Occupy Wall Street. What a great slogan! And now it's spreading throughout the world -- finally the long overdue uprising of the 99% over the tyranny of the 1% is beginning. And -- finally -- thanks to the drama of these potentially revolutionary events, the mainstream media has awakened, after a long slumber, to engage in meaningful discussion and debate over the pressing issue of inequality and its implications for the future of democracy. I haven't written about this striking development until now not because I don't think it important, but because I felt I had little of substance to add to what is already being written in so many venues everywhere one turns. At long last!
The reason I'm writing now is because an odd and troubling thought has occurred to me and I'm not sure what to make of it. The world is now wondering what the next step is going to be. Will the demonstrators finally be able to agree on a set of "demands"? Will they form a third party? Will they become a political pressure group along the lines of the Tea Party? Or will the whole thing simply evaporate once cold weather sets in?
And it's occurred to me that these demonstrators are right now in a unique position of strength that they may not recognize. They are, very surprisingly, in a position to do something truly revolutionary that would have an impact far beyond anything we've seen in Tunisia, Egypt or Libya. All over the world hordes of angry demonstrators are, literally, occupying important financial centers, hubs of power and influence that control the destiny of literally every person on Earth. Their presence in these particular locations has up to now been seen as largely symbolic. But it is also strategic. Because, thanks to the large numbers of participants, Occupy Wall Street could easily morph into SHUT DOWN Wall Street.
I hesitate to bring this up, because I have no idea what the consequences would be. But at the same time I feel it necessary to wake the protesters up to the real nature of their power, should they decide to wield it. If they choose to, these demonstrators could block entry to the doors of, for example, Chase Manhattan Bank, Bank of America, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs, even the stock exchange itself. Not to mention financial centers in every major city on Earth. And in so doing they have the potential to actually bring the financial system of the entire world to a grinding halt.
Think of it. The storming of the Bastille. The storming of the Winter Palace. An event of comparable if not greater magnitude lies within the realm of possibility. Yet, unlike these bloody events, the shutdown of the financial system need not be accompanied by violence. (Not, at least, on the part of the demonstrators. What the police might do is another matter.)
Am I advocating such a move? Not really. Though often I write as though I know-it-all, actually I don't know all that much. The results of such an action would be unpredictable and could be disastrous. On the other hand, it could lead to a revolution of exactly the sort the world desperately needs. And anything less than this might ultimately lead nowhere, with all the energy and all the righteous indignation fizzling out in the face of the enormous economic and political power of the elites, who will fight to the last soldier, policeman and politician to hang on to their money and power.
I really don't know where I stand on this matter. But I do think it important that the new and very hopeful Occupy Wall Street movement understand that it's in a stronger position than it might think, and holds a very powerful bargaining chip against those who might think they can easily intimidate and disperse it.
Posts of Special Interest:
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Plenty a gold so I been told
Call me Ishmael. Some years ago -- never mind how long precisely -- having little or no money in my purse and nothing particular to interest me at home, I thought I would sail about a little in the realm of substitute teaching. It is a way I have of driving off the spleen and regulating the circulation.
One day two boys from a middle school social studies class come up to my desk wanting to know whether all I ever do is substitute teach. I tell them, no, I’m also a musician and an artist. And I write plays and books. “What kind of books?” they want to know. “Well I wrote a book about the wind and the grass.” “The wind and the grass?” “A battle between the wind and the grass.” “A battle between the wind and the grass?” I’ve got their attention. “Yes.” “What’s that?”
“You have to understand the grass I’m talking about is very long, not the sort of grass you see on your lawn. And one day, this boy, this ‘lazy farmer boy,’ utters a very deep, heartfelt sigh in the middle of his long, grassy field. And, due to the almost inexplicable, but very real, scientifically demonstrable, laws of chaos theory, this sigh manages to multiply its effects until pretty soon it becomes a fierce, howling wind. And the wind just whirls around and whirls around gaining strength and then, for no reason anyone’s ever been able to determine, takes off across the farmer’s field, bullying the delicate long grasses backwards practically till they can see their own roots.”
“Do they fight back?”
“Yes they do. Because the grasses are brave and also long and sharp and there are many rose bushes among them and other thorny plants, so as the wind rushes across the field, the grasses, bushes and thorny plants try hard to stand their ground and they tear at the wind and the wind begins to bleed. And the wind bleeds rain and so it rains and pretty soon it’s thundering and there is a terrible storm, with lightening too, and so the field catches fire.”
By this time the boys’ eyes are bugging out of their heads and they both take a step forward with looks that say: “We gotta talk some more.” And believe me I’d love to do just that. But these kids have an assignment and it’s my job to see they do it, so I have to tell them to back off for now and finish their work and then look for me at lunch time and maybe we can continue then. Only when lunch time comes they are nowhere to be seen, probably because this is first lunch and their lunch is second lunch. Or this is third lunch and their lunch is first lunch. Or maybe they just got distracted, because, after all, they were pretty young.
So I’m writing this in the hope these boys will some day read here the answer to the overwhelming question I could tell was on their minds, and that they desperately wanted to ask me, which was: what is poetry?
Well, one thing poetry is not it is not the poetry written by poets. I mean, yes, certain poets have it in them, no question. But usually not. For example when Shelley writes “O wild West Wind, thou breath of Autumn's being,/ Thou, from whose unseen presence the leaves dead/ Are driven, like ghosts from an enchanter fleeing,” no he doesn’t have it, that’s not poetry. Clever yes. And what’s with these “leaves dead”? Who talks like that? Now on the other hand, his pal Keats writes (and we need to wind down a bit before reading this -- take some deep breaths and then maybe five seconds of silence to slow the metabolism): “My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains/ My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk,/ Or emptied some dull opiate to the drains/ One minute past, and Lethe-wards had sunk:” Oh yes, he has it, this is poetry. Four lines and we’re trembling in the grip of pallid death.
Because poetry is a lot like a joke. Except instead of laughing something else happens to you, something grabs you deep inside and tears you to pieces, like what the long grasses did to the wind. In my book, remember?
Or take John Clare, a farm boy really, not a poet: “The rolls and harrows lie at rest beside/ The battered road; and spreading far and wide/ Above the russet clods, the corn is seen/ Sprouting its spiry points of tender green,/ Where squats the hare, to terrors wide awake,/ Like some brown clod the harrows failed to break.” Wow. That’s it. That’s really it. The rest of the poem is also very fine, but that opening verse cuts really deep, don’t ask me why. (The question was “what,” not “why.”). You don’t even need to know what a “rolls and harrows” is. It’s a kind of old fashioned wagonny farm implement used to tear up soil. “The rolls and harrows lie at rest beside/ The battered road;” Yes. “and spreading far and wide/ Above the russet clods, the corn is seen/” Oh yes. Even just “The corn is seen.” Poetry. Even just that much, that one simple phrase.
T. S. Eliot once said the most beautiful word in the English language is “cellar door.” He actually said that, so I’ve heard, yes. Of course really it’s two words, not one. But think about it: “cellar door.”
In Neil Simon's play, The Sunshine Boys, one of the characters gives a lecture on what’s funny:
Now Shakespeare, even he doesn’t always have it: “Let me not to the marriage of true minds/ admit impediments.”? Wah????? Sounds like a minister or a speech therapist. Or “To be or not to be, that is the question.”? What kind of a question is that? But the followup is terrific: “Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer/ the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,/ Or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.” Yes. Almost as good as Brecht.
No, despite certain notable exceptions, which are, admittedly, quite good, real poetry cannot be found in the work of poets. And it’s definitely never “poetic.” Which reminds me of a story about one of my favorite poets, Charles Olson, returning to Wesleyan University, his alma mater, to recite in the “Honours College,” where sherry was always served either before or after, I forget which, and Piranesi prints lined the expensive walls. He starts off (I was there) with this poem about these bikers on a beach somewhere and how they took over the beach, looking almost like certain ancient gods, and it’s getting very interesting, because he really knows how to write poetry, and also how to read aloud -- but then he stops dead, sits down right there on the floor, and puts his head in his hands. “I can’t go on,” he says, “I can’t do this.” Moment of stunned silence. “Oy, this is such a poetic atmosphea.” He’s not even Jewish but he says “Oy” and yes the word “atsmosphere” comes out with a New Yawk accent and then he just sits there and will not be consoled.
“Oh they call me hangman Johnny/ Come away my Bonnie/ But I never hanged no body./ Oh hang boys hang.” Lots of these sea shanties are poetry. Or have poetry in them. Often they’re made up of disconnected or almost disconnected couplets or stanzas, framed by tiny refrains. Some of these stanzas, well, they’re not too great. But many are. “Oh hang boys hang.” Now that’s very special because it’s a punch line too and the whole stanza is basically a joke. Only to get the humor you need to know something about how the song was used. It’s a song for hanging sail. Get it? But it’s also a very efficient little machine, with a wind up spring that gets wound up very tight in those first three lines and you don’t really have to know what the song is used for to find yourself caught in the trap.
“We’re sailing down the river from Liverpool,/ Heave away, Santy Anno!/ Around Cape Horn to Frisco Bay,/ All on the plains of Mexico./ There’s plenty a gold so I been told,/ Heave away, Santy Anno!/ There’s plenty a gold so I been told,/ ‘Way out in Cal-i-for-ni-o./ So heave ‘er up and away we go,/ Heave away, Santy Anno!/ Heave ‘er up and away we go,/ We’re bound for Cal-i-for-ni-o.” You’ll find many versions of this shanty, but this is one of the best. Word has it “Santy Anno” is Santa Anna, the old Mexican general. But I prefer to think of it as another name for the wind, namely the “Santa Anna” winds, which rage along the coast of California. So that refrain then shouts defiance over and over in the teeth of some half forgotten storm. (Remember my story?) But what’s really important here is not what we interpret the words to mean, but the tremendous weight of each and every syllable, with no room for any half measure anywhere. Just listen, say it and listen and feel it on your tongue: “Around Cape Horn to Frisco Bay.” Say it, feel how it resonates through your soul, makes you more courageous, more foolhardy, more of a pirate.
One day two boys from a middle school social studies class come up to my desk wanting to know whether all I ever do is substitute teach. I tell them, no, I’m also a musician and an artist. And I write plays and books. “What kind of books?” they want to know. “Well I wrote a book about the wind and the grass.” “The wind and the grass?” “A battle between the wind and the grass.” “A battle between the wind and the grass?” I’ve got their attention. “Yes.” “What’s that?”
“You have to understand the grass I’m talking about is very long, not the sort of grass you see on your lawn. And one day, this boy, this ‘lazy farmer boy,’ utters a very deep, heartfelt sigh in the middle of his long, grassy field. And, due to the almost inexplicable, but very real, scientifically demonstrable, laws of chaos theory, this sigh manages to multiply its effects until pretty soon it becomes a fierce, howling wind. And the wind just whirls around and whirls around gaining strength and then, for no reason anyone’s ever been able to determine, takes off across the farmer’s field, bullying the delicate long grasses backwards practically till they can see their own roots.”
“Do they fight back?”
“Yes they do. Because the grasses are brave and also long and sharp and there are many rose bushes among them and other thorny plants, so as the wind rushes across the field, the grasses, bushes and thorny plants try hard to stand their ground and they tear at the wind and the wind begins to bleed. And the wind bleeds rain and so it rains and pretty soon it’s thundering and there is a terrible storm, with lightening too, and so the field catches fire.”
By this time the boys’ eyes are bugging out of their heads and they both take a step forward with looks that say: “We gotta talk some more.” And believe me I’d love to do just that. But these kids have an assignment and it’s my job to see they do it, so I have to tell them to back off for now and finish their work and then look for me at lunch time and maybe we can continue then. Only when lunch time comes they are nowhere to be seen, probably because this is first lunch and their lunch is second lunch. Or this is third lunch and their lunch is first lunch. Or maybe they just got distracted, because, after all, they were pretty young.
So I’m writing this in the hope these boys will some day read here the answer to the overwhelming question I could tell was on their minds, and that they desperately wanted to ask me, which was: what is poetry?
Well, one thing poetry is not it is not the poetry written by poets. I mean, yes, certain poets have it in them, no question. But usually not. For example when Shelley writes “O wild West Wind, thou breath of Autumn's being,/ Thou, from whose unseen presence the leaves dead/ Are driven, like ghosts from an enchanter fleeing,” no he doesn’t have it, that’s not poetry. Clever yes. And what’s with these “leaves dead”? Who talks like that? Now on the other hand, his pal Keats writes (and we need to wind down a bit before reading this -- take some deep breaths and then maybe five seconds of silence to slow the metabolism): “My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains/ My sense, as though of hemlock I had drunk,/ Or emptied some dull opiate to the drains/ One minute past, and Lethe-wards had sunk:” Oh yes, he has it, this is poetry. Four lines and we’re trembling in the grip of pallid death.
Because poetry is a lot like a joke. Except instead of laughing something else happens to you, something grabs you deep inside and tears you to pieces, like what the long grasses did to the wind. In my book, remember?
Or take John Clare, a farm boy really, not a poet: “The rolls and harrows lie at rest beside/ The battered road; and spreading far and wide/ Above the russet clods, the corn is seen/ Sprouting its spiry points of tender green,/ Where squats the hare, to terrors wide awake,/ Like some brown clod the harrows failed to break.” Wow. That’s it. That’s really it. The rest of the poem is also very fine, but that opening verse cuts really deep, don’t ask me why. (The question was “what,” not “why.”). You don’t even need to know what a “rolls and harrows” is. It’s a kind of old fashioned wagonny farm implement used to tear up soil. “The rolls and harrows lie at rest beside/ The battered road;” Yes. “and spreading far and wide/ Above the russet clods, the corn is seen/” Oh yes. Even just “The corn is seen.” Poetry. Even just that much, that one simple phrase.
T. S. Eliot once said the most beautiful word in the English language is “cellar door.” He actually said that, so I’ve heard, yes. Of course really it’s two words, not one. But think about it: “cellar door.”
In Neil Simon's play, The Sunshine Boys, one of the characters gives a lecture on what’s funny:
Fifty-seven years in this business, you learn a few things. You know what words are funny and which words are not funny. Alka Seltzer is funny. You say "Alka Seltzer" you get a laugh . . . Words with "k" in them are funny. Casey Stengel, that's a funny name. Robert Taylor is not funny. Cupcake is funny. 'L's are not funny. 'M's are not funny. Tomato is not funny. Lettuce is not funny. Cookie is funny. Cucumber is funny. Car keys. Cleveland . . . Cleveland is funny. Maryland is not funny. Then, there's chicken. Chicken is funny. Pickle is funny. Cockroach is funny -- not if you get 'em, only if you say 'em.Poetry is not the same as humor. But not that different either.
Now Shakespeare, even he doesn’t always have it: “Let me not to the marriage of true minds/ admit impediments.”? Wah????? Sounds like a minister or a speech therapist. Or “To be or not to be, that is the question.”? What kind of a question is that? But the followup is terrific: “Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer/ the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,/ Or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.” Yes. Almost as good as Brecht.
No, despite certain notable exceptions, which are, admittedly, quite good, real poetry cannot be found in the work of poets. And it’s definitely never “poetic.” Which reminds me of a story about one of my favorite poets, Charles Olson, returning to Wesleyan University, his alma mater, to recite in the “Honours College,” where sherry was always served either before or after, I forget which, and Piranesi prints lined the expensive walls. He starts off (I was there) with this poem about these bikers on a beach somewhere and how they took over the beach, looking almost like certain ancient gods, and it’s getting very interesting, because he really knows how to write poetry, and also how to read aloud -- but then he stops dead, sits down right there on the floor, and puts his head in his hands. “I can’t go on,” he says, “I can’t do this.” Moment of stunned silence. “Oy, this is such a poetic atmosphea.” He’s not even Jewish but he says “Oy” and yes the word “atsmosphere” comes out with a New Yawk accent and then he just sits there and will not be consoled.
“Oh they call me hangman Johnny/ Come away my Bonnie/ But I never hanged no body./ Oh hang boys hang.” Lots of these sea shanties are poetry. Or have poetry in them. Often they’re made up of disconnected or almost disconnected couplets or stanzas, framed by tiny refrains. Some of these stanzas, well, they’re not too great. But many are. “Oh hang boys hang.” Now that’s very special because it’s a punch line too and the whole stanza is basically a joke. Only to get the humor you need to know something about how the song was used. It’s a song for hanging sail. Get it? But it’s also a very efficient little machine, with a wind up spring that gets wound up very tight in those first three lines and you don’t really have to know what the song is used for to find yourself caught in the trap.
“We’re sailing down the river from Liverpool,/ Heave away, Santy Anno!/ Around Cape Horn to Frisco Bay,/ All on the plains of Mexico./ There’s plenty a gold so I been told,/ Heave away, Santy Anno!/ There’s plenty a gold so I been told,/ ‘Way out in Cal-i-for-ni-o./ So heave ‘er up and away we go,/ Heave away, Santy Anno!/ Heave ‘er up and away we go,/ We’re bound for Cal-i-for-ni-o.” You’ll find many versions of this shanty, but this is one of the best. Word has it “Santy Anno” is Santa Anna, the old Mexican general. But I prefer to think of it as another name for the wind, namely the “Santa Anna” winds, which rage along the coast of California. So that refrain then shouts defiance over and over in the teeth of some half forgotten storm. (Remember my story?) But what’s really important here is not what we interpret the words to mean, but the tremendous weight of each and every syllable, with no room for any half measure anywhere. Just listen, say it and listen and feel it on your tongue: “Around Cape Horn to Frisco Bay.” Say it, feel how it resonates through your soul, makes you more courageous, more foolhardy, more of a pirate.
Friday, August 26, 2011
It won't be over till the fat man sings
As I write, it is 10:07 AM and the world is eagerly anticipating Ben Bernanke's latest aria. As one might expect, the markets are tanking (with the Dow currently down by over 200 points). That's what is known as a "signal." Or better, yet a "cue." The markets are the chorus in this bizarre opera, singing "Help us help us help us, or we will all slide into perdition." That's Big Ben's cue to sing, "No, I'll never never never allow that to happen. Let QE3 begin." At which time the markets will reverse course abruptly and the day will be saved.
Unfortunately for this melodrama, the villain, aka Governor of Texas and likely Republican candidate Rick Perry has threatened our hero with dire consequences if he dare mess with our economy again, and since everyone is now running scared of anyone with ultra conservative creds -- it's gonna be an interesting morning.
The question on my mind is what will happen to the markets if Bernanke's aria falls flat. Will they follow his lead and flatten out with him? After all what's the point of continuing to signal if the signal has been ignored. Or will it continue to tank, caught up in its own reckless momentum.
We'll see very shortly. Fun fun fun. And it won't be over till the fat man sings . . .
Unfortunately for this melodrama, the villain, aka Governor of Texas and likely Republican candidate Rick Perry has threatened our hero with dire consequences if he dare mess with our economy again, and since everyone is now running scared of anyone with ultra conservative creds -- it's gonna be an interesting morning.
The question on my mind is what will happen to the markets if Bernanke's aria falls flat. Will they follow his lead and flatten out with him? After all what's the point of continuing to signal if the signal has been ignored. Or will it continue to tank, caught up in its own reckless momentum.
We'll see very shortly. Fun fun fun. And it won't be over till the fat man sings . . .
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Another Country Part 2
Tito's Yugoslavia developed under conditions far worse than anything that could possibly emerge today due to a financial collapse. We tend now to see it simply as a part of history, but World War II was the greatest calamity by far that ever befell the human race. It was truly an unimaginable disaster that no book or movie could ever begin to convey. Yugoslavia was unique in being the only country that liberated itself and as a result, Tito was able to remain independent from either the Western powers or the USSR. I won't claim he was an angel, but he was certainly an extremely capable leader and politician, who understood how to manage a country that began in total abjection and poverty, not to mention all the many political strains due to the fallout from the war -- which had pitted certain parts of the country against others.
He united the country to the point that, when I visited, it was truly a multicultural society. The family I lived with in Mostar were "Muslims," i.e., of Turkish background, though no longer practicing as Muslims, but they had close friends of Serbian and Croatian background and no one thought anything of it. Not then, anyhow. Yugoslavia was theoretically a "communist" country, but Tito's brand of communism was very different from that of Stalin. He initiated communal farms, but when that didn't work out, he backed off and allowed the small farmers to keep control of their land. I remember hearing church bells ringing out on Sundays, and once visited a small village during an all day Catholic festival (that was actually partly pagan, which is why I was there, because that interested me). Stalin persecuted Muslims and Christians alike, but not Tito, he tolerated them.
One day I took a hike through some mountainous terrain, feeling very proud of my strength and endurance -- until I encountered a family coming from the other direction, including a woman and her small children, a family of Gypsies migrating in their usual fashion, from one mountain to another. While Gypsies were either persecuted or forced to settle down in most other countries, they were allowed to live their traditional lifestyle in Tito's Yugoslavia.
Economically things were very interesting, because it really did seem to me that poverty had been eliminated. So had wealth. Everyone had a house to live in. Everyone had enough to eat. Everyone, so far as I could tell, had a job. No slums. No beggars. Nothing much extra, either. A typical birthday present was, for example, a pair of socks. Individual families were allowed considerable leeway when it came to doing a certain amount of business. The family I stayed with were able to regularly take in boarders and make a profit from that bit of "free enterprise." I saw no real signs of government interference in any aspect of daily life and as I said, no one seemed afraid to speak openly on any topic, including politics.
There was also an excellent health system, as far as I could tell. When I got sick (actually a bad case of constipation and nothing more, though I was sure it was appendicitis), my friends took me to the local health center, a modern, well equipped establishment, where I encountered the first female doctor I'd every seen. (This was back in the 60's remember.) She was young and seemed extremely competent. She examined me and decided I was constipated and prescribed some medication that would have cost a dime in US money -- only my girlfriend insisted on getting me the meds for free with her worker's card. If you had a worker's card, you paid nothing for your health care or medications. (She was a lawyer for a local factory, by the way, the first female lawyer I had ever met.)
The biggest problem, especially for educated people, was boredom -- a feeling of being shut off from all the interesting cultural developments taking place in the "developed" world around them. For this reason it was not a country I would have wanted to settle down in. But the people as a whole were far, far better off than in any capitalist country you could name. Better off not only for not living in poverty but also for not living in wealth either, which as I see it is also a problem. I wouldn't want to be poor but I also wouldn't want to be wealthy and, for example, be expected to have servants and need to worry about being robbed or kidnapped and having security people around me all the time, who I could never be sure whether or not to trust, etc.
Ultimately, after the death of the dictator (which Tito was, after all), the country collapsed into a horrible civil war and when I heard about that and had to read about what was going on during that period it broke my heart. But the war had nothing to do with economics, nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism" or "free" markets. It was due to tensions that had festered for many years, thanks to very deep divisions during WW II when certain regional ethnic groups sided with the Nazis and others had sided with the partisans. Not to mention much older divisions stemming from ethnic rivalries going very far back into European history. Tito was able to hold all these factions together, but he made the huge mistake of not allowing the country to develop into a true democracy, so after the "strong man's" death, all the old problems re-emerged.
The moral of my story is that a free and equable society, based on a reasonable, sane approach to politics and economics, CAN emerge, even out of the most disastrous imaginable conditions. It happened in Tito's Yugoslavia and it can happen here. Oh and by the way, Yugoslavia wasn't really a communist country. But it WAS a socialist country, for sure. Also a dictatorship. You can't have everything, I guess (though you can certainly TRY).
He united the country to the point that, when I visited, it was truly a multicultural society. The family I lived with in Mostar were "Muslims," i.e., of Turkish background, though no longer practicing as Muslims, but they had close friends of Serbian and Croatian background and no one thought anything of it. Not then, anyhow. Yugoslavia was theoretically a "communist" country, but Tito's brand of communism was very different from that of Stalin. He initiated communal farms, but when that didn't work out, he backed off and allowed the small farmers to keep control of their land. I remember hearing church bells ringing out on Sundays, and once visited a small village during an all day Catholic festival (that was actually partly pagan, which is why I was there, because that interested me). Stalin persecuted Muslims and Christians alike, but not Tito, he tolerated them.
One day I took a hike through some mountainous terrain, feeling very proud of my strength and endurance -- until I encountered a family coming from the other direction, including a woman and her small children, a family of Gypsies migrating in their usual fashion, from one mountain to another. While Gypsies were either persecuted or forced to settle down in most other countries, they were allowed to live their traditional lifestyle in Tito's Yugoslavia.
Economically things were very interesting, because it really did seem to me that poverty had been eliminated. So had wealth. Everyone had a house to live in. Everyone had enough to eat. Everyone, so far as I could tell, had a job. No slums. No beggars. Nothing much extra, either. A typical birthday present was, for example, a pair of socks. Individual families were allowed considerable leeway when it came to doing a certain amount of business. The family I stayed with were able to regularly take in boarders and make a profit from that bit of "free enterprise." I saw no real signs of government interference in any aspect of daily life and as I said, no one seemed afraid to speak openly on any topic, including politics.
There was also an excellent health system, as far as I could tell. When I got sick (actually a bad case of constipation and nothing more, though I was sure it was appendicitis), my friends took me to the local health center, a modern, well equipped establishment, where I encountered the first female doctor I'd every seen. (This was back in the 60's remember.) She was young and seemed extremely competent. She examined me and decided I was constipated and prescribed some medication that would have cost a dime in US money -- only my girlfriend insisted on getting me the meds for free with her worker's card. If you had a worker's card, you paid nothing for your health care or medications. (She was a lawyer for a local factory, by the way, the first female lawyer I had ever met.)
The biggest problem, especially for educated people, was boredom -- a feeling of being shut off from all the interesting cultural developments taking place in the "developed" world around them. For this reason it was not a country I would have wanted to settle down in. But the people as a whole were far, far better off than in any capitalist country you could name. Better off not only for not living in poverty but also for not living in wealth either, which as I see it is also a problem. I wouldn't want to be poor but I also wouldn't want to be wealthy and, for example, be expected to have servants and need to worry about being robbed or kidnapped and having security people around me all the time, who I could never be sure whether or not to trust, etc.
Ultimately, after the death of the dictator (which Tito was, after all), the country collapsed into a horrible civil war and when I heard about that and had to read about what was going on during that period it broke my heart. But the war had nothing to do with economics, nothing to do with "communism" or "socialism" or "free" markets. It was due to tensions that had festered for many years, thanks to very deep divisions during WW II when certain regional ethnic groups sided with the Nazis and others had sided with the partisans. Not to mention much older divisions stemming from ethnic rivalries going very far back into European history. Tito was able to hold all these factions together, but he made the huge mistake of not allowing the country to develop into a true democracy, so after the "strong man's" death, all the old problems re-emerged.
The moral of my story is that a free and equable society, based on a reasonable, sane approach to politics and economics, CAN emerge, even out of the most disastrous imaginable conditions. It happened in Tito's Yugoslavia and it can happen here. Oh and by the way, Yugoslavia wasn't really a communist country. But it WAS a socialist country, for sure. Also a dictatorship. You can't have everything, I guess (though you can certainly TRY).
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
And For Our Next Trick . . .
Yesterday's market antics were so extreme and so fascinating, I feel forced to drop everything else and make some comments. Here's what the Dow and Nasdaq looked like (click on image to enlarge):
As you can see, the Dow began with a rapid leap upward, by roughly 100 points, only to suddenly dip downward, by roughly 150 points, followed by a rapid surge upward once again, by over 200 points, all in the first half hour of trading (the market opens at 9:30). I've seen volatility like this before, but never by such huge amounts in such a short time. It then remains relatively steady, though still with large surges back and forth, until about 2:20, when there is a sudden, enormous dip of over 200 points, all in one gulp. Then, inexplicably, it surges upward again, just as rapidly, by about 150 points -- and then takes a huge, absolutely breathtaking plunge of almost 300 points, all in about 15 minutes.
This last activity is apparently a reaction to an announcement by the Federal Reserve indicating that no dramatic actions will be taken by them in the near future, coupled with an assurance that interest rates will be kept to a bare minimum for the next year or so. It looks at first as though the market was expecting some sort of dramatic announcement that never came, and in response threw a hissy fit, plunging off a cliff in a desperate bid for attention.
But then a strange thing happens, which for me is absolutely inexplicable. The sudden drop is followed by a steady upswing over the next hour or so, of a staggering 600 points!!!!
If you compare the Nasdaq with the Dow, you'll see that, aside from the first few minutes, both are moving practically in tandem, with a Rockettes-like precision, even during the wildest and most unpredictable swings.
It is now 9:19 AM, and the markets are due to open in about 10 minutes. I can't wait to see what these performing seals will come up with today, but given what we saw yesterday, it will no doubt be totally unpredictable, wild and scary. While many economists may be breathing a sigh of relief at the remarkable upswing, as far as I'm concerned, a surge of 600 points upward should be just as alarming as a similar surge downward. Because what yesterday's antics tell me is that the market has either gone completely bonkers, or -- more likely -- is being manipulated. In either case, this is no place for ordinary people to keep their money, because an "investment" in stocks can no longer be regarded as an investment, nor even a gamble (since when we gamble we at least know the odds), but a foolhardy act of total and complete recklessness.
As you can see, the Dow began with a rapid leap upward, by roughly 100 points, only to suddenly dip downward, by roughly 150 points, followed by a rapid surge upward once again, by over 200 points, all in the first half hour of trading (the market opens at 9:30). I've seen volatility like this before, but never by such huge amounts in such a short time. It then remains relatively steady, though still with large surges back and forth, until about 2:20, when there is a sudden, enormous dip of over 200 points, all in one gulp. Then, inexplicably, it surges upward again, just as rapidly, by about 150 points -- and then takes a huge, absolutely breathtaking plunge of almost 300 points, all in about 15 minutes.
This last activity is apparently a reaction to an announcement by the Federal Reserve indicating that no dramatic actions will be taken by them in the near future, coupled with an assurance that interest rates will be kept to a bare minimum for the next year or so. It looks at first as though the market was expecting some sort of dramatic announcement that never came, and in response threw a hissy fit, plunging off a cliff in a desperate bid for attention.
But then a strange thing happens, which for me is absolutely inexplicable. The sudden drop is followed by a steady upswing over the next hour or so, of a staggering 600 points!!!!
If you compare the Nasdaq with the Dow, you'll see that, aside from the first few minutes, both are moving practically in tandem, with a Rockettes-like precision, even during the wildest and most unpredictable swings.
It is now 9:19 AM, and the markets are due to open in about 10 minutes. I can't wait to see what these performing seals will come up with today, but given what we saw yesterday, it will no doubt be totally unpredictable, wild and scary. While many economists may be breathing a sigh of relief at the remarkable upswing, as far as I'm concerned, a surge of 600 points upward should be just as alarming as a similar surge downward. Because what yesterday's antics tell me is that the market has either gone completely bonkers, or -- more likely -- is being manipulated. In either case, this is no place for ordinary people to keep their money, because an "investment" in stocks can no longer be regarded as an investment, nor even a gamble (since when we gamble we at least know the odds), but a foolhardy act of total and complete recklessness.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Another Country
I visited Yugoslavia way back in 1965. I hadn't taken a vacation since early 1963. I wanted to take some time out to work on a book project and write music. And, after making some inquiries and doing some basic math, I realized that, even factoring in the cost of transportation, I could live much more cheaply in Europe than in New York City -- and I could write music anywhere. My first stop, after an ocean voyage on the Rotterdam (cheaper than flying, believe it or not), was Paris, where a room at the Hotel des Grands Hommes, on the left bank, could be had for the equivalent of about $2.50 a night. (Yes, that's a decimal point between the 2 and the 5 -- the current rate starts at 280 Euros!) But that was still too much for my miserly budget, and anyhow, after a week or so, Paris began to bore me.
A friend had urged me to go to Yugoslavia, showing me a picture of a beautiful bridge in a town called Mostar, which she'd visited and loved. The exchange rate looked really good: 1,000 dinars to the dollar. Even better, I could make my way to Yugoslavia in style via the legendary Orient Express. To make a long story short I wound up spending about two months in Yugoslavia, staying for the most part in Mostar, with a family that charged me 1,000 dinars (that's one dollar) a night for a room. I also spent some time in Dubrovnik, Sarajevo, and Zagreb.
I didn't notice at first, but after a while it began to dawn on me that Yugoslavia was different from any other country I'd ever lived in. For one thing, there were no beggars! There was an old man who sold little packages of nuts in downtown Mostar. But he was more of a peddler than a beggar. And there was the little boy who approached me for what I thought was a handout. But when I offered him some money, he shook his head and pointed to a group of Gypsies encamped nearby. They had assembled some wood for a campfire. All they needed was a match. He needed a match. Which I didn't have, much to my regret.
Also, there were no homeless people (other than Gypsies, who were allowed to roam freely with no interference) -- and no slums. At least none that I ever noticed, and believe me, I got around. Since Yugoslavia was a "communist" country, I anticipated a certain amount of repression, and reluctance on the part of the people to talk with strangers. But I saw no sign of that. People were open and friendly. I became friends with the family I was staying with in Mostar, especially their beautiful daughter, and would spend a lot of time talking with her and her friends, all of whom were educated and articulate. I asked all sorts of questions about politics, economics, and the policies of President Tito, about whom I was very curious. They answered all my questions openly, with no hesitation and no sign of anxiety. For them Tito was a hero, and it was easy to understand why.
(to be continued . . . )
A friend had urged me to go to Yugoslavia, showing me a picture of a beautiful bridge in a town called Mostar, which she'd visited and loved. The exchange rate looked really good: 1,000 dinars to the dollar. Even better, I could make my way to Yugoslavia in style via the legendary Orient Express. To make a long story short I wound up spending about two months in Yugoslavia, staying for the most part in Mostar, with a family that charged me 1,000 dinars (that's one dollar) a night for a room. I also spent some time in Dubrovnik, Sarajevo, and Zagreb.
I didn't notice at first, but after a while it began to dawn on me that Yugoslavia was different from any other country I'd ever lived in. For one thing, there were no beggars! There was an old man who sold little packages of nuts in downtown Mostar. But he was more of a peddler than a beggar. And there was the little boy who approached me for what I thought was a handout. But when I offered him some money, he shook his head and pointed to a group of Gypsies encamped nearby. They had assembled some wood for a campfire. All they needed was a match. He needed a match. Which I didn't have, much to my regret.
Also, there were no homeless people (other than Gypsies, who were allowed to roam freely with no interference) -- and no slums. At least none that I ever noticed, and believe me, I got around. Since Yugoslavia was a "communist" country, I anticipated a certain amount of repression, and reluctance on the part of the people to talk with strangers. But I saw no sign of that. People were open and friendly. I became friends with the family I was staying with in Mostar, especially their beautiful daughter, and would spend a lot of time talking with her and her friends, all of whom were educated and articulate. I asked all sorts of questions about politics, economics, and the policies of President Tito, about whom I was very curious. They answered all my questions openly, with no hesitation and no sign of anxiety. For them Tito was a hero, and it was easy to understand why.
(to be continued . . . )
Monday, August 8, 2011
The Spectres, Part 2
And so: what will happen after the monumentally destructive forces of "free-market" capitalism drive themselves into the ground, taking the rest of us with them? Truthfully, I don't know. Another great depression? A period of "social unrest"? A period of uncertainty? A period of post-apocalyptic chaos? A revival of Communism? Fascism? Nazism? (Glen Beck would make a marvelously paranoid fuhrer.) Possibly all of the above.
But what I'd like to think would ultimately happen would be a great awakening. A passing through the Gateless Gate. Money will return to being a harmless medium of exchange rather than a commodity in itself. Our leaders will be forced to find ways to fairly and equably produce and distribute resources through judicious planning. Instead of lending money to bankers who then lend money to other bankers who then lend money to other bankers who then lend money to businesses which then create products and jobs, governments will realize that the most efficient method of creating and distributing wealth is to eliminate all those parasitic middlemen and create products and jobs without them. If technology has provided us with the means to increase productivity then, once those middlemen have been eliminated (or more accurately eliminated themselves), technology can be put to use directly for the benefit of all, rather than the few.
This sounds like a Utopian dream and I suppose it is. But it is also possible. We can make it real. How do I know that it's possible and not a daydream? Because I saw it with my own eyes. When I visited a country that no longer exists, which is a terrible shame. A country without slums, without poverty, without beggars, without coercion and without fear. It was called: Yugoslavia.
But what I'd like to think would ultimately happen would be a great awakening. A passing through the Gateless Gate. Money will return to being a harmless medium of exchange rather than a commodity in itself. Our leaders will be forced to find ways to fairly and equably produce and distribute resources through judicious planning. Instead of lending money to bankers who then lend money to other bankers who then lend money to other bankers who then lend money to businesses which then create products and jobs, governments will realize that the most efficient method of creating and distributing wealth is to eliminate all those parasitic middlemen and create products and jobs without them. If technology has provided us with the means to increase productivity then, once those middlemen have been eliminated (or more accurately eliminated themselves), technology can be put to use directly for the benefit of all, rather than the few.
This sounds like a Utopian dream and I suppose it is. But it is also possible. We can make it real. How do I know that it's possible and not a daydream? Because I saw it with my own eyes. When I visited a country that no longer exists, which is a terrible shame. A country without slums, without poverty, without beggars, without coercion and without fear. It was called: Yugoslavia.
Saturday, August 6, 2011
The Spectres
We've all read that famous line: "A spectre is haunting Europe — the spectre of communism."
The socioeconomic analysis offered by Marx and Engels in their "Communist Manifesto" was right on the mark. In essence: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Its object: universal human freedom in a classless society. The analysis was brilliant, the object admirable. Unfortunately, almost all subsequent experiments along Communist lines have turned out badly. Very badly.
Maybe it's time now for someone (not me) to write a "Capitalist Manifesto." It could open with a very similar statement: "A spectre is haunting the developed world -- the spectre of the free market." Its essence: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the triumph of naked self interest and greed." Its object: the uncontrolled free reign of financial markets and the class that controls them. Unfortunately, as we now know, our experiments with free market capitalism have also turned out badly. Perhaps not as badly as Communism, though it's still too early to say.
No one reading here could possibly assume I'm a capitalist. Some might assume I'm a Communist. But that would be equally untrue. As I see it, it's high time we put both these spectres to rest. Nevertheless, there is something to be learned from their failures, which can be seen in the light of an interesting dialectic:
Soviet Communism self destructed back in 1989. But it took another three years before the reality of that event sank in, and the Soviet Union was finally dissolved, in 1991, after a bloody coup.
In the aftermath, there was an attempt, led by the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, to transform the country via free market "reforms." However,
Free market capitalism in the West took a bit longer to self-destruct -- not until 2008. And as with the fall of the Soviet Union, the reality didn't completely sink in until some years later. I.e.: not until NOW!
So why do I find all this so amusing? Because time after time we see history repeating itself, and time after time the lesson is NEVER learned. So what's the point in trying to galvanize the public into taking action, when it's by now so very clear that whatever action is taken will be the wrong action. Better to just let history take its course. If monolithic institutions such as Communism and Capitalism contain the seeds of their own destruction, then, very simply, let them destroy themselves.
In our present situation, as I see it, the worst thing we can do is try to put the broken system together again, by instituting the sort of "reforms" that will enable the pretense to continue for a little while longer. What's the point? The bankers tell us they can't be regulated because tough regulations, of the sort that are "needed," will prevent them from earning the large amounts of money required for the entire US economy to remain on course, i.e., to produce the necessary jobs and consumer demand. And they are right. We're told, "get tough with the banks," but for the last, oh, 30 or 40 years, the shenanigans of these bankers have been by far the greatest source of national income. So. We can't live with them and we can't live without them. The good news is that they are monumentally self-destructive, so we don't really need to regulate them because their own frantic momentum will ultimately drive them into the ground.
(to be continued . . . )
The socioeconomic analysis offered by Marx and Engels in their "Communist Manifesto" was right on the mark. In essence: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles." Its object: universal human freedom in a classless society. The analysis was brilliant, the object admirable. Unfortunately, almost all subsequent experiments along Communist lines have turned out badly. Very badly.
Maybe it's time now for someone (not me) to write a "Capitalist Manifesto." It could open with a very similar statement: "A spectre is haunting the developed world -- the spectre of the free market." Its essence: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the triumph of naked self interest and greed." Its object: the uncontrolled free reign of financial markets and the class that controls them. Unfortunately, as we now know, our experiments with free market capitalism have also turned out badly. Perhaps not as badly as Communism, though it's still too early to say.
No one reading here could possibly assume I'm a capitalist. Some might assume I'm a Communist. But that would be equally untrue. As I see it, it's high time we put both these spectres to rest. Nevertheless, there is something to be learned from their failures, which can be seen in the light of an interesting dialectic:
Communism fails because it will never be possible to rid the world of naked self interest and greed, which will manifest even in the most rigorously "classless" society. Capitalism fails because it will never be possible to completely rid the world of class consciousness, which will always impel certain groups to resist exploitation by others.So. What's the answer? Or, to paraphrase Lenin paraphrasing Tolstoy: what is to be done? And the good news, as I see it, is that there is no need anymore to do anything whatsoever. Unless being amused can be seen as doing something. Or, as in my case, writing compulsively about anything and everything that amuses me about our current socioeconomic situation.
Capitalism also fails for the reason given by Marx: it contains the seeds of its own destruction. But so also, in a way, does Communism. Both fail, ultimately, because they presume the existence of certain universals. And, as thinkers such as Derrida, Baudrillard, Lyotard, etc., have taught us, all "universals" are cultural constructs, not givens of either nature or human psychology.
Soviet Communism self destructed back in 1989. But it took another three years before the reality of that event sank in, and the Soviet Union was finally dissolved, in 1991, after a bloody coup.
In the aftermath, there was an attempt, led by the Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, to transform the country via free market "reforms." However,
the Yeltsin era was marked by widespread corruption, economic collapse, and enormous political and social problems in the wake of the disintegration of the Soviet Union into a group fledgling nation-states of which Russia was the largest.
Ongoing confrontations with the parliament climaxed in the October 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, a political standoff culminating dissolution, besieging, and later shelling of the Russian White House, killing hundreds, and injuring hundreds more. Yeltsin then scrapped the constitution under which the parliament had attempted to remove him from office, temporarily banned opposition parties and media, and deepened his economic experimentation. (Wikipedia)The free-market "reforms" urged by the US and other Western powers were in many ways a disaster, but there seemed at the time no meaningful alternative, so the Russians plodded on, even in the wake of a major default (yes, Virginia, sovereign defaults can happen).
Free market capitalism in the West took a bit longer to self-destruct -- not until 2008. And as with the fall of the Soviet Union, the reality didn't completely sink in until some years later. I.e.: not until NOW!
So why do I find all this so amusing? Because time after time we see history repeating itself, and time after time the lesson is NEVER learned. So what's the point in trying to galvanize the public into taking action, when it's by now so very clear that whatever action is taken will be the wrong action. Better to just let history take its course. If monolithic institutions such as Communism and Capitalism contain the seeds of their own destruction, then, very simply, let them destroy themselves.
In our present situation, as I see it, the worst thing we can do is try to put the broken system together again, by instituting the sort of "reforms" that will enable the pretense to continue for a little while longer. What's the point? The bankers tell us they can't be regulated because tough regulations, of the sort that are "needed," will prevent them from earning the large amounts of money required for the entire US economy to remain on course, i.e., to produce the necessary jobs and consumer demand. And they are right. We're told, "get tough with the banks," but for the last, oh, 30 or 40 years, the shenanigans of these bankers have been by far the greatest source of national income. So. We can't live with them and we can't live without them. The good news is that they are monumentally self-destructive, so we don't really need to regulate them because their own frantic momentum will ultimately drive them into the ground.
(to be continued . . . )
Thursday, August 4, 2011
The Burning
The Professor looks down. “I am a prophet. Prophet. A prophet. I speak for the Ancestors. They are angry. Angry. Now I know why. Finally I figured it out. I understand. Seen the light light the light. Finally. Finally. Finally. They are angry.”
One of the spectators laughs derisively. “Ancestors? What ancestors? Whose ancestors?”
The Professor ignores him. “Years. Millions of years. All that residue of the most ancient forms of life. The most ancient residue of living matter. Where is it now? Where? Where is it? Slumbering deep deep down in the dirt, the earth, earth, hidden away very deep in the bowels of the earth undisturbed for billions of years in the dirt.”
He pauses to let his words sink in. “And then. One day. One cold day. Some human digs. And digs. And finds something. Something to burn. Burn. Some sort of handy substance you can burn. Limitless supplies, huge, huge, huge amounts of organic material buried deep, deep in the earth and under the sea, dead matter, residue, remnants. In fact, the remnants of our oldest ancestors, from the earliest beginnings of life on Earth, remnants we’re now dredging up from their ancient burial places – in the form of coal, oil, natural gas, what we call ‘fossil fuels.’ You think you can treat it with indifference, as though it were just nothing at all but something sitting there for you to use, for you to burn, burn, to burn. It keeps you warm. It powers your cars. It drives your turbines, produces your electric power, fuels your factories, your armies, makes everything possible -- for those who can control it.”
Another pause. “But reflect – REFLECT! Every living thing on Earth is descended from these ‘fossil fuels.’ They are a part of you – and you of them. Their primordial desires, desires desires, pri-mordial, are buried deep within you still, embedded in your very DNA. And now. They are burning. Your ancestors are burning. Burning. You have violated the earth and the sea to dig dig dig them from their ancient resting place. And you are burning them. Burning. Burning them up. This burning of the ancestors, it is what has made our modern world possible. And what is now choking it to death.”
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
The budget, the deficit, and the collapse
OK, first of all the budget isn't really the problem. It's the deficit (i.e., the national debt) that's the problem. But this debt is the result of 1. the huge Bush era deficits, which were astronomical and have accumulated, with interest; 2. the effects of the economic collapse of 2008, which was beyond astronomical. Obama's budget can't possibly be the problem because he is far from being the big spender the Tea Partiers are painting him as -- in fact the discretionary items in his budget are modest.
The biggest items in the budget are those that are usually considered beyond his control, the so-called "entitlements," and the cost of funding outsized and out of control military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. As I see it, the entitlements are not really a problem, so long as we are willing to accept a fairer, more equable, and more effective system of funding them via progressive taxation. (See the three previous posts.) Military expenditures represent a much more challenging problem. We definitely need to wind down our military operations, as humiliating as that will be, because we can no longer afford them. The Republican call to reign in the budget will therefore be meaningful only if it is applied most strongly to the military budget, which is the last item the Republicans want to touch.
So. As far as the budget is concerned, we need not cut back entitlements so long as we are willing to accept changes in the tax code; and military expenditures need not be a major problem so long as we are willing to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The national debt, however, is another matter entirely. It truly is out of control. It is in fact, essentially, the result of an ongoing Ponzi scheme, disguised by creative accounting methods worthy of Enron during its last, most desperate, phase. As I've argued in earlier posts, the world economy totally collapsed in 2008. Everything that's happened after that has just been smoke and mirrors to disguise this fact, in the hope that, if we kick the can far enough down the road, we'll be saved by a miracle.
While I have no respect whatsoever for the Tea Party and their mainstream Republican enablers, I do agree with the faction that opposed raising the debt limit. And I was, very frankly, hoping the failure of the two parties to reach a compromise would bring the crisis to a head by abruptly halting the US government's ability to borrow. Because the ability of the US to increase its debt in this manner is in fact equivalent to the ability of a con man like Bernie Madoff to suck more "investors" into his scheme. Nothing of value is being produced to warrant such an "investment." The only reason Treasuries are being purchased is because, as with Madoff's operation, they are deemed "safe." In fact, there is nothing really there to back them up. It's all a bluff.
If the debt limit could no longer be raised, and the US were forced into default, then the world would have no choice but, finally, to accept the bitter fact that there is no "there" there, that we can never return to the "free market" status quo. And we can finally begin the long process of constructing an alternative system, hopefully one that is fairer, more effective and more meaningful.
Significantly, just after the great compromise was reached, the Dow took a nosedive of almost 200 points. This after already having fallen by several hundred points in the previous week. Regardless, there was a great sigh of relief and everyone went back to their nice little pipedream in which at the very worst we have something called a "double dip" recession, which really doesn't sound all that bad, and at best we somehow manage to fully restore the status quo prior to 2008.
Like Wile E Coyote, in the cartoon I posted some time ago (see The Power of Magical Thinking) we are hovering over a vast expanse of nothing. But we won't actually take the fall until we become fully aware of our precarious condition. The collapse has already occurred, but it's going to take one more major event to shake us out of our complacency to the point that we are able to accept our fate -- and move on. The only alternative is a depressing and demoralizing process of gradual decay, leading to even more unfairness, inequality and cruel indifference.
What sort of event is looming? Well, we've all noticed how the too big to fail banks are once more taking outsized risks of exactly the same sort that caught up with them in 2008. If some of those events are repeated then, sorry Charlie, you may be too big to fail, but all the money in the world won't save you next time. You'll be going down -- and taking the rest of us with you. Another scenario, just as likely, would be the collapse of the Euro, precipitating a domino effect in which one bank after the other will collapse, and the world economy along with it.
As I see it, the sooner something like this happens (I like to call it the "Rapture") the better. Because, as I've argued many times, what we're talking about here is something that exists purely in the virtual world: money. It isn't really real, but somehow we've been hypnotized into thinking it is. When the financial system collapses, and only then, we will be freed from the spell. Looking around us, we'll see that everything of true value is still there. In the immortal words of John Cage: "nothing was lost when everything was given away."
The biggest items in the budget are those that are usually considered beyond his control, the so-called "entitlements," and the cost of funding outsized and out of control military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Libya. As I see it, the entitlements are not really a problem, so long as we are willing to accept a fairer, more equable, and more effective system of funding them via progressive taxation. (See the three previous posts.) Military expenditures represent a much more challenging problem. We definitely need to wind down our military operations, as humiliating as that will be, because we can no longer afford them. The Republican call to reign in the budget will therefore be meaningful only if it is applied most strongly to the military budget, which is the last item the Republicans want to touch.
So. As far as the budget is concerned, we need not cut back entitlements so long as we are willing to accept changes in the tax code; and military expenditures need not be a major problem so long as we are willing to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The national debt, however, is another matter entirely. It truly is out of control. It is in fact, essentially, the result of an ongoing Ponzi scheme, disguised by creative accounting methods worthy of Enron during its last, most desperate, phase. As I've argued in earlier posts, the world economy totally collapsed in 2008. Everything that's happened after that has just been smoke and mirrors to disguise this fact, in the hope that, if we kick the can far enough down the road, we'll be saved by a miracle.
While I have no respect whatsoever for the Tea Party and their mainstream Republican enablers, I do agree with the faction that opposed raising the debt limit. And I was, very frankly, hoping the failure of the two parties to reach a compromise would bring the crisis to a head by abruptly halting the US government's ability to borrow. Because the ability of the US to increase its debt in this manner is in fact equivalent to the ability of a con man like Bernie Madoff to suck more "investors" into his scheme. Nothing of value is being produced to warrant such an "investment." The only reason Treasuries are being purchased is because, as with Madoff's operation, they are deemed "safe." In fact, there is nothing really there to back them up. It's all a bluff.
If the debt limit could no longer be raised, and the US were forced into default, then the world would have no choice but, finally, to accept the bitter fact that there is no "there" there, that we can never return to the "free market" status quo. And we can finally begin the long process of constructing an alternative system, hopefully one that is fairer, more effective and more meaningful.
Significantly, just after the great compromise was reached, the Dow took a nosedive of almost 200 points. This after already having fallen by several hundred points in the previous week. Regardless, there was a great sigh of relief and everyone went back to their nice little pipedream in which at the very worst we have something called a "double dip" recession, which really doesn't sound all that bad, and at best we somehow manage to fully restore the status quo prior to 2008.
Like Wile E Coyote, in the cartoon I posted some time ago (see The Power of Magical Thinking) we are hovering over a vast expanse of nothing. But we won't actually take the fall until we become fully aware of our precarious condition. The collapse has already occurred, but it's going to take one more major event to shake us out of our complacency to the point that we are able to accept our fate -- and move on. The only alternative is a depressing and demoralizing process of gradual decay, leading to even more unfairness, inequality and cruel indifference.
What sort of event is looming? Well, we've all noticed how the too big to fail banks are once more taking outsized risks of exactly the same sort that caught up with them in 2008. If some of those events are repeated then, sorry Charlie, you may be too big to fail, but all the money in the world won't save you next time. You'll be going down -- and taking the rest of us with you. Another scenario, just as likely, would be the collapse of the Euro, precipitating a domino effect in which one bank after the other will collapse, and the world economy along with it.
As I see it, the sooner something like this happens (I like to call it the "Rapture") the better. Because, as I've argued many times, what we're talking about here is something that exists purely in the virtual world: money. It isn't really real, but somehow we've been hypnotized into thinking it is. When the financial system collapses, and only then, we will be freed from the spell. Looking around us, we'll see that everything of true value is still there. In the immortal words of John Cage: "nothing was lost when everything was given away."
Monday, August 1, 2011
Inequality
To answer the question I posed yesterday: NO, taxation is NOT theft. The original Tea Party was a legitimate protest against taxation without representation, which IS a form of theft, yes. Ever since the American Revolution we've had taxation WITH representation, which is NOT a form of theft, but part of a social contract whereby a fraction of national wealth is pooled for the common good. In the past, the affluent recognized that they owed a large part of their success to opportunities made possible ONLY through policies instituted by the US government, a government strong enough to both encourage and protect individual initiatives, innovations and investment. (Compare, for example, with Mexico.) Today, many of our wealthiest citizens and corporations prefer to believe they did it all on their own, and owe nothing to anyone. Today's "Tea Party" is a self-serving attempt by such wealthy and powerful private interests to manipulate certain naive segments of the public, with the goal of weakening the only force strong enough to stand up to them: the federal government.
The real problem in this country is NOT government spending -- anemic in literally every area except defense -- but inequality. And not simply inequality, which has always been a given of life in the USA, but drastic inequality, not only of wealth but of political clout, which seriously threatens our democratic system. Too many in this country worry about money in the wrong way. Instead of worrying about government expenditures on "entitlements" and other beneficial projects, they should be worried about the kind of potentially destructive power that can be wielded by someone with a billion dollars to spend supporting his or her own selfish interests. It is not enough to force such individuals to pay their fair share in taxes. What is of greatest importance at this moment in history is to do everything possible to save democracy itself from their potentially destructive influence.
The real problem in this country is NOT government spending -- anemic in literally every area except defense -- but inequality. And not simply inequality, which has always been a given of life in the USA, but drastic inequality, not only of wealth but of political clout, which seriously threatens our democratic system. Too many in this country worry about money in the wrong way. Instead of worrying about government expenditures on "entitlements" and other beneficial projects, they should be worried about the kind of potentially destructive power that can be wielded by someone with a billion dollars to spend supporting his or her own selfish interests. It is not enough to force such individuals to pay their fair share in taxes. What is of greatest importance at this moment in history is to do everything possible to save democracy itself from their potentially destructive influence.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
"Entitlements" part 2
As should be clear from the previous post, if everyone in the USA currently earning $106,800 or more were to suddenly get a raise of $1,000,000 or even $100,000,000 per year, that wouldn't add one single dime to what any of them would pay toward Social Security. Oh and one more thing I forgot to mention. This is referred to as a "payroll" tax for a good reason. It is not imposed on investment income. So if you don't actually do any work, but simply collect millions (or billions) from your investments, you pay no Social Security tax at all.
Now let's take a closer look at the second part of the payroll tax: Medicare. As opposed to Social Security, which is usually taxed at 6.2% (actually 12.4% -- see previous post), Medicare will take "only" 1.45% out of your wages (actually 2.9%). Sounds like a bargain. Why so little? Because the Medicare portion, unlike that for Social Security, doesn't have that $106,800 limit. Since it's unlimited, it can be considerably less, because much higher incomes are also being taxed (though once again, investment income is immune). Which makes you kinda think: if Social Security were an unlimited tax, we wouldn't have to pay nearly as much for it, would we?
And speaking of that $106,800 limit, what's that all about? Where does that figure come from? Beats me. Maybe someone reading here can enlighten us. If it's an arbitrary number, which it certainly appears to be, then why not make it $206,800? Or $300,000? Or $1,000,000? Or $100,000,000. Or why not just remove the Soc. Sec. limit altogether, and tax it the way Medicare is taxed?
If in fact the limit were removed altogether, then this tax, which is such a huge burden for so many working people, could be lowered considerably. AND, with some astute actuarial assistance, a figure could be arrived at that not only lowered the percentage, but also made up for whatever shortfall now exists in the Social Security trust fund. End of crisis!
But why stop there? Social Security is, at present, what is called a regressive tax -- because the more money you earn over and above the limit, the less percentage of your total earned income you pay. If the limit were removed, it would be what is called a flat tax, with everyone (aside from those with unearned income) paying the same percentage. Many would consider that fair. But that has not been the policy in the USA with respect to income taxes, which have for a very long time now been progressive, with those in higher income brackets paying a greater percentage of total income than those in lower brackets (theoretically, since wealthier people typically find all sorts of convenient loopholes).
Once upon a time, during, say, the Nixon era, those in the highest income brackets paid a considerably higher percentage in income taxes (again, theoretically, since there were many loopholes for the wealthy), with the top bracket taxed at 70%. A few years ago, the top fell to 39.6% and with the Bush cuts (still in effect) that dropped even lower, to 35%. Nevertheless, federal income tax remains a progressive tax, with lower income people paying a lower percentage. Seems fair to me, since the higher your income, the less of it you actually need.
So why can't our payroll taxes, for both Social Security and Medicare, also be progressive? And if Medicare can be taxed on a progressive basis, then surely the actuaries can come up with a formula that would, miracle of miracles, actually put Medicare on a sound financial footing, thus eliminating that "crisis."
Gosh, what am I missing here? What is it I don't understand? Oh yeah. The wealthiest of the wealthy, our bankers, our financiers, our captains of industry, the ones whose reckless investment practices and selfish outsourcing and downsizing led to the collapse of our economy just three years ago, these people don't want to be taxed at all, period. On principle! After all, isn't taxation simply theft?
(to be continued . . . )
Now let's take a closer look at the second part of the payroll tax: Medicare. As opposed to Social Security, which is usually taxed at 6.2% (actually 12.4% -- see previous post), Medicare will take "only" 1.45% out of your wages (actually 2.9%). Sounds like a bargain. Why so little? Because the Medicare portion, unlike that for Social Security, doesn't have that $106,800 limit. Since it's unlimited, it can be considerably less, because much higher incomes are also being taxed (though once again, investment income is immune). Which makes you kinda think: if Social Security were an unlimited tax, we wouldn't have to pay nearly as much for it, would we?
And speaking of that $106,800 limit, what's that all about? Where does that figure come from? Beats me. Maybe someone reading here can enlighten us. If it's an arbitrary number, which it certainly appears to be, then why not make it $206,800? Or $300,000? Or $1,000,000? Or $100,000,000. Or why not just remove the Soc. Sec. limit altogether, and tax it the way Medicare is taxed?
If in fact the limit were removed altogether, then this tax, which is such a huge burden for so many working people, could be lowered considerably. AND, with some astute actuarial assistance, a figure could be arrived at that not only lowered the percentage, but also made up for whatever shortfall now exists in the Social Security trust fund. End of crisis!
But why stop there? Social Security is, at present, what is called a regressive tax -- because the more money you earn over and above the limit, the less percentage of your total earned income you pay. If the limit were removed, it would be what is called a flat tax, with everyone (aside from those with unearned income) paying the same percentage. Many would consider that fair. But that has not been the policy in the USA with respect to income taxes, which have for a very long time now been progressive, with those in higher income brackets paying a greater percentage of total income than those in lower brackets (theoretically, since wealthier people typically find all sorts of convenient loopholes).
Once upon a time, during, say, the Nixon era, those in the highest income brackets paid a considerably higher percentage in income taxes (again, theoretically, since there were many loopholes for the wealthy), with the top bracket taxed at 70%. A few years ago, the top fell to 39.6% and with the Bush cuts (still in effect) that dropped even lower, to 35%. Nevertheless, federal income tax remains a progressive tax, with lower income people paying a lower percentage. Seems fair to me, since the higher your income, the less of it you actually need.
So why can't our payroll taxes, for both Social Security and Medicare, also be progressive? And if Medicare can be taxed on a progressive basis, then surely the actuaries can come up with a formula that would, miracle of miracles, actually put Medicare on a sound financial footing, thus eliminating that "crisis."
Gosh, what am I missing here? What is it I don't understand? Oh yeah. The wealthiest of the wealthy, our bankers, our financiers, our captains of industry, the ones whose reckless investment practices and selfish outsourcing and downsizing led to the collapse of our economy just three years ago, these people don't want to be taxed at all, period. On principle! After all, isn't taxation simply theft?
(to be continued . . . )
Saturday, July 30, 2011
Them Danged "Entitlements"
Gosh, if only we could take control of those darned "entitlements." Right! You hear it continually from Republicans, which should go without saying. But also from our President,and many other Democrats, which is a disgrace!
For one thing, "entitlements" is a misleading term. What it really means is money ordinary citizens are entitled to. Why? Because they paid for them. Yes, believe it or not, both Social Security AND Medicare are paid for by you, the citizens of the US. To hear Republicans talk about these programs, they're something ordinary folk THINK they are entitled to. "Well, what makes YOU think you are entitled to all these benefits, you lazy slacker?" "Uh, excuse me, but I PAID for them!"
Not only have we paid for them, but we've paid through the nose for them. Here's how our taxes for both Social Security and Medicare break down, according to this Wikipedia article:
Meaning that out of a modest salary of $30,000, you get to pay 30,000 * .124 = $3,720! (Not counting Medicare, natch.) And there's no getting around that. No deductions, no loopholes, no special consideration for working families with lots of kids, etc.
You might be curious to learn what someone earning $1,000,000 a year pays. Do the math. 1,000,000 * .124 comes to $124,000. Nice chunk of change. But wait! Think again. Because the "annual wage maximum" on Social Security is only $106,800. If you earn more than that, this additional income is TOTALLY free from Soc. Sec. taxes. So what you pay for Soc. Sec. if you earn $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 or $200,000,000 or $1,000,000,000 is exactly the same: $106,800 * .124 = $13,243 -- which amounts to 1.3243% of a million dollars -- and .013243% of a billion dollars. So while the great majority of us pay over 12%, the millionaires pay only a little over 1% -- and the billionaires pay only a minuscule fraction of what they take in. (I was going to write "earn," but nobody actually earns a billion dollars, do they?)
We're continually being reminded that Social Security is in trouble, that the reserve will run out in a few years, that thanks to the Baby Boom there are many more older people around now than ever before, etc., and that this amounts to a huge crisis unless the benefits are drastically reduced. But what we do NOT hear is that there are also far more millionaires and billionaires living in the USA than ever before.
We are constantly reminded that we are in over our heads financially and accumulating a huge national debt, but no one seems interested in the fact that the USA is by far the wealthiest country that ever existed in the history of the world. True, the national debt looks high: well over $14 trillion and climbing. But our total national household wealth is estimated at over $52 trillion. In other words, if we were to institute a one time only wealth tax of roughly 27% we would instantly eliminate our entire national debt! And when you consider that during the 1950's the tax rate on the highest incomes was over 90%, a 27% tax doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating such a tax, only trying to put things into perspective.
So. Are we really in the midst of an entitlements crisis? Or does the real problem lie in another direction entirely?
(to be continued . . .)
For one thing, "entitlements" is a misleading term. What it really means is money ordinary citizens are entitled to. Why? Because they paid for them. Yes, believe it or not, both Social Security AND Medicare are paid for by you, the citizens of the US. To hear Republicans talk about these programs, they're something ordinary folk THINK they are entitled to. "Well, what makes YOU think you are entitled to all these benefits, you lazy slacker?" "Uh, excuse me, but I PAID for them!"
Not only have we paid for them, but we've paid through the nose for them. Here's how our taxes for both Social Security and Medicare break down, according to this Wikipedia article:
Federal social insurance taxes are imposed equally on employers and employees, consisting of a tax of 6.2% of wages up to an annual wage maximum ($106,800 in 2010) plus a tax of 1.45% of total wages. For the year 2011, the employee's contribution has been temporarily reduced to 4.2%, while the employer's portion remained at 6.2%.This is misleading. The taxes are NOT imposed equally on employers and employees. I know because I was once on the Board of Directors of an organization that was hiring, and the first thing we did in determining what wages we would offer was calculate what our Social Security obligation would be. This was then factored in to our wage offer. I'm sure all employers do the same math when hiring. So what that means is that the Soc. Sec. tax is in effect borne entirely by the worker, and it amounts to 2 * 6.2%, or 12.4% (prior to the temporary reduction, natch, which is due to expire). Moreover, if you happen to be self-employed, the owner of a small business, a consultant, or an "independent contractor" (a handy category used by employers who refuse to deal with Soc. Sec. at all) you pay the FULL amount without benefit of subterfuge.
Meaning that out of a modest salary of $30,000, you get to pay 30,000 * .124 = $3,720! (Not counting Medicare, natch.) And there's no getting around that. No deductions, no loopholes, no special consideration for working families with lots of kids, etc.
You might be curious to learn what someone earning $1,000,000 a year pays. Do the math. 1,000,000 * .124 comes to $124,000. Nice chunk of change. But wait! Think again. Because the "annual wage maximum" on Social Security is only $106,800. If you earn more than that, this additional income is TOTALLY free from Soc. Sec. taxes. So what you pay for Soc. Sec. if you earn $1,000,000 or $2,000,000 or $200,000,000 or $1,000,000,000 is exactly the same: $106,800 * .124 = $13,243 -- which amounts to 1.3243% of a million dollars -- and .013243% of a billion dollars. So while the great majority of us pay over 12%, the millionaires pay only a little over 1% -- and the billionaires pay only a minuscule fraction of what they take in. (I was going to write "earn," but nobody actually earns a billion dollars, do they?)
We're continually being reminded that Social Security is in trouble, that the reserve will run out in a few years, that thanks to the Baby Boom there are many more older people around now than ever before, etc., and that this amounts to a huge crisis unless the benefits are drastically reduced. But what we do NOT hear is that there are also far more millionaires and billionaires living in the USA than ever before.
We are constantly reminded that we are in over our heads financially and accumulating a huge national debt, but no one seems interested in the fact that the USA is by far the wealthiest country that ever existed in the history of the world. True, the national debt looks high: well over $14 trillion and climbing. But our total national household wealth is estimated at over $52 trillion. In other words, if we were to institute a one time only wealth tax of roughly 27% we would instantly eliminate our entire national debt! And when you consider that during the 1950's the tax rate on the highest incomes was over 90%, a 27% tax doesn't seem all that unreasonable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating such a tax, only trying to put things into perspective.
So. Are we really in the midst of an entitlements crisis? Or does the real problem lie in another direction entirely?
(to be continued . . .)
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Dems come "clean"
Was it this obscure blog that made the difference?
And now some of our Democratic leaders have also figured it out, apparently. So far I haven't seen any reference to this development in the mainstream press, but I have a feeling the movement will gather strength over the next few days, since the possibility of a negotiated "deal" seems increasingly hopeless.
House Democratic leaders on Wednesday called for a clean vote on raising the debt ceiling to prevent a government default.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Assistant Leader James Clyburn (D-S.C.), Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson (D-Conn.) and Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.), the caucus vice chairman, are all pushing legislation to increase the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion — enough to see government spending through 2012.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), contains none of the deficit-reduction provisions Republicans are demanding as part of a larger debt-ceiling package. (from Dem leaders unite in call for clean debt-ceiling vote, Blog Briefing Room, July 27, 2011.)I'd love to think my posts had something to do with this heartening development, but it so happens I'm not alone. After doing some Google searches yesterday, I discovered that others have also been calling for a clean bill over the last few weeks. E.g., here's what Matthew Yglesias had to say back on July 11:
Surveying the scene, perhaps everyone should take a deep breath and recall the traditional way the country has avoided default when the debt ceiling needs raising: Congress raises the debt ceiling.
It’s that simple. The same kind of “clean” debt ceiling increase that’s passed repeatedly over the past 100 years will allow the country to avoid default without tax increases, without defense cuts, and without slashing entitlement spending. . .
Right now . . . the only crisis we face is an entirely self-created one. House Republicans wanted to create a hostage situation to force President Obama to propose steep spending cuts. But when Obama came to the table with a proposal for steep cuts, it turned out that Republicans don’t actually want to sign a bipartisan deal. Which is fine. Don’t sign a deal! The absence of a deal in no way forces a crisis. Just raise the debt ceiling, fight the 2012 elections, and pick up the long-term budget issue then.Here's what Elizabeth Drew wrote last Monday, in Politico:
With the leaders of both chambers still noodling around in a search for what to add to the bill to raise the debt ceiling, with Obama having a long series of high-level meetings at the White House, with the public growing tired of the spectacle and worried about jobs, and the bond market getting antsy, the stock market poised to take a deep dive, foreign investors who prop up our debt having second thoughts and the president looking increasingly like a wuss there’s a simple step that Obama could – no, should – take. . .
. . . he should demand that the Congress get a clean bill raising the debt limit to his desk by Thursday. Moreover, he should state that he will veto any bill encumbered by amendments, and emphasize that if the Congress does not comply he will take the issue to the American people.I'm pleased to learn I'm not the only one out here in blogland who can see the obvious. The Republicans are not simply demanding steep budget cuts with no new taxes, they've been doing that for years. What's new is that the Tea Party is holding a gun to the heads of the American people and threatening to shoot unless they get exactly what they want. A "clean" bill at this late date will make the nature of their little scheme abundantly clear to all. If they are unwilling to shoot, they will be forced to lower their weapon. And if they decide to shoot, everyone will feel it and everyone will know where the shot came from. There will be no alternative, no more smoke and mirrors to hide behind.
This would be no small threat. If I were a betting person I would hazard a very large sum that if the president stands up and says, “ENOUGH” — that he has tried and tried and tried to work out a compromise acceptable to the two major parties, but he hasn’t been able to and neither have they, that he is now demanding what he should have received in the first place, a bill unencumbered with Republican economic policy — he will be cheered throughout the land. Of course, a segment of Republicans would object. But that would just play into the president’s strategy of isolating the Republicans, of showing that they are far from the mainstream, are obstructionists and unreasonable.
And now some of our Democratic leaders have also figured it out, apparently. So far I haven't seen any reference to this development in the mainstream press, but I have a feeling the movement will gather strength over the next few days, since the possibility of a negotiated "deal" seems increasingly hopeless.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The Clean Bill Option
I predicted back in February that the Tea Party's days were numbered (see Reading the Tea Leaves) and my prediction is about to come true. Here's what I wrote back when:
Then, and only then, will it be time for Obama and his constituents to draft sane legislation to deal with the deficit and other economic issues (such as jobs jobs jobs), but on their terms, free from Tea Party extortion. True, they don't control the House. But they won't need to control the House. If the Republicans want budget cuts, the Democrats will be only too happy to oblige, but the cuts will be based on a reasonable assessment of our situation and not right wing "big government" paranoia. And any cuts could be matched by reasonable tax increases for the wealthy, along with reasonable controls on their financial behavior. If the Republicans don't like it, they will be free to vote it down. But that would mean voting against the budget cuts they themselves have been demanding. In other words, the tables will be turned -- and the tail will no longer be wagging the dog.
if the national debt limit isn't raised, the USA will go into default and if the USA defaults, then a whole lot of very wealthy people will be in danger of losing a whole lot of their wealth. Think military-industrial complex, think Big Oil, think of all the Pharmaceutical companies tied to Medicare and Medicaid, think of all the fat cats playing it safe with huge investments in government bonds. Think also of what will happen to the almighty Dow -- a US default will shred investor confidence and the market will drop to the floor -- think financial China Syndrome. Think also of what will happen to the dollar when the Renminbi takes over as the international currency of choice. As the dollar tanks, so will the wealth of all those wealthy puppet masters.It's taken a while, but the power brokers have finally figured it out. From the NY Times this morning:
As I've said, it's the Democrats, NOT the Republicans, who are holding all the cards in this little game, only they don't get it. Like the bull in the bullfight, they've been distracted by the flashing red cape and lost track of the real target. Instead of offering more and more "compromises," they need to take advantage of the superior position they are actually in and force the hand of an opposition that is currently preoccupied with outsmarting itself. Which is why, as I see it, there is only one logical thing for the Democrats to do: offer a "clean" bill to the Senate, a simple yes or no choice on raising the debt limit; pass it in the Senate; and watch the House Republicans squirm. The Tea Party will cave, guaranteed. A vote against raising the limit at this late date would forever alienate them from their real power base, the ultra conservative oligarchs who have the most to lose from a "no" decision.The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent millions of dollars last year helping elect Republicans to Congressional seats, is struggling to convince the House it helped to build that the debt ceiling must be increased. The chamber and other business groups have pressed with increasing urgency for Congress to raise the maximum amount that the government can borrow. They have cataloged the consequences of default at meetings, parties and dinners and over drinks. . .
“I think they’re very pleased with the antigovernment inclinations of the Tea Party Republicans when it comes to taxes and regulation,” said David Axelrod, one of the president’s chief political advisers. “But now we have a situation where the integrity of the economy and the U.S. financial system is at stake, and they’re being hoisted on their own petards.”
Then, and only then, will it be time for Obama and his constituents to draft sane legislation to deal with the deficit and other economic issues (such as jobs jobs jobs), but on their terms, free from Tea Party extortion. True, they don't control the House. But they won't need to control the House. If the Republicans want budget cuts, the Democrats will be only too happy to oblige, but the cuts will be based on a reasonable assessment of our situation and not right wing "big government" paranoia. And any cuts could be matched by reasonable tax increases for the wealthy, along with reasonable controls on their financial behavior. If the Republicans don't like it, they will be free to vote it down. But that would mean voting against the budget cuts they themselves have been demanding. In other words, the tables will be turned -- and the tail will no longer be wagging the dog.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
What a Waste!
The debt ceiling will be raised. There's no doubt about it. Like the TARP deal, however, it's going to take some major signs of collapse, such as a market nosedive, to get the players back to the table to hash out a "deal." Only there won't actually be a deal, because the Republican hard-liners realize they don't need to give our President a single thing. His idea of compromise is to offer more and more until the other side has exactly what it was demanding in the first place. And if they then hesitate (since by now they realize this guy is the perfect mark), he'll be happy to offer even more than what they originally wanted. His pathetic gaffe, "call my bluff," says it all. He thinks he's negotiating while it's obvious to everyone else that he's simply being had.
So yes the ceiling will be raised. And what then? After the dust clears we'll all look around us and wonder what the HELL has been accomplished after all these months of pointless and destructive dickering. For what? Why was it so important to raise the debt ceiling in the first place? So the Republicans could humiliate Obama and trash the social contract? And what did the rest of us get in return. What did the Democrats get? What did Obama get?
Lemme guess: preservation of the "status quo." It's a bit tarnished, you gotta admit. The Republicans will have taken huge chunks out of it. But after the dust settles the fundamental illusion will still be there, the fantasy of the "free market."
Wake up, folks. The "free market" collapsed back in 2008. Or, more accurately, it revealed itself as the delusion it always was. The notion that we can somehow reverse history and return to a "status quo" that was never anything more than a mirage is wishful thinking at its most destructive. So when the dust clears where will we be? Back where we started, with a series of intractable and seemingly insoluble problems, both economic and social. The only good thing about all the huge budget cuts emerging from this unholy "deal" in the making is that it will make things so much worse that it will no longer be possible for the majority of our citizens (I prefer this term to "taxpayers" or "consumers") to dream on as though nothing had really happened.
But failure to raise the debt limit would be infinitely better in this regard, a healthy bucket of ice cold water poured over the heads of a bunch of lazy dreamers: "do we really have to get up and go to school? Can't we just lie here all day?"
So yes the ceiling will be raised. And what then? After the dust clears we'll all look around us and wonder what the HELL has been accomplished after all these months of pointless and destructive dickering. For what? Why was it so important to raise the debt ceiling in the first place? So the Republicans could humiliate Obama and trash the social contract? And what did the rest of us get in return. What did the Democrats get? What did Obama get?
Lemme guess: preservation of the "status quo." It's a bit tarnished, you gotta admit. The Republicans will have taken huge chunks out of it. But after the dust settles the fundamental illusion will still be there, the fantasy of the "free market."
Wake up, folks. The "free market" collapsed back in 2008. Or, more accurately, it revealed itself as the delusion it always was. The notion that we can somehow reverse history and return to a "status quo" that was never anything more than a mirage is wishful thinking at its most destructive. So when the dust clears where will we be? Back where we started, with a series of intractable and seemingly insoluble problems, both economic and social. The only good thing about all the huge budget cuts emerging from this unholy "deal" in the making is that it will make things so much worse that it will no longer be possible for the majority of our citizens (I prefer this term to "taxpayers" or "consumers") to dream on as though nothing had really happened.
But failure to raise the debt limit would be infinitely better in this regard, a healthy bucket of ice cold water poured over the heads of a bunch of lazy dreamers: "do we really have to get up and go to school? Can't we just lie here all day?"
Monday, July 25, 2011
Why the Democrats have a good hand and the Republicans have nothing
Readers of yesterday's post may be scratching their heads over my claim that the Republicans are bluffing from a lousy hand, because that is not how it may seem. So, for those of you who, like our President, are not poker players, an explanation may be in order.
I'll begin with some quotes from a previous post of mine, dating from last February: Reading the Tea Leaves.
Which is why the Republican leadership decided to rig the game in such a way that a simple yea or nay vote would never come up. It was a huge con and it looks like it's going to pay off big time. Obama has been hypnotized into believing he has to offer the Republicans something to get their cooperation and Boehner and Co. have been playing that for all it's worth. There's no reason for them to agree to raise taxes (and offend their base) when Obama's been signaling from the start that a default would be unacceptable and he'd do literally anything to avoid it.
The Republicans now smell blood and realize that if they hold out and continue to offer nothing in return for the draconian cuts Obama has already agreed to, then they can't lose. The debt limit will be raised AND Obama and the Democrats will be humiliated and reviled for caving in to unreasonable demands. If they were to make the mistake of actually compromising and agreeing to some tax hikes, then it might look like Obama was the winner. Why would they want to do that?
For the Dems the solution is obvious, but it would take some guts. Offer a very simple bill limited ONLY to the raising of the debt limit. Pass it in the Senate. And force the Tea Partiers in the House to decide whether they really want to take the heat for destroying the US economy AND the wealth of their patrons. Since no tax increase would be on the table, they needn't worry about violating their silly pledge. So all they'd be left with would be the argument that forcing the US into default is preferable to not cutting trillions out of Social Security, Medicare, education and Mom's Apple Pie. Is that a poker hand? I don't think so.
I'll begin with some quotes from a previous post of mine, dating from last February: Reading the Tea Leaves.
[The Tea Partiers] have an Ace up their sleeve -- so they think. If the Democrats won't cooperate, they'll make sure the debt limit isn't raised, which [requires] Republican votes -- lots of them. And if the debt limit isn't raised, why, it will be the end of civilization as we know it. Which is fine with them. Also fine with me, by the way.
Unfortunately for our eager beaver Tea Partiers, it will NOT be fine with the oligarchs whose big money got them to Congress in the first place. Because if the national debt limit isn't raised, the USA will go into default and if the USA defaults, then a whole lot of very wealthy people will be in danger of losing a whole lot of their wealth. . .Thus, as I see it, there is no way the Tea Party could maintain its grip on the Republican power structure if they were to vote down a simple yea or nay bill to raise the debt ceiling. Such a move would finish them -- and they know it. (At least most of them do. I don't doubt there are some "true believers" among them, who will sooner or later be in for a rude awakening.)
So. No WAY are the puppet masters going to allow their puppets to force "big government" into a great big huge default. Their dirty little secret is that they need big government. But they need it to do THEIR bidding, not the bidding of US citizens. Which is why they invented the Tea Party in the first place.
Which is why the Republican leadership decided to rig the game in such a way that a simple yea or nay vote would never come up. It was a huge con and it looks like it's going to pay off big time. Obama has been hypnotized into believing he has to offer the Republicans something to get their cooperation and Boehner and Co. have been playing that for all it's worth. There's no reason for them to agree to raise taxes (and offend their base) when Obama's been signaling from the start that a default would be unacceptable and he'd do literally anything to avoid it.
The Republicans now smell blood and realize that if they hold out and continue to offer nothing in return for the draconian cuts Obama has already agreed to, then they can't lose. The debt limit will be raised AND Obama and the Democrats will be humiliated and reviled for caving in to unreasonable demands. If they were to make the mistake of actually compromising and agreeing to some tax hikes, then it might look like Obama was the winner. Why would they want to do that?
For the Dems the solution is obvious, but it would take some guts. Offer a very simple bill limited ONLY to the raising of the debt limit. Pass it in the Senate. And force the Tea Partiers in the House to decide whether they really want to take the heat for destroying the US economy AND the wealth of their patrons. Since no tax increase would be on the table, they needn't worry about violating their silly pledge. So all they'd be left with would be the argument that forcing the US into default is preferable to not cutting trillions out of Social Security, Medicare, education and Mom's Apple Pie. Is that a poker hand? I don't think so.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Debt Ceiling Poker
Once again I apologize for neglecting this blog. I was focused for some time on an ambitious project that's now, basically, complete.
Meanwhile I've been enjoying all the sturm und drang over raising the debt limit, which is playing out more or less as I'd predicted.
The Republicans finally caved as I knew they'd have to. Mitch McConnell, under extreme pressure, I'm sure, from his billionaire controllers, offered a plan that would have handed off the tough decision-making to Obama, correctly noting in a media interview that the Republicans have a lot more to lose over this battle than the Democrats. It's always been clear to me that the Dems are holding ALL the cards in this matter and the Republicans basically none. The only problem is: Obama can't play poker worth shit!
In a gaffe worthy of George Bush II, he even dared them to "call my bluff." Sorry, Barack, you call the other guy's bluff, you don't invite him to call yours. You want him to believe you are NOT bluffing. Sheesh, what a hopeless fool the President I voted for is turning out to be. Also, when the other player folds, you don't entice him to stay in the game by adding more money to the pot.
The game is up for the Republicans, but they know how to bluff and our President is clueless. Don't dare them to call YOUR bluff -- call THEIRS, you idiot!
At this point, the adults in the Democratic Party need to convince their boy wonder to go play a few rounds of golf and leave the Republican diehards to the hardened veterans. Surely someone in the Party (maybe Biden?) understands poker well enough to realize the other side has lost and all that's needed is a show of cards.
In short, what needs to be done is for the Democrats in the Senate to present a plain vanilla bill that simply raises the debt limit and NOTHING more. No more wheeling, no more dealing, no more offers hoping for counter-offers that are never ever offered. In other words all the Dems need do is invite their opponents to show their hand. Are they or are they not willing to raise the debt limit? That's ALL that's needed, just that one simple bill. It should have no trouble passing in the Senate, since the Dems have the majority and no Republican in his right mind would dare risk being held responsible for economic catastrophe by filibustering.
Once the bill is passed it's handed over to the House, which will be a moment of truth for the Tea Party. As I see it, there's no question as to the outcome. They will fold.
Wonderful, you say? Not really. Because the Democrats are in total disarray. It's unlikely any of them can see clearly enough to offer up the simplest and most effective solution. After all their failed attempts they will most likely go down to the wire with one lame offer after another, which is exactly what their opponents expect. Holding NO cards at all, the Republicans will continue to bluff, offering nothing in return ever. If the Democrats then hold out, and they might, the "disaster" will be upon us. Checks won't get mailed, the markets will tumble and -- just as with the TARP -- congress will have "second thoughts," the Democrats will act "responsibly" (what a laugh) and totally capitulate to all Republican demands. At that point, the debt limit will get raised. And that will be the death of the Democratic Party.
So long, suckers.
Meanwhile I've been enjoying all the sturm und drang over raising the debt limit, which is playing out more or less as I'd predicted.
The Republicans finally caved as I knew they'd have to. Mitch McConnell, under extreme pressure, I'm sure, from his billionaire controllers, offered a plan that would have handed off the tough decision-making to Obama, correctly noting in a media interview that the Republicans have a lot more to lose over this battle than the Democrats. It's always been clear to me that the Dems are holding ALL the cards in this matter and the Republicans basically none. The only problem is: Obama can't play poker worth shit!
In a gaffe worthy of George Bush II, he even dared them to "call my bluff." Sorry, Barack, you call the other guy's bluff, you don't invite him to call yours. You want him to believe you are NOT bluffing. Sheesh, what a hopeless fool the President I voted for is turning out to be. Also, when the other player folds, you don't entice him to stay in the game by adding more money to the pot.
The game is up for the Republicans, but they know how to bluff and our President is clueless. Don't dare them to call YOUR bluff -- call THEIRS, you idiot!
At this point, the adults in the Democratic Party need to convince their boy wonder to go play a few rounds of golf and leave the Republican diehards to the hardened veterans. Surely someone in the Party (maybe Biden?) understands poker well enough to realize the other side has lost and all that's needed is a show of cards.
In short, what needs to be done is for the Democrats in the Senate to present a plain vanilla bill that simply raises the debt limit and NOTHING more. No more wheeling, no more dealing, no more offers hoping for counter-offers that are never ever offered. In other words all the Dems need do is invite their opponents to show their hand. Are they or are they not willing to raise the debt limit? That's ALL that's needed, just that one simple bill. It should have no trouble passing in the Senate, since the Dems have the majority and no Republican in his right mind would dare risk being held responsible for economic catastrophe by filibustering.
Once the bill is passed it's handed over to the House, which will be a moment of truth for the Tea Party. As I see it, there's no question as to the outcome. They will fold.
Wonderful, you say? Not really. Because the Democrats are in total disarray. It's unlikely any of them can see clearly enough to offer up the simplest and most effective solution. After all their failed attempts they will most likely go down to the wire with one lame offer after another, which is exactly what their opponents expect. Holding NO cards at all, the Republicans will continue to bluff, offering nothing in return ever. If the Democrats then hold out, and they might, the "disaster" will be upon us. Checks won't get mailed, the markets will tumble and -- just as with the TARP -- congress will have "second thoughts," the Democrats will act "responsibly" (what a laugh) and totally capitulate to all Republican demands. At that point, the debt limit will get raised. And that will be the death of the Democratic Party.
So long, suckers.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
My Letter to the NY Times
At this point I don't know what to think about the Bin Laden mystery. We're not hearing any denials from any of the witnesses. No one has come forward to dispute the identity of the wives or children who were present. They're showing videos of Bin Laden watching himself on TV. Al Qaeda has acknowledged his death, for whatever that's worth. (Normally any pronouncement from that quarter would be widely ridiculed but in this case everyone seems to be taking it at face value.)
I'm still puzzled as to why they felt they had to dispose of the body so quickly and I'm annoyed over Obama's unwillingness to release the photos, but on balance it looks like they actually did off the guy, and on balance I have to admit that it's OK with me. Only I wish they did it in a less cowardly and reprehensible way. I am moreover deeply distressed that they felt they had to kill others on the scene, who may or may not have shared his guilt to the same degree. Surely those people deserved a fair trial even if you want to agree that Bin Laden didn't. But most of all I am incensed that they lied about the incident, and lied in the most reprehensible possible way, by making cold blooded murder look like heroism.
Maureen Dowd has written a particularly disgusting editorial in the NY Times, entitled Killing Evil Doesn't Make Us Evil, and I felt obliged to respond. This is what I wrote:
I'm still puzzled as to why they felt they had to dispose of the body so quickly and I'm annoyed over Obama's unwillingness to release the photos, but on balance it looks like they actually did off the guy, and on balance I have to admit that it's OK with me. Only I wish they did it in a less cowardly and reprehensible way. I am moreover deeply distressed that they felt they had to kill others on the scene, who may or may not have shared his guilt to the same degree. Surely those people deserved a fair trial even if you want to agree that Bin Laden didn't. But most of all I am incensed that they lied about the incident, and lied in the most reprehensible possible way, by making cold blooded murder look like heroism.
Maureen Dowd has written a particularly disgusting editorial in the NY Times, entitled Killing Evil Doesn't Make Us Evil, and I felt obliged to respond. This is what I wrote:
Our soldiers killed an unarmed man in cold blood when they could just as easily have captured him. And by the way they also killed some other people, including a child. What was THAT for? Moreoever, our President lied about it, making it into some sort of heroic firefight when it was nothing of the sort. The was no "fog of war," so why was it so hard for those in charge to get the story straight? Looks to me as though the truth came out only after they reminded themselves that there were witnesses present. Guess they forgot to kill everyone on the premises, what an embarrassing oversight.
I'll never again believe another word this President or anyone in his administration says about anything. I voted for him once, but no more. And I have no use for you, either, Maureen. Killing evil may not be evil, but killing innocent bystanders for no reason is. And lying about it to make yourself look better is. Too bad you don't get it.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
More reasons for doubting the official Bin Laden story
But first, I just discovered the following very interesting items on the 'net. From the NY Times: Obama Says He Won't Release Photos of Bin Laden's Corpse. And from Citizens for Legitimate Government: CIA Denies Bin Laden Was Captured Before Killed. "The CIA categorically denies two stories coming out of Pakistan, sourced to bin Laden family members: 1) that Osama bin Laden was captured at the scene and then killed minutes afterward; this from his daughter. 2) that a second bin Laden son, Mohammed, was thrown on the chopper as it departed Abbottabad. "We categorically deny both of those," said a CIA spokesman."
Both stories, sadly, confirm my suspicions, as expressed in the previous post. And also my deepest fears, not only about what actually may have happened (which seems bad enough) but also regarding what all the conspiracy theorists are going to make of them and also what ordinary people all over the world are going to think. In short, this REALLY LOOKS BAD!!!!!
Here are my reasons for doubting the story they've put out:
First, we have to consider how unlikely it would have been for Bin Laden to choose that particular place to hang out. Even if he was under the "protection" of the Pakistani military, the man had a huge price on his head -- so why tempt some soldier who might spot him or get wind of his presence and decide to rat him out?
How could he possibly have entered that compound un-noticed? Did they find a tunnel? Not that I've heard. By helicopter? How many suspicions would that have raised? It's a military site and they have checkpoints everywhere. People have to present ID. We're talking about a 6'5" Arab whose age is known. How does he get past the guards? Even assuming they've been bribed, how do you risk even one of them deciding to blow the whistle and collect millions in reward money?
How could they be sure they weren't being deliberately set up? Suppose Bin Laden hatched a plot to make it look like he was there, complete with "wife" to rush to "his" defense and then ID "him." They said his "wife" called out his name. What would she have said? "Get out of here Osama Bin Laden, they're after you"? Isn't that a bit wordy? Did any of them speak Arabic? Could they even understand what she said? If it's a setup then it's a great one. Either the mission fails and they have to admit an embarrassing mistake. Or the mission "succeeds" and they manage to convince the world he's dead when he's not. Clearly a win win for Bin Laden and a disaster for the rest of us.
Also, how do you claim he was IDed by his wife? If you don't know the guy's identity then you don't know the "wife's" identity either. Who IDed the "wife"?
We learned recently from Panetta what I'd already suspected (see yesterday's post): they actually had no evidence whatsoever that Bin Laden was on the premises. They were operating on a hope and a prayer. Chances of failure were awfully high, as were chances of a major embarrassment. Somebody stuck his neck way out there and it looks like that somebody might well be trying really hard to cover his ass with a raft of lies.
So what if it's a "Muslim custom" to bury the dead within 24 hours. Show me a directive from any branch of the US military insisting that all Muslim combatants killed on the battlefield get buried within that time frame. Suddenly this is official US policy? If you want to convince us then prove it. Show us the directive.
If they were looking for OBL and he was unarmed, as they now admit, then the first concern would be to identify him, NOT shoot him in the head and blow half his brains out. So the story I've quoted above, which is apparently coming from his "daughter," rings true. If they actually found someone that resembled Bin Laden, they'd have photographed him and sent the photos off for identification. They'd have then taken a blood sample. And they would have held this person until they were sure it was actually him. Once he's been IDed, and if it actually was him (which I strongly doubt) then a decision would have to be made whether to hold him for trial or simply execute him on the spot. There's NO WAY they'd have decided to immediatly get him on board a boat and bury him at sea, that makes no sense at all. Unless it's not really him, in which case it does make some (twisted) sense, because if it's not him, you and your buddies are guilty of murdering those people on the first floor (remember them?). And if it IS him, then the first thing you want to do is make sure the rest of the world accepts that it's him by encouraging an independent autopsy and DNA testing by independent agencies. All we have at this point is the word of the (ever-(un)reliable) CIA. How convincing is that?
I feel sure they have photos. Of some guy who maybe looks a bit like Bin Laden, but isn't him. The photos probably reveal no wound, because they would have been taken prior to executing the poor guy, for identification purposes. How do you identify a face with a huge hole in it? And why take a picture after you've done such an awful deed? As proof of your guilt?
I've been defending Obama up till now because I've always been convinced of his basic honesty. But now I have doubts, because by now he has to be extremely suspicious, and he has to have seen whatever photos were taken. But I suppose he sees that it's too late now to back down and confess that, "Hey folks, maybe we goofed. Maybe it wasn't Bin Laden after all."
And I'm sorry, but this is the 21st century folks, and we've been subject to all sorts of violent images for many years now. I remember seeing a horrible photo in the National Enquirer of Jayne Mansfield after her auto accident, with most of her brains hanging out. I remember seeing a large gathering of high school students, fascinated by the video of Daniel Pearl being beheaded, as transmitted via a school computer. I couldn't watch, but they did.
So when Obama tells us it would be "inappropriate" to make public the one piece of evidence that might be used to confirm the story he's putting out, I have to confess: I cringe.
Both stories, sadly, confirm my suspicions, as expressed in the previous post. And also my deepest fears, not only about what actually may have happened (which seems bad enough) but also regarding what all the conspiracy theorists are going to make of them and also what ordinary people all over the world are going to think. In short, this REALLY LOOKS BAD!!!!!
Here are my reasons for doubting the story they've put out:
First, we have to consider how unlikely it would have been for Bin Laden to choose that particular place to hang out. Even if he was under the "protection" of the Pakistani military, the man had a huge price on his head -- so why tempt some soldier who might spot him or get wind of his presence and decide to rat him out?
How could he possibly have entered that compound un-noticed? Did they find a tunnel? Not that I've heard. By helicopter? How many suspicions would that have raised? It's a military site and they have checkpoints everywhere. People have to present ID. We're talking about a 6'5" Arab whose age is known. How does he get past the guards? Even assuming they've been bribed, how do you risk even one of them deciding to blow the whistle and collect millions in reward money?
How could they be sure they weren't being deliberately set up? Suppose Bin Laden hatched a plot to make it look like he was there, complete with "wife" to rush to "his" defense and then ID "him." They said his "wife" called out his name. What would she have said? "Get out of here Osama Bin Laden, they're after you"? Isn't that a bit wordy? Did any of them speak Arabic? Could they even understand what she said? If it's a setup then it's a great one. Either the mission fails and they have to admit an embarrassing mistake. Or the mission "succeeds" and they manage to convince the world he's dead when he's not. Clearly a win win for Bin Laden and a disaster for the rest of us.
Also, how do you claim he was IDed by his wife? If you don't know the guy's identity then you don't know the "wife's" identity either. Who IDed the "wife"?
We learned recently from Panetta what I'd already suspected (see yesterday's post): they actually had no evidence whatsoever that Bin Laden was on the premises. They were operating on a hope and a prayer. Chances of failure were awfully high, as were chances of a major embarrassment. Somebody stuck his neck way out there and it looks like that somebody might well be trying really hard to cover his ass with a raft of lies.
So what if it's a "Muslim custom" to bury the dead within 24 hours. Show me a directive from any branch of the US military insisting that all Muslim combatants killed on the battlefield get buried within that time frame. Suddenly this is official US policy? If you want to convince us then prove it. Show us the directive.
If they were looking for OBL and he was unarmed, as they now admit, then the first concern would be to identify him, NOT shoot him in the head and blow half his brains out. So the story I've quoted above, which is apparently coming from his "daughter," rings true. If they actually found someone that resembled Bin Laden, they'd have photographed him and sent the photos off for identification. They'd have then taken a blood sample. And they would have held this person until they were sure it was actually him. Once he's been IDed, and if it actually was him (which I strongly doubt) then a decision would have to be made whether to hold him for trial or simply execute him on the spot. There's NO WAY they'd have decided to immediatly get him on board a boat and bury him at sea, that makes no sense at all. Unless it's not really him, in which case it does make some (twisted) sense, because if it's not him, you and your buddies are guilty of murdering those people on the first floor (remember them?). And if it IS him, then the first thing you want to do is make sure the rest of the world accepts that it's him by encouraging an independent autopsy and DNA testing by independent agencies. All we have at this point is the word of the (ever-(un)reliable) CIA. How convincing is that?
I feel sure they have photos. Of some guy who maybe looks a bit like Bin Laden, but isn't him. The photos probably reveal no wound, because they would have been taken prior to executing the poor guy, for identification purposes. How do you identify a face with a huge hole in it? And why take a picture after you've done such an awful deed? As proof of your guilt?
I've been defending Obama up till now because I've always been convinced of his basic honesty. But now I have doubts, because by now he has to be extremely suspicious, and he has to have seen whatever photos were taken. But I suppose he sees that it's too late now to back down and confess that, "Hey folks, maybe we goofed. Maybe it wasn't Bin Laden after all."
And I'm sorry, but this is the 21st century folks, and we've been subject to all sorts of violent images for many years now. I remember seeing a horrible photo in the National Enquirer of Jayne Mansfield after her auto accident, with most of her brains hanging out. I remember seeing a large gathering of high school students, fascinated by the video of Daniel Pearl being beheaded, as transmitted via a school computer. I couldn't watch, but they did.
So when Obama tells us it would be "inappropriate" to make public the one piece of evidence that might be used to confirm the story he's putting out, I have to confess: I cringe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)