Saturday, September 10, 2011

A Concise History of the Rise and Fall of the Environmental Establishment How Green Became the Color of Money By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR

FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 2011

018 A Concise History of the Rise and Fall of the Environmental Establishment How Green Became the Color of Money By JEFFREY ST. CLAIR


Panda Porn
Back in the good old days, a corporation with an unappetizing relationship to the natural world would often try to burnish their image by luring an executive or top staffer from an environmental group onto their board or into their public relations department, where they could offer testimonials to the toxic firm's newfound reverence for Mother Earth.
But times have changed.
Now it's the environmental groups who seem to be on a shopping spree for corporate executives. For a ripe example of this repellent trend let us turn to the World Wildlife Fund. In December of 2002, WWF introduced Linda Coady, then a senior executive at Weyerhaeuser Co, as vice-president of the World Wildlife Fund's newly created Pacific regional office..
Weyerhaeuser is the great behemoth of the timber industry, which has rampaged through the rainforests of the Pacific Northwest leaving ruin and extinction in its wake. Weyerhaeuser has operated in Canada for many years, but in the late 1990s the company dramatically accelerated the pace of its clearcutting in British Columbia—in part, because it had largely liquidated its vast holdings in Washington and partly to flee the constraints of US environmental laws and lawsuits.
Before advancing to Weyerhaeuser, Coady sharpened her teeth at Macmillan-Bloedel, aka Mac-Blo. Macmillan Bloedel made billions by clearcutting all but the tiniest sliver of Vancouver Island before being bought out by Weyerhaeuser. (That sliver was spared only after 900 people got arrested for blocking logging roads in 1993. Needlesstosay, no World Wildlife Fund execs soiled their Gore-Tex rain jackets in those stormy protests.)
Neither company has ever shown the least regard for the rights of the First Nations of Canada, who lay claim to much of the remaining coastal forests of British Columbia. And the Canadian government has chosen to allow the timber companies to clearcut those lands before the claims have been settled. Indeed, Weyerhaeuser was sued by the Haida Nation for illegally clearcutting their land in the Queen Charlotte Islands, which they call Haida Gwaii.
"They've come and wiped out one resource after another," Guujaaw, chief of the Haida in British Columbia, told me. He notes that Weyerhaeuser logs the old growth and ships it straight to its mills in Washington State. The Haida get no money and no jobs. "We've been watching the logging barges leaving for years and years," said Guujaaw. "And we have seen practically nothing for Haida."
The moss-draped forests of British Columbia are even more vulnerable than those of Washington, Oregon and Alaska. There are few environmental laws to restrain the appetite of the timber companies and the environmental movement itself is understaffed and overwhelmed. Now, defenders of Canadian ancient forests must contend with a conservation group run by a timber executive.
The result of this mismatch shows up starkly on the ground, where the clearcuts ramble farther than the eye can see and the salmon, bears and birds of the deep forest are vanishing at a heartbreaking rate. At the top of the list is the northern spotted owl, the very symbol of the ancient forests of the Pacific Northwest. In the US, the owl is afforded a minimum level of protection under the Endangered Species Act.
But in Canada the reclusive raptor enjoys not even the pretense of such a safe harbor; its nesting and foraging habitat-200 to 800 year-old stands of Douglas-fir and Sitka spruce-are leveled without quarter or regret. As a result, scientists expect that the bird will soon go extinct, perhaps within the next decade.
"It feels like we are taking care of the dodo," said Ken Macquisten, a veterinarian and managing director of the Grouse Mountain Refuge for Endangered Wildlife. "We have gone from managing owl populations to managing individual birds."
With a Weyerhaeuser honcho running the biggest conservation group in the region, the prospects for the owl-and nearly every other creature that calls the deep forest home-seem bleak indeed.
Of course, it's hard to work up too much of a froth about this latest merger of clearcutters and self-advertised nature defenders. After all, the World Wildlife Fund functions more like a corporate enterprise than a public interest group. It practices retail environmentalism and has made millions upon millions hawking its panda logo, a brand as zealously marketed as Nike's "swoosh". But, of course, it's done almost nothing to save the panda, penned in by rampant deforestation and poaching, except peddle pictures to trophy wives and innocent third graders. Call it panda porn.
But the panda cash machine isn't the group's only source of money. The World Wildlife Fund also rakes in millions from corporations, including Alcoa, Citigroup, the Bank of America, Kodak, J.P. Morgan, the Bank of Tokyo, Philip Morris, Waste Management and DuPont. They even offer an annual conservation award funded by and named after the late oil baron J. Paul Getty. It hawks its own credit card and showcases its own online boutique. As a result, WWF's budget has swelled to over $100 million a year and it’s not looking back.
Where does all the money go? Most of it goes to pay for plush offices, robust salaries, and a tireless direct mail operation to raise even more money. In 2002, WWF's CEO, the icy Kathryn S. Fuller, pulled in a cool $250,000 a year, including benefits. This is the remorseless logic of modern environmentalism, in which non-profits are more obsessed with fundraising than the corporations that they are supposed to be battling. Indeed, the relentless cash hunt leads them serenely right into corporate boardrooms, hands out, mouth gagged.
Remember it was WWF that outraged many environmentalists and human rights activists by giving an award to Shell Oil, the company that stood mute as its partners in the murderous junta of generals that ran Nigerian lynched Ken Saro-Wiwa and 8 other environmentalists fighting Shell's foul operations on Ogoni land in the Niger River delta.
This self-induced moral blindness is par for the course. The World Wildlife Fund is one of those outfits that believes capitalism is good for the environment. It has backed nearly every trade bill to come down the pike, from NAFTA to GATT. WWF has also sidled up to some very unsavory government agencies advancing the same neo-liberal agenda across the Third World, including US AID.
The World Wildlife Fund is so paranoid about its image that it sued-and won-to force the World Wrestling Federation to change its name, lest it sully its "WWF" trademark. Of course, if you really care about the environment your money would probably be better spent by watching some World Wrestling extravaganza on pay-per-view rather than investing in a membership to WWF. At least, the wrestling provides some laughs. Your contribution to WWF will fatten the salary of a timber executive such as Linda Coady parading around in the guise of an environmentalist. It gives cross-dressing a bad name.
When the Haida launched their battle against Weyerhaeuser and its rich army of lobbyists and lawyers, Guujaaw observed: "You cannot buy the lifestyle we have with money."
It's a lesson that the environmental groups like World Wildlife Fund should take to heart before they discover that they've become little more than the well-paid zombies of the corporations they have gotten into bed with. But don’t hold your breath.
To be continued.

Jeffrey St. Clair is the author of Been Brown So Long It Looked Like Green to Me: the Politics of Nature and Grand Theft Pentagon. His newest book, Born Under a Bad Sky, is published by AK Press / CounterPunch books. He can be reached at: sitka@comcast.net.
This essay is excerpted from the forthcoming book GreenScare: the New War on Environmentalism by Jeffrey St. Clair and Joshua Frank.

For Our World: a poem written on 9/11 by Mattie Stepanek

For Our World, a poem written on 9/11 by Mattie Stepanek
in CONSCIOUSNESS


For Our World

We need to stop.
Just stop.
Stop for a moment.
Before anybody
Says or does anything
That may hurt anyone else.
We need to be silent.
Just silent.
Silent for a moment.
Before we forever lose
The blessing of songs
That grow in our hearts.
We need to notice.
Just notice.
Notice for a moment.
Before the future slips away
Into ashes and dust of humility.
Stop, be silent, and notice.
In so many ways, we are the same.
Our differences are unique treasures.
We have, we are, a mosaic of gifts
To nurture, to offer, to accept.
We need to be.
Just be.
Be for a moment.
Kind and gentle, innocent and trusting,
Like children and lambs,
Never judging or vengeful
Like the judging and vengeful.
And now, let us pray,
Differently, yet together,
Before there is no earth, no life,
No chance for peace.

September 11, 2001

© Matthew Joseph Thaddeus Stepanek 1990 -2004
from Hope Through Heartsongs, Hyperion, 2002

Mattie Stepanek was 11 years old when he wrote this poem on the day of 9-11.
Sadly he passed away in 2004 after a long battle with Dysautonomic Mitochondrial Myopathy.
You can learn more about his brief, amazing, inspiring life at his website:

Thursday, September 8, 2011

The patriot's prayer

Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, over 300 journalists have been killed, more than in any other war.

Heavenly Father, we pray that you will send your angels to protect those independent journalists who cover and report on the atrocities of war. They are targets of the U.S. military, because they are dangerous truth seekers, unafraid to speak truth to power; unafraid to report the war crimes that are invariably committed when the U.S. decides it needs to go to war to protect or expand the financial / power / political agendas of this nation's elites. It is these people, who would accumulate capital for the mere sake of capital's accumulation, who gain from war, and no other class of people does. Father we know that in WWII, 50% of the casualties were civilians; in Vietnam, 70%; in the Iraq Invasion, 90%. Father, we weep for these lives of your beloved children. Give us strength, Dear God, to become instruments of your peace. Give us the courage to march, even unto death, to put an end to the wars waged by the most savage nation on earth, our own country. Give us this courage, and shield the civilians, this we ask, Oh Lord, in the Name of Your Son Jesus Christ, who suffered death that we all might live, if it be Thy will. AMEN.

Tuesday, September 6, 2011

going to court tomorrow (again)!

The Lutheran Church of the Atonement, Barrington, IL has had 4 senior pastors: Arthur Knudsen who was sent to answer the call from the original five founding families - the Willits, the Bowens, and I can't remember the others, in 1963. In 1964, the church cornerstone was lain, and one of Barrington's two most unique architectural structures constructed (the other being the home built in the tree in North Barrington) - the Lutheran Church of the Sat Down Upon (or Ark), as I called it.

The most stunning thing to me has been that of the three white, American male senior pastors, two have been so unfit for the post - one, Marcus Gravdahl was fired for sexually harassing congregants and subordinates, and for not paying his Federal Income Taxes for 8 years running.

An assistant pastor, Pastor Randy, was fired for non-performance of the duties assigned to him by the senior pastor. Randy felt that his ministry was a 40-hour per week gigue to the youths only.

Pastor Said Ailabouni was assigned to be Marcus Gravdahl's assistant, but, as events transpired, within six months Said was the senior pastor, and served brilliantly for 15 years. He left Atonement to accept an ELCA offer to be pastor to the pastors of the ELCA in the Middle East and Africa - being a Palestinian (born in Nazareth) and an Arabic speaker, it was a natural fit, but his decision to accept was prompted in no small part because he did not want to have to deal with firing Pastor Randy.

That job fell on the shoulders of Don Wink, who came with a mandate to straighten up the Randy situation, and start a third service featuring contemporary Christian music. My bother-in-law, Michael, the man of all seasons and many talents was the leader of the bands for 10 years. My sister sang, and my son still drums witn one of the three praise band teams! Three Praise Band Teams, all with about 10 players.

In March of 2007, I e-mailed Pastor Don to take me off the church membership rolls. This he did not do (non-feasance). Hi non-feasance directly resulted in his subsequently denying me access to Sunday worship services (I sang too high, and talked with the praise team setting up), including Easter Sunday, of this year. He subcontracted the job of kicking my sweet ass out on Easter Sunday to Pastor Paul, and I left with no harsh words, telling Pastor Paul that I held him no animosity. I have always abided by Don's wishes. Pastor Paul duly reported to my mother that he had been told by Pastor Don that I would not be permitted to attend Easter Worship (I would served as an usher at St. Anne Roman Catholic Church in town later that morning - wondering what it is that they don't know about me that let's them let me volunteer to be of service?)

My mother told Pastor Paul, "That's not fair."

And for this reason, I did not want Pastor Don to officiate the celebration of her life. I called my dad to ask him to not ask Pastor Don - "already asked, this can't be changed, things are moving too fast," said dad, 96 hours in advance of the memorial service.

I called pastor Don to ask that he not officiate, "The family already asked me," he said.

ALL RIGHT ... NOW, I am pissed. I called my sister, "Gay, could you please ask dad to reconsider having another pastor officiate mom's celebration?" "We already ask ...

And I hung up, exhausted, having slept 3 of the last 72 hours, updated F/B sent e-mails to 500+ people, having put together my thoughts for what the service should be, as well as the obituary ... or at least rough working drafts of the same, and I broke down weeping.

I dialed 9-1-1 and the Grayslake EMT delivered me to Condell Meorial Hospital (one of the worst in the area) emergency room, where, in front of a shrink, and hooked to an IV, I threatened to kill Pastor Don.

A while later a social worker interviewed me, and asked if I still wanted to kill pastor don. I had changed my mind, "No," I said, "I want to kill his family."

Enter the psych ward --- ROFLMFAO!!

Staying 11 days -- missing mom's wake, the memorial (which I would not ave attended with jagoff officiating).

Later, I see my personal physician, and the conversation about Wink the Twink arises, and I tell Jim, "Why in the world would I ever want to return to Atonment? NO ONE, not one member of my family, nor one of the congregants, some of whom I have known for 47 years ever complained to Pastor Don about his whimsical discrimination against me (a 60-year old, mentally ill, totally disabled, Muslim)!"

"I'll talk to Don tomorrow," says Jim.

And two days later, the Cook County Sheriff police hits me up with an order of protection ordering me to stay at least 500 feet away from Wink the Twink, and his family.

But, at least, NOW, I know where he lives (was too lazy to look it up).

And so, will have to come within 500 feet of him tomorrow, BECAUSE the stupid ball buster filed the fucking order.

Am fairly delighted with the prospect!

issued two prayer requests at my new home church, asking them to pray for Don for insight and understanding.

But, I forgot what a wimply coward he has turned out to be!

And so, THAT is why I pray for him for courage!

I wonder what prayers he is praying for me?

Monday, September 5, 2011

From Kathleen Harris, one of God's Holy Warriors

Wishing You...Peace, Love and Joy . . . Always and Forever August 30, 2011

As has probably been mentioned by someone or other, suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (aka PTSD) can be a bit like unknowingly entering and blithely traversing a psychic mine field.

Let's see if I can make that a bit more vivid.

It may have to do with the time space continuum in a way. If I come off sounding like I am trying to describe a Magritte surrealist painting to a person who is only familiar with Andy Warhol's creations, I apologize. If that is necessary. To me, a PTSD-affected spiritual landscape is one that has become fraught with subterranean camouflaged pot holes, automobile-swallowing ditches and incendiary devices. And perhaps there are also some pathways that seem like they should be familiar or that used to have clear sign posts now seem to lead to unsuspected destinations and undesirable locations.

Now.

Uh-oh. Have I already lost you?

Or maybe you would rather not continue on the journey with me. If so, I understand.

No harm, no foul.

But these images have been lurking in my consciousness lately, and just tonight I realized why.

The pot holes, mine fields, and deceptive pathways minus familiar sign posts are triggered by the anniversaries of traumatic events or time periods. Even if I go out of my way not to be in touch with the fact that the anniversaries are coming up or upon me, my psyche never forgets. So it's just that the end of August and the beginning of September are times when a lot of exciting and/or traumatic things happened to me.

The even stranger thing is that there are not necessarily uniform ways of experiencing whatever comes up from the underground or appears along a pathway. And the image of mine fields may give you the impression that there is a stark flat plain stretching in all directions when actually there also might be dark forests, or even jungles . . . and/or the mysteries of a deep and wide open ocean.

Often the PTSD episode triggers become evident when I find myself awake all night for one or more nights in a row or several over a short period of time. At first I may tell myself that there is no reason not to be able to sleep, but I am always trying to fool myself when I say that. It is more likely that sleep is elusive because there is no desire to enter into the level of consciousness that leaves me open to the dream state.

Or maybe something from the nocturnal musings of the days leading up to the sleepless nights has already broadcast warnings about the approach to the mine field. Be that as it may, once I really do get back connected with the date, I am forced to confront the reality. Addressing that reality head on does not necessarily help much, however.

That reminds me of the old Air Force saying that begins a lot of war stories. The stories start with: "There I was . . . flying along fat dumb and happy. . . " The story continues with whatever was horrendous, terrifying, difficult and/or shocking, but somehow the storyteller survives.

I guess one of the reasons that things are traumatic is that they come out of nowhere and are so shocking and disturbing that you really can't get your mind around them.

Ever.

I agree with the sentiment expressed by Robin Williams when he said:

"Reality . . . what a concept!"

Even though it may be that some sort of past reality intrudes on contemporary life, the PTSD episode always seems to be more powerful than whatever is going on in the present. Or maybe it's just that whatever the present reality is cannot quite compete with the past "reality." And the traumatic memories can be so vivid that they can tend to make the present reality seem to fade away into the background.

Or even to disappear.

And even more than that sometimes the imagination interjects itself into the memories and the present reality so that there are stacked levels of elements surrounding and enhancing memories, musings, illusions and allegories.

Probably not much of that is really making any of this any clearer, is it?

When I am able to talk to friends who were involved in the trauma I find it helpful, but I also realize then that none of us experienced what happened in the same way. What happened affected and continues to affect (or doesn't continue to affect) each one of us in various ways.

Of course.

How could it be otherwise? Each of us is a distinct individual with a variety of distinct personalities and experiences.

Our lives intersected with one another for that particular time or times and we came to those points from different places and went our separate ways to reconnect with one another again possibly one on one . . . or with several of us or with some of us. Or never again with most or even all of us. At least not yet. or maybe not ever on this terrestrial plane.

As a case in point, not long ago I saw some Armed Forces Television Network dramatizations concerning two soldiers who were wounded in the recent past. They both suffered from PTSD. One was given a chance to talk about the trauma with professional counselors from the earliest time of his physical recovery. The other soldier did not have a chance to communicate with anyone about what had happened to him until a long while after he was released back into civilian life. Each was able to get help, but the latter suffered more and for a longer length of time. Go figure!

Seeing the segments aimed at encouraging military members who have been affected by PTSD to seek help as soon as possible was encouraging since so many veterans are being added to the roles.

And I recently saw the movie "Random Harvest" again, too. (Have you ever watched it? Greer Garson and Ronald Coleman are marvelous in the story about the effects of battle fatigue on a British soldier in WW I.) So even though the term PTSD had not been coined back in the early 20th century, I was reminded that people have been suffering with the condition from way back. (No doubt as long as man's inhumanity to men has been extant.)

There are ways to put the memories to rest and to keep the ghosts at bay.

But actually sometimes I look forward to being with my dearly departed once more. They are all loving and kindly spirits even if they are just as I have imagined them. Or remembered them.

There are times that seem overloaded with intertwining layers of memories because there were different traumatic experiences that happened at the same time of the year -- or even on certain particular dates of multiple years, so that somehow the PTSD trash compactor has smooshed them all together and it's difficult to discern which presenting traumatic memories come from where. Or when.

There also might be organic or atmospheric or astronomical (or other) factors involved in the fertilizing compost heaped up in my psyche. And too much digging around into all that would not be really helpful anyway, no doubt.

But the traumas are not necessarily all negative. Sometimes great joys can trigger recurring disturbances, too. Both positive and negative emotions can be draining, energizing or enervating. Not sure I can always choose which one of those at any particular time.

Because certainly to begin with . . . in my earliest memories the joys of getting to go back to school every Tuesday after Labor Day were fraught with excitement. And tension. And anticipation. So onto those layers of emotional memories were added the adult traumatic adventures that happened to have occurred around the same time.

For instance last year when over 200 of the members of our high school class got together for the first time in ten, twenty, thirty or forty years (or all of the above, or even more or less often), there was a special kind of traumatic experience.

In a good way.

But it reminded me of the other groups of friends I had gone through stuff with when I was on active duty in the Air Force. And when I was at Seminary. And when I was serving churches.

Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera. (As the King of Siam was quoted as saying in "The King and I.")

Know what I mean?

Well, even if you don't, by writing this I seem to have diffused the most powerful psychic mines in my way tonight, and I seem to have recovered the sign posts on some of the obscured pathways.

So thanks for hanging in there with me as I wandered around trying to explain it all to you.

That was a big help!

And God bless us, every one.

As ever -- Kathy



Be Blessed

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Matthew 5:3-9

Thursday, September 1, 2011

One difference between Republicans and Democrats

Republicans pretty much admit that they grasp and even endorse some of the nastiest facts of life in America. Republicans honestly tell the world: "listen in on my phone calls, piss-test me until I'm blind, kill and eat all of my neighbors right in front of my eyes, but show me the money! Let me escape with every cent I can kick out of the suckers, the taxpayers, and anybody else I can get a headlock on, legally or otherwise."

The Incomprable Dave Somersby Latches on to Something Important

Special report: Imagine all the people!

PART 1—HE COULDN’T IMAGINE MCCORMACK (permalink):

We humans tend to get in trouble when we imagine all the people—more precisely, when we try to imagine what “those people” in the other tribe must be like.

Consider what happened when Jon Fasman tried to imagine what those tea party people are like.

Fasman engaged in his large-scale musing for the Economist. As he started, he acknowledged that conservatives don’t have to be slobbering racists. He even noted one of Ed Schultz’s latest racism-pimping blunders, an absurd group attack for which Big Ed apologized the next night. Still and all, Fasman just couldn’t help wondering: What the heck are those people like?

What do those people think and feel? Pondering forty million people, Fasman imagined them thusly:

FASMAN (8/23/11): Nostalgia for mid-century America and racism are not synonymous. But what exactly do these voters want? Do older white conservatives miss the high taxes and powerful unions of mid-century America? Dismissing Soviet power is easy today; then it was not. The threat of global nuclear war was real. Would they prefer a nuclear-armed foe that controls much of Europe? Like Matthew Yglesias, I also find it hard not to think that when older white conservatives lament the loss of "the America they grew up in", they are lamenting the loss of their own social privilege. It's true that America today is in some ways profoundly different from the one into which John Boehner was born in 1949. And I am willing to concede that life may well have been better for Mr Boehner, and for many other white, Christian heterosexual Americans back then (although I wonder what chance a 60-year-old Catholic son of a bartender from Reading, Ohio would have had at becoming Speaker of the House in 1949). Quotas kept immigration from Asia, Latin America and Africa low, and of course blacks, Jews, Catholics, women and gays knew their place. Is that what older white conservatives miss? And if not, what, exactly, do they want their politicians to "champion"?

Frankly, Fasman was puzzled. He wondered about what “these voters” want—but instead of attempting to ask some voters, he simply began to imagine. He found one possibility “hard not to think;” soon he was imagining the worst about those people. (Do they want to keep blacks, Jews, Catholics, women and gays in their place?) But by the time his rumination was through, he was still deeply puzzled:

“If not, what, exactly, do they want their politicians to ‘champion?’ ”

Fasman had tried to imagine all the people. It seemed that he had struck out.

Alas! When we start imagining things, we tend to get in trouble. Just consider one of the things Fasman couldn’t seem to imagine. Magnanimously, Fasman was willing to concede that life may well have been better for John Boehner, and for many other white, Christian heterosexual Americans, back in 1949. (Boehner was a newborn then, but you get the idea.) At the same time, he “wondered what chance a 60-year-old Catholic son of a bartender from Reading, Ohio would have had at becoming Speaker of the House” in that benighted year.

Fasman knew that the American people were slobbering racists back then. He also seemed to imagine that they would never have tolerated a Catholic son of the working class in a position of high respect. Fasman was imagining grandly know, stroking his inner thigh as he did.

Here at THE HOWLER, we looked up the bio of Boston’s own, Speaker John McCormack. It’s true—McCormack didn’t become speaker of the House until 1962. But he was House majority leader as early as 1940, and this is the way Wikipedia describes his religion and class background:

WIKIPEDIA: McCormack was born to Joseph H. McCormack, a hod carrier, and Ellen (n�e O'Brien) McCormack. His parents were both the children of Irish immigrants who had arrived during the Irish potato famine in 1848. There were 12 children, of whom three survived to adulthood. McCormack was 13 when his father died; he quit school after the eighth grade to help support his widowed mother and family as a $3-a-week errand boy for a brokerage firm. His career began when he shifted to a law firm for a 50-cent raise and studied law on the side. Attending law school at night, he passed the Massachusetts bar exam in 1913 at age 21 without having completed high school.

[…]

In 1920, McCormack married Harriet Joyce, a former singer; the couple had no children. While Congress was in session, they lived at the Washington Hotel. Their devotion to each other was legendary; it was said that they never spent a night apart until she died. If the Speaker was kept late on business, his wife always went up to have dinner with him. She died in December 1971, aged 87. For more than a year, he had spent every night in an adjoining hospital room. He then went home to Boston the following month, after his retirement.

McCormack had few hobbies except politics. In earlier days, he was known as a good high stakes poker player. He had never flown in an airplane until 1961, when he attended Rayburn's funeral. He drove the 450 miles from Washington to Boston or went up on the night sleeper train.

The Speaker and his wife were devout Roman Catholics. Both were honored by the Vatican. He was the first Catholic to be elected Speaker, and some critics complained that this religion sometimes showed in his leadership qualities. An example cited was the 1961 school aid debacle when McCormack insisted that church schools should share in a federal aid program. The bill died on this issue. But in 1963 McCormack helped push through the largest education program in history, much of which went to public institutions only.

For the record, those “12 children, of whom three survived to adulthood,” were in fact McCormack and his siblings. According to newspaper reports at the time he died, McCormack was one of twelve kids, three of whom survived.

Is there some distinction we’re missing here? As Fasman imagined the world of the past, it seems he couldn’t imagine McCormack. But then, when we let ourselves start to imagine, we often find ourselves painting pictures which don’t correspond to real life.

Kevin Drum took a bit of offense to Fasman’s post (just click here). We agree with the basic thrust of Drum’s reaction, though we thought he took a few liberties too, doing a bit of imagining. But so it goes when we, The Good and True Tribe, decide to imagine all the people, forty million at a time.

What are “those people” actually like? Bigots have always been able to imagine the answer, down through the annals of time.

Tomorrow: Kevin’s reaction

Friday, August 26, 2011

All that Clausewitz Jazz 23 August 2011 by Jeff Huber

Part two of “Post-Clausewitzean Bebop in the New American Century” reprises themes from some of my older foreign policy routines. Lamentably, if you’re old enough to read this, their pertinence will persist through your lifetime and probably your grandchildren’s as well.


War Wizards
If you think that what generals and war wags say in the media only sounds like gibberish to you because you have no military experience, you’re wrong. It sounds like gibberish because it is gibberish.

Analysts, scholars, old soldiers who won’t fade away and other gee-wizards who claim to be versed in the military arts and sciences agree on the importance of the Clausewitzean center of gravity concept, but none of them agree on what a center of gravity is. An Air Force pilot will tell you the center of gravity is anything he can drop a bomb on, so you need to buy him a lot of $2 billion bombers so he can bomb all the centers of gravity. A naval aviator will tell you the center of gravity is always the aircraft carrier; a Navy SEAL will tell you the center of gravity is always him. A Marine major will tell you there can only be one center of gravity but that’s because Marines can only remember one thing at a time. An intelligence officer will tell you the center of gravity is a secret, and if you ask an Army general what a center of gravity is he’ll start breathing through his mouth.

The center of gravity concept is a lot simpler than Pavlov's dogs of war would like you to believe. “The point against which all our energies should be directed,” as Clausewitz described it, should be directly tied to our objective, the prime determinant of all acts of war. Without a clearly defined objective, war is loosely orchestrated but pointless violence—a description that, not surprisingly, precisely defines our present armed shenanigans in Libya, Iraq, the Bananastans and elsewhere.

Our center of gravity is the thing that can achieve our objective and the enemy’s center of gravity will be the thing that can thwart us from achieving it. The purpose of tying what we call centers of gravity to objectives is what keeps us focused on the objective. When we start prosecuting “centers of gravity” that don’t directly relate to our purpose we get in big trouble.


Will the real center of gravity please stand up?
Not surprisingly, “floating” centers of gravity, and a printer’s plethora of them, have become a trademark of our Long War on Ism. Since 9/11, centers of gravity identified by America’s war wisenheimers have included Saddam Hussein, his Republican Guard, his air defense system, his command and control system, Baghdad, his sons (Hoodoo and Voodoo? I forget), his weapons of mass destruction that didn’t exist, his ties to al Qaeda that didn’t exist either, al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in Pakistan, al Qaeda in Yemen, al Qaeda in general, Shiite militias, Sunni militias, militia leaders, militia leaders’ followers, the Iraqi people, the Afghan people, the American people, the Pakistani people, the supply lines that run through Pakistan, Pakistan itself, Iran, the news media, world opinion, Congress and the poppy crop.

You don't need to be an expert in all that Clausewitz jazz to figure that centers of gravity are like priorities; if everything is a priority there really are no priorities. Warfare wisenheimers who tell you otherwise are whistling out their fat dumb toot chutes. A good 90 percent of the people you see pawning themselves off in the media as experts on the art of war don’t know a center of gravity from their elbows and, more horribly, the tank thinkers who actually cook up our war fighting doctrines don’t either. All any of these yahooligans know of Clausewitz consists of bite-size buzz phraseology passed down from one generation of clueless combat theorist to the next, and most of them think Sun Tzu’s prime directive is to “Baffle them with bullroar.”

Our New American Century’s strategic brain trust has produced three major post-modern military doctrines: Shock and Awe, Network Centric Warfare and COIN (aka “counterinsurgency”). Shock and Awe and Network Centric Warfare are related military “transformation” dogmas that promise to scare and/or confuse the enemy into submission with a top-dollar concoction of Buck Rogers gadgetry and magical mystery mantras like “full spectrum dominance” and “rapid dominance” and “information dominance” and “dominant battlefield awareness” and “dominant maneuvers” and the “net-centric collaboration” of a “self-synchronized” and robust "network of networks" that produces a “shared situational awareness” as a systemic element of its “organizational behavior.”


Fred Kagan can't stomach
Shock and Awe, but COIN?
Yummmmmm!
Shock and Awe and Network-Centric Warfare were the cornerstones of our blitz on Baghdad in Operation Iraqi Freedom lo those many years ago. All they netted us were sticker shock and a good-old-boy network-of-networks that still knocks down big war bucks selling us fecal weapons systems that have proven utterly ineffective at promoting the national security. Even neocon warlord Fauntleroy Fred Kagan, bastard stepfather of the Iraq surge, admits that these two space-age “warfare theories” have succeeded in combat but failed in war. In an August 2003 Policy Review article titled “War and Aftermath” Freddie warned us to “beware technology that disconnects war from politics” and confessed that neither Network-Centric Warfare nor Shock and Awe “provides a reliable recipe for translating the destruction of the enemy’s ability to continue to fight into the accomplishment of the political objectives of the conflict.”

It was mighty big of Freddie to tell us that the Pentagon had screwed up the great idea he and his fellow neocon-men had to invade Iraq, but he actually had a hidden agenda: namely, to further engulf us in ever-deepening quagmires through the a counter revolution in military affairs dogma called COIN, which has proven to be the biggest lie that martial masterminds have told us since they said air power would make war itself obsolete.
Next: Warlord Fauntleroy, King Rat and the Desert Ox.

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.

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!