[In response to a Jazzman Chronicle reprinted below.]
Well said. Delivered with the intelligence, scope and precision of the finest political writing. Much closer in that regard to the founders than anything you're likely to ready anywhere in the major presses. Thank you for your perseverance. We need that now and always.
I keep thinking of something Robert McNamara said when he returned with some of his American counterparts to meet with his former enemies in Vietnam decades later. One of them asked him, "Did you not know the history of Vietnam? Every country around us and many countries from all over the world have invaded and all of them have left defeated. We are still here."
It's obvious that the Bush administration never bothered to study history, any history, let alone Afghanistan. They ignored the fact the English pieced the country together out of warring tribes, just as they did in Iraq. They ignored the fact the British could not control Afghanistan and after a long struggle, they abandoned it. The British empire was crumbling as they left. They even ignored history so recent that even their children and grandchildren knew it. The Soviets invaded with the same results. They left as the Soviet empire crumbled.
We knew this going into Afghanistan. But we went anyway. Al Queda finally found the trigger and pulled it when they could be certain of a massive, unrelenting response. An unified multinational force is the only possible answer in the short run. Troops from all over the world, relatively small numbers from each nation, adapting to each shift of position, applying pressure, making it clear that they will not be there permanently. Eventually U.S. troops and those of other nations beyond the region will have to leave, just as we will eventually have to develop domestic energy resources and leave the entire region to settle its own problems or fight one another forever.
Civilization as we define it began in the middle east (and probably China and other places as well). We will never control the region. Not Alexander, not even the Persians themselves, could hold the region for more than a few years.
We are in deep now, but we don't have to be. The world should be put on notice that our time there is limited and that we have the skill, innovative drive, and resources to free ourselves of economic and cultural ties to the region (including Israel). We should have never been there to begin with. We simply cannot stay there forever if we wish to survive.
Jake Berry
THE AFGHAN TRAP REVISITED: COMPOUNDING OUR MISTAKES
By Jack Random
Let’s assume that the group of people who planned and executed the September 2001 attack on America’s institutions of finance, the military and an unknown third target (I would have thought the CIA in Langley, Virginia) were something more capable than idiots. Let us assume they had at least a notion of a plan that went beyond hitting us where it hurts.
The American response to such an attack was not difficult to predict: We would identify a likely enemy and strike with the awesome might of the world’s most powerful military.
Our response may have gone beyond what the enemy predicted. If they had knowledge of the then residents of the halls of power, they could have predicted a war in Iraq. Though unrelated to the attack and the attackers, Iraq was a war the White House wanted for reasons as obvious as a solar eclipse.
They may have known that we would attack Iraq but they were certain that we would attack the nation that unwittingly hosted them: Afghanistan. They would have predicted that our zeal to display our awesome powers of destruction would cut short any discussion with the ruling Taliban. They would have predicted that our pride and stubborn determination would lead us further and further into the Afghan trap where we would awaken years later to find that we can neither go forward nor get out.
As any foreign power might have told us: there is no winning a war in Afghanistan. There is only a slow, painful death.
Our military commanders tell us what they are supposed to tell us. It is not in their vocabulary to lose a war once it has begun. They tell us what they need to win tempered by what the public will accept. Instead of saying we need to exterminate half the Afghan population and annihilate the northern provinces of Pakistan, the commander requests another 30 to 40 thousand troops. If he gets them have no doubt there will be another request six months down the road and another and another until at length we are in so far we can neither go forward nor get out.
We are in the process of doing precisely what our attackers wanted us to do.
But the commanders and their defenders in Washington protest: The surge will work just as it did in Iraq. Never in the annals of military history has the truth been so deviously distorted. When true history is written, it will record that the American occupation forces in Iraq, trapped and cornered in a spiral descent, made a deal with the enemy. We would give them arms and money (just as we did the Mujahideen in Soviet occupied Afghanistan) to fight against a common foe. They took our money, our weapons and our ammunition on the condition that we would agree to withdraw our forces from the battlefield.
So what have we won in Iraq? Have we won control of the oilfields we so coveted? Have we won a more loyal ally in the region than our former ally in Saddam Hussein? Have we weakened our regional adversary in Iran? Have we secured the democratic form of government?
We have in fact accomplished none of these. We have in fact strengthened Iran, lost our influence over the oil, and the only thing less certain than Iraqi democracy is the prospect of Iraqi unity and peace. As the Hollywood oil man famously opined: There will be blood. There will be a fight for control of Iraq that will likely tear that creation of the British mandate apart. It will be a battle that will stretch on for years and decades and perhaps even centuries and in the end we will have little say over who wins and loses.
As it is in Iraq so it is in Afghanistan but more so. We find ourselves in the same dilemma that confronted the Soviets in the fateful year of 1987. Before the occupation Soviet military commanders warned that Afghanistan was a trap. It was a nation of disparate tribes that could only be united by a foreign occupier. It was a war the Soviets could not win but it would suck the life out of the Soviet treasury like the unquenchable thirst of a vampire. Soviet political leaders would hear none of it. They were the mighty Soviets. They would prevail where no one had before. Once it became clear they could not prevail they were afraid to fail, afraid to be embarrassed as the Americans had been in Vietnam. They were caught in the Afghan trap.
Flash forward to today. The situation in Iraq is unstable even as we prepare the withdrawal of the vast majority of our troops. The situation in Afghanistan is a spiral descent. The Karzai government has revealed itself as hopelessly corrupt. The Afghan model of democracy was clearly Florida 2000 in which votes can be manipulated to the desired outcome at the command of the government in office. (To Obama’s credit, it was not acceptable to the new White House.) We are sponsoring murderers, thieves and drug dealers even as we condemn the enemy for doing the same.
We are losing the war not because we have the wrong strategy and not because we lack the soldiers. We are losing the war for the same reason the Soviets lost: It is not our land to win or lose. The Afghanis may play with us for some time. They may take our weapons. Some may take our money. Whatever they promise or bargain away, in the end we will leave and they will decide for themselves who rules their land.
Our legitimate objectives in Afghanistan are (a) eliminating terrorist cells and training centers intent on attacking our people or assets and (b) ensuring that nuclear weapons in Pakistan are not transferred to irresponsible hands.
Despite the bravado of our former president, we have always known that the mission in this part of the world is one of intelligence gathering and precise covert military action backed up by prosecutions in international courts of law.
It is time we stopped playing by the script of our enemy and started standing for the cause of justice. We are not engaged in a battle of civilizations. We are upholding the rule of law.
From any rational perspective the Afghan president by embracing the illegitimacy of his government has enabled the American president to find the most direct path out of this hopeless quagmire. Clearly, the kind of democracy Karzai envisioned is the kind illustrated by Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Dick Nixon in a former era. It is the kind of democracy practiced in Russia, Iran and countless African states. It is the kind that does not leave the important questions government in the hands of a mindless rabble.
That kind of blatantly undemocratic reasoning might have brought no more than a chuckle from our previous administration as they blindly pressed on with their predetermined agenda of empire building but it should not be acceptable to our current president.
In the beginning many of us were willing to give Karzai the benefit of the doubt. So what if he was a lackey for the oil industry? So what if he had a history of corruption? Anyone who takes the stage in international politics has danced with the devil once or twice. This was his chance to come clean. Instead, by embracing the dark side of electoral politics and rejecting the very concept of democracy, Karzai has become our worst Afghan nightmare. He gives the lie to the benevolence of the American occupation.
It is not in our national interest to uphold a corrupt and unlawful government. It is not in our interest to maintain an occupation indefinitely. Our only interests are fighting the violent extremists who threaten us and maintaining a stable government in nuclear Pakistan. Both objectives would be better achieved by maintaining a small footprint in the region and by withdrawing the bulk of our military presence.
However we may despise the Taliban for their archaic beliefs it was a mistake to declare them the enemy alongside Al Qaeda. The Taliban had no part in the planning or execution of the terror attacks on America. When we declared war on the Taliban we compelled them to join ranks with Al Qaeda. We simultaneously committed ourselves to an unwinnable war. With eyes wide open and led by arrogant folly we marched into the world’s deepest muck hole.
When we made our mission not a surgical strike by Special Forces to eradicate Al Qaeda but a full-scale invasion and occupation, it was a mistake of epic proportions. When we announced to the world that our goal was not to subjugate the Afghan people but to establish a working democracy, we ought to have kept our word.
A democracy is not a packaged good. It is a process and a very messy process under the best of conditions. The most basic premise of a democracy is that all segments of the population must be represented. You do not disenfranchise those with whom you do not agree. No matter how repugnant we may find a group’s beliefs, in a democracy we provide equal access to the electoral process. To exclude a segment of the electorate (as we did the Sunnis in Iraq) is to guarantee a civil war.
We must remember that in the broad scope of history, our own nation disenfranchised women and minorities until only yesterday. Imagine that a foreign power took control of our government and excluded Mormons or Jews or evangelical Christians for their archaic beliefs. The most secular of Americans would never accept that kind of manipulation in betrayal of the democratic ideal.
The way forward in Afghanistan is clear. We must correct the errors of the past. If it is still possible we must invite the Taliban to join the electoral process and we must make sure that the process is fair and equitable to all Afghanis.
The Taliban is not our rightful enemy on the field of battle. They are our adversaries in the universe of ideas. That is a battle we can and will win for we carry the forces of justice and destiny on our side.
What has happened in Afghanistan is shameful. There is no redemption for the kind of corruption the Karzai government has shown. We cannot defend them. We must therefore ensure that a fair and open electoral process sweeps them away into the dustbin of history.
The only agreement we should and can require of the Afghan government is one the Taliban would surely have agreed to nine years ago: a modest presence across the landscape from which to operate a continued assault on those who attacked us and those who intend to attack us and those who similarly threaten the nuclear stability of neighboring Pakistan.
That is our legitimate interest in the region and it is the best scenario we could possibly hope for at this stage of the game.
Jazz.
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON NUMEROUS CITES OF THE WORLDWIDE WEB, INCLUDING THE ALBION MONITOR, BELLACIAO, BUZZLE, COUNTERPUNCH, DISSIDENT VOICE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS AND PACIFIC FREE PRESS. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.
Showing posts with label Jake's Word. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jake's Word. Show all posts
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
JAKE BERRY'S RESPONSE TO KEITH OLBERMANN’S SPECIAL COMMENTARY ON HEALTHCARE
Olbermann is eloquent as always. And he utilizes a tool that most journalists either do not have or fear to use – a vocabulary. Maybe the words are written by someone else, but regardless, this is proof that intelligent use of the language can of itself be persuasive.
I agree with Olbermann, but that's no surprise. I have always felt that we should seek to collectively try to create a society that is compassionate before all else.
But in a free and open society, we are also free to be subjected to manipulation by those who are greedy to acquire and maintain their hold on power even if it means many others will die, even if it means that they themselves will die sooner than necessary. Power has its own directive. It seeks to consume, to control and drive the whole world to a massive, bloody conclusion merely for the ability to say "I had," "I have," and "I am above all others." It is ego written as large as the universe and once you have tasted even a small portion of it you cannot let it go without personal sacrifice because anything or anyone you believe you have conquered is now a part of you and to lose it means losing something more precious than life in the future, it means losing that part of your self right now. It means a small, immediate death. Once this contagion grips you you will do anything to protect it. That is the contagion, the real disease at the heart of the problem.* Many people – probably a majority now – believe that healthcare reform means that they will lose a part of themselves. This despite the fact that they do not actually possess what it is they are afraid of losing.
Once again we will fail because we prefer to react before we think. The leadership in and out of government, those who will ultimately make the decision about healthcare, has been horrible on all sides and from all corners. No one has spoken directly and clearly about the issue. Olbermann comes as close to it as anyone I have read or heard when he says that the issue comes down to the simple fact - "I want to live." We can make the apparently complex issue much clearer by asking a few questions. Here they are:
Does everyone in this country have the same right to live as everyone else?
If you are rich do you have a greater right to live than if you are poor?
If you are poor is it your obligation to become wealthy enough to pay for health insurance and all other health costs no matter how rapidly those costs continue to rise?
Should we cut healthcare costs by simply eliminating those who cannot afford it from the system? More directly, should we allow the poor to die because they are too poor to afford healthcare?
And how much will the cost of healthcare have to rise before you become one of those who can no longer afford to pay for it and be condemned to death?
Life is precious. The life we have is all we know. But as Olbermann states so eloquently, and as we all know, we all must die. How long do you want to live? Do you want to live as long as you are able to speak and hear and know the world around you? If so, you will need to live healthy and need a reliable system of healthcare to help you return to health when you inevitably fall ill. Do you have that right? If you do, does everyone else as well? Where do you draw the line? In the U.S. it appears that the line will be drawn with dollars. Life will be equated with wealth. The richer you are the longer you live. If that is the choice we make. So be it. We have always had a talent for ignoring the suffering of others with the exception of short term emergencies. Oh, there are those few who will give to the poor or help out in other ways. A few will even dedicate their entire lives to alleviating the suffering of others. But most of us are better at ignoring pain and suffering until it touches us. Then we want it to go away. In short, we want to live.
Do I matter more than you? I don't think that I do. And it doesn't bother me that I have less money in my pocket because someone else who is suffering tonight draws on medicaid or medicare or some other publicly funded program. But those programs are in fact underfunded and medicaid in particular is one reason that healthcare costs continue to rise. Another reason might be that pharmaceutical companies, as a group, spend half their budgets on advertising drugs (most of which cannot be acquired without a prescription). But I am obviously a socialist, right? If you believe that you believe a lie. And I am one of many millions.
Consider the questions and consider how you will feel if you fall on the bad side of the equation.
This is the way I speak to myself when it comes to the issue of healthcare. I am not sure that there is a solution. But can't we at least try to find a way for everyone to live as long as they can or as long as they chose? Maybe the answer is simply to leave things alone and let the system collapse. Maybe a better system will replace it based on supply and demand alone. I doubt it, but I'm beginning to think we're going to find out.
INFNITIES
jk
* Editor's Note: Despite the best efforts of the healthcare industry, the public continues to strongly support healthcare reform in general and the public option in particular. Another way to look at the debate is this: If healthcare is a right and not a privilege then it is immoral to profit by it. The health insurance industry serves no useful purpose to the general public. It should eliminated by the most direct means possible. Further, profit making corporations should not be allowed to own and operate hospitals and healthcare clinics any more than such corporations should be allowed to run schools, fire stations, police forces and the military. We are told to be afraid of government (i.e., socialism) but we ought to be afraid of the corporate takeover that is unfolding before our weary eyes.
I agree with Olbermann, but that's no surprise. I have always felt that we should seek to collectively try to create a society that is compassionate before all else.
But in a free and open society, we are also free to be subjected to manipulation by those who are greedy to acquire and maintain their hold on power even if it means many others will die, even if it means that they themselves will die sooner than necessary. Power has its own directive. It seeks to consume, to control and drive the whole world to a massive, bloody conclusion merely for the ability to say "I had," "I have," and "I am above all others." It is ego written as large as the universe and once you have tasted even a small portion of it you cannot let it go without personal sacrifice because anything or anyone you believe you have conquered is now a part of you and to lose it means losing something more precious than life in the future, it means losing that part of your self right now. It means a small, immediate death. Once this contagion grips you you will do anything to protect it. That is the contagion, the real disease at the heart of the problem.* Many people – probably a majority now – believe that healthcare reform means that they will lose a part of themselves. This despite the fact that they do not actually possess what it is they are afraid of losing.
Once again we will fail because we prefer to react before we think. The leadership in and out of government, those who will ultimately make the decision about healthcare, has been horrible on all sides and from all corners. No one has spoken directly and clearly about the issue. Olbermann comes as close to it as anyone I have read or heard when he says that the issue comes down to the simple fact - "I want to live." We can make the apparently complex issue much clearer by asking a few questions. Here they are:
Does everyone in this country have the same right to live as everyone else?
If you are rich do you have a greater right to live than if you are poor?
If you are poor is it your obligation to become wealthy enough to pay for health insurance and all other health costs no matter how rapidly those costs continue to rise?
Should we cut healthcare costs by simply eliminating those who cannot afford it from the system? More directly, should we allow the poor to die because they are too poor to afford healthcare?
And how much will the cost of healthcare have to rise before you become one of those who can no longer afford to pay for it and be condemned to death?
Life is precious. The life we have is all we know. But as Olbermann states so eloquently, and as we all know, we all must die. How long do you want to live? Do you want to live as long as you are able to speak and hear and know the world around you? If so, you will need to live healthy and need a reliable system of healthcare to help you return to health when you inevitably fall ill. Do you have that right? If you do, does everyone else as well? Where do you draw the line? In the U.S. it appears that the line will be drawn with dollars. Life will be equated with wealth. The richer you are the longer you live. If that is the choice we make. So be it. We have always had a talent for ignoring the suffering of others with the exception of short term emergencies. Oh, there are those few who will give to the poor or help out in other ways. A few will even dedicate their entire lives to alleviating the suffering of others. But most of us are better at ignoring pain and suffering until it touches us. Then we want it to go away. In short, we want to live.
Do I matter more than you? I don't think that I do. And it doesn't bother me that I have less money in my pocket because someone else who is suffering tonight draws on medicaid or medicare or some other publicly funded program. But those programs are in fact underfunded and medicaid in particular is one reason that healthcare costs continue to rise. Another reason might be that pharmaceutical companies, as a group, spend half their budgets on advertising drugs (most of which cannot be acquired without a prescription). But I am obviously a socialist, right? If you believe that you believe a lie. And I am one of many millions.
Consider the questions and consider how you will feel if you fall on the bad side of the equation.
This is the way I speak to myself when it comes to the issue of healthcare. I am not sure that there is a solution. But can't we at least try to find a way for everyone to live as long as they can or as long as they chose? Maybe the answer is simply to leave things alone and let the system collapse. Maybe a better system will replace it based on supply and demand alone. I doubt it, but I'm beginning to think we're going to find out.
INFNITIES
jk
* Editor's Note: Despite the best efforts of the healthcare industry, the public continues to strongly support healthcare reform in general and the public option in particular. Another way to look at the debate is this: If healthcare is a right and not a privilege then it is immoral to profit by it. The health insurance industry serves no useful purpose to the general public. It should eliminated by the most direct means possible. Further, profit making corporations should not be allowed to own and operate hospitals and healthcare clinics any more than such corporations should be allowed to run schools, fire stations, police forces and the military. We are told to be afraid of government (i.e., socialism) but we ought to be afraid of the corporate takeover that is unfolding before our weary eyes.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Mansel: Media from Dante to the Lost and Found
Chris Mansel's new blog: Media From Dante to the Lost and Found uses
the blog technology as well as any I have seen. Chris mines the net
for a range of interests so broad it is difficult to believe one
person covers all this terrain, and he has compiled these excerpts and
links in a little over a week. We can only imagine what the site will
be like in a few months.
Jake Berry
Explore for yourself at:
http://mediafromdantetothelostandfound.blogspot.com
the blog technology as well as any I have seen. Chris mines the net
for a range of interests so broad it is difficult to believe one
person covers all this terrain, and he has compiled these excerpts and
links in a little over a week. We can only imagine what the site will
be like in a few months.
Jake Berry
Explore for yourself at:
http://mediafromdantetothelostandfound.blogspot.com
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Jake's Word re: Unsung Casualties of War
None of the founders wrote or spoke more eloquent, or more important, words than these. When will we learn that the aggression in our nature does not need to serve the killing machine?
You may say I'm a dreamer
but I'm not the only one…
Somewhere out there, and in our hearts, he is waiting for us to join him.
On May 13, 2009, at 11:45 PM, Jack Random wrote:
If we gave as much time, money and effort to creating viable institutions of international justice as we have given to the perpetuation of war we would find that there is a growing community of nations on all continents, of diverse cultures and faiths, that are eager to join us. There is no demand for war so great that it cannot be overcome by the dispassionate and equal administration of justice.
From The Untold, Uncounted and Unsung Casualties of War.
You may say I'm a dreamer
but I'm not the only one…
Somewhere out there, and in our hearts, he is waiting for us to join him.
On May 13, 2009, at 11:45 PM, Jack Random wrote:
If we gave as much time, money and effort to creating viable institutions of international justice as we have given to the perpetuation of war we would find that there is a growing community of nations on all continents, of diverse cultures and faiths, that are eager to join us. There is no demand for war so great that it cannot be overcome by the dispassionate and equal administration of justice.
From The Untold, Uncounted and Unsung Casualties of War.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Jake's Word: End of The Net as We Know It
Subject: The end of unlimited internet
Dear Friends,
I loathe emails that try to alarm me, usually to sell advertising. I do not watch news or weather or read or listen to news or weather unless something is actually happening that might actually require my attention. For that reason I do not send out emails that encourage you to do anything other than suggest you drop in on new work at 9th St. Laboratories, or check out a site I found interesting.
This is an exception. If Time-Warner, Comcast and other large scale internet have their way the days of unlimited internet are over. You will pay for every byte you upload or download.
I believe that you don't need to find the news because real news will find you. Here is a link to the story as I heard it initially:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103041709
If we do not protest this blatant greed things will change for the worse. We will be looking back at the last 10 years as the golden era of the internet before the big money took control. There are already trials in some cities regardless of the protest.
We need to take action now. I have already written my internet provider, both my senators, my representative and the president.
If you need a template or an example here is the letter I wrote them, making the necessary adjustments for the parties to which the letter was directed:
This email is to voice my strong opposition to caps on internet usage. As you probably know some internet providers are currently changing the way they charge for the internet instead of simply requiring a charge for unlimited usage. The internet works quite well as it is currently structured. It is obvious that this is just another attempt by large corporate providers to take advantage of the consumer. I do not use the internet to download movies or any other high bandwidth demand beyond the occasional streaming video of a news story or video at YouTube. Still I believe that the current structure works, that the price is more than sufficient for a provider to make a substantial profit. If some of the changes that are currently in trial become general practice I will abandon the internet and no longer do business on any level with any company that manipulates its customers in order to boost profit. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,
XXX
Recent history is evidence to the fact that greed can and will destroy democracy and capitalism if we allow it to happen. I urge each of you to take action now.
I am sorry to distract you from your lives, but if I did not do it now, in a few months, or even weeks, i might not be able to afford to email you at all.
All the best,
Jake
Dear Friends,
I loathe emails that try to alarm me, usually to sell advertising. I do not watch news or weather or read or listen to news or weather unless something is actually happening that might actually require my attention. For that reason I do not send out emails that encourage you to do anything other than suggest you drop in on new work at 9th St. Laboratories, or check out a site I found interesting.
This is an exception. If Time-Warner, Comcast and other large scale internet have their way the days of unlimited internet are over. You will pay for every byte you upload or download.
I believe that you don't need to find the news because real news will find you. Here is a link to the story as I heard it initially:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103041709
If we do not protest this blatant greed things will change for the worse. We will be looking back at the last 10 years as the golden era of the internet before the big money took control. There are already trials in some cities regardless of the protest.
We need to take action now. I have already written my internet provider, both my senators, my representative and the president.
If you need a template or an example here is the letter I wrote them, making the necessary adjustments for the parties to which the letter was directed:
This email is to voice my strong opposition to caps on internet usage. As you probably know some internet providers are currently changing the way they charge for the internet instead of simply requiring a charge for unlimited usage. The internet works quite well as it is currently structured. It is obvious that this is just another attempt by large corporate providers to take advantage of the consumer. I do not use the internet to download movies or any other high bandwidth demand beyond the occasional streaming video of a news story or video at YouTube. Still I believe that the current structure works, that the price is more than sufficient for a provider to make a substantial profit. If some of the changes that are currently in trial become general practice I will abandon the internet and no longer do business on any level with any company that manipulates its customers in order to boost profit. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,
XXX
Recent history is evidence to the fact that greed can and will destroy democracy and capitalism if we allow it to happen. I urge each of you to take action now.
I am sorry to distract you from your lives, but if I did not do it now, in a few months, or even weeks, i might not be able to afford to email you at all.
All the best,
Jake
Monday, March 16, 2009
Jake's Word Re: The Real Economy & the Zero Solution
[A response to The Real Economy & the Zero Solution, reposted below.]
You've been on a roll lately and I've been so tied up with various projects all I have had time to do is read the essays. This essay is exceptional even for your high level of engagement, erudition and intelligence. The first paragraph is a shining example of how well you write. It kicks open the doors so that there is no way to ignore what is coming. The Zero Solution demands a response from people who are widely and deeply studied in economics (though not so much that they can't see the forest for the trees). The conversion of debt to credit sounds Hamiltonian to my ears and I think it might just work. I'm going to send this on to several people, including my nephew, with whom I was discussing economics a few days ago. He's a supporter of the Austrian School, which is a form of laissez-faire (which works as long as we are talking about a real and not a virtual economy and as long as there is transparency and rigid penalty for abuse of the system).
This essay affirms what your political essays always affirm, that we are more than consumers, more than taxpayers, we are citizens. As such we are obligated to participate in government to the extent provided (even demanded) by the constitution and our history as a democratic republic (demos and res publica - of, by, and for the people, all of them).
Keep it coming. I'm listening.
Jake
JAZZMAN CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.
THE REAL ECONOMY & THE ZERO SOLUTION
By Jack Random
“Looking backwards and with hindsight…if I’d have known exactly the forces that were coming, what actions could we have taken …to avoid this situation? And I just simply have not been able to come up with anything…that would have made a difference to the situation that we faced.”
Alan Schwartz, Former Chief Executive of Bear Stearns
Alan Schwartz is either delusional or a bald faced liar. Under his leadership a once powerful and respected institution of finance leveraged its diminishing wealth on a mountain of worthless mortgage based assets, covered their trail with accounting tricks and took risks with other people’s money that not even a compulsive gambler would take on his last dime.
When Bear Stearns collapsed a lot of real people took the hit but Schwartz escaped with his personal fortune intact. He was insulated from harm and a government that preferred to look the other way rather than perform their duty to regulate financial practices in the interest of stockholders and the public at large.
This week in what can only be characterized as the essence of audacity, the very same bankers who led the way to financial ruin and then lined up to receive their share of the public dole cried foul over the conditions imposed on them by a wary government.
Reminiscent of a scene in Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles, where a black sheriff holds a gun to his head and threatens to shoot unless the crowd lets him escape, the bankers threatened to give the money back unless the government loosens its restrictions.
The conditions these bankers found unbearable included limits on executive bonuses, the purchase of luxury jets, a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, mortgage modifications and restructured home loans.
Like a spoiled child who cannot have his pudding until he eats his vegetables, the bankers protest too much. Some announced their intention to return the money at the earliest convenience. Let them do so without delay. Any bank or financier who took government money unnecessarily on the pretense of imminent collapse is already guilty of betraying the public trust.
Any institution that actually believes trillions of dollars of public money should be handed over without strict conditions of accountability and oversight should be summarily denied funding on the basis of gross professional incompetence.
The numbers we have been hearing to describe the state of our economy (a rise in the stock market notwithstanding) are mind bending and unimaginable to the point of unreal. The stock market decline represented a staggering loss of $23 trillion in net worth and home values have lost a stunning eleven trillion. These are truly unreal amounts of money and they begin to put a new light on trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus plans. The amounts of money being floated around distort our quaint notions of economy beyond belief. It is doubtful that home values ever exceeded eleven trillion in real value at any given time so what are we to make of these numbers?
A clue is revealed by noted flat world and global free trade advocate Thomas Friedman in the New York Times: “Our heart – our banking system that pumps blood to our industrial muscles – is clogged and functioning far below capacity.”
While offering up an easy metaphor, Friedman reveals that in his conceptualization the heart, the core, the center of our economy is not industry, not the worker driven enterprises that construct homes, build bridges and invent useful products, but the bankers and financiers that spin numbers and create illusions of wealth.
The flaw is in the design. The heart of any healthy economy should be the industries – mechanical, chemical and technological – that create products of intrinsic value. The heart of any functioning economy should never be the money changers – the brokers and schemers and middle men who devise systems of finance that shield debts and create value where none in fact exists. Yet that is exactly what we have done.
We have placed our economy in the hands of individuals who worked tirelessly to export the real economy to nations that do not recognize labor rights and therefore do not pay living wages and erected in its place an artificial economy of formulae and financial derivatives that inevitably drifted away from its foundation.
These individuals are not substantially different in principle or moral grounding than Bernie Madoff or Ken Lay and his gang of thieves at Enron. The former defrauded innocent individual investors while the latter defrauded the west coast and transferred the wealth to Texas oil and gas industries. The executives of Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and American International Group defrauded all of us on a scale that makes Enron look like a two-bit hustler.
The leaders of the new economy were the designers and creators of the global free trade exploitation scheme and they were convinced that they could spin a virtual economy that would ascend forever and never be dependent on this year’s crops or production quotas or the financial well being of the very consumers that sustain the whole. Like Madoff, they believed they could run their Ponzi scheme to the end of time.
In a word, they were wrong.
The difficulty we now confront is that the collapse of their artificial economy has sent shock waves through the real world. It has released a poison that quickly spread to every corner of the globe. It is a tidal wave of toxicity that lays waste to everything it touches.
We have empowered the crooks and schemers by investing in them not only our retirement funds but also our faith and while it would serve justice to send them to jail or banish them to permanent unemployment it would do little to remedy the harm.
The remedy lies in recognizing the artificial nature of the economic beast they created to maximize profit at our expense. For while they have done great harm in eroding the savings and wages of the working consumers, the real economy remains capable of employing its people in useful enterprise and reestablishing the balance between a working middle class and the nonproductive elite.
Once we recognize that the model of economics they have handed us is by no means synonymous with the real world economy, a new world of possibilities opens up. We can essentially solve the problem of insolvent home ownership by hitting the reset button. By government decree, we can calculate the difference between mortgage values and home values and zero them out.
I call it the zero solution and it would work because it benefits all parties. It benefits the homeowner who has behaved responsibly, kept up with payments, yet watched depreciating home values threaten long-term security. It benefits homeowners who are the victims of unscrupulous loans and their own admittedly irrational dreams. Finally, it benefits the bankers and mortgage holders by converting bad debt to good.
Though the implications would have to be studied, preferably by a team of experts without a vested or ideological interest, and the details worked out, variations of the zero solution could be applied to personal and national-international debt as well, converting debt to credits by means of a central debt conversion fund.
It is admittedly a radical solution and one that could only be applied in extreme emergencies such as the crisis we face today. When we have survived the current crisis, it is imperative that we take all measures to ensure that the new and emerging economy is tied directly to the real economy, that it is calibrated to benefit workers as well as the financial elite, that it is transparent and subject to rigorous regulation, and that the working and consuming middle class is at its heart and core.
To some extent we all share responsibility for this crisis. We placed our faith in institutions that were solely motivated by the profit margin. We gave them free reign by protecting them from government oversight. What they did is what we should have expected them to do: They gamed the system and made off like bandits.
To a large extent we are paying the price of forgetting the lessons of the past. Whenever bankers and moneychangers are allowed to run wild, they inevitably drive the economy over a cliff. If we are to spare future generations the same fate, we must take those lessons to heart, including breaking up the monopolies and merger manias that have created monsters “too big to fail.”
The road ahead will be hard. The financial monsters will fight meaningful reform every step of the way and the Supreme Court is their corner. Nevertheless, we must work tirelessly to right the balance, to elect officials that represent the people over the money interests, and to pry the real economy out the hands of greed and avarice.
That is the road ahead. To get there, we must survive.
Jazz.
[This chronicle posted on the National Free Press -- World Edition.]
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). HE IS A COLUMNIST FOR THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS – WORLD EDITION. THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON THE ALBION MONITOR, BELLACIAO, BUZZLE, COUNTERPUNCH, DISSIDENT VOICE, THE DAILY SCARE, PACIFIC FREE PRESS AND CANADA NEWSDAILY. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.
You've been on a roll lately and I've been so tied up with various projects all I have had time to do is read the essays. This essay is exceptional even for your high level of engagement, erudition and intelligence. The first paragraph is a shining example of how well you write. It kicks open the doors so that there is no way to ignore what is coming. The Zero Solution demands a response from people who are widely and deeply studied in economics (though not so much that they can't see the forest for the trees). The conversion of debt to credit sounds Hamiltonian to my ears and I think it might just work. I'm going to send this on to several people, including my nephew, with whom I was discussing economics a few days ago. He's a supporter of the Austrian School, which is a form of laissez-faire (which works as long as we are talking about a real and not a virtual economy and as long as there is transparency and rigid penalty for abuse of the system).
This essay affirms what your political essays always affirm, that we are more than consumers, more than taxpayers, we are citizens. As such we are obligated to participate in government to the extent provided (even demanded) by the constitution and our history as a democratic republic (demos and res publica - of, by, and for the people, all of them).
Keep it coming. I'm listening.
Jake
JAZZMAN CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.
THE REAL ECONOMY & THE ZERO SOLUTION
By Jack Random
“Looking backwards and with hindsight…if I’d have known exactly the forces that were coming, what actions could we have taken …to avoid this situation? And I just simply have not been able to come up with anything…that would have made a difference to the situation that we faced.”
Alan Schwartz, Former Chief Executive of Bear Stearns
Alan Schwartz is either delusional or a bald faced liar. Under his leadership a once powerful and respected institution of finance leveraged its diminishing wealth on a mountain of worthless mortgage based assets, covered their trail with accounting tricks and took risks with other people’s money that not even a compulsive gambler would take on his last dime.
When Bear Stearns collapsed a lot of real people took the hit but Schwartz escaped with his personal fortune intact. He was insulated from harm and a government that preferred to look the other way rather than perform their duty to regulate financial practices in the interest of stockholders and the public at large.
This week in what can only be characterized as the essence of audacity, the very same bankers who led the way to financial ruin and then lined up to receive their share of the public dole cried foul over the conditions imposed on them by a wary government.
Reminiscent of a scene in Mel Brooks’ Blazing Saddles, where a black sheriff holds a gun to his head and threatens to shoot unless the crowd lets him escape, the bankers threatened to give the money back unless the government loosens its restrictions.
The conditions these bankers found unbearable included limits on executive bonuses, the purchase of luxury jets, a moratorium on foreclosures and evictions, mortgage modifications and restructured home loans.
Like a spoiled child who cannot have his pudding until he eats his vegetables, the bankers protest too much. Some announced their intention to return the money at the earliest convenience. Let them do so without delay. Any bank or financier who took government money unnecessarily on the pretense of imminent collapse is already guilty of betraying the public trust.
Any institution that actually believes trillions of dollars of public money should be handed over without strict conditions of accountability and oversight should be summarily denied funding on the basis of gross professional incompetence.
The numbers we have been hearing to describe the state of our economy (a rise in the stock market notwithstanding) are mind bending and unimaginable to the point of unreal. The stock market decline represented a staggering loss of $23 trillion in net worth and home values have lost a stunning eleven trillion. These are truly unreal amounts of money and they begin to put a new light on trillion dollar bailouts and stimulus plans. The amounts of money being floated around distort our quaint notions of economy beyond belief. It is doubtful that home values ever exceeded eleven trillion in real value at any given time so what are we to make of these numbers?
A clue is revealed by noted flat world and global free trade advocate Thomas Friedman in the New York Times: “Our heart – our banking system that pumps blood to our industrial muscles – is clogged and functioning far below capacity.”
While offering up an easy metaphor, Friedman reveals that in his conceptualization the heart, the core, the center of our economy is not industry, not the worker driven enterprises that construct homes, build bridges and invent useful products, but the bankers and financiers that spin numbers and create illusions of wealth.
The flaw is in the design. The heart of any healthy economy should be the industries – mechanical, chemical and technological – that create products of intrinsic value. The heart of any functioning economy should never be the money changers – the brokers and schemers and middle men who devise systems of finance that shield debts and create value where none in fact exists. Yet that is exactly what we have done.
We have placed our economy in the hands of individuals who worked tirelessly to export the real economy to nations that do not recognize labor rights and therefore do not pay living wages and erected in its place an artificial economy of formulae and financial derivatives that inevitably drifted away from its foundation.
These individuals are not substantially different in principle or moral grounding than Bernie Madoff or Ken Lay and his gang of thieves at Enron. The former defrauded innocent individual investors while the latter defrauded the west coast and transferred the wealth to Texas oil and gas industries. The executives of Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and American International Group defrauded all of us on a scale that makes Enron look like a two-bit hustler.
The leaders of the new economy were the designers and creators of the global free trade exploitation scheme and they were convinced that they could spin a virtual economy that would ascend forever and never be dependent on this year’s crops or production quotas or the financial well being of the very consumers that sustain the whole. Like Madoff, they believed they could run their Ponzi scheme to the end of time.
In a word, they were wrong.
The difficulty we now confront is that the collapse of their artificial economy has sent shock waves through the real world. It has released a poison that quickly spread to every corner of the globe. It is a tidal wave of toxicity that lays waste to everything it touches.
We have empowered the crooks and schemers by investing in them not only our retirement funds but also our faith and while it would serve justice to send them to jail or banish them to permanent unemployment it would do little to remedy the harm.
The remedy lies in recognizing the artificial nature of the economic beast they created to maximize profit at our expense. For while they have done great harm in eroding the savings and wages of the working consumers, the real economy remains capable of employing its people in useful enterprise and reestablishing the balance between a working middle class and the nonproductive elite.
Once we recognize that the model of economics they have handed us is by no means synonymous with the real world economy, a new world of possibilities opens up. We can essentially solve the problem of insolvent home ownership by hitting the reset button. By government decree, we can calculate the difference between mortgage values and home values and zero them out.
I call it the zero solution and it would work because it benefits all parties. It benefits the homeowner who has behaved responsibly, kept up with payments, yet watched depreciating home values threaten long-term security. It benefits homeowners who are the victims of unscrupulous loans and their own admittedly irrational dreams. Finally, it benefits the bankers and mortgage holders by converting bad debt to good.
Though the implications would have to be studied, preferably by a team of experts without a vested or ideological interest, and the details worked out, variations of the zero solution could be applied to personal and national-international debt as well, converting debt to credits by means of a central debt conversion fund.
It is admittedly a radical solution and one that could only be applied in extreme emergencies such as the crisis we face today. When we have survived the current crisis, it is imperative that we take all measures to ensure that the new and emerging economy is tied directly to the real economy, that it is calibrated to benefit workers as well as the financial elite, that it is transparent and subject to rigorous regulation, and that the working and consuming middle class is at its heart and core.
To some extent we all share responsibility for this crisis. We placed our faith in institutions that were solely motivated by the profit margin. We gave them free reign by protecting them from government oversight. What they did is what we should have expected them to do: They gamed the system and made off like bandits.
To a large extent we are paying the price of forgetting the lessons of the past. Whenever bankers and moneychangers are allowed to run wild, they inevitably drive the economy over a cliff. If we are to spare future generations the same fate, we must take those lessons to heart, including breaking up the monopolies and merger manias that have created monsters “too big to fail.”
The road ahead will be hard. The financial monsters will fight meaningful reform every step of the way and the Supreme Court is their corner. Nevertheless, we must work tirelessly to right the balance, to elect officials that represent the people over the money interests, and to pry the real economy out the hands of greed and avarice.
That is the road ahead. To get there, we must survive.
Jazz.
[This chronicle posted on the National Free Press -- World Edition.]
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). HE IS A COLUMNIST FOR THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS – WORLD EDITION. THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON THE ALBION MONITOR, BELLACIAO, BUZZLE, COUNTERPUNCH, DISSIDENT VOICE, THE DAILY SCARE, PACIFIC FREE PRESS AND CANADA NEWSDAILY. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Re: Gaza & the Silence of Obama
[Note: "The Gaza Assault: Last Ploy of the Neocons" by Jack Random was posted 1/8/09 on Peace-Earth-Justice (www.pej.org) and the National Free Press - World Edition.]
Thanks for all the recent articles. Sorry I have been unable to respond or even say thanks for the time and effort you put into each one, not to mention the wide array of insights and provocations that we behave as rational,compassionate creatures.
Now that we have finished the election (well, almost) and the settling of debris that follows each one, we can begin to see through the haze. The neocons obviously fear that an Obama administration will be fundamentally different in both foreign and domestic policy. The bailout was/is nothing more than paying the bills to the real masters of the game. Israel's sudden turn to all out war is an attempt to settle the score in Gaza just in case they lose U.S. support once the neocons leave office.
You are right. This is bait. Will Obama toe the line and support Israel unconditionally? Nothing he says right now can change Israel's assault so he is saying nothing. If he is nothing else Obama is careful when speaking officially about policy of any kind. He will be difficult to pin down.
I also remember the the last time this same group of thugs were departing the White House and a hopeful young man was moving in. They left impending disasters in Somalia and Waco. Even then one could not help but wonder if it was a set up. If it was Clinton fell for it and botched both situations. We are still suffering the consequences.
Neoconservatism is not a nationalism, even though that is precisely what it pretends to be under the name of patriotism. The neocons are capitalists first. They are a perfect fit for a Republican party that has been the party of big capital virtually from the start. After Jackson the country had swung hard in the direction of democracy (at least for qualified citizens - white men). Republicanism was in part an attempt to correct that shift and place power securely in the hands of the wealthy. That is what it is today and it is what neoconservatism attempts to enforce globally.
Will Obama make some adjustment in the other direction? He has the opportunity since at the moment capitalism is choking on its own excess. There's nothing but hard road ahead of him. We must wait and see.
Twelve days. How much more damage can be done. I am sure we're about to find out.
Take care brother. Keep us awake.
Peace,
Jake
Jake Berry (jakebridget@bellsouth.net)
Thanks for all the recent articles. Sorry I have been unable to respond or even say thanks for the time and effort you put into each one, not to mention the wide array of insights and provocations that we behave as rational,compassionate creatures.
Now that we have finished the election (well, almost) and the settling of debris that follows each one, we can begin to see through the haze. The neocons obviously fear that an Obama administration will be fundamentally different in both foreign and domestic policy. The bailout was/is nothing more than paying the bills to the real masters of the game. Israel's sudden turn to all out war is an attempt to settle the score in Gaza just in case they lose U.S. support once the neocons leave office.
You are right. This is bait. Will Obama toe the line and support Israel unconditionally? Nothing he says right now can change Israel's assault so he is saying nothing. If he is nothing else Obama is careful when speaking officially about policy of any kind. He will be difficult to pin down.
I also remember the the last time this same group of thugs were departing the White House and a hopeful young man was moving in. They left impending disasters in Somalia and Waco. Even then one could not help but wonder if it was a set up. If it was Clinton fell for it and botched both situations. We are still suffering the consequences.
Neoconservatism is not a nationalism, even though that is precisely what it pretends to be under the name of patriotism. The neocons are capitalists first. They are a perfect fit for a Republican party that has been the party of big capital virtually from the start. After Jackson the country had swung hard in the direction of democracy (at least for qualified citizens - white men). Republicanism was in part an attempt to correct that shift and place power securely in the hands of the wealthy. That is what it is today and it is what neoconservatism attempts to enforce globally.
Will Obama make some adjustment in the other direction? He has the opportunity since at the moment capitalism is choking on its own excess. There's nothing but hard road ahead of him. We must wait and see.
Twelve days. How much more damage can be done. I am sure we're about to find out.
Take care brother. Keep us awake.
Peace,
Jake
Jake Berry (jakebridget@bellsouth.net)
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Jake Berry: Capital Rule
[A response to Jack Random's recent essay: Killing Labor - Beyond the Columbia Free Trade Pact.]
Sometime in the long ago, can we be sure when exactly, Capitalism took control of the global economy. Marx seemed to believe it had already happened, at least in the developed economies, by the time he began writing. Niall Ferguson, in his book, The War of the World, demonstrates in the opening chapter that global capitalism made the world's bounty, whether by manufacture or harvest, available to the average citizen of the British empire at the beginning of the 20th century. Certainly the last three decades have seen an expansion of that global economy to unprecedented proportions. Where Communism, almost always by way of Totalitarianism, held against the tide for several decades, we now witness various hybrid economies. Russia appears to have become a form of nationalized Capitalism. China still clings to Communism for social organization, but has surrendered so thoroughly to Capitalism that not even the poisoning of its own children with contaminated product can be prevented or easily halted. When you consider that the penalty for such excess in China is often the death penalty it is easy to see just how deeply ingrained the system of maximum profit as the primary motive for economic activity has become. Likewise, Vietnam, Nepal, even Cuba are all increasingly capitalistic.
Why then are we not in the Golden Age that the world's leading capitalists predicted? Why has the ascent of Capitalism not been accompanied by the ascent of democracy? The two are halves of the same whole, right? This is the gospel most of us have heard all of our lives. Since the beginning of the Reagan administration it seems the default doctrine underlying all American policy, foreign and domestic. Free trade zones have been opened in all directions. Lately Columbia, and presumably the rest of South America soon, is under pressure to join the party. So then, how could it possibly be that the world's largest economy has slid into it's worst recession since the 70s and totters on the brink of a depression? According to the United Nations, 2008 is the first year since the 1930s that total economic activity has not increased.
What happened? Capitalism is what happened. Capitalism without ethical or legal restraint. At the very moment Capitalism arrived at its greatest expansion it also found itself in peril of total collapse. Any system that functions without competition will invariably consume itself. If the foundation of capitalism is competition what happens when nothing competes with capitalism, not even morality? We are witnessing what happens.
This isn't the first time. There have been cyclic recessions and depressions throughout American history. A notable case is that of the McKinley administration in the 1890s. Finding itself deeply in debt and fearing a depression without end, the administration sought help from some of the wealthiest benefactors of the previous decades of capitalism without restraint. J.P. Morgan and a cadre of his fellow tycoons bought the country out of debt through the purchase of bonds at a highly discounted rate. Once the economy was booming again they sold the bonds at enormous profit. But the collective wealth of all the world’s billionaires cannot buy the economy out of its current crises. $700 billion is beginning to look like a down payment on the abyss.
There were moments during the Great Depression when the general consensus was that Capitalism had run its course. Military spending in Germany and Japan, followed by the war that required an explosion of military spending around the world, put people to work who had never held a job in their lives outside their homes or farms. After the war a combination of preparation for the final war, nuclear holocaust, the arms race, and a demand for consumer items allowed the expansion to continue. Everything was rosy until the fuel ran out in the 1970s. This was too easily remedied by rapidly increasing the import of more expensive fuel from the Middle East and wildly superfluous defense spending. Barring a couple of recessions the economy has continued to grow, aided in part by two waves of technological integration as computers entered the business sector in the 80s and our homes in the 90s.
Unfortunately, there was a downside to all of this. Every generation alive today in virtually every corner of the world can look back to a time when the world seemed simpler, when our demands seemed less urgent and less complicated. In the U.S. we can recall a time when owning a home, a car, a washer and dryer, refrigerator, stove and oven, a television and radio was quite enough. The economics of the American dream were realized for most of a thriving middle class. Then came computers. Interesting tools by themselves for business, design and creativity, but overwhelming when connected to the internet which offers a store of information and entertainment to anyone with a phone or cable line. What was once only available to citizens of the metropolis, if that, is now available to billions. Once again Capitalism succeeded. So what happened? Again, the answer is the thing itself. Capitalism.
Virtually anyone reading this has experienced the discomforts of information saturation. And many of us have asked when observing the continuing arrival of an abundance of products of all kinds in our homes if perhaps we aren't losing something in the bargain. We used to go outside for a walk or to chat with neighbors, now we stare at screens and chat with friends around the world or consume a cornucopia of entertainment in isolation. We wonder what kind of values will result from this level of disconnect from the actual world at our feet.
If these doubts rise in the minds of those of us who have grown up where consumption was the rule, imagine the doubts that arise in the minds of those who have witnessed a much more rapid and aggressive transformation. What if you were born a farmer, or a herder into a nomadic life? A way of life that had been unchanged for thousands of years. Then in the space of a generation your life became urban, consumer and information centered. What might be uncomfortable for us, might feel like an assault to others. When they raise their voice in opposition they discover that they are in the minority. The majority enjoys the new comforts and entertainments. The minorities band together and appeal to the government where an appeal is not met by violence. Eventually they become desperate. They demand a return to the old values. They take to the streets. They riot. They return violence for violence. When this fails they look to the origin of the change and they strike against the governments of those countries, the representatives of those countries and eventually against the citizens of those countries. Mumbai, Madrid, London, New York and Washington and all the others. Their violence is not justified nor is it rational since it will only result in further violence against them, but it is the inevitable result of present circumstances. They are doomed to fail. They are the desperate acts of vanishing cultures.
Capitalism wins. Or does it?
What if capitalists believed so blindly in the power of the market that they believed anything could be measured by market values? What if they believed that all problems could be solved by market forces? What if their faith in the market was so blind that they would even purchase shares in nothing more than a bet on the behavior of the market? What if there was no government, media or any other agency to restrain this blind faith?
Bear witness. Where do these believers go when the markets fail? Who will bear the burden?
Will capitalism survive? Probably, but at what cost? Global bankruptcy? Depression? Global warfare? Environmental catastrophe?
Who will capitalism survive for? If allowed to continue along its present course the global economy will resemble a third world economy with perhaps five percent wealthy and the remainder struggling to survive. The middle class vanishes.
At some point in the last three decades government should have governed, but it did not. Now government is summoned to pay the bill. If that bill is paid without enormous compensation and compromise on the part of capitalism then the governments will continue to fail and falter and disappear.
Imagine corporate feudalism on a global scale where corporate economic agents and militias wage war for the world's resources. If government on behalf of the people and for the people refuses to act aggressively the 21st century may very well look like a high tech version of the Dark Ages.
If Capitalism is the only rule, everybody loses.
Sometime in the long ago, can we be sure when exactly, Capitalism took control of the global economy. Marx seemed to believe it had already happened, at least in the developed economies, by the time he began writing. Niall Ferguson, in his book, The War of the World, demonstrates in the opening chapter that global capitalism made the world's bounty, whether by manufacture or harvest, available to the average citizen of the British empire at the beginning of the 20th century. Certainly the last three decades have seen an expansion of that global economy to unprecedented proportions. Where Communism, almost always by way of Totalitarianism, held against the tide for several decades, we now witness various hybrid economies. Russia appears to have become a form of nationalized Capitalism. China still clings to Communism for social organization, but has surrendered so thoroughly to Capitalism that not even the poisoning of its own children with contaminated product can be prevented or easily halted. When you consider that the penalty for such excess in China is often the death penalty it is easy to see just how deeply ingrained the system of maximum profit as the primary motive for economic activity has become. Likewise, Vietnam, Nepal, even Cuba are all increasingly capitalistic.
Why then are we not in the Golden Age that the world's leading capitalists predicted? Why has the ascent of Capitalism not been accompanied by the ascent of democracy? The two are halves of the same whole, right? This is the gospel most of us have heard all of our lives. Since the beginning of the Reagan administration it seems the default doctrine underlying all American policy, foreign and domestic. Free trade zones have been opened in all directions. Lately Columbia, and presumably the rest of South America soon, is under pressure to join the party. So then, how could it possibly be that the world's largest economy has slid into it's worst recession since the 70s and totters on the brink of a depression? According to the United Nations, 2008 is the first year since the 1930s that total economic activity has not increased.
What happened? Capitalism is what happened. Capitalism without ethical or legal restraint. At the very moment Capitalism arrived at its greatest expansion it also found itself in peril of total collapse. Any system that functions without competition will invariably consume itself. If the foundation of capitalism is competition what happens when nothing competes with capitalism, not even morality? We are witnessing what happens.
This isn't the first time. There have been cyclic recessions and depressions throughout American history. A notable case is that of the McKinley administration in the 1890s. Finding itself deeply in debt and fearing a depression without end, the administration sought help from some of the wealthiest benefactors of the previous decades of capitalism without restraint. J.P. Morgan and a cadre of his fellow tycoons bought the country out of debt through the purchase of bonds at a highly discounted rate. Once the economy was booming again they sold the bonds at enormous profit. But the collective wealth of all the world’s billionaires cannot buy the economy out of its current crises. $700 billion is beginning to look like a down payment on the abyss.
There were moments during the Great Depression when the general consensus was that Capitalism had run its course. Military spending in Germany and Japan, followed by the war that required an explosion of military spending around the world, put people to work who had never held a job in their lives outside their homes or farms. After the war a combination of preparation for the final war, nuclear holocaust, the arms race, and a demand for consumer items allowed the expansion to continue. Everything was rosy until the fuel ran out in the 1970s. This was too easily remedied by rapidly increasing the import of more expensive fuel from the Middle East and wildly superfluous defense spending. Barring a couple of recessions the economy has continued to grow, aided in part by two waves of technological integration as computers entered the business sector in the 80s and our homes in the 90s.
Unfortunately, there was a downside to all of this. Every generation alive today in virtually every corner of the world can look back to a time when the world seemed simpler, when our demands seemed less urgent and less complicated. In the U.S. we can recall a time when owning a home, a car, a washer and dryer, refrigerator, stove and oven, a television and radio was quite enough. The economics of the American dream were realized for most of a thriving middle class. Then came computers. Interesting tools by themselves for business, design and creativity, but overwhelming when connected to the internet which offers a store of information and entertainment to anyone with a phone or cable line. What was once only available to citizens of the metropolis, if that, is now available to billions. Once again Capitalism succeeded. So what happened? Again, the answer is the thing itself. Capitalism.
Virtually anyone reading this has experienced the discomforts of information saturation. And many of us have asked when observing the continuing arrival of an abundance of products of all kinds in our homes if perhaps we aren't losing something in the bargain. We used to go outside for a walk or to chat with neighbors, now we stare at screens and chat with friends around the world or consume a cornucopia of entertainment in isolation. We wonder what kind of values will result from this level of disconnect from the actual world at our feet.
If these doubts rise in the minds of those of us who have grown up where consumption was the rule, imagine the doubts that arise in the minds of those who have witnessed a much more rapid and aggressive transformation. What if you were born a farmer, or a herder into a nomadic life? A way of life that had been unchanged for thousands of years. Then in the space of a generation your life became urban, consumer and information centered. What might be uncomfortable for us, might feel like an assault to others. When they raise their voice in opposition they discover that they are in the minority. The majority enjoys the new comforts and entertainments. The minorities band together and appeal to the government where an appeal is not met by violence. Eventually they become desperate. They demand a return to the old values. They take to the streets. They riot. They return violence for violence. When this fails they look to the origin of the change and they strike against the governments of those countries, the representatives of those countries and eventually against the citizens of those countries. Mumbai, Madrid, London, New York and Washington and all the others. Their violence is not justified nor is it rational since it will only result in further violence against them, but it is the inevitable result of present circumstances. They are doomed to fail. They are the desperate acts of vanishing cultures.
Capitalism wins. Or does it?
What if capitalists believed so blindly in the power of the market that they believed anything could be measured by market values? What if they believed that all problems could be solved by market forces? What if their faith in the market was so blind that they would even purchase shares in nothing more than a bet on the behavior of the market? What if there was no government, media or any other agency to restrain this blind faith?
Bear witness. Where do these believers go when the markets fail? Who will bear the burden?
Will capitalism survive? Probably, but at what cost? Global bankruptcy? Depression? Global warfare? Environmental catastrophe?
Who will capitalism survive for? If allowed to continue along its present course the global economy will resemble a third world economy with perhaps five percent wealthy and the remainder struggling to survive. The middle class vanishes.
At some point in the last three decades government should have governed, but it did not. Now government is summoned to pay the bill. If that bill is paid without enormous compensation and compromise on the part of capitalism then the governments will continue to fail and falter and disappear.
Imagine corporate feudalism on a global scale where corporate economic agents and militias wage war for the world's resources. If government on behalf of the people and for the people refuses to act aggressively the 21st century may very well look like a high tech version of the Dark Ages.
If Capitalism is the only rule, everybody loses.
Friday, November 28, 2008
Jake's Word Re: Saving Big Auto
[In response to "The Nationalization Option: Saving the Auto Industry" by Jack Random -- reposted below.]
As always you see clearly what most everyone else, including those in government and big business, either miss or choose to ignore. You recognize as well the variety of options that should be on the table.
It appears Secretary Paulson would prefer to reward bad behavior and hope the "smart guys" would go and sin no more. That might be too optimistic though. What once seemed cynical has all too often proved realistic when considering the machinations of the Bush administration. The bailout may have originally been intended as one more pay out to old colleagues in the corporate world for loaning us a few of their own to run the country. A final flourish of 28 years of supply side economics as they slither from the stage with bags of taxpayer dollars.
Paulson's hand was called when the first installment resulted in the nothing at all except large banks sitting on their largesse. Now, looking increasingly like a man on the verge of a total breakdown he seems willing to compromise, perhaps, and either help homeowners directly or at least encourage the banks to behave like banks again and start moving money. The result appears to be more of the same - another failure of an administration whose legacy will most likely be to serve as an example of everything a President can do wrong.
If we were not but a few weeks from the inauguration of a new administration the automakers would probably be left to crumble or in the name of a compromise with congress be handed the money they request with no conditions at all.
We wish that the ideal world you detail was an option. In a saner, more rational world it might be. However, we must recognize the bias of the society and the governments it empowers.
I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that congress rebuffed the automakers like poor students told to correct their homework and return to be graded a second time. They will no doubt behave like C students and return with a plan that they hope will get them past the gates and into the vault. At that point congress will once again be required to show enough spine to send them away empty handed once more with a stern warning that they will be given one last chance.
Automakers, foreign and domestic obviously know what needs to be done. Your recommendations are precisely those that I hope the President-Elect is receiving. If the transition team actually reads the suggestions posted at change.gov they will have those recommendations before them because I posted an almost identical proposal there last week. One hopes that the incoming administration would not have to look so far afield for advice. I am sure they know the options and details much better than I ever could and are weighing them. The questions is - with what measure? How much will political expediency weigh when balanced against rational policy?
Frankly, nothing less than a total reformulation of the auto industry will suffice. The transition phase would necessitate a combination of hybrid and maximum fuel efficiency vehicles (35 mpg/city minimum). The next stage, which must be ready within five years, would be electric and alternative fuel vehicles (ethanol discounted unless it is cellulosic in origin from a variety of sources - the rest of the world cannot afford us burning their food).
Consider that with the inception of WWII the American economy completely retooled in a matter of months and in less than two years became the most efficient and productive in the world, the envy of the world. If some combination of government and business attacked the current financial and energy crises with the same urgency it would produce millions of jobs via new and renewed industry assisted by new research and development.
We have seen the alternative. It means waging war for resources. That is our choice. We can invest in a transformed economy or slide into depression and literally fight our way out.
The failure of three decades of supply side blind faith in markets has forced an opportunity upon us. We can call it a crises and allow greed to continue to capitalize on our fear or we could seize the opportunity and once again make the U.S. economy the envy of the world - and it could be done while decreasing our impact on the environment. All it requires is self-confidence and the determination to accept nothing less than success.
Forgive me for sloganeering, but if that is what it takes to motivate the populace then so be it. We can transform failure into success. We can reinvent the economy and do it quickly. We can demonstrate to the world that we are not imperialists, we are benevolent innovators. It will require unprecedented cooperation among all sectors of society, but we can do it. Yes, we can.
Peace to you my brother,
Jake
[Jake Berry (jakebridget@bellsouth.net)]
JAZZMAN CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.
THE NATIONALIZATION OPTION:
Saving the Auto Industry
By Jack Random
With the economy still stuck in a spiral descent legislators who could not find the bearings or strength of character to oppose the trillion dollar bailout of the financial sector are suddenly finding old time religion in opposing a bailout for the auto industry.
Those on the left say: Why save the collapsing remnants of a failed capitalist system?
Those on the right say: Live by the sword, die by the sword. Let the market manifest. It’s how the system is supposed to work.
Both are wrong.
We accepted the financial sector bailout because the alleged “smartest men in the room” told us there was neither time to delay nor options to consider. They had already played out the string and lost. The next roll would push us over the edge. They had so mismanaged our money that there was no more gambling to be done. The book was closed. The marker had to be paid down or the players would be locked out.
We were lucky congress paused just long enough to lay down a few conditions, including one stipulating that some significant portion of the enormous allotment would be applied to lower the rate of home foreclosures. When Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson said he was not authorized to attack the problem directly he was lying. Paulson must be shown that he is not the king’s henchman and he has not won the unconditional trust of the people. It is not solely up to him who shall be saved and who shall not.
Sheila Bair, chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, got it right: An investment in foreclosure prevention will pay in generous multiples while buying toxic assets is like throwing paper money into a raging inferno. Paying for corporate buyouts and mergers is like contracting our own demolition. It ought to be a crime.
The very last thing we should be doing now is refinancing a consolidation of wealth to create even more corporate dynasties that are “too big to fail.” We already let the “smart” guys – the gurus of the American Enterprise Institute, the Free Market fundamentalists, the Neocons of economic theory – play that hand and they busted like greedy frat boys at a professional’s table. The least they can do now is step aside and let someone else have a seat.
The auto industry is apparently not too big to fail but it is the last stand of American industry. We have sacrificed textiles, plastics, packaging, canning and manufacturing of all kinds. We no longer produce: We transport, promote and sell. We have become the middleman of the world’s economy and in hard times the middleman is the first to go.
In an ideal world, a world in which the accusation of socialism has truly lost its sting, the government would purchase the auto industry at current market value (a bargain at less than nothing) and transform its production facilities into a model of fuel efficiency: Fuel efficient plants producing the world’s most fuel efficient vehicles.
In an ideal world the best minds would devote themselves to developing technologies that would revolutionize technology itself: Not only clean and efficient personal transport vehicles but integrated mass transit, a modern grid for distribution of energy, climate control and industrial power.
Needless to say we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world that requires compromise. If we cannot nationalize the auto industry then we must stipulate the conditions that will lead to the same end: a viable industry with state of the art fuel-efficient vehicles.
The auto executives appear to have miscalculated. They assumed as I do that the government cannot allow the industry to fold. We can neither sacrifice the jobs nor the industrial base of our stumbling economy. If anything we must reclaim an expanded industry in a new and more advanced form. But that does not mean that we cannot bargain. Our government must be willing to show the nationalization card to compel the industry to negotiate in good faith.
We should put it on the table straight up: Accept reasonable conditions or prepare to be nationalized. Once the industry is re-established as a sustainable and profitable concern we could then resell it to the highest bidder on the open market.
Put it on the table and suddenly all the chips are on the government’s side.
Much has rightly been said about the shortcomings of the auto industry but the government has in fact been a party to many of their critical errors in judgment. The government has subsidized large vehicles, exempting them from even modest fuel efficiency requirements and providing tax incentives to buyers. The government has subsidized oil, enabling the auto industry to believe it could continue to ignore the looming crisis in the cost of gasoline.
Accepting that both sides share in responsibility for an industry that cannot be sustained may enable us to move forward with the hard measures that must be taken.
First, all plants currently operating must remain operational and all current employees retained except for cause.
Second, all plants that have been closed but remain in the possession of the industry will be reopened and retooled for fuel-efficient production of fuel-efficient vehicles.
Third, union representation of industry employees must be protected and strengthened. If the auto unions must yield some portion of their current wages or benefits to bring them into balance with foreign automakers so be it but for every cent sacrificed there must be a proportionate gain in representation on the boards of directors. The industry must be compelled to open its books and involve labor in the decisions that will affect long-term viability.
Fourth, the world’s brightest authorities should be recruited to lead research and development for fuel-efficient technologies. For decades we have been hearing about vehicles that run on water, compressed air and other clean, renewable sources. Remove the mindset of short-term profit and we can be sure that the results will be remarkable. Replace that mindset with one geared to the public good and working in concert with a government committed to freedom from oil and we will likely lead the world in the technologies of the future.
Members of congress were rightly outraged that the leaders of the Big Three showed up without a plan for restructuring and without a vision for the future. We should all be outraged that congress has not come up with its own plan and its own vision.
Like the viability of the airlines industry and indeed the viability of all industry in America, the problems of the auto industry are not new. It is an insult to American democracy that our leaders have not foreseen these failures and drafted plans to address them.
Ultimately, even after the auto industry is saved, the viability of the American economy will depend on revising trade policies so that industry can once again thrive in the nation that pioneered the modern industrial revolution.
Jazz.
[This Chronicle posted on NewsDaily.com of Canada.]
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON THE ALBION MONITOR, BELLACIAO, BUZZLE, COUNTERPUNCH, DISSIDENT VOICE, THE DAILY SCARE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS AND PACIFIC FREE PRESS. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.
As always you see clearly what most everyone else, including those in government and big business, either miss or choose to ignore. You recognize as well the variety of options that should be on the table.
It appears Secretary Paulson would prefer to reward bad behavior and hope the "smart guys" would go and sin no more. That might be too optimistic though. What once seemed cynical has all too often proved realistic when considering the machinations of the Bush administration. The bailout may have originally been intended as one more pay out to old colleagues in the corporate world for loaning us a few of their own to run the country. A final flourish of 28 years of supply side economics as they slither from the stage with bags of taxpayer dollars.
Paulson's hand was called when the first installment resulted in the nothing at all except large banks sitting on their largesse. Now, looking increasingly like a man on the verge of a total breakdown he seems willing to compromise, perhaps, and either help homeowners directly or at least encourage the banks to behave like banks again and start moving money. The result appears to be more of the same - another failure of an administration whose legacy will most likely be to serve as an example of everything a President can do wrong.
If we were not but a few weeks from the inauguration of a new administration the automakers would probably be left to crumble or in the name of a compromise with congress be handed the money they request with no conditions at all.
We wish that the ideal world you detail was an option. In a saner, more rational world it might be. However, we must recognize the bias of the society and the governments it empowers.
I have to admit that I was a bit surprised that congress rebuffed the automakers like poor students told to correct their homework and return to be graded a second time. They will no doubt behave like C students and return with a plan that they hope will get them past the gates and into the vault. At that point congress will once again be required to show enough spine to send them away empty handed once more with a stern warning that they will be given one last chance.
Automakers, foreign and domestic obviously know what needs to be done. Your recommendations are precisely those that I hope the President-Elect is receiving. If the transition team actually reads the suggestions posted at change.gov they will have those recommendations before them because I posted an almost identical proposal there last week. One hopes that the incoming administration would not have to look so far afield for advice. I am sure they know the options and details much better than I ever could and are weighing them. The questions is - with what measure? How much will political expediency weigh when balanced against rational policy?
Frankly, nothing less than a total reformulation of the auto industry will suffice. The transition phase would necessitate a combination of hybrid and maximum fuel efficiency vehicles (35 mpg/city minimum). The next stage, which must be ready within five years, would be electric and alternative fuel vehicles (ethanol discounted unless it is cellulosic in origin from a variety of sources - the rest of the world cannot afford us burning their food).
Consider that with the inception of WWII the American economy completely retooled in a matter of months and in less than two years became the most efficient and productive in the world, the envy of the world. If some combination of government and business attacked the current financial and energy crises with the same urgency it would produce millions of jobs via new and renewed industry assisted by new research and development.
We have seen the alternative. It means waging war for resources. That is our choice. We can invest in a transformed economy or slide into depression and literally fight our way out.
The failure of three decades of supply side blind faith in markets has forced an opportunity upon us. We can call it a crises and allow greed to continue to capitalize on our fear or we could seize the opportunity and once again make the U.S. economy the envy of the world - and it could be done while decreasing our impact on the environment. All it requires is self-confidence and the determination to accept nothing less than success.
Forgive me for sloganeering, but if that is what it takes to motivate the populace then so be it. We can transform failure into success. We can reinvent the economy and do it quickly. We can demonstrate to the world that we are not imperialists, we are benevolent innovators. It will require unprecedented cooperation among all sectors of society, but we can do it. Yes, we can.
Peace to you my brother,
Jake
[Jake Berry (jakebridget@bellsouth.net)]
JAZZMAN CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.
THE NATIONALIZATION OPTION:
Saving the Auto Industry
By Jack Random
With the economy still stuck in a spiral descent legislators who could not find the bearings or strength of character to oppose the trillion dollar bailout of the financial sector are suddenly finding old time religion in opposing a bailout for the auto industry.
Those on the left say: Why save the collapsing remnants of a failed capitalist system?
Those on the right say: Live by the sword, die by the sword. Let the market manifest. It’s how the system is supposed to work.
Both are wrong.
We accepted the financial sector bailout because the alleged “smartest men in the room” told us there was neither time to delay nor options to consider. They had already played out the string and lost. The next roll would push us over the edge. They had so mismanaged our money that there was no more gambling to be done. The book was closed. The marker had to be paid down or the players would be locked out.
We were lucky congress paused just long enough to lay down a few conditions, including one stipulating that some significant portion of the enormous allotment would be applied to lower the rate of home foreclosures. When Secretary of the Treasury Henry Paulson said he was not authorized to attack the problem directly he was lying. Paulson must be shown that he is not the king’s henchman and he has not won the unconditional trust of the people. It is not solely up to him who shall be saved and who shall not.
Sheila Bair, chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, got it right: An investment in foreclosure prevention will pay in generous multiples while buying toxic assets is like throwing paper money into a raging inferno. Paying for corporate buyouts and mergers is like contracting our own demolition. It ought to be a crime.
The very last thing we should be doing now is refinancing a consolidation of wealth to create even more corporate dynasties that are “too big to fail.” We already let the “smart” guys – the gurus of the American Enterprise Institute, the Free Market fundamentalists, the Neocons of economic theory – play that hand and they busted like greedy frat boys at a professional’s table. The least they can do now is step aside and let someone else have a seat.
The auto industry is apparently not too big to fail but it is the last stand of American industry. We have sacrificed textiles, plastics, packaging, canning and manufacturing of all kinds. We no longer produce: We transport, promote and sell. We have become the middleman of the world’s economy and in hard times the middleman is the first to go.
In an ideal world, a world in which the accusation of socialism has truly lost its sting, the government would purchase the auto industry at current market value (a bargain at less than nothing) and transform its production facilities into a model of fuel efficiency: Fuel efficient plants producing the world’s most fuel efficient vehicles.
In an ideal world the best minds would devote themselves to developing technologies that would revolutionize technology itself: Not only clean and efficient personal transport vehicles but integrated mass transit, a modern grid for distribution of energy, climate control and industrial power.
Needless to say we do not live in an ideal world. We live in a world that requires compromise. If we cannot nationalize the auto industry then we must stipulate the conditions that will lead to the same end: a viable industry with state of the art fuel-efficient vehicles.
The auto executives appear to have miscalculated. They assumed as I do that the government cannot allow the industry to fold. We can neither sacrifice the jobs nor the industrial base of our stumbling economy. If anything we must reclaim an expanded industry in a new and more advanced form. But that does not mean that we cannot bargain. Our government must be willing to show the nationalization card to compel the industry to negotiate in good faith.
We should put it on the table straight up: Accept reasonable conditions or prepare to be nationalized. Once the industry is re-established as a sustainable and profitable concern we could then resell it to the highest bidder on the open market.
Put it on the table and suddenly all the chips are on the government’s side.
Much has rightly been said about the shortcomings of the auto industry but the government has in fact been a party to many of their critical errors in judgment. The government has subsidized large vehicles, exempting them from even modest fuel efficiency requirements and providing tax incentives to buyers. The government has subsidized oil, enabling the auto industry to believe it could continue to ignore the looming crisis in the cost of gasoline.
Accepting that both sides share in responsibility for an industry that cannot be sustained may enable us to move forward with the hard measures that must be taken.
First, all plants currently operating must remain operational and all current employees retained except for cause.
Second, all plants that have been closed but remain in the possession of the industry will be reopened and retooled for fuel-efficient production of fuel-efficient vehicles.
Third, union representation of industry employees must be protected and strengthened. If the auto unions must yield some portion of their current wages or benefits to bring them into balance with foreign automakers so be it but for every cent sacrificed there must be a proportionate gain in representation on the boards of directors. The industry must be compelled to open its books and involve labor in the decisions that will affect long-term viability.
Fourth, the world’s brightest authorities should be recruited to lead research and development for fuel-efficient technologies. For decades we have been hearing about vehicles that run on water, compressed air and other clean, renewable sources. Remove the mindset of short-term profit and we can be sure that the results will be remarkable. Replace that mindset with one geared to the public good and working in concert with a government committed to freedom from oil and we will likely lead the world in the technologies of the future.
Members of congress were rightly outraged that the leaders of the Big Three showed up without a plan for restructuring and without a vision for the future. We should all be outraged that congress has not come up with its own plan and its own vision.
Like the viability of the airlines industry and indeed the viability of all industry in America, the problems of the auto industry are not new. It is an insult to American democracy that our leaders have not foreseen these failures and drafted plans to address them.
Ultimately, even after the auto industry is saved, the viability of the American economy will depend on revising trade policies so that industry can once again thrive in the nation that pioneered the modern industrial revolution.
Jazz.
[This Chronicle posted on NewsDaily.com of Canada.]
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). THE CHRONICLES HAVE BEEN POSTED ON THE ALBION MONITOR, BELLACIAO, BUZZLE, COUNTERPUNCH, DISSIDENT VOICE, THE DAILY SCARE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS AND PACIFIC FREE PRESS. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Jake Berry: Shades of Havel & Kafka
Screenplay: THE INFORMATION by Jake Berry 11.24.08
Characters: Two women, in their 30s or 40s.
Two women stand in a room before a large window. We see them at first whole body from behind, but quickly zooming into shots above the waist, sometimes only their heads are in frame. We never see them from the front and we never see either face entirely. The camera moves and zooms throughout the play, but the most we see of a face is a profile. On the other side of the window is a scene rich in moving color. Perhaps a house or other large structure on fire or some other scene of destruction that generates violent bursts of color. They might also be standing before a large video screen upon which is a violently colorful scene is developing. Alternatively, the other side of the widow could be colorful and active but peaceful, such as the wind blowing trees and leaves on a autumn day.
FADE IN
One of the women is standing before the window looking out. We move in closer. For a few seconds she is alone, passively observing, long enough for us to study the scene, notice the details and feel ourselves waiting for something to happen. The second woman arrives, steps into frame and assumes a posture similar to the first. The first woman does not turn to look at her. They stand together silently, passive before the window. After a few seconds:
First Woman (speaking forward toward the window): Did you see him?
Second Woman (also speaking toward the window): Yes. Well, what I mean is, I did see him, but I seem to be having trouble…
FW: Remembering him. Remembering his face.
SW: Yes. Exactly. We spoke for several moments face to face. I remember noticing things about his appearance, but all I remember clearly now is the conversation.
FW: Can you remember any impression his appearance made on you?
SW: Vaguely. He seemed tired, older than before, as if he had aged years in a matter of days. (speaking more to herself): Why can't I remember his face?
FW: Do you remember what he was wearing?
SW: No, but I remember the condition of his clothes. They were worn almost threadbare and wrinkled as if he had slept in them. They agreed with my general impression of his condition.
FW: What about his voice? Do you remember anything distinctly about it?
SW: Yes. It was strong and clear, but with something new, a bit of an edge, slightly raspy. He coughed a few times while we were talking. He apologized each time.
FW: But he still spoke with same sense of authority?
SW: Oh absolutely. Nothing has changed.
FW: That was what I expected. He sounds more or less in the same condition as when I saw him.
SW: When was that?
FW: A few days ago. Maybe a week.
SW: Do you remember his face or how he appeared?
FW: No more that what you remember. More like impressions than actually remembering.
SW: Confusing isn't it? Frustrating?
FW: It would have been at one time. You get used to it. You have to or else you'll go crazy. It's a miracle we remember anything at all. As many times as I've seen him and had long conversations with him - once we even kissed - I still cannot manage to bring his face or any other details to mind.
SW: That's the way of things now isn't it?
FW: Apparently.
SW: You say you kissed?
FW: It was nothing. A gesture of friendship. (She pauses, continues to look forward.) So what is the information?
SW: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you knew.
FW: How would I know? I haven't seen him in a week. Maybe longer.
SW: I thought maybe one of the others…
FW: No. None of them seem to know anything new. No one has seen him until today.
SW: That's peculiar. He spoke as if it was common knowledge.
FW: It might be to him. I've never been certain what his sources tell him or when.
SW: His sources, yes. Do you have any idea who they are?
FW: No. He speaks of them by name as if they are people we all know, but no one I've spoken to has any knowledge of any of them. For all I know he's imagining them as well as the circumstances under which he spoke to them. That would surprise me though. He's always been very reliable and he seems to be entirely convinced that he saw and spoke with them, as if they are regular companions. They pass familiarities, ask about one another's families, make jokes. I doubt it's all in his imagination.
SW: That's my impression as well. And he always seems completely at ease, even today when he seemed so fatigued.
FW: That concerns me though. I mean his appearance, the slight change in his voice, the coughing. It feels like something has gone wrong, as if conditions have deteriorated.
SW: But he remains calm.
FW: On the surface anyway. The information, was it bad? Was there any indication that circumstances have changed?
SW: No. He said we should continue with our work. He did mention that he expected the shops to be running sales and suggested it might be a good time to stock up on essential items in case the prices rise again later. He said we could expect the streets and shops to be a bit more crowded, but nothing like a panic.
FW: What about the other thing?
SW: The other thing?
FW: Yes, the weather device, with the holidays coming.
SW: He mentioned it in passing, but only to say it was operating efficiently. I don't think there's any reason to be concerned.
FW: Did you ask him about his appearance or his apparent fatigue?
SW: No, considering there was nothing unusual in his demeanor. He spoke in the same tone as always. And since there was no alarming information I assumed that whatever the reason for his appearance it was none of my business or he would have told me. Did you ask?
FW: No, and for the same reason.
SW: It does make one wonder though doesn't it?
FW: I try not to worry.
SW: That's best I suppose, so long as the information is reliable.
FW: Precisely.
The scene continues before them. They are completely passive before it, too lost in their thoughts to notice.
FW: So, will I see you here next week?
SW: Oh yes, of course. If you see him between now and then will you let me know or tell one of the others?
FW: Certainly. As soon as I know anything I'll pass word. I hope to see you in the shops.
SW: Not likely. I can't stand it. I let Jonathan do that.
FW: How is he?
SW: Fine, fine. The same.
FW: Tell him I said hello.
SW: I will.
Without ever looking directly at FW or saying goodbye, SW turns and walks away. FW continues staring forward absent-mindedly. She begins humming a tune in a low voice.
FADE OUT
Characters: Two women, in their 30s or 40s.
Two women stand in a room before a large window. We see them at first whole body from behind, but quickly zooming into shots above the waist, sometimes only their heads are in frame. We never see them from the front and we never see either face entirely. The camera moves and zooms throughout the play, but the most we see of a face is a profile. On the other side of the window is a scene rich in moving color. Perhaps a house or other large structure on fire or some other scene of destruction that generates violent bursts of color. They might also be standing before a large video screen upon which is a violently colorful scene is developing. Alternatively, the other side of the widow could be colorful and active but peaceful, such as the wind blowing trees and leaves on a autumn day.
FADE IN
One of the women is standing before the window looking out. We move in closer. For a few seconds she is alone, passively observing, long enough for us to study the scene, notice the details and feel ourselves waiting for something to happen. The second woman arrives, steps into frame and assumes a posture similar to the first. The first woman does not turn to look at her. They stand together silently, passive before the window. After a few seconds:
First Woman (speaking forward toward the window): Did you see him?
Second Woman (also speaking toward the window): Yes. Well, what I mean is, I did see him, but I seem to be having trouble…
FW: Remembering him. Remembering his face.
SW: Yes. Exactly. We spoke for several moments face to face. I remember noticing things about his appearance, but all I remember clearly now is the conversation.
FW: Can you remember any impression his appearance made on you?
SW: Vaguely. He seemed tired, older than before, as if he had aged years in a matter of days. (speaking more to herself): Why can't I remember his face?
FW: Do you remember what he was wearing?
SW: No, but I remember the condition of his clothes. They were worn almost threadbare and wrinkled as if he had slept in them. They agreed with my general impression of his condition.
FW: What about his voice? Do you remember anything distinctly about it?
SW: Yes. It was strong and clear, but with something new, a bit of an edge, slightly raspy. He coughed a few times while we were talking. He apologized each time.
FW: But he still spoke with same sense of authority?
SW: Oh absolutely. Nothing has changed.
FW: That was what I expected. He sounds more or less in the same condition as when I saw him.
SW: When was that?
FW: A few days ago. Maybe a week.
SW: Do you remember his face or how he appeared?
FW: No more that what you remember. More like impressions than actually remembering.
SW: Confusing isn't it? Frustrating?
FW: It would have been at one time. You get used to it. You have to or else you'll go crazy. It's a miracle we remember anything at all. As many times as I've seen him and had long conversations with him - once we even kissed - I still cannot manage to bring his face or any other details to mind.
SW: That's the way of things now isn't it?
FW: Apparently.
SW: You say you kissed?
FW: It was nothing. A gesture of friendship. (She pauses, continues to look forward.) So what is the information?
SW: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you knew.
FW: How would I know? I haven't seen him in a week. Maybe longer.
SW: I thought maybe one of the others…
FW: No. None of them seem to know anything new. No one has seen him until today.
SW: That's peculiar. He spoke as if it was common knowledge.
FW: It might be to him. I've never been certain what his sources tell him or when.
SW: His sources, yes. Do you have any idea who they are?
FW: No. He speaks of them by name as if they are people we all know, but no one I've spoken to has any knowledge of any of them. For all I know he's imagining them as well as the circumstances under which he spoke to them. That would surprise me though. He's always been very reliable and he seems to be entirely convinced that he saw and spoke with them, as if they are regular companions. They pass familiarities, ask about one another's families, make jokes. I doubt it's all in his imagination.
SW: That's my impression as well. And he always seems completely at ease, even today when he seemed so fatigued.
FW: That concerns me though. I mean his appearance, the slight change in his voice, the coughing. It feels like something has gone wrong, as if conditions have deteriorated.
SW: But he remains calm.
FW: On the surface anyway. The information, was it bad? Was there any indication that circumstances have changed?
SW: No. He said we should continue with our work. He did mention that he expected the shops to be running sales and suggested it might be a good time to stock up on essential items in case the prices rise again later. He said we could expect the streets and shops to be a bit more crowded, but nothing like a panic.
FW: What about the other thing?
SW: The other thing?
FW: Yes, the weather device, with the holidays coming.
SW: He mentioned it in passing, but only to say it was operating efficiently. I don't think there's any reason to be concerned.
FW: Did you ask him about his appearance or his apparent fatigue?
SW: No, considering there was nothing unusual in his demeanor. He spoke in the same tone as always. And since there was no alarming information I assumed that whatever the reason for his appearance it was none of my business or he would have told me. Did you ask?
FW: No, and for the same reason.
SW: It does make one wonder though doesn't it?
FW: I try not to worry.
SW: That's best I suppose, so long as the information is reliable.
FW: Precisely.
The scene continues before them. They are completely passive before it, too lost in their thoughts to notice.
FW: So, will I see you here next week?
SW: Oh yes, of course. If you see him between now and then will you let me know or tell one of the others?
FW: Certainly. As soon as I know anything I'll pass word. I hope to see you in the shops.
SW: Not likely. I can't stand it. I let Jonathan do that.
FW: How is he?
SW: Fine, fine. The same.
FW: Tell him I said hello.
SW: I will.
Without ever looking directly at FW or saying goodbye, SW turns and walks away. FW continues staring forward absent-mindedly. She begins humming a tune in a low voice.
FADE OUT
Monday, November 17, 2008
Jake's Word: Rant (on the nature of being)
Another Pointless Act of Desperation
Jake Berry
In response to a section of Jon Berry’s Fang Mask of Black Venus
Anyone that is awake recognizes the delicious trap, the explicit message - just sit back and watch the show, everything has been arranged - when it is time to work take your time for work medicine and go to work - when it is time to go home take your go home medicine and go home, turn on the big screen and slide back into your cheaply manufactured cocoon and enjoy the colorful images. It doesn't matter if those images are hi-def or dream so long as you follow the line your education (i.e. indoctrination) has prepared for you. Should you break with this sequence of events the whole world crumbles into ash and dust, the fantasy disappears and we are timid creatures with our backs to the wall in a safe cave. In short, we see ourselves as we are. The spectacle is our safe harbor and we will do anything to protect it. We will pay any amount of money, even if it means going into great debt, debt that can never be paid. We will kill to protect it. We will amass great armies and send them halfway across the planet to kill on our behalf. We have to keep the screen on, keep the images coming. Once you are aware that this is happening you can no longer take any joy in it, everything is reduced to its fundamental particles, the illusion, the screen has been shattered and try as you might you can never return it to full operational order.
It has been widely broadcast for several generations that there is no one behind the curtain. The horror comes when we recognize there is no one in front of it either. Such is the nature of reality. Too much reality makes you too human and therefore distances you from the rest of the species. In fact (ah, facts), you are quite insane. You have become unreasonable. By becoming a rational being you have lost touch with the others - those from which you came. It renders you alien to them and to yourself. Immediately you try to escape this dilemma, but it is too late. Not even suicide will fix it. Suicides are just another type of failure of the system, just so much trash to be discarded. As long as you are breathing and feeling, you are present, standing in front of your own broken screen, back to it now, facing the crowd, blocking the view of their own screens and therefore disrupting their comfort. If you persist they will remove you. Being awake, you are aware of this so you walk away and allow them to slip back into the collective coma and forget what just happened.
We perch on the edge of a high cliff overlooking a great field of humans all sitting watching the screens. We turn away from them and walk around in the hills, turning over the rocks. Fossils! Sweet reminders that something happened long ago, left its trace, left its joke. We know it is a joke, but do not know its language except that it is the language of all last jokes. The herd grazes with their eyes. The sun rises. We continue. We make our homes in the cliff face. We wonder far away for days at a time, but we always return to our home in the cliffs. We etch pictures and scrawl symbols on the wall for no reason at all. If there were a reason there would be no point in doing it because we would only be perpetuating the virus, the virus of blindness that is the sustenance of those that dwell in the valley. Your pictures and symbols are indecipherable. But there will come another, another kind in another world who will look upon the pictures and symbols and read them the way we read the fossils. They will indicate something vacant and precious. They might even be preserved the way we may carry a fossil home and set it on a shelf and look at it from time to time remembering something that it is entirely impossible for us to remember.
Jake Berry is the author of Brambu Drezi, Liminal Blue and other works of extraordinary insight.
Jake Berry
In response to a section of Jon Berry’s Fang Mask of Black Venus
Anyone that is awake recognizes the delicious trap, the explicit message - just sit back and watch the show, everything has been arranged - when it is time to work take your time for work medicine and go to work - when it is time to go home take your go home medicine and go home, turn on the big screen and slide back into your cheaply manufactured cocoon and enjoy the colorful images. It doesn't matter if those images are hi-def or dream so long as you follow the line your education (i.e. indoctrination) has prepared for you. Should you break with this sequence of events the whole world crumbles into ash and dust, the fantasy disappears and we are timid creatures with our backs to the wall in a safe cave. In short, we see ourselves as we are. The spectacle is our safe harbor and we will do anything to protect it. We will pay any amount of money, even if it means going into great debt, debt that can never be paid. We will kill to protect it. We will amass great armies and send them halfway across the planet to kill on our behalf. We have to keep the screen on, keep the images coming. Once you are aware that this is happening you can no longer take any joy in it, everything is reduced to its fundamental particles, the illusion, the screen has been shattered and try as you might you can never return it to full operational order.
It has been widely broadcast for several generations that there is no one behind the curtain. The horror comes when we recognize there is no one in front of it either. Such is the nature of reality. Too much reality makes you too human and therefore distances you from the rest of the species. In fact (ah, facts), you are quite insane. You have become unreasonable. By becoming a rational being you have lost touch with the others - those from which you came. It renders you alien to them and to yourself. Immediately you try to escape this dilemma, but it is too late. Not even suicide will fix it. Suicides are just another type of failure of the system, just so much trash to be discarded. As long as you are breathing and feeling, you are present, standing in front of your own broken screen, back to it now, facing the crowd, blocking the view of their own screens and therefore disrupting their comfort. If you persist they will remove you. Being awake, you are aware of this so you walk away and allow them to slip back into the collective coma and forget what just happened.
We perch on the edge of a high cliff overlooking a great field of humans all sitting watching the screens. We turn away from them and walk around in the hills, turning over the rocks. Fossils! Sweet reminders that something happened long ago, left its trace, left its joke. We know it is a joke, but do not know its language except that it is the language of all last jokes. The herd grazes with their eyes. The sun rises. We continue. We make our homes in the cliff face. We wonder far away for days at a time, but we always return to our home in the cliffs. We etch pictures and scrawl symbols on the wall for no reason at all. If there were a reason there would be no point in doing it because we would only be perpetuating the virus, the virus of blindness that is the sustenance of those that dwell in the valley. Your pictures and symbols are indecipherable. But there will come another, another kind in another world who will look upon the pictures and symbols and read them the way we read the fossils. They will indicate something vacant and precious. They might even be preserved the way we may carry a fossil home and set it on a shelf and look at it from time to time remembering something that it is entirely impossible for us to remember.
Jake Berry is the author of Brambu Drezi, Liminal Blue and other works of extraordinary insight.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The Death of Old Man White
A Short Play by Jake Berry.
Characters:
The Gravedigger: a man in his mid-60s. An inhabitant of a small town for many years. A widower of less than a year.
His sister: A widow of several years, also in her mid-60s. Recently moved to the small town.
Scene:
The gravedigger comes in, late afternoon of a cold, rainy day in November. He removes his raincoat, shakes the water out of it and hangs it on a hook by the door.
They live in a small house. The house the gravedigger and his wife lived in for most of their married life. The back door opens directly into a kitchen with a stove, oven, sink, stove/oven, refrigerator, table and chairs.
Sister: You could shake that thing off outside on the porch before you came in.
Gravedigger: Yeah. Sorry about that. It's just so cold and damp. I guess I was eager to get in.
Sister: Job's done then?
Gravedigger: Only half. The hole's dug.
S: What about the rest of it?
G: Body's in the coffin, lid on, but not yet nailed.
S: And who does the nailing?
G: Not sure. It won't be the man that dug the hole unless they pay half again. Won't be the priest or the preacher. They never raise hammer toward a nail. Maybe the young kid that just came on. He has both ignorance and enthusiasm going for him.
S: What's the issue. They die, they get boxed, nailed in and laid to ground every day. What's so special about this one?
G: I wouldn't exactly call it special, just a long time coming, and some remain what you might call… doubtful.
S: Doubtful of what? Why? Who is it?
G: Old Man White.
She hesitates a moment. Struck by the painful memories of the ancient face. She quickly regains her composure and continues:
S: Yes. I remember him in a general way. He was very rich and powerful in his day wasn't he?
G: He was that and more. No one made it through a door, held land or build a structure without his approval.
S: How could one man have so much importance? I can't say he seemed like much when I saw him. Just a scary, withered old face. Maybe a little intimidating to look at, but that's it.
G: You saw him weak, old and humbled, and you only saw the one. He was, in his prime, one man, but also many. What he spoke came from a chorus of mouths. What he wrote fell into many brains. Some believed it came from more than a brain. It was like a a white ghost hovered over every word.
S: And those that are afraid to drive the nails, they believe all this?
G: No, but they remember it and fear it. They don't expect him to rise from the grave, but no one's quite convinced that he's dead just yet. It's hard to accept that so much authority can ever entirely pass away. No one wants to seal the box. It's almost as if as soon as they do they'll turn around and he'll be standing there watching them.
S: What? Like a ghost?
G: No, like the man himself. Nailed in the box, but up and alive walking around just the same.
S: That's just a bunch of foolishness.
G: Yes, it is. But foolishness was the old man's stock and trade. He sold it like food, set fires with it, drove engines with it. You can't turn your back on a man like that. He can be everywhere at once.
S: Sounds like you caught a bit of that foolishness yourself.
G: No. I'm just telling you what people think and how they feel.
S: I say nail the lid, drop the box in the hole and throw dirt on it till the the hole is filled.
G: Like I said, I'm willing, if they'll pay me fair wage to do it.
S: So then, do it. Sooner the better. Put an end to this silly chatter.
G: Fine, if they'll make me, or someone, the deal.
S: Get it done then. Shake the hand, sign the paper. What's the hold up? They want you to work for free or what?
G: No. Problem is, no one is sure who'd be the authority on the other end of the deal. The one who'd pay the extra wage.
S: Why not? Where'd the authority go? Don't you have laws in these matters?
G: I don't know about laws exactly, but we did have a method. It's just that the authority is holding his tongue, so to speak.
S: Why? Out of fear?
G: No. Out of death. He's the man in the box.
S: Oh.
She falls silent again, gets up from her seat at the table and goes to the stove where she stirs something in a pot, thinking. He takes a seat at the table, rubbing his hands, still trying to shake off the damp and chill.
S: Well then, someone else has to be the authority.
G: That's the same conclusion we came to up on the hill. A fellow offered to do the job, if we'd help him with the tough bits since he'd be new to it.
S: Good then. What's he say?
G: He's thinking the matter through. He's a smart fellow, but he's consulting with some others on the matter. As smart as he is, he thinks he should ask around to see what we all think about it.
S: So he thinks and we wait. He talks to everyone from geniuses to gravediggers. Meanwhile, Old Man White lies in his box pretending to be everywhere at once?
G: Something like that.
S: Yeah, sure seems like that foolishness was contagious.
G: I hope not. I'm glad to do the job and we need the money.
S: That we do. Still, we have to wait.
G: Yes. We wait, for a while. We wait and see.
Jake Berry 11.5.08
Characters:
The Gravedigger: a man in his mid-60s. An inhabitant of a small town for many years. A widower of less than a year.
His sister: A widow of several years, also in her mid-60s. Recently moved to the small town.
Scene:
The gravedigger comes in, late afternoon of a cold, rainy day in November. He removes his raincoat, shakes the water out of it and hangs it on a hook by the door.
They live in a small house. The house the gravedigger and his wife lived in for most of their married life. The back door opens directly into a kitchen with a stove, oven, sink, stove/oven, refrigerator, table and chairs.
Sister: You could shake that thing off outside on the porch before you came in.
Gravedigger: Yeah. Sorry about that. It's just so cold and damp. I guess I was eager to get in.
Sister: Job's done then?
Gravedigger: Only half. The hole's dug.
S: What about the rest of it?
G: Body's in the coffin, lid on, but not yet nailed.
S: And who does the nailing?
G: Not sure. It won't be the man that dug the hole unless they pay half again. Won't be the priest or the preacher. They never raise hammer toward a nail. Maybe the young kid that just came on. He has both ignorance and enthusiasm going for him.
S: What's the issue. They die, they get boxed, nailed in and laid to ground every day. What's so special about this one?
G: I wouldn't exactly call it special, just a long time coming, and some remain what you might call… doubtful.
S: Doubtful of what? Why? Who is it?
G: Old Man White.
She hesitates a moment. Struck by the painful memories of the ancient face. She quickly regains her composure and continues:
S: Yes. I remember him in a general way. He was very rich and powerful in his day wasn't he?
G: He was that and more. No one made it through a door, held land or build a structure without his approval.
S: How could one man have so much importance? I can't say he seemed like much when I saw him. Just a scary, withered old face. Maybe a little intimidating to look at, but that's it.
G: You saw him weak, old and humbled, and you only saw the one. He was, in his prime, one man, but also many. What he spoke came from a chorus of mouths. What he wrote fell into many brains. Some believed it came from more than a brain. It was like a a white ghost hovered over every word.
S: And those that are afraid to drive the nails, they believe all this?
G: No, but they remember it and fear it. They don't expect him to rise from the grave, but no one's quite convinced that he's dead just yet. It's hard to accept that so much authority can ever entirely pass away. No one wants to seal the box. It's almost as if as soon as they do they'll turn around and he'll be standing there watching them.
S: What? Like a ghost?
G: No, like the man himself. Nailed in the box, but up and alive walking around just the same.
S: That's just a bunch of foolishness.
G: Yes, it is. But foolishness was the old man's stock and trade. He sold it like food, set fires with it, drove engines with it. You can't turn your back on a man like that. He can be everywhere at once.
S: Sounds like you caught a bit of that foolishness yourself.
G: No. I'm just telling you what people think and how they feel.
S: I say nail the lid, drop the box in the hole and throw dirt on it till the the hole is filled.
G: Like I said, I'm willing, if they'll pay me fair wage to do it.
S: So then, do it. Sooner the better. Put an end to this silly chatter.
G: Fine, if they'll make me, or someone, the deal.
S: Get it done then. Shake the hand, sign the paper. What's the hold up? They want you to work for free or what?
G: No. Problem is, no one is sure who'd be the authority on the other end of the deal. The one who'd pay the extra wage.
S: Why not? Where'd the authority go? Don't you have laws in these matters?
G: I don't know about laws exactly, but we did have a method. It's just that the authority is holding his tongue, so to speak.
S: Why? Out of fear?
G: No. Out of death. He's the man in the box.
S: Oh.
She falls silent again, gets up from her seat at the table and goes to the stove where she stirs something in a pot, thinking. He takes a seat at the table, rubbing his hands, still trying to shake off the damp and chill.
S: Well then, someone else has to be the authority.
G: That's the same conclusion we came to up on the hill. A fellow offered to do the job, if we'd help him with the tough bits since he'd be new to it.
S: Good then. What's he say?
G: He's thinking the matter through. He's a smart fellow, but he's consulting with some others on the matter. As smart as he is, he thinks he should ask around to see what we all think about it.
S: So he thinks and we wait. He talks to everyone from geniuses to gravediggers. Meanwhile, Old Man White lies in his box pretending to be everywhere at once?
G: Something like that.
S: Yeah, sure seems like that foolishness was contagious.
G: I hope not. I'm glad to do the job and we need the money.
S: That we do. Still, we have to wait.
G: Yes. We wait, for a while. We wait and see.
Jake Berry 11.5.08
Sunday, November 09, 2008
Jake's Word: A Mutt Like Me
This is from an article in the NYTimes about Pres. Elect Obama's economic transition team and his possible choices for cabinet members. This paragraph was interesting:
Near the end of the brief session, he alluded to a domestic choice facing his family: what kind of dog to bring to the White House. Perhaps, he said, the Obama family should visit a shelter and pick out “a mutt like me.”
I wrote a draft of brief play last night called "The Death of Old Man White". (It was common in the small town where I grew up to refer to an old fellow whose history was generally but not clearly known as Old Man Jones, Old Man Smith or whatever.) The point is that Americans are all, as Jack said long ago, collages. We are made of different ethnic groups. To be classified as White in this country meant that your ethnic group, which would be a minority by itself, had been accepted into the collective that generally ran things at almost all levels of society. Obama's election makes that distinction, already an illusion, a very problematical condition. Isn't it time to admit that there is no nation, state, or region called White? It was an illusion established in order to allow certain groups of people rights that were not allowed to other groups of people who by virtue of recent immigration, or worse, the color of their skin, were denied those same rights. Isn't is time to do away with this designation "White" and admit that Americans are all collages, we are all mutts. And proud to be. Obama looks like America and though he and I are different mixtures of mutt, I am a mutt like him.
"The dogs on Main Street howl because they understand
if I could take one moment into my hands.
Mister, I ain't a boy, No, I'm a man.
And I believe in the the promised land."
Bruce Springsteen - (Dutch-English mutt) - from his song "The Promised Land"
Let's see what happens.
Love to you all,
Jake Berry
[JAKE BERRY IS THE AUTHOR OF BRAMBU DREZI, LIMINAL BLUE AND OTHER WORKS OF EXTRAORDINARY CRAFT AND QUALITY: jakebridget@bellsouth.net.]
Near the end of the brief session, he alluded to a domestic choice facing his family: what kind of dog to bring to the White House. Perhaps, he said, the Obama family should visit a shelter and pick out “a mutt like me.”
I wrote a draft of brief play last night called "The Death of Old Man White". (It was common in the small town where I grew up to refer to an old fellow whose history was generally but not clearly known as Old Man Jones, Old Man Smith or whatever.) The point is that Americans are all, as Jack said long ago, collages. We are made of different ethnic groups. To be classified as White in this country meant that your ethnic group, which would be a minority by itself, had been accepted into the collective that generally ran things at almost all levels of society. Obama's election makes that distinction, already an illusion, a very problematical condition. Isn't it time to admit that there is no nation, state, or region called White? It was an illusion established in order to allow certain groups of people rights that were not allowed to other groups of people who by virtue of recent immigration, or worse, the color of their skin, were denied those same rights. Isn't is time to do away with this designation "White" and admit that Americans are all collages, we are all mutts. And proud to be. Obama looks like America and though he and I are different mixtures of mutt, I am a mutt like him.
"The dogs on Main Street howl because they understand
if I could take one moment into my hands.
Mister, I ain't a boy, No, I'm a man.
And I believe in the the promised land."
Bruce Springsteen - (Dutch-English mutt) - from his song "The Promised Land"
Let's see what happens.
Love to you all,
Jake Berry
[JAKE BERRY IS THE AUTHOR OF BRAMBU DREZI, LIMINAL BLUE AND OTHER WORKS OF EXTRAORDINARY CRAFT AND QUALITY: jakebridget@bellsouth.net.]
Jake's Word: Al-Obama
Here's the text of a letter I just sent to Ceil Davis who was the
first person I know personally that campaigned for Obama, back when no
one thought he could win anything beyond honorable mention:
Just wanted to say congratulations to the person that got there first.
You said Obama was the guy. And though I doubted he could win the
democratic nomination from Clinton, I voted for him in the primaries.
I thought he was the best person for the job, but I still thought he'd
lose.
It got a little scary last weekend, like maybe things we're slipping
away and White power was going to trump everyone else yet again. But
when the votes were counted he won states that no Democrat has won
since Johnson and Kennedy.
Now comes the hard part. Some people, left and right, expect him to be
the incarnation of Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, Kennedy and FDR
all rolled into one even though his politics have always seemed very
centrist. Thing is, in order to solve some of the financial problems
we may need some New Deal type programs to get people back to work and
get the capital flowing again. You can't just help the banks alone.
They'll just hang on to the money. He's going to have to be tough and
pragmatic and take the heat. JFK used to say that popularity was like
political capital and it should be spent. Obama is going to have to
spend political capital without making the same mistakes Clinton made
and lose congress two years from now. If we can keep things Democratic
for four years (unless they REALLY screw up) - the country might swing
away from pure White authority and more toward the plurality that
America actually is and always has been. White is just a coalition of
minorities of European ancestry.
I thought both McCain's and Obama's election night speeches were
eloquent, but Obama's was high rhetoric in the tradition of Greek and
Roman oratory, summoning Lincoln and King, and summoning the will of
the people the way they did in the great crises of their time. He
looked and sounded like a man who had found his moment - like he
belonged right there. You rarely see that. When JFK said, "We must go
to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but
because they are hard," he gave us words to live by. Anything
worthwhile is hard and living without a challenge in front of you is
just damned lazy as far as I'm concerned. I hope Obama can take the
next step - whether he has to be progressive, pragmatic or
conservative or all three in the same moment doesn't matter. He's
already accomplished one thing - he's not W. And he sure looks and
sounds like a president. Not a king or an inheritor, but an
intelligent statesman, young and ambitious enough to try new approaches.
There's no W in America or Alabama, but there's damn sure a Bama in
Obama. And I have heard, not sure where to look it up, that Barack is
a Hebrew word for lightning. I'm still in favor of changing the name
of the state to Al-Obama.
Jake
[JAKE BERRY IS THE AUTHOR OF BRAMBU DREZI, LIMINAL BLUE AND OTHER WORKS OF EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINALITY (jakebridget@bellsouth.net).]
first person I know personally that campaigned for Obama, back when no
one thought he could win anything beyond honorable mention:
Just wanted to say congratulations to the person that got there first.
You said Obama was the guy. And though I doubted he could win the
democratic nomination from Clinton, I voted for him in the primaries.
I thought he was the best person for the job, but I still thought he'd
lose.
It got a little scary last weekend, like maybe things we're slipping
away and White power was going to trump everyone else yet again. But
when the votes were counted he won states that no Democrat has won
since Johnson and Kennedy.
Now comes the hard part. Some people, left and right, expect him to be
the incarnation of Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, Kennedy and FDR
all rolled into one even though his politics have always seemed very
centrist. Thing is, in order to solve some of the financial problems
we may need some New Deal type programs to get people back to work and
get the capital flowing again. You can't just help the banks alone.
They'll just hang on to the money. He's going to have to be tough and
pragmatic and take the heat. JFK used to say that popularity was like
political capital and it should be spent. Obama is going to have to
spend political capital without making the same mistakes Clinton made
and lose congress two years from now. If we can keep things Democratic
for four years (unless they REALLY screw up) - the country might swing
away from pure White authority and more toward the plurality that
America actually is and always has been. White is just a coalition of
minorities of European ancestry.
I thought both McCain's and Obama's election night speeches were
eloquent, but Obama's was high rhetoric in the tradition of Greek and
Roman oratory, summoning Lincoln and King, and summoning the will of
the people the way they did in the great crises of their time. He
looked and sounded like a man who had found his moment - like he
belonged right there. You rarely see that. When JFK said, "We must go
to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but
because they are hard," he gave us words to live by. Anything
worthwhile is hard and living without a challenge in front of you is
just damned lazy as far as I'm concerned. I hope Obama can take the
next step - whether he has to be progressive, pragmatic or
conservative or all three in the same moment doesn't matter. He's
already accomplished one thing - he's not W. And he sure looks and
sounds like a president. Not a king or an inheritor, but an
intelligent statesman, young and ambitious enough to try new approaches.
There's no W in America or Alabama, but there's damn sure a Bama in
Obama. And I have heard, not sure where to look it up, that Barack is
a Hebrew word for lightning. I'm still in favor of changing the name
of the state to Al-Obama.
Jake
[JAKE BERRY IS THE AUTHOR OF BRAMBU DREZI, LIMINAL BLUE AND OTHER WORKS OF EXTRAORDINARY ORIGINALITY (jakebridget@bellsouth.net).]
Sunday, November 02, 2008
RE: MEMO TO THE IDEOLOGICALLY PURE
From: Jake Berry
Sent: Sat 11/01/08 12:21 AM
You are indeed in the tradition of Tom Paine. And live up to it with every word. So I voice my support, encouragement and agreement. Like you, I am fiercely independent politically. But this time it's different. If we don't remove the currently entrenched Republican machine from the White House and hopefully the legislature as well then we must accept Corporatism as the established government. We're close. Perhaps a quarter of the electorate have already voted. Tuesday is the day though and we must remain vigilant and encourage people to go to the polls, wait in line and vote, even if you have a nasty cold. You'll get over the cold, but this nation cannot survive Corporatism for another four years. It would be a shame to think that the U.S. survived Civil War, Great Depression and two world wars only to be undone by the half-wit progeny of a political dynasty. We will vote another day for fundamental change, including abolishing the two party system. Tuesday we have to free ourselves of Republican ruin.
Let's get it done.
Jake.
JAZZMAN CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.
MEMO TO THE IDEOLOGICALLY PURE:
IT’S ABOUT BLOOD
By Jack Random
I have walked among the ideologically pure: the uncompromised, non-partisan and unaligned. I have rejected the politics of pragmatism on the grounds that real systemic change will never come as long as we uphold the two-party system [1]. I have fought the good fight for independents and third-party presidential candidates: Ralph Nader, John Anderson, even Ross Perot.
I believed then as I believe now that the greatest hope for American democracy is the ultimate defeat of a corporate dominated major party system where both sides betray the interests of the people.
As a voter I have to this date maintained my record of ideological purity for decades: I have not voted for a major party candidate since the days of Bobby Kennedy and George McGovern. I had no regrets voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 or Leonard Peltier in 2004. My vote is my conscience and no one is entitled to criticize, condemn or belittle an act of conscience.
However, as a political writer and propagandist (I do not run from that designation but embrace it in the tradition of Tom Paine) everything changed on September 12, 2001. After the initial shock and imbalance, I realized that our government was hell-bent on a mission of revenge that would reach far beyond any semblance of justice. When they published the Bush Doctrine and declared war on Afghanistan rather than targeting the perpetrators of the crime, I understood it was no longer about terrorists or terrorism. When they declared war on Iraq my fears were confirmed: They were using 9-11 to justify a power play for Middle East oil.
In 2004 I swallowed my pride and sacrificed my ideological purity by advocating for Democrat John Kerry. It was not the candidate’s character, charisma or campaign that persuaded me. If anything it was a limp campaign with compromise after compromise on down the line. I was incensed when Kerry declared he would withdraw our troops from Iraq by the end of his four-year term. (It doesn’t sound so bad now.)
What changed for me was the solemn fact that lives were on the line. We were at war with two nations. We were occupiers of foreign soil. As many as a million or more people were already dead as a result of our actions. We were not engaged or even interested in diplomatic solutions. There was no exit strategy in sight.
So I made a choice base on a simple question: Under a John Kerry administration, would lives be saved? You could make an argument that nothing would be different, that only words distinguished Bush from Kerry, on and on, but for me the answer was clear.
If I had lived in a battleground state I would have cast my vote for Kerry. I am not ashamed of it. I am however angry and frustrated that my choices are so limited, that electoral laws and regulations are stacked against independents and third parties, that the system requires massive financial resources that can only truly be supplied by corrupting influences and that the Supreme Court has blocked the way to meaningful campaign finance and election reform. I am incensed that the Electoral College is still in place and election fraud including disenfranchisement is regarded as less than treason.
I am disappointed in an age of growing discontent that third parties and independents have not built a national organization from the ground up. Why do we continue to make quixotic charges at towering windmills when the rank and file loyalists of both parties are so demonstrably weak? If we are unable to muster the resources to defeat a single Charlie Brown or Michelle Bachmann then we do not belong in electoral politics.
Until a candidate moves through the electoral process in a logical progression, from local office to state representative to congress to the US senate or a governorship, no one should feel any obligation to vote for a symbolic candidate.
I understand that Ralph Nader has a role to play. I understand his rationale for continuing his run for the White House to pressure mainstream Democrats to adopt more progressive policies. Out of principle and respect I refuse to oppose him but I have come to believe that he really would have had a greater impact if he had moved up the ladder of elected offices (Jesse Ventura won the governorship of Minnesota!).
There are a number of voices on the left who are so irrationally dismissive of pragmatic politics it is tempting to question their motives. It is no secret to anyone that third parties on the left are functionally Republican just as third parties on the right are functionally Democratic under the current political system.
The ideologically pure ask [2]: What happens to the movements that were sidelined by the campaign? (Answer: They’re still there.) What becomes of the environmental movement? (They will find a more receptive congress and White House.) Will they stand up to oppose “clean” coal and nuclear power? (Yes.) Will the antiwar movement oppose military escalation in Afghanistan? (Yes, in the streets of protest.) Will they oppose aggressive policies and actions toward Syria and Iran? (Yes.)
Respectfully these are not the right questions though they are not difficult to answer. The right questions are: How many lives will be saved by the election of Obama? How much suffering will be eased by blocking four more years of Republican economic policy?
The ideologically pure may answer: None or little. Some might even argue that Obama would make things worse.
That’s their call and they’re welcome to it.
This is mine: I’ll cast my ballot for Barack Obama.
Jazz.
1. The Jazzman Chronicles, Volume One by Jack Random (Crow Dog Press 2003.)
2. “Memo to Progressives for Obama: What Happens After Election Day?” Joshua Frank, Counterpunch, October 31, 2008.
JAKE BERRY IS THE AUTHOR OF BRAMBU DREZI AND LIMINAL BLUE AND OTHER WORKS OF LITERARY GENIUS. SEE HIS WEBSITE. EMAIL: (jakebridget@bellsouth.net).
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). A COLUMNIST FOR THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS, HIS NOVEL THE KILLING SPIRIT AND NOVELLA NUMBER NINE: ADVENTURES WITH RUBY ARE POSTED ON BUZZLE.COM.
Sent: Sat 11/01/08 12:21 AM
You are indeed in the tradition of Tom Paine. And live up to it with every word. So I voice my support, encouragement and agreement. Like you, I am fiercely independent politically. But this time it's different. If we don't remove the currently entrenched Republican machine from the White House and hopefully the legislature as well then we must accept Corporatism as the established government. We're close. Perhaps a quarter of the electorate have already voted. Tuesday is the day though and we must remain vigilant and encourage people to go to the polls, wait in line and vote, even if you have a nasty cold. You'll get over the cold, but this nation cannot survive Corporatism for another four years. It would be a shame to think that the U.S. survived Civil War, Great Depression and two world wars only to be undone by the half-wit progeny of a political dynasty. We will vote another day for fundamental change, including abolishing the two party system. Tuesday we have to free ourselves of Republican ruin.
Let's get it done.
Jake.
JAZZMAN CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.
MEMO TO THE IDEOLOGICALLY PURE:
IT’S ABOUT BLOOD
By Jack Random
I have walked among the ideologically pure: the uncompromised, non-partisan and unaligned. I have rejected the politics of pragmatism on the grounds that real systemic change will never come as long as we uphold the two-party system [1]. I have fought the good fight for independents and third-party presidential candidates: Ralph Nader, John Anderson, even Ross Perot.
I believed then as I believe now that the greatest hope for American democracy is the ultimate defeat of a corporate dominated major party system where both sides betray the interests of the people.
As a voter I have to this date maintained my record of ideological purity for decades: I have not voted for a major party candidate since the days of Bobby Kennedy and George McGovern. I had no regrets voting for Ralph Nader in 2000 or Leonard Peltier in 2004. My vote is my conscience and no one is entitled to criticize, condemn or belittle an act of conscience.
However, as a political writer and propagandist (I do not run from that designation but embrace it in the tradition of Tom Paine) everything changed on September 12, 2001. After the initial shock and imbalance, I realized that our government was hell-bent on a mission of revenge that would reach far beyond any semblance of justice. When they published the Bush Doctrine and declared war on Afghanistan rather than targeting the perpetrators of the crime, I understood it was no longer about terrorists or terrorism. When they declared war on Iraq my fears were confirmed: They were using 9-11 to justify a power play for Middle East oil.
In 2004 I swallowed my pride and sacrificed my ideological purity by advocating for Democrat John Kerry. It was not the candidate’s character, charisma or campaign that persuaded me. If anything it was a limp campaign with compromise after compromise on down the line. I was incensed when Kerry declared he would withdraw our troops from Iraq by the end of his four-year term. (It doesn’t sound so bad now.)
What changed for me was the solemn fact that lives were on the line. We were at war with two nations. We were occupiers of foreign soil. As many as a million or more people were already dead as a result of our actions. We were not engaged or even interested in diplomatic solutions. There was no exit strategy in sight.
So I made a choice base on a simple question: Under a John Kerry administration, would lives be saved? You could make an argument that nothing would be different, that only words distinguished Bush from Kerry, on and on, but for me the answer was clear.
If I had lived in a battleground state I would have cast my vote for Kerry. I am not ashamed of it. I am however angry and frustrated that my choices are so limited, that electoral laws and regulations are stacked against independents and third parties, that the system requires massive financial resources that can only truly be supplied by corrupting influences and that the Supreme Court has blocked the way to meaningful campaign finance and election reform. I am incensed that the Electoral College is still in place and election fraud including disenfranchisement is regarded as less than treason.
I am disappointed in an age of growing discontent that third parties and independents have not built a national organization from the ground up. Why do we continue to make quixotic charges at towering windmills when the rank and file loyalists of both parties are so demonstrably weak? If we are unable to muster the resources to defeat a single Charlie Brown or Michelle Bachmann then we do not belong in electoral politics.
Until a candidate moves through the electoral process in a logical progression, from local office to state representative to congress to the US senate or a governorship, no one should feel any obligation to vote for a symbolic candidate.
I understand that Ralph Nader has a role to play. I understand his rationale for continuing his run for the White House to pressure mainstream Democrats to adopt more progressive policies. Out of principle and respect I refuse to oppose him but I have come to believe that he really would have had a greater impact if he had moved up the ladder of elected offices (Jesse Ventura won the governorship of Minnesota!).
There are a number of voices on the left who are so irrationally dismissive of pragmatic politics it is tempting to question their motives. It is no secret to anyone that third parties on the left are functionally Republican just as third parties on the right are functionally Democratic under the current political system.
The ideologically pure ask [2]: What happens to the movements that were sidelined by the campaign? (Answer: They’re still there.) What becomes of the environmental movement? (They will find a more receptive congress and White House.) Will they stand up to oppose “clean” coal and nuclear power? (Yes.) Will the antiwar movement oppose military escalation in Afghanistan? (Yes, in the streets of protest.) Will they oppose aggressive policies and actions toward Syria and Iran? (Yes.)
Respectfully these are not the right questions though they are not difficult to answer. The right questions are: How many lives will be saved by the election of Obama? How much suffering will be eased by blocking four more years of Republican economic policy?
The ideologically pure may answer: None or little. Some might even argue that Obama would make things worse.
That’s their call and they’re welcome to it.
This is mine: I’ll cast my ballot for Barack Obama.
Jazz.
1. The Jazzman Chronicles, Volume One by Jack Random (Crow Dog Press 2003.)
2. “Memo to Progressives for Obama: What Happens After Election Day?” Joshua Frank, Counterpunch, October 31, 2008.
JAKE BERRY IS THE AUTHOR OF BRAMBU DREZI AND LIMINAL BLUE AND OTHER WORKS OF LITERARY GENIUS. SEE HIS WEBSITE. EMAIL: (jakebridget@bellsouth.net).
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). A COLUMNIST FOR THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS, HIS NOVEL THE KILLING SPIRIT AND NOVELLA NUMBER NINE: ADVENTURES WITH RUBY ARE POSTED ON BUZZLE.COM.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
RE: NINE REASONS (TO ELECT OBAMA)
FROM JAKE BERRY RE: JACK RANDOM'S NINE REASONS TO ELECT OBAMA (Imbedded).
Rather than the usual I'm going to respond to this essay piece by piece as this may be the last election. What I mean by that is current technology combined with all the old tricks, and a few new ones, may render elections, especially state, national and large municipal elections, pointless as a means of determining the will of the people.
I'm going to weave my response into your essay to save anyone that reads this the trouble of jumping back and forth.
THE SUMMATION: NINE REASONS TO ELECT OBAMA by Jack Random.
RANDOM: Historically, this nation has had a handful of critically important elections: The election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 ensured that we would remain on the path of democracy. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 marked the end of slavery. The election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 enabled us to survive the Great Depression and left the indelible legacy of the New Deal.
While the historical verdict must wait, the election of 2000, in which the losing candidate was allowed to take office, may some day rise to that level of importance. No one can doubt that the world would look different under the leadership of Albert Gore.
BERRY: Those are the same ones I would have chosen, including the 2000 election - the first clear indication that a last election might be upon us.
The current period also reminds me of two others. First, the period between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln a string of presidents either did nothing or only made matters worse, especially in regards to slavery. Second, the period beginning with reconstruction when the wealthy could and often did buy government favors or buy office outright. In both cases incompetence and a callous disregard for democratic principles resulted in disasters that very nearly destroyed the nation – the Ciivl War in the former case and a series of wild peaks and depressions culminating in the Great Depression in the latter.
Though we are in the midst of the current financial crises and it is impossible to gauge how deep, broad or enduring it might be, it seems clear that we are on the brink of a depression. This depression might yet be avoided with careful management including the cooperation of the world's governing bodies and the financial corporations whose greed generated the crisis. Obama suggested such a summit months ago. Long before Bush, Paulson or McCain would even acknowledge the crisis.
RANDOM: The election of 2008 holds the same promise. After a campaign that has consumed the better part of two years, everything of substance that can be said has been. To use a legal analogy, all that remains is the summation.
BERRY: You indicate precisely one of the problems. A two year campaign. The primaries should be held in June and July of an election year, the conventions in August, and the campaign for general election in September and October.
RANDOM: With one week remaining before Election Day, here are nine compelling reasons to elect Barack Obama President of the United States:
1. John McCain is more of the same on economic policy.
He can cry all he wants. He can scream it from the mountaintop. He can file a protest with the League of Nations. He can glare into the eyes of the camera and proclaim: I am not George W. Bush. The fact remains that his economic policy is fundamentally indistinguishable from that of the current president. As all long-term residents of Washington must learn, the Senator cannot run away from his record. McCain is a free market fundamentalist. He is anti-labor and he does not believe in government regulation. His singular issue of dissent, his opposition to the Bush tax cuts during a time of war and mounting deficits (2001-2005), was sacrificed when he adopted those same tax cuts as the foundation of his economic platform.
If McCain was still the straight talker he is supposed to have been, he would have no choice but to admit that the Republican economic philosophy has led us to the crisis we now face. He could still blame Democrats for adopting Republican policies but with Senator Phil Gramm as his economic mentor, he cannot escape blame.
It is far too late to wake up now with the discovery that the world is in fact round and everything you have ever believed is wrong. Alan Greenspan was wrong, Phil Gramm was wrong, Thomas Friedman was wrong, Adam Smith was wrong and John McCain is the wrong man to break the mold.
BERRY: You make the case beautifully. The problem with McCain's economic policy is that it is exactly what he is: Republican. I would agree with Adam Smith and other free market thinking much of the time. A free market will rise and fall, but will more or less regulate itself based on the laws of supply and demand. However, one must be pragmatic. When criminals spoil the market by artificially inflating its value in order to make quick, deceptive profit (let's call it what it is: theft) then some governing body must act on behalf of its constituency to reign the excess. There are already laws on the books to accomplish this. There is no point in the legislature making laws if the executive will not enforce them. McCain gives no indication at all that he will do anything more than Bush, Reagan, or Hoover to bring white collar criminals to justice.
RANDOM: 2. John McCain is more of the same on foreign policy.
Lame Duck President George W. Bush has been forced to accept the hard cold realities of his failed policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. From the global economic crisis to the Russian incursion into neighboring Georgia, we are no longer regarded as a dominant power. The government of Iraq, the same government we implanted in power, has resisted signing a status of forces agreement that would extend the legal grounds for a foreign occupation beyond the end of the year. Iraqi leaders have publicly stated they favor a withdrawal timetable corresponding to the exit strategy of Barack Obama. In Afghanistan military and governmental leaders alike have been pushing for a negotiated settlement.
While Obama has taken a hard line in Afghanistan, he has also embraced the policy of diplomacy. McCain has demonstrated nothing short of intransigence – the same sort of stubbornness that the Bush team has employed in achieving an unprecedented decline in America’s standing in the world.
As with the free market fundamentalists, John McCain signed up with the neoconservative brain trust on day one and he has never wavered. The same warmongering brain trust that was considered too extreme for Ronald Reagan was allowed free reign during the second coming of Bush. As with free market fundamentalism, the result is catastrophic: America is overextended, buried in debt and unable to sustain its legitimate interests.
McCain was for the war in Iraq before the Bush administration proposed it. McCain was for the Bush Doctrine of aggressive war and military dominance before it carried that name. That he would carry on those same policies cannot be doubted.
While Obama’s response to the situation in Georgia was measured and steady, McCain’s was bellicose and rash. To McCain, the lesson of Vietnam was not that we should not inherit imperialist wars from fallen empires. It was rather that we should fight on to “victory” at any cost. He feels the same about Iraq and Afghanistan. No matter what the cost, he will double down and double down again. He is as predictable as sunrise.
As a nation we can no longer afford an intransigent leader determined to bend the world to his knees. We cannot afford four more years of the Bush Doctrine under a new name.
BERRY: McCain does give every impression that he would resort to the use of the military even quicker than Bush. His foreign policy statements of the last eight years have been nothing short of belligerent imperialism. It does not seem to concern him that the military is exhausted, that soldiers have done repeated tours in the current wars. Would he send the military into Georgia? Would he expand the current wars into Syria and Pakistan? It seems the only thing that would stop him would be a revolt in the ranks.
Obama on the other hand indicates that his approach would be thoughtful and measured. That is, he would examine each situation as it arose, consult various counsel, then make what seemed to him the most expedient decision. In short, he would act like a president, not an emperor.
RANDOM: 3. America needs a New Deal.
Take it to heart: After eight years of unfettered corporate rule, we are on the precipice of economic collapse. The nature of the current crisis goes well beyond the housing bubble and the answers go well beyond rebuilding government regulatory authority. We are in debt because we could not sustain our standard of living on diminished wages. We are in trouble because we can no longer afford basic health care. We have witnessed a decline of organized labor and the decimation of American industry as our jobs have been transferred to cheap labor overseas.
Corporate America has killed the golden goose. In their thirst for immediate profits, they have destroyed the foundation of a consumer economy: the middle class.
Joe the Plumber is living in a world of delusion. In the age of the corporate elite, the dream of upward mobility is dead. When consumers can no longer support basic needs, small businesses are the first to fail. Capital is consolidated in fewer hands. International corporations grow larger. Labor exploitation is institutionalized. Government becomes an agent of the wealthy.
America needs a New Deal in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt. We need a government that can no longer be bought, that answers to the needs of the people, that provides jobs, that secures the rights of workers, that ends job exportation, that rebuilds roads, bridges and mass transit, that creates new job opportunities and funds education. We need universal health care, not some harebrained privatization scheme. We need to strengthen social security, not to dismantle it one brick at a time.
The New Deal was only possible because Roosevelt had the support of both houses of congress. We are beyond the minor fixes that can be accomplished through bipartisan compromise. The Republican way, the way of the elite international corporation, has failed. It is time for systemic change.
BERRY: One hopes that such a thing is still possible. The America that Roosevelt lived in no longer exists. At that time we were an industrial and agricultural economy that traded with other nations. At present, global institutions like the World Bank and the World Trade Organization make it difficult for any nation to act completely independently. Add to that the fact that our economic stability is dependent on credit from nations like China and Saudi Arabia. These nations will abandon us if we are are unable or unwilling to consume their products at rates that are very profitable to them.
Again, McCain will be business as usual or he will attempt temporary, short term, fixes. Obama seems more likely to convene the powers that be in order to attempt to arrive at a solution that works reasonably well for everyone.
We cannot hope to recover jobs from companies that outsourced then went bankrupt or were absorbed by global corporations. The president could make the case that it makes sense to build products closer to the consumer and thereby avoid shipping, tariffs, and all the other costs and hazards of import/export. If products built for the American market are made in America by Americans it benefits everyone. If we are able then to begin to recover economically and move closer to a balanced budget the government might be able to find the resources to finance job creation and job training programs.
Russia cannot live on oil revenue forever and the Chinese economy cannot continue to expand exponentially. The world will need a steady, reliable economy in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere to prevent depression when those economies slow or crash. The U.S. should act now to be prepared.
RANDOM: 4. The politics of fear and smear should be answered in kind.
For seven years we have been led down the path of our own demise by the politics of fear and smear. The Republican Party has long exploited the religious right’s fear of moral decay – abortion rights and gay marriage. After September 11, 2001, they expanded the politics of fear to terrorism and enemies of the American way of life. As they attacked the Bill of Rights, they accused anyone who stood in the way of terrorist sympathies. As they waged war on innocent nations, nations that were not responsible for the attack on our soil, they accused those who opposed them of appeasing the enemy and betraying our troops.
Now, in the waning days of a desperate campaign, they have attacked Barack Obama with patently false and scurrilous rumors of anti-American sentiments: Obama is a closet Muslim, a secret foreign agent, an associate of terrorists, on and on.
There is no denying that Obama is black and we wonder how much of the attack strategy is founded on that solemn fact.
We will never be able to rub out the politics of fear and smear but we may be able to land a decisive and crushing blow. In this sense, the margin of victory is important. Let Karl Rove be remembered for something beside the theft of two elections.
BERRY: The arrest of two men from Tennessee who apparently planned to kill 100 people and THEN kill Obama is a clear display of the rot that lies at the core of southern conservatism. Based on recent history it seems that neo-conservative strategy succeeds by merging with racial and ethic hatred. It panders to fear of the other in order to extract power from a significant portion of the middle class and poor and use that power toward ends that designed to expand and maintain a global empire of wealthy elite that pay allegiance to no state, no government and no people save themselves. Obama may or may not challenge that system, but you can be sure that McCain will promote it.
RANDOM: 5. Restore balance on the Supreme Court.
Even before the appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, the Supreme Court that overruled democracy in the 2000 election was tilted dangerously to the right. Much has been said about the danger of a new court overruling a woman’s right to choose abortion but little has been said about the Court’s corporate bias, a bias that undermines both individual rights and the public good.
The Court’s finding that corporate contributions are protected free speech means that no meaningful campaign finance reform will be allowed as long as this court remains intact. The Court’s ruling on public domain sacrificed individual property rights in favor of corporate development. The Court’s ruling on equal pay for equal work in the Lilly Ledbetter case effectively removed enforcement from the law.
While there have been some surprising rulings opposing the president’s egregious violations of due process, the one consistent strand has been a corporate bias.
It is no secret that the next president is likely to appoint at least two new justices to the Supreme Court. An Obama presidency would restore some sense of balance.
BERRY: This is one of the most compelling arguments in favor of the election of Obama. McCain has made it clear by name the kind of judges he would appoint – Alito and Roberts. This would complete the transformation of the court into a tool of Corporatism. Any rights left would only be those that did not interfere with continued corporate control.
This election makes one thing very clear. Barack Obama is not John McCain. His nominees for the court would be of a different order.
RANDOM: 6. Restoration of Civil Liberties.
In two hundred and thirty two years of history, perhaps no president has done more harm to the Bill of Rights than George W. Bush. He has used the War Powers Act and the USA Patriot Act to spy on American citizens without warrant or legal recourse. He has claimed the right to detain citizens and non-citizens indefinitely. He has institutionalized torture.
Under his leadership, the fourth estate was used as a fence for false and deceptive government propaganda. Under the guidance of his political mentor, Karl Rove, he is responsible for the disenfranchisement of more minority citizens than at any time since the days of Jim Crow. He has all but accused those who stood in opposition of treason – in polite society, appeasing the enemy.
Under his reign, the Department of Justice became a political agent, choosing to prosecute cases on the basis of partisan advantage rather than the rule of law and firing those who refused to cooperate.
It is too late to impeach George W. Bush but history will record that grounds for impeachment were strong on the basis of civil liberties alone. Fortunately, it is not too late to undo much of the harm.
BERRY: Here Obama can make significant change in a hurry. So much of the diminishment of our fundamental human rights and dignities are the result of the Bush administration's actions. All Obama would have to do is change the way the executive branch executes its power. He would not need congressional authority. All he need do is devote the energies of his administration to attacking the real enemies of the nation and not the rights of its citizens. I think we can be almost certain that he will make this change and make it almost immediately upon assuming office. If there were no other reason to vote for Obama this would be more than enough.
McCain on the other hand would continue or intensify the Bush doctrine.
RANDOM: 7. Restoration of Democracy: Payback.
If you still believe that George W. Bush legitimately won the White House in 2000 and 2004 you have not done your homework. Bush won in 2000 through a massive disenfranchisement campaign, a campaign that targeted black voters in critical battleground states – most notably in Florida. Bush won in 2004 through a combination of disenfranchisement and electronic vote flipping – most notably in Ohio. Had the corporate media done its job, those betrayals of the fundamental rights of democracy would have been reversed. Instead, the media chose to turn the page. As a consequence, those betrayals have continued and intensified with the advance of technology.
In the aftermath of Florida 2000, we should have been shocked to learn by the decision of the Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore) that voting is not considered a right. According to the law of the land as interpreted by the highest source of justice, the most basic right of citizenship is a privilege – and one that can be stripped away by political operatives.
That needs to be rectified. The right to vote is sacred and must be protected by our elected officials. It cannot happen under Republican leadership. It can only happen with new leadership in the White House.
BERRY: Yes. Here we are at the crux of the moment. We know from the past two elections, and the media's complicity, that if this election is close it can be stolen. Obama needs to win by several percentage points in the popular vote and a convincing majority of the electoral vote. One would hope that if this happens another of his primary objectives would be to guarantee the RIGHT to vote to every citizen and ensure that every vote be counted.
RANDOM: 8. Freedom from Ideological Intransigence.
Barack Obama has spoken at length about the politics of pragmatism. To the Senator from Illinois, it is the key to unity and working across the partisan divide. To many on the left (myself included) his refusal to identify more forcefully with a progressive ideology has been a source of frustration and opposition. However, after eight years of leadership governed by the tenets of an outdated, out of touch ideology, the politics of pragmatism begin to look appealing.
During his tenure in office, George W. Bush never thought twice, never looked back, never adjusted his thinking and never changed course. On the domestic front, his thinking was guided by a free market fundamentalism that disallowed the role of government. When warnings were sounded, he had only one answer: tax cuts and more tax cuts.
In foreign policy, his thinking stopped with the announcement of the Bush Doctrine, in which America would use military force to secure dominance in perpetuity. When Iraq imploded, he had no plan. When the debt mounted and the military was overextended, he was incapable of making an adjustment. When Afghanistan began to unravel, there was no contingency plan.
Ideology is important. It gives a leader a solid foundation. But in the real world, where the dynamics change and new realities emerge, a true leader must be able to adjust.
In the current, John McCain has demonstrated the same sort of ideological intransigence that haunted George W. Bush. He is out of touch and out of time. Obama’s time has come.
BERRY: Ideology is always dangerous. We need ideals, but also recognize that they are our guides. Occasionally we can accomplish a goal driven by ideals – the right of all citizens to vote, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or religion for instance. Jefferson was an idealist to say the least, but upon taking the office of president, and often before, he found himself in the uncomfortable position of having to compromise those ideals in order to maintain peace and support what at least at that time seemed to be the common good. The president must be guided by ideals, even an ideology or religion, but when those ideals conflict with the most reasonable course of action he or she must be guided by reason. No divine authority is going to save us. We must think for ourselves as free individuals. A president who fails to do this fails himself and everyone within his sphere of influence.
Obama seems to be a political pragmatist above all else. Indeed, one wishes he were more a champion of human rights, fair government, and so forth. But his actions suggest he will take the most practical course possible. It helps to remember that Kennedy in the Cuban missile crises was caught between two ideologies and found a practical middle course that spared us nuclear war.
McCain on the other hand appears to have decided after being swindled by Karl Rove in 2000 that the only way to win was to run a campaign just like Karl Rove. And he has continually supported the Bush administration, often voting with them while publicly stating he was opposed. Uncertain at best. And it would seem that he is willing to submit to an ideology rather than assert reason. It raises questions about his personal integrity.
RANDOM: 9. It is time to elect an African-American president.
It cannot be ignored and its importance cannot be understated: Barack Obama would become the first individual of African descent to lead any nation whose population is not predominantly black (the nations of Africa, Haiti, the Dominican Republic).
It is no secret that the world supports Obama. People around the globe are yearning for a real change in Washington. They are tired of the America that George W. Bush has created. They are tired of his go-it-alone arrogance. They are tired of a nation that defies the rule of law, that disgraces the name of democracy, and that violates with impunity the universal rights of human kind.
The road is paved and the time will come when this nation elects a woman president. It is inevitable and it will happen. On this scale, America is behind the curve. Numerous women have been chosen to lead democratic nations: Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, Indira Gandhi of India, Golda Meir of Israel, Angela Merkel of Germany. In this nation, there are many women on both sides of the political divide that are both qualified and prepared to become president. Sarah Palin is not one of them.
The election of Barack Obama would serve clear notice to the world: A change has come and the dream of freedom, justice and prosperity for all is still alive. Jazz.
BERRY: White as a racial designation has no basis in reality. It is a political assignation designed to prevent anyone who is not "white" from attaining significant political power. It makes the assertion that white is pure and anything, or anyone, that is not white is tainted in some way. This worked well in the service of slavery, the invasion and colonization of Africa and Asia, and in maintaining "white" authority where "white" people are in power or wish to be. It is time to destroy this concept and relegate it to the mistakes of history along with slavery and every other other injustice that it has sustained. The election of Obama would send a clear message to the world that the majority of Americans are ready to face reality and meet the world on realistic terms, as equals. We have been given a grand opportunity and if we neglect to take advantage of it the rest of the world will have no reason to think that we do not feel ourselves superior. It is time at long last to cast off the shame of our history. This election would be an excellent beginning. This one is easy. All we have to do is vote.
Rave on Jack.
Peace,
Jake
JAKE BERRY IS THE AUTHOR OF BRAMBU DREZI, LIMINAL BLUE AND OTHER WORKS OF EXTRAORDINARY INSIGHT.
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). HIS NOVELLA "NUMBER NINE: ADVENTURES WITH RUBY" AND NOVEL "THE KILLING SPIRIT (CRIES FOR A VISION)" HAVE BEEN POSTED ON BUZZLE.COM.
Rather than the usual I'm going to respond to this essay piece by piece as this may be the last election. What I mean by that is current technology combined with all the old tricks, and a few new ones, may render elections, especially state, national and large municipal elections, pointless as a means of determining the will of the people.
I'm going to weave my response into your essay to save anyone that reads this the trouble of jumping back and forth.
THE SUMMATION: NINE REASONS TO ELECT OBAMA by Jack Random.
RANDOM: Historically, this nation has had a handful of critically important elections: The election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800 ensured that we would remain on the path of democracy. The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 marked the end of slavery. The election of Franklin Roosevelt in 1932 enabled us to survive the Great Depression and left the indelible legacy of the New Deal.
While the historical verdict must wait, the election of 2000, in which the losing candidate was allowed to take office, may some day rise to that level of importance. No one can doubt that the world would look different under the leadership of Albert Gore.
BERRY: Those are the same ones I would have chosen, including the 2000 election - the first clear indication that a last election might be upon us.
The current period also reminds me of two others. First, the period between Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln a string of presidents either did nothing or only made matters worse, especially in regards to slavery. Second, the period beginning with reconstruction when the wealthy could and often did buy government favors or buy office outright. In both cases incompetence and a callous disregard for democratic principles resulted in disasters that very nearly destroyed the nation – the Ciivl War in the former case and a series of wild peaks and depressions culminating in the Great Depression in the latter.
Though we are in the midst of the current financial crises and it is impossible to gauge how deep, broad or enduring it might be, it seems clear that we are on the brink of a depression. This depression might yet be avoided with careful management including the cooperation of the world's governing bodies and the financial corporations whose greed generated the crisis. Obama suggested such a summit months ago. Long before Bush, Paulson or McCain would even acknowledge the crisis.
RANDOM: The election of 2008 holds the same promise. After a campaign that has consumed the better part of two years, everything of substance that can be said has been. To use a legal analogy, all that remains is the summation.
BERRY: You indicate precisely one of the problems. A two year campaign. The primaries should be held in June and July of an election year, the conventions in August, and the campaign for general election in September and October.
RANDOM: With one week remaining before Election Day, here are nine compelling reasons to elect Barack Obama President of the United States:
1. John McCain is more of the same on economic policy.
He can cry all he wants. He can scream it from the mountaintop. He can file a protest with the League of Nations. He can glare into the eyes of the camera and proclaim: I am not George W. Bush. The fact remains that his economic policy is fundamentally indistinguishable from that of the current president. As all long-term residents of Washington must learn, the Senator cannot run away from his record. McCain is a free market fundamentalist. He is anti-labor and he does not believe in government regulation. His singular issue of dissent, his opposition to the Bush tax cuts during a time of war and mounting deficits (2001-2005), was sacrificed when he adopted those same tax cuts as the foundation of his economic platform.
If McCain was still the straight talker he is supposed to have been, he would have no choice but to admit that the Republican economic philosophy has led us to the crisis we now face. He could still blame Democrats for adopting Republican policies but with Senator Phil Gramm as his economic mentor, he cannot escape blame.
It is far too late to wake up now with the discovery that the world is in fact round and everything you have ever believed is wrong. Alan Greenspan was wrong, Phil Gramm was wrong, Thomas Friedman was wrong, Adam Smith was wrong and John McCain is the wrong man to break the mold.
BERRY: You make the case beautifully. The problem with McCain's economic policy is that it is exactly what he is: Republican. I would agree with Adam Smith and other free market thinking much of the time. A free market will rise and fall, but will more or less regulate itself based on the laws of supply and demand. However, one must be pragmatic. When criminals spoil the market by artificially inflating its value in order to make quick, deceptive profit (let's call it what it is: theft) then some governing body must act on behalf of its constituency to reign the excess. There are already laws on the books to accomplish this. There is no point in the legislature making laws if the executive will not enforce them. McCain gives no indication at all that he will do anything more than Bush, Reagan, or Hoover to bring white collar criminals to justice.
RANDOM: 2. John McCain is more of the same on foreign policy.
Lame Duck President George W. Bush has been forced to accept the hard cold realities of his failed policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and around the world. From the global economic crisis to the Russian incursion into neighboring Georgia, we are no longer regarded as a dominant power. The government of Iraq, the same government we implanted in power, has resisted signing a status of forces agreement that would extend the legal grounds for a foreign occupation beyond the end of the year. Iraqi leaders have publicly stated they favor a withdrawal timetable corresponding to the exit strategy of Barack Obama. In Afghanistan military and governmental leaders alike have been pushing for a negotiated settlement.
While Obama has taken a hard line in Afghanistan, he has also embraced the policy of diplomacy. McCain has demonstrated nothing short of intransigence – the same sort of stubbornness that the Bush team has employed in achieving an unprecedented decline in America’s standing in the world.
As with the free market fundamentalists, John McCain signed up with the neoconservative brain trust on day one and he has never wavered. The same warmongering brain trust that was considered too extreme for Ronald Reagan was allowed free reign during the second coming of Bush. As with free market fundamentalism, the result is catastrophic: America is overextended, buried in debt and unable to sustain its legitimate interests.
McCain was for the war in Iraq before the Bush administration proposed it. McCain was for the Bush Doctrine of aggressive war and military dominance before it carried that name. That he would carry on those same policies cannot be doubted.
While Obama’s response to the situation in Georgia was measured and steady, McCain’s was bellicose and rash. To McCain, the lesson of Vietnam was not that we should not inherit imperialist wars from fallen empires. It was rather that we should fight on to “victory” at any cost. He feels the same about Iraq and Afghanistan. No matter what the cost, he will double down and double down again. He is as predictable as sunrise.
As a nation we can no longer afford an intransigent leader determined to bend the world to his knees. We cannot afford four more years of the Bush Doctrine under a new name.
BERRY: McCain does give every impression that he would resort to the use of the military even quicker than Bush. His foreign policy statements of the last eight years have been nothing short of belligerent imperialism. It does not seem to concern him that the military is exhausted, that soldiers have done repeated tours in the current wars. Would he send the military into Georgia? Would he expand the current wars into Syria and Pakistan? It seems the only thing that would stop him would be a revolt in the ranks.
Obama on the other hand indicates that his approach would be thoughtful and measured. That is, he would examine each situation as it arose, consult various counsel, then make what seemed to him the most expedient decision. In short, he would act like a president, not an emperor.
RANDOM: 3. America needs a New Deal.
Take it to heart: After eight years of unfettered corporate rule, we are on the precipice of economic collapse. The nature of the current crisis goes well beyond the housing bubble and the answers go well beyond rebuilding government regulatory authority. We are in debt because we could not sustain our standard of living on diminished wages. We are in trouble because we can no longer afford basic health care. We have witnessed a decline of organized labor and the decimation of American industry as our jobs have been transferred to cheap labor overseas.
Corporate America has killed the golden goose. In their thirst for immediate profits, they have destroyed the foundation of a consumer economy: the middle class.
Joe the Plumber is living in a world of delusion. In the age of the corporate elite, the dream of upward mobility is dead. When consumers can no longer support basic needs, small businesses are the first to fail. Capital is consolidated in fewer hands. International corporations grow larger. Labor exploitation is institutionalized. Government becomes an agent of the wealthy.
America needs a New Deal in the tradition of Franklin Roosevelt. We need a government that can no longer be bought, that answers to the needs of the people, that provides jobs, that secures the rights of workers, that ends job exportation, that rebuilds roads, bridges and mass transit, that creates new job opportunities and funds education. We need universal health care, not some harebrained privatization scheme. We need to strengthen social security, not to dismantle it one brick at a time.
The New Deal was only possible because Roosevelt had the support of both houses of congress. We are beyond the minor fixes that can be accomplished through bipartisan compromise. The Republican way, the way of the elite international corporation, has failed. It is time for systemic change.
BERRY: One hopes that such a thing is still possible. The America that Roosevelt lived in no longer exists. At that time we were an industrial and agricultural economy that traded with other nations. At present, global institutions like the World Bank and the World Trade Organization make it difficult for any nation to act completely independently. Add to that the fact that our economic stability is dependent on credit from nations like China and Saudi Arabia. These nations will abandon us if we are are unable or unwilling to consume their products at rates that are very profitable to them.
Again, McCain will be business as usual or he will attempt temporary, short term, fixes. Obama seems more likely to convene the powers that be in order to attempt to arrive at a solution that works reasonably well for everyone.
We cannot hope to recover jobs from companies that outsourced then went bankrupt or were absorbed by global corporations. The president could make the case that it makes sense to build products closer to the consumer and thereby avoid shipping, tariffs, and all the other costs and hazards of import/export. If products built for the American market are made in America by Americans it benefits everyone. If we are able then to begin to recover economically and move closer to a balanced budget the government might be able to find the resources to finance job creation and job training programs.
Russia cannot live on oil revenue forever and the Chinese economy cannot continue to expand exponentially. The world will need a steady, reliable economy in the U.S., Europe and elsewhere to prevent depression when those economies slow or crash. The U.S. should act now to be prepared.
RANDOM: 4. The politics of fear and smear should be answered in kind.
For seven years we have been led down the path of our own demise by the politics of fear and smear. The Republican Party has long exploited the religious right’s fear of moral decay – abortion rights and gay marriage. After September 11, 2001, they expanded the politics of fear to terrorism and enemies of the American way of life. As they attacked the Bill of Rights, they accused anyone who stood in the way of terrorist sympathies. As they waged war on innocent nations, nations that were not responsible for the attack on our soil, they accused those who opposed them of appeasing the enemy and betraying our troops.
Now, in the waning days of a desperate campaign, they have attacked Barack Obama with patently false and scurrilous rumors of anti-American sentiments: Obama is a closet Muslim, a secret foreign agent, an associate of terrorists, on and on.
There is no denying that Obama is black and we wonder how much of the attack strategy is founded on that solemn fact.
We will never be able to rub out the politics of fear and smear but we may be able to land a decisive and crushing blow. In this sense, the margin of victory is important. Let Karl Rove be remembered for something beside the theft of two elections.
BERRY: The arrest of two men from Tennessee who apparently planned to kill 100 people and THEN kill Obama is a clear display of the rot that lies at the core of southern conservatism. Based on recent history it seems that neo-conservative strategy succeeds by merging with racial and ethic hatred. It panders to fear of the other in order to extract power from a significant portion of the middle class and poor and use that power toward ends that designed to expand and maintain a global empire of wealthy elite that pay allegiance to no state, no government and no people save themselves. Obama may or may not challenge that system, but you can be sure that McCain will promote it.
RANDOM: 5. Restore balance on the Supreme Court.
Even before the appointments of Samuel Alito and John Roberts, the Supreme Court that overruled democracy in the 2000 election was tilted dangerously to the right. Much has been said about the danger of a new court overruling a woman’s right to choose abortion but little has been said about the Court’s corporate bias, a bias that undermines both individual rights and the public good.
The Court’s finding that corporate contributions are protected free speech means that no meaningful campaign finance reform will be allowed as long as this court remains intact. The Court’s ruling on public domain sacrificed individual property rights in favor of corporate development. The Court’s ruling on equal pay for equal work in the Lilly Ledbetter case effectively removed enforcement from the law.
While there have been some surprising rulings opposing the president’s egregious violations of due process, the one consistent strand has been a corporate bias.
It is no secret that the next president is likely to appoint at least two new justices to the Supreme Court. An Obama presidency would restore some sense of balance.
BERRY: This is one of the most compelling arguments in favor of the election of Obama. McCain has made it clear by name the kind of judges he would appoint – Alito and Roberts. This would complete the transformation of the court into a tool of Corporatism. Any rights left would only be those that did not interfere with continued corporate control.
This election makes one thing very clear. Barack Obama is not John McCain. His nominees for the court would be of a different order.
RANDOM: 6. Restoration of Civil Liberties.
In two hundred and thirty two years of history, perhaps no president has done more harm to the Bill of Rights than George W. Bush. He has used the War Powers Act and the USA Patriot Act to spy on American citizens without warrant or legal recourse. He has claimed the right to detain citizens and non-citizens indefinitely. He has institutionalized torture.
Under his leadership, the fourth estate was used as a fence for false and deceptive government propaganda. Under the guidance of his political mentor, Karl Rove, he is responsible for the disenfranchisement of more minority citizens than at any time since the days of Jim Crow. He has all but accused those who stood in opposition of treason – in polite society, appeasing the enemy.
Under his reign, the Department of Justice became a political agent, choosing to prosecute cases on the basis of partisan advantage rather than the rule of law and firing those who refused to cooperate.
It is too late to impeach George W. Bush but history will record that grounds for impeachment were strong on the basis of civil liberties alone. Fortunately, it is not too late to undo much of the harm.
BERRY: Here Obama can make significant change in a hurry. So much of the diminishment of our fundamental human rights and dignities are the result of the Bush administration's actions. All Obama would have to do is change the way the executive branch executes its power. He would not need congressional authority. All he need do is devote the energies of his administration to attacking the real enemies of the nation and not the rights of its citizens. I think we can be almost certain that he will make this change and make it almost immediately upon assuming office. If there were no other reason to vote for Obama this would be more than enough.
McCain on the other hand would continue or intensify the Bush doctrine.
RANDOM: 7. Restoration of Democracy: Payback.
If you still believe that George W. Bush legitimately won the White House in 2000 and 2004 you have not done your homework. Bush won in 2000 through a massive disenfranchisement campaign, a campaign that targeted black voters in critical battleground states – most notably in Florida. Bush won in 2004 through a combination of disenfranchisement and electronic vote flipping – most notably in Ohio. Had the corporate media done its job, those betrayals of the fundamental rights of democracy would have been reversed. Instead, the media chose to turn the page. As a consequence, those betrayals have continued and intensified with the advance of technology.
In the aftermath of Florida 2000, we should have been shocked to learn by the decision of the Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore) that voting is not considered a right. According to the law of the land as interpreted by the highest source of justice, the most basic right of citizenship is a privilege – and one that can be stripped away by political operatives.
That needs to be rectified. The right to vote is sacred and must be protected by our elected officials. It cannot happen under Republican leadership. It can only happen with new leadership in the White House.
BERRY: Yes. Here we are at the crux of the moment. We know from the past two elections, and the media's complicity, that if this election is close it can be stolen. Obama needs to win by several percentage points in the popular vote and a convincing majority of the electoral vote. One would hope that if this happens another of his primary objectives would be to guarantee the RIGHT to vote to every citizen and ensure that every vote be counted.
RANDOM: 8. Freedom from Ideological Intransigence.
Barack Obama has spoken at length about the politics of pragmatism. To the Senator from Illinois, it is the key to unity and working across the partisan divide. To many on the left (myself included) his refusal to identify more forcefully with a progressive ideology has been a source of frustration and opposition. However, after eight years of leadership governed by the tenets of an outdated, out of touch ideology, the politics of pragmatism begin to look appealing.
During his tenure in office, George W. Bush never thought twice, never looked back, never adjusted his thinking and never changed course. On the domestic front, his thinking was guided by a free market fundamentalism that disallowed the role of government. When warnings were sounded, he had only one answer: tax cuts and more tax cuts.
In foreign policy, his thinking stopped with the announcement of the Bush Doctrine, in which America would use military force to secure dominance in perpetuity. When Iraq imploded, he had no plan. When the debt mounted and the military was overextended, he was incapable of making an adjustment. When Afghanistan began to unravel, there was no contingency plan.
Ideology is important. It gives a leader a solid foundation. But in the real world, where the dynamics change and new realities emerge, a true leader must be able to adjust.
In the current, John McCain has demonstrated the same sort of ideological intransigence that haunted George W. Bush. He is out of touch and out of time. Obama’s time has come.
BERRY: Ideology is always dangerous. We need ideals, but also recognize that they are our guides. Occasionally we can accomplish a goal driven by ideals – the right of all citizens to vote, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity or religion for instance. Jefferson was an idealist to say the least, but upon taking the office of president, and often before, he found himself in the uncomfortable position of having to compromise those ideals in order to maintain peace and support what at least at that time seemed to be the common good. The president must be guided by ideals, even an ideology or religion, but when those ideals conflict with the most reasonable course of action he or she must be guided by reason. No divine authority is going to save us. We must think for ourselves as free individuals. A president who fails to do this fails himself and everyone within his sphere of influence.
Obama seems to be a political pragmatist above all else. Indeed, one wishes he were more a champion of human rights, fair government, and so forth. But his actions suggest he will take the most practical course possible. It helps to remember that Kennedy in the Cuban missile crises was caught between two ideologies and found a practical middle course that spared us nuclear war.
McCain on the other hand appears to have decided after being swindled by Karl Rove in 2000 that the only way to win was to run a campaign just like Karl Rove. And he has continually supported the Bush administration, often voting with them while publicly stating he was opposed. Uncertain at best. And it would seem that he is willing to submit to an ideology rather than assert reason. It raises questions about his personal integrity.
RANDOM: 9. It is time to elect an African-American president.
It cannot be ignored and its importance cannot be understated: Barack Obama would become the first individual of African descent to lead any nation whose population is not predominantly black (the nations of Africa, Haiti, the Dominican Republic).
It is no secret that the world supports Obama. People around the globe are yearning for a real change in Washington. They are tired of the America that George W. Bush has created. They are tired of his go-it-alone arrogance. They are tired of a nation that defies the rule of law, that disgraces the name of democracy, and that violates with impunity the universal rights of human kind.
The road is paved and the time will come when this nation elects a woman president. It is inevitable and it will happen. On this scale, America is behind the curve. Numerous women have been chosen to lead democratic nations: Margaret Thatcher of Great Britain, Indira Gandhi of India, Golda Meir of Israel, Angela Merkel of Germany. In this nation, there are many women on both sides of the political divide that are both qualified and prepared to become president. Sarah Palin is not one of them.
The election of Barack Obama would serve clear notice to the world: A change has come and the dream of freedom, justice and prosperity for all is still alive. Jazz.
BERRY: White as a racial designation has no basis in reality. It is a political assignation designed to prevent anyone who is not "white" from attaining significant political power. It makes the assertion that white is pure and anything, or anyone, that is not white is tainted in some way. This worked well in the service of slavery, the invasion and colonization of Africa and Asia, and in maintaining "white" authority where "white" people are in power or wish to be. It is time to destroy this concept and relegate it to the mistakes of history along with slavery and every other other injustice that it has sustained. The election of Obama would send a clear message to the world that the majority of Americans are ready to face reality and meet the world on realistic terms, as equals. We have been given a grand opportunity and if we neglect to take advantage of it the rest of the world will have no reason to think that we do not feel ourselves superior. It is time at long last to cast off the shame of our history. This election would be an excellent beginning. This one is easy. All we have to do is vote.
Rave on Jack.
Peace,
Jake
JAKE BERRY IS THE AUTHOR OF BRAMBU DREZI, LIMINAL BLUE AND OTHER WORKS OF EXTRAORDINARY INSIGHT.
JACK RANDOM IS THE AUTHOR OF THE JAZZMAN CHRONICLES (CROW DOG PRESS) AND GHOST DANCE INSURRECTION (DRY BONES PRESS). HIS NOVELLA "NUMBER NINE: ADVENTURES WITH RUBY" AND NOVEL "THE KILLING SPIRIT (CRIES FOR A VISION)" HAVE BEEN POSTED ON BUZZLE.COM.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)