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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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!

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.

Afghan President's Brother

“If they let Ahmed Wali (Karzai) stay in power, it means they are not serious about governance,” said a diplomat in Kabul. [New York Times: 3/31/10]

The Afghan President's brother reportedly controls almost everything in Kandahar, the southern Afghan province that the US is poised to "clear and hold" with a large influx of troops: US, NATO and Afghan.

Ahmed Wali is the most important businessman in the area, and he has used his connection to the President well. He seizes land the Americans want to use--so they have to lease it from him; he controls armed groups that patrol the city; he pays off the Taliban to protect his lands and shipments. While the Taliban controls behind the scenes, Ahmed Wali insures that his businesses flourish. He stole the election in Kandahar for his brother. He even, reportedly, launders drug money for the Taliban, as well as for himself.

The greatest reason for the Afghan government's inability to combat the Taliban is that Afghans perceive it as irretrievably corrupt, reportedly one of the most corrupt governments in the world.

Ahmed Wali is Exhibit A.

As American troops assemble to drive the Taliban out of Kandahar, many independent advisors, from NGO's to NATO, probably including US diplomats, have urged that Ahmed Wali must go--if the US is serious about "holding," i.e. bringing in an Afghan government that wins the loyalty of the people.

But Ahmed Wali is the President's brother. He also, reportedly, has been useful to the CIA. He's one of those manipulators of power, who are able to land on their feet, regardless of who holds the whip. Ahmed Wali is going to stay.

Earlier, after the assault on Marjah, in Helmand province, McClatchy reported that the "returning" Afghan government (the governor had hardly ever set foot in Marjah) was universally despised and distrusted as corrupt.

So, this is a pattern. The US is not "serious about governance."

What does this say about the vaunted "counter-insurgency" strategy, which supposedly aims to put effective government in place to counter the insurgency, to attract Afghans' loyalty?

Despite Obama's hurried, secret visit to Karzai, when he reportedly lectured Karzai on getting rid of corruption, that's not going to happen.

The US can win all the battles--while accidentally killing more civilians--but this is no way to beat an insurgency. All we are doing is spending lives (Afghan and American) and money ($1 million per soldier/marine per year), boosting the earnings of defense contractors and making some parts of Afghanistan safe--for Chinese investment--temporarily.

The US lost Vietnam, despite winning all the battles, because its client government was hopeless: the Vietminh/Vietcong offered a better alternative.

Karzai thumbs his nose at the US, even inviting Iran's Ahmadinejad to dinner to spite us.

Afghanistan is "déjà-vue all over again." The only question is: when will the empire collapse?

Man The Gambler

Man the Gambler

Some of the most densely populated places on earth are either close to, or even below sea-level, and the seas are rising.

Many people cluster in places they know are high risk: of earthquake, flood, or volcanic eruption. These places happen to be some of the most fertile in the world, like the Nile Delta, and the Tigris and Euphrates in the ancient world, places like Java and the deltas of the Ganges and Brahmaputra in India and Bangladesh, or of the Mississippi delta in Louisiana and Mississippi.

Why do they have high populations? They are highly fertile, the basis for Empires like Egypt and Sumer. Adaptable humans are gamblers. Every farmer or peasant bets their crops will flourish; they don't always. A Javanese farmer can expect bumper crops because of benign climate and rich soil, but he might be ruined by a volcanic eruption. So, he cultivates crops, right up the slope of Mount Lurus, or any of the 33 other volcanoes on the island, and if it erupts, he could be wiped out. If not, for this season, he's golden.

Women are probably less gamblers than enablers. Their first priority is to protect their children by ensuring that a man supports them. If he insists that their land on the volcano is the best, they aren't going to demand that the family move--until it's too late.

Romans took another kind of gamble, when forests were cut down for Roman baths with the bet that nothing would change: as I describe on my Ephesus page, everything did: Ephesus, Rome's Asian capital before Constantinople, has been a ruin for two thousand years.

Which leads us to dangerous climate change (a label preferable to 'global warming'): aren't the deniers, like EXXON, Senator Inhofe and Rush, gambling with all our lives? They're gambling that dangerous climate change isn't going to happen, even though all the know-it-alls say it is. Everyone who denies climate change, or our part in it, is gambling that it just ain't so.

What happens to people who lose their gamble?

In places like Java or Bangladesh, farms, even farmers get burned out or washed away. Some who gambled don't survive.

In the case of dangerous climate change, we may all lose, eventually. However, the people who suffer first, are those least at fault, in poor, under-developed countries. Therefore, high stakes gamblers can keep on gambling, denying and "winning" through short-term "investments." Yet, even the winners lose if warming is unchecked, if we pass tipping points like the arctic tundra melting to release huge methane deposits.

Can't we gamble that preventative measures could work; instead of gambling that they aren't needed?

Throw Bricks!

Throw bricks through their windows! Get rid of them!

Violence as a political tool is used in third world, or so-called developing countries; hatred, as well, as events like the Ruanda genocide demonstrate. Both were also used in "developed" states: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the USSR.

But in democracies, politics is supposed to be more civilized. Representatives are supposed to represent our interests. Politics is supposed to be rational, debate is supposed to be about policy. It's also, inevitably, about emotion, but it's supposed to be kept civil enough that you don't have riots and revolutions.

When "mainstream" political parties condone violent action, the march towards totalitarianism has quickened. If Republicans condone violence and egg on extremist rhetoric, they are preparing the way for autocracy.

The violence is incited--has been for years--by right-wing talk radio, by the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks, and violent language has escalated since Obama's election.

So have extremist right wing groups; their numbers have proliferated by almost a third since 2008. But extremist groups don't expect to gain control of the nation through elections: Republicans hope to.

Note: many "tea partiers" reject the GOP almost as bitterly as they oppose Democrats; a Third Party movement is gestating.

Republicans seem to reject rational discourse, however. The health care legislation is similar to Romney-care in Massachusetts and a Heritage Foundation-Republican-backed proposal; it has no public insurer (the poorly labeled "public option," which sounded too much like "public bathroom"). Yet, Republican Senators and Congressmen rant about a "government takeover"--except for those who rail against "socialism." Since the bill creates a (subsidized) market of 31 million new customers for private insurance companies, it's the Republican kind of socialism--for corporations, which is what they extended throughout government during W's reign; they call it "privatization."

Since the legislation isn't theirs, it's okay for Republicans to encourage others to threaten their opponents with hate mail, death threats, insults, racial or sexual slurs--but if someone actually shoots a Congressman, or Senator, or the President, then Republicans will be like the boy who taunts a bully into pummeling someone, and then whines, "it's not my fault!"

The violent turn in right-wing politics ought to stiffen spines. When anti-choice Congressman Stupak receives death threats for voting for health care, others should realize: they'll need the courage of their convictions, or they should quit politics.

If spines collapse, instead, I wouldn't hold much hope for even a civil plutocracy, let alone democracy: the US could become a failed state.

The political parallel to Rome here is the fall of the Republic, replaced by Emperor Augustus. But don't expect American hegemony to last 500 years: we can't afford it.

Big (Good) America?

Americans assume we're doing good abroad. After all, the US is the only country that aided its defeated enemies and prostrate allies (after WWII) to return them to prosperity and democracy.

Since Vietnam, or, arguably, Korea, the American record has been mixed, but that hasn't altered the predominant American mythology: Americans go abroad to do good.

We're in Afghanistan to wrest it--for the Afghans--from Islamic extremist fanatics. We went into Iraq to save it from the tyrannous dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and to bring Iraq democratic politics--although, of course in both cases, we were also defending America from the threat they posed to us: two small countries halfway around the world, separated from us by seas and oceans, as well as other lands.

Hah! What about oil and oil pipelines?

Romans had a similar ideology. Romans believed they were doing good in the world. In Italy, they were unifying the peninsula; in Greece, they were bringing peace and order; in Asia and Europe, they were bringing order and law, and ultimately, civilization and Christianity.

Both Rome and America would boast the old Quaker saying about its most prosperous citizens: "They did well by doing good."

Romans--of the better sort--believed this. They believed it, even though they were wealthy beyond their contemporaries imagining (and right up there with our contemporaries). They became wealthy by grabbing lands Romans had conquered, and accumulating hundreds, even thousands of slaves, captured in Roman wars of conquest. The Senators of the western empire, in its decline, owned huge estates from Egypt to northern Gaul. Some of them had estates along the whole range: they could supply themselves with northern crops and tropical fruits simultaneously.

Now we have billionaires. While not all of them are American (the wealthiest is Mexican), it is the American system of war, and corporate monopoly, which makes them possible.

What most Americans don't realize is that our wars make a few very rich, but they impoverish the many. The Bush family made their fortune in wars going back to WWI. The Obamas didn't, but there are probably a lot of people in Obama's administration, and more of those advising him about "National Defense," who have become wealthy from war.

Furthermore, while the National Security Industrial complex makes a few very rich, it depends on high unemployment and low wages to recruit "the troops." Conveniently, defense contracts generate less than half the jobs civilian government contracts create for the same money, which means, in a finite budget: war dis-employs millions.

Wars also enable a few--our global elite--to rip off large parts of the rest of the world. That's how empires work.

Big bad America is a (declining) Empire.

Words Have Power

"How's that hopey changey thing working out for ya?" asked Sarah Palin.

Hope and Change were two of Obama's most important slogans, but they lacked substance. While "health care reform" or "health insurance reform" are more substantive, they don't lend themselves to sloganeering.

Democrats have a problem, including Obama, conveying their agenda in non-wonkish terms. It would have been so much more easily sold, and understood, if Democrats had campaigned for Medicare for All, rather than health insurance reform. If Medicare for All was too radical for Congressional Democrats (according to polls, it isn't for most people), they should at least have tried to come up with something less opaque and colorless than "Health Insurance Reform."

"Global warming," was easily ridiculed when Washington DC was blanketed in feet of snow (an effect of global warming). I propose a better tag: Bad Climate Change. Cap and Trade? Forgeddaboutit. How about: Stop Bad Climate Change? The tag would make it obvious: we have to do whatever we can to avert as much of the bad effects as possible.

What does 'bad' climate change do, that climate change does not? It adds a value charge, which is what Democrats, and Progressives more generally, have been so bad at conveying: there are values here that we all share. Unless we are awaiting the end of the world, aka the Rapture, we want to continue to live on this bountiful planet.

Another example: when Obama came into office, people were looking for him to proclaim something like The New New Deal. What did we get instead: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, aka the stimulus! It could have been Rebuilding a Better America Act, or even A New Way Forward.

When it comes to the finance industry: everybody outside it loves to hate it, and with good reason. A bill to stop bad practices, to discourage risky behavior and to prevent bankers from ripping off everyone else, is what we need. It could be called Making Bankers Honest Act, which could be wildly popular, despite all the bank money ranged against it. Instead, we have Financial Regulatory Reform. Bank money will be flung against it anyway, but it will be a lot harder to rally troops to counteract those millions of dollars.

Screw bipartisanship! If Obama is going to push through real change, he'll have to do what he did with health care. Politically it would work better if he could package it to sell, like Stop Bad Climate Change. Otherwise:

The best lack all conviction
And the worst are filled with passionate intensity…


Just listen to John Boehner on health care!

1600 Homes on Palestinian Land

"This is starting to get dangerous for us," Biden reportedly told Netanyahu. "What you're doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. That endangers us and it endangers regional peace." Yedioth Ahronoth

Biden was responding to the announcement, made while he was meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, that 1600 new homes would be built in Greater Jerusalem, on land previously claimed by Palestinians. Was 1600 chosen as an echo of the White House's address: 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

The announcement seemed pointed, but whether it was or not, the problem is the same: the US must de-link itself from Israel's occupation, if it is to be a credible force in the Middle East.

There has been a call to boycott all companies and products associated with the occupation. These should include: Sabra Hummus, but also Motorola, ITT, Terex, Caterpillar, GE, Roadstone Cement, United Technologies and Oshkosh trucks, because of their active role through lucrative contracts, in support of the Israeli occupation. That is something individual Americans can do.

The US administration should go a lot further: it should threaten to withhold military aid, which goes a long way towards supporting the Israel Defense Force, and economic aid, as well. We shouldn't be picky: not just aid that enables the West Bank Settlements, but all aid.

Are the Israelis thumbing their noses at Biden/Obama because they think Democrats are vulnerable? Democrats could lose crucial Jewish support in the upcoming elections, but if Obama put it in terms of Israeli policy "endangering our troops," a muscular policy might actually gain more votes than it would lose. "He's finally showing some balls!" people would say.

What is crucial to understand, however, is that the right-wing Israeli government is not interested in negotiating with Palestinians. Netanyahu wants to establish "facts on the ground" that can't be reversed, that make a two state solution impossible.

Frankly, I don't think it's possible now, because of all the encroachments, settlements and segregated roads. But that means that Palestinians must be integrated into greater Israel. They cannot forever be treated the way blacks were treated in Apartheid South Africa. They have to have rights, votes, and freedom of movement. They must have access to whatever Israelis do, especially opportunities to flourish. Since Israeli right-wing governments have made a two-state solution impossible, Israel will have to live with the consequences, which may, someday soon, mean an Arab majority in Greater Israel.

To continue supporting Israel in its oppressive Palestinian policy justifies al Qaeda in its terror attacks, the Taliban in its nationalism, even Ahmadinejad in his pursuit of regional hegemony.

If the US is to have any influence in the Middle East, it has to assert its interests now. If that's too hard, then we should get out of the empire business.

China and the US Dollar

China and the Dollar

China has a lot of them, more all the time; they keep rolling up surpluses, while we roll up deficits. Even in the Great Recession, China is raking in money, although there have been some US trade improvements: we are buying less, due to the recession.

China has a lot of advantages for trade: a hard-working, low-paid, workforce that rarely dares disrupt business with strikes or labor protests. Chinese labor is highly skilled, especially considering how recently China became an industrial power. And China's sheer numbers gives it a tremendous advantage.

But China has a heavy thumb on the scales--almost literally. The renminbi or yuan, the Chinese official currency, has been artificially undervalued for decades. The money measurement of Chinese export prices is skewed downward by that thumb. Chinese goods cost less than they should, because of currency manipulation, giving China a 20-40% competitive advantage over American goods--or German, or French--in our own markets.

The effect of this undervaluation doesn't stop with the huge US trade deficit. It has global repercussions. China is sucking up more and more money from all over the world, not just the US. When China insists on undervaluing its currency, it destabilizes the whole world economy. It's possible that the unbalanced trade/currency relations between China and the US, provided conditions for the 2008 financial collapse.

There is also the global effect of all that money going to a country that spends too little. Chinese savings rates are now an unbelievable 55%. So, money is withdrawn from the international economy and put into US Treasury bills. China doesn't buy imports with its money; it buys resources, mines, oil fields, real estate. It also induces corporations to build factories in China, because that's the only effective way for non-Chinese to crack the China market.

Now, China is facing inflationary pressure, despite a managed economy, while the rest of the world is flirting with deflation; recovery is held back by this huge trade imbalance.

Nobel Economist Krugman advocates a 25% surcharge on Chinese imports as a temporary measure to force China to revalue. He points out: we have China over a barrel. The Fed could minimize the impact if China sold large amounts of its dollar holdings in protest; the dollar would fall (not collapse), which would make the US more competitive. A declining dollar would also devalue China's remaining dollar assets.

Only Obama could do this. It would be an appropriate assertion of American power, and it could help the whole global economy.

I can hear the screams now! What, devaluing the mighty greenback?

Devaluation would be a powerful development and jobs policy, not a loss of prestige. It's way overdue.

Devaluation would also increase pressure to wind up our costly empire: it would cost more. I don't think that would be a bad thing.

Taxes: A Republican Alternative?

Taxes: when all is said and done, it boils down to who pays and who benefits.

Look at the Bush tax cuts; they cut taxes primarily for the top income earners, and caused the largest budget deficits ever recorded--until the Great Recession, as it's now called.

What did we get for those tax cuts? Unbridled speculation, or increasing debt? Both, actually.

Because of Rubin-Clinton-Greenspan, the banks were unleashed. Because of the tax cuts to the wealthy, there were piles of loose capital available for speculation. Because of the previous 30 years of deregulation, union-busting, tax flattening and shredding safety nets, those without loose capital were so hard-pressed to maintain the "American Lifestyle" that they went into debt. And then some of the speculators had a bright idea: speculate with all that extra debt: bundle it, slice it and resell it (the "derivatives" that nearly brought down the western world--they may still).

Obama's budget-tax policy trims around the edges: allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse for those with high incomes, cutting middle class taxes just a bit and adding some modest progressive credits.

What does a "conservative" Republican have to offer? Congressman Ryan of Wisconsin has offered a Republican alternative tax plan. It has been called radical, and it is; it's definitely not conservative. It would start with making the Bush tax cuts permanent, but would go much further. It would abolish the estate tax and the corporate income tax, privatize Medicare and Medicaid (replacing them with vouchers), reduce and partially privatize Social Security, eliminate taxes on capital gains and dividends, and eliminate the income exclusion of employer-provided health insurance--to force health insurance into the "free" market.

To make up (some) of the difference, Congressman Ryan would add an 8.5% "Business Consumption" tax: a value-added, or sales tax.

The effects would be radical. "It’s difficult to design a tax plan that will lose $2 trillion over a decade even while requiring 90% of taxpayers to pay more," said the analysts of Citizens for Tax Justice about this plan. It does this by shifting much taxation to the sales tax, while eliminating the Earned Income Tax Credit and other poverty reduction credits. Since poor people spend more than their income on consumption, they will be taxed more than 8.5% of their income. In fact, only those earning more than $127,384 would pay less in taxes. Those earning more than $480,700 (the top 1%) would save 15% on their taxes, or $211,314. Those earning $20,053-33,117 would pay $2,032 more (7.7%) and the lowest income group would pay $1,605 more (12.3%).

Just what we need! It's the selfish class raising its head again, and the effects could be even more disastrous than they were between 2000 and 2008: debt, excess capital, declining consumption, rising inequality and speculation.

Give the Republicans power and they'll make the Senators of the Late Roman Empire look like pikers!

Filibuster as Empire Buster

Progressive Democratic Senators Bennet, Harkin and others are promoting a bill to reform the filibuster.

However, important Democrats, like Dianne Feinstein, are against it, and the Republicans are obviously against it: they control the Senate's business with 41% of the votes. That's a pretty good trick, when you think about it.

Republicans have used more filibusters in Congress since 2006, than have ever been used before; they're using them to block virtually all legislation, except Defense bills, rendering elections meaningless and government ungovernable.

So, it's easy to understand why no Republican Senators will vote for filibuster reform. But why won't Democrats like Senator Feinstein and fellow caucus member Senator Lieberman vote for reform or abolition. Lieberman did once endorse getting rid of the filibuster, but that was years ago--before he became a pivotal vote. That should be a clue right there.

There is a reason why even a reform of the filibuster (let alone it's abolition) is unlikely.

Senators are there for the power; that's what makes them tick. With the filibuster, all of them, every single one, has much more power than they would with simple majority rule and no power to block.

With the filibuster, Ben Nelson can hold up the nation for his state alone, and so can Lieberman, and so can Jim Bunning. Each, then, gains enormous power--negative--but useful to gain things like the Medicaid in Nebraska deal.

So, why would any power-mad Senator want to give that up?

That's the point: power. And each Senator thinks that if he retains that power for himself, he'll be better placed for re-election, regardless of what happens to the government or his party. Think of all the things he can do for his state, which could insure his re-election (he/she hopes), if he retains that power.

Instead of being a faceless member of the majority, Ben Nelson wheels and deals for his state. Instead of being a retiring and faceless member of the minority, Jim Bunning becomes a national byword.

Maybe not all Senators are motivated solely by power. Maybe some genuinely believe they are doing good for their state and The People, but at the same time, their egos are being massaged, and probably their bank accounts, too.

Also, it may be true that the filibuster could be eliminated by a majority vote (50, plus Biden), but the Senate, as an institution, is very conservative. Also, the abolition of the filibuster might be met by more Republican obstruction: they could refuse to agree to a legislative calendar, thereby blocking all business.

Democrats threatened that in 2005, when Republicans proposed abolishing the filibuster with the "nuclear option." Still, it's too bad the Republicans didn't go through with it.

The Roman Senate led to the downfall of Rome, literally. If the US Senate cannot reform, or legislate, it could be instrumental in the downfall of the American empire, as well.

A State that does not govern, does not survive.

Comments?

What If Nothing Works?

What if the Democrats pass healthcare reform and we find that the back room deals have made it meaningless?

What if Iraq explodes into renewed civil war, and the US stands powerless to stop it? Our guy Maliki was the one who signed on to banning Sunni and secular candidates.

What if Iran announces it will build a bomb, and enough companies and countries are willing to buck or veto sanctions that Iran can't be stopped?

What if Obama and Democrats are unable to re-stimulate job growth, and we are stuck at near 10% unemployment?

What if the Republicans are unwilling to cooperate, and unwilling to lead if and when they regain power in Congress?

What if Afghanistan after Marjah is simply more of the same: a corrupt government takes over in daylight, and the Taliban comes back in at night?

Does President Obama lie awake wondering what to do about all these problems?

Last night, as I imitated Harry Reid, it occurred to me: why did Democrats elect such a wimp as their Senate leader? With his soft-high voice, who would ever listen to him; who would ever change their vote hearing his limp-wristed entreaties?

I yearn for a Senate leader like LBJ. He could twist arms, make deals, and carry out a Democratic agenda even in the face of a (moderate) Republican President. And then ram through civil rights legislation and Medicare when he was President.

Unfortunately, Harry Reid symbolizes Congressional Democrats, so it's no wonder that Congress is held in contempt by huge majorities of Americans. On the one side: timorous Democrats, afraid even to vote for what they believe in--think of Harry's soft high voice. On the other: Republicans who refuse to compromise and insist on playing victim to the big bad Democrats: think of John Boehner, whose voice is made for accusation and flippant denial.

Polarization is worse now than it was when Obama first started to campaign against it. The US Congress will drive the US into "failed state" status, unless it mends its ways, unless party discipline overcomes petty ambition and un-petty corruption.

Ironically, the peace president faces bipartisan support only on the wars. So long as Obama plays the generals' game, he'll get enough Republican votes to offset liberal, anti-war Democrats. No wonder he resists calls by Kucinich and Feingold to buck this rare consensus by adopting time-certain withdrawal plans for Afghanistan!

The US as failed state, except as bully-boy for global corporations. That is what it looks like--and the emerging nations will take over, like the Barbarians. They'll do business with whomever, ignoring global warming--they didn't cause it--until we--and they--are burned to a cinder.

It doesn't have to be this way. All that's needed is a little courage to act like commonsense human beings facing perennial disasters, instead of grasping idiots.

Predator Banksters

Predator Banksters

There has been outsized brouhaha about Goldman's and other bankster bonuses--made possible by Fed and bailout (taxpayer) money. There has also been some attention paid to the kind of "investments" that have bloated Goldman and JP Morgan profits: huge bets using the Fed's free money.

Now, it turns out that those same kinds of bets are behind a lot of the continuing instability in international financial markets. Greece is an especially egregious example.

It is likely that the Greek government has been feckless, and its public employee unions have been unreasonable. It is also true that Greece is in the exact same position as California, New York, and many other American states: it can't create its own money, so it can't do what the US Federal government can do: issue money to cover shortfalls (and more). Its currency, the Euro, is controlled by the limited government in Brussels, itself steered economically by its two largest players: Germany and France. Both major countries are understandably reluctant to follow even easier money policy than they already have: in Germany's case, its Mark meltdown in the 1920's and '30's makes it doubly wary.

However, there is something else going on, and it has to do with the banks, or rather the banksters. An article from the New York Times, 2/25/10 pinpoints the problem: Credit Default Swaps (CDS).

"As banks and others rush into these swaps, the cost of insuring Greece’s debt rises. Alarmed by that bearish signal, bond investors then shun Greek bonds, making it harder for the country to borrow. That, in turn, adds to the anxiety — and the whole thing starts over again."

That is, CDS's raise interest rates that Greece (and Portugal, Spain, Ireland, etc.) will have to pay to fund their obligations. That will make their budget-balancing task harder, and the misery of the ordinary man/woman in the street that much greater: governments will have to lay off millions in order to pay off their debts, and will have to curtail the public services that have raised their nations' standards of living.

But Wall Street doesn't mind. Why? Because, its traders can make outsized profits on the backs of Greek (and other nations') misery.

Wall Street did the same thing to Lehman and to AIG, and its traders are probably sharpening their knives for Portugal, Spain and so on.

This is only one more reason why financial regulation is imperative: banks will only return to the civilized world, and abandon their rapacity, when deposits and Fed/FDIC guarantees are stripped from their speculative arms, when the wall between depository and speculative institutions set up by Glass-Steagall is re-established and when CDS's (and other "exotic" financial instruments) are regulated.

If the banksters succeed in defeating reform, they will eventually succeed in bringing down the whole financial system, something they almost succeeded in doing in 2007-8.

And then?

Cut The Deficit?

Cut The Deficits?

An overwhelming majority of small businessmen polled in northern New York, said that their greatest concern was the government's growing deficit. They said the government needed to cut expenditures, not increase them. It should also (somehow, not specified) encourage business. Analogies were drawn between a household and the government; one couldn't live beyond one's means as a family; nor could government, they insisted.

It's as if Keynes never existed!

A healthy portion of the deficit is from automatic stabilizers, like payouts for unemployment; the more unemployed, the more payments. Two benefits flow from this: people are not thrown into utter misery, and they still buy things, thereby sustaining some demand for goods and services. Without unemployment insurance, food stamps and other support payments, the Great Recession could easily have become the Second Great Depression.

How do you stimulate business when there is too little demand in the economy for whatever reason--in this case because of financial collapse? Do you cut government expenditures?

How, logically, would this help? If consumers aren't buying and businesses aren't selling--or buying materials, etc., how does cutting government expenditures solve this problem? Doesn't it make more sense that if government bought things (highway paving, bridge materials, labor), it might stimulate business, even if it meant a short-term increase in the government deficit?

Governments are not households; that's a false analogy. Households can't create money, or destroy it; governments can and do. Furthermore, if one household saves money, it is being thrifty, but if everyone saves money, if nobody spends, everyone becomes poorer. This is called 'the paradox of thrift.' It's what happened in Japan for the Lost (two) Decade(s): savings rates were too high. Business floundered.

It could happen in the US, and will, if there is no further stimulus and real jobs bill, or, if the only growth in the national budget is for "Defense." Defense spending is a poor stimulus. Not only does it use large amounts of capital for each job, it spends much of it abroad--"stimulating" Okinawa, for example, or Afghanistan. Also, it doesn't make the nation more productive, except at killing.

And yet, no politician would dare suggest cuts to "defense," the largest discretionary item in the budget.

Obama pretends he's listening: he's cutting discretionary spending in about 1/8 of government--for 2011--and yet he knows that what the nation needs is more stimulus. The government should spend more, not less, until we're in a solid recovery and unemployment is steadily receding. If there were no more stimulus to promote business, or prevent state and local government lay offs, then demand would fall and we'd be right back where we started: it's called a "double-dip" recession. That happened in 1937, and in the Third Century.

In Rome, that double-dip went on for hundreds of years.

The Marjah Model

The Afghan offensive, despite attempts to safeguard civilians, is still an offensive in what we have proclaimed to be a war. In wars, lots of people get hurt, or worse. No matter how 'careful' or not an invader may try to be, he is still an invader. He is still causing local people to be killed, even if they're blown to bits by a mine their own people set.

Obama's Afghan war might end well, but only if Obama uses a temporary success (if there is one) to begin negotiating with the Taliban leadership. The Afghan government has already indicated that there is a way to do this (by calling a loya jirga to which the Taliban are invited). The Karzai government has promoted the idea of negotiations; NATO allies are receptive. There have been "feelers," and "signals" that even Mullah Omar is willing to talk. The Pakistanis have also offered to mediate with the Haqqani network, as long as they're assured of continued (renewed?) influence in Afghanistan. And now the Pakistanis and the CIA captured the "number two" leader, who favors negotiation.

There is only one important player who is still too skeptical to embrace negotiations: the Obama administration, or the American military.

This is shortsighted, especially in political terms. If Obama wants to re-elect Democrats, and gain re-election, tangible movement towards getting out of Afghanistan would be a tremendous boost. Obama should engage in the necessary diplomacy to assure an honorable withdrawal (ignoring the screams from the crazy Right).

At the same time, he and Congress should direct huge resources to stimulating job growth (again, ignoring the idiots shouting "Socialism!"). He should also bring the banks to heel. Obama and the Democrats in Congress must present voters with tangible progress on the economic and military fronts. Then Republicans wouldn't have a case--they offer no real alternative. Saying 'No' to everything does not solve, or even respond to what most people perceive as huge problems--joblessness, unstable, untamed banks, two wars, climate change and manufactured fear.

Marjah models what Obama needs to do domestically: impose as little pain as necessary, but not shrink from the probability that some will oppose whatever he does. Bipartisanship is dead: Republicans won't compromise when obstruction wins them votes. Obama and Democrats, especially Senators, should press on, using the Reconciliation process when necessary. Obama needs to use recess appointments, too, to neutralize Senatorial "holds."

Obama must be flexible, tough and unequivocal. What are the chances from a "centrist," who specialized in "bringing people together?"

Either, a progressive, activist government begins to solve our problems, or we'll be faced with stalemate--Obama will be replaced by a reactionary like Sarah Palin--and the Empire will self-destruct a la 476.

Declare War: Win Elections

KSM, Tea Parties and Iran

Republicans and Tea Partiers are outraged that Khalid Sheik Mohammed would be tried in a civilian court. Saying he would be a danger, and we'd be "giving" him rights we had fought for is ludicrous.

The Bush administration prosecuted about 300 terrorists in civilian courts. Further, courts for over a generation have safeguarded whatever "secrets" the state may have used in order to gain conviction. In addition, the Supreme Court found the military commissions unconstitutional; their reconstitution has been difficult.

Those 300 terrorists were dealt with more harshly in the courts than the terrorists who went through military commissions, from which some were released to places like Yemen!

The tea party conspiracists, at the same time, seem to believe that the Obama administration is setting up machinery to make mass incarcerations of tea partiers. The same rumors went the rounds during Bush II--about concentration camps under construction for leftists--now the right has paranoia, instead, and is paranoid about Northcom, the US command set up in the US for domestic disasters--like hurricanes and earthquakes!

Health care reform, these same crazies say, is a conspiracy for a government takeover, even though Obama, Pelosi and Reid have cut smelly deals with almost, but not all, of the corporate participants in the health care industry (Pharma, the AMA, hospitals). I wish it were a government takeover; instead, it creates a new, subsidized market for health insurance companies!

The right-wing lunacy has a megaphone far outweighing any shouting on the left: corporate media are perfectly happy to help bring down an administration that is even slightly anti-corporate. That's why we've heard a lot more about Tea Party and Republican outrage than about the outrage on the left: on Afghanistan, Guantanamo, health care compromises, Obama's unwillingness to investigate past war crimes, his continued use of extraordinary "wartime" powers.

So, now we have the "41st" vote held by Brown, who closely aligns himself with the lunatics! Krugman in an op-ed in the NY Times, concluded, "We are doomed!"

If the party of No prevails in the 2010 elections, we will be; it offers no real solutions and is not interested in governing, only in posturing in order to win power. On the other hand, the Democrats still have no spine: Schumer caved on the KSM trial, for example.

Sarah Palin, in effect, recommends that Obama "declare war" on Iran, if he wants to win re-election--against her or other Republicans. Perhaps she's suggesting that Republicans use that threat as their campaign theme?

Given the GOP's lack of ideas, and unwillingness to deal with any real problem, this pronouncement of hers may prove prescient: look for it as the Republican meme in 2012.

Is this the Empire's death rattle? It sure looks like it: instability, ungovernability, overreach and bankruptcy.