I got to know both in nonviolence workshops and in my college classes were bright, engaged, high energy, but barely literate. If they had gotten adequate schooling, what a resource they would have been! Instead, they were costing the State over $40,000 a year.

Maybe empires--Roman, British, Soviet, American--are lost because such people are squandered and thrown away. The OWS is in search of a different solution, where everyone is valued. I hope they/we can find it.

Job Destroyers II

In a previous post, I wrote that CEO's and takeover specialists like Mitt Romney are the very opposite of job creators: they are job destroyers when they lay off workers, "downsize," pit American workers against foreign workers and "offshore" jobs.

The banks are job destroyers, too, as is the Pentagon.

The banks provide capital to enable CEO's to offshore, for example, and loot industries through the kinds of scams that brought about the derivatives collapse. That particular scam, precipitated by the sub-prime implosion, dried up the booming construction sector, killing many more jobs. Banks also finance the corporate takeovers that cause companies to shed thousands of jobs. They promote these job-killing programs, because they can make handsome profits from them.

The Pentagon is also a job destroyer. That may sound strange, because politicians, especially those with defense industries or military bases within their districts, instantly complain that area jobs will be lost when anyone proposes cuts to defense programs.

The economic principle here is 'opportunity cost.' Numerous studies have found that defense jobs require twice as much capital per worker as non-defense jobs; they are capital intensive. They also don't produce things that enrich the nation; they produce instruments for destruction, mostly for use elsewhere. Incidentally, the move to legalize indefinite detention or assassination of American citizens in the US might mean that the destruction we finance could be our own.

In any case, it costs twice as much to employ a defense worker, or a soldier, as it does to employ a non-defense factory worker and three times as much as employing a teacher or healthcare worker. In some cases, the opportunity cost is much higher: a soldier in Afghanistan costs $1 million a year; it's probable that same million could employ ten teachers. The non-monetary cost is even greater: teachers educate the next generation, soldiers kill people abroad, or terrorize them, or, at best, help foreigners maintain security in their own countries. Meanwhile, children at home are crammed into larger and larger classes, getting less and less of the attention and help they need.

What benefits do we get for sending our military all over the world? Oil is probably cheaper here because of it, but think of what it costs us to accomplish that: three quarters of a trillion dollars a year. Walmart gets its goods mostly from China, where we don't have military influence, but perhaps imported goods would be costlier if there were no global American military presence.

Considering the effect cheap imports have had on our economy and our jobs, I rest my case: the military destroys millions of jobs.

Who benefits? The military brass and the owners of defense industries: the latter are our contemporary Roman Senators, described by the OWS as "the 1%."

Republicans call them "job creators!"

93-7 Guantanamo Here We Come!

That was the margin of passage of the Defense Authorization bill (NDAA) in the Senate, the one that declares the whole world, including the United States, as a global battlefield (between Good and Evil?). This enables the military to take out, by assassination or indefinite detention and torture (therefore 'Guantanamo'), anyone, anywhere in the world, even American citizens in Peoria, if the President secretly declares them a danger to national security.

Remember those novels: The Tale of Two Cities and The Count of Monte Cristo? People were imprisoned indefinitely in dungeons, on the whim of a nobleman. That's what we are approaching today. Due Process? Forgeddaboudit. Innocent until proven guilty? Hah! Right to a jury trial and a lawyer? We lost both some time ago.

It's astounding what rights Americans have given up without a whimper! Because we're terrified of terrorists? Aside from 9-11--a terrorist's wet dream come true--there have been only a few hundred people killed by terrorists in this country and abroad. Many times that number are killed every year on our nation's highways, and nearly as many more are murdered in our cities and towns.

Modern societies, especially imperial ones, should be vigilant and able to protect themselves. But if everyone is to lose their rights, then there is nothing left to defend: we might as well elect the Taliban to a majority in Congress, or elect a dictator, who can order us shot at will, and have himself re-elected for life.

That's what ushered in the Roman Emperor, even though times were good. The Roman Senate's succession and election machinery didn't function: a dictator was better than civil war.

Why are we so scared, now, that we're so readily giving up our freedoms? Less than a hundred Americans may have gone off to fight for a branch of al Qaeda (in Somalia or Yemen), and we're terrified they'll come back and--what? Stage another 9-11?

Security here, already, is enough to stop all but the most determined individual maniac. No security will ever stop every fanatic.

A woman asked Benjamin Franklin, at the close of the Constitutional Convention, if the US would be a republic or a monarchy. "A republic, if you can keep it," he replied.

We've not crowned Obama, and we're unlikely to crown Gingrich or Romney, either (I hope), but we're headed towards elective dictatorship with the NDAA. Obama, by the way, has threatened a veto, because it "micromanages" war against al Qaeda. So, unlike Augustus, Obama may have little stomach to be Imperator. But Newt or Mitt? A salamander or a baseball glove?

The NDAA is a caricature of 1984! It's parallels 31 BC (when Augustus was crowned, replacing the Republic with the Empire), except that this empire is in decline, more like Rome's decades-long run up to 476 (when it "fell" in bankruptcy to the Goths).

We have to stop the NDAA any way we can.

Job Destroyers I

The US Chamber says Democratic Senators Sherrod Brown and John Tester are anti-employer, so, it will spend millions against their reelection.

Maybe Brown and Tester are pro-employee, i.e. for most of the people who vote, most of the people who live paycheck to paycheck. There's many, especially now, when wages have been stagnant for 30 years (yes, you read that right; since 1980, when Reagan brought the counter-revolution to the White House).

Sherrod Brown is reputed to be progressive; John Tester says he's a small Montana farmer, and I expect that neither claim he's a businessman. Oh yes, we want Senators who represent employers, says the Chamber.

Why can't employers see that they're killing their golden egg? If no one pays Americans enough for them to afford the "American Lifestyle," then it will go away; has gone away. Henry Ford's brilliant idea to pay workers enough so they could buy his cars, that's gone away even for Ford. CEOs cut jobs and get bonuses for doing so. Now, can't afford means can't afford to buy the goods businesses sell, not piling more on your credit card.

Actually, people did just that on Black Friday, apparently, but that can't go on: wages actually went down last month, and escalating personal debt is what got us into the Great Recession. Let me emphasize: it was personal debt as in mortgages, and the scams run by banks, not public debt. It's true, as conservatives argue, there were policies encouraging banks to lend to lower income people, who were necessarily higher risk. But the reasons for the policy were to promote equality, not a bad reason. However, the banks, in response, invented the sub-prime mortgage, and its very creation built into itself the logic for the financial implosion. Sub primes were inherently unstable, with low sucker introductory payments, and then balloons, or variable interest rates that suddenly escalated. They were also being tendered to people who likely couldn't make the payments unless everything went right.

Nevertheless, "the one percent" saw sub primes as a grand new market to exploit--until they needed Uncle to bail them out. Our equivalent of the Roman Senators of the fifth century, were grabbing more and more of the nation's wealth, with outsourcing and offshoring (destroying jobs, not creating them), so, it was less likely for the sub-primers that things would go right. Inevitably, the unstable market finally collapsed, and all its derivatives with it.

Republicans speak of the 1% as "job creators;" most are the opposite. Mitt Romney is a good example: while running Bain Capital, he oversaw corporate takeovers that stripped down companies, sold off parts, and jettisoned chunks of the workforce. He got rich by destroying jobs! Republicans are the true heirs of Goebbels: if you say black is white often enough people begin to believe it.

Yet, Democrats, said Cornel West last night, are "milquetoasts." Will our Roman Senators prevail with either party?

Comments welcomed.