Thursday, August 18, 2011

Post-Clausewitzean Bebop in the New American Century 16 Aug. 2011 by Jeff Huber

This is the first part of an extended essay on post-modern American imperialism.

A 21st century sound bite summarizing the work of 19th century Prussian philosopher Carl von Clausewitz says that war is the pursuit of policy goals through violence. And the nutshell version of the ancient Chinese martial sage Sun Tzu admonishes us to charge downhill, not uphill. How ironic it is, then, that in the neoconservative age, history’s most powerful nation pursues a policy of persistent violence for no reason that one could imagine a rational nation might pursue, and does so with strategies that consistently charge uphill when downhill alternatives abound. Even more of a wry puzzle is that the nation that spends more on weaponry and its supporting gizmology than the rest of the world combined is locked in a seemingly eternal stalemate with adversaries who have no defense budget whatsoever.

Let them eat merde.

History is rife with examples of empires that became footnotes in later empires’ histories because they lacked the wisdom to understand that the might of arms that brought them to glory was insufficient alone to sustain them, and that the inability to adeptly exercise other forms of power would turn their military prowess into the vulnerability that would prove their downfall.

To deliberately misquote Mark Twain, history doesn’t repeat itself but it rhymes mighty often. The present point in our American saga resonates of the sick wet sound of imperial titans of yore flopping belly first on their own swords. Two of the most pertinent case studies in this regard are the Napoleonic and Roman Empires.

From 1789 to 1799 the French staged a bloody revolution to establish a republic and free themselves of an oppressive absolute monarchy that had reigned for centuries. Within five years they had placed themselves under the rule of a warlord emperor, Napoleon Bonaparte. In the name of preserving the French democracy he had already snuffed, Napoleon set about conquering all of Europe. Napoleon ruled his extended domain with brass-knuckled brutality, imposing draconian economic sanctions and other “soft power” measures designed, it seems in retrospect, to compel his satellite states to revolt against him and his puppets.

Napoleon made a Théâtre de l'Absurde display of diplomatic attempts to keep things going the way he liked, but he wasn’t any good at it. As a Naval War College professor once put it, Napoleon liked to do what he was good at, which was shoot all the horses and then put on his lead boots and start kicking. Napoleon kept kicking until his dead ponies finally reached up and bit him in the âne. The universal animus held against the French is a direct result of Napoleon’s fist-first foreign policies; to this day the French make the Germans seem cuddly in comparison.

As empire builders are wont to do, Napoleon over reached his financial and military limits. Casual history buffs know of his final defeat in 1815 by Britain’s Duke of Wellington at Waterloo. But what really undermined Napoleon’s hegemony was the Peninsular War (1807-1814), the counterinsurgency quagmire he stumbled into on The Iberian Peninsula. With help from Britain, Spain and Portugal were able to conduct a guerilla warfare campaign against French occupation that eroded Napoleon’s resources and led to his ultimate downfall.

12 years of Napoleonic Wars left an unstable Europe, and a France that was long on arrogance but short on anything to be arrogant about and that would need to be bailed out of two world wars by an upstart nation on another continent.

The ancient Romans punted away their republic for a “dictator in perpetuity” named Julius Caesar, a self-promoting wartime general whose victories had made Rome a global power. Caesar met an untimely end when he collided with a legislature’s worth of vintage Italian cutlery, but his adopted son Augustus carried on the line of “unitary executives” and the Romans continued to live by the sword until they died from it. Rome’s military, especially the Praetorian Guard, became the empire’s predominant political faction. As renaissance political scientist Niccolò Machiavelli noted, the Praetorians became “insolent and formidable, not only to the senate but to the emperors themselves.”

No emperor could survive, much less rule, without the allegiance and support of the Praetorian Guard and the Legions. If the Guard didn't like an emperor, they whacked the guy. Though the Senate continued to be an equal branch of government in name it was really just a vehicle through which emperors exercised an autocratic power that was, in fact, the bidding of the military.

Dick Cheney institutionalizes American "cement shoes" diplomacy.

The military’s financial shenanigans wrecked Rome’s economy, and infighting among segments of the Guard and Legions led to the break-up of the empire. By Machiavelli’s day, Italy was a surly collection of warring principalities whose exploits resembled, not altogether surprisingly, a season summary of The Sopranos. Lack of political unity and the unholy meddling of the Catholic Church in state affairs transformed once mighty Italy into the court jester of the international stage. Upon learning that Italy had thrown in with Nazi Germany, Winston Churchill quipped, “It’s only fair. We had to have them in the last war.”

The New American Centurions, the neoconservatives, aim to ensure U.S. domination of the world through military occupation and persistent low-level armed conflict. They manipulate the support of a largely passive population through a combination of fear of the ubiquitous “them,” myopic patriotism and religious fervor—a propaganda cocktail of stars-and-stripes-and-Jesus-versus-the-evildoers-forever. Our legislature has ceded virtually every one of its powers—except the ones that allow its members to draw salaries, benefits and retirements—to a unitary executive, and the conservatively slanted Supreme Court is all too happy to help construct a post-modern America that is a republic in name only, a thinly disguised autocracy in which the executives are every bit the handmaiden of their country's warmonger as Roman emperors were.

Our lavish martial expenditures—by some credible analyses total military related spending accounts for more than half of the federal budget—have our world’s largest economy heading nose first for the bottom of the pool. What little diplomacy we practice is of the “make them an offer they can’t accept” variety. We insist on negotiating conditions that no one in their right minds would accept, then we say we tried diplomacy and it didn’t work and we revert back to Plan A.

Neocon military strategist Fred Kagan

Armed force is the only foreign policy tool we know how to use, and its effectiveness has diminished through the vanishing point and emerged on the counterproductive scale. Our military endeavors not only can’t defeat our enemies, they actually create more enemies. We conduct our wars according to doctrines like Shock and Awe and Network-Centric Warfare and COIN (aka Counterinsurgency) that can best described as post-Clausewitzean bebop theory, strategies so convoluted and self-contradicting that the lysergically inspired brainiacs who conjured them up can’t even explain them to each other. Today’s American cannons of armed conflict are guidelines not to win wars, but to insure that then never end.

If America avoids fading away into history’s appendix of asterisk items, it will only be because the rest of the world realizes that we are too big to fail: If we perish from the face of the earth, who will buy everybody else’s exports?


Next: All that Clausewitz Jazz

Commander Jeff Huber, U.S. Navy (Retired) is author of the critically lauded novel Bathtub Admirals, a lampoon on America’s rise to global dominance.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

SADLY, BACHMANN IS SMARTER! David Gregory utterly failed. Lois Romano was worse:

MONDAY, AUGUST 15, 2011

An utter embarrassment/Buffett schools the Times: This morning, Paul Krugman presents his latest important column. Since Krugman’s target isn’t a journalist, he reveals who his target is:

KRUGMAN (8/15/11): In June 2011, the Texas unemployment rate was 8.2 percent. That was…slightly higher than the unemployment rate in New York, and significantly higher than the rate in Massachusetts. By the way, one in four Texans lacks health insurance, the highest proportion in the nation, thanks largely to the state’s small-government approach. Meanwhile, Massachusetts has near-universal coverage thanks to health reform very similar to the “job-killing” Affordable Care Act.

The TX unemployment rate is no more 8.2% than my dick is 4" long! And Krugman KNOWS this, and yet, he still trumpets it ... what the fuck is with that?

Krugman’s target today is Rick Perry—and Krugman names him in his first sentence! That said, let’s grasp the logic of Candidate Perry’s central claim:

When the national unemployment rate remains over eight percent, that’s hailed within the GOP as proof that Barack Obama has failed. When the Texas rate is over eight, it’s hailed as the “Texas miracle!”

Moving right along, Warren Buffett embarrasses the New York Times today. He does so with this op-ed column—in the New York Times!

Buffett presents the type of information which should have appeared, long ago, on the New York Times’ front page, offered there as part of the paper’s important news reporting.

Citizens should study each word of this column. But here is a potent excerpt, in which Buffett explains how “we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks.” As he starts, Buffett is explaining the size of his federal tax bill last year—“the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf:”

BUFFETT (8/15/11): [W]hat I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income—and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.

If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine—most likely by a lot.

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

[…]

Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion—a staggering $227.4 million on average—but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.

The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains.

Buffett compares 1992 with 2008. As the mega-rich got much richer, the percentage they paid in federal taxes got substantially smaller. This provides context with which to judge the GOP war-cry: We don’t have a revenue problem!

Plainly, Buffett is much too competent to work as a New York Times reporter. But what an embarrassment, when information like this turns up on the Times op-ed page! Long ago, a real “newspaper” would have been discussing these topics on its front page, in serial fashion. But the New York Times is not a real newspaper. Like so many other “news orgs,” it is the Potemkin successor to a former newspaper.

When information shows up in its pages, it typically does so in Krugman’s columns—or when some outside figure gets published on its op-ed page!

Do American citizens understand the information in Buffett’s column? Of course they don’t, and there’s at least one very good reason:

They live in a country with a lapsed “press corps!” They live in a country where information is virtually banned from the big mainstream “press.”

Do you hear liberals complain about this? Frankly, we don’t. Go ahead—keep reading.

SADLY, BACHMANN IS SMARTER (permalink): The inability to explain squat! The lack of any impulse to try!

These are the defining traits of the modern “press corps.”

We can’t explain how they got this way—and we can’t explain why the “liberal world” so rarely seems to notice their dumbness. (As opposed to their alleged bias.) But lord have mercy, this “press corps” is dumb! Just consider David Gregory’s attempt to question Michele Bachmann about the debt ceiling on yesterday’s Meet the Press.

Then, consider the way Lois Romano handled this topic in Newsweek’s recent profile of Bachmann.

Quick background: Bachmann has said that she would never raise the debt ceiling, under any circumstance. This must be the most ludicrous position any major White House candidate has ever taken on any budget matter.

But so what! As far as we know, the New York Times has never bothered explaining this matter—and the Washington Post has only deigned to do so once, in a front-page report back on July 15.

Bachmann’s position is utterly ludicrous—but most voters have never heard anyone explain why that’s the case. And then, a guy like Gregory steps in! By the time he was done on yesterday’s program, Bachmann’s position started to sound like it might make good solid sense.

Here is the utterly hapless host, starting his discussion of this topic on yesterday’s program. If we assume Gregory is sincere, the man is completely incompetent:

GREGORY (8/14/11): Let me ask you about the debt ceiling. You were adamantly opposed to raising the debt ceiling. You voted against that.

BACHMANN: Mm-hmm.

GREGORY: And there's a lot of people who said that was an incredibly reckless thing to do for our economy.

BACHMANN: Oh, hardly, hardly.

GREGORY: But, wait—

BACHMANN: Yeah.

GREGORY: Let me just, let me just take you through it. It wasn't just the president of the United States, it was also the chairman of the Federal Reserve, it was the Treasury secretary, it was your entire—

Even the chairman of the Federal Reserve! As Chris Matthews did a few weeks ago (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/21/11), Gregory was arguing from authority; he was saying Bachmann must be wrong because a lot of famous people say so. This is always a weak way to “prove” a point—but especially at a time like this, when faith in authority has broken down, it’s a very weak way to do so. And sure enough! At this point, Bachmann cuffed Gregory to the curb, interrupting him with a sardonic statement which rang true with many viewers:

BACHMANN (continuing directly): And they've done such a smashing job for us, haven't they?

Boosh! Bachmann threw down, right in Gregory’s face! But Gregory insisted on the right to keep on calling the roll! “Well, if I can just finish the question,” he brightly exclaimed. “The entire Republican leadership thought that was the wrong thing to do. Major members of the business community in this country thought that was the wrong thing to do. Why should we trust your judgment that that was the right thing to do and not a reckless act on the part of a congresswoman?”

Even the business community! Who could doubt their good judgment?

In fairness, this wouldn’t have been an awful way to start the discussion of this topic. But at some point, a serious person would want to explain why it was such an awful idea to keep the debt ceiling where it was after August 2. Gregory never got there. At no point did he make any attempt to explain what would have happened if the debt ceiling stayed where it was.

People! There’s a reason why all those famous people and groups insisted on raising the debt limit. But most Americans don’t know what it is, and Gregory never made the slightest attempt to explain it. He offered an argument from authority—and he offered nothing else. He told us Bachmann has to be wrong because Ben Bernanke said!

Of course, Gregory seemed like an absolute genius as compared to Romano. All week long, the Potemkins who pose as the nation’s “press corps” argued about the cover photo Newsweek chose to use in conjunction with Romano’s report. But good God! Inside the magazine, in that cover story, the hapless scribe gave this hapless account of the problem with Bachmann’s proposal:

ROMANO (8/15/11): At a time of population growth, increasing health-care costs, swelling ranks of retirees, and a sharp and prolonged economic slump—all of which point to the need for increases in federal spending just to meet government’s existing obligations—Bachmann and her Tea Party allies demand that Washington spend less. But they don’t just demand that spending increase less from year to year than previously planned; that’s what Congress and the president agreed to in the deal that ended the debt standoff, to the tune of $2.4 trillion over the next 10 years (albeit followed by a downgrade four days later). Rather, Bachmann and the Tea Party go much further, insisting that the federal government actually shrink over time, spending less money from year to year as its commitments grow.

That means, of course, that its commitments would have to shrivel as well. In the Tea Party’s ideal vision of America, large federal agencies and federal programs would be dismantled and the savings redirected to states with block grants and individuals through lower taxes.

According to the hapless Romano, Bachmann “insists that the federal government actually shrink over time, spending less money from year to year.” That would mean that “its commitments would have to shrivel,” with “the savings redirected to states with block grants and individuals through lower taxes.” But that isn’t what would have happened at all if we’d adopted the Bachmann proposal! Incredibly, Romano managed to take an historically ludicrous proposal and make it sound like something a whole lot of voters might like!

Did Bachmann propose “that the federal government shrink over time, spending less money from year to year?” Actually no—that’s nothing like what Bachmann proposed! In reality, Bachmann proposed that the federal government spend massively less money, starting instantly, on August 3. In saying she wouldn’t raise the debt ceiling, she proposed that the federal government instantly cut its spending by forty to forty-five percent!

That was an utterly crazy proposal—and no, there wouldn’t have been any “savings” to “redirect” to the states or the tax-payers! Regarding that ludicrous point, what could possibly make Romano think there would have been money left over if Bachmann’s position had prevailed—money that could have been “redirected” to tax-payers? In this formulation, Romano recreated the construct used by Candidate and President Bush, from 1999 through 2001; Bush persistently said that his large tax cuts were designed to send money back to the people. But at that time, the federal government was running surpluses. Whatever the wisdom of Bush’s proposal, there really was money to “redirect.”

There is no such money now—until you read Newsweek. What an embarrassment, to see named person Tina Brown putting such twaddle in print.

That said, here’s one more question: In the past week, have you seen any major journalist or blogger challenge the account in Romano’s report? No! Instead, the pundit corps has spent its time arguing about that cover photo, making a set of inane presentations as they do.

Romano’s utterly hapless account completely failed to capture the size of what Bachmann really proposed. Indeed, Romano’s formulation will sound, to many ears, like something this country might truly need. She even managed to make it sounds like the nation’s tax-payers would get their latest bag of free money!

Like Gregory, Romano failed to explain the sweep of Bachmann’s proposal. One more basic bungle:

Earlier in her hapless account, Romano referred to “the willingness” of people like Bachmann “to risk national default for the sake of achieving its political goals.” This scolding formulation will sound good to most liberals; thrills will run up our legs. But yesterday, Bachmann batted that construct away as she dealt with the hapless Gregory:

BACHMANN: Remember, I introduced a bill that would not have had the United States default. The president did not. Let me tell you what the president did. President Obama went out and, and effectively said through his administration, "We don't know if we're going to pay our military men and women in uniform." This was, this comment was made overseas to our men and women while they're serving our country.

GREGORY: That's not what the president said, that was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

BACHMANN: That was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. That was highly irresponsible.

This was the second time Bachmann said that she entered a bill to avoid default. She went on to batter Obama further, for “saying to senior citizens, ‘We don't know if you'll get your Social Security checks in August.’” That too was irresponsible, Bachmann convincingly said.

Gregory never explained why Obama would have said what he said about those Social Security checks. Meanwhile, Bachmann’s statement about “default” surely rang true to many viewers. For the past several months, voters have been told, again and again, that a refusal to raise the debt limit would not have led to “default;” there would have been plenty of revenue coming in to pay the government’s debt service. Nor was this a ridiculous posture. In this July 18 post, Kevin Drum seemed to say the claim was sound.

Question: Have you ever seen your big news orgs attempt to explain what was wrong with Bachmann’s claim about avoiding default? Answer: Of course you haven’t! In its pathetic, embarrassing “crash course on all things debt limit,” the New York Times made a pathetic, embarrassing attempt to discuss this topic. Could college students get by with such hapless work? Surely, we all hope not.

Bachmann’s proposal about the debt limit is and was utterly ludicrous. But this country is full of decent people who have never been told why it would have been crazy to leave the debt ceiling where it was on August 2. They’ve never heard a rebuttal to Bachmann—other than “but Bernanke said.”

The liberal world gazes lazily on, saying nothing about this global intellectual failure. We’re just as dumb as Gregory is.

Sadly, Bachmann is smarter.


Plagiarized By Mark Ganzer | August 15, 2011


The queasy condition of America, incapable of either a complete collapse or of throwing up a regime that could move the country even a few steps forward, has been a cause for depression for many a decade. The privileged elite — military and civilian — live happily in their bubble exercising military, political, administrative, economic and judicial power over the whole land.

This is, of course, the case in most countries, but in America the contrast between rulers and ruled is so stark that there is nothing to protect the weak majority from the powerful and rich minority. Kinship networks, like protection offered by gangsters, can do a bit but any notion that this can substitute for the state in providing the necessities of life — water, electricity, subsidized flour, health, education — is a form of reactionary utopianism. Progress, to be meaningful, has to be in the interests of the collective as a whole.

The fault is neither in the stars nor in the people, whose forbearance and patience have been exemplary. They have tried everything in terms of political parties and military regimes and have obtained nothing. Despite this fact, there is no gadarene rush to join even the moderate [religious] parties, leave alone armed [posse comitas] groups. Till now a large majority of Americans have resisted this course, despite the inducements on offer in the next world. Contrary to global media images, ordinary Americans are not attracted to religious extremists.

Demography is always ignored: the [majority of those] under 25 live off their wits and part-time work. Unemployment is huge. A majority of them have education, all the while wanting jobs and an end to political corruption. Will these demands ever be met?

There have been three constants in American political life: [a two party system where the distinctions between the alleged two parties are negligivle], the military-congressional-industrial-adademic-media-prison complex, and a corrupt, uncaring elite, currently symbolised by President Obama, known throughout the world as someone whose interest in making money and accumulating property transcends all else. The last opinion polls in the towns showed him on [very low popularity numbers]. Cruel taunts often greet the venerables of the ruling party when they venture out to meet the people. This is [not even] slightly unfair and could apply to [most state elected officials] as well. The fact is that people are disgusted with politics and see politicians as crooks out to make money and feed the greed of the networks they patronize and which double up as useful vote banks.

The US is currently waging war in Afghanistan that has leaked into Pakistan and destabilized the country even further. Add to this the US drone attacks, agreed to by the country's rulers, that supposedly target 'terrorists' but end up killing innocents. Civilian casualties, if one takes the lowest figures, are now just under 2,000, mainly women and children.

The [U.S.] army and other security forces are showing signs of strain at having to carry out attacks on their the Pakistani people in the border villages in the northern provinces. The [Pakistni] army forcibly removed 250,000 people from the Orakzai district on the Afghan border and put them in refugee camps. Many swore revenge and militant groups have targeted the ISI and other military centers.
The economy is in a mess and the conditionality of IMF loans bears little relationship to what citizens need. To insist on lowering social services in a country where the rich pay virtually no tax at all has to be grotesque by any standard.

The 2004 floods i{n NOLA] revealed an elite incapable of providing real help to its people. Related horror stories are still doing the rounds. Poverty alleviation programs are a drop in the desert. Military expenditure dominates the budget.
The time has come for another [change of political “leadership”, but [both parties are] unpopular and Washington in no mood to green-light yet another political takeover. In any case, the right-wing dogma backed by some University of Chicago and Harvard academics that America has fared better under its so-called “conservatives” than its so-called “liberals” is a sick joke. Facts render such a view unsustainable. Political “conservatives” and political “liberals” share an indifference to the fate of the common people. The disastrous way of the world is to abandon everything to the market and private profit. It no longer works and even less so in countries like America.

The inner decay and disintegration of the country proceed apace. A profound disillusionment accompanied by nihilism had already set in some decades ago when, in one of his most moving poems, Langston Hughes referred to it as a dream deffered. Nothing has managed to reverse the trend. The powerlessness of individuals faced with the apparatus of powers big and small has only been enhanced by what is happening now. Sooner or later, the people will rise and sweep the rubbish aside. Don't ask me when.


Based on the text of Tariq Ali’s Counterpunch Article of 16 August, 2011, "A Congregation of Pain:" Pakistan at 64.


Monday, August 15, 2011

Thinkin' 'Bout Chew



I know, it sounds so incredible, but I swear
That we've met before, and I think it was on
An inbound train to the city.
Of course, you wouldn't recognize me now,
For then, I was a bald-headed man,
And weighed 35 more pounds.

What I remember about you is how beautiful
You looked, and it was more than your lovely
Face, and your piercing eyes, and soulful
Smile – it was much more than that!

It was the way you looked so much the mature
And talked, the mature young lady that I was
Stunned to see, that when you curled your hair
With your fingers, it was clear that you were
Still just a teen-aged girl, with the single solitary
Exception that you had never been given the
Opportunity to safely be a young teen-aged girl

Hanging out on weekend nights at slumber
Parties with your best friends forever,
Doing your nails with and for each other,
And talking and LAUGING so uproariously
About young boys, and how they would
embarrass themselves with you, not understanding
That their shyness and inexperience did not
Make them unattractive to you, but, au contraire,
Made them charming to you, especially when one
Of them would get out of his shellish world
And call you to talk on the telephone for
A while (what a joke, you'd have talked the
Night away with any one of them; you had
No favorite, just an empathetic understanding
That what they were going through, and what
You were going through, those experiences
They were not so different from one another

And how cruel it must have been, to have your
World betrayed by a trusted one, never again to
Be a teen-aged girl, protected safe in her own home,
The sound of the laughter of other teen-aged girls
Resounding throughout your house, and all the smiles
And goofy ideas for rationales for escape – oh Good
God in Heaven up above, you all could REALLY
Invent some doozies there. 'T'ain't no American
Politician on the planet better at self-rationalizing,
And they usually worked too, because you went
For cigarette butts in the best place here in town
(You had slumber party girl girl-friends here too,
That much I remember) at the restaurant Chelsie's,
Where the butts usually ounumber the customers,
And these butts are SUBSTANTIAL, so substantial that you
Knew for a flat-out fact, that this was an upper income
Town – who else can afford to toss away a two puff butt?

And now, that you've escaped high school, and have a job
All lined up in Colorado, the staff here is telling you that it's
You that is the big problem, and here, I would argue with them
I would be the big champion for you, but they are not going to
Hear me, and they would take it as evidence that my
Meds are NOT working, when in-fact, I feel more factfoid-
Filled and more logical argument winning now than when
My BAL is at the .120 window

So, yes, young lady, beautiful young lady, now you've got
That which you were seekin' that friend who is always there
For you, who can afford to give up what he's doin' and go on
Outrageous adventures – do the slumber party thang, HELL,
Beautiful Lady, I'll even let you do my toe nails, and wear
Clogs for the world to see … won't THAT give us a laugh and a half!

In fact, now I quite understand why Tull sang Goin' Back to the Family

My telephone wakes me in the morning --
have to get up to answer the call.
So I think I'll go back to the family
where no one can ring me at all.
Living this life has its problems
so I think that I'll give it a break.
Oh, I'm going back to the family
`cos I've had about all I can take.

Master's in the counting house
counting all his money.
Sister's sitting by the mirror --
she thinks her hair looks funny.
And here am I thinking to myself
just wond'ring what things to do.

I think I enjoyed all my problems
Where I did not get nothing for free.
Oh, I'm going back to the family --
doing nothing is bothering me.
I'll get a train back to the city
that soft life is getting me down.
There's more fun away from the family
get some action when I pull into town.

Everything I do is wrong,
what the hell was I thinking?
Phone keeps ringing all day long
I got no time for thinking.
And every day has the same old way
of giving me too much to do.

So, with me, the venue is pretty simple:
Monday the IPGA tournament, where with a little bit of luck
I can snag a bag and make half-a-hundred, and with a LOT of luck,
We can both snag bags and make the full C-note
Won't that be grand, almost too much money for us
But, we've been down that road before, and with you
As my body guard, and me as your assassin, we can safely
Ride the rails – get ourselves out to Yvonn'es, where the
Pitchers are, oh my God, check this out:
Three dollars a piece, and the pool table is FREE
Whoop Dee Doo
And the Depot, where my beloved Paul and Sheryl run
What will be the best Irish bar in the country, once they
Start opening at 7 a.m. – except their damn bar tenders
Are so slovenly drunk at that hour, that they'd give the damn
Place away.
Tuesdays – those will have to be your days, love
Wednesdays – open mic at Lamp's
Thursdays – open mic at Corkscrew Pointe
Fridays – karioke at the Deopt
Saturdays – karioke at the Depot
Sundays – chruch in Ingleside, where, quite literally
We can go to three services, plus a bible study,
And learn Spanish well enough to flit peaceably amongst
The crowd at the Spanish bar in Round Lake.

Soundin' like a whole lot of fun, dear.
Whoop Dee Doop!
Something to look forward too.
I got a friend, and she befriends me
I got a friend, we got a lot of worlds to see
She got a friend now, don't get better than this
She gots me, I gots her, we don't ever need to kiss
We shall hit the rails and roam
Never farther than 60 miles from home
I gots her, she gots me, I tell you what a lot of fun will have WE!

Whoop Dee Doop!

Sunday, August 14, 2011

The most worthy Larry Pinkney ALWAYS has something of extreme value to present to us - writing in BlackCommentator.Com: Keeping It Real By Larry Pinkney BC Editorial Board

Goose-Stepping Behind Barack Obama:
The Absence of Critical Thinking


As amply demonstrated by Germany and Italy of the 1930s, there is absolutely nothing new about a substantively uninformed, and highly manipulated electorate, euphorically and uncritically lining up lock-step behind a political figure offering a dangerously superficial, media sound-bite rhetoric which indefinably calls for “change.” The consequences of falling prey to such superficiality are dangerous and immense.

The largely consolidated U.S. corporate media in the 21st Century continues overwhelmingly to actively attempt to diminish and/or outright ignore the enormous potential and importance of third parties on the American political landscape, including the Reconstruction Party, the Green Party, and the Peace and Freedom Party, etc. Heaven forbid that the American people collectively, Black, Brown, Red, Yellow, and White come to realize that the Democrat and Republican Parties represent anything but real systemic change. And of course fundamental, clearly defined, systemic change is exactly what the people of the U.S. so desperately need.

This is not lost upon the U.S. corporate media, which is precisely why said media promotes Barack Obama, and others, who represent superficial, feel-good change, which really means window dressing change [i.e. no change at all for the vast majority of people]. Such so-called change is akin to telling a terminally ill patient that if he or she simply feels good about themselves, their illness will not kill them. “Just a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down…” The American people don’t need a "spoon full of sugar;" we need a completely changed diet consisting of systemic change that does not serve the interests of corporations and their military partners.

In a nation that allegedly represents the bastion of democracy, it is the height of absurdity and hypocrisy that its peoples are fed a constant corporate diet consisting of there being only two (joined-at-the-hip) so-called “major” political parties, whose only insignificant differences are rhetorical - and whether or not to economically, politically, and socially suffocate the people quickly [i.e. the Republicans] or a little slower [i.e. the Democrats]. Malcolm X correctly referred to these Republicans and Democrats as “wolves and foxes.” Indeed, they are the joined-at-the-hip “Republicrats,” the corporate/military surrogates of the 21st Century.

It is appropriate at this juncture to reiterate my written comments in this column of February 7, 2008:

“We need to be about the business of thinking and acting outside the box and building political parties that are outside the box, parties that serve the economic, social, and political interests of the masses of people. This is precisely why the candidacy of former U.S. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney for President and the Power To The People Coalition is of such enormous importance for the present and for the future. This coalition is all about collectively laying the foundation for systemic change – which is the only way that we can enjoy real change.”

Not only do both the Democrat and Republican Parties, in reality, oppose the economic, political, and social interests and needs of the vast majority of people in the U.S. and around the world - neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are seriously exposing, addressing, and fundamentally changing and correcting the enormously flawed and corrupted electoral voting system in this nation. Despite the rhetoric of so-called “change,” it still remains all about de facto voter disenfranchisement as real and large scale voter enfranchisement does not serve the interests of big corporations and their military partners, which in turn does not serve the interests of the Democrats or Republicans. These are not the actions of a democracy but of a republicracy. It continues to be all about the Democrats and Republicans rhetorically saying one thing while doing quite another.

Resigning one's self to voting for the so-called “lesser of the two evils” plays right into calculated corporate hands of media manipulations and the disempowering Democrat and Republican Parties. By the same token, euphorically goose-stepping behind the candidacy of Barack Obama, or any other Democrat or Republican, is tantamount to choosing death by hanging as opposed to death by firing squad. This is not exercising a choice. It is dangerous and ridiculous non-choice, especially in America - the so-called bastion of democracy.

Whatever the rhetorical difference in their code words [e.g. terms such as "US interests," "US security interests," "US world leadership," "democracy," etc.], Barack Obama, and his Democrat and Republican Party counterparts, (with their big corporate donors and advisors) all adhere to the notion of U.S. military and corporate hegemony, with a strong dose of support for corporate apartheid Zionism [Reference and read thoroughly Barack Obamas’ speech last year to the Zionist lobby known as AIPAC]. The term “U.S. interests” has little or nothing to do with the economic, political, or social needs & interests of the majority of peoples in the U.S. or the world; and most definitely nothing to do with justice or real democracy. Unfortunately however, Obama went even further, having called for blocking the right of return of the Palestinian people to their occupied lands, and of course having repeatedly called for the use of “unilateral” U.S. military actions against other nations. The sad and dangerous list goes on and on. It is stunning, for example, and almost beyond belief, that a so-called Democrat could heap praise upon the late Republican U.S. President Ronald Reagan who:

*
opposed the labor movement and the economic rights of working women and men in the U.S. and around the world
*
who was a strong supporter of the apartheid government of South Africa
*
who utterly despised affirmative action and the human rights of Black, Brown, and Red Americans and the working poor
*
who made horrible economic cut backs to the already inadequate food programs for mothers and children in America
*
who, in the name of (here we go again) "U.S. security interests" unlawfully and militarily invaded the tiny Black nation of Grenada

Nevertheless, Barack Obama actually heaped praise upon that very same Republican - Ronald Reagan. Of course, various catch-all terms such as "U.S. interests" and "U.S. security interests," etc., can and do mean everything from “unilateral” and illegal U.S. military actions/invasions of other nations [e.g. Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Grenada, etc.] to U.S.-sponsored coup d'etat [e.g. Iran, Guatemala, and Haiti, etc.], to the insane notion that the U.S. (or anyone else) has the unmitigated right to engage in a nuclear first-strike which would most certainly assure the end of all human life on the planet. It is time to think critically and act accordingly. It is time to be for real.

With reference to the United States, one must apply the political term "third parties" loosely, in that the Democrats and Republicans are, for all practical purposes, one party - the Republicrats. The so-called difference comes down to choosing to die quickly or to die slowly. We must think outside of the Democrat and Republican Party box of death. We must choose not to die at all. We must demand and organize for total and complete universal health care - with no profits to the blood-sucking corporations. We must demand and organize not only for an immediate end to the U.S. war of aggression in Iraq - but also for an end to the very notion that military aggression anywhere by anyone is acceptable. We must demand and organize for an end to the vampiric, blood-sucking corporate and military apparatus - and build organizations based upon fulfilling human needs, not exploiting human weaknesses. We must demand and organize for an educational system that truly educates the people - and not one that brainwashes them to serve as corporate or military cannon fodder. We must remember that, as in the case of the ongoing "Hurricane Katrina" U.S. federal and state government debacle - we ultimately do to ourselves what we do to the world. We must organize outside of (the Democrat and Republican Party death) box. We must consciously and consistently build third political parties throughout the United States. We must struggle and build locally, regionally, and nationally, building third party coalitions wherever possible and appropriate to the needs of the people, collectively. This is about collective hard work - not some corporately brokered and cloned echo of misplaced “hope” and superficial “change.” This is about us - all of us as people - not as unwitting and helpless pawns of U.S. multinational corporations. As I wrote back in April of 2006, “Perhaps people will stop repeating the human-made catastrophes of the past when we cease being ahistorical and truly learn from history’s lessons. Indeed, after all is said and done, we truly are not helpless in this regard.” [Reference The Boston Globe, April 27, 2006].

What time is it in America? It’s third party time!

It’s time to stop mentally goose-stepping, and start critically thinking. What a revolutionary concept. This too, is what "Keeping It Real" is all about.


BlackCommentator.com Editorial Board member, Larry Pinkney, is a veteran of the Black Panther Party, the former Minister of Interior of the Republic of New Africa, a former political prisoner and the only American to have successfully self-authored his civil/political rights case to the United Nations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. For more about Larry Pinkney see the book, Saying No to Power: Autobiography of a 20th Century Activist and Thinker, by William Mandel [Introduction by Howard Zinn]. (Click here to read excerpts from the book) Click here to contact Mr. Pinkney.

"They Will be Buried by Laughter Empire vs. Multitude: Talking with Antonio Negri By ED EMERY

August 12 - 14, 2011

When Toni Negri, now 78, writes and speaks, there is something Latinate in his linguistics, yet the discourse is clear, disciplined, lucid, and playful. His bearhug greeting is muscular and powerful, as are the workings of his formidable intellect. We need his kind of thinking, because the leftist models of the past no longer work and something new has to be invented.

His book Empire rode high on the US bestsellers list, but Negri doesn’t have a party, an organisation or battalions of followers. He says: “I find myself a bit isolated, because I am, and remain, an extremist. So anyone who wants to make a career, or establish a relationship with the world of normal politics, avoids getting involved with me.” He theorizes the past practices and future possibilities of revolution. Over the past 20 years he has written that “classes” have given way to “multitudes” as an analytical watchword. His detractors say the masses aren’t storming the barricades crying “We are the multitudes!”

This (Arab) spring seemed a good time to visit him, since the movement in the main squares of capitals around the Mediterranean was something like the multitudes in action, and Negri claimed so in newspaper articles. Hearing Negri live is very different from reading him in English translation. On the train to Venice, rumbling across the cavalcavia from Mestre, that heavenly space of earth, wind and water, it struck me that I have been translating Negri for 40 years now. I had a flashback to London in the early 1970s, when we were activists fresh out of university, living in a commune that was raided by the police. They were very struck with our print room in the basement (I still yearn for the chug-chug of a Multilith 1250 offset litho press and the acrid smell of fresh-minted pamphlets). A big map of Italy on the wall, because Italy was the heartland of working-class revolution in Europe’s factories.

They concluded that we were part of an international conspiracy, which in a way we were. They were particularly interested in a document found in my drawer, the conference papers of the organisation Potere Operaio (Workers’ Power), which revolutionised the way we understood class struggle, through the historical periodisation of labour struggles worldwide into cycles. Negri was one of the voices in Potere Operaio who theorised the “mass worker” leading the struggles of the 1970s. Inspirational stuff that set me to translating Negri, although my early efforts were carted off by the constabulary.

That political landscape of the “mass worker” employed in systems of measured day work, was populated by car workers, dockers, miners, building workers and their trade unions: an international cycle of labour struggles capable of toppling governments. That has all changed. The industrial capitalism based on factory working classes has given way to a new capitalism, based on financial services, on the digital economy, on the negricreation and marketing of knowledge: “cognitive capitalism”. In the capitalist heartlands we no longer bash lumps of metal in workshops but manipulate, create and valorize digital data and networks. Facebook and Google are bigger than General Motors. The new masses, of “immaterial labor”, Negri’s “multitudes”.

As the wave of factory struggles subsided in defeat, Italy descended into its “years of lead” (anni di piombo), the political terrorism of the 1970-80s. Negri was imprisoned, together with hundreds of other autonomist leftists (autonomia operaia) in the first of the mass raids that began on 7 April 1979. He did four years of prison from 1979, exile in France from 1983, then more prison in Italy. Negri tells the story of those years in Pipeline, and Diario di un’evasione. With the fall of the Soviet system, there was an urgent need for intelligent writing that could explain the new state of the world. Negri embarked on major work, co-written with Michael Hardt at Duke University, and published by Harvard, the trilogy, Empire (2000), Multitude (2004) and Commonwealth (2009).

The idea of ’commons’

To sidestep the historical blockage that the Soviet experience imposed on communism, Negri is returning to the idea of “commons” which lies at its root. He addresses a twin reality of “commons”. Identifying the roots of the current economic crisis, he sees a capitalist “commons”, a unification and commonality (comunanza) of capitalist interests, particularly in finance. “Sometimes, with rather too free a use of words, people have called this ‘the communism of capital’. It is a ‘commons’ with which we have to come to account. And which we have to expropriate.” The fundamental concept of the Italian workerist tradition (operaismo) is that capitalism always maps its developments on the struggles and resistance of the workers. Today, as an outcome of the labour struggles of the 1970-80s, there exists a commonality of work characterised by the immateriality, cognitive contents, networking and communication implicit in all areas of work under capitalism. This requires a radical shift in how we conceive the organisation of social change. As Negri says: “Revolution is no longer a matter of capturing the ‘Winter Palace’, Bolshevik-style. Instead, what we have is these forms of the common, these forms of interaction, this capacity of networks, this plurality, this pluralism, this poly-contextuality which is becoming more and more broadly extended.”

But how can the anger, urgency and aggressiveness that we have seen across North Africa, and in Spain, Portugal and Greece, be organised? In Commonwealth Negri addresses this question. He calls the anger indignation, and traces it back to Spinoza, who says that in indignation we discover our power to act against oppression. But the problem is how to transform these moments of popular anger into durable institutions of people’s power? For Negri and his comrades, in this phase of capitalism the whole metropolis becomes the arena of production and resistance. We are ruled under a system that is “biopolitical” (with the whole of life as politics). Revolutionary theory has to be developed in the biopolitical context: taking Marx and immersing him in Foucault. So what is the job of revolutionaries? “Our task is to investigate the organizational framework of antagonistic subjectivities that arise from below, based on the indignation expressed by subjects in the face of unfreedoms, ... exploitation and expropriation” (Michael Hardt and Toni Negri, Commonweal).

Indignation would seem a flaky concept, yet as I write this the live-video stream from Syntagma Square, Athens, is showing thousands of demonstrators besieging the Greek parliament over the new austerity laws. On a big banner you see the word that symbolises this movement: (Aganaktismeni). The indignant ones. Like the Spanish indignados before them. Negri comes into his own.

He’s also very available. In the 1980s I translated and published a volume of Negri’s writings, Revolution Retrieved (Toni Negri, Revolution Retrieved: Writings on Marx, Keynes, capitalist crisis and new social subjects (1967-83), ed and trans Ed Emery and John Merrington, Red Notes, London, 1983), in collaboration with John Merrington . I still have a few copies left; selling them helps oil the wheels of revolution. Last week I discovered that the whole book has been scanned by the “Libertarian Communists” and posted on the net as a free download, which explains the zero sales of the past months. I asked them to take down those pages, but they haven’t. So, as a small present to you the reader, here are the instructions for your free download (An internet search for “Negri — Revolt at Trani Prison” leads directly to a downloadable pdf.). Enjoy it while it lasts.

When I went to interview Negri, I also planned to capture his funny stories from a lifetime as philosopher, theorist, activist, exile and prisoner. The outcome is 13 short films on YouTube; the first posting is “The Revolt at Trani Prison” (1980) (Racconti curiosi no 13: “The Revolt at Trani Prison”; http://youtu.be/zTY1Dow6MzU). Its tragedy and humor contain a small secret from the final paragraph of the trilogy. The heart and soul of revolution, he says, will be laughter. “Ours is finally a laugh of destruction, the laugh of armed angels which accompanies the combat against evil. In the struggles against capitalist exploitation ... we will suffer terribly, but still we laugh with joy. They will be buried by laughter.” Or more poetically in Italian, Sarà una risata che vi seppellirà.


Watch the interview in Italian

Ed Emery is organizer of Universitas adversitatis, a web-based free university; he also translates books.

This article appears in the August edition of the excellent monthly Le Monde Diplomatique, whose English language edition can be found at mondediplo.com. This full text appears by agreement with Le Monde Diplomatique. CounterPunch features two or three articles from LMD every month.

Policing the University The Terror of Campus Security By MALINI JOHAR SCHUELLER

August 12 - 14, 2011

As students across the country head back to their campuses this month, many parents will attempt to ensure the safety of their children by paying the absurdly high costs of campus housing. Campus housing seems safer than student ghettos and campus buildings even more so. The gown over the town.

But campuses are increasingly becoming unsafe–not because of a lack of security but an overabundance of it. Amnesty International and the United Nations have declared tasers to be torture devices, but if a student insists on taking the podium and asking more questions than allotted during a public talk, chances are that he will be subdued by a number of officers and then tasered by the campus police.

As University of Florida's Andrew Meyer's "don't tase me bro" became a schuellerhousehold phrase in 2007, people discovered several other unwarranted incidents of tasering on campuses including UCLA library. In March 2010, campus police at the University of Florida, responding to a 911 call from a neighbor who heard screaming next door, broke into Kofi Adu-Brempong's campus housing apartment. Despite his assurances that he was okay, police forcibly entered his apartment and within seven seconds shot the disabled man in the face. In another tragic incident on August 6, 2011, campus police at the University of Cincinnati, again responding to a 911 call reporting unrest, tasered the eighteen year old, college-bound Everette Howard because he continued moving forward when asked to stop. Howard, who had been attending a college preparatory program at the University, died shortly after being tasered.

The justification for heavily armed campus police and SWAT-like units on campus is Virginia Tech, where in 2007, a mentally disturbed Seung-Hui Cho went on a shooting rampage. Margolis and Healy, the consulting firm hired by Virginia tech to ensure security on campus, now uses that experience as a benchmark when dealing with violence on campus and refers its clients to the two major publications by its team members: The Handbook for Campus Threat Assessment and Management Teams and Implementing Behavioral Threat Assessment on Campus: A Virginia Tech Demonstration Project. It was the consulting firm used by the University of Florida after the shooting of Adu-Brempong. There was nothing particularly insidious in some of the recommendations made by Margolis and Healy to the University of Florida: to better coordinate its efforts, to consider involuntary counseling, and to use a behavior threat assessment model.

The widespread use of firms like Margolis and Healy by campuses, however, reflects an alarming national trend, particularly since 9/11, to constantly prepare tactics for dealing with the threat of unpredictable violence, aka "terror." The consequences of wanting heightened apparatuses of security on the national level have been well documented: racial profiling; unwarranted detentions; wiretapping; color-coded airport alerts designed to foster insecurity; and of course a strong-armed Department of Homeland Security. Campuses too reflect this national fixation with terror and security. The focus is on the threat posed by an active shooter or someone on campus liable to cause harm while the threat posed to the campus community by heavily armed police goes unnoticed. The absurdity of this position is evident when we are faced with the effects of excessive use of force.

Lest it might seem that the connection between governmental and campus apparatuses of security is far fetched, we might consider the credentials of members of Margolis and Healy, touted by the firm itself. Dr Gary Margolis, former Chief of Police at the University of Vermont, traveled to Israel in 2008 "as an invited guest of the Israeli Government to study terrorism and share his expertise with the Israel National Police and Israel Defense Forces;" Steven Healy, former Security Police Officer in the US Air Force, and named one of the Top 25 Most Influential People in the Security Industry; and Dr Randazzo, "an international expert on threat assessment" who served ten years with the U.S. Secret Service.

That campuses were seen as threats to national security was clear in the vituperative rhetoric spewn by the likes of Lynne Cheney, David Horowitz, and Daniel Pipes; that campuses are increasingly becoming labs for fighting wars on terror is now becoming evident.


Malini Johar Schueller is Professor of English at the University of Florida. She is the author most recently of Locating Race: Global Sites of Post-Colonial Citizenship and co-editor of Dangerous Professors: Academic Freedom and the National Security Campus.


CounterPunch Diary Riots and the Underclass By ALEXANDER COCKBURN

August 12 - 14, 2011

What’s a riot without looting? We want it, they’ve got it! You’d think from the press that looting was alien to British tradition, imported by immigrants more recent than the Normans. Not so. Gavin Mortimer, author of The Blitz, had an amusing piece in the First Post about the conduct of Britons at the time of their Finest Hour:

“It didn't take long for a hardcore of opportunists to realise there were rich pickings available in the immediate aftermath of a raid – and the looting wasn't limited to civilians.

“In October 1940 Winston Churchill ordered the arrest and conviction of six London firemen caught looting from a burned-out shop to be hushed up by Herbert Morrison, his Home Secretary. The Prime Minister feared that if the story was made public it would further dishearten Londoners struggling to cope with the daily bombardments…

“The looting was often carried out by gangs of children organized by a Fagin figure; he would send them into bombed-out houses the morning after a raid with orders to target coins from gas meters and display cases containing First World War medals. In April 1941 Lambeth juvenile court dealt with 42 children in one day, from teenage girls caught stripping clothes from dead bodies to a seven-year-old boy who had stolen five shillings from the gas meter of a damaged house. In total, juvenile crime accounted for 48 per cent of all arrests in the nine months between September 1940 and May 1941 and there were 4,584 cases of looting.

“Joan Veazey, whose husband was a vicar in Kennington, south London, wrote in her diary after one raid in 1940: "The most sickening thing was to see people like vultures, picking up things and taking them away. I didn't like to feel that English people would do this, but they did."

“Perhaps the most shameful episode of the whole Blitz occurred on the evening of March 8 1941 when the Cafe de Paris in Piccadilly was hit by a German bomb. The cafe was one of the most glamorous night spots in London, the venue for off-duty officers to bring their wives and girlfriends, and within minutes of its destruction the looters moved in.

"Some of the looters in the Cafe de Paris cut off the people's fingers to get the rings," recalled Ballard Berkeley, a policeman during the Blitz who later found fame as the 'Major' in Fawlty Towers. Even the wounded in the Cafe de Paris were robbed of their jewellery amid the confusion and carnage.”

A revolution is not a tea party, sniffed Lenin, but he should have added that it often starts off with a big party. Perhaps he was acknowledging that when he said a revolution was “a festival of the oppressed.” After the storming of the Winter Palace in October 1917 everyone was drunk for three days, conduct of which the prissy Vladimir Illich no doubt heartily disapproved.

The riots in London last week started in Tottenham in an area with the highest unemployment in London, in response to the police shooting a young black man, in a country where black people are 26 times more likely to stopped and searched by the cops than whites. Stop-and-searches are allowed under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, introduced to deal with football hooligans. It allows police to search anyone in a designated area without specific grounds for suspicion. Use of Section 60 has risen more than 300 per cent between 2005 and last year. In 1997/98 there were 7,970 stop-and-searches, increasing to 53,250 in 2007/08 and 149,955 in 2008/09. Between 2005/06 and 2008/09 the number of Section 60 searches of black people rose by more than 650 per cent.

The day after the heaviest night of rioting I saw Darcus Howe, originally from Trinidad and former editor of Race and Class, now a broadcaster and columnist, being questioned by a snotty BBC interviewer, Fiona Armstrong. We ran it last week as website of the day. Howe linked the riots to upsurges by the oppressed across the Middle East and then remarked that when he’d recently asked his son how many times he’d been stopped and searched by the police, his boy answered that it had happened too often for him to count. To which point Ms Armstrong, plainly irked by the trend in the conversation in which Howe was conspicuously failing in his assigned task – namely to denounce the rioters – said nastily, ““You are not a stranger to riots yourself I understand, are you? You have taken part in them yourself?”

“I have never taken part in a single riot. I've been on demonstrations that ended up in a conflict,” the 67-year old Howe answered indignantly. “Have some respect for an old West Indian negro and stop accusing me of being a rioter because you wanted for me to get abusive. You just sound idiotic — have some respect.” The BBC later apologized to those offended by what it agreed was “a poorly phrased question.”

Back in 1981, I interviewed Howe in his Race and Class office after the Brixton and Toxteth riots. Overweening police power and state racism were fuelling unofficial racism, with innumerable murderous attacks on blacks in a Britain ravaged by Margaret Thatcher’s economic policies. At the start of April, 1981, the police launched Operation Swamp 81 to combat street crime. More than 1,000 people were stopped and questioned in the first four days. The uprising in Brixton began on April 9 and lasted through April 11. There were 4,000 police in the area and 286 people arrested. By the weekend of July 10-12 riots were taking place in 30 towns and cities – black and white youths together and in some case white youths alone. They were scenes, as Lord Scarman said of Brixton, “of violence and disorder… the like of which had not previously been seen in this century in Britain.

“The riots opened up an entirely new political ethos,” Howe said to me back then. “To understand the organizational stages that we are moving to, it is essential to know that in the late 1960s there were black-power organizations in almost every city in this country. A combination of repression – not as sharp as in the United States – but repression British style and Harold Wilson’s political cynicism undermined that movement. What he did was offer a lot of money to the black community, which set up all kinds of advice centers and projects for this and projects for that. So, in some black communities, if you have a headache somebody is onto you saying, ‘Well, look, I have a project with blacks with headaches.’ That paralysed the political initiative of blacks. It was done for you by the state and, as you know, Britain is saturated with the concept of welfare.The riots have broken through that completely, smashed it to smithereens, indicating that it has no palliative, no cure for the cancer.”

AC: “You’re looking toward a black/white mass organization?”

“Black/white mass movement. But one must always point to what we are heading for. What are we aiming for? Are we aiming for the vulgarity of a better standard of living. I think a passion has arisen in the breasts of millions of people in the world for a kind of democratic form and shape which would equal parliamentary democracy in its creativity and innovation.”

AC: “Let’s look at a likely future for Britain: enormous structural unemployment, the creation of a permanent underclass..”

“Permanent unemployed, that is what is on the agenda, with the revolutionizing of production, with the microchip. Now what the British working class has to do is break out of this demand for jobs, which characterized the 1930s, the Jarrow marches, and so on. They will have to lift themselves to the new reality, which will of course call for the merciless shortening of the working day, the working week, and the working life, and a concentration on leisure and the quality of work… They say, ‘March for jobs.’ What jobs?”

AC: It’s stimulating to hear you say this, because the left seems to have a lot of illusions about this. The slogan should really be, ‘Less work,’ not ‘More work.’

“’Less work, more money.’ And that’s a vulgarity too. ‘Less work, more leisure.’ We have built up over the centuries the technological capacity to release people from that kind of servitude.”

AC: So then you have to talk about redistribution of wealth.

“Free distribution. A completely new ethos. And we are on the verge of it. “

AC: Don’t you think that pathological symptoms, including racism, will increase as people fight on the scrap heap, as the economy goes down?”

“I agree. Something else increases too. Side by side, living in the same atom as pathology, is the possibility to lift. You can’t reach the lifting stage without the pathological stage. Crabs in a barrel. Or you leap. The leap depends on what dominant political ideology is presented to the population.”

AC: You view the current decline of the Labour Party with considerable optimism?”

“Considerable optimism.”

It was six in the evening and outside the Race Today offices people were sloshing through the puddles on the way home from work, or standing about in doorways. Howe got up and stretched, then picked up a document.
“Listen to this,” he said. “After the uprising in Moss Side last July they appointed a local Manchester barrister called Hytner to enquire into what happened. Here’s what he writes:

“At about 10.20 pm a responsible and in our view reliable mature black citizen was in Moss Side East and observed a large number of black youths whom he recognized as having come from a club a mile away. At the same time a horde of white youths came up the road from the direction of Moss Side. He spoke to them and ascertained they were from Wythenshawe. The two groups met and joined. There was nothing in the manner of their meeting which in any way reflected a prearranged plan. There was a sudden shout and the mob stormed off in the direction of Moss Side police station. We are given an account by another witness who saw the mob approach the station, led, so it was claimed, by a nine-year-old boy with those with Liverpool accents in the van.’”

Howe smiled. “Whites from Wytheshawe, blacks from Moss Side, no prearranged plan. They gather. There was a shout. ‘On to Moss side police station.’ That gives you some indication. You must have a convergence of interests in order for that to happen.”

That was a interchange at the start of the Eighties. Here we are thirty years later, structural unemployment etched ever more deeply into the economy of Britain, now in a melding of Thatcherism and New Labor’s follow-on from Thatcherism, abysmal poverty and hopelessness in Tottenham and similar districts coexisting at close quarters with profligacy and corruption saturating the higher social tiers and the political sector in one of the most unequal, class-divided cities in Europe.

As the Daily Mash puts it: "Many of these kids are less then two miles away from people who get multi-million pound bonuses for catastrophic failure and live in a culture where the material excess of people who are famous for nothing is rammed relentlessly into their faces by middle-brow tabloid newspapers. And of course later today the looters will be condemned in Parliament by a bunch of people who stole money by accident.”

Bands of youths make for stores in Central London in part to exact revenge on places that contemptuously rejected their applications for a job. One group methodically worked its way through a tony restaurant in Notting Hill Gate, relieving the clientele of their wallets.

I’ve no idea what levels of political organization there are in the ghettoes, nor the possibility of unity, amid the stories of murderous racial clashes between blacks and Asians, with Turks and Sikhs arrayed in defense of their modest stores and temples.

On the state agenda of every advanced industrial nation, in the ebb from the great post World War 2 economic boom, is the simple question: amid vast structural unemployment and diminished social expectations how best to assuage the alarm expressed by James Anderton in 1980, when he was Chief Constable of Greater Manchester. Anderton gave it as his considered opinion that “from the police point of view … theft, burglary, even violent crime will not be the predominant police feature. What will be the matter of greatest concern will be the covert and ultimately overt attempts to overthrow democracy, to subvert the authority of the state.”

Britain had its Notting Hill Gate riots in 1958, and Justice Salmon sent nine white Teddy Boys to long terms in prison, saying, “We must establish the rights of everyone, irrespective of the color of their skin … to walk through our streets with their heads erect and free from fear.”

Twenty years later, in 1978 Judge McKinnon ruled that Kingsley Read, head of the fascist National Party, was not guilty of incitement to racial hatred when he said publicly of 18-year-old Gurdip Singh Chaggar, set upon by white youths and stabbed to death, “One down, one million to go.”

In the interval British governments, both Conservative and Labour, falteringly, with occasional remissions and bouts of bad conscience, proceeded down the path to racism. Pace David Cameron’s recent pronouncement of its death, between the late 1940s and the late 1960s the chance of establishing a multiracial society was squandered.

In the 1960s, America saw fearsome ghetto riots from Newark, to Detroit, to the city of Watts in Los Angeles The state’s response was a threefold strategy: first, buy your way out. Money sluiced into “urban renewal schemes” basically aimed as various forms of ethnic cleansing and wholesale destruction of black neighborhoods. Gentrification and deindustrialization assisted in this process. Across the next twenty years, for example, the manufacturing base of Los Angeles simply disappeared.

Since these shifts involved the creation of new ghettoes, the second strategy was ever more stringent policing, with federal money pouring into city law enforcement across the country, the creation of heavily armed SWAT teams, even in tiny communities. The third strategy was the conversion of a political threat – political activism by the Black Panthers and other national organizations (many of whose leaders were straightforwardly murdered by the police) – into a crime problem, a.k.a the “war on drugs,” launched in 1969 by Richard Nixon who emphasized to his chief aide, H.R. Haldeman, that the whole problem [drugs] was really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.”

There is plenty of evidence that the strategists of the state’s response to black political insurgency were far from unhappy to see poor neighborhoods demobilized by drugs, black-on-black violence, as gangs fought bloody turf wars for street corner concessions.

Across the next 35 years the U.S. prison population rose relentlessly, the cells disproportionately filled with blacks and Hispanics. The “system” had devised a useful differential in sentencing that saw blacks and other poor people serving vastly longer terms for possession of crack, rather than powder cocaine – a middle-class preference.

The last major race riot in America was in 1992, following the release of a video of a black man, Rodney King, being savagely beaten by Los Angeles cops. By the 1990s, the “buy-out” strategy had evolved into vast programs of prison construction, paralleling the rise of gated residential communities replete with walls and armed guards keeping the bad guts out.

America this year has been waking up to two increasingly self-evident truths: violent crime rates – for murder, robbery, aggravated assault and rape – have been falling, and are now at their lowest level for nearly 40 years. Fears that the 2008 crash and indisputably harsh economic times for poor people would produce a new crime wave have proved to be baseless. In 2010, New York saw 536 murders – 65 more than in 2009, which was the lowest since 1963.

All crime rates in Los Angeles have been dropping for two decades. Homicides plunged 18 percent last year. Violent crime is roughly the same in LA as in Portland, Oregon, the whitest major city in America, the same as it was in the lily-white LA of the early 1960s.The 1960s, when crime rates rose, had roughly the same unemployment rate as the late 1990s and early 2000s, when crime fell.

Twenty years ago, conservative criminologists here were drawing up graphic scenarios of cities held hostage by gangs of feral black youth. City police forces compiled vast computer data banks of “gangs,” and suspects linked to a gang drew heavier sentences, shoved into a penal system where remedial counseling, post release job training had vanished.

Did crime fall because all the bad guys were locked up? No one claims this beyond 25 percent of the reduction – itself a very high estimate. Another theory is that by the mid 1990s the crack wars were over, and the victors enjoying their hard-won monopolies under the overall supervision of the police. Other theories were recently explored by professor James Q. Wilson, an influential conservative sociologist:

"There may also be a medical reason for the decline in crime. For decades, doctors have known that children with lots of lead in their blood are much more likely to be aggressive, violent and delinquent. In 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency required oil companies to stop putting lead in gasoline. At the same time, lead in paint was banned for any new home (though old buildings still have lead paint, which children can absorb). Tests have shown that the amount of lead in Americans' blood fell by four-fifths between 1975 and 1991. A 2007 study by the economist Jessica Wolpaw Reyes contended that the reduction in gasoline lead produced more than half of the decline in violent crime during the 1990s in the U.S. and might bring about greater declines in the future."

Cocaine use has been declining. Wilson cites a study of13,000 people arrested in Manhattan between 1987 and 1997, a disproportionate number of whom were black: "Those born between 1948 and 1969 were heavily involved with crack cocaine, but those born after 1969 used very little crack and instead smoked marijuana. The reason was simple: the younger African Americans had known many people who used crack and other hard drugs and wound up in prisons, hospitals and morgues. The risks of using marijuana were far less serious. This shift in drug use, if the New York City experience is borne out in other locations, can help to explain the fall in black inner-city crime rates after the early 1990s."

Simultaneous to the drop in violent crime rates has come the discovery that America can’t afford to lock up 2.3 million people for years on end. It’s too expensive. When he’s not praying to a Christian God to save America, Gov. Perry of Texas is trying to save the state’s budget in part by getting convicts out of prisons and into various diversion programs.

So, by after a nearly 40-year detour into a gulag Republic, with 25 percent of the world’s prisoners, America is retrenching toward softer solutions. The War on Drugs and the War and Crime carry a heavy price tag. A generation's worth of "wars on crime" and of glor­ification of the men and women in blue have engendered a culture of law enforcement that is all too often vicious­ly violent, contemptuous of the law, morally corrupt, and confident of the credulity of the courts. In Chicago, police ignored witnesses, dis­counted testimony, as they bustled the innocent onto Death Row. In New York, a plain-clothes posse of heav­ily armed cops roamed the streets, justifiably confident that their lethal onslaught would receive official protec­tion, which it did until an unprecedented popular uproar brought the perpetrators to book.

These aren't isolated cases. There isn't a state in the union where cops aren't perjuring themselves, using excessive force, targeting minorities.

Those endless wars on crime and drugs – a staple of 90 percent of America's politicians these last thirty years – have engendered not merely 2.3 million prisoners but a vindictive hysteria that pulses on the threshold of homi­cide in the bosoms of many of our uniformed law enforcers. Time and again, one hears stories attesting to the fact that they are ready, at a moment's notice or a slender pretext, to blow someone away, beat him to a pulp, throw him in the slammer, sew him up with police perjuries and snitch-driven charges, and try to toss him in a dungeon for a quarter-century or more.

The price for decades of this mythmaking and cop boosterism? It was summed up in the absurdity of the declaration of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2000, that flight from a police officer constitutes sound reason for arrest. Actually, it constitutes plain common sense.

Emergency laws, rushed through by panicked politicians, are always bad. It will take America many decades, if ever, to restore civil liberties, approach crime rationally – and this will only come with courageous and inventive political leadership in the poor communities. Britons should study carefully the lessons of Americans’ 40-year swerve.

Back in 1981 Howe put the right questions on the agenda. We’ve got further away from answering them, and in fact the left rarely asks them at all, bobbing along in the neoliberal backwash that began in the early 1970s.

Slash and Burn as the New Normal Feral Capitalism Hits the Streets By DAVID HARVEY

August 12 - 14, 2011

"Nihilistic and feral teenagers" the Daily Mail called them: the crazy youths from all walks of life who raced around the streets mindlessly and desperately hurling bricks, stones and bottles at the cops while looting here and setting bonfires there, leading the authorities on a merry chase of catch-as-catch-can as they tweeted their way from one strategic target to another.

The word "feral" pulled me up short. It reminded me of how the communards in Paris in 1871 were depicted as wild animals, as hyenas, that deserved to be (and often were) summarily executed in the name of the sanctity of private property, morality, religion, and the family. But then the word conjured up another association: Tony Blair attacking the "feral media," having for so long been comfortably lodged in the left pocket of Rupert Murdoch only later to be substituted as Murdoch reached into his right pocket to pluck out David Cameron.

There will of course be the usual hysterical debate between those prone to view the riots as a matter of pure, unbridled and inexcusable criminality, and those anxious to contextualize events against a background of bad policing; continuing racism and unjustified persecution of youths and minorities; mass unemployment of the young; burgeoning social deprivation; and a mindless politics of austerity that has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with the perpetuation and consolidation of personal wealth and power. Some may even get around to condemning the meaningless and alienating qualities of so many jobs and so much of daily life in the midst of immense but unevenly distributed potentiality for human flourishing.

If we are lucky, we will have commissions and reports to say all over again enigmawhat was said of Brixton and Toxteth in the Thatcher years. I say 'lucky' because the feral instincts of the current Prime Minister seem more attuned to turn on the water cannons, to call in the tear gas brigade and use the rubber bullets while pontificating unctuously about the loss of moral compass, the decline of civility and the sad deterioration of family values and discipline among errant youths.

But the problem is that we live in a society where capitalism itself has become rampantly feral. Feral politicians cheat on their expenses, feral bankers plunder the public purse for all its worth, CEOs, hedge fund operators and private equity geniuses loot the world of wealth, telephone and credit card companies load mysterious charges on everyone's bills, shopkeepers price gouge, and, at the drop of a hat swindlers and scam artists get to practice three-card monte right up into the highest echelons of the corporate and political world.

A political economy of mass dispossession, of predatory practices to the point of daylight robbery, particularly of the poor and the vulnerable, the unsophisticated and the legally unprotected, has become the order of the day. Does anyone believe it is possible to find an honest capitalist, an honest banker, an honest politician, an honest shopkeeper or an honest police commisioner any more? Yes, they do exist. But only as a minority that everyone else regards as stupid. Get smart. Get Easy Profits. Defraud and steal! The odds of getting caught are low. And in any case there are plenty of ways to shield personal wealth from the costs of corporate malfeasance.

What I say may sound shocking. Most of us don't see it because we don't want to. Certainly no politician dare say it and the press would only print it to heap scorn upon the sayer. But my guess is that every street rioter knows exactly what I mean. They are only doing what everyone else is doing, though in a different way – more blatently and visibly in the streets. Thatcherism unchained the feral instincts of capitalism (the "animal spirits" of the entreprenuer they coyly named it) and nothing has transpired to curb them since. Slash and burn is now openly the motto of the ruling classes pretty much everywhere.

This is the new normal in which we live. This is what the next grand commission of enquiry should address. Everyone, not just the rioters, should be held to account. Feral capitalism should be put on trial for crimes against humanity as well as for crimes against nature.

Sadly, this is what these mindless rioters cannot see or demand. Everything conspires to prevent us from seeing and demanding it also. This is why political power so hastily dons the robes of superior morality and unctuous reason so that no one might see it as so nakedly corrupt and stupidly irrational.

But there are various glimmers of hope and Light around the world. The indignados movements in Spain and Greece, the revolutionary impulses in Latin America, the peasant movements in Asia, are all beginning to see through the vast scam that a predatory and feral global capitalism has unleashed upon the world. What will it take for the rest of us to see and act upon it? How can we begin all over again? What direction should we take? The answers are not easy. But one thing we do know for certain: we can only get to the right answers by asking the right questions.

David Harvey is Distinguished Professor at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. His latest book is The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism. He can be reached through his website.

Where Are Our Tribunes? A Nation of Shopkeepers By PETER LINEBAUGH

August 12 - 14, 2011

I thought Napoleon said it. But no, it's in Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776), book IV, section vii, part 3 (about half way through). Here's what he says, "To found a great empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers may at first sight appear a project fit only for a nation of shopkeepers. It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shopkeepers; but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by shopkeepers."

We might want to add news-mongers, phone hackers, cops on the take, MPs slurping up the lard at the trough, all the bankers and the other high net worth individuals.

But what was Adam Smith on about?

He was criticizing the Navigation Acts (1651) which gave a monopoly of colonial produce to the shopkeepers of England. The maintenance of this monopoly was "perhaps the sole end and purpose of the dominion which Great Britain assumes over her colonies." The produce was the product of slavery, the slavery was at first Irish and poor English, then it became African. Hundreds of thousands for two centuries were consumed under the lash, the sun, and manacles of oppression for the shopkeepers of England who raised a nation of customers, far, far away from the cries of the enslaved.

Yes, a "consumer" society "served" by shopkeepers, as it appeared. But linebaughbehind every consumer is a producer (there's no getting away from it!) and the descendants of slaves followed the produce produced by their ancestors, and this was long before the Empire Windrush arrived in 1948 at Tilbury docks with the Jamaican veterans of World War II.

The story as a whole is well told by Eric Williams or C.L.R. James both from Trinidad, and centered in London. Or, you can find it in Robin Blackburn's magnificent summary, The American Crucible: Slavery Emancipation and Human Rights. London is a world city, and has been for centuries, a commune in the Middle Ages, the first commune. Between 1620 and 1660 the shopkeepers totally got their way – Adam Smith said it. We called it the "bourgeois revolution" (take that, Napoleon!). The municipal rebellions of the 1960s inspired a generation of scholars on both sides of the Atlantic to understand the riots of the 1760s. Didn't we sort that out? Weren't the politicians taught those lessons in school? Enclosure? Criminalization of custom? Moral economy? Slavery?

Evidently not.

In the eighteenth century they threw product to "customers", generally drugs (coffee, tea, sugar), and then in the 19th century brought in police to divide and rule (gender, religion, race, employed/unemployed, seniors/youth). A people composed of customers and a nation of shopkeepers sucked dry a world of slaves so far away the sucking noise couldn't be heard. The chickens have come home to roost, as Malcolm X said at another teachable moment (when JFK was killed). Only now, the globalization is complete. This is why Darcus Howe speaks of Tottenham and Syria, Tottenham and Port au Prince. What is not complete is history. The whole story has not half been told. This is what makes it an historic moment, as Darcus also said.

A second commune? An archipelago of communes?

Adam Smith himself feared such a thing: "The tribunes, when they had a mind to animate the people against the rich and the great, put them in mind of the ancient division of lands, and represented the law which restricted this sort of private property as the fundamental law of the republic." The fear of the commons caused imperial expansion, conquest, and colonization, as he argues under "Of the Motives for establishing new Colonies."

Where are our tribunes?

Peter Linebaugh teaches history at the University of Toledo. The London Hanged and (with Marcus Rediker) The Many-Headed Hydra: the Hidden History of the Revolutionary Atlantic. His essay on the history of May Day is included in Serpents in the Garden. His latest book is the Magna Carta Manifesto. He can be reached at: plineba@yahoo.com

Som ersby inveighs - he huff and he puff but he can't blow your house of cards in!

Special report: Still amazed after all these years!

PART 4—IT’S SO EASY (permalink): “It’s so easy,” Buddy Holly once noted.

Today, it’s so easy to get misled by the American “press corps.”

Just consider the op-ed page of Tuesday’s New York Times. Two different columns mused about the expiration of those Bush tax cuts. From these passages, a reader would get an obvious misimpression:

NOCERA (8/9/11): Has any president in American history left behind as much lasting damage as George W. Bush? In addition to two unfinished wars, he also set us on the path to our current financial mess. The Bush tax cuts, which turned a surplus into a growing deficit, have been disastrous. As James Fallows pointed out in a prescient 2005 article in The Atlantic predicting a meltdown, they reduced tax revenue “to its lowest level as a share of the economy in the modern era.” (In its downgrade report, S.& P. suggested that it did not believe that Congress would let the cuts expire at the end of 2012, as they’re supposed to.) Then, in 2003, Bush pushed through prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients. David M. Walker, then the comptroller general, described 2003 as “the most reckless fiscal year in the history of the Republic,” adding some $13 trillion in future entitlement costs.

CHINN AND FRIEDEN (8/9/11): The longer-term spending and revenue commitments are no better. Certainly spending, in particular on Medicare and Medicaid, needs to be restrained. But the deficits cannot be reined in without tax increases, and the “framework” does little or nothing in this regard. The S. & P. decision to downgrade reflects, in large part, the expectation that Republicans will not allow the Bush tax cuts to expire.

Say what? From those highlighted passages, a reader would surely get the impression that Republicans, or the wider Congress, can refuse to let the tax cuts expire at the end of 2012, as is currently scheduled.

Basically, that isn’t true. Under current law, the cuts are scheduled to expire; Obama could veto any legislative change to that plan. But when you read the New York Times, you’re pretty much asking to be misled.

People who read the New York Times think they’re reading our brightest newspaper. Just to make a long report short, let’s see how the newspaper’s editors finished their lengthy, featured editorial in last Sunday’s edition.

Good lord! The editors seemed to propose that all the Bush tax cuts should expire! That would produce $3.8 trillion in new revenue over a decade, they said (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/11/11). But just like that, the editors bailed! They panicked, turned tail and ran.

Yesterday, we showed you most of the passage which follows. Today, we show you one additional sentence. As we do, we invite you to focus on the way the editors bailed:

NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL (8/7/11): Here is the bottom line. There is no economically sensible or politically honest way to address the deficit without also increasing revenues and reforming the tax code. The major challenges are these:

LET THE BUSH CUTS EXPIRE Mr. Obama vowed to let the high-end tax cuts (for people making more than $250,00) expire in 2010. But in a preview of the debt fight, he agreed to extend the cuts for two more years when Republicans held unemployment benefits and other measures hostage.

Letting all of the cuts expire at the end of 2012 would save $3.8 trillion over the next decade. Letting the tax cuts expire for those making more than $250,000 would save $700 billion. That would make a real dent in the $2.4 trillion in total deficit reduction envisioned in the debt limit deal.

A sensible and fair approach would be to let the high-end tax cuts expire as scheduled, but keep the other tax cuts for another year. That would keep more cash in the hands of people most likely to spend it and prop up consumer demand while the economy is weak. It would give Congress and the administration time to undertake tax reform.

LET THE BUSH CUTS EXPIRE, the editors boldly seemed to say. But in that last sentence, they took it all back! What do they really want to do? They want to let the high-end tax cuts expire. Then, they want the Congress to get all busy “undertak[ing] tax reform.”

The editors may have some great ideas. They go on to share their basic ideas, including the notion that “all tax rates [should] be lowered, improving incentives to work.” But how would these brilliant, tax rate-lowering ideas actually get through the Congress? If they generate a whole bunch of new revenue, how in the world would they pass?

The editors never tell us. Nor do they say how much new revenue should be produced by “tax reform” in the magical world they’re inventing. The editors dream lovely, if imprecise, dreams. But they seem to have little sense of the real world in which they’re living.

Why do spending cuts always win in our budget debates? In part, because of the type of work displayed in this editorial! One side has been yelling “no new taxes” for decades; this dictum now has the force of law within one major party. The other side fiddles and diddles in silly-bill ways, then announces that it is “amazed” by the way spending cuts always win!

How could the editors pass their “reforms?” They don’t seem to realize that this is an issue. All year long, leading liberals have explained, on-line, that new revenues will be hard to obtain—unless the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire as scheduled, without legislative adjustment. And this has to mean all the Bush tax cuts. No tinkering could be allowed, since it would have to be passed by the Congress.

The editors still don’t seem to have heard. They dream their dreams about what would be best. They seem to be bold, then they take it all back. They don’t explain how much new revenue they think will be needed. They don’t explain how any of their wonderful dreams would ever get passed by the Congress.

Over time, how much new revenue will we need? Would that $3.8 trillion be too much? The eds skip lightly past such points, thus failing to start a discussion.

People like these are easy prey for the hard-drivers who win these debates. Then, the editors gather about and announce they’re “amazed” by the outcome.

It’s easy to get misled by this elite bunch. Meanwhile, the other side is pounding hard, driving their dumb ideas home.


IT’S SO EASY! Amazing! For one brief shining moment, the editors had a tax plan:


FRIDAY, AUGUST 12, 2011

Bringing the global failure home/Krugman furthers the fail: In a recent blog post, Paul Krugman coined a superlative phrase. He described the “global intellectual failure” afflicting the world’s economists.

Krugman described a global failure—a failure of one of the planet’s “elites.” We assume he’s right in what he sees. His record is very good.

That said, intellectual failure is all around as you scan your country’s newspapers. This editorial, from yesterday’s Washington Post, is a truly remarkable document. (More on this museum-level effort next week.) Meanwhile, the discussion of Newsweek’s cover photo of Bachmann has been a giant, and varied, intellectual fail. But the people employed to pose as a press corps simply adore such bungled discussions. These discussions let them play familiar cards while sidling away from more substantial debates.

(Last night, we finally heard someone describe the foolishness of Bachmann’s stance on the debt limit, which she says she would never raise. The savant was Rick Santorum.)

To all intents and purposes, our modern journalistic culture is defined by the term, “global intellectual failure.” (Ranking liberals rarely seem to notice or mention this fact.) Unfortunately, Krugman extends one part of this fail in this, his latest column.

People, there he goes again! For the third time in recent weeks!

As far as we know, Krugman’s column is completely right on the merits. Once again, he argues that your nation is having the wrong discussion; we should be talking about unemployment, but instead we keep discussing debt. But people, there he goes again! In the following passage, he starts to explain how we got off on the wrong track.

The GOP has been part of the problem. But then, there’s that other key group:

KRUGMAN (8/12/11): So how did Washington discourse come to be dominated by the wrong issue?

Hard-line Republicans have, of course, played a role. Although they don’t seem to truly care about deficits—try suggesting any rise in taxes on the rich—they have found harping on deficits a useful way to attack government programs.

But our discourse wouldn’t have gone so far off-track if other influential people hadn’t been eager to change the subject away from jobs, even in the face of 9 percent unemployment, and to hijack the crisis on behalf of their pre-existing agendas.

Check out the opinion page of any major newspaper, or listen to any news-discussion program, and you’re likely to encounter some self-proclaimed centrist declaring that there are no short-run fixes for our economic difficulties, that the responsible thing is to focus on long-run solutions and, in particular, on “entitlement reform”—that is, cuts in Social Security and Medicare. And when you do encounter such a person, you should be aware that people like that are a major reason we’re in so much trouble.

Krugman notes that the GOP has played a key role in this process. But he focuses on a different group of prominent malefactors. According to Krugman, “other influential people” have been “eager to change the subject away from jobs.” You can encounter these “self-proclaimed centrists” on “the opinion page of any major newspaper” or on “any news-discussion program.”

These people “are a major reason we’re in so much trouble,” Krugman says, in his most damning comment. As he continues, he continues describing the damage these people have done:

KRUGMAN (continuing directly): For the fact is that right now the economy desperately needs a short-run fix. When you’re bleeding profusely from an open wound, you want a doctor who binds that wound up, not a doctor who lectures you on the importance of maintaining a healthy lifestyle as you get older. When millions of willing and able workers are unemployed, and economic potential is going to waste to the tune of almost $1 trillion a year, you want policy makers who work on a fast recovery, not people who lecture you on the need for long-run fiscal sustainability.

Unfortunately, giving lectures on long-run fiscal sustainability is a fashionable Washington pastime; it’s what people who want to sound serious do to demonstrate their seriousness. So when the crisis struck and led to big budget deficits—because that’s what happens when the economy shrinks and revenue plunges—many members of our policy elite were all too eager to seize on those deficits as an excuse to change the subject from jobs to their favorite hobbyhorse. And the economy continued to bleed.

“Many members of our policy elite” are involved in this conduct, Krugman says. In his last paragraph, he refers to them as “the usual suspects.”

That said, who are these “usual suspects?” This is the third column Krugman has written on this subject in the past two weeks. He has yet to name, or to quote, a single one of these “usual suspects.”

Who are these “prominent pundits?” (The phrase he used to describe them in a previous column.) How are readers supposed to know? According to Krugman, these prominent, influential people are doing tremendous damage to your country. And they keep going unnamed!

Who is Paul Krugman talking about? We’d have to say that this trio of columns represents a giant intellectual failure—and a giant failure of modern press corps culture. Paul Krugman didn’t invent the culture in which polite, high-ranking professional journalists avoid naming the names of other such royals, even those who are doing great harm to their country—but he has been enacting this culture with a remarkable zeal. This morning, he says these folk are “the usual suspects”—but his readers have yet to hear the names of any such suspects! And yes, this does create confusion, even among those who are following closely:

After one of Krugman’s earlier columns, we assumed he was talking about Thomas L. Friedman, the press corps’ reigning Butter Cow of ponderous, jowly self-parody. But everywhere else, liberal blogs seemed to assume that Krugman meant David Brooks.

Thomas L. Friedman and Brooks both work for the Times; Krugman may be working under restrictive covenants forbidding him from naming Times colleagues. (In the fall of 2000, he wasn’t allowed to use the word “lie” in writing about the flagrant misstatements of Candidate Bush.) But according to Krugman, other such “influential people” are found on the opinion pages of all major American newspapers—and you can see them on any news-discussion program! Surely, there’s someone whose name he could name, in an effort to let people know what the fuck he’s talking about.

But no! Paul Krugman won’t do it! Darlings, it just isn’t done!

Krugman only gets 800 words—though 800 words become 2400 when the same column is written three times. That said, why should people be named, and quoted, in the course of such discussions? Duh! It’s hard to know if paraphrased claims are really fair until actual quotations are offered or referenced. And screeds like this tend to get lost in the mist until real names get named, focusing the senses.

Who is Krugman talking about? As part of a giant intellectual fail, no one currently knows.

A long-standing part of press culture: Dearest darlings, it just isn’t done! Consider what happened in December 1999, when a White House candidate was misquoted by Ceci Connolly and Katharine “Kit” Seelye in the Washington Post and the New York Times.

On December 1, 1999, Candidate Gore was misquoted, about Love Canal, by the pair of press corps tyros. Later that day, a young reporter at the AP was assigned to do a report on the rapidly growing flap—a growing flap which had been triggered by a misquotation. In the course of her work, this young reporter discovered that Gore had been misquoted, in a highly significant way. Being intelligent, she thought she had an important story.

In 2003, a research group at the Kennedy School of Government interviewed this young journalist. And sure enough! Hadley Pawlak explained what happened when she tried to correct an obvious error by her journalistic betters.

Long story short: Pawlak’s editor had to step in and tell her the facts of life:

KENNEDY SCHOOL (2003): The story Pawlak now envisioned was not about Gore’s propensity to exaggerate, but the fact that the nation’s two leading newspapers had quoted him incorrectly and, consequently, misrepresented his meaning. “And maybe it could go even further,” Pawlak remembers thinking. “Maybe we could explore how easy it was for things to get out of control...One word difference by these two newspapers gets this whole thing blown out of control.” Her editor, however, thought otherwise, and told her, as Pawlak recalls it, “the AP is not in the business of correcting the Times and the Post.”

Darlings! It just isn’t done!

(While we’re at it, enjoy a wonderful irony: In the lengthy report by the Kennedy School, Pawlak’s editor never gets named!)

The Kennedy School goes on to describe the way Pawlak’s report got rewritten, bringing it in line with the pre-existing Post/Times line of attack. That said, the Kennedy School failed to notice a groaning fact; in the rewritten version of Pawlak’s report, Gore was misquoted again, in an all-new, second way! This second misquotation of Gore added to the growing claim that Gore had been lying again.

This high-profile incident turned the press corps’ AL GORE, LIAR theme to stone. For the next eleven months, this punishing theme was a staple of mainstream campaign coverage. Almost surely, it was the most consequential press corps narrative of the entire Bush/Gore campaign. Almost surely, this misquotation of Gore ended up sending Bush to the White House.

A young reporter tried to correct the mistake. But darlings! It just isn’t done!