The Vatican, said my wise wife, is the model for all the (predatory) corporations that are despoiling our world. Her comment was prompted by the current brewing scandal of a possible reason for the Pope resigning so suddenly. According to a report in La Repubblica, a committee of Vatican octogenarian insiders revealed to Benedict XVI a faction within the Vatican “united by sexual orientation” that had been subject to “external influence” of a “worldly nature.” This translates as: a gay faction inside the Vatican, probably being blackmailed. Another Vatican source explained: “Everything revolves around the non-observance of the sixth and seventh commandments,” i.e. adultery and thievery.
What do predatory corporations and the Church, qua institution, have in common? Ironically, it's amorality; the willingness to do almost anything, for power, or for corporations, profit.
When did the Roman Catholic Church first become an institution more powerful than the state? Back at the cusp of the Fifth Century (390), when Bishop Ambrose of Milan excommunicated Emperor Theodosius the Great, who underwent months of penance, before, so goes the story, climbing the cathedral steps on his knees. His surrender entailed outlawing all worship of pagan gods, acknowledging the Church's monopoly on religious power.
By the end of the next generation, the Roman Church, in effect, took over from the failing Roman Empire . The power of non-Catholic Christian Visigoths and Ostrogoths like Odoacer and Theoderic, took longer to overthrow: Franks and other Catholic German tribes, replaced them with the support of the Roman church.
Do not think of the Roman church back then as a religious institution: it was the literate brains for the illiterate brawn of their Germanic allies. Priests, Bishops--and Popes--had mistresses and families. Some probably had boyfriends. They did not practice poverty, either, but since they had no military power, safety depended upon controlling the succeeding kings, in order to protect their wealth in turbulent times.
There was considerable overlap between the Senatorial class and the leadership of the church. Sidonius, one of the best-known Senators, known for his elegant writing style, became a Bishop, later sainted, in what is now Provence. He defended his diocese from the Arian Christian Goths, was imprisoned, but later was freed to (supposedly) hear Mary Magdalen's confession (according to the tablet in his crypt, although the Magdalen lived there 300 years earlier).
It's true that what classical learning and literacy survived, as well as any remnant of science and philosophy, was due to the Church. But the moral flexibility of the church was one of the reasons for the failure of the western empire: it transferred its secular support to insure its spiritual monopoly. It's likely that the Church supported the "fall of Rome," when Senators voted to overthrow the boy Emperor, Romulus Augustulus for the Ostrogothic King Odoacer, ceding him the land he coveted in Italy; they refused to tax themselves to pay him off.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Reflections on Ben Hur
I saw it a long time ago: this time, 45 minutes was enough.
As beastly as the Romans were to "the Jews" in Ben Hur, they were no worse than Israelis today to Palestinians.
When Elizabeth Cunningham (my wife) was doing research for The Passion of Mary Magdalen, she went to Israel. Her Jerusalem visit coincided with Ramadan, and she saw Israeli soldiers standing guard over the restive Arab quarter. She easily imagined them as Roman legionnaires, guarding the same streets against Jewish rebels during the Roman Empire.
Yet, Romans didn't push most Jews off their land until 70 AD. They demanded taxes and obeisance--and occasionally massacred them; as they did to people all round the Mediterranean. The Israelis don't massacre on the Roman scale, but they encroach increasingly on Palestinian land in the West Bank, after pushing most Palestinians out of the rest of Palestine when creating Israel. While some Romans recognized that Jews had a long connection to the land, Israelis discount Palestinian claims: they say their right to the land precedes the Palestinians'.
A friend of mine traced his family back to a Polish shtetl, and then found cousins in Israel, survivors of the Holocaust. His immediate family missed the Holocaust; it was in the US. While he's liberal on most things, on Israel, he says things like, "The Palestinians were conquered; the conquerors always set the terms." To him, the experience of the Holocaust justifies Israeli claims: where else would Jews feel safe?
How about the US?
I'd argue it's safer than Israel, which has managed to alienate the whole region, despite the US and Europe continually attempting to bring the two sides together. Meanwhile, the US has collaborated in building up the Israeli military to be a match for all its neighbors combined, reinforcing Israel's sense of conquerors' rights.
The West Bank is still occupied land. Settlers have become a surging political force in Israel, and expansion into additional Palestinian lands is nearly constant. Land is declared vacant, although Palestinian villagers have farmed it for centuries; and sometimes have documented proof of ownership: no matter. Venerable olive groves are bulldozed for new suburban settlements, and highways are built for Jews only: Palestinians are forbidden access--in their own land.
After Masada and the Diaspora, Rome didn't last forever in Palestine. It's unlikely Israel will either, unless: it withdraws behind the 1967 line and recognizes the independence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, or becomes a secular, bi-national state, incorporating all within its expanded borders, and recognizes full rights to all its inhabitants. Neither seems likely.
Israel cannot expect the US to arm it forever, or forever shield it from its neighbors, especially when Israel continues to arouse them by acting as conqueror: US regional hegemony is already weakening.
Pro-Israeli US policies cannot be guaranteed if the US can no longer afford them.
As beastly as the Romans were to "the Jews" in Ben Hur, they were no worse than Israelis today to Palestinians.
When Elizabeth Cunningham (my wife) was doing research for The Passion of Mary Magdalen, she went to Israel. Her Jerusalem visit coincided with Ramadan, and she saw Israeli soldiers standing guard over the restive Arab quarter. She easily imagined them as Roman legionnaires, guarding the same streets against Jewish rebels during the Roman Empire.
Yet, Romans didn't push most Jews off their land until 70 AD. They demanded taxes and obeisance--and occasionally massacred them; as they did to people all round the Mediterranean. The Israelis don't massacre on the Roman scale, but they encroach increasingly on Palestinian land in the West Bank, after pushing most Palestinians out of the rest of Palestine when creating Israel. While some Romans recognized that Jews had a long connection to the land, Israelis discount Palestinian claims: they say their right to the land precedes the Palestinians'.
A friend of mine traced his family back to a Polish shtetl, and then found cousins in Israel, survivors of the Holocaust. His immediate family missed the Holocaust; it was in the US. While he's liberal on most things, on Israel, he says things like, "The Palestinians were conquered; the conquerors always set the terms." To him, the experience of the Holocaust justifies Israeli claims: where else would Jews feel safe?
How about the US?
I'd argue it's safer than Israel, which has managed to alienate the whole region, despite the US and Europe continually attempting to bring the two sides together. Meanwhile, the US has collaborated in building up the Israeli military to be a match for all its neighbors combined, reinforcing Israel's sense of conquerors' rights.
The West Bank is still occupied land. Settlers have become a surging political force in Israel, and expansion into additional Palestinian lands is nearly constant. Land is declared vacant, although Palestinian villagers have farmed it for centuries; and sometimes have documented proof of ownership: no matter. Venerable olive groves are bulldozed for new suburban settlements, and highways are built for Jews only: Palestinians are forbidden access--in their own land.
After Masada and the Diaspora, Rome didn't last forever in Palestine. It's unlikely Israel will either, unless: it withdraws behind the 1967 line and recognizes the independence of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, or becomes a secular, bi-national state, incorporating all within its expanded borders, and recognizes full rights to all its inhabitants. Neither seems likely.
Israel cannot expect the US to arm it forever, or forever shield it from its neighbors, especially when Israel continues to arouse them by acting as conqueror: US regional hegemony is already weakening.
Pro-Israeli US policies cannot be guaranteed if the US can no longer afford them.
Friday, February 15, 2013
Sequestration
Is a fancy word: it means, in the memorable phrase of Congressman, Sean Maloney, "Congress screwing up the economy for no reason."
It's true that the projected government deficit is over $1.1 trillion, a mind-boggling number, but cutting spending would make that number worse. Why? As the miniscule retreat in GDP last quarter demonstrated, when we cut government spending, the whole economy is negatively affected. We teeter between recovery and renewed recession. Further, the experience of European countries, demonstrates that austerity does not create prosperity; it created renewed recession in the UK (triple dip) and depression in Greece.
The "sequester" has the Republicans worrying about cuts to Defense, complaining that this will cost jobs (it will), but they're not worrying about, and want to increase cuts to domestic programs. The cuts already mandated would not only cost even more jobs (civilian programs create more jobs per dollar than defense), but they would hurt our most vulnerable, and our future prosperity.
Cuts to domestic programs will: cut 70,000 children from Headstart, deny treatment to 373,000 mentally ill (adults and children) and reduce small business loan guarantees by $540 million. In addition, the $85 billion in cuts on Mar 1, could include, according to Congresswoman Nita Lowey, "furloughs of air traffic controllers, food inspectors, border patrol, reduced investment in safe drinking water and medical research, diminished military readiness and embassy security."
Think about this logically: if you reduce expenditures March 1st by $85 billion, how is that going to help us recover from the Great Recession? It will cut that amount of money (US multiplier estimated at 1.29 to 1.73) from flowing into the economy, cutting jobs, cutting purchases--as well as needed services. It won't "grow" the economy; it will shrink it by at least $109 billion--in one month.
Greece, subjected to radical austerity, has seen tax receipts plummet with government cuts: its ability to pay back debts is reduced, not enhanced by austerity.
Austerity proponents speak as if "business confidence" will be restored by cuts, and prosperity and jobs will magically return. Why? If everyone, except for banksters and one-percenters, have less money, who's going to buy what businesses sell? The wealthy are too few to create enough demand, so there's no reason for businesses to hire more workers, or produce more goods, if austerity means everyone--except the wealthy--will buy less than they did before. So where are more jobs to come from?
The Roman Empire was in a centuries long depression before it collapsed; its gold standard prevented expansion of the money supply; further, when Senators hoarded gold, money contracted, deepening the depression. Today, the Federal Reserve can expand the money supply, as can the Federal government. When demand is lacking, Government should build demand, not cut it. Only during a full recovery, should long-term budget deficits be cut, by tax and health care reform and withdrawal from an empire the US can no longer afford.
It's true that the projected government deficit is over $1.1 trillion, a mind-boggling number, but cutting spending would make that number worse. Why? As the miniscule retreat in GDP last quarter demonstrated, when we cut government spending, the whole economy is negatively affected. We teeter between recovery and renewed recession. Further, the experience of European countries, demonstrates that austerity does not create prosperity; it created renewed recession in the UK (triple dip) and depression in Greece.
The "sequester" has the Republicans worrying about cuts to Defense, complaining that this will cost jobs (it will), but they're not worrying about, and want to increase cuts to domestic programs. The cuts already mandated would not only cost even more jobs (civilian programs create more jobs per dollar than defense), but they would hurt our most vulnerable, and our future prosperity.
Cuts to domestic programs will: cut 70,000 children from Headstart, deny treatment to 373,000 mentally ill (adults and children) and reduce small business loan guarantees by $540 million. In addition, the $85 billion in cuts on Mar 1, could include, according to Congresswoman Nita Lowey, "furloughs of air traffic controllers, food inspectors, border patrol, reduced investment in safe drinking water and medical research, diminished military readiness and embassy security."
Think about this logically: if you reduce expenditures March 1st by $85 billion, how is that going to help us recover from the Great Recession? It will cut that amount of money (US multiplier estimated at 1.29 to 1.73) from flowing into the economy, cutting jobs, cutting purchases--as well as needed services. It won't "grow" the economy; it will shrink it by at least $109 billion--in one month.
Greece, subjected to radical austerity, has seen tax receipts plummet with government cuts: its ability to pay back debts is reduced, not enhanced by austerity.
Austerity proponents speak as if "business confidence" will be restored by cuts, and prosperity and jobs will magically return. Why? If everyone, except for banksters and one-percenters, have less money, who's going to buy what businesses sell? The wealthy are too few to create enough demand, so there's no reason for businesses to hire more workers, or produce more goods, if austerity means everyone--except the wealthy--will buy less than they did before. So where are more jobs to come from?
The Roman Empire was in a centuries long depression before it collapsed; its gold standard prevented expansion of the money supply; further, when Senators hoarded gold, money contracted, deepening the depression. Today, the Federal Reserve can expand the money supply, as can the Federal government. When demand is lacking, Government should build demand, not cut it. Only during a full recovery, should long-term budget deficits be cut, by tax and health care reform and withdrawal from an empire the US can no longer afford.
Monday, February 11, 2013
Evil Deeds
People do evil things, but they argue they do them for reasons they believe are justified, or because they believe, they are doing good, not evil.
How about the NRA? Some gun-owners think they do good, because they defend their right (constitutional or delusional) to hunt coyotes with an AK-47; "it's so much fun!"
But do the NRA lobbyists do good, when they try to protect human rights abusers in other countries, by lobbying to block the Arms Trade Treaty now before Congress? NRA lobbyists call it a "UN gun grab," and try to scare Congressmen, claiming it will enable the UN to confiscate weapons from US citizens. It won't; it's an international treaty to prevent weapons sales to rogue groups and countries, not individuals within nations; it's meant to regulate arms traders between countries, especially the ones selling to terrorists, torturers and tyrants. The NRA just wants to sell guns.
What about the oil companies lobbying to complete the Keystone XL pipeline, or to expand drilling operations, or to prevent regulation of fracking? Do they, or their lobbyists really believe that there is no such thing as global warming, no impact from burning more and more oil and no environmental damage? In the film, Promised Land, the Land Manager acted by Matt Damon, sells farmers on the chance they'll make a financial killing by signing on to his gas company's fracking project. Then he has second thoughts: fracking can do permanent damage to the water supply, as well as causing air pollution. The film confronts the issue of consequences, and whether it's ethical for companies to ignore them in pursuit of profit. Matt's co-worker continues selling gas-drilling leases, saying, "It's only a job."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes selling off scrap metals with low levels of radioactivity, assuring the public it's safe. Yet, the UN has recently concluded: because background radiation has increased world-wide--from weapons tests, nuclear accidents, etc.--no added level of radiation is safe. Yet, the NRC, and its clients, the nuclear power industry, have a problem: millions of tons of waste cost millions to store, but could earn millions to sell. So, NRC regulators say 'it's safe.'
What these, and other possible examples, demonstrate is an inability of corporate or government decision-makers to distinguish between corporate economic interest (profits) and public wellbeing: the latter concept has become almost antique.
Meanwhile, cancer rates skyrocket, storms increase their destructiveness, guns kill thousands, cheap food kills more through obesity, and the US is only exceptional in all of these ills.
No, it's exceptional also for killing more outside its borders than anyone else. World civilization is murderous, especially from corporate obsession with profit.
Repeal of Citizens United is only a first step. Either corporations are tamed, or they and their owners, like the Late Roman Empire's Senators, will drive world civilization to extinction.
How about the NRA? Some gun-owners think they do good, because they defend their right (constitutional or delusional) to hunt coyotes with an AK-47; "it's so much fun!"
But do the NRA lobbyists do good, when they try to protect human rights abusers in other countries, by lobbying to block the Arms Trade Treaty now before Congress? NRA lobbyists call it a "UN gun grab," and try to scare Congressmen, claiming it will enable the UN to confiscate weapons from US citizens. It won't; it's an international treaty to prevent weapons sales to rogue groups and countries, not individuals within nations; it's meant to regulate arms traders between countries, especially the ones selling to terrorists, torturers and tyrants. The NRA just wants to sell guns.
What about the oil companies lobbying to complete the Keystone XL pipeline, or to expand drilling operations, or to prevent regulation of fracking? Do they, or their lobbyists really believe that there is no such thing as global warming, no impact from burning more and more oil and no environmental damage? In the film, Promised Land, the Land Manager acted by Matt Damon, sells farmers on the chance they'll make a financial killing by signing on to his gas company's fracking project. Then he has second thoughts: fracking can do permanent damage to the water supply, as well as causing air pollution. The film confronts the issue of consequences, and whether it's ethical for companies to ignore them in pursuit of profit. Matt's co-worker continues selling gas-drilling leases, saying, "It's only a job."
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission proposes selling off scrap metals with low levels of radioactivity, assuring the public it's safe. Yet, the UN has recently concluded: because background radiation has increased world-wide--from weapons tests, nuclear accidents, etc.--no added level of radiation is safe. Yet, the NRC, and its clients, the nuclear power industry, have a problem: millions of tons of waste cost millions to store, but could earn millions to sell. So, NRC regulators say 'it's safe.'
What these, and other possible examples, demonstrate is an inability of corporate or government decision-makers to distinguish between corporate economic interest (profits) and public wellbeing: the latter concept has become almost antique.
Meanwhile, cancer rates skyrocket, storms increase their destructiveness, guns kill thousands, cheap food kills more through obesity, and the US is only exceptional in all of these ills.
No, it's exceptional also for killing more outside its borders than anyone else. World civilization is murderous, especially from corporate obsession with profit.
Repeal of Citizens United is only a first step. Either corporations are tamed, or they and their owners, like the Late Roman Empire's Senators, will drive world civilization to extinction.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Icelandic Style Revolution
Iceland's revolution should be old news--if our media actually covered important international stories not involving violence and war. Iceland, in 2008-2009 went through the most dramatic financial collapse of the sub-prime induced banking crisis. Its bankers had speculated many times the value of Iceland's GDP, and their ventures crashed, bankrupting the nation.
Maybe, we didn't hear much because of the smallness and remoteness of Iceland, although Mali is as remote and in population almost as small (Iceland's population: 319,000; Mali's 14.5 million).
Furthermore, Iceland is a positive story compared to Mali, where the former colonial power was welcomed enthusiastically because the Malian state is near collapse and vulnerable to Muslim extremists.
Iceland's banks collapsed in 2008-2009 and Icelanders threw out the conservative government through popular outrage and clanging kitchen pots, not gales of machine gun bullets.
Not only did a new, leftist government take office but a popularly elected body of non-politician citizen members, randomly selected, is helping to write a new constitution.
Further, the collapsed banks were nationalized, and although the left-wing government intended to pay back the banks' private, international debts through taxation--as per IMF instructions--the people again rebelled, and defeated the proposal by 93%.
Yet, Iceland is not an international pariah, despite refusing to pay international speculator debts, and despite bringing criminal charges against a whole raft of bankers and speculators.
The IMF noted that Iceland is experiencing positive growth (ca 2.5%), better than the US, much better than the recession-bound EC, yet it chose not to follow IMF policy. It inflated its currency, launched an aggressive home mortgage relief program, and, instead of austerity, has embarked on development-led growth.
Granted, Iceland is small, homogenous and the first democracy (founded 930), but it offers a model for recovery from the debt crisis that is completely the opposite of Europe's failed austerity policies, or Republican/Tea Party proposals. Furthermore, it appears to be successful. The Icelandic model demonstrates just how far the Obama administration has departed from what the US really needs: real homeowner relief, real control (or nationalization?) of the financial sector, criminal indictments, not just slaps on the wrists of banker-speculators and demand-led growth promoted by government.
The instigator of the popular (kitchenware) rebellion in Iceland has authored a Youtube piece with Greek subtitles: his message? Greece would be better off renouncing its debts and going on its own, like Iceland.
Why haven't we heard more of this? The story is complicated (I've oversimplified hugely), and it's counter to the narrative the powers-that-be, our contemporary Roman Senators, want us to hear. They are afraid they won't be paid, or might actually go to jail. Instead, they can flood the airwaves with the Super-bowl, stories of stars, international disasters like Mali and Greece and their own demands for austerity. Why? They'd rather avoid taxes just like their Roman forebears--which is why Rome "fell."
Maybe, we didn't hear much because of the smallness and remoteness of Iceland, although Mali is as remote and in population almost as small (Iceland's population: 319,000; Mali's 14.5 million).
Furthermore, Iceland is a positive story compared to Mali, where the former colonial power was welcomed enthusiastically because the Malian state is near collapse and vulnerable to Muslim extremists.
Iceland's banks collapsed in 2008-2009 and Icelanders threw out the conservative government through popular outrage and clanging kitchen pots, not gales of machine gun bullets.
Not only did a new, leftist government take office but a popularly elected body of non-politician citizen members, randomly selected, is helping to write a new constitution.
Further, the collapsed banks were nationalized, and although the left-wing government intended to pay back the banks' private, international debts through taxation--as per IMF instructions--the people again rebelled, and defeated the proposal by 93%.
Yet, Iceland is not an international pariah, despite refusing to pay international speculator debts, and despite bringing criminal charges against a whole raft of bankers and speculators.
The IMF noted that Iceland is experiencing positive growth (ca 2.5%), better than the US, much better than the recession-bound EC, yet it chose not to follow IMF policy. It inflated its currency, launched an aggressive home mortgage relief program, and, instead of austerity, has embarked on development-led growth.
Granted, Iceland is small, homogenous and the first democracy (founded 930), but it offers a model for recovery from the debt crisis that is completely the opposite of Europe's failed austerity policies, or Republican/Tea Party proposals. Furthermore, it appears to be successful. The Icelandic model demonstrates just how far the Obama administration has departed from what the US really needs: real homeowner relief, real control (or nationalization?) of the financial sector, criminal indictments, not just slaps on the wrists of banker-speculators and demand-led growth promoted by government.
The instigator of the popular (kitchenware) rebellion in Iceland has authored a Youtube piece with Greek subtitles: his message? Greece would be better off renouncing its debts and going on its own, like Iceland.
Why haven't we heard more of this? The story is complicated (I've oversimplified hugely), and it's counter to the narrative the powers-that-be, our contemporary Roman Senators, want us to hear. They are afraid they won't be paid, or might actually go to jail. Instead, they can flood the airwaves with the Super-bowl, stories of stars, international disasters like Mali and Greece and their own demands for austerity. Why? They'd rather avoid taxes just like their Roman forebears--which is why Rome "fell."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)