Why Ukraine Mess is US's Fault

First, the US gloried in the demise of the USSR, and quasi-private funds sent "advisors" to the faltering giant to "help" it sort out its collapsing economy, and managed to remake it into an oligarchic vision, which appears to be being realized here, as well.

Then, despite its promises to the contrary, the US pushed Europeans to promote the eastward expansion of NATO--to the borders of the former Evil Empire.

Well, not quite. NATO didn't take in the Ukraine and Byelorussia. Until now.

Now that there is clear evidence that Russia has been intervening, cleverly and surreptitiously, in eastern Ukraine and Crimea (long before the latter's annexation), perhaps the wise-asses in the Pentagon and State should ask themselves why.

We have not treated Russia fairly. The US has acted, consistently as if the Cold War, declared over in the early 1990's, never ended, at all. We have treated Russia as if it were still a threat, or rather, have acted as if it were both unimportant and still a dangerous adversary that must be contained.

Russia should be neither. As the nation straddling the largest territory on the planet, it will always be important. If we had treated Russia as a partner, instead of an adversary, the present Ukraine mess probably would not have happened.

Progressive bloggers refer, with some justification, to the change in Ukraine's government as an "American coup." The US with its sidekick, Europe and NATO, clearly was meddling in the Ukraine, fomenting discontent, offering seductive deals and encouraging and subsidizing some of the most nauseous elements of Ukrainian nationalism: those inspired by the pro-Nazi resistance to the Soviet regime before, during and after World War II.

Now, we are reaping the whirlwind.

Of course, Russia is going to do whatever it can, especially below the US's radar, to insure that it does not have an unfriendly neighbor directly on its borders.

Consider how Americans would feel if Russia or China were doing something similar in Canada or Mexico. But it's worse than that.

When I studied Russian history, one of the periods that struck me was the 300 years or so (about as long as the US's own history), when Russians were assailed by 100's of invasions, as many as several a year, coming from both the Asian Steppes and from western Europe--for 300 years. Russians' natural and understandable response was to support a Tsarist government that ruled with an iron hand and expanded its control in all directions--to fend off the invaders, be they Swedes, Hungarians, Mongols or Turks.

Unlike the US, Russia has only one natural border: the Arctic Sea. Especially in the west, where the Ukraine is situated, there is a vast sweep of land with virtually no barriers--except its very extent, as Napoleon and Hitler discovered to their sorrow.

Long before the Cold War, before WWII, there was the Winter War with Finland, with which Russia finally arrived at a reasonable compromise. Finland, to this day, is constrained from joining alliances: towards Russia it is bound to be neutral, and that makes sense. A similar arrangement should be promoted with the Ukraine, and with the Baltic and other border states, as well.

Russia must not be encircled by NATO, or US bases. Russia's need for security should be respected and promoted. If there are Ukrainians or Georgians who don't like Russia, they should be told: Russia is the large bear in the neighborhood. Treat it respectfully and neutrally and it won't interfere: rebel against its regional dominance and no NATO and no US superpower can save you.

If Russia were ringed by states bound to neutrality, Russia would be much more amenable to disarming its nuclear weapons, and maybe the dream Obama articulated before the Pentagon and CIA got to him, the dream of total nuclear disarmament, would be much closer to realization.

But then, the US would have to amend its ways: curb its strategy of attempting the impossible: to dominate the world with its military-security tentacles in every corner of the earth.

I blame US global aggression not on the American people: I think we're almost as reasonable, tolerant and peaceable as any people. I say 'almost' because of the gun rights crowd, and the growing tolerance of racist violence, 50 years after the civil rights movement.

I blame US aggressiveness on two American institutions: roughly, the security/intelligence complex and the military. They feed each other and feast off Americans' manufactured fear, manufactured by their business partners: the media, owned by corporations like GE that have billions of dollars in defense contracts. All of the above have incentives to foment unrest or find it, and then demand that it's America's responsibility to "fix it."

The Roman Empire was driven by the profits of war, enriching the aristocracy that became the Senate, and impoverishing the many, who were thrown on the dole. The American Empire is driven by the profits of war-making, which sucks trillions from peaceable people, impoverishes them, disemploys them and enriches the few.

War? Or Peace?

The war authorization passed by Congress after 911 will be necessary, military officials told the US Senate, for 10-20 years, and will enable them to put US military on the ground, from Syria to the Congo to Boston!

"This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today," Sen. Angus King said. [Huffpo 5/21]

On 5/23, Obama said the war on terror was winding down, and with it the utility of the 911 war authorization.

What's going on here?

Since 9/11/2001, there has been a huge growth in the military and related security services. Think of the department always referred to as "sprawling" Homeland Security, which didn't even exist on 9/11. Think of the CIA running covert wars in places most Americans still can't find on a map: the Tribal Agency in Pakistan's Northeast frontier, and in Somalia and Yemen.

Think of all the money those services spend--or waste, or give away. Does anyone really know how many $100's of billions? Wouldn't it be nice if the CIA came calling to your house, instead of to President Karzai's palace, and dropped off anonymous bundles of $20 bills?

We'll probably see a good many more of these conflicting statements, coming out of the White House and the Pentagon--or its related services. There's a lot of money involved: the sequester cuts the military somewhat more deeply than other government programs, but still leaves most of its "Terror" funding intact. Obama's statement puts many security programs in the cross-hairs of budget cutters.

There are a lot of peoples' jobs at stake; even more important, from a monetary point of view, there are billions of dollars in military and security contracts on the line.

It doesn't matter whether these programs are necessary: covert action sections, new weapons, highly trained employees. That isn't the point of the disagreement reflected in the statements of "military officials" versus President Obama.

Obama has declared war and his opponents were fighting back--they knew which way the wind was blowing before the President's statement. The Military-Security-Industrial complex isn't going to let a good thing be taken away. The MSI will martial its forces to ensure that what it has won, first with GW and then with Obama, won't be cut.

Of course, the "military officials" implied their programs should be expanded, not curtailed: they want to fight all over the globe, even in Boston.

If the MSI prevails, we'll continue to flex our muscles globally, while hollowing out the nation internally: a sure recipe for following the Roman Empire into oblivion.

Considering the miniscule number of deaths caused by Terrorism, and the huge numbers caused by out-of-control-capitalism, I'd happily defund "Defense," to adequately budget needed social programs. Hope for Obama's new vision. It's the best chance we've got.

Counter-Revolution Paid For By

Scott Walker's "easy win" over old line Democrat, Tom Barrett, shows the relative effectiveness of two strategies: buying elections and media, versus organizing "the masses." Maybe there weren't enough of the masses, or there were too many Fox consumers, but buying an election worked, mass organizing didn't. Also, Tom Barrett's moderate stance of "let's reason together," didn't work. He lost this time by more than last time, before Walker slammed public sector unions and women, and students, and, and, and.

Wisconsin was a laboratory for those freed by Citizens United to spend unlimited funds in order to buy the kind of government they want: slashed services, cowed workers and slashed taxes for the wealthy.

And they won. Big.

Walker is a hero of the right. To them, he's someone who stood up to unions, who stood up to uppity women: he called their bluff and cut taxes for corporations. All the outrage, all the organizing, all the demonstrations against him and the Republican coup d'etat comes down to this: Walker won with a higher percentage of the vote than he won in 2010, before he revealed how radical he was.

The real winners are the people I've called the Selfish Class. It's not clear, yet, whether their campaign spending (seven to one versus Democrats, reportedly, 2/3 from out of state, versus 1/4 for Democrats) or the longer propaganda campaign of Fox News and snide talk radio was most important in waging the counter-revolution. Both were paid for by the same kind of people: the selfish class, whether corporate donors, or billionaires wanting to protect and expand what is theirs.

What is clear is that even if Obama ekes out a win in November (18% of Walker voters said they'd support him), it is the selfish class that really won. Walker's agenda was tailor-made by them: bash unions into impotence, humiliate women into 1950's-type subservience and cow dissidents, minorities and students into hiding. Most important: cut taxes on the wealthy to the bone.

Obama may win against Romney by piecing together a coalition of feminists, gays, minorities and enough independents impressed by his anti-terrorist cojones, but you can bet he'll be reluctant to support strengthening unions, or pushing for a real stimulus, or going after Wall Street. He may be marginally better than Romney, but he's not going to undo the counter-revolution.

There is a real divide in this country, and much of the world. The uber-rich selfish class, like Fifth-century Roman Senators, has their hangers-on and their subservient serfs, who have been taught that their heroes' good fortunes will trickle down. And there are the rest of us, who haven't yet accepted the message.

We haven't accepted it, because it isn't true: with austerity, slashed services and increasing inequality, the wealthy will prosper, but, if they prevail, we'll be driven into a centuries-long depression, just like the fifth-century Roman Empire.

US Dysfunction: Who Profits?

We have a nearly dysfunctional political system and conservatives like it that way.

Dick Durban, the Senate Assistant Majority Leader, recently described how he and his colleagues--virtually all Senators and Congress-people--have to go across the street from the Capitol to a bare-bones call center, and spend hours calling for campaign contributions at least several times a week. He described it as his "other job," fundraising.

Now, we have "Super-pacs" and non-profit affiliates collecting many millions of dollars from less than a few hundred multi-millionaires, billionaires and corporations. They are hoping to buy the election of the President, the Senate, the House, and the states. This year billions of dollars may be in play.

There was another period in the US, when the very wealthy virtually owned our government: until the 1901 accession of Teddy Roosevelt to the Presidency. TR's Presidency was a mistake. New York's Republican leadership saw Governor Roosevelt as a troublemaker: they thought they were banishing him to ineffectuality as Vice President. Then, President McKinley, was assassinated and TR became President. He began trust-busting, the beginning of the end of the first Gilded Age, in which "robber barons" boasted of spending money to elect Government to pass laws so that they could make even more money.

The Gilded Age looked much like the late Roman Empire, when the Roman Senatorial class monopolized virtually all the wealth, and used it to protect their own interests: not those of the empire, nor of the other people in it. The latter were reduced to slaves and serfs, and a mercenary military was supposed to protect the Empire and maintain order.

The Fifth Century, the 1890's, it's happening again. But it's not just corruption and class exploitation, this time: it's a complete failure to respond to the most urgent crisis of our era. The inability of Congress to act--brought to you by the corrupt campaign finance and lobbying system--is not only preventing action to alleviate the problem, it's actually promoting policies that will make the problem worse.

Congress has brushed aside any attempt to ameliorate or reverse damaging global climate change. This has happened, even though weather events and scientific data, from ice-cores to global temperatures, to violent storms, to melting polar ice, corroborate not only the global scientific consensus that climate change is happening, but that it's accelerating faster than any but the most radical predictions foresaw. And now, there's an "oil and gas boom" in the US!

Our "robber barons" have bought off Pennsylvania and Ohio, are attempting to buy off New York--allowing fracking anywhere--and along with big corporations that TR would recognize, they are pooling their billions to buy up Congress and the Presidency, so they can amass even more billions, the climate be damned.

We all will be, if they succeed.

Fragile Economy, Fragile Politics

Email overload, after falling in the lake--again! No, this time it wasn't frozen and I was only in up to my armpits. It wasn't even so cold that I didn't go in again to try to free the goddam raft that's still stuck near the beach. But it was cold; my hands were numb for more than an hour and my feet took hours to warm up, .

So, yeah, I'm tired. I watched TV news shows tonight: I'd have to be tired for that. I even saw a bit of O'Reilly: what a know-it-all, what a snide SOB he is! Both Schultz and Chris Matthews were shrill, the NPR people were understated, but not that interesting. And Piers Morgan, when I was watching, was covering the most inconsequential stuff I've seen on evening news shows. I was looking forward to Rachel Maddow, but some geek was subbing for her, talking about the "trigonometry" of news, and I switched the channel. And then, after Piers Morgan, I turned the boob tube off.

Now, to the substance of what I saw, After the Santorum sweep of Mississippi and Alabama, of course, there was a lot of gossip--on all the channels--about how Romney was having problems, but amassing more delegates than his rivals. More gossip was: how Santorum supporters wished Gingrich would bow out, and the reason he didn't was, as Matthews suggested, because of his outsize ego.

Afghanistan was yesterday's news, Sudan was visited because of George Clooney's interest, not for any other reason, although the situation there is dire. O'Reilly said snide things, still, about Sandra Fluke, and implied that Obama must want higher gas prices.

Which is absurd: it's one thing that could defeat Obama in the election. If oil skyrockets and not only does gasoline, but fuel oil, then the nation's economy, just getting into gear, will have to downshift once again. Yes, I do drive a shift.

The only thing that could win Obama the election then, would be the absolute idiocy of the Republican candidate--if it's Santorum--or the transparent hypocrisy and vacuity if it's Romney.

But it's a real danger. If the economy had to weather an oil shock, because of Israeli threats, or attack, against Iran, or if the hot peace in Sudan continues to disrupt the oil market, or if any number of other things might slow down our shaky recovery, then whichever clown the Republicans nominate might just win. He'd bring a mandate for: cutting the bejeezus out of social programs and "entitlements," bringing "religion" into government, while cutting taxes for the wealthy. He'd also pursue more wars, including the one on women and corporations would rule.

That looks like the 21st century version of the Roman Empire's Fifth Century, you know, the one that ended the western Roman Empire in 476.

Roman Ephesus, Keystone XL and Arctic Oil

Right-wing financial newsletters push investments in oil, and bitumen resources, like Canadian tar sands and even Venezuela's unconventional hydrocarbons, as well as fracking for natural gas. To them, it's a golden opportunity to make pots of money--and nothing else.

They act as if there never was any discussion of global warming, except by impractical people, who just don't want to make money. We've had the warmest years on record and Arctic ice is melting rapidly. There is the violent weather, forecast as a consequence of global warming. There are clear signs of climate change all around us, plus sufficient data, accepted globally except in the US, that it's caused largely by human activity--but these guys can't wait to get their money into the oil deposits newly accessible in the arctic seas!

In the first century, BC, Ephesus was the Asian capital and port for the Roman Empire. There's a page about it on this website. It was one of the largest cities in the Mediterranean world, with a population of 250,000. But it's port slowly silted up, because the surrounding hills were deforested for fuel, to fire the baths, and to build the cement forms needed for Rome's monumental buildings. There is graffiti from that period, memorializing public anxiety by the city's officials that their prime harbor would soon be unusable. Ephesus is now miles from the sea; it was largely abandoned when ships couldn't use the harbor. Afterwards, continued erosion covered the city with enough silt to preserve it; preserved for present day tourists (in Turkey, near Selcuk).

Now, consider: while the counselors cautioned against cutting down all the trees, there must have been businessmen who scoffed and said, we need fuel; people want the baths; you're being impractical. Besides, I can make thousands on this. (Numbers were smaller in those days).

Our "officials" appear much more timid than the Ephesians, because they're faced by the demands of rapacious capital, and the people who play with it to get rich regardless.

Obama's (temporary) blockage of the Keystone XL pipeline is a step in the right direction. A more significant (and painful) step is the movement by developing nations like Venezuela, Iran, Nigeria to nationalize their oil reserves, and limit production, which raises the price for oil. I don't like $4 gas, either. But we'll never get off fossil fuels, to slow global warming, unless higher oil costs drive us to solar, wind and bio-fuels.

It is the institutional power of fossil fuel industries worldwide, which drives our suicidal environmental policy, plus the logic of capitalism, which disregards environmental costs. There is also the military that makes all this possible. Now it's time to throw off their power, and with it, any need for empire.

Alternative energy might enable us not to have to abandon large swathes of this planet as uninhabitable--if we can learn from the Ephesians.

Attack Syria, Instead of Iran!

Gee, let's see: Syria is smaller than Iraq, which is smaller than Iran, so maybe we should attack Syria, instead of Iran. The US has to attack somebody, doesn't it? Can't you see Republicans thinking this? After all, Romney and all the other monkeys, except Ron Paul, are calling for a much larger Defense budget, and a neat little war would help that along nicely. Further, if we took control of Syria, Iran would have to cave on nukes, wouldn't it? Besides, if we could take over Syria, Israel would be deliriously happy. Republicans do sense that anything they can offer that is more Israel-centric than Obama's strained dialog with Netanyahu, might win them votes among Jews, in places like Florida, and even New York. And campaign funds.

Actually, Syria is closely aligned with Iran, but more importantly, with Russia, and that relationship goes back a long way. So, we attack Syria and Russia might send in materiel, at least, to make Americans bleed.

It's a lot better for the Arabs to lead on this, and for the US to stay the hell out of the way. America's big feet would just mess up the neighborhood even more. The only thing the US should do, is either look for a negotiated peace, or supply the opposition with our best defensive weaponry (if there is such a thing). Or the best of our weaponry that the Free Syrian Army, or whatever they'll call themselves tomorrow, can use given their needs and their skills.

It is true, I think, that the opposition represents a variety of democratic impulses, while Assad's regime represents brutal autocratic rule. Americans should favor democracy, but American business often prefers to dicker with an autocrat--only one or a few to buy off, instead of hundreds in a parliament. American businesses, however, will find it hard to cooperate with an internationally condemned butcher of his own people. And we could have some influence on that, by organizing collective protests, or threatening boycotts.

This is life at the center of a declining empire. The US simply doesn't have the boots to land on the ground to sustain anything meaningful against Assad, especially given the difficulties of the neighborhood. Remember, we helped destroy Russia's Soviet empire by supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan. Putin might feel that turnabout is fair play. Russia is a Syrian ally, and Putin has been running against western influence since the first time he ran for President. It would probably be popular--as was Reagan's support for the mujahedeen.

I really hope Syria doesn't enter the electoral shouting match, it could initiate the dying gasp of the American Empire and it wouldn't be pretty, sort of like Adrianople, when Fritigern killed the Roman Emperor Valens in 378.

Ron Paul vs Obama

Ron Paul says we should get out of the Middle East (and everywhere else), but is also for dismantling the so-called 'social welfare' state and the IRS!

If Ron Paul were a major candidate, instead of consigned to the "loony right-wing fringe," we could have a real debate: on foreign and military policy, on civil liberties and national security policies, on drug policies and on the function of government.

What is more important: protecting (minimally) the already shredded safety net, or personal liberties? Obama is for the former. However, Obama signed the NDAA, with its provision for indefinite detention by the military of anyone, anywhere in the world, deemed to have some undefined relationship or alignment with al Qaeda, with no right to trial or even Habeas Corpus. Obama is no protector of civil liberties. He has signed the death warrant for democracy, as we have known it.

Just as in the Roman Empire, the military has been given the power of judge, jury and executioner, even though emperor Obama and his successors are supposed to approve their actions. During most of the Roman Empire, the military chose the Emperor: that could happen here. As of now, someone like Ron Paul, who is judged "anti-military" could never become President. Could an anti-military Caesar have become Emperor?

Ron Paul opposed the NDAA, and its predecessors, the Patriot Act and FISA, because they infringed on our civil liberties.

He's opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our involvement in wars and conflicts all over the world. He would dismantle our overseas military empire! Obama is only "winding down" our involvement in the two wars, but is an interventionist in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan and the South China Sea.

Ron Paul has not been particularly forthcoming about racist statements in past newsletters attributed to him. He would also eliminate, like any other Republican, whatever safety net Democrats have already eviscerated. And his economic policy of abolishing the Fed, the IRS and reinstating the gold standard would be disastrous.

But Ron Paul advocates an end to the drug war, legalization, and points out what most black people know and white people deny: the war on drugs is racist and fuels the prison-industrial complex. He was labeled racist, because he was against the Civil Rights Act, ironically, because he's against government controlling everyone's behavior--which is also why he's against drug laws! He's also been tarred with anti-Semitism, probably because he's against slavishly supporting Israel's every policy, but that's also a position with which a lot of progressives, and progressive Jews, agree.

Maybe Ron Paul is racist, anti-Semitic, a disastrous economist and against even Social Security, but he brings into political discussion many issues that have been "off the table" for far too long. He would be the most interesting Republican nominee--he'd likely lose--but he'd bring the empire--and a whole lot more--into question.

Occupy Poughkeepsie Comes Home

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

The Occupiers were in shock.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Money Trumps Empire

"We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act." On Page 4 of the official Standard & Poor's "Research Update."



Republican obstructionism on behalf of their constituency, the wealthy and selfish (cf. the Selfish Class on this site), has done what the debt-ceiling agreement narrowly averted: brought into question the financial credibility of the US Government.

This is a big deal. Whether S&P used questionable measurements, whether it acted out of its own political agenda, it still did what no one had done since the US dollar became the reserve currency of the world. A credit downgrade from AAA to AA+, unless it is quickly reversed (unlikely), will lead, first of all, to higher borrowing costs for all of us.

Take that, barely whimpering economy!

But the decision will also hasten the day when the dollar will no longer be The reserve currency. That's an even bigger deal. It could mean the beginning of the end of the American Empire, because how can the US pay for its bloated military in 120+ countries, when borrowing costs really begin to rise? It can no longer just continue to borrow and expect the rest of the world to lend to us at rock bottom rates. Of course, the US can continue to borrow, and to inflate the value of the dollar, since it still owns its own printing press (the Treasury), and supposedly controls its own reserve bank (the Fed).

But then the US would be acting like any banana republic, except that US debt far exceeds the debt of any other country, or combination of them. There is no one who could bail us out, and most economies--including the US, of course--would be driven into such a Depression that the 1930's would look like an early rehearsal.

The world economy would have good reason to collapse. If it doesn't do so, then political leaders will have finally come together to save our civilization, but, on the evidence of the last 12 years, cooperation is not a great bet.

America's fall may come a lot faster than Rome's.

Rome had terrible credit and was continually diluting (inflating) its currency. But during Rome's long expansion it was also robbing the wealth of the peoples it conquered; it paid off its debts with the proceeds: gold, other treasures, and most of all, slaves. In the US, the considerable profits of empire are pocketed not by the US government, but by private, effectively stateless, global corporations. Maybe that's why they pay so little in US taxes, even with billions in profits--profits are earned abroad. Corporations avoid declaring profits in those nations, also. It's easy to find an island/city-state with nearly zero taxes.

The Newsletter Path to Riches

Let's say XXX is a "penny stock"promoted for the day. Promoted by online penny stock newsletter writers. Xxx went up from 1.12 to 1.46 in one day, because of the hype. If you invested $10,000 in Xxx on Monday, it would be worth over $13,035.71 on Tuesday. On Wednesday it went down again. Where is that money from small-time investors going?

Apparently, this speculation is raising money in $500,000 increments, for the man who is Xxx, a professional, who offers services to companies, as a company on the Over the Counter market; it's not clear that there is any more than one man in the company, but he's raised millions this way.

What kinds of services does this one-man company offer: contract advice with other companies, advising and facilitating offshore contracting, "to lower your costs," technology licensing and acquisitions of other companies, i.e. mergers.

Will Xxx rise tomorrow? One of the more revealing statements I've read on these penny newsletter sites is: "It rose to .01 before it fell back to .001, but it's set to rise even further this time."

What's going on here? I've been dabbling in this field for six months, even investing in some of the weightier "penny stocks" promoted; so far I've only lost a few hundred bucks. None of the stocks promoted have gained a dime; one has lost 77% of its value, another 47%. I did not invest in Xxx, but the second loser was a Chinese stock that collapsed when its CEO was caught fiddling the books. I didn't get the news--about the CEO--until too late.

I also invested in a silver mine, but right now, while silver goes through the roof, the mine shares lost 90 cents!

This is a game. The only people who win are either full-time gamblers (they call themselves day traders), or entrepreneurs who manipulate the market to raise money for themselves--or their companies.

But that's the point, isn’t it? They raise money for business enterprises. Small-time investors rush in to strike it rich with the next Microsoft, Google, or Facebook. It's the gamblers who make money on the boobs buying penny stocks to make their fortunes. The gamblers do play a role: they provide incentives to the hungry public, drawing in millions, billions of dollars from small-time investors, who are easily gulled.

But how else do you get rich when the producers of anything tangible, the actual producers, get little more than subsistence? "If the poor don't like being poor, then why don't they get rich?" asked a student in one of my classes. By investing in speculative stocks? It brings money out of the proverbial mattresses, into the hands of entrepreneurs, fiddling CEO's and speculators.

This is Late Capitalism; it's like the 'Late Roman Empire,' where all the gold flowed upward, into the hands of the predatory few.

Trump and Emperor Maximus

Donald Trump is awful! But a lot of Republicans think he should run for President: 17%, as many as for Huckabee, only behind Mitt Romney, and 20% of tea party ID'd Republicans expressed support.

Trump has his special quirks, one being his birther schtick, which may or may not be a genuine concern. At least one commentator points out birtherism's racist undertones, or at least that it could encourage racism. Birtherism feeds the fears of whites who cannot believe we elected an African-American President; they want to believe he's an impostor, regardless of all the data proving his birth in Hawaii. Why? Because he's black?

Bitherism and racism are one thing: what's even scarier, however, is that Trump represents the new breed of brash, political billionaire: he dismisses his closest rival, Mitt Romney, as "a small businessman," and claims that he, Trump, is "much, much bigger than he is." And that, dear America, is why he feels he should be President: he has more money.

Romney's business past may come back to haunt him. He's no small businessman: Bain Capital, the private equity firm he helped found, buys and sells businesses, and not only employs several hundred, but as with most such firms, it has also been in the business of firing hundreds or more of the purchased companies in order to "streamline" them.

This may be a portent of the kind of politics we'll be offered, either in the next few cycles, or for the foreseeable future. Billionaires vs multi-millionaires, these self-funded candidates run in part to protect the interests of their super-rich brethren, who will probably support them with their own money, too.

I would pair Trump with Roman Emperor: Maximus (ruled 3 months in 455); he was known as the wealthiest of the Senatorial class; he conspired to assassinate Valentinian III, in part, because the Emperor had seduced his reputedly beautiful wife, but also to gain power for himself. His "rule" was a disaster; it gave the Vandal King, Gaiseric, the pretext to sack Rome. "Emperor" Maximus was torn apart by an enraged Roman mob as the Vandals approached.

The question is: will all the money spent by and for someone like Trump/Romney, seduce Americans?

Or, will people begin to get it: the filthy rich want to keep it all for themselves. Congressman Ryan's budget makes clear what the future could begin to look like with people like Trump or Romney in charge. They'd cut taxes on themselves, the wealthy (Ryan calls them "job creators" even when, like Romney they are job destroyers). Those tax cuts would be paid for by draconian cuts to services (including Medicare and Social Security) and cut tax loopholes that benefit the poor and what remains of the middle class.

In late Imperial Rome, the middle class had two options: seek protection from the wealthy, becoming serfs, or escaping to the hills as bandits. Is that what we want?

Budget Insanity

How can Republicans believe that they'll win votes for "courage" to stand up to the poor on behalf of all those victimized rich guys? Unlike the Beatles' song, they seem to think that money can buy them love.

If Fox and corporations can spin this, then we have wholly entered into a corporate-run nation, in which only the CEO's and billionaires count--perhaps GOP activists will gain perks like the apparatchiks in the Soviet CP, or the higher ups in Germany's NSDAP. The rest of us just better keep our heads low, and work hard for our diminishing crusts of bread.

Congressman Ryan, the GOP budget boss, proposes draconian cuts to services, eventual privatization of Medicare at the likely expense to future seniors, and then proposes cutting high-end tax rates by a whopping 10%, while closing middle class loopholes like the mortgage deduction.

So, let's be clear about what he's proposing: take from the poor and middle class, who are hurting from this recession. Take from them some of the services that are enabling them to survive, take from them the loopholes that make middle class tax rates affordable, take from the people who are being thrown out of work, losing their homes--or, know they are at risk for one or both. Take from them the assurance that in their old age, their health care will be there for them.

What does this great subtraction buy? The first thing is tax cuts for the rich and corporations (almost half of which avoid paying any taxes). What will that buy? More speculation, not more jobs. The rich are already sitting on trillions of dollars; they are not investing in job creation--except possibly in places like China or Brazil.

A large enough cut in government spending to reduce the size of government, could also buy a renewed recession--unless we're lucky enough to have a real recovery before it takes effect.

Which brings us to the budget impasse on the 2011 budget: Boehner and his cohorts demand huge cuts, but they also demand programmatic cuts, like defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood. The programmatic cuts won't cut the deficit, so their argument for them is disingenuous. But the huge cuts to states, to services, to health care, to programs could be a recessionary strong right fist to the economy, especially since the tax cuts to everyone have only enabled unemployment to be pushed back a little; the elite aren't investing their gains in jobs; they're just expecting their workers to work harder--without unions, of course.

So, Ryan and Boehner, and those behind them, want to shove us on the economic path built by the late Roman Empire, in which a few own virtually everything, and everyone else is a slave or a serf.

It weakened Rome, too.