The US is beginning to lose the ability to govern itself. States are going close to bankrupt, because politicians can't raise taxes. The Federal government has passed some reforms, but it's too early to say whether the major compromises purchased by "producer" interests, render those reforms nugatory. Most real action appears stymied, because the opposition is no longer "loyal," it is obstructionist.
The Federal government can borrow, but it's borrowing even more than it's spending on the Empire (wars, bases all over the world, fancy and over-priced materiel), but it's not borrowing from its own people. It's borrowing from foreigners (China, oil exporters, Germany).
If, as seems likely, the huge influx of corporate cash into the mid-term elections elects "free market" fundamentalists into a legislative majority in at least one house, or a stronger blocking minority, then the current Congress will actually seem functional in comparison to what we'll face in 2011.
In order for government to work, a majority ought to be able to govern. When a small minority can block (the power to put a "hold" on any piece of legislation empowers a minority of one), and 41% can effectively control the Senate, you don't have a democracy, and you don't have an effective government.
In a previous post, I mentioned a Canadian who was unable to explain to his son why the American government didn't work. In most "representative democracies," there is accountability, because the majority creates policy. In parliamentary systems, that majority also forms the government. In the US, no one is accountable. The Democrats aren't accountable, because they can't form policy if the minority objects. The President isn't accountable, because he can't overpower the minority. The minority isn't accountable, because it isn't the government.
The only accountability appears to be to the large-scale funders of campaigns and lobbies. Since they are large-scale because they have lots of money (now completely unleashed by the Citizens United Supreme Court decision), their interests heavily tilt towards: favoring wealth, favoring already powerful institutions, and favoring the status quo from which they have profited so lavishly.
That leaves out the people, especially those who need help and protection. It also leaves out meaningful responses to real problems: climate change, military expenditures, unsustainable wars and unemployment; it opposes the interests and welfare of the majority.
One example: cut Social Security and Medicare, and/or privatize both, in order to sustain our imperial expenditures--and to enable "Finance" to prey on the elderly, too.
Something like this happened with the Roman Empire: the majority was relegated to the dole; a tiny minority cornered all the wealth. If this happens now, it won't take 400 years for the system to collapse.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Politics of Diversion
What's amazing is how well it works, especially when people are desperate and angry for completely different reasons. Diversion means, that you, as political opinion-maker, invent something to rile the boobs, so that they don't blame you when you steal them blind.
It worked in the segregated South: just keep those N--s down and we'll be all right--me on my plantation, you in your shack. It worked with Commies; it worked with gays; it worked with Latinos. And now it works with Muslims. Diversion is like three-card Monte, where the player hides the high card in plain sight, and draws the bettor with his diversionary hand.
Don't pay any attention to losing your unemployment: scream and shout about those Mooslim terrorists. Don't even think that my vote against extending unemployment insurance had anything to do with you: just gotta stop those Mooslims. Lost your house? Rail at those Mooslims, not at me, although I voted to protect the banks--against you.
This uproar about the Muslim-sponsored community center, two blocks away and invisible from the still-unfinished "Ground Zero" site, jostling a strip club on the same block, this is diversionary politics at its most pernicious. Republicans like Newt Gingrich, and blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, blat vicious idiocy about Muslims, while these same "patriots" urge American troops to "win the hearts and minds" of--Muslims!--in Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole Middle East.
Do these people have a brain in their heads? What they have is an extraordinary amount of short-sighted political opportunism. Do they not think about consequences? What happens if they win the elections and want to promote their dirty little wars? They'll find they've made them inordinately worse and more dangerous for Americans.
Of course, Osama bin Laden is going to take advantage. He gets well-publicized "proof" that the US is conducting a crusade against Islam. All Muslims, even Muslim-Americans, he'll helpfully point out, should join al Qaeda and strike a blow against the anti-Muslim American Empire. Even American leaders, like Minority Leader Boehner, bray full-throated against Islam. And those who claimed they are Islam's friends, stand silent, or writhe in ambiguous retreat.
The most disturbing aspect of this whole manufactured controversy is the spinelessness of people who know better, especially Obama. After an eloquent defense of freedom of worship, before Muslims celebrating Eid at the White House, Obama backed away from defending the Muslim community center. Senate leader, Reid, whimpered that maybe it should be built someplace else.
The only way to combat this political fraud is to hammer real issues: jobs and the economy, and reveal what these gangsters voted for: greater misery, and inaction--and keeping taxes low for the wealthy.
Except for Mayor Bloomberg, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity--What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
It worked in the segregated South: just keep those N--s down and we'll be all right--me on my plantation, you in your shack. It worked with Commies; it worked with gays; it worked with Latinos. And now it works with Muslims. Diversion is like three-card Monte, where the player hides the high card in plain sight, and draws the bettor with his diversionary hand.
Don't pay any attention to losing your unemployment: scream and shout about those Mooslim terrorists. Don't even think that my vote against extending unemployment insurance had anything to do with you: just gotta stop those Mooslims. Lost your house? Rail at those Mooslims, not at me, although I voted to protect the banks--against you.
This uproar about the Muslim-sponsored community center, two blocks away and invisible from the still-unfinished "Ground Zero" site, jostling a strip club on the same block, this is diversionary politics at its most pernicious. Republicans like Newt Gingrich, and blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, blat vicious idiocy about Muslims, while these same "patriots" urge American troops to "win the hearts and minds" of--Muslims!--in Afghanistan, Iraq and the whole Middle East.
Do these people have a brain in their heads? What they have is an extraordinary amount of short-sighted political opportunism. Do they not think about consequences? What happens if they win the elections and want to promote their dirty little wars? They'll find they've made them inordinately worse and more dangerous for Americans.
Of course, Osama bin Laden is going to take advantage. He gets well-publicized "proof" that the US is conducting a crusade against Islam. All Muslims, even Muslim-Americans, he'll helpfully point out, should join al Qaeda and strike a blow against the anti-Muslim American Empire. Even American leaders, like Minority Leader Boehner, bray full-throated against Islam. And those who claimed they are Islam's friends, stand silent, or writhe in ambiguous retreat.
The most disturbing aspect of this whole manufactured controversy is the spinelessness of people who know better, especially Obama. After an eloquent defense of freedom of worship, before Muslims celebrating Eid at the White House, Obama backed away from defending the Muslim community center. Senate leader, Reid, whimpered that maybe it should be built someplace else.
The only way to combat this political fraud is to hammer real issues: jobs and the economy, and reveal what these gangsters voted for: greater misery, and inaction--and keeping taxes low for the wealthy.
Except for Mayor Bloomberg, "the best lack all conviction and the worst are filled with passionate intensity--What rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"
Friday, August 20, 2010
People Don't Matter
That appears to be the predominant political economy of our day. Our unemployment rate remains high, and in fact may be much higher than the 9.5% cited by our government, but still, the movers and shakers (M's&S's) are debating how to cut the deficit.
First of all, now is not the time to cut deficits through austerity, because deficits can actually rise if unemployment, bankruptcies and foreclosures continue to rise. Austerity could contribute to higher unemployment, etc. and therefore not only lower tax revenues but also raise costs (more people looking for help).
The only way to cut government expenditures without a negative impact on jobs, housing and small business, would be to bring troops home from foreign parts, closing down foreign operations, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the bases in 140 plus countries.
The M's&S's don't consider cutting our imperial adventures, however. What they are doing is: being niggardly about unemployment extensions, food stamps (Congress just cut next year's appropriation, despite a surge in applicants), and even tax credits for small business. What they are talking about are cuts to Social Security and Medicare, while Republicans are nearly unanimous about extending the Bush tax cuts, including those that have made the wealthy so much wealthier.
The argument they make about the latter: lower taxes will stimulate investment, is belied by lagging investment now, with those same low tax rates. Elites are sitting on their money, or paying $100+ million for Picassos, not investing in jobs. Investors will also invest in Brazil, or Russia, places where they'll get more of a return, until growth is restored here. Here, they'll park it in Treasuries, or gold.
Our unemployment rate may be twice as high as the 9.5% rate, when those without jobs for more than a year are included. Yet, all the (supposedly) liberal administration and Democratic Congress can do is add a little money here and there to keep things from getting dramatically worse. The Republicans' push for deficit cutting would make things worse, not better, but since Americans are unhappy with Democrats' half-measures, it looks increasingly likely that we'll go that route.
People don't matter, but corporate profits do. Big banks are now doing very well, and big corporations have found ways to squeeze profits out of job-cutting and foreign operations, so, they will resist taxes on the wealthy and government stimulus programs, and spend 100's of millions on campaigns to promote their positions.
The only hope would be if people see through the corporate agenda. Instead, millions worry about a Muslim community center two blocks from "Ground Zero!"
The global takeover by the extremely wealthy is proceeding. They are much like the Senators of Fifth Century Rome. Only an aroused populace can stop this.
First of all, now is not the time to cut deficits through austerity, because deficits can actually rise if unemployment, bankruptcies and foreclosures continue to rise. Austerity could contribute to higher unemployment, etc. and therefore not only lower tax revenues but also raise costs (more people looking for help).
The only way to cut government expenditures without a negative impact on jobs, housing and small business, would be to bring troops home from foreign parts, closing down foreign operations, like the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and some of the bases in 140 plus countries.
The M's&S's don't consider cutting our imperial adventures, however. What they are doing is: being niggardly about unemployment extensions, food stamps (Congress just cut next year's appropriation, despite a surge in applicants), and even tax credits for small business. What they are talking about are cuts to Social Security and Medicare, while Republicans are nearly unanimous about extending the Bush tax cuts, including those that have made the wealthy so much wealthier.
The argument they make about the latter: lower taxes will stimulate investment, is belied by lagging investment now, with those same low tax rates. Elites are sitting on their money, or paying $100+ million for Picassos, not investing in jobs. Investors will also invest in Brazil, or Russia, places where they'll get more of a return, until growth is restored here. Here, they'll park it in Treasuries, or gold.
Our unemployment rate may be twice as high as the 9.5% rate, when those without jobs for more than a year are included. Yet, all the (supposedly) liberal administration and Democratic Congress can do is add a little money here and there to keep things from getting dramatically worse. The Republicans' push for deficit cutting would make things worse, not better, but since Americans are unhappy with Democrats' half-measures, it looks increasingly likely that we'll go that route.
People don't matter, but corporate profits do. Big banks are now doing very well, and big corporations have found ways to squeeze profits out of job-cutting and foreign operations, so, they will resist taxes on the wealthy and government stimulus programs, and spend 100's of millions on campaigns to promote their positions.
The only hope would be if people see through the corporate agenda. Instead, millions worry about a Muslim community center two blocks from "Ground Zero!"
The global takeover by the extremely wealthy is proceeding. They are much like the Senators of Fifth Century Rome. Only an aroused populace can stop this.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
A Democratic Protest: Three Die
I own land in a remote part of the country, and make my living by farming it. I produce wheat and sometimes opium poppy. I've lived on the land all my life; it's been in the family for generations, just like our neighbors on both sides: they have lived on their land for generations.
Foreign soldiers come. They have lots of guns. They camp out on our land, our neighbors', too; we're too afraid to say anything. We don't want to go to the rebels, because we've thought the new talk about 'democracy' and 'freedom' sounds good. When the rebels controlled, they didn't talk about things like that. They terrified us.
These foreign soldiers say they are protecting us from the rebels. But in a few days, they bring in more soldiers, and then big machines that tear up our precious soil to make big buildings they bring in pieces; they begin to put these together.
But they never asked if they could buy our land! We would have told them we don't want to sell; it is our mother. We have lived on it for generations; she has fed us all that time. They didn't even offer money.
We talk to our neighbors, and they talk to theirs, and pretty soon, someone says: "Let's protest; you can do that in democracies. These foreigners say they are bringing democracy, so we can do this."
We march to what used to be our land, and there are a lot of people, maybe several hundred, marching with us. We surround the people putting up the buildings and torturing our earth. Our neighbor, who speaks some of their language, says to them, "We protest! You are taking our land! We did not give it to you! We want it back!"
We close in on the builders and soldiers. I can't see much of the soldiers' faces because of their helmets. They look very large, and then one of them points his big weapon at us.
But they are for democracy! We are peacefully demonstrating, the way we should in a democracy! I tell our people this, and everyone agrees. So, we don't back away.
Suddenly, bullets and fire explode from one and then another of the soldiers' weapons. My friend falls down. Then the neighbor who speaks some of their language! We turn to run and my son, ahead of me, a fine, strong boy of twelve, he falls, too! I pick him up, but he's dead!
These foreigners are as bad as the rebels! Maybe worse. Maybe the rebels are right: keep the foreigners out. The rebels say they have learned their lesson; they will not govern as they did before.
I am not sure about this, but maybe I'll help them, anyway: to avenge my son.
A re-creation of a recent event in Afghanistan: three people died, one a 12-year old boy.
Foreign soldiers come. They have lots of guns. They camp out on our land, our neighbors', too; we're too afraid to say anything. We don't want to go to the rebels, because we've thought the new talk about 'democracy' and 'freedom' sounds good. When the rebels controlled, they didn't talk about things like that. They terrified us.
These foreign soldiers say they are protecting us from the rebels. But in a few days, they bring in more soldiers, and then big machines that tear up our precious soil to make big buildings they bring in pieces; they begin to put these together.
But they never asked if they could buy our land! We would have told them we don't want to sell; it is our mother. We have lived on it for generations; she has fed us all that time. They didn't even offer money.
We talk to our neighbors, and they talk to theirs, and pretty soon, someone says: "Let's protest; you can do that in democracies. These foreigners say they are bringing democracy, so we can do this."
We march to what used to be our land, and there are a lot of people, maybe several hundred, marching with us. We surround the people putting up the buildings and torturing our earth. Our neighbor, who speaks some of their language, says to them, "We protest! You are taking our land! We did not give it to you! We want it back!"
We close in on the builders and soldiers. I can't see much of the soldiers' faces because of their helmets. They look very large, and then one of them points his big weapon at us.
But they are for democracy! We are peacefully demonstrating, the way we should in a democracy! I tell our people this, and everyone agrees. So, we don't back away.
Suddenly, bullets and fire explode from one and then another of the soldiers' weapons. My friend falls down. Then the neighbor who speaks some of their language! We turn to run and my son, ahead of me, a fine, strong boy of twelve, he falls, too! I pick him up, but he's dead!
These foreigners are as bad as the rebels! Maybe worse. Maybe the rebels are right: keep the foreigners out. The rebels say they have learned their lesson; they will not govern as they did before.
I am not sure about this, but maybe I'll help them, anyway: to avenge my son.
A re-creation of a recent event in Afghanistan: three people died, one a 12-year old boy.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The G-20 and the Secret Police
I'm writing from Kitchener, Ontario. I was talking to a Canadian about how our government system (doesn't) work: he was amazed.
Ontario, was where the G-10 met. People are disturbed by what happened. The Liberal provincial government instituted secret police powers during the meeting, enabling the police to round up anyone they thought might make trouble--pre-emptive detention. Hundreds were imprisoned, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apparently, almost anyone with a Quebec license plate was suspect.
There is much feeling here, especially in Montreal, that the G-20 has usurped the functions of the UN, and is little more than a conspiracy of the Great Powers to control the world, economically, militarily and politically. Montrealers have a point. As they see it, the powers were meeting to agree to cut services everywhere, in the face of the "Great Recession," and to protect the wealthy and large corporations, which have rebounded from the 2007-2008 debacle, while leaving most people behind (with large and rising unemployment). Obama was virtually alone in arguing for the need for more stimulus so that the largest economies could generate the employment needed to escape from the recession. He didn't come away with much.
So, back to the G-20 meeting: remember the clips of burning police cruisers? The provincial police abandoned scores of police vehicles on the streets. Another Ontarian remarked: they never abandon police cruisers. This was a set up, so the crazies could come and trash them, the media could get pictures of the destruction, and people could be persuaded that the police crack-down was necessary. Some are convinced that the crazies were either police saboteurs, or were encouraged by them.
Increasingly, it does look like a general consensus among world elites: let unemployment stay high; work your workers harder, don't hire, invest in laborsaving technology, instead. In addition, cut taxes on the wealthy, or, in the case of the US: keep them low, with the Bush tax-cuts.
There is one fly in their ointment, in the US, which brings us back to the crazy American system of government. Even if Tea Party Republicans gain seats, they won't be able to extend the Bush tax cuts: that would take 60 votes in the Senate--unless we let the Democrats sign on.
If the tax cuts expire, there will be a revenue bonanza. What progressives need to do is use that as leverage--for stimulus programs.
In the US, we have the makings of a true class struggle: the very rich against everyone else; tax cuts for people who already have enough--and refuse to invest in jobs--or money for jobs and a true greening of America. But in order for this to happen, a majority of Democratic Senators needs to realize: they could be popular heroes, if they only took a chance.
Otherwise, the Selfish Class has won: worldwide.
Ontario, was where the G-10 met. People are disturbed by what happened. The Liberal provincial government instituted secret police powers during the meeting, enabling the police to round up anyone they thought might make trouble--pre-emptive detention. Hundreds were imprisoned, simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Apparently, almost anyone with a Quebec license plate was suspect.
There is much feeling here, especially in Montreal, that the G-20 has usurped the functions of the UN, and is little more than a conspiracy of the Great Powers to control the world, economically, militarily and politically. Montrealers have a point. As they see it, the powers were meeting to agree to cut services everywhere, in the face of the "Great Recession," and to protect the wealthy and large corporations, which have rebounded from the 2007-2008 debacle, while leaving most people behind (with large and rising unemployment). Obama was virtually alone in arguing for the need for more stimulus so that the largest economies could generate the employment needed to escape from the recession. He didn't come away with much.
So, back to the G-20 meeting: remember the clips of burning police cruisers? The provincial police abandoned scores of police vehicles on the streets. Another Ontarian remarked: they never abandon police cruisers. This was a set up, so the crazies could come and trash them, the media could get pictures of the destruction, and people could be persuaded that the police crack-down was necessary. Some are convinced that the crazies were either police saboteurs, or were encouraged by them.
Increasingly, it does look like a general consensus among world elites: let unemployment stay high; work your workers harder, don't hire, invest in laborsaving technology, instead. In addition, cut taxes on the wealthy, or, in the case of the US: keep them low, with the Bush tax-cuts.
There is one fly in their ointment, in the US, which brings us back to the crazy American system of government. Even if Tea Party Republicans gain seats, they won't be able to extend the Bush tax cuts: that would take 60 votes in the Senate--unless we let the Democrats sign on.
If the tax cuts expire, there will be a revenue bonanza. What progressives need to do is use that as leverage--for stimulus programs.
In the US, we have the makings of a true class struggle: the very rich against everyone else; tax cuts for people who already have enough--and refuse to invest in jobs--or money for jobs and a true greening of America. But in order for this to happen, a majority of Democratic Senators needs to realize: they could be popular heroes, if they only took a chance.
Otherwise, the Selfish Class has won: worldwide.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
The Budget War and the War War
Paul Krugman decries the deficit hysteria, but even he doesn't make much of the connection between our turning off the streetlights (literally) and the Wars, and/or "Defense."
How much do we spend on Defense every week? Between $26-27 billion. What do we get for it? Two horrendous wars that are going nowhere, and over eight hundred bases abroad in nearly 140 countries. Probably half that money is going out of the country, and most of the rest supports industries that are working on what are effectively cost-plus contracts to produce things that will kill, or enable people to kill, many people.
Employment in civilian sectors costs half as much per worker as defense industries. If the same money were spent on infrastructure, or on human services like teaching, twice as many could be employed. So, a good part of the unemployment problem could be solved if defense spending were radically cut and the savings spent on domestic needs. Further, more of the money would stay in the US.
When we have to turn off streetlights, cut back on police, gut local school staffs, we are, as Krugman points out, screeching in reverse. Our nation will be the poorer for all these austerities.
Growing debt could conceivably become a problem at some point, although right now, US government bonds still sell easily at extremely low interest rates. So, as Krugman--and I in my earlier blog--have pointed out, now is not the time to be worrying about high deficits; we need to really stimulate the economy, not just stabilize it and say the job is done.
But, the huge amount of money going to defense could finance real domestic needs. If the world needs a policeman, let the world community step up; why should the US alone? Further, our world policeman role has had few positive effects in the last 50 years. We caused the Middle East and East Asian conflagrations by our interventions to install the Shah in Iran, to create Islamist opponents to leftist Afghans, and to buttress a corrupt regime in Vietnam.
Everyone (except a few large corporations) would have been a lot better off if we had kept our hands to ourselves. We meddle virtually everywhere, and create enemies even in Europe because of it.
So, the best way to stimulate the economy and answer the howls of the deficit hawks at the same time is to withdraw, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from most of those 850 odd bases all over the world, and to stop equipping our military with high-priced toys that make them think they can overawe the world.
Looking at history, however, the above seems unlikely. It certainly didn't happen in Rome--until it was forced on her by defeats. That will happen to us, unless we withdraw on our own terms. Now.
How much do we spend on Defense every week? Between $26-27 billion. What do we get for it? Two horrendous wars that are going nowhere, and over eight hundred bases abroad in nearly 140 countries. Probably half that money is going out of the country, and most of the rest supports industries that are working on what are effectively cost-plus contracts to produce things that will kill, or enable people to kill, many people.
Employment in civilian sectors costs half as much per worker as defense industries. If the same money were spent on infrastructure, or on human services like teaching, twice as many could be employed. So, a good part of the unemployment problem could be solved if defense spending were radically cut and the savings spent on domestic needs. Further, more of the money would stay in the US.
When we have to turn off streetlights, cut back on police, gut local school staffs, we are, as Krugman points out, screeching in reverse. Our nation will be the poorer for all these austerities.
Growing debt could conceivably become a problem at some point, although right now, US government bonds still sell easily at extremely low interest rates. So, as Krugman--and I in my earlier blog--have pointed out, now is not the time to be worrying about high deficits; we need to really stimulate the economy, not just stabilize it and say the job is done.
But, the huge amount of money going to defense could finance real domestic needs. If the world needs a policeman, let the world community step up; why should the US alone? Further, our world policeman role has had few positive effects in the last 50 years. We caused the Middle East and East Asian conflagrations by our interventions to install the Shah in Iran, to create Islamist opponents to leftist Afghans, and to buttress a corrupt regime in Vietnam.
Everyone (except a few large corporations) would have been a lot better off if we had kept our hands to ourselves. We meddle virtually everywhere, and create enemies even in Europe because of it.
So, the best way to stimulate the economy and answer the howls of the deficit hawks at the same time is to withdraw, not just from Iraq and Afghanistan, but from most of those 850 odd bases all over the world, and to stop equipping our military with high-priced toys that make them think they can overawe the world.
Looking at history, however, the above seems unlikely. It certainly didn't happen in Rome--until it was forced on her by defeats. That will happen to us, unless we withdraw on our own terms. Now.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Who is Barry Soetaro?
Birthers may sound crazy, when they rant about "Barry Soetaro," but it isn't just crazy; their rants have a deep political purpose.
The name was supposedly used by Barack Obama to claim a scholarship for foreign students at Occidental College. The claim is a fake, the story a fake and the only thing true about it is that Obama's Indonesian step-father had the surname Soetaro. Obama attended Occidental, not as a foreign student, but under his real name. He didn't receive (or apply for) a scholarship for foreign students. Furthermore, no Indonesian students received scholarships there during the time in question.
Yet, on conservative websites, posters refer to Barry Soetaro as if the story were accomplished fact. Both conservatives and liberals believe crank stories about their opponents. There was much paranoia among liberals about Bush setting up "concentration camps," to round up opponents, and recently, conservatives have come up with the same paranoid story--except it's Obama not Bush and conservatives not liberals who would be targets.
But birthers go beyond this. Facts don't matter: their main task is to deny any legitimacy Obama's administration has as an elected government. If they can persuade enough people that Obama is an alien, born in Kenya (or Indonesia), or that he acquired Indonesian citizenship, then to all these people he is no longer the legitimate, elected President of the United States, since only "natural born" American citizens are eligible to hold the office.
What is at stake is the legitimacy of the US Government.
So, what is legitimacy, and why is it important? Legitimacy is the right to rule. Ordinarily, elected officials gain legitimacy through legal election. Bush gained his through a decision of the US Supreme Court, since he won fewer votes than Gore, and might not have carried Florida's deciding electoral votes without the court's intervention. Because of that, the opposition questioned his legitimacy, but Gore's acceptance of Bush's election made the question moot.
Many wars have been fought over legitimacy. The Wars of the Roses in Britain were over that issue, and many of the civil wars fought in the Roman Empire were battles for legitimacy. The importance of the Queen in the UK is that she ensures legitimacy for the British government.
So, what birthers are really trying to do is to persuade Americans that their government is illegitimate. Given past history, this could be particularly dangerous. Since the courts have thrown out birther suits as without merit, dedicated birthers can conclude that the court system is against them, too.
So, if they can't win power through elections, the only recourse for them might be what Tea Partier Sharron Angle calls "second amendment solutions," in other words, armed rebellion. One of the political factors that destroyed the Roman Empire was more than a century of civil war--over legitimacy.
It could happen here.
The name was supposedly used by Barack Obama to claim a scholarship for foreign students at Occidental College. The claim is a fake, the story a fake and the only thing true about it is that Obama's Indonesian step-father had the surname Soetaro. Obama attended Occidental, not as a foreign student, but under his real name. He didn't receive (or apply for) a scholarship for foreign students. Furthermore, no Indonesian students received scholarships there during the time in question.
Yet, on conservative websites, posters refer to Barry Soetaro as if the story were accomplished fact. Both conservatives and liberals believe crank stories about their opponents. There was much paranoia among liberals about Bush setting up "concentration camps," to round up opponents, and recently, conservatives have come up with the same paranoid story--except it's Obama not Bush and conservatives not liberals who would be targets.
But birthers go beyond this. Facts don't matter: their main task is to deny any legitimacy Obama's administration has as an elected government. If they can persuade enough people that Obama is an alien, born in Kenya (or Indonesia), or that he acquired Indonesian citizenship, then to all these people he is no longer the legitimate, elected President of the United States, since only "natural born" American citizens are eligible to hold the office.
What is at stake is the legitimacy of the US Government.
So, what is legitimacy, and why is it important? Legitimacy is the right to rule. Ordinarily, elected officials gain legitimacy through legal election. Bush gained his through a decision of the US Supreme Court, since he won fewer votes than Gore, and might not have carried Florida's deciding electoral votes without the court's intervention. Because of that, the opposition questioned his legitimacy, but Gore's acceptance of Bush's election made the question moot.
Many wars have been fought over legitimacy. The Wars of the Roses in Britain were over that issue, and many of the civil wars fought in the Roman Empire were battles for legitimacy. The importance of the Queen in the UK is that she ensures legitimacy for the British government.
So, what birthers are really trying to do is to persuade Americans that their government is illegitimate. Given past history, this could be particularly dangerous. Since the courts have thrown out birther suits as without merit, dedicated birthers can conclude that the court system is against them, too.
So, if they can't win power through elections, the only recourse for them might be what Tea Partier Sharron Angle calls "second amendment solutions," in other words, armed rebellion. One of the political factors that destroyed the Roman Empire was more than a century of civil war--over legitimacy.
It could happen here.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
To the Barricades!
Unemployment is painfully high, huge numbers are unemployed long-term, and Congress struggles mightily just to pass an extension of unemployment benefits? "Conservative" Democrats (heartless perhaps) and almost all Republicans voted against. Why? Fear of the deficit.
It's large, but mostly because of the recession, two wars and the hungry military. So-called conservatives say they can't help the unemployed, because it will increase the deficit. But they say Congress should pass tax cut extensions for the wealthy--even though that would increase the debt many billions more than minimal unemployment aid.
Aid to the unemployed, means that people can stay in their homes or apartments, can eat regular meals, can minimally get by, and can look for jobs. That money is nearly all spent in the economy, just on survival. It not only keeps people surviving, it also keeps businesses alive, those providing the necessary goods and services for them.
To get the economy out of its demand trap--too little demand, too much supply--you need to pump up demand by the buyer of last resort: the government can either spend directly, or put money in people's pockets.
However, if taxes for the wealthy are cut, not only does that radically increase the deficit, it has only a weak effect on demand, and little on investment. Here's why: the wealthy spend only some of their money, and less in the United States, since they consume more imports, and travel more. They don't need to spend all the money; they can save it. But does that spark investment? Businesses invest when they foresee demand for their product or service, not because rich people have idle cash. Idle cash fuels speculation, as it did until 2007, and would if the economy continues in the doldrums with high unemployment.
The fear of growing deficits and rising interest on the debt and inflation are misplaced. Lowered interest rates boost growth, but they can go no lower; there is real danger of deflation, not inflation. Further, money spent to put people back to work is the best investment this nation could make.
In addition, there is a push to cut entitlements in order to balance the budget, even though the same "deficit hawks" are promoting lower taxes for the wealthy, and continuation of the war effort--or even escalation. They can all make money on a war with Iran. But doesn't entitlement mean you earned it?
The unemployed and long-term jobless, they don't matter. Just write them off. The stock market's doing fine, profits are up.
Just as in fifth century Rome, the political elite (represented by a 41% controlling minority of the Senate), control the empire with their money. Who said the US was a democracy?
We need a real, (hopefully bloodless) revolution in which the people reclaim their power. Everything will get worse, unless that happens.
It's large, but mostly because of the recession, two wars and the hungry military. So-called conservatives say they can't help the unemployed, because it will increase the deficit. But they say Congress should pass tax cut extensions for the wealthy--even though that would increase the debt many billions more than minimal unemployment aid.
Aid to the unemployed, means that people can stay in their homes or apartments, can eat regular meals, can minimally get by, and can look for jobs. That money is nearly all spent in the economy, just on survival. It not only keeps people surviving, it also keeps businesses alive, those providing the necessary goods and services for them.
To get the economy out of its demand trap--too little demand, too much supply--you need to pump up demand by the buyer of last resort: the government can either spend directly, or put money in people's pockets.
However, if taxes for the wealthy are cut, not only does that radically increase the deficit, it has only a weak effect on demand, and little on investment. Here's why: the wealthy spend only some of their money, and less in the United States, since they consume more imports, and travel more. They don't need to spend all the money; they can save it. But does that spark investment? Businesses invest when they foresee demand for their product or service, not because rich people have idle cash. Idle cash fuels speculation, as it did until 2007, and would if the economy continues in the doldrums with high unemployment.
The fear of growing deficits and rising interest on the debt and inflation are misplaced. Lowered interest rates boost growth, but they can go no lower; there is real danger of deflation, not inflation. Further, money spent to put people back to work is the best investment this nation could make.
In addition, there is a push to cut entitlements in order to balance the budget, even though the same "deficit hawks" are promoting lower taxes for the wealthy, and continuation of the war effort--or even escalation. They can all make money on a war with Iran. But doesn't entitlement mean you earned it?
The unemployed and long-term jobless, they don't matter. Just write them off. The stock market's doing fine, profits are up.
Just as in fifth century Rome, the political elite (represented by a 41% controlling minority of the Senate), control the empire with their money. Who said the US was a democracy?
We need a real, (hopefully bloodless) revolution in which the people reclaim their power. Everything will get worse, unless that happens.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Deflation Looms
My realtor tells me my mother's house is losing 1% of its value every month. That's not because it's falling down; we've spent almost $200,000 to renovate it. It's not because the neighborhood is going downhill, either. The land around it is held by people whose deeds, or zoning, restrict them to one house only, and across the road land is preserved through a conservation easement, allowing no additional houses.
No, the price is going down because there are too many houses and too little money--in the local housing market. And what's happening here is happening elsewhere even more dramatically. That's why so many homeowners are "underwater," and walking away from their homes. Many of them can't find jobs, so, foreclosures are increasing and a record number of people have been forced from their homes.
Foreclosures build downward pressure on house prices: banks try to unload the houses they're stuck with.
There are short-term fixes, such as renegotiating mortgages, or allowing defaulting owners to rent in the interim: both would reduce the number of under-priced houses flooding the market, but the first isn't working--many don't have jobs, or have declining earnings--and the second has hardly been tried.
Falling prices might be a good thing for someone with money, but the reason for it is: most people have too little: it's called price deflation.
Price deflation can be self-reinforcing, i.e. can trigger a downward spiral. Lower prices mean businesses make less in profits. A home-builder, for example, will have to lay off his workers, because he can't sell the houses he builds, or has to sell them at cost, or less. He's losing money, so he lays off workers, or goes out of business, which increases unemployment, so fewer, still, have money. That drives prices even lower.
Even some inflation hawks on the Fed Board of Governors are warning of deflation danger. The Fed sets a goal of moderate inflation (2-3%), which keeps the economy moving, but deflation could stop the economy dead in its tracks. It happened in Japan in their "lost decade," it happened in the Great Depression and it could happen now.
It happened in the last two centuries of the Roman Empire, too, and was a major contributor to its fall. There it happened because the wealthy, accumulated almost all the wealth, hoarded gold and evaded taxes. Here, sharp traders threaten speculation against government borrowing, borrowing needed to stimulate world economies.
The financial industry is like those Roman Senators hoarding gold. Since more demand is needed, and since interest rates are basically zero, the Fed could create more money, buying up treasuries, to curb deflation. More focused would be a government stimulus targeted on creating jobs in the public investments we need.
The latter isn't likely in this corrosive political climate, but the former could be rendered worse than useless if big banks still prefer gambling to loans.
No, the price is going down because there are too many houses and too little money--in the local housing market. And what's happening here is happening elsewhere even more dramatically. That's why so many homeowners are "underwater," and walking away from their homes. Many of them can't find jobs, so, foreclosures are increasing and a record number of people have been forced from their homes.
Foreclosures build downward pressure on house prices: banks try to unload the houses they're stuck with.
There are short-term fixes, such as renegotiating mortgages, or allowing defaulting owners to rent in the interim: both would reduce the number of under-priced houses flooding the market, but the first isn't working--many don't have jobs, or have declining earnings--and the second has hardly been tried.
Falling prices might be a good thing for someone with money, but the reason for it is: most people have too little: it's called price deflation.
Price deflation can be self-reinforcing, i.e. can trigger a downward spiral. Lower prices mean businesses make less in profits. A home-builder, for example, will have to lay off his workers, because he can't sell the houses he builds, or has to sell them at cost, or less. He's losing money, so he lays off workers, or goes out of business, which increases unemployment, so fewer, still, have money. That drives prices even lower.
Even some inflation hawks on the Fed Board of Governors are warning of deflation danger. The Fed sets a goal of moderate inflation (2-3%), which keeps the economy moving, but deflation could stop the economy dead in its tracks. It happened in Japan in their "lost decade," it happened in the Great Depression and it could happen now.
It happened in the last two centuries of the Roman Empire, too, and was a major contributor to its fall. There it happened because the wealthy, accumulated almost all the wealth, hoarded gold and evaded taxes. Here, sharp traders threaten speculation against government borrowing, borrowing needed to stimulate world economies.
The financial industry is like those Roman Senators hoarding gold. Since more demand is needed, and since interest rates are basically zero, the Fed could create more money, buying up treasuries, to curb deflation. More focused would be a government stimulus targeted on creating jobs in the public investments we need.
The latter isn't likely in this corrosive political climate, but the former could be rendered worse than useless if big banks still prefer gambling to loans.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
War Absurdity
What would happen if Obama said, 'Okay, I get it,' and insists on winding down the Afghan war as quickly as possible? The right wing would be predictably outraged. However, the large majority of the electorate, according to polls, feels the war wasn't justified, or worth fighting. Could the right-wing media machine whip up enough rage to convert majority anti-war sentiment to pro war?
Almost everyone, after slogging through Wikileaks' released war documents, has already pointed out the absurdity of the Afghan war. It's the hopelessness of the enterprise that comes through, the sheer complicated, mindless destruction on all sides. The Taliban is horrible, the Afghan government is corrupt, incompetent and almost as brutal; the US and NATO are efficient killing-machines, even when policy dictates restraint to protect civilians.
And then, there is Pakistan and its ISI, often labeled "Pakistan's CIA." The ISI is Pakistan's CIA, FBI and military Intel units all rolled into one: it's closely linked to Pakistan's army. The ISI, in these released documents, has been openly implicated in supporting elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Neither a revelation, nor a confirmation, it just makes public what the US military thinks: that its ally, Pakistan, is playing both sides. Many experts on the Af-Pak war have said so for a long time.
This may be changing, because now Pakistanis realize: the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and its allies work together. Both of the latter have attacked the Pakistani Army and the government as its enemy. The army has waged all out war against parts of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier--but it has not attacked others. Why?
Elements within the ISI have been Taliban patrons ever since the US abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's. They see factions within it as useful tools in their contest with vastly larger and wealthier India. A friendly Afghanistan would protect Pakistan's rear. They may be right: their strategy may pay off, when the US leaves.
It's not a question of 'if' the US will leave, but whether it will begin to leave in 2011 as Obama promises, and whether this 'beginning' will amount to really getting out, or not. The sheer, numbing reality of this stupid, awful war, as illustrated in the Wikileaks documents, argues that any sane person would begin leaving now, not a year from now.
What will be illuminating is Obama's response, and of those on the fence in Congress (more or less pro-war Democrats). Excepting Ron Paul, all Republicans are dead-set against withdrawal, but then few of them seem rational, anyway.
My bet? The military will say withdrawal isn't practical, and Obama will be afraid to oppose them, leading us towards the kind of bankruptcy that ended in the fall of the Roman Empire in 476.
Almost everyone, after slogging through Wikileaks' released war documents, has already pointed out the absurdity of the Afghan war. It's the hopelessness of the enterprise that comes through, the sheer complicated, mindless destruction on all sides. The Taliban is horrible, the Afghan government is corrupt, incompetent and almost as brutal; the US and NATO are efficient killing-machines, even when policy dictates restraint to protect civilians.
And then, there is Pakistan and its ISI, often labeled "Pakistan's CIA." The ISI is Pakistan's CIA, FBI and military Intel units all rolled into one: it's closely linked to Pakistan's army. The ISI, in these released documents, has been openly implicated in supporting elements of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Neither a revelation, nor a confirmation, it just makes public what the US military thinks: that its ally, Pakistan, is playing both sides. Many experts on the Af-Pak war have said so for a long time.
This may be changing, because now Pakistanis realize: the Afghan Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban, and its allies work together. Both of the latter have attacked the Pakistani Army and the government as its enemy. The army has waged all out war against parts of the Taliban in the Northwest Frontier--but it has not attacked others. Why?
Elements within the ISI have been Taliban patrons ever since the US abandoned Afghanistan in the 1980's. They see factions within it as useful tools in their contest with vastly larger and wealthier India. A friendly Afghanistan would protect Pakistan's rear. They may be right: their strategy may pay off, when the US leaves.
It's not a question of 'if' the US will leave, but whether it will begin to leave in 2011 as Obama promises, and whether this 'beginning' will amount to really getting out, or not. The sheer, numbing reality of this stupid, awful war, as illustrated in the Wikileaks documents, argues that any sane person would begin leaving now, not a year from now.
What will be illuminating is Obama's response, and of those on the fence in Congress (more or less pro-war Democrats). Excepting Ron Paul, all Republicans are dead-set against withdrawal, but then few of them seem rational, anyway.
My bet? The military will say withdrawal isn't practical, and Obama will be afraid to oppose them, leading us towards the kind of bankruptcy that ended in the fall of the Roman Empire in 476.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Tax Cuts For the Wealthy
That seems to be the refrain of conservatives, Republicans and Tea Party activists: they advocate making the Bush tax cuts permanent. Yet, at the same time, they rail about the admittedly huge government debt. Making the tax cuts permanent, would, it's estimated, increase government debt in the next ten years by well over $2 trillion. And Boehner, the House Republican leader, actually said the tax cuts don't have to be paid for!
Republicans are attempting to gain political traction with the "all debt is bad" crowd, while also currying favor with wealthy fundraisers, and indulging in the you-can-get-it-for-nothing thinking that created the disastrous 2007-8 collapse.
Cutting taxes has stimulated the economy, and increased revenue in some limited situations. It worked with JFK's tax-cuts, because tax rates were very high then (they are very low now), and their reduction made money available for consumption and therefore created incentives for investment (from the added spending boosting demand). They didn't work so well from Reagan through Bush II, because wages did not keep pace, increased consumption was based on adding to private debt; foregone taxes benefited the wealthy, who saw "investment" opportunities in financial speculation, or foreign production. So, the famous Bush tax cuts doubled the US debt, and led to speculative excess that caused the collapse.
Obama's stimulus spending has almost doubled the debt again, but without the stimulus we'd be calling this a Great Depression, not a Great Recession. Maintaining tax-cuts for the wealthy would create greater deficits, but would not stimulate the economy. Why? Banks and individuals are sitting on hoards of cash already, rather than investing, because there is little demand for new production: investment in the face of low or shrinking demand is usually considered foolhardy.
Conservatives have an ideological rationale for high-end tax-cuts: encouraging investment and cutting down the size of government. The former works in limited instances, but won't work now. As for the latter, when in power conservatives have increased government size, while still cutting taxes--hence creating structural deficits, i.e. deficits in good times.
A deficit in bad times is a natural outgrowth of need--people need support and can't pay taxes when unemployed--and partially counters the decline in demand: it is an investment for better times. A deficit during a boom is like living high on your credit card.
Tax cuts to the wealthy, now, would inflate speculation, but would not increase consumption enough to stimulate growth. They would balloon the deficit even further. They might also, finally, drive the world away from the dollar as world reserve currency: Americans would have demonstrated their financial recklessness once again. (The US caused the global downturn by encouraging out of control speculation).
Flight from the Dollar could end the American Empire as we know it.
Republicans are attempting to gain political traction with the "all debt is bad" crowd, while also currying favor with wealthy fundraisers, and indulging in the you-can-get-it-for-nothing thinking that created the disastrous 2007-8 collapse.
Cutting taxes has stimulated the economy, and increased revenue in some limited situations. It worked with JFK's tax-cuts, because tax rates were very high then (they are very low now), and their reduction made money available for consumption and therefore created incentives for investment (from the added spending boosting demand). They didn't work so well from Reagan through Bush II, because wages did not keep pace, increased consumption was based on adding to private debt; foregone taxes benefited the wealthy, who saw "investment" opportunities in financial speculation, or foreign production. So, the famous Bush tax cuts doubled the US debt, and led to speculative excess that caused the collapse.
Obama's stimulus spending has almost doubled the debt again, but without the stimulus we'd be calling this a Great Depression, not a Great Recession. Maintaining tax-cuts for the wealthy would create greater deficits, but would not stimulate the economy. Why? Banks and individuals are sitting on hoards of cash already, rather than investing, because there is little demand for new production: investment in the face of low or shrinking demand is usually considered foolhardy.
Conservatives have an ideological rationale for high-end tax-cuts: encouraging investment and cutting down the size of government. The former works in limited instances, but won't work now. As for the latter, when in power conservatives have increased government size, while still cutting taxes--hence creating structural deficits, i.e. deficits in good times.
A deficit in bad times is a natural outgrowth of need--people need support and can't pay taxes when unemployed--and partially counters the decline in demand: it is an investment for better times. A deficit during a boom is like living high on your credit card.
Tax cuts to the wealthy, now, would inflate speculation, but would not increase consumption enough to stimulate growth. They would balloon the deficit even further. They might also, finally, drive the world away from the dollar as world reserve currency: Americans would have demonstrated their financial recklessness once again. (The US caused the global downturn by encouraging out of control speculation).
Flight from the Dollar could end the American Empire as we know it.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
US Empire Pushes String
How do you push a string? How do you make a nation govern itself effectively, when its history of governance up until now has been tribal, feudal and by self-selected warlords?
Tomes cram libraries on development, development finance, development economics, and political development. Most should be pulped. What we don't know about development could fill many more libraries.
There are many success stories, nations like China, Japan, India, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and many more, but there are no notable formulas. China has used government directed markets and state promoted industrialization, but it had a very strong, effective political system before its recent successes. India has a lively, if sometimes chaotic, political system: its economic development has been more a mixture of political direction and foreign investment.
Nations like Afghanistan or Somalia or, most egregiously, the Congo, don't have the luxury of established, effective political systems.
Well-meaning Americans and Europeans try to help these nations learn to govern themselves. In the case of Afghanistan, they are doing so while also fighting a persistent insurrection/revolution on behalf of its largely dysfunctional government.
Some of the development success stories, including Vietnam, tell how revolutionary movements, anti-western, or anti-American, created the necessary political foundation for development in their countries: imposed governments did not.
From the era of colonialism until now, western, or "developed" nations have attempted to impose their kinds of governance on "less-developed" nations, sometimes for their own national interest, sometimes for more altruistic reasons. Western-style "democracies" flourished in Europe and Japan after WWII, because there had been long-established and effective governments before the war.
But consider the case of China: the allies supported a weak, corrupt authoritarian government (Chiang-kai Shek), and attempted to counter a revolutionary movement; our attempts failed. The Communist government lurched from famine, to war, to succession crises, but it also established a political system so strong that it could mobilize nearly a billion Chinese to kill off the flies in their nation--mostly by hand! That government still governs, and by adopting western-style economics, has become wildly successful.
Ours is really a post-imperial world waiting to happen: the US can only maintain its world-straddling military by borrowing from China. Yet, it can't create civil societies in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia no matter how many troops it stations in those nations. All it can do is exacerbate tensions, which favors forces of destruction, like al Qaeda.
Yet, the military has gained enough control of American policy that it continues to expand, regardless of economic distress faced at home, or lack of success abroad.
Our foreign policy goals are wildly unrealistic: you can't push a string. Continuing our military-foreign policy abroad will not create international stability; it will only impoverish and bankrupt us.
We have a choice: a vibrant nation without an empire, or a broken nation still attempting to hold onto one.
Tomes cram libraries on development, development finance, development economics, and political development. Most should be pulped. What we don't know about development could fill many more libraries.
There are many success stories, nations like China, Japan, India, Singapore, Malaysia, South Africa and many more, but there are no notable formulas. China has used government directed markets and state promoted industrialization, but it had a very strong, effective political system before its recent successes. India has a lively, if sometimes chaotic, political system: its economic development has been more a mixture of political direction and foreign investment.
Nations like Afghanistan or Somalia or, most egregiously, the Congo, don't have the luxury of established, effective political systems.
Well-meaning Americans and Europeans try to help these nations learn to govern themselves. In the case of Afghanistan, they are doing so while also fighting a persistent insurrection/revolution on behalf of its largely dysfunctional government.
Some of the development success stories, including Vietnam, tell how revolutionary movements, anti-western, or anti-American, created the necessary political foundation for development in their countries: imposed governments did not.
From the era of colonialism until now, western, or "developed" nations have attempted to impose their kinds of governance on "less-developed" nations, sometimes for their own national interest, sometimes for more altruistic reasons. Western-style "democracies" flourished in Europe and Japan after WWII, because there had been long-established and effective governments before the war.
But consider the case of China: the allies supported a weak, corrupt authoritarian government (Chiang-kai Shek), and attempted to counter a revolutionary movement; our attempts failed. The Communist government lurched from famine, to war, to succession crises, but it also established a political system so strong that it could mobilize nearly a billion Chinese to kill off the flies in their nation--mostly by hand! That government still governs, and by adopting western-style economics, has become wildly successful.
Ours is really a post-imperial world waiting to happen: the US can only maintain its world-straddling military by borrowing from China. Yet, it can't create civil societies in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia no matter how many troops it stations in those nations. All it can do is exacerbate tensions, which favors forces of destruction, like al Qaeda.
Yet, the military has gained enough control of American policy that it continues to expand, regardless of economic distress faced at home, or lack of success abroad.
Our foreign policy goals are wildly unrealistic: you can't push a string. Continuing our military-foreign policy abroad will not create international stability; it will only impoverish and bankrupt us.
We have a choice: a vibrant nation without an empire, or a broken nation still attempting to hold onto one.
Friday, July 16, 2010
The Politics of Resentment
The Right does resentment really well. They teach their constituents, and fence-sitters, too, that the other side is treacherous, or under-handed, unfair and taking advantage of them, in essence, taking away their American Way of Life. But they don't target the people who are doing this; they target: illegal aliens, unions, big government, regulation. While most people resent bankers and Wall Street, the Right protects them, yet attacks Democrats in Congress for supporting them. It certainly doesn't talk about inequality, or the extravagant salaries and bonuses of the financial elite. Now, it advocates tax-cuts for them!
The left doesn't do resentment well. Yet, a true left-wing populist could use the politics of resentment to good effect. Obama is no populist, nor a true lefty, but he has the potential for populism--in the run-up to the 2012 election--if he sees the electoral potential.
At this point in Roosevelt's first term, his major jobs creation program was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which looked like Fascist central control of the private economy; it was a failure, and unanimously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Come the election in 1936, and Roosevelt found his populist calling, campaigning against "the economic royalists of our time."
Can you imagine Obama reaching that point?
But even FDR couldn't persuade Congress to allocate enough money to truly finance a recovery. Only patriotic fervor for war did that.
I wonder what is different now, than it was in 1935. The media was less concentrated, but there were many right-wing media outlets condemning Roosevelt as a Socialist or a Communist at every turn. People of means referred to FDR as "that man in the White House." Obama is that man from Kenya, and--the epithets are legion.
Could a left-wing populist shove Obama aside? If Obama were challenged from the left, he might respond--much the way Roosevelt did, in 1936.
Someone on the left needs to exploit the politics of resentment: resentment of those Wall Street "fat-cats," first of all. They were bailed out, but help themselves to more; resentment of the subsidies oil and coal companies receive, while Americans can't get jobs or unemployment insurance; resentment of huge disparities in salaries between top executives and workers; resentment of the way they are taxed: class resentment.
While people may disagree on abortion or gay marriage, immigration, or the financial overhaul, almost all of them hate Wall Street. For good reason: Wall Street siphons off an increasing share of US wealth for no discernible benefit--except to itself.
Resentment is a negative word, a negative focus, but it has a visceral appeal, and one that could lead to a positive outcome: a more egalitarian and prosperous society.
But to get there, the Left needs to be as cynical as the Right. Is that possible?
The best lack all conviction,
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
The left doesn't do resentment well. Yet, a true left-wing populist could use the politics of resentment to good effect. Obama is no populist, nor a true lefty, but he has the potential for populism--in the run-up to the 2012 election--if he sees the electoral potential.
At this point in Roosevelt's first term, his major jobs creation program was the National Recovery Administration (NRA), which looked like Fascist central control of the private economy; it was a failure, and unanimously ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Come the election in 1936, and Roosevelt found his populist calling, campaigning against "the economic royalists of our time."
Can you imagine Obama reaching that point?
But even FDR couldn't persuade Congress to allocate enough money to truly finance a recovery. Only patriotic fervor for war did that.
I wonder what is different now, than it was in 1935. The media was less concentrated, but there were many right-wing media outlets condemning Roosevelt as a Socialist or a Communist at every turn. People of means referred to FDR as "that man in the White House." Obama is that man from Kenya, and--the epithets are legion.
Could a left-wing populist shove Obama aside? If Obama were challenged from the left, he might respond--much the way Roosevelt did, in 1936.
Someone on the left needs to exploit the politics of resentment: resentment of those Wall Street "fat-cats," first of all. They were bailed out, but help themselves to more; resentment of the subsidies oil and coal companies receive, while Americans can't get jobs or unemployment insurance; resentment of huge disparities in salaries between top executives and workers; resentment of the way they are taxed: class resentment.
While people may disagree on abortion or gay marriage, immigration, or the financial overhaul, almost all of them hate Wall Street. For good reason: Wall Street siphons off an increasing share of US wealth for no discernible benefit--except to itself.
Resentment is a negative word, a negative focus, but it has a visceral appeal, and one that could lead to a positive outcome: a more egalitarian and prosperous society.
But to get there, the Left needs to be as cynical as the Right. Is that possible?
The best lack all conviction,
While the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Pearl Harbor, Afghanistan and the Tea Party
A film version of Pearl Harbor reminded me of how the Japanese military in 1941 controlled Japan. On the other side of the globe, the Nazis preached hate, and attacked with their apparently invincible war machine. Americans didn't want to see what was coming: it took us over two years to wake up. Both systems depended on conquest; the US was at peace.
Now, the whole world system is upside down. It is the US, which makes war everywhere, has a military that dominates the nation, and spends more on "defense" than all other nations combined. It is also one of many nations in which hate and xenophobia are on the rise: both the Tea Party and anti-immigrant rage. In addition, we have one, two, many Goebbels: Beck, Fox, Limbaugh, etc., and a host of large corporations willing to spend billions to buy elections for corporate sympathizers-- "corp-symps."
They may all come together. The right-wing Tea Partiers support the dominant military against any civilian threat, and can blame all our troubles on "terrorists" and illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic, or Arab: America's equivalent of the Nazi's Jews. Other scapegoats, or targets, can also be marshaled to draw in homophobic right wing Christians, or….
So, in the US now, we have: a military just barely contained by civilian leadership, and the rise of a political movement, which in its use of propaganda and racism, looks eerily like the Nazis. So far, neither Sarah, nor anyone else has been as successful as Hitler at whipping up militant fervor. But then Hitler took awhile, too (more than 10 years--1921-1933).
It's hard not to see Obama and Congress as the ineffectual Weimar Republic, which could not withstand the Nazis' popular mobilization and intimidation. Passive Germans, lying propagandists and charisma defeated Weimar. Could it happen here?
In Japan, the military took over the government behind the scenes. No one could withstand its power; Tojo was a military dictator controlling a civilian administration.
If radicals gain control of the Republican Party, and then the government, a short-lived march to greater imperial conquest could doom this country either to defeat, like Germany or Japan, or more likely to impoverishment and bankruptcy--possibly both.
The result could look like the declining Roman Empire of the Fifth Century: and no wealthy will reach into their pockets to fund our survival, any more than the Roman Senators did in 476.
The US will not prosper if the Zanies gain power, but some people will: corporate leaders, wealthy owners of capital, a small political elite. The same was true of Nazi Germany--and of the later Roman Empire. Ordinary people will have a choice: join the military and/or the movement, or be increasingly impoverished.
We need to take the corporations, the military and the Tea Party seriously: together they are a threat to Democracy.
Now, the whole world system is upside down. It is the US, which makes war everywhere, has a military that dominates the nation, and spends more on "defense" than all other nations combined. It is also one of many nations in which hate and xenophobia are on the rise: both the Tea Party and anti-immigrant rage. In addition, we have one, two, many Goebbels: Beck, Fox, Limbaugh, etc., and a host of large corporations willing to spend billions to buy elections for corporate sympathizers-- "corp-symps."
They may all come together. The right-wing Tea Partiers support the dominant military against any civilian threat, and can blame all our troubles on "terrorists" and illegal aliens--mostly Hispanic, or Arab: America's equivalent of the Nazi's Jews. Other scapegoats, or targets, can also be marshaled to draw in homophobic right wing Christians, or….
So, in the US now, we have: a military just barely contained by civilian leadership, and the rise of a political movement, which in its use of propaganda and racism, looks eerily like the Nazis. So far, neither Sarah, nor anyone else has been as successful as Hitler at whipping up militant fervor. But then Hitler took awhile, too (more than 10 years--1921-1933).
It's hard not to see Obama and Congress as the ineffectual Weimar Republic, which could not withstand the Nazis' popular mobilization and intimidation. Passive Germans, lying propagandists and charisma defeated Weimar. Could it happen here?
In Japan, the military took over the government behind the scenes. No one could withstand its power; Tojo was a military dictator controlling a civilian administration.
If radicals gain control of the Republican Party, and then the government, a short-lived march to greater imperial conquest could doom this country either to defeat, like Germany or Japan, or more likely to impoverishment and bankruptcy--possibly both.
The result could look like the declining Roman Empire of the Fifth Century: and no wealthy will reach into their pockets to fund our survival, any more than the Roman Senators did in 476.
The US will not prosper if the Zanies gain power, but some people will: corporate leaders, wealthy owners of capital, a small political elite. The same was true of Nazi Germany--and of the later Roman Empire. Ordinary people will have a choice: join the military and/or the movement, or be increasingly impoverished.
We need to take the corporations, the military and the Tea Party seriously: together they are a threat to Democracy.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Heat and Idiocies
It's high 90's; the humidity is climbing. We try to shelter in our cooler houses, go to air-conditioned movies, or are almost thankful we're at work in air-conditioned offices.
It's hot here in the northeast.
Do people ever consider the plight of people in places like Baghdad? There, the temperatures soar into the 120's and 130's, and, in the city, where you'd expect air-conditioning, most people consider themselves lucky if they get a few hours of electricity.
Why? Before the US invasion, Baghdad had power outages, but electricity was generally available. The US, back in 2002, was going to make things better for the Iraqis, by driving out Saddam Hussein. We drove him out; his own people executed him. Meanwhile, Baghdad suffers heat we can hardly imagine. It has no air-conditioning, because when we invaded, we destroyed their power plants. Many billions of dollars later, many power plants have not been successfully repaired, nor the distribution system.
Meanwhile, American troops in their big bases have air-conditioning, hot and cold running water, all the amenities. Probably, in most forward operating bases, Americans enjoy air-conditioning and hot showers.
But the Iraqis do not.
The story is probably similar in Afghanistan, except that there was less to destroy, so Afghans may be less worse off after our invasion than the Iraqis.
What have our invasions accomplished? In Iraq, we got rid of a bad guy, who had been a CIA client, and we also killed a lot of people, destroyed a lot. We so totally destabilized the society that we had to stop a civil war. It could break out again once we leave.
In Afghanistan, we drove the Taliban from power, restored education for girls in a very few places, and put in place an ineffectual government that is one of the most corrupt on the planet. We also killed (and continue to kill) many Afghans, both combatants and non-combatants. But we failed to destroy the Taliban. Despite its unpopularity, Afghan majorities now believe it will return to power in some form; they also want the US and NATO to leave, because we're repeating Vietnam: destroying villages "in order to save them."
Which Afghans want us to stay? The ones who have grown fat on US contracts, or US-funded bribes, are maintained in power by our military, or are allied with those who are: a small minority.
Why do we stay--in either place?
Is it because our military craves large budgets and opportunities for promotion? Is it because defense contractors sell larger and larger contracts?
Meanwhile, the long-term unemployed can't get jobs, and the Senate refuses to extend their benefits--because of budget deficits. The largest discretionary budget item is Defense: $680,000,000-1,300,000,000. (Social Security/Medicare is larger, but self-funded and not discretionary).
Our best plan for a stimulus would be: cut bases worldwide and get out of both wars; spend the money at home.
It's hot here in the northeast.
Do people ever consider the plight of people in places like Baghdad? There, the temperatures soar into the 120's and 130's, and, in the city, where you'd expect air-conditioning, most people consider themselves lucky if they get a few hours of electricity.
Why? Before the US invasion, Baghdad had power outages, but electricity was generally available. The US, back in 2002, was going to make things better for the Iraqis, by driving out Saddam Hussein. We drove him out; his own people executed him. Meanwhile, Baghdad suffers heat we can hardly imagine. It has no air-conditioning, because when we invaded, we destroyed their power plants. Many billions of dollars later, many power plants have not been successfully repaired, nor the distribution system.
Meanwhile, American troops in their big bases have air-conditioning, hot and cold running water, all the amenities. Probably, in most forward operating bases, Americans enjoy air-conditioning and hot showers.
But the Iraqis do not.
The story is probably similar in Afghanistan, except that there was less to destroy, so Afghans may be less worse off after our invasion than the Iraqis.
What have our invasions accomplished? In Iraq, we got rid of a bad guy, who had been a CIA client, and we also killed a lot of people, destroyed a lot. We so totally destabilized the society that we had to stop a civil war. It could break out again once we leave.
In Afghanistan, we drove the Taliban from power, restored education for girls in a very few places, and put in place an ineffectual government that is one of the most corrupt on the planet. We also killed (and continue to kill) many Afghans, both combatants and non-combatants. But we failed to destroy the Taliban. Despite its unpopularity, Afghan majorities now believe it will return to power in some form; they also want the US and NATO to leave, because we're repeating Vietnam: destroying villages "in order to save them."
Which Afghans want us to stay? The ones who have grown fat on US contracts, or US-funded bribes, are maintained in power by our military, or are allied with those who are: a small minority.
Why do we stay--in either place?
Is it because our military craves large budgets and opportunities for promotion? Is it because defense contractors sell larger and larger contracts?
Meanwhile, the long-term unemployed can't get jobs, and the Senate refuses to extend their benefits--because of budget deficits. The largest discretionary budget item is Defense: $680,000,000-1,300,000,000. (Social Security/Medicare is larger, but self-funded and not discretionary).
Our best plan for a stimulus would be: cut bases worldwide and get out of both wars; spend the money at home.
Friday, July 2, 2010
When Government is Small Enough
We've heard a lot about the conservatives' drive to cut government spending, and functions. Famously Grover Norquist said that his aim was to make government small enough that he could "drown it in a bathtub."
In other words, the ideal was no government at all. It's an interesting idea, especially since we see examples of it in various places around the world.
Somalia, for example. In Somalia, there is a government, but its writ is extremely limited even in the capital city of Mogadishu. Nevertheless, the US and the UN are supporting it--even though it has been caught using child soldiers in its national army. But there is virtually no security, except in some of the rebel-held areas, where strict, extremely brutal "sharia" law is arbitrarily enforced. If someone is starving, and he grabs a loaf of bread, having no money--there is no viable currency--he could have a hand and foot hacked off by al Shabaab, a fundamentalist insurgent group.
So, if you travel in Somalia, you need at least a couple of bodyguards, armed (at least) with AK47's. If you want to send a letter out of the country, you're out of luck. If you're near one of the local businessmen-warlords, who has a local private mail service, you might be able to send a letter within parts of Somalia.
If you want to send your children to school, in most of the country you'll just have to forget about it. One of the reasons for Somali piracy is that there is no security for the nation's fishing areas, so the international fishing industry has moved in, and the Somalis make a living by commandeering unprotected shipping. It's become a big business.
Nations without governance for large parts of their territories are vulnerable to freelance armies like the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army), which bills itself as a rebellion to replace Uganda's government with a Christian theocracy, but ranges over four nations, killing, raping, looting, and recruiting boys to fight and girls as sex slaves. The LRA reminds me of the worst aspects of medieval freelance armies: it really isn't interested in holding territory, simply in maintaining (and enriching) itself. It has ranged free for years, because northern Uganda, southern Sudan, Central African Republic and DR Congo have large territories without government control. The LRA is like Attila's Huns.
The Congo has also been vulnerable, especially its eastern territories, to the same kind of freelance armies (a lot of them): government hardly functions there. Africa (and other ungoverned parts of the world) are like the period during and after the fall of Rome in Europe, when barbarian hordes roamed free, ripped off whatever they could carry, killed any resisters, recruited malcontents and kept on moving. That era has been labeled "the Dark Ages."
They illustrate what No government looks like. Is that what Grover wants?
In other words, the ideal was no government at all. It's an interesting idea, especially since we see examples of it in various places around the world.
Somalia, for example. In Somalia, there is a government, but its writ is extremely limited even in the capital city of Mogadishu. Nevertheless, the US and the UN are supporting it--even though it has been caught using child soldiers in its national army. But there is virtually no security, except in some of the rebel-held areas, where strict, extremely brutal "sharia" law is arbitrarily enforced. If someone is starving, and he grabs a loaf of bread, having no money--there is no viable currency--he could have a hand and foot hacked off by al Shabaab, a fundamentalist insurgent group.
So, if you travel in Somalia, you need at least a couple of bodyguards, armed (at least) with AK47's. If you want to send a letter out of the country, you're out of luck. If you're near one of the local businessmen-warlords, who has a local private mail service, you might be able to send a letter within parts of Somalia.
If you want to send your children to school, in most of the country you'll just have to forget about it. One of the reasons for Somali piracy is that there is no security for the nation's fishing areas, so the international fishing industry has moved in, and the Somalis make a living by commandeering unprotected shipping. It's become a big business.
Nations without governance for large parts of their territories are vulnerable to freelance armies like the LRA (Lord's Resistance Army), which bills itself as a rebellion to replace Uganda's government with a Christian theocracy, but ranges over four nations, killing, raping, looting, and recruiting boys to fight and girls as sex slaves. The LRA reminds me of the worst aspects of medieval freelance armies: it really isn't interested in holding territory, simply in maintaining (and enriching) itself. It has ranged free for years, because northern Uganda, southern Sudan, Central African Republic and DR Congo have large territories without government control. The LRA is like Attila's Huns.
The Congo has also been vulnerable, especially its eastern territories, to the same kind of freelance armies (a lot of them): government hardly functions there. Africa (and other ungoverned parts of the world) are like the period during and after the fall of Rome in Europe, when barbarian hordes roamed free, ripped off whatever they could carry, killed any resisters, recruited malcontents and kept on moving. That era has been labeled "the Dark Ages."
They illustrate what No government looks like. Is that what Grover wants?
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Gulf of Mexico: Only Oil Wells!
Gee, why don't we just write off the Gulf of Mexico as anything but an oil production site? Why stop drilling?
We've already committed ecocide there. Dead zones all over the place as oil and gas escape at huge volumes from BP's blowout. They'll continue to spread and there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. Even if the first relief well succeeds in tapping into the blown-out well, there is still the possibility that BP won't be able to plug it, and we won't even know if that's a success until August--if more hurricanes don't disrupt the process until after the hurricane season (June-November).
So, we should simply write off the whole non-oil Gulf Coast economy. Just open the whole Gulf to extensive oil drilling, and who cares if there are more blow outs? America needs the oil. Isn't that what Republicans, tea-partiers and others are saying? We can't have a moratorium! Oil drillers' jobs will be lost.
Since we've already screwed the Gulf, we might as well just continue doing it. Shrimpers, et al, aren't going to recover for years, so expand the oil patch and hire them as oil drillers.
We should not, under any circumstances, sanction those poor oil companies: they have so much on their plates, and if we look cross-eyed at them, why they might go and despoil the Nigerian delta, instead.
Oh. They already have.
Well, all the more reason why all oil-drilling regulations and limitations should be removed. We're competing with Nigeria, but we want the oil in our backyard. Who cares if a little bit is spilled?
Is anyone calculating the effects of the trillions of cubic feet of methane being released by the blowout? Will it accelerate global warming? But then there is no such thing. One of my favorite right-wing bloggers warns that the criminal conspirators who control the world--including Obama's White House, of course--have decided that they haven't been able to sell global warming, so they'll try to persuade everyone that the real danger is Global Cooling!
Now, if it's global cooling, then the oil spew disaster is no disaster, at all: it helps solve the problem. It releases huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere, thereby helping to hold in the precious heat this planet is in danger of losing. And polluting industries, cars, etc. all help stave off the imminent ice age.
Now that we've solved that problem, let's move on to the financial system: obviously, there should be no regulation of those poor banks. Who knows how much profits Goldman would lose!
Right-wingers unite! You have nothing to lose but your tenuous grip on reality! Somalia is our new model: no government at all.
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Ron Paul: Anti-war, Anti-Fed
I knew Ron Paul was a rare conservative Republican against the war in Afghanistan: outspokenly against. I had seen him in the Presidential debates, and he had seemed too old, and too obsessive about a lot of more quirky issues: I didn't take him seriously.
But when he rose to debate the war in Afghanistan this year, he was oddly elegant. He did ramble a bit, but his argument made a lot of sense. Two points stand out: first, the reason we're in these wars is because it's too easy to go to war. The War Powers Act gave the President 90 days of war before Congress could say boo. By then, it becomes an accomplished fact: how can you withdraw and let the x number of soldiers killed, "die in vain?" So, it's hard, once engaged, to get out of a war, as demonstrated by both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Paul's other main point was that by fighting these wars against Muslims, we are fulfilling Osama bin Laden's strategy for winning the region and driving out the US and the West--using the anger we generate among Muslims to recruit support, while bankrupting us.
Ron Paul is predictably critical of the financial reform bill, but he reveals why housing the Consumer Finance watchdog agency in the Fed is not just a convenience: it will be dependent for a budget not from Congress, but from the Fed, itself. It will be controlled by it.
Paul would like to abolish the Fed and fiat money, for gold, which makes him a bit of a kook among most economists, conservative or liberal. However, he's co-sponsoring, with liberal Democrat, Kucinich, a bill that would require the Fed to be audited, a proposal that makes sense.
Paul's opposition to the Afghan war connects with his opposition to the Fed: fiat money finances wars for Republicans and "unlimited welfare" for Democrats, he says, because the Fed can just keep issuing money, indebting us all. He's not entirely wrong about the debt part, but too many Democrats are willing to finance wars, as well, and "welfare" is pretty meager, compared to the money we lavish on wars.
Paul made the same point I've made on this site: empires bankrupt themselves over wars. The Romans, after their peak, had a long and painful decline, because they could no longer pay for the Empire's continuous wars. They lost territory, losing revenue and the loot from conquest. The Empire consumed more than it produced. Sound familiar?
The western Empire fell because it was so bankrupt it couldn’t even pay the palace guard: so, they overthrew the Emperor, and stole what remained of his assets.
It is a valid question, though: how long can the Fed create money for wars and consumption, and persuade the rest of the world that "the dollar is sound?"
But when he rose to debate the war in Afghanistan this year, he was oddly elegant. He did ramble a bit, but his argument made a lot of sense. Two points stand out: first, the reason we're in these wars is because it's too easy to go to war. The War Powers Act gave the President 90 days of war before Congress could say boo. By then, it becomes an accomplished fact: how can you withdraw and let the x number of soldiers killed, "die in vain?" So, it's hard, once engaged, to get out of a war, as demonstrated by both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Paul's other main point was that by fighting these wars against Muslims, we are fulfilling Osama bin Laden's strategy for winning the region and driving out the US and the West--using the anger we generate among Muslims to recruit support, while bankrupting us.
Ron Paul is predictably critical of the financial reform bill, but he reveals why housing the Consumer Finance watchdog agency in the Fed is not just a convenience: it will be dependent for a budget not from Congress, but from the Fed, itself. It will be controlled by it.
Paul would like to abolish the Fed and fiat money, for gold, which makes him a bit of a kook among most economists, conservative or liberal. However, he's co-sponsoring, with liberal Democrat, Kucinich, a bill that would require the Fed to be audited, a proposal that makes sense.
Paul's opposition to the Afghan war connects with his opposition to the Fed: fiat money finances wars for Republicans and "unlimited welfare" for Democrats, he says, because the Fed can just keep issuing money, indebting us all. He's not entirely wrong about the debt part, but too many Democrats are willing to finance wars, as well, and "welfare" is pretty meager, compared to the money we lavish on wars.
Paul made the same point I've made on this site: empires bankrupt themselves over wars. The Romans, after their peak, had a long and painful decline, because they could no longer pay for the Empire's continuous wars. They lost territory, losing revenue and the loot from conquest. The Empire consumed more than it produced. Sound familiar?
The western Empire fell because it was so bankrupt it couldn’t even pay the palace guard: so, they overthrew the Emperor, and stole what remained of his assets.
It is a valid question, though: how long can the Fed create money for wars and consumption, and persuade the rest of the world that "the dollar is sound?"
Friday, June 25, 2010
Mechanics That Are Beyond Us
We think we should be able to drill oil, mine coal, or tap natural gas wherever we find it, no matter how difficult the conditions. The technology for surface mining of coal--used in mountaintop removal--is fairly simple, if drastic environmentally. Oil drilling in deep sea, however, must use highly sophisticated technology.
Up until the Gulf disaster, the industry assumed that the redundant safety devices would prevent blow-outs. But they were using the technology at greater and greater depths, both of water and of earth beneath it. Deepwater Horizon is far from the deepest well, however.
They had four devices, each of which, alone, was supposed to prevent a blow-out. The first was a cement plug just above the tapped oil, the second, a similar plug several thousand feet below the sea floor (the oil is 13000' below it). The third was the blow-out preventer, which was supposed to be able to shut off the pipe, and the fourth was a shear in the preventer, that would snap off the pipe and clamp it shut.
All of those safety devices failed. It's argued that a second shear, often installed in a blow-out preventer as back-up, might have worked. It might have.
But, blind faith in a blind shear isn't just blind; it's hubris. Perhaps the technology, as sophisticated as it seems, isn't yet up to the task. Considering that an offshore well like Deepwater Horizon can commit ecocide on a huge scale, we can't settle for 9 out of ten, or 99 out of 100. We have to be absolutely sure that there will be no accidents, or that we can clean up any accident, regardless of size, before any environmental damage.
Or, build solar panels and wind turbines like mad.
I predict we won't do either. After all, well-drillers need jobs.
The Roman Empire contributed to the desertification of North Africa (it had been its granary), because it needed food for its huge population; it deforested the Mediterranean because it had to keep its baths good and hot. Wasteful patterns, once established, are hard to change. It's likely that Rome's ecological wastefulness contributed substantially to its impoverishment. The good counselors of Ephesus pointed out the danger of stripping the hills of trees, but the city's port became silted up anyway: probably, contractors to the baths had to keep cutting wood, until it was gone. And then Romans did the same thing in Rome and Ravenna.
Will we now poison the whole world in our inability to leave oil and coal behind, and use renewable, non-polluting energy?
The oil companies--and the coal companies--need their profits; the drillers and miners need their jobs. The companies are politically well connected. What do you think is the most likely outcome?
How can we change it?
Scream bloody murder--of the Earth. It's that serious.
Up until the Gulf disaster, the industry assumed that the redundant safety devices would prevent blow-outs. But they were using the technology at greater and greater depths, both of water and of earth beneath it. Deepwater Horizon is far from the deepest well, however.
They had four devices, each of which, alone, was supposed to prevent a blow-out. The first was a cement plug just above the tapped oil, the second, a similar plug several thousand feet below the sea floor (the oil is 13000' below it). The third was the blow-out preventer, which was supposed to be able to shut off the pipe, and the fourth was a shear in the preventer, that would snap off the pipe and clamp it shut.
All of those safety devices failed. It's argued that a second shear, often installed in a blow-out preventer as back-up, might have worked. It might have.
But, blind faith in a blind shear isn't just blind; it's hubris. Perhaps the technology, as sophisticated as it seems, isn't yet up to the task. Considering that an offshore well like Deepwater Horizon can commit ecocide on a huge scale, we can't settle for 9 out of ten, or 99 out of 100. We have to be absolutely sure that there will be no accidents, or that we can clean up any accident, regardless of size, before any environmental damage.
Or, build solar panels and wind turbines like mad.
I predict we won't do either. After all, well-drillers need jobs.
The Roman Empire contributed to the desertification of North Africa (it had been its granary), because it needed food for its huge population; it deforested the Mediterranean because it had to keep its baths good and hot. Wasteful patterns, once established, are hard to change. It's likely that Rome's ecological wastefulness contributed substantially to its impoverishment. The good counselors of Ephesus pointed out the danger of stripping the hills of trees, but the city's port became silted up anyway: probably, contractors to the baths had to keep cutting wood, until it was gone. And then Romans did the same thing in Rome and Ravenna.
Will we now poison the whole world in our inability to leave oil and coal behind, and use renewable, non-polluting energy?
The oil companies--and the coal companies--need their profits; the drillers and miners need their jobs. The companies are politically well connected. What do you think is the most likely outcome?
How can we change it?
Scream bloody murder--of the Earth. It's that serious.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Can Governments Represent Us?
The assumption of the right-wing in the US is that government can't work, that it does nothing positive, and that any expansion of government power is simply a "power-grab." They claim governments produce nothing. Yet, census workers, for example, determine who populates the country: information highly valued by corporations.
The assumption of the left-wing is that government can work for good, but that it's dominated by an elite, which works not for the common good, but for the moneyed interests.
In the late Roman Empire, both assumptions were correct. Imperial government was woefully ineffective in deterring crime, violence and barbarian takeovers, but was more effective in representing the interests of the moneyed elite, the Senatorial class. The governments of late imperial Rome look an awful lot like the vision of right wing luminaries like Grover Norquist: they couldn't do squat, except tax the poor and protect the wealthy until the barbarians took over, first in outlying provinces, and finally in Rome in 476.
The assumption of the right-wing is that any time Obama reaches for an effective response to a problem--like controlling health care costs, or forcing BP to set aside $20 billion for damages in the Gulf--he is grabbing dictatorial powers.
The assumption of the left-wing is that Obama is too cozy with corporate powers, and too timid with its protectors.
Yet, there are a few Republicans, like Senator Susan Collins, who might accept compromise. Obama should not be so willing to compromise basic principals for a few legislators' votes, however.
The basic disagreement, is whether government can do anything positive, or whether, as Reagan popularized, "government is the problem." The brouhaha over Rep. Barton's apology to BP, illustrates this division. It's also instructive: the Republican leadership knew his apology didn't look good, so they forced Barton to retract, but Barton was critical of BP when Republicans controlled Congress.
Why did he change his mind? The rightward tilt of the GOP from Tea Party successes may be one reason: all the TP stars either anticipated his position, or tried to outdo it.
But, if government action is no solution, then people are powerless against corporate power. BP's recklessness could be replicated many times over, and no one could stop them. From the corporate point of view, there would be no reason to spend money on safety, if there were no mandates insuring their competitors would also spend money on it. Corporate leaders are legally mandated to maximize shareholder profits, not to protect "the people."
Only governments can represent common interests. They lose power if they consistently don't--even in dictatorships. It's to most people's interests, therefore, that governments become more effective, not less. It's a continual struggle to insure that a government represents the common interest, but no other institution can.
The assumption of the left-wing is that government can work for good, but that it's dominated by an elite, which works not for the common good, but for the moneyed interests.
In the late Roman Empire, both assumptions were correct. Imperial government was woefully ineffective in deterring crime, violence and barbarian takeovers, but was more effective in representing the interests of the moneyed elite, the Senatorial class. The governments of late imperial Rome look an awful lot like the vision of right wing luminaries like Grover Norquist: they couldn't do squat, except tax the poor and protect the wealthy until the barbarians took over, first in outlying provinces, and finally in Rome in 476.
The assumption of the right-wing is that any time Obama reaches for an effective response to a problem--like controlling health care costs, or forcing BP to set aside $20 billion for damages in the Gulf--he is grabbing dictatorial powers.
The assumption of the left-wing is that Obama is too cozy with corporate powers, and too timid with its protectors.
Yet, there are a few Republicans, like Senator Susan Collins, who might accept compromise. Obama should not be so willing to compromise basic principals for a few legislators' votes, however.
The basic disagreement, is whether government can do anything positive, or whether, as Reagan popularized, "government is the problem." The brouhaha over Rep. Barton's apology to BP, illustrates this division. It's also instructive: the Republican leadership knew his apology didn't look good, so they forced Barton to retract, but Barton was critical of BP when Republicans controlled Congress.
Why did he change his mind? The rightward tilt of the GOP from Tea Party successes may be one reason: all the TP stars either anticipated his position, or tried to outdo it.
But, if government action is no solution, then people are powerless against corporate power. BP's recklessness could be replicated many times over, and no one could stop them. From the corporate point of view, there would be no reason to spend money on safety, if there were no mandates insuring their competitors would also spend money on it. Corporate leaders are legally mandated to maximize shareholder profits, not to protect "the people."
Only governments can represent common interests. They lose power if they consistently don't--even in dictatorships. It's to most people's interests, therefore, that governments become more effective, not less. It's a continual struggle to insure that a government represents the common interest, but no other institution can.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
We Shoulda Elected Hillary!
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!
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!
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)