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!
Thursday, June 17, 2010
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.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tax Madness
Any suggestion for raising taxes meets howls of resistance, not just from tea partiers in these dark times: states are going bust. Yet, Wall Street financiers pay themselves even fancier bonuses than they did last year, bonuses made possible by taxpayer money.
Financial firms oppose taxing hedge fund managers' income at the rates working people pay. The parallels are striking with the Roman Empire at the tail end of its history. Go to http://www.roman-empire-america-now.com/taxes.html. Roman wealthy didn't pay taxes, and hedge fund traders, some making as much as $1 billion a year, are taxed at a flat 15% rate, while most of us pay between 20% and 39%.
Hedge fund managers have also been part of the Wall Street lobbying onslaught to prevent financial reforms. They scream that regulation will cost profits, when it was their ruthless pursuit of fast profits that nearly destroyed the whole world economy!
NY's Governor Paterson, formerly liberal, has summarily rejected a "billionaire's tax," despite the huge state deficit he's desperately trying to close. And he and the US Congress, refuse to consider a stock transfer tax, a cent or two per share traded, despite the fact that the tax would not only raise very needed revenue (a state tax might make up NY's deficit), it would also discourage the kind of hyper-speculation that led to the near financial collapse.
Wall Street is practically apoplectic at the idea of either tax, and yet, they almost drove us off a financial cliff, and cost the US 15 million jobs it will take many years to replace. Both taxes would discourage the kind of antics that led to the collapse--and raise revenue where it is most needed to continue an economic recovery--for a state budget that otherwise requires drastic cutbacks, laying off even more jobs.
Liberals are scared shitless advocating for any tax, even if they know it would be good policy. Why? Because the right-wing media have whipped up a frenzy about raising any taxes, and Republicans have jumped enthusiastically on board.
The furthest Democrats in Washington dare go, is to let the Bush tax cuts lapse. Republicans scream, that's a tax increase! It is, but only for taxpayers earning over $250,000 a year. I'd be very comfortable on half of that: most people will never come close to it.
Does nobody remember? In the Eisenhower years, top tax brackets paid over 90% above a cutoff, but the 1950's were booming, and we weren't fighting two wars. Historically, more highly graduated tax rates correlate with higher growth as well as with greater economic equality, despite conservative economic theory to the contrary.
The hype about "raising" taxes is madness; raising rates on the higher brackets would reduce US inequality (worst among developed nations)--and restore the economy. Will that happen? Only if liberals find some cojones.
Financial firms oppose taxing hedge fund managers' income at the rates working people pay. The parallels are striking with the Roman Empire at the tail end of its history. Go to http://www.roman-empire-america-now.com/taxes.html. Roman wealthy didn't pay taxes, and hedge fund traders, some making as much as $1 billion a year, are taxed at a flat 15% rate, while most of us pay between 20% and 39%.
Hedge fund managers have also been part of the Wall Street lobbying onslaught to prevent financial reforms. They scream that regulation will cost profits, when it was their ruthless pursuit of fast profits that nearly destroyed the whole world economy!
NY's Governor Paterson, formerly liberal, has summarily rejected a "billionaire's tax," despite the huge state deficit he's desperately trying to close. And he and the US Congress, refuse to consider a stock transfer tax, a cent or two per share traded, despite the fact that the tax would not only raise very needed revenue (a state tax might make up NY's deficit), it would also discourage the kind of hyper-speculation that led to the near financial collapse.
Wall Street is practically apoplectic at the idea of either tax, and yet, they almost drove us off a financial cliff, and cost the US 15 million jobs it will take many years to replace. Both taxes would discourage the kind of antics that led to the collapse--and raise revenue where it is most needed to continue an economic recovery--for a state budget that otherwise requires drastic cutbacks, laying off even more jobs.
Liberals are scared shitless advocating for any tax, even if they know it would be good policy. Why? Because the right-wing media have whipped up a frenzy about raising any taxes, and Republicans have jumped enthusiastically on board.
The furthest Democrats in Washington dare go, is to let the Bush tax cuts lapse. Republicans scream, that's a tax increase! It is, but only for taxpayers earning over $250,000 a year. I'd be very comfortable on half of that: most people will never come close to it.
Does nobody remember? In the Eisenhower years, top tax brackets paid over 90% above a cutoff, but the 1950's were booming, and we weren't fighting two wars. Historically, more highly graduated tax rates correlate with higher growth as well as with greater economic equality, despite conservative economic theory to the contrary.
The hype about "raising" taxes is madness; raising rates on the higher brackets would reduce US inequality (worst among developed nations)--and restore the economy. Will that happen? Only if liberals find some cojones.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Politics, Economy: Does Anything Work?
The bank bailout and stimulus package worked--up to a point. While the former did rescue the banks, and the latter spared us the depths of the Great Depression, neither has "fixed" the economy.
The big banks made money, but mostly on speculation with the cheap (almost free) bailout money, but they haven't been lending enough to genuinely rescue the economy. In fact, there is a real danger that bank speculation could trigger a worse financial collapse, unless Congress passes laws empowering government to regulate the whole financial industry. Because of widespread American distrust of government, however, and because of intense bank lobbying, re-regulation of the finance industry is difficult to get through Congress (banks were much more regulated before the wave of deregulation that began with Carter and Reagan, and continued through Clinton and Bush administrations).
Further, the stimulus was too little. While some millions of jobs were saved, and something less than that were created, the number of jobs lost, and the number of jobs needed is far larger, so the stimulus limited the damage, but didn't go far enough. The stimulus also saved the housing market from collapse: it is slowly recovering, but many are still losing their homes to foreclosure, many of those due to job losses, many others because house values plummeted and mortgage holders were left "underwater," owing more than their houses were worth.
No wonder people are unhappy and grasp for "solutions," like the Tea Party movement. Ironically, the solutions offered: abolishing the Fed, going back to the gold standard, free marketeering, abolishing regulations already in place, would make things worse.
The gold standard would drastically reduce the money supply, which would destroy more jobs; further deregulation would permit more speculation by the banks, which may be why the tea party is so well-funded, but it would further reduce the money available for job creation. And budget-balancing would subtract still more.
The real problem (Dollars and Sense: May-June, 2010), is that the whole global trading and financial system is seriously out of whack: the dollar no longer works as the world's reserve currency, which requires the US as importer of last resort, a high dollar, imports of goods, exports of dollars and the destruction of US manufacturing. This creates huge trade deficits, consumer debt, high finance and high unemployment.
What is needed: regulate finance and reduce its importance, revive manufacturing (especially to combat climate change), an active government in the economy, a low dollar, not a high one, and a new international reserve unit to replace the dollar.
This might end America's imperial hegemony, but we've already gotten to the point where we can't afford it; it has destroyed the US economy. The jobs we most succeed in creating, wreak destruction world-wide. We'd be much better off as "just another country." Otherwise, we might end like the Assyrian Empire: brilliant, brutal and short.
The big banks made money, but mostly on speculation with the cheap (almost free) bailout money, but they haven't been lending enough to genuinely rescue the economy. In fact, there is a real danger that bank speculation could trigger a worse financial collapse, unless Congress passes laws empowering government to regulate the whole financial industry. Because of widespread American distrust of government, however, and because of intense bank lobbying, re-regulation of the finance industry is difficult to get through Congress (banks were much more regulated before the wave of deregulation that began with Carter and Reagan, and continued through Clinton and Bush administrations).
Further, the stimulus was too little. While some millions of jobs were saved, and something less than that were created, the number of jobs lost, and the number of jobs needed is far larger, so the stimulus limited the damage, but didn't go far enough. The stimulus also saved the housing market from collapse: it is slowly recovering, but many are still losing their homes to foreclosure, many of those due to job losses, many others because house values plummeted and mortgage holders were left "underwater," owing more than their houses were worth.
No wonder people are unhappy and grasp for "solutions," like the Tea Party movement. Ironically, the solutions offered: abolishing the Fed, going back to the gold standard, free marketeering, abolishing regulations already in place, would make things worse.
The gold standard would drastically reduce the money supply, which would destroy more jobs; further deregulation would permit more speculation by the banks, which may be why the tea party is so well-funded, but it would further reduce the money available for job creation. And budget-balancing would subtract still more.
The real problem (Dollars and Sense: May-June, 2010), is that the whole global trading and financial system is seriously out of whack: the dollar no longer works as the world's reserve currency, which requires the US as importer of last resort, a high dollar, imports of goods, exports of dollars and the destruction of US manufacturing. This creates huge trade deficits, consumer debt, high finance and high unemployment.
What is needed: regulate finance and reduce its importance, revive manufacturing (especially to combat climate change), an active government in the economy, a low dollar, not a high one, and a new international reserve unit to replace the dollar.
This might end America's imperial hegemony, but we've already gotten to the point where we can't afford it; it has destroyed the US economy. The jobs we most succeed in creating, wreak destruction world-wide. We'd be much better off as "just another country." Otherwise, we might end like the Assyrian Empire: brilliant, brutal and short.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Deficits You Can Hate or Love
There has been an almost unending stream of propaganda and false news about the horrendous deficits the US and now the EC are facing. Britons just tossed out its Labour government partly because of the hype about its deficit. The EC just went through a process for bailing out Greece (and potentially other nations) because of its large deficit. Right-wing media thumps out a drumbeat about the deficit in the US, and may win control of Congress in November, if people don't realize all the holes in their argument.
They argue that families can't borrow their way out of trouble, so the nation can't either. But families do borrow: when they take out loans to finish college or undergo training, for example. Both cases will enhance their ability to pay back the loan. On the other hand, to borrow in order to maintain a lifestyle beyond their income is unsustainable, whether it's to buy a house they can't afford, or to go out to dinner five days a week.
The same is true of governments. Greece's debt was unsustainable, because it was supporting a lifestyle, was not enriching the nation, and was not being paid for by the people with money: the wealthy, who avoid taxes.
The deficits in the US, insofar as they are paying for jobs protected, or jobs created, are investments in the future, and enable the recipients, and others downstream to pay back the money with interest as taxes they would not otherwise have been able to pay. Deficit spending to fund alternative energy, or highway construction and repair, are also investments in the future. They do not impoverish the nation: they enrich it.
On the other hand, deficits spent on wars that do not involve national survival, but instead are for imperial expansion (Iraq, Afghanistan), are like borrowing so that you can eat out every day of the week: the nation is impoverished by them in the long run.
US debt, while large in absolute numbers, is smaller, relative to the size of the economy (GDP) than most developed nations. But the deficit and debt hide both productive investment and wasteful consumption. The two ought to be separated and the latter should be cut to the bone, the former boosted to truly stimulate the economy.
The deficit we should be most concerned about is not mentioned much: it is the trade deficit. We buy more abroad than we sell abroad, in part because large corporations export jobs. That international debt comes back as speculation, boosting the stock market artificially; it does not employ more than the few thousands on Wall Street, but it impoverishes the nation.
So, cut war spending, boost job creation and stop outsourcing jobs. Then deficits become investments and the nation will become wealthier, instead of the Empire going bankrupt.
They argue that families can't borrow their way out of trouble, so the nation can't either. But families do borrow: when they take out loans to finish college or undergo training, for example. Both cases will enhance their ability to pay back the loan. On the other hand, to borrow in order to maintain a lifestyle beyond their income is unsustainable, whether it's to buy a house they can't afford, or to go out to dinner five days a week.
The same is true of governments. Greece's debt was unsustainable, because it was supporting a lifestyle, was not enriching the nation, and was not being paid for by the people with money: the wealthy, who avoid taxes.
The deficits in the US, insofar as they are paying for jobs protected, or jobs created, are investments in the future, and enable the recipients, and others downstream to pay back the money with interest as taxes they would not otherwise have been able to pay. Deficit spending to fund alternative energy, or highway construction and repair, are also investments in the future. They do not impoverish the nation: they enrich it.
On the other hand, deficits spent on wars that do not involve national survival, but instead are for imperial expansion (Iraq, Afghanistan), are like borrowing so that you can eat out every day of the week: the nation is impoverished by them in the long run.
US debt, while large in absolute numbers, is smaller, relative to the size of the economy (GDP) than most developed nations. But the deficit and debt hide both productive investment and wasteful consumption. The two ought to be separated and the latter should be cut to the bone, the former boosted to truly stimulate the economy.
The deficit we should be most concerned about is not mentioned much: it is the trade deficit. We buy more abroad than we sell abroad, in part because large corporations export jobs. That international debt comes back as speculation, boosting the stock market artificially; it does not employ more than the few thousands on Wall Street, but it impoverishes the nation.
So, cut war spending, boost job creation and stop outsourcing jobs. Then deficits become investments and the nation will become wealthier, instead of the Empire going bankrupt.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Russian Roulette in the Gulf
Some people have likened the oil mess in the gulf to a "gusher." Since any 'leak' at 5000 feet down is going to be under tremendous pressure, and near freezing temperatures, it's a bit like opening a bottle of champagne, except no one is celebrating, and we don't know how big that bottle could be--and it's definitely not champagne.
In fact, our whole vocabulary for describing what has happened with the oil well explosion has so far proven inadequate. It's not a 'spill', and it's not a 'leak'; it could be a 'gusher', or it could be something else. The gulf oil catastrophe is not a spill, because spill implies a container that tips a bit, and slops a bit over the side. It's not a leak, because leaks imply a bit oozing out, but not the amount in question: more than 200,000 barrels of oil a day are flooding out of these holes in the ocean floor and have been now for 22 days, for a likely total of at least four and a half million barrels of oil!
Offshore drillers grumble and moan about new regulations this catastrophe will cause; the Obama administration holds off on new oil leases and talks about new regulations and administrative restructuring to prevent a re-occurrence. Some coastal state Senators propose reinstituting some kind of ban on offshore drilling, while others, and their conservative competitors, continue to promote offshore drilling as a way to "wean" ourselves from foreign oil.
Another way to look at this, however, is that the risks are just too high. That explosion in the Gulf may have been like opening a tap on an oil reserve that could poison not just marshes, crab and shrimp beds and beaches in the Gulf, but the whole world's ocean ecosystem: it's all connected, after all, by the Gulf Stream and the Loop Current.
I hope BP, et al, can plug the holes, stop the gusher, but how many times must we risk global catastrophe before we stop? If you think of that exploded oil well as blowing the cap on an underwater sea of oil, under 5000 feet of pressure, then to do this again and again, even with all the safeguards in the world, is like playing Russian roulette not just with the future of humanity, but with the future of most life on this planet. The costs are just too high.
If we don't want to go the way not of the Roman Empire but of the dinosaurs, we need to take this as a wake up call: build renewable energy sources now through a crash program that would make the Marshall Plan and even our WWII mobilization look like peanuts.
Drilling offshore as a "transitional" program is just plain crazy! We have to get off fossil fuels NOW!
In fact, our whole vocabulary for describing what has happened with the oil well explosion has so far proven inadequate. It's not a 'spill', and it's not a 'leak'; it could be a 'gusher', or it could be something else. The gulf oil catastrophe is not a spill, because spill implies a container that tips a bit, and slops a bit over the side. It's not a leak, because leaks imply a bit oozing out, but not the amount in question: more than 200,000 barrels of oil a day are flooding out of these holes in the ocean floor and have been now for 22 days, for a likely total of at least four and a half million barrels of oil!
Offshore drillers grumble and moan about new regulations this catastrophe will cause; the Obama administration holds off on new oil leases and talks about new regulations and administrative restructuring to prevent a re-occurrence. Some coastal state Senators propose reinstituting some kind of ban on offshore drilling, while others, and their conservative competitors, continue to promote offshore drilling as a way to "wean" ourselves from foreign oil.
Another way to look at this, however, is that the risks are just too high. That explosion in the Gulf may have been like opening a tap on an oil reserve that could poison not just marshes, crab and shrimp beds and beaches in the Gulf, but the whole world's ocean ecosystem: it's all connected, after all, by the Gulf Stream and the Loop Current.
I hope BP, et al, can plug the holes, stop the gusher, but how many times must we risk global catastrophe before we stop? If you think of that exploded oil well as blowing the cap on an underwater sea of oil, under 5000 feet of pressure, then to do this again and again, even with all the safeguards in the world, is like playing Russian roulette not just with the future of humanity, but with the future of most life on this planet. The costs are just too high.
If we don't want to go the way not of the Roman Empire but of the dinosaurs, we need to take this as a wake up call: build renewable energy sources now through a crash program that would make the Marshall Plan and even our WWII mobilization look like peanuts.
Drilling offshore as a "transitional" program is just plain crazy! We have to get off fossil fuels NOW!
Monday, May 10, 2010
The Afghan War and US Politics
Karzai, Afghan President, wants to open negotiations with the Taliban, even with Mullah Omar.
Until now, the administration has said that it has to stay in Afghanistan and beat up the Taliban before we (or Afghans) can talk. Yet, Obama insists he will start removing troops next year. Either we are fighting for the Afghans or we're fighting against them: a majority of Afghans want peace talks, according to the latest polls.
Karzai is visiting Washington this week. In fact, a good part of his cabinet has come with him.
Last I checked, a majority of Americans felt that Afghanistan was not a fight worth fighting (about 52%). Further, the latest attempted NY bombing came out of Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The precipitating factor in that attack probably was Obama's intensified drone war in Pakistan.
Obama has had trouble maintaining his popularity in the face of right-wing media attacks, and a signal to the elected government of Afghanistan to go ahead and negotiate, might drive the right wing crazy. However, despite Fox's attempt to spin it as "weakness," peace negotiations would be popular.
It wouldn't be popular with the generals. McChrystal might hate it, and Gates might have to hold his nose (or resign, not a bad thing). But Obama should consider: Democrats, in the run up to the Congressional elections could run on: a recovering economy and negotiations leading to withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Democrats could also push the Feingold-Kaufman amendment (again), to facilitate breaking up the big banks. Then they could run on: Peace, recovery and fixing Wall Street. Let the Republicans run against all that!
In any case, now is a golden opportunity to seize the populist initiative temporarily lost to the Tea Party crowd, by coming down on the side of peace in Afghanistan.
Why not? If the administration continues to lean on Karzai to forego top-level negotiations, then we should all know who is really in control here: it isn't Obama, and it isn't the Democratic majority in Congress, either. It's the Imperial caucus: the generals, the defense industry fattening on the wars, and the right wing media machine that hypes them.
Think about it, President Obama! You won election by being against the war in Iraq, and polls show a majority of Americans against the Afghan war. Your support has slipped with your base, partly because of that war. Your support among independents has slipped because of the emotional attacks on "government takeovers" by the right-wing media.
Yet, you can legitimately claim you saved the economy through your actions. What you and Democrats can't claim, yet, is that you have brought peace. Your base will be lukewarm until you can.
Tell Karzai, "Okay. Negotiate." Then hype it and see your poll numbers surge. And the chances for Democrats in the Fall would improve as well.
So, is it Empire, or electing a Democratic Congress?
Until now, the administration has said that it has to stay in Afghanistan and beat up the Taliban before we (or Afghans) can talk. Yet, Obama insists he will start removing troops next year. Either we are fighting for the Afghans or we're fighting against them: a majority of Afghans want peace talks, according to the latest polls.
Karzai is visiting Washington this week. In fact, a good part of his cabinet has come with him.
Last I checked, a majority of Americans felt that Afghanistan was not a fight worth fighting (about 52%). Further, the latest attempted NY bombing came out of Pakistan, not Afghanistan. The precipitating factor in that attack probably was Obama's intensified drone war in Pakistan.
Obama has had trouble maintaining his popularity in the face of right-wing media attacks, and a signal to the elected government of Afghanistan to go ahead and negotiate, might drive the right wing crazy. However, despite Fox's attempt to spin it as "weakness," peace negotiations would be popular.
It wouldn't be popular with the generals. McChrystal might hate it, and Gates might have to hold his nose (or resign, not a bad thing). But Obama should consider: Democrats, in the run up to the Congressional elections could run on: a recovering economy and negotiations leading to withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Democrats could also push the Feingold-Kaufman amendment (again), to facilitate breaking up the big banks. Then they could run on: Peace, recovery and fixing Wall Street. Let the Republicans run against all that!
In any case, now is a golden opportunity to seize the populist initiative temporarily lost to the Tea Party crowd, by coming down on the side of peace in Afghanistan.
Why not? If the administration continues to lean on Karzai to forego top-level negotiations, then we should all know who is really in control here: it isn't Obama, and it isn't the Democratic majority in Congress, either. It's the Imperial caucus: the generals, the defense industry fattening on the wars, and the right wing media machine that hypes them.
Think about it, President Obama! You won election by being against the war in Iraq, and polls show a majority of Americans against the Afghan war. Your support has slipped with your base, partly because of that war. Your support among independents has slipped because of the emotional attacks on "government takeovers" by the right-wing media.
Yet, you can legitimately claim you saved the economy through your actions. What you and Democrats can't claim, yet, is that you have brought peace. Your base will be lukewarm until you can.
Tell Karzai, "Okay. Negotiate." Then hype it and see your poll numbers surge. And the chances for Democrats in the Fall would improve as well.
So, is it Empire, or electing a Democratic Congress?
Friday, May 7, 2010
An Anniversary We Should Learn From
What Dien Bien Phu meant, and what it means today.
The French air fortress established there to interdict supplies coming to the Vietminh through Laos, fell on May 7, 1954, after a protracted battle. It was a terrible defeat for the French, and not only mobilized the Vietnamese, but empowered those in France, who had campaigned to end the Indochina war.
The French withdrew from all of Indochina within a year, and although the US attempted to take up the slack in South Vietnam, well, we know the outcome. The significance of Dien Bien Phu is similar to the battle of Adrianople, in which Germanic (barbarian) cavalry overran the Roman army, and captured the ruling Emperor in 378. Colonial empires continued after 1954, and (in the American variant) do to this day, and the Roman Empire lasted for another 98 years in the West, after Adrianople. But both battles demonstrated that new powers were in the ascendancy, and the old were in retreat.
We still are.
In 476, a whole new order, less civilized, less technologically advanced, but more warlike, took formal control of all of Western Europe. After 1954, the French, British, Dutch, Belgians and Portuguese were slowly driven out of their "possessions," and the US attempted to take their place--in Vietnam, especially, and also, tragically, in the Middle East, in Iran.
Afghanistan could create another Dien Bien Phu, if we don't recognize that 'non-western' peoples will control their own fates, even if they have to overcome the incredible barbarism of some of their leaders, like Jalaluddin Haqqani and Mullah Omar.
We may not like what the Taliban stands for--extreme male chauvinism, brutality, fundamentalist Islam--but even if many Afghans hate the Taliban, they are a significant native force in their nation. The NATO and US forces are foreign. We are invaders, perhaps attempting to create a more humane Afghan society, but the inescapable fact is: we are foreigners. Many Afghans, even those who vehemently oppose the Taliban, fear that the US really wants to control their country, which resisted Imperial rule during the whole colonial era. Tragically, they may be at least partially right. American leaders want a "friendly" Afghanistan, meaning one that will bend to American interests.
The US cannot control the world, any more than the French could control Indochina, or the Romans could continue to control all of Europe.
It is because of America's attempt to maintain--and even expand--world hegemony (creating a new Africom, for example), that draws extremists to attack us as in 9/11, and as in the recent Times Square attempt.
The colonial era died at Dien Bien Phu. US imperialism has been attempting to ignore that ever since.
The French air fortress established there to interdict supplies coming to the Vietminh through Laos, fell on May 7, 1954, after a protracted battle. It was a terrible defeat for the French, and not only mobilized the Vietnamese, but empowered those in France, who had campaigned to end the Indochina war.
The French withdrew from all of Indochina within a year, and although the US attempted to take up the slack in South Vietnam, well, we know the outcome. The significance of Dien Bien Phu is similar to the battle of Adrianople, in which Germanic (barbarian) cavalry overran the Roman army, and captured the ruling Emperor in 378. Colonial empires continued after 1954, and (in the American variant) do to this day, and the Roman Empire lasted for another 98 years in the West, after Adrianople. But both battles demonstrated that new powers were in the ascendancy, and the old were in retreat.
We still are.
In 476, a whole new order, less civilized, less technologically advanced, but more warlike, took formal control of all of Western Europe. After 1954, the French, British, Dutch, Belgians and Portuguese were slowly driven out of their "possessions," and the US attempted to take their place--in Vietnam, especially, and also, tragically, in the Middle East, in Iran.
Afghanistan could create another Dien Bien Phu, if we don't recognize that 'non-western' peoples will control their own fates, even if they have to overcome the incredible barbarism of some of their leaders, like Jalaluddin Haqqani and Mullah Omar.
We may not like what the Taliban stands for--extreme male chauvinism, brutality, fundamentalist Islam--but even if many Afghans hate the Taliban, they are a significant native force in their nation. The NATO and US forces are foreign. We are invaders, perhaps attempting to create a more humane Afghan society, but the inescapable fact is: we are foreigners. Many Afghans, even those who vehemently oppose the Taliban, fear that the US really wants to control their country, which resisted Imperial rule during the whole colonial era. Tragically, they may be at least partially right. American leaders want a "friendly" Afghanistan, meaning one that will bend to American interests.
The US cannot control the world, any more than the French could control Indochina, or the Romans could continue to control all of Europe.
It is because of America's attempt to maintain--and even expand--world hegemony (creating a new Africom, for example), that draws extremists to attack us as in 9/11, and as in the recent Times Square attempt.
The colonial era died at Dien Bien Phu. US imperialism has been attempting to ignore that ever since.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Arizona, Global Warming and 2 Billion Headed North
What does immigration have to do with US foreign policy?
Why do illegal immigrants have a moral right to work in this country?
The Arizona law is outrageous, but not entirely so. Its justification is ineffective enforcement of immigration laws by the Feds, which in turn is due to the insupportable nature of the laws themselves.
Immigration, especially of the illegal variety, is caused by US imperial policies. With NAFTA, CAFTA and "anti-Communist," "anti-terrorist" or drug war policies, the US is massively involved in destroying jobs in other countries.
When the US insists that large US agribusiness can export subsidized corn to Mexico, for example, it causes massive displacement of campesinos from their farms. This displacement was intended to create cheap labor for the maquiladoras near the border, but not enough jobs were created. The excess jobless have nowhere to go but to el Norte.
When the US helped local elites stave off or drive out democratic governments in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and most recently, Honduras, something very similar occurred: the repressed and displaced have nowhere to go but el Norte.
When the US wages wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen, it creates huge disruption--and large numbers of refugees. The only reason we don't see more of them is distance.
When the US and other "advanced" nations do too little and too late to address climate change, disproportionately caused by us, but disproportionally affecting less developed nations, we will see even more massive dislocation of populations. If the monsoon rains fail because of climate change (there is good reason to expect this will happen) then large parts of South Asia, Southeast Asia, south China and Africa will be unable to support their huge populations.
Where will these "climate refugees" go? Two billion people or more could be headed north, to Europe, Canada, Russia and the US. And the reason would be the failure of the above "developed" nations to come up with a climate change treaty that would alleviate or reverse climate change: climate change they largely caused with two centuries of industrial development!
If climate change was largely caused by us (and Europe), and if its worst effects are felt in places like India and Bolivia, doesn't that make us morally responsible?
This is why the poor, developing nations demand "reparations:" to alleviate the effects of runaway climate change, and to respond to it, despite their own poverty--exacerbated by developed nation policies (led by the US and its corporate elites).
We should stop fooling ourselves: our imperial meddling creates illegal immigration. Two billion more could surge north, because of our inability to deal adequately with climate change. It would be like the Age of Migrations, which brought down the Roman Empire.
The corporations, which profit so handsomely from our imperial policies, should be taxed to fund developing nations' reparations.
Why do illegal immigrants have a moral right to work in this country?
The Arizona law is outrageous, but not entirely so. Its justification is ineffective enforcement of immigration laws by the Feds, which in turn is due to the insupportable nature of the laws themselves.
Immigration, especially of the illegal variety, is caused by US imperial policies. With NAFTA, CAFTA and "anti-Communist," "anti-terrorist" or drug war policies, the US is massively involved in destroying jobs in other countries.
When the US insists that large US agribusiness can export subsidized corn to Mexico, for example, it causes massive displacement of campesinos from their farms. This displacement was intended to create cheap labor for the maquiladoras near the border, but not enough jobs were created. The excess jobless have nowhere to go but to el Norte.
When the US helped local elites stave off or drive out democratic governments in Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and most recently, Honduras, something very similar occurred: the repressed and displaced have nowhere to go but el Norte.
When the US wages wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen, it creates huge disruption--and large numbers of refugees. The only reason we don't see more of them is distance.
When the US and other "advanced" nations do too little and too late to address climate change, disproportionately caused by us, but disproportionally affecting less developed nations, we will see even more massive dislocation of populations. If the monsoon rains fail because of climate change (there is good reason to expect this will happen) then large parts of South Asia, Southeast Asia, south China and Africa will be unable to support their huge populations.
Where will these "climate refugees" go? Two billion people or more could be headed north, to Europe, Canada, Russia and the US. And the reason would be the failure of the above "developed" nations to come up with a climate change treaty that would alleviate or reverse climate change: climate change they largely caused with two centuries of industrial development!
If climate change was largely caused by us (and Europe), and if its worst effects are felt in places like India and Bolivia, doesn't that make us morally responsible?
This is why the poor, developing nations demand "reparations:" to alleviate the effects of runaway climate change, and to respond to it, despite their own poverty--exacerbated by developed nation policies (led by the US and its corporate elites).
We should stop fooling ourselves: our imperial meddling creates illegal immigration. Two billion more could surge north, because of our inability to deal adequately with climate change. It would be like the Age of Migrations, which brought down the Roman Empire.
The corporations, which profit so handsomely from our imperial policies, should be taxed to fund developing nations' reparations.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
May-day, May-day!
It's the first of May, and oil is spewing out of more than one hole at the bottom of the ocean, a manmade disaster that will only get worse--and still Obama insists that we should expand offshore drilling!
At least the Democratic Senators from Florida and New Jersey are sponsoring a bill to prevent test drilling off both the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts, the areas opened up for exploration by the President.
Here in the Hudson Valley, I'm close to the land, and I know the climate is getting screwed. We hold a 'bringing in the May' celebration of May eve each year. One of our rituals involves bringing in locally blooming flowers and blossoming boughs. Each year until now, we've brought in loads of forsythia, shadblow, wild apple, quince and daffodils. This year there were some daffodils, but most had passed; there was one apple tree still with blossoms, no quince and no forsythia, except with flowers already dried up. Until now, the height of the apple blossoms (this is still apple orchard country), was mid-May, when the dogwood also blossoms. This year, most of our flowering boughs were dogwood, not quite past. Further, the maples have mostly leafed out already, something that isn't supposed to happen for another two to three weeks!
It's a beautiful Spring, but knowing how much the climate has changed does put a damper on our appreciation of the season's beauty. And now, on May 1st, it's going to be in the 80's! The temperature might not set a record, but it's warmer than it used to be.
We've had two manmade disasters in the last two weeks: the mine explosion and the undersea well explosion. We should sit up and take notice. One involves coal, the other oil. Fossil fuels: the same fuels that are doing most of the damage to our climate.
The oil companies will continue to pour millions into lobbying and campaign funds, the coal companies likewise. It seems as if they're even paying off the President if he can say with a straight face that "safeguards" will somehow insure against future disasters, or that "clean coal technology" will be effective in combating the global warming effects of burning coal.
So, it's up to us. First of all, we need to insist: no offshore drilling, period and no new coal-fired power plants.
We, individually, can use significantly less energy and burn less oil and coal (or none at all), but government action is needed to ramp up alternative sources, especially wind and solar and to support electric cars.
Obama's resolve to continue with offshore oil-drilling is not promising. Nor is the Kerry-Leiberman-Graham climate bill, even if Graham returns as co-sponsor. Our political system seems incapable of making rational policy.
Soon, we'll celebrate Spring in February--with a couple billion climate refugees.
Maybe the Empire will fall first.
At least the Democratic Senators from Florida and New Jersey are sponsoring a bill to prevent test drilling off both the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts, the areas opened up for exploration by the President.
Here in the Hudson Valley, I'm close to the land, and I know the climate is getting screwed. We hold a 'bringing in the May' celebration of May eve each year. One of our rituals involves bringing in locally blooming flowers and blossoming boughs. Each year until now, we've brought in loads of forsythia, shadblow, wild apple, quince and daffodils. This year there were some daffodils, but most had passed; there was one apple tree still with blossoms, no quince and no forsythia, except with flowers already dried up. Until now, the height of the apple blossoms (this is still apple orchard country), was mid-May, when the dogwood also blossoms. This year, most of our flowering boughs were dogwood, not quite past. Further, the maples have mostly leafed out already, something that isn't supposed to happen for another two to three weeks!
It's a beautiful Spring, but knowing how much the climate has changed does put a damper on our appreciation of the season's beauty. And now, on May 1st, it's going to be in the 80's! The temperature might not set a record, but it's warmer than it used to be.
We've had two manmade disasters in the last two weeks: the mine explosion and the undersea well explosion. We should sit up and take notice. One involves coal, the other oil. Fossil fuels: the same fuels that are doing most of the damage to our climate.
The oil companies will continue to pour millions into lobbying and campaign funds, the coal companies likewise. It seems as if they're even paying off the President if he can say with a straight face that "safeguards" will somehow insure against future disasters, or that "clean coal technology" will be effective in combating the global warming effects of burning coal.
So, it's up to us. First of all, we need to insist: no offshore drilling, period and no new coal-fired power plants.
We, individually, can use significantly less energy and burn less oil and coal (or none at all), but government action is needed to ramp up alternative sources, especially wind and solar and to support electric cars.
Obama's resolve to continue with offshore oil-drilling is not promising. Nor is the Kerry-Leiberman-Graham climate bill, even if Graham returns as co-sponsor. Our political system seems incapable of making rational policy.
Soon, we'll celebrate Spring in February--with a couple billion climate refugees.
Maybe the Empire will fall first.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Far-Left Socialist--Obama?
Ralph Reed's Faith & Freedom Coalition sent me a "survey" to "To Stop President Obama’s Far-Left Socialist Agenda for America." FFC announced that it was sending this out to five million "American taxpayers," to send a message, and to raise money. Their goal: $30 million.
The first two questions (on how Obama is doing his job, and what you perceive his ideology to be) might seem fairly standard, except that the second question's answers range from conservative to communist to fascist.
Then the "survey" gets down to its main business. Before question 3 there is an "issue summary" that creates an "issue" almost out of whole cloth: claiming Obama wants to impose a "fairness doctrine" on right-wing talk radio in order to shut it down. The question is then asked (Question 3), whether the respondent thinks Obama will succeed in shutting down Beck, Limbaugh, et al.
The next issue summary states that Obama is as hostile to anyone questioning his agenda as Soviet leaders, and that he marshaled "union thugs" to beat up opponents at Town Hall meetings on health care! Where does this stuff come from? So Question 4 asks: Do you think President Obama respects free speech, or did union thugs act on their own "without any coordination with the Obama political machine?"
After question 6, there is another "issue summary." It states as fact that Obama and Congressional Democrats are "determined" to "loosen up" the border with Mexico, to enroll millions of Mexicans as new citizens as fast as possible, "so as to increase their voter base and cement their hold on political power." The question: how concerned are you about this "development?"
This is Ralph Reed's latest vehicle for raising money from right-wing know-nothings, as well as propaganda--of the Goebbels variety: repeat big lies often enough: people will take them as truth.
Reed turns ("Anti-American Communist Dictator") Chavez's joke about "Comrade Obama" to the left even of Fidel Castro into a serious issue ("issue summary"): do you think Obama is an ally of theirs? How much danger do you think "liberty" faces with Obama's Socialist agenda: More serious than World War II? More serious than the threat from the Soviet Union in the Cold War? More serious than the Civil War? Respondent can check more than one.
Question 12 asks the respondent to pledge to vote in the Congressional election and to bring three friends. Question 13 asks for his email address!
And then he is supposed to send his "emergency freedom-saving donation," to the Faith & Freedom Coalition.
Americans actually think like this!
Most Romans did in the fifth century, because of Imperial propaganda at least as blatant. If the US really goes in this direction, if this kind of Right-wing wins, then I fear for any reality-based politics at all.
Then we can really have an Emperor!
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Nixon's Stroke of Genius
militarized our foreign policy: he abolished the draft. Sounds like a paradox, but it actually makes sense. The common wisdom is that democracies are not warlike. Yet, the US is the most warlike country in the world, although Americans think we're so peaceful. Now, that's a paradox that Nixon's stroke of genius created.
Instead of the draft, we have a professional army. This is no peacetime army like the one we had before WWII; this is a full-time army, with almost continuous wars, even if far from the "homeland."
Because it's a professional army, opposition to the wars is not visceral, the way it was during Vietnam, Korea and before WWII. "Our boys," (and "girls") don't have to go over there. The only ones who go are those who choose to enlist, which means people disproportionately poor, without other prospects, or from "military families," mostly Southern, or from minorities. Endless leftish commentaries have pointed this out, of course.
So, opposition to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan is muted: people aren't afraid that they, or their children, are going to have to go. Opposition is much more theoretical. The money we spend on these wars is only a part (a large part) of the taxes we pay, and we may object to that, but "our boys and girls" are not on the line.
We may object to the senselessness of the war, the needless killing, and the hopelessness of the enterprise, but we have a president who won the Nobel Peace Prize. So, if he can't get us out of Afghanistan, well, maybe we just should be there. His strategy sounds sort of plausible, but only if you accept certain premises.
For example: al Qaeda can't be allowed to set up camps in Afghanistan, from which they could train to attack us. So, we have to control Afghanistan--but we don't. I pointed out April 5th that the effectiveness of the "drone war" has demonstrated that al Qaeda wouldn't dare set up open camps in Afghanistan: we could cream them with drones. Furthermore, the Taliban wouldn't let them; they wouldn't want us to have a pretext to attack them. Ergo, we don't have to stay in Afghanistan, at all.
Furthermore, even Karzai wants to negotiate with the top Taliban, but the US says 'No.' Isn't Karzai the (more or less) elected President? And we're there to bolster Afghan government institutions? And defend them from the Taliban. Karzai has even made preparations for a loya jirga, the national assembly of elders that has venerable political legitimacy. He had wanted the Taliban to attend. So far, the US has said "No."
Do you get it yet? We have a professional military, courtesy of Nixon. Like the Roman legions, it MUST have wars--and bases in most countries in the world. We the People just get to pay--and deprive ourselves of services--until the US is bankrupted by its wars.
Instead of the draft, we have a professional army. This is no peacetime army like the one we had before WWII; this is a full-time army, with almost continuous wars, even if far from the "homeland."
Because it's a professional army, opposition to the wars is not visceral, the way it was during Vietnam, Korea and before WWII. "Our boys," (and "girls") don't have to go over there. The only ones who go are those who choose to enlist, which means people disproportionately poor, without other prospects, or from "military families," mostly Southern, or from minorities. Endless leftish commentaries have pointed this out, of course.
So, opposition to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan is muted: people aren't afraid that they, or their children, are going to have to go. Opposition is much more theoretical. The money we spend on these wars is only a part (a large part) of the taxes we pay, and we may object to that, but "our boys and girls" are not on the line.
We may object to the senselessness of the war, the needless killing, and the hopelessness of the enterprise, but we have a president who won the Nobel Peace Prize. So, if he can't get us out of Afghanistan, well, maybe we just should be there. His strategy sounds sort of plausible, but only if you accept certain premises.
For example: al Qaeda can't be allowed to set up camps in Afghanistan, from which they could train to attack us. So, we have to control Afghanistan--but we don't. I pointed out April 5th that the effectiveness of the "drone war" has demonstrated that al Qaeda wouldn't dare set up open camps in Afghanistan: we could cream them with drones. Furthermore, the Taliban wouldn't let them; they wouldn't want us to have a pretext to attack them. Ergo, we don't have to stay in Afghanistan, at all.
Furthermore, even Karzai wants to negotiate with the top Taliban, but the US says 'No.' Isn't Karzai the (more or less) elected President? And we're there to bolster Afghan government institutions? And defend them from the Taliban. Karzai has even made preparations for a loya jirga, the national assembly of elders that has venerable political legitimacy. He had wanted the Taliban to attend. So far, the US has said "No."
Do you get it yet? We have a professional military, courtesy of Nixon. Like the Roman legions, it MUST have wars--and bases in most countries in the world. We the People just get to pay--and deprive ourselves of services--until the US is bankrupted by its wars.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
The Long Counter-Revolution
I missed the signs, going back to the Rehnquist court. Like most people left of center, I railed against the pro-business bias of many court decisions by the US Supreme Court.
But even Rehnquist held that corporations were artificial entities, not corporate "persons" with the rights and privileges of citizens. With the Roberts' Court decision, Citizens United v FEC, that personhood has now been enshrined in the supreme law of the land, no matter how flawed, transparently political and shattering of all precedent that decision was. It was authored by "Justices" who had claimed in their confirmation hearings that they would be bound by precedent, and would not "legislate from the bench." In Citizen's United, that's exactly what they did, more brazenly, more outrageously than any liberal Justices (like Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren and William O. Douglas), who were accused over the years of creating law not out of precedent, but out of their personal biases.
It was a judicial coup, and has the potential to wipe out any populist impulse or movement. It was possibly a direct response to Obama's apparently populist movement and electoral victory.
In "The Rise of The Corporate Court" by People For The American Way, the authors point out: resources available to corporations to influence elections are at a scale never before encountered by our already corrupted "democracy." Exxon collected about $1 million in its PAC for the 2008 election, abiding by campaign finance laws before the Citizen's United case. However, it amassed $85 billion in profits that year. With all limits on direct corporate spending thrown under the bus, it could now easily spend 10% of its profits--$8.5 billion--to elect the officeholders it wants. $8.5 billion is more than the 2008 campaign expenditures of Obama, McCain, plus all senate and congressional candidates and all state legislative candidates combined. Yet, Exxon is just one corporation!
Back in the 1890's, people joked about the Senator "from Standard Oil," or "JP Morgan." It won't be a joke!
What's worse, there are corporations like Goldman-Sachs, setting up some clients to fail so that Goldman--and other clients--can profit. They can use those profits to protect themselves politically! Three point three billion dollars profit just last quarter.
The real question is: how can ordinary citizens reclaim their democracy? There is a movement to ban corporate personhood by amending the Constitution, but the amendment process is much more difficult than passing healthcare in the Senate: required are two-thirds majorities in both House and Senate, and then passage by three-fourths of the states.
Citizens United is the culmination of a long-running counter-revolution. Corporations (and their principal owners) have become the Roman Senators, the honestiores, of our time. The rest of us are being reduced to humiliores.
Even before Rome's downfall, the humiliores had descended into serfdom.
But even Rehnquist held that corporations were artificial entities, not corporate "persons" with the rights and privileges of citizens. With the Roberts' Court decision, Citizens United v FEC, that personhood has now been enshrined in the supreme law of the land, no matter how flawed, transparently political and shattering of all precedent that decision was. It was authored by "Justices" who had claimed in their confirmation hearings that they would be bound by precedent, and would not "legislate from the bench." In Citizen's United, that's exactly what they did, more brazenly, more outrageously than any liberal Justices (like Thurgood Marshall, Earl Warren and William O. Douglas), who were accused over the years of creating law not out of precedent, but out of their personal biases.
It was a judicial coup, and has the potential to wipe out any populist impulse or movement. It was possibly a direct response to Obama's apparently populist movement and electoral victory.
In "The Rise of The Corporate Court" by People For The American Way, the authors point out: resources available to corporations to influence elections are at a scale never before encountered by our already corrupted "democracy." Exxon collected about $1 million in its PAC for the 2008 election, abiding by campaign finance laws before the Citizen's United case. However, it amassed $85 billion in profits that year. With all limits on direct corporate spending thrown under the bus, it could now easily spend 10% of its profits--$8.5 billion--to elect the officeholders it wants. $8.5 billion is more than the 2008 campaign expenditures of Obama, McCain, plus all senate and congressional candidates and all state legislative candidates combined. Yet, Exxon is just one corporation!
Back in the 1890's, people joked about the Senator "from Standard Oil," or "JP Morgan." It won't be a joke!
What's worse, there are corporations like Goldman-Sachs, setting up some clients to fail so that Goldman--and other clients--can profit. They can use those profits to protect themselves politically! Three point three billion dollars profit just last quarter.
The real question is: how can ordinary citizens reclaim their democracy? There is a movement to ban corporate personhood by amending the Constitution, but the amendment process is much more difficult than passing healthcare in the Senate: required are two-thirds majorities in both House and Senate, and then passage by three-fourths of the states.
Citizens United is the culmination of a long-running counter-revolution. Corporations (and their principal owners) have become the Roman Senators, the honestiores, of our time. The rest of us are being reduced to humiliores.
Even before Rome's downfall, the humiliores had descended into serfdom.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Retrospective: Earth Day 2010
It's so beautiful out! But, Spring is a month early.
There was a radio show detailing some of the alternatives scientists have begun to discuss because no political solutions appear possible. The alternatives: bio-engineering to "cool" the earth, to counteract dangerous climate change.
There was some hope, when Obama was elected, that he would reverse US opposition to action to slow climate change. After all, the US was global polluter par none until last year (when China surpassed us). Also, the case that global warming is happening and that humans are largely causing it keeps on getting stronger, despite DC's "snowmageddon."
Further, that we are getting nearer and nearer to major climate tipping points. We may already have surpassed some: for example, massive releases of methane as Arctic permafrost thaws (methane is 25 times more potent than CO2 as an agent promoting global warming). All the predictions of even two years ago have proven too low; the high range forecasts (faster global warming) appear to be the low-range of what has already occurred.
Yet, the meeting on climate change in Copenhagen, in which the US was supposed to lead the world in a global response, was an abject failure. It was in large part because Obama offered only the limp-wristed cap and trade and low-ball cut to emissions that has apparently foundered in the stalemated US Congress. Republicans and corporate Democrats reject even that inadequate response.
So, what to do? Bio-engineering? Will the US unilaterally spray the atmosphere with various additives to make clouds more opaque, or to reduce ocean reflectivity, or…?
If not the US, then who? Russia? China?
Put this way, perhaps you can see the problem: if we can't agree on reducing CO2 emissions, how on earth are humans going to agree on something that is still highly speculative, that might cool the earth, but might just screw up the climate even more?
Parenthetically, the scientist on the above-mentioned radio show let drop that 2 billion people depend on the monsoon rains in South and Southeast Asia. What would they do if the US unilaterally sprayed clouds and the result was that the monsoon rains failed? They'd have to leave, or starve! Two billion desperate people. Oh, and they have nuclear weapons: we're talking about India, Pakistan and southern China.
No wonder US intelligence rated the threat from global warming/climate change as greater than al Qaeda!
Perhaps humans are incapable of cooperating globally. Instead, oil and coal (and other) interests must safeguard profits: they have a lot of money to buy policy-makers: vested interests always do.
Perhaps this will be the epitaph of global civilization: vested interests trumped common sense.
We still have time to redeem Earth Day 2010, but not much time. Forget about the American Empire. We can't replace Ephesus with Constantinople as the Romans did. Some humans may survive, but it might be in caves.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Angry, Not Just Tea Partiers
People are angry, and have good reason to be. But right-wing commentators and media like Fox are successfully diverting their ire. Meanwhile, would-be reformers find little support for substantive reform in policy areas in which there are substantial vested interests.
Health reform had to be limited to get past insurance company and provider interests, hence no "public option," and no negotiated Pharma prices.
Financial reform has to pass muster with banks, which are again riding roughshod over the economy: posting huge gambling profits, foreclosing on homeowners and ignoring mortgage re-negotiation programs, instituting new credit card fees, borrowing from the Fed at virtually no cost, and using the money to speculate, instead of loaning to businesses.
Republicans make the false claim that finance reform proposals will perpetuate public bailouts, so any reform must be killed. Meanwhile, Democrats are too craven to re-establish the needed boundaries between depositors and gamblers (like the repealed Glass-Steagall law), or to create a consumer protection agency that isn't answerable to the bankers first.
Why? Because banks and bankers have bought the GOP and enough of the Democrats to forestall meaningful reform.
Tea Party activists are angry, and others, too, but instead of venting their ire against the corporations exporting their jobs for profits, or against bankers, or AIG, they rant against "socialistic" Obama, Muslim, foreigner, against illegal aliens and against "those people" who don't pay income taxes (they pay as much in other taxes).
Noam Chomsky noted the similarities between the violent rhetoric of right-wing Americans and the Nazis before Hitler's takeover, and pointed out that the Nazis had only negligible support two years before they took control (through a democratic election).
The Weimar Republic was democratic, moderate and ineffectual; its reformers were pusillanimous. Nazis boasted they knew what to do. Germany's largest corporations supported them. The fascist system Nazis instituted, merged the power of the state with that of big business. The military in Nazi Germany was fused with both. Is that where we're headed?
Can moderate, centrist, half-reforms mollify enough of the people, stabilize the economy, prevent dangerous climate change, establish peace and maintain democracy? Given the violent response of the crazies, the power of the status quo institutions, and the military's interest in pursuing "the long war," it doesn't seem likely.
I take the Tea Party seriously. They may have all the facts wrong, they may be as ignorant as Sarah Palin, but they have energy. Faced with right-wing populists like Father Coughlin, FDR campaigned against "the economic royalists of our time." He won big for reform in 1936.
Our democracy needs an FDR, or Obama to become one, if it is to survive. Otherwise, we'll face the twilight of empire, like Diocletian's, more totalitarian than Hitler's, but declining nonetheless--before climate change destroys civilization as we know it.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Trained to Kill
An Afghan bystander asked plaintively, after US troops shot up a bus in Kandahar, "Why didn't they shoot out the tires? Why did they shoot the people?"
It's a good question.
When I was in Basic Training back in 1961 (Yes, the Dark Ages), our cry as we lunged at stuffed dummies with our bayonets was: "Kill, Kilo, Kill!" It was Kilo Company, you see.
Since 1961, since the Vietnam war, and then the wars since (quite a few), American soldiers (and marines) have been trained to be more and more lethal killers, it seems. With their weaponry, American troops are probably the most deadly military on Earth.
But in wars of counterinsurgency, killing is counterproductive most of the time. As both military and civilian leaders keep on saying, the American mission in Afghanistan is to win over the people to the established Afghan governing institutions. Killing ten civilians here and 5 there, is not going to win their hearts; shooting pregnant women and then gouging the bullets out of their bodies to hide their crime isn't cool, either: it's going to drive them into the hands of the Taliban.
With the Joker we foisted on them (Karzai), what other choice do they have? We prevented them from naming a stable head of state (their former King), which was the Afghans' first choice in the loya jirga, the one in which they finally were persuaded/pressured (by our Ambassador) to pick Karzai, instead.
Yet, it seems clear, from sources like the Wikileaks video of a helicopter gunner, and this report of the bus killing (four or five dead and 30 wounded?) that American soldiers may be there to win hearts and minds, or to "clear, hold and build," but what they seem to be trained to do best is to kill lots of people--very quickly.
Don't get me wrong: American servicemen and women aren't evil. Most of them probably think and hope they're doing good. And many try hard. But the military-industrial-security complex is evil; it drives people to do evil, whether they know it or not.
When I was stationed in Turkey (1962-3), I worked and bunked with fellow Traffic Analysts, and drank with them, too, occasionally. I liked them, and they all meant well. But the common opinion they held of the local Turks was appalling: dirty "abies," who will always cheat you, or kill you if you so much as look at their women.
I doubt that American soldiers in Afghanistan are as well disposed towards the locals as my friends were. After all, none of the Turks were trying to kill us.
We don't belong there; we end up killing civilians--and being killed. Afghanistan could bury the American Empire as it buried the Soviets in the 1980's; it could weaken us as decisively as Goths debilitated Romans when they beat Emperor Galen at Adrianople in 378, beginning Rome's slide into oblivion.
Friday, April 9, 2010
US Empire, Inc.
My previous blog dealt with a video released by Wikileaks. The importance of a service like wikileaks has been underscored by the denials of Pentagon and pro-defense bloggers about the meaning of the Iraq helicopter video. Wikileaks' crucial role has also been demonstrated by the recent Appeals Court decision that the FCC doesn't have the power to enforce net neutrality.
Comcast, AT&T and Verizon all claim that net neutrality will not fairly recompense them for their services, that they need to be able to charge more for high band-width users, in order to adequately invest in continued improvements in the Internet.
Gee, 80% profits (for Comcast) aren't enough?
What really is at issue is: who controls the Internet. The FCC has been like the cop in the patrol car; nobody controls where you go, but you have to abide by the speed limits. In the case of the Internet, the FCC was attempting to insure that everyone had equal access.
The companies want control. Their spokespeople claim they wouldn't charge more except for high-bandwidth users, but if there is no cop on the beat, why wouldn't they charge more? After all, a corporation's officers are legally required to maximize profit.
So, if there is premium access, then those not paying the higher fees will end up getting lower quality (lower cost) services, or they could be blocked unless they pay more.
Providers could also block users if their content promotes ideas or policies that could threaten their bottom line. This brings us back to Wikileaks: the Iraq video would not be in the interest of any corporation which makes profits from our war efforts, since it has profoundly anti-war implications. With no cop on the beat, it could have been blocked.
The same might be said for certain candidates: anti-corporate positions could therefore become even more difficult to bring to public attention. Not only would they be handicapped by receiving no corporate money now that corporations can spend unlimited money directly on elections, but in addition, the carriers could block meaningful access to a campaign.
There are two ways out: one is for the FCC to find another way to regulate the Internet to insure net neutrality: it's exploring its options. The other is to pass net neutrality laws in Congress, but the opposition of the large cable providers meshes with anti-regulatory zeal, largely Republican, though other corporations, like Google and Yahoo might encourage pro-regulation Congress-people if they push back.
The Appeals Court decision is like the second of a one-two punch, the first being the Supreme Court ruling that corporations have free speech rights as "corporate persons."
This looks like a silent corporate coup. Forget about Democrats and Republicans: corporations are gaining control--unless we stop them. Goodbye democracy, goodbye the United States. Hello US Empire, Inc. Is Augustus waiting in the wings? Is her name Sarah Palin?
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Just Looking for Targets in Baghdad
The helicopter gunner was "looking for targets." What he saw was 8 men gathering on the ground, so they became targets. He justified shooting because two of them were carrying something. He decided they had weapons, although in fact they were carrying cameras. Almost all the men were killed in one burst of his machine gun. One struggled to rise on an elbow, the gunner watched. A van came to "gather the bodies," so he shot up the van.
The man in the van had come to rescue the injured, and had two children with him on the way to a tutor. The man he tried to rescue, the photojournalist's assistant, was killed; the children were seriously injured.
There is only one reason why this video was shown on the Internet: Wikileaks leaked it. The photojournalists were a two-man Reuters team, both killed, the photographer's body actually run over by an investigating US Bradley vehicle, his assistant killed when the helicopter returned to shoot up the van; the gunner chuckled when he saw the Bradley run over the body!
Reuters had tried to find out what had happened to their photojournalists and had filed an FOIA for the video; the military claimed there had been a firefight and the helicopter gunner had followed the "rules of engagement." You could see there was no fight; the men were relaxed, paying no attention to the helicopter overhead. This was casual murder, carried out as just another daily patrol, "looking for targets."
The Military refused to release the video. Now we can see why. From the video, we can see, vividly, that the military are out of control and can go on murder sprees with impunity. Reuters had "followed procedures" in trying to find out what had happened to their team; the military stonewalled and insisted on a lie. Only an illegal leak, "conveyed" to Wikileaks, revealed what really happened.
This is how Americans really fought the war in Baghdad (the video was shot in 2007), and probably how they are fighting it in Afghanistan now. Why would any Iraqi, or Afghan, want American military in their country if this is how they operate? This was, after all, simply a daily patrol "looking for targets."
Helicopters fly over me daily. If people here were shot like this, I'd get a cannon and start shooting at them the minute I saw them!
It's likely that the stories told Congress, and even the President, but certainly the media, are similar distortions and lies. The military aren't fighting for freedom; they're terrorizing the people they were sent to "liberate."
This is proof, if proof were needed, that the American military sow terror. We need to stop the terrorists--our troops. They need to come home.
Dismantle the Empire!
Monday, April 5, 2010
Drone War Explodes Afghan War Rationale
The drone war in Pakistan appears successful, in the sense that it has the Taliban, the Haqqani network and al Qaeda on the run in North and South Waziristan. They've had to jettison ATV's for travel on public buses in ones and twos, they can't have large training exercises, AQ operatives have dug themselves into mountainsides, and "camps" are no longer available: Taliban, etc. have to find shelter in local people's homes, often using coercion--not a good position for an insurgency. Their tribal hosts are only being pragmatic: hosting foreigners, especially (the Arabs), could risk their families to drone attacks. Even sleeping in pine forests is no longer safe: drones patrol in pairs 24/7.
Now, note this: officially, Pakistan has not approved of American drones commanding their skies, but they're tolerated. While the drones do take off from Pakistani airfields, they are controlled remotely from places like a base near Denver, Colorado.
When all else is going badly in Afghanistan, what is the ultimate rationale for staying there: to prevent the Taliban from returning and setting up an al Qaeda haven with training camps.
Even though parts of the Taliban and the Haqqani network remain allied with al Qaeda, is it realistic to assume that they would allow Qaeda training camps in a "new" Taliban Afghanistan (i.e. if the worst came to fruition and the Taliban regained dominance in its government)?
First of all, the strongest Taliban faction has taken the nationalist position of denouncing all foreign influence; they pointedly included al Qaeda. In addition, however, all the insurgents are experiencing the reality that there are no refuges in this age of drone warfare.
Would a newly resurgent Taliban be so stupid as to admit al Qaeda camps on its sovereign soil, either openly or covertly, after such an experience? With the aerial surveillance the US has now, there would be no hiding place. The US would be able to intensify its drone attacks on any Afghan camps, since Afghanistan has no air force to speak of, and would be unlikely to afford one. American drones could continue to use Pakistani airfields, or airfields in other nearby "allied" countries.
The point is: the very success of the drone war demonstrates that we could easily destroy any large-scale terror establishments. So, where is the rationale to continue fighting in Afghanistan? Even President Karzai, whom we have supported with billions of dollars and 100,000 troops, has denounced the troops and has often said that the US is in Afghanistan to control it.
We could prove him wrong and withdraw, but threaten drones to prevent Afghanistan from again becoming a "terrorist haven."
We won't because of the money our war-makers, civilian and military continue to reap from imperial war. Ultimately, imperial wars like Afghanistan won't maintain the empire: they will bankrupt it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)