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

Beatlick Travel Report #2 (2008 Series)

Las Cruces
San Rafael
Albuquerque

After we moved into the van and out of our little "casita" on Van Patten Ave. we relocated to the campus of New Mexico State University for four days. Joe volunteered to work the Fifteenth Annual International Mariachi Conference. He was thrilled to be back on campus at his alma mater and spent hours in the libraries.

On Sunday we attended a Mariachi Mass. About 7,000 filed into the Pan American Center greeted at the entrance with a troupe of twenty or more dancers dressed in huge feather headdresses at least three feet high and costumes that appeared to be Aztec, but I'm not sure. Their ankles were covered with rattling nut shells.

The mass honored all the 15-year-olds, quinceaneras and quinceaneros who were born the year the conference began. On stage Mariachi Cobre of Epcot Center and Mariachi Real de Chihuahua performed before a mass administered by the Most Rev. Ricardo Ramirez, the Bishop of Las Cruces. Tears were streaming down my cheeks as a choir sang "Ava Maria."

The pageantry was overwhelming. Young girls were dressed in beautiful white dresses and veils. Female dancers were enveloped in the colorful ruffled skirts, men wore sashes and conquistador like hats with blue feathers. A procession of priests in flowing white robes were followed by a subdued parade of women in black.

The Hispanic culture is so rich. I watched in amazement as the beautiful women of all ages managed their three and four inch stiletto heels up and down the stadium walkways! A procession of numerous groups approached the alter to bring gifts such as pumpkins, flowers, fruit, wine, and sundry other items. It was a fitting exit from Las Cruces, so moving and majestic, we felt blessed, humbled, and happy as we finally left town.

After three days in San Rafael visiting my friend Andrew, whom I met in Alaska back in the 80s, we are currently urban camping in Albuquerque before heading out to Placitas. So we continue to roam New Mexico.

Regardz

Beatlick Pamela

(Joe Speers & Pamela Hurst: publishingpamela@yahoo.com)

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.

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

Beatlick Travel Report #1

2008 series

Beatlick Joe and I have officially moved into our VW van. We're parked on the NMSU campus where Joe is volunteering at the 15th International Mariachi Festival. We walked through the campus at sunset, a magnificent pink and orange display, down to Pete's Cyber Cafe and watched the election results.

Honestly I have been concerned about the state of mind I would have as we hit the road. I wanted so badly to have my faith in America restored, and last night it was. So we will begin our journey with just a short trip up to San Raphael and Albuquerque NM before we head out for Arizona and Southern California, taking the low route south of Interstate 8.

I'm on the lookout for trends towards thriftiness along the way. Hard times are coming and we have pared expenses down as low as we can go. It's a grand experiment to live the good life, more in control of our circumstances, puttering through the more obscure places.

Expect a report on Truth or Consequences, NM. Talk about sustainability, a town sitting on vast reserves of restorative hot springs. We found a bath house there where we can park our camper for $100 a month. My jaw dropped when I heard the price. I plan to spend January there and save up some money before we set out for the Salton Sea and Slab City, amongst other intriguing places.

Regardz from Beatlick Pamela

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.]

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).]

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.

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.

NINE REASONS TO ELECT OBAMA (3)

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.

Jazz.

Nine Reasons to Elect Obama (2)

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.

Jazz.

[Tomorrow: Reason 3.]

NINE DAYS: NINE REASONS TO ELECT OBAMA

Day One, Reason One
By Jack 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.

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.

With nine days remaining before the election, I offer nine compelling reasons to elect Barack Obama President of the United States. Here is the first.

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.

Jazz.

[Tomorrow: Day 2, Reason 2.]

Jake's Word Re: William Ayers & Colin Powell

From: Jake Berry (jakebridget@bellsouth.net)
[A response to Jack Random's "In Defense of William Ayers" posted on The National Free Press and reprinted below and "The Redemption of Colin Powell" posted on Buzzle.com.]

William Ayers activity with the Weathermen is merely a footnote in history. It only proves the Republicans are desperate. They can't win on the issues, so they attack with irrelevant, distracting, accusations. Even some in the corporate media say as much.

Colin Powell's endorsement seems clear enough. He's right. It is time for a transition and a transformation, a new generation, and Obama is equal to the task. It would be interesting to be able to compare Powell as Secretary of Defense under Obama as opposed to Secretary of State under Bush. That probably won't happen. There is still an election to win and the matter of whether or not Obama would want Powell as a member of the cabinet or Powell would be willing to serve. Outside of the disinformation campaign that cajoled the country into the invasion of Iraq his foreign policy seems similar enough to Obama's.

As for Rep. Bachmman, one wonders how these kinds of statements are possible a half-century after Joe McCarthy. What is anti-American? Other than an attempt to violently overthrow the government it seems to me impossible to be anti-American. After all, the election cycle theoretically allows us to make dramatic changes in the government every two years. The first amendment guarantees the freedom to dissent and say it out loud. If disagreement makes one anti-American then no one meets the measure. Everyone disagrees with someone about something in American politics at some time or other, even in an age of manufactured consent. If anyone is guilty of anti-American behavior it's Rep. Bachmman, who by her statements seems to want to erase the principles upon which the nation was founded. And replace them with what? Further descent into Corporate Fascism?

Considering the way the campaigns have been run it seems that perhaps that is our choice.

Do we want to close the door on the American experiment in representative government and replace it forever with government bought (and sold) by wealthy collectives? If so, then we have to do nothing at all. We can continue to spend money we do not have, pollute the environment and attempt to dominate the world by force. But if we want to attempt to turn the ship of state around, or at the very least alter course, we have to get up and vote for people who offer that possibility. Then we have to go back to buying only what we can afford, saving money in local, reliable banks, and investing in the local economy by doing what our grandparents did - buying land. Small scale capitalism. It worked for them. They truly believed in America as a free country and fought fascism in the trenches and totalitarian communism by containment. They were not the greatest generation. No generation can make that claim. But they taught us that in America anything was possible. The last 35 years almost seem calculated to destroy everything they believed in.

Ironic isn't it? The man we would have expected to build his campaign on those very principles has aligned himself with the vilest aspect of the electorate while a man whose face and name would seem foreign to our grandparents is promoting the qualities that made the 20th century what some call the American century. All he's asking is that we give someone new a chance. Under the circumstances that is what we must do.

Thanks for everything. Here we go in the rush to election day. And I'm still bringing a torch, just in case.

Peace,
Jake

[Jake Berry is the author of Brambu Drezi, Liminal Blue & Other Works of Originality.]


JAZZMAN CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.



IN DEFENSE OF WILLIAM AYERS:
Dissent and Freedom of Expression

By Jack Random


Once all the votes are cast and counted, it will be time to call a heart a heart and a spade a spade. When the scurrilous charges of guilt by association and character assassination lose the sting of a coming election, we will be able to assess the nature of this presidential campaign in a more objective light.

Perhaps then we will hear from Professor William Ayers. Until the election is over, however, silence is wisdom. By virtue of his participation in the political process, his associations with prominent Chicago politicians of all parties, he has been so vilified by the Republican right that anything he could say in the current climate would be twisted and distorted to dangerous proportions.

In the final stages of a desperate campaign with no other design than to distract the electorate from the most critical issues in modern history, the Rovian Republican machine has resorted to tactics that recall some of the most shameful chapters in American history.

It recalls the Alien and Sedition Acts signed into law in 1798 by President John Adams, which attempted to criminalize dissent and label his political opponents traitors to the nation. Three of four acts were repealed by succeeding President Thomas Jefferson in a critical re-affirmation of the principles of democratic governance.

It recalls the era of Jim Crow in the post-reconstruction South in which African Americans were systematically denied the right to vote by poll taxes, literacy tests, residency requirements, threats, lynching and every conceivable form of intimidation.

Most of all it recalls the era of Joe McCarthy, the Republican Senator from Wisconsin, and the great Red Scare of the 1950’s in which citizens from every strata and facet of American life were subjected to loyalty oaths and labeled traitors to the nation for having the audacity to express dissenting views, for attending meetings or associating with the wrong crowd. Then the communists and socialists were the bogeyman, now it is the radicals and terrorists. Both then and now, it is the rightwing definition of Anti-American opinions and sentiments.

To those who naïvely thought we had reached something resembling universal condemnation of those disgraceful chapters, think again.

As one who was tempted to believe that America had grown sufficiently as a nation that we need not fear a return to the age of official intolerance and blacklisting on the basis of political or religious beliefs, it was with profound shock and awe that I witnessed an obscure congresswoman from Minnesota (the Honorable Michele Bachmann) call for a media-led investigation into the anti-American sentiments of members of congress.

Could it be that a representative in congress is so unaware of her nation’s history that she could invoke the House Un-American Activities Committee without even knowing it?

In the event that the worst happens, that the politics of fear and smear prevail, and we enter a new age of McCarthyism, let me state clearly: I am not now nor have I ever been a terrorist. Not enough? I am not now nor have I ever been an enemy of the nation. Still not enough?

I cannot in good conscience give you the lies that I believe you would require to certify my loyalty and patriotism though I consider myself both loyal and patriotic.

Does advocacy for Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Jean Bertrand Aristide of Haiti or Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain cast doubt? Does opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq place me under a cloud of suspicion? If I stood against the USA Patriot Act, will I fail the test of loyalty? Who is to judge?

My political beliefs and ideology were inspired by individuals who were without question dissidents and rebels dedicated to overthrowing the government. Their names were Jefferson, Paine and Franklin.

There have been occasions in my life when I considered the actions of my own government, from the carpet bombing in Vietnam to the killing of student protestors at Jackson and Kent State universities, nothing less than state sanctioned terrorism, yet there were moments (the withdrawal of Lyndon Johnson from the 1968 presidential race and the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974) when I may have felt a twinge of empathy.

Even George W. Bush, as his administration unleashed aggressive wars against innocent peoples, unraveled the fabric of the constitution, undermined the electoral process and preached the politics of fear and intolerance without shame, has at times appeared a sympathetic character unable to comprehend the depths of the horrors and betrayals delivered under his authority.

By my own reckoning, should I be held accountable for sympathy with criminals and terrorists and betrayers of the American ideal?

I am an American and I claim the right to adopt any belief or system of beliefs that I choose so long as I do not infringe on the rights of others.

I do not advocate violent protest but there are times in history when violent resistance to unjust authorities was either understandable or necessary or both. Fundamentally, I believe that all Americans retain the right embodied in the second amendment to overthrow an unjust and tyrannical government.

By this account, though it pales by comparison to Jefferson’s, should I be considered a dangerous radical? Should I be censured, censored, my voice stricken from the public forum? Should every individual with whom I have associated be held accountable for my beliefs?

While I respect their sense of duty, their sacrifice and courage, I do not believe that the soldiers currently engaged in Bush’s wars are fighting to defend or uphold my rights. In fact the current wars have been used in a concerted effort to diminish my rights.

Does that make me un-American?

As an American I claim the right to attend any gathering and form any associations that I choose. I believe that anyone who asserts that I should be held accountable for every statement or belief expressed by my associates is attempting to deny my fundamental freedom.

I do not know Professor William Ayers but I do know there is no expression of remorse or rationalization that could alleviate the irrational fervor of his detractors in the current political climate. For myself, given the opportunity, I would not hesitate to attend one of his lectures or engage him in conversation concerning the state of affairs in America today.

Agree or disagree, Bill Ayers is an American too. Anyone who would denigrate him for his beliefs or impugn the character of his associates is fighting against the tide of democratic freedom.

The first amendment was not adopted to protect popular mainstream opinions. Such expressions require no protection. It was adopted to protect dissent. When dissent is suppressed by cheap political mudslinging campaigns it impoverishes our discourse and weakens our hold on the American democratic ideal.

Of course, even the expression of anti-democratic ideas is protected free speech. I would no more deny the right of a campaign to engage in the politics of smear than I would my own right to object.

The proper response of all loyal and responsible Americans, however, is to turn it on its head.

William Ayers is no more of a legitimate issue in this election than Joe the Plumber.

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 DAILY SCARE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS AND PACIFIC FREE PRESS. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.

Jake's Word Re: Consolidation of Wealth (Fascism, Racism & Oligarchy)

[Jake Berry's response to Jack Random's "Consolidation of Wealth" - posted on Pacific Free Press 10/14/08 and reprinted below.]

The past few days I've been turning current events over in my head. I kept to returning to Plato's description of oligarchy in The Republic. Plato's experience was with the city state so his description and analysis is based on that model, but the fundamentals remain. He had seen how Athens had slipped from democracy to tyranny to oligarchy and mixtures of all of these, accompanied by periods of chaos. He was not encouraged by what he witnessed in any of these forms.

Before I could put any of my thoughts down though I received your latest: "Consolidation of Wealth." It covers the territory better than I could have hoped and goes further, it offers solutions. Indeed we have been living under increasing levels of corporate fascism since the end of World War II. The military-industrial complex should have been disassembled after the war, along with many of the foreign entanglements. Instead the government went in the other direction and extended its integration with corporate culture into all levels of society. The situation now has been allowed to fester into a global malignancy. The so-called bailout is really just a matter of the corporate masters demanding a fee from the government they purchased. Unfortunately the middle class that buys from and thus enriches corporations also pays most of the taxes so it amounts to paying the same master twice. This kind of thievery inspired the war that severed the American colonies from England.

Add to that the rise in hatred we are witnessing at political rallies. It's an old hatred. The civil rights legislation of 1965 disenfranchised the bigotry and other forms of hatred that had been an integral part of southern statecraft for 100 years. That hatred found a welcoming embrace in the Republican party which had been up until that time the party of big money – a strange and horrible price to pay for taking a step toward equality for all citizens. Until now however the hatred has remained cloaked in various disguises and given names like social conservatism and Christian fundamentalism when in fact it is neither of these things. In reality nothing has changed. The other is always met with suspicion and ultimately despised merely because it is other. Even if that other is nothing more than skin pigmentation or a name it will not be tolerated.

This is a volatile combination - multi-national corporations and ethnic hatred. It is in fact the manifestation of the very thing many Americans say they fear in the Middle-East. It is always the secretly guilty that demand the harshest punishment for the guilty. Big money plus hatred. We saw what that produced in Germany under the Nazis. And no southerner of European ancestry with a conscience forgets for a second the joy some took in hearing the news of the assassination of MLK, Jr. We live with the stains of segregation, poll taxes, and lynchings. All enforced by a combination of wealthy elite and ethnic hatred.

The question before us now is do we want to continue in a direction in which this kind of morality, by whatever name, becomes the dominant feature of American society?

This election should have been about wars of aggression, economic stagnation and human rights and at least two alternative approaches to the resolution of those problems. Instead it has become a referendum on the power of massive amounts of money, debt, and hatred. It prevents the candidates from addressing the real problems and prevents the media from asking questions regarding those problems. Perhaps that is precisely what was intended by our masters. The same ones that brought us patriotic bankruptcy and self-righteous war.

I hope, deeply and sincerely, that we will have a chance to apply some of the solutions you recommend. I would love to see them in action. Are the American people capable of taking that course or will the descent continue? The results of the election alone will not be the answer, but they will indicate whether or not we are willing to even try.

Thanks so much for continuing to keep our eyes open and focused on the real issues at a time when the appearance of reality has been co-opted as a consumer object. Rave on.


Jake Berry - Author of Brambu Drezi, Liminal Blue and other works of extraordinary lucidity.


JAZZMAN CHRONICLES. DISSEMINATE FREELY.

CONSOLIDATION OF WEALTH:
LONGTERM SOLUTIONS TO THE ECONOMIC CRISIS

By Jack Random

There is always opportunity in catastrophic events. To financier J.P. Morgan, the stock market crash of 1907 was an opportunity to consolidate wealth and power, thus undermining the antitrust and monopoly busting policies of Theodore Roosevelt.

The market crash of 1927 leading to the Great Depression paved the way for Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, a legacy of responsible government regulation, social security, unemployment benefits, public works and labor rights, but it also served as an opportunity for further consolidation of corporate power and wealth.

The cataclysm of World War II exposed the dangers of imperial monarchy (Hirohito’s Japan), corporate fascism (Mussolini’s Italy) and the susceptibility of democracies to the politics of fear at a time of crisis (the rise of the Nazi Party in the German Republic), but it also gave rise to the powerful and corrupting force of the military-industrial complex.

Over the years leading to the current economic crisis we have forgotten altogether too many lessons of the past. We have forgotten that the innovations of the New Deal were not the temporary fixes of an ailing marketplace but systemic reforms designed to prevent the conglomeration of circumstance that inevitably resulted in past cataclysms from engulfing us again.

Instead of building on the foundation of the New Deal we have gradually allowed our corporate behemoths to tear it apart brick by brick until even Social Security and Medicare are openly challenged by politicians pretending to represent their voting constituents.

Meantime, the consolidation of wealth has marched on unabated and its power to dominate the political process has been zealously protected by both major political parties and the most anti-democratic Supreme Court in modern history – a court that has repeatedly struck down meaningful campaign finance reform on the specious constitutional grounds that corporate contributions are protected “free speech.” (This from justices who never tire condemning “legislating from the bench.”)

We would do well to recall that the ongoing federal bailout of private financial institutions began with those deemed “too big to fail”: Bear Stearns and American International Group. How sweet it must be for corporations to reach that lofty status without the stigma of a government sponsored enterprise – the designation that so offends John McCain and his Free Marketeer compadres when discussing mortgage giant Fannie Mae (originally a government agency created in the New Deal) and its cohort Freddie Mac.

Beneath the radar, while we were dazzled by the hundreds of billions floating away in the Treasury’s bailout package, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were also awarded bailout funds for a bargain $25 billion – presumably too big to fail. Now GM is poised to gobble up Chrysler (if they don’t someone else will) and the Big Three will be down to two.

It was the Free Marketeers who cried out loudest against the bailout yet it was their philosophy (embraced by both major parties in an unrivaled if under-publicized era of bipartisan agreement) of corporate free reign and the dismantling of market regulation that led to the breakdown. The Marketeers made a great show of condemning what they like to call corporate socialism (they voted against it before they voted for it) but what is happening today is by no means socialistic (it’s a bailout, not a buyout); it is rather the deadly combination of runaway capitalism and corporate fascism.

What else can you call a system that allows corporate giants to reap unconscionable profits on a foundation of imaginary assets and when the time comes to pay the piper, they reach out their hands to go on the public dole: Too big to fail?

Few would deny that the system is rigged and that the government is controlled by corporate interests: That, ladies and gentlemen, is a textbook definition of Mussolini’s fascist state.

Despite the dramatic surge on Monday’s opening session, most Americans are coming to terms with the fact that we are only at the beginning stage of a great upheaval. The phenomenal rise in the marketplace may signal that the hemorrhaging has been abated but the crisis is not over.

It is a clear indication, however, that governments remain a powerful force in the global economy – even more powerful than the corporate conglomerates they are called upon to rescue. That power is fortified by the ability of nations to achieve international cooperation and coordination at a time of crisis.

It is critical in the days and years ahead that governments retain that power and achieve greater independence from corporate influence.

The crisis in the financial markets required a massive infusion of capital – an infusion so massive it could not be provided by any single nation. But the broader economic crisis goes much deeper than the housing bubble and mismanagement of the financial sector.

What led us to the edge of economic collapse were the policies of free market fundamentalism. It created ever-larger international corporations answerable to no one. It decimated government regulatory authority. It all but destroyed organized labor by allowing corporations to exploit work forces anywhere in the world where labor rights and living wages did not exist. In its zeal for ever-increasing profits, it created financial assets where none in fact existed. It created a pyramid Ponzi scheme where those at the top could escape with obscene profits before the inevitable implosion.

In its short-term, profit oriented vision it neglected to see the obvious: That by stealing wages and benefits from ordinary workers they were destroying the foundation of the real economy. They were destroying the middle class, the working people, the consumers of goods.

In September 2001, after the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, our president told us to go shopping and have faith that those in power would do the right thing. We now know how bad that advice was.

While we whipped out our credit cards as if it was an act of patriotism, our president committed us to perpetual war in two nations, neither of which had attacked us (no, Al Qaeda was not an agent of the Afghan government).

Whatever your opinion on the wars, that strategic decision left us weaker both politically and economically. The current crisis in the financial markets, however it is resolved in the short term, will also leave us weaker (by at least a trillion dollars and counting) and therefore less able to deal with the next crisis.

If we do not take the necessary measures to ensure it will not happen again, it inevitably will – and next time it will be much worse.

Rebuilding the government’s regulatory authority is necessary but it is not enough.

Public works (reconstructing bridges, roads, public buildings, dams, mass transit) to put the people to work is essential but it is not enough.

Tax relief and incentives for working people and small businesses, as well as extended unemployment benefits, is important but it is not enough.

Removing corporate control of the electoral process is critical but it too is not enough.

In order to affect the systemic changes that will enable us to avert a future and inevitable collapse, we must address the role of labor in the global economy and the consolidation of wealth that unwisely places too much responsibility in too few hands.

On the one hand, we must take the lead in asserting the fundamental rights of labor on a global scale. This will require the same kind of international agreement that we have seen come together to rescue financial institutions.

Of equal importance, we must re-assert the antitrust policies that characterized the Teddy Roosevelt era. International corporations with no inherent interest in the public good should never be allowed to grow so large that they cannot be allowed to fail. That is not how the free market is intended to function.

As this financial crisis plays out, the consolidation of wealth accelerates: Wells Fargo absorbs Wachovia, Bank of America absorbs Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial, JP Morgan absorbs Bear Stearns, GM absorbs Chrysler, on and on.

To appreciate the dangers of this consolidation (and the diminished competition that comes with it), imagine that a school decided to house all its students in a single large room: When one student catches the flu, the school shuts down.

To a large extent, that is what happened in this financial train wreck: They were all drinking from the same well, all breathing the same toxic air, all sharing the same house and they all caught the same disease.

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 DAILY SCARE, THE NATIONAL FREE PRESS AND PACIFIC FREE PRESS. SEE WWW.JAZZMANCHRONICLES.BLOGSPOT.COM.

OBAMA VS. MCCAIN, ROUND II: Ali Vs. The Raging Bull

By Jack Random


Against a backdrop of shifting polls favoring Barack Obama, an economic crisis and a sharp increase in personal attacks from the camp of candidate John McCain, the second presidential debate was billed as an opportunity for McCain to fight back hard and dirty.

It was supposed to be McCain’s Jake “Raging Bull” LaMotta against Obama’s “Sugar” Ray Robinson.

Obama not only lived up to his part but transcended, conjuring the image of The Greatest, floating like a butterfly, stinging like a bee, but McCain came out stumbling, plenty of rage but without direction, flailing like an overmatched club fighter, holding in the clinch and hitting nothing but air.

The only surprise of the evening came early when McCain asserted that as president he would order the Treasury to purchase and renegotiate troubled mortgages, an authority embodied in the recent bailout and an idea recently floated by Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank and Obama himself.

The proposal sounded altogether too New Deal for McCain’s Free Market ideology (indeed it was the founding concept of Franklin Roosevelt’s Home Owner’s Loan Corporation) but his base supporters need not have feared. The devil is in the details: Homeowners would qualify if the could prove they were creditworthy at the time of the original loan. If they were worthy of the loans in the first place, the market would not have exploded like an over inflated balloon. Moreover, McCain’s deal is tilted to the lenders, paying full value for worthless mortgages.

It is another reminder that we cannot trust a card carrying, lifetime Free Market fundamentalist to deliver a fair deal. You wouldn’t buy a second used car from the man who already sold you a lemon.

Upon further review, McCain’s proposal was ill conceived, poorly thought out and wrought with problems – not the least of which is that it runs contrary with his philosophy of government. That McCain would even float the idea is a measure of how desperate he has become in the waning days of this campaign.

While Obama discussed his own efforts to alert the Treasury and the Federal Reserve concerning the looming crisis in unsecured mortgages, McCain moved on to his villains of choice: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation). He ushered us back to 2005 and the curious case of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act sponsored by Senators Chuck Hagel, John Sununu and Elizabeth Dole. The bill was not a serious legislative effort as it contained a poison pill: provisions that eliminated numerous governmental regulatory functions and replaced them with a regulatory corporation (the fox guarding the henhouse).

It died in committee as intended and John McCain signed onto it months later as political cover for the crisis to come.

It is worth noting that Fannie Mae was originally a government institution founded by the New Deal. Had it remained so, lacking an incentive to inflate profits by nefarious means, Fannie Mae would have stood as a firewall against the crisis in the mortgage markets. Instead, it yielded to the pressures of unregulated greed.

We would do well to return Fannie Mae to its original form and purpose.

Choosing not to linger on his legislative foresight, McCain sprinted on to familiar ground: His rant against legislative earmarks, curiously omitting the usual reference to the DNA of grizzlies. (It turns out he voted for that legislation.) Obama replied that while he agreed with earmark reform, it would have no impact on the current economic crisis.

Obama laid out his priorities: Energy first, Health Care second and Education third. McCain said he could do it all. Incredibly, he was willing to freeze all spending and cut Social Security but the one thing he would never cut was military expenditures.

Obama described a vision of a green economy and public works to rebuild our infrastructure, creating millions of good jobs, while McCain extolled the virtues of small business and nuclear energy.

On the theory that if you repeat an assertion loud and long enough people will eventually believe it, McCain charged that Obama would raise taxes (like Herbert Hoover!) and Obama made it clear that he would lower taxes for all but the very richest of Americans.

Obama advocated health care as a right of each and every citizen while McCain, who appeared never to have given it a thought, declared it was a responsibility. Obama noted that de-regulation would do for health care what it did for the financial markets.

On foreign policy, Obama advanced a doctrine of diplomacy, alliance building and moral responsibility while McCain invoked Teddy Roosevelt and seemed to suggest that “victory” on any terms, at any cost, was the only objective worthy of an imperial nation.

One should note that Teddy Roosevelt, in addition to his military heroics, was a trustbuster and an advocate of strong government regulation at a time of runaway greed.

On every front, on every issue of importance to the American people, only one man on the stage at Belmont University showed the breadth and depth of knowledge, the even temperament and precise thinking required to be President of the United States in the troubling times ahead.

When McCain conjured the memory of Herbert Hoover, the antithesis of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, it was not Obama we pictured; it was McCain.

When the final bell sounded and the contest came to a close, the Raging Bull quickly retreated to the privacy of his dressing room (presumably to treat his wounds). His opponent lingered, sharing the moment with the people who witnessed it, enjoying a sense of common cause.

He had gone the distance and he was still dancing. It was a performance worthy of The Greatest of All Time: Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

None but the most hardened loyalist was surprised with the verdict.

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.

NOTE: DISSEMINATE FREELY.

NOTE: I have noticed some strange happenings on the Web. Formerly open posting sites have become proprietary. Links are taken down. Restrictions are enacted. Others have noted such things as well. Have you? Has censorship come to the free media?

Mansel: Poetry Corner

Limed In Restraints


from the beginning it was a prayer through
clenched hands
a beaten mouth so foreign to the words
as to wild the myrrh
for so blinds a man thus comes the vision
of a sense once used for locating the light

blood and rage, only standing still, eroding
only what was a part of the greater good

that a downturned eye could last in a room
of allegiance is to set fire to a ravine where
the many have gathered to follow the few

I put my hands to the window and began to
tremble, the passage of Purgatory to the
burden of the families of a criminal,

government becoming the intercourse upon
which we joust on the way down to the
rocks below



- Chris Mansel