Afrothetics

The Hijacking of National Economies by Neo-Liberalism

2009-02-24T11:09:00.006-05:00

Suicide is a key indicator as to how well a nation's economy is doing and where it is distressed, kind of like the proverbial canary in a mine. Suicide has been particularly endemic among farmers worldwide since 1980. In England, 719 farmers died from suicide in England and Wales between 1981 and 1993, a period in which the Conservative Party under Margaret Thatcher controlled the government. In the United States, a similar pattern was evidenced. The National Farm Medicine Center, conducted a study over a nine year in the 1980's, a particularly stressful time for farmers, with record indebtedness, unstable prices, declining land values and drought, causing thousands of foreclosures and bankruptcies. The study reported that 913 male farmers killed themselves during this period in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana, a rate twice the national norm. In a follow-up study for the years 1996-2005, the NFMC failed to delineate suicides among its list of farm fatalities. Wonder why?

Globally, farmer suicides have been worst in India. In November 2008, the Indian government released statistics revealing that 166,304 farmers committed suicide since 1998, to the point that a suicide occurs every 30 minutes each day. Why this is happening is even more interesting. In a country where the vast majority of people live on less than 50 cents a day, journalist Palagummi Sainath says the rise in suicides stems from a system that rewards growth by large corporations over the welfare of the poor. “Governments care about one thing and only one thing: growth. They don’t care about the composition of that growth." Of the 53 Indian billionaires, 10 are in the top 100 billionaries in the world as ranked by Forbes Magazine.

In truth, the concept of growth in global capitalism is not about "real growth" among all segments of the populations, but rather the reallocation of a nation's tax revenues into more narrowly defined economic sectors. In other words, among the wealthy, growth refers to capital accumulation for themselves. This "growth" is leached from the nation's treasury where tax revenues are reallocated for the development of enterprises controlled by private corporations and the economic elite, rather than private citizens, such as farmers, working people, and the poor. This is a worldwide phenomenon related to the expansion of "supply-side economics" or neo-liberalism, where the US government and its proxies, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, was used to undermine social stability, beginning with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980's. The scoreboard is managed by Forbes Magazine which started its listing of the world's richest people during this same time period in order to incentivize the hijacking of national economies by political and economic elites in order to get their names on the list, causing economic collapses in Indonesia, Japan, and South Korea, followed by Argentina, and Chile to name just a few.

The hijacking of the US economy, however, is more insidious and premeditated by a conservative agenda that has as its goal a coup d'etat that only the center-right of the population are still disbelieving. The current crisis only underscores the lack of a true democracy in US society. The gross tax cuts created the revenues for the wealthy that were used to hijack the media, the financial services industry, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the military industrial complex, are now deep and malignant and will require a push-back that is greater than the forces they represent. To do this, will require democrats and progressives to develop a more militant coalition.

Regressivism: Defunding Democracy through Class Warfare

2009-02-18T13:00:00.017-05:00

For the past 30 years, the notion that a healthy democracy is based on the free exchange of ideas and that citizens should be able to freely organize to influence public policy has been under aggressive and institutionalized attack. When Republicans controlled the White House, the Senate, the House of Representatives and an increasing number of state governments, conservative activists seized the opportunity to undermine democracy by restricting who qualified for tax-exempt status (thereby undermining government and foundation funding sources for non-profits), public trust, and restricting the attention that civil disobedience protests received from the mainstream media.

The dominance of the Republican Party over this time period and an increasingly assertive conservative movement created a broad intolerance for dissenting voices and lack of access to public funding for liberal organizations. Funded by foundations and corporations, the conservative movement's objective was to silence its contemporary critics on the one hand and any future dissent on the other by defunding education and other "liberal" domains.

What started as a plan to 'defund the left' in the United States inspired conservatives around the world to adopt the same strategy. The consequences of this regressive Republican strategy in the United States was aptly articulated by Rick Kepler:

I am an American worker, and you are damn right I want the wealth to be shared and spread. I am talking about the wealth my hard work helped to create, but was taken from me by George Bush's base, the very rich, or as I know them, my corporate bosses. For the past eight years I have watched W.'s and McCain's (Country Club First) base grab the largest share of our country's wealth. Where did they take it from? They took it from my family's pocketbook, and my co-workers' families' pocketbooks. They stole the wealth that I was trying to build for me and my family when they stripped my pension plan from me and told me to invest in a 401k. Then they stole most of that 401k and other workers' 401k savings with this economic meltdown. This was a massive transfer of wealth from the workers' pockets into the already stuffed pockets of the rich. My retirement savings and my co-workers' savings all across America have been looted by the corporate bosses, who just got bailed out while we got left out. Again! [Rick Kepler, The American Worker, 21 November 2008]

Workers are finally "getting it." Most Americans, however, are still in the dark as the current majority Democratic Congress is not aggressively investigating the government abuses that the Left has catalogued on blogs for more than five years. More recently, citizens in Argentina and, currently, in Iceland has shown the world what an appropriate public response should be to put conservatism on the defensive. Yet, in the United States a New Era democratic president is attempting reconciliation rather than retribution or criminal enforcement of the US legal code. His actions could set back a global movement that in the end could result in more violent revolt against entrenched neo-con governments everywhere.

The inaction of Congress and the Obama administration may further exacerbate the capacity of citizens seeking a more expansive democracy to solve their problems and improve the quality of their lives. It's a strategy that empowers Republicans as revealed in the recent debates in the US Congress. To overcome this New Era politic the progressive movement in the United States must rise to the challenge and confront the Democrats in the streets. A dialogue will not occur until the American people engages its government at the seat of power. Many individuals are doing just this.

In a recent TruthOut perspective, 'Ending the Hidden Agenda Behind Tax Cuts,' Joe Brewer, has published an analytical framework that the public can use to better understand the regressive strategy that was used to inculcate Americans to act against their long-term interests by appealing to their immediate short-term self-interests. One of the key components of this strategy is tax cuts. Brewer writes: "It's time to tell the truth about tax cuts. This phrase dominates political discourse and is coughed out every time a conservative public figure opens his mouth. It is treated like the basis of sound reasoning, yet no one points out what should be obvious - that 'tax relief' and 'tax cuts' are just code words for destroying the capacity of government to serve the public."

So well we know. This is why an even larger stimulus plan will be necessary. The public sector that serves the needs of citizens is running on fumes as Republicans continue to stonewall in social spending in favor of...yawn...tax cuts. This class war is far from over and the stakes are very high for all Americans.

Other Resources

The New Imperial Presidency?

2009-02-17T18:09:00.015-05:00

What is it with this White House thing that drives men like Barack Obama to believe that the United States is the "greatest" country in the world. A truly great country would be building toward greatness in its future, not as its present. Saying it's so, don't make it so. Ultimately, it's not what you say, it's what you do. And, what the US government and its imperialist military industrial congressional complex is doing is bankrupting the Republic that laid the golden egg.

Make no mistake, with the damage done by Wall Street bankers, the US is limping along on one leg with one arm bound behind its back, made less visible by the charisma and the oratory of its new leader. As a citizen, I'm concerned because when the leader, inspirational as he may be, makes decisions that are antithetical to the laws of the country, such as intervening in the House of Representatives investigation into the Department of Justice malfeasance and its chief architect, Karl Rove, during the last administration, it is more than disturbing, it is outrageous, or in the president's own words, "shameful." It's the same old, same old oligarchy, the political elite taking care of its own.

Obama is no Lincoln and should not attempt to emulate Lincoln's presidency. What Obama should do is just be his own Alpha dog and stamp his own scent on the state of the union. It was Karl Marx who succinctly captured an attempt by a post partisan leader to resurrect the magic of his predecessor in the The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte (1852): "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce."

No one can doubt that Lincoln's administration was consumed by tragedy, despite his own brilliance. Whether the Obama administration will result in farce remains to be seen, but the current path he is taking does not bode well for the outcome. The US is in a very tenuous situation historically, and is sitting on the threshold of triumph or disaster. John Feffer writes in Foreign Policy in Focus:

"...the Pentagon is still maintaining the world's largest military force - but we have failed to defeat al-Qaeda, we are quagmired in Afghanistan, and all of our nuclear weapons have done little to prevent North Korea from entering the nuclear club. The global recession is hammering the U.S. economy, and we might finally see the end of the dollar's reign as global currency. With the bank bailout, the stimulus package, the bill for two wars plus the Pentagon's already gargantuan budget, the red ink is mounting. Debt has been the gravedigger of many an empire. I can hear the adding machine totting up the numbers. Or is that the sound of dirt hitting a coffin lid?" [A multipolar Moment]

This week President Obama is traveling to Canada on his first international visit to meet with the Canadian government whose people he hopes will endure more sacrifices to fight Bush's war. Once Obama takes on the Afghan war, however, he will own the previous seven years of a failed, if not illegal, war despite Congress authorizing appropriations to fight there. Crimes against humanity are never legal. In the process, the United States will do to the Middle East what it did to East Asia more than a generation ago in Vietnam, wreaking regional havoc environmentally, politically, and economically. Millions of innocent people will be displaced, maimed, or killed. The White House, US military, and the State Department will refer to this as "collateral damage." No one will be responsible for crimes against humanity. So, what has changed exactly?

How can this be avoided? Afghanistan is an adventure to which the rational world should respond with a resounding NO! WE CAN'T! There are rational ways to fight barbarity, like with a multilateral alliance of police agencies working in harmony with the Afghan and Pakistani governments. Of course, that is the problem. Imperialism demands unilateral operations. When your intentions are not good, sharing your agenda with the rest of the world would render pretty words empty. Where is all that diplomacy candidate-Obama shouted to the world? The Obama administration could have started its journey into the abyss by holding a peace conference in Sweden with all parties represented at the table, including the Taliban. Instead, more US troops and expensive boy toys are headed for the Mid-East battle grounds to fight against exactly who? Well, just about anybody who doesn't not look like us. Good luck with that.

Gore Vidal perniciously compared the so-called "war-on-terror" to a declaration of war against dandruff. Like dandruff, terrorists will come and terrorists will go, but if these last 50 years have taught us anything, it is that the US taxpayer will be called upon to keep a predatory military industrial congressional complex well greased. Remember Granada or Panama, those great third world powers to our south for whom we had to call out all the boy toys to show just how powerful the "great" nation can be when fighting for golf courses? Or, Somalia? Had to have a movie about that one to heal some sensitive Alpha dog wounds. Truly, the world cannot be impressed.

Ironically, as a chief Khmer Rouge torturer goes on trial for crimes against humanity this week 30 years after the "Killing Fields", a tragedy that led to the deaths of 1.7 million Cambodians—Obama and his military high command are attempting to ramp up another failed policy. This tragedy and US military actions and policies in East Asia are directly linked by the undermining of civil authority in Cambodia. Can Pakistan become the next Cambodia? Afghanistan, the next Vietnam? The answers to both questions are YES, THEY CAN! But, don't expect the new administration to give in, it has something to prove: that an African American president can be as inane as a Caucasian one.

Military Industrial Congressional Complex Re-Branding of Weapon Systems

2009-02-15T21:52:00.003-05:00

As unemployment in the US rises, old "War on Terror" appeals to national security are taking a backseat to economic justifications. The US military industry has adjusted to this new reality by crafting its requests for government funding on the basis of its capacity to provide employment. This despite evidence that military spending is one of the least effective means of job creation. Click here to view the video news link.

US Political and Economic Elites Stealing the Wealth of a Nation

2009-02-14T11:42:00.022-05:00

"John F. Kennedy famously said, 'Life is unfair,' and so it is. But it wouldn't feel as unfair if the shackles wound up instead on the well-heeled feet of Wall Street and Washington's elect. That's the change we need, the change we can really believe in." -- Bill Moyers, Bill Moyers Journal, 8 Feb 2009.

All day long, 24-hours a day, 365 days a year, the talking heads of cable television spew gibberish about almost every subject, quoting lies from the mouths of drones launched by the political and economic elites and who are represented primarily by the GOP. Little fact checking is attempted. Like a whirlpool, the talking heads interview one another. Only in public sector accidents or incidents, health and a few other areas do they interview subject matter experts. But, when it comes to politics, like Chris Matthews, they believe they are the experts! Given the technology available today, networks could easily check the facts almost in real time to determine the veracity of distorted, outright lies or propaganda-based statements, but do not do so, or at least do so recently only in so far as political campaigns are concerned. So, what the US public receives everyday from mainstream media is garbage and what they repeat is also garbage as in "garbage in, garbage out." Anyone who has a dependence upon the mainstream media is consumed by smoke and mirrors. It's all a mirage.

Consequently, when someone like Paul Krugman or David Harvey or Chalmers Johnson articulates a different vision, there is little deep discussion of their views. Oh, Krugman maintains access to the public through his columns in the New York Times, but few Americans read newspapers. When interviewed, his understanding of contemporary political economics is so far above the heads of the talking heads that they are unable, with few exceptions, to hold a reasonable conversation with the man. So, it's 3 minutes and done. Slam, bam, thank you Paul. Don't call us, we'll call you when we need you.

What's really scary to those of us on the Left is that Krugman might be considered a relative intellectual moderate, but at least he sees the trees in the dense forest of misinformation. David Harvey, who is a distinguished professor and teaches Marxism, among other things, at City University of New York, is persona non grata, but is far more insightful about the current economic crisis than Krugman. Nonetheless, we have yet to see him interviewed by any of the 24-hour cable news programs. Its management would rather replay the daily accident or insider interview ad nauseum than prospect for original ideas coming from the Left. Only YouTube saves Harvey, and us, from his views being obscure and relatively anonymous.

Chalmers Johnson, a distinguished social scientist and public intellectual, is the author of three linked books on the crises of American imperialism and militarism. They are Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2006). All are available in paperback from Metropolitan Books. To listen to a TomDispatch audio interview with Johnson on the Pentagon's potential economic death spiral, click here. He is a consistent critic of the encumbrance of the military budget on US society.

Marxism in the United States, of course, has been relegated (censored) to the landfill of ideas never to see the light of day by both the right and the center. It is only on the left that any real world discussions take place about the type of society that the United States should be or can be. On the right are predators, scavengers and vermin. In the center are the sheep. On the Left, of course, are the patriots and the humanists. Believe it! Do you think the right would have authored a Bill of Rights. They couldn't even read at the time the Constitution was enacted. For that, we are all blessed. Furthermore, Marx and Hegel were humanists—you know the folks who fight for human rights. Their writings expanded upon the ideas about capital Adam Smith introduced less their three generations before and like many intellectuals of their age were derived directly from the natural and physical worlds in which they lived, in the same way that Isaac Newton, and later Albert Einstein and Rudolf Steiner used the natural world to innovate their own ideas. The point here is that trying to understand capitalism and having no knowledge of Marxism is like astrophysicists not understanding Newton or Einstein. More importantly, as the world is coming to agree, trying to manage a rational economy based upon capitalism with a democratic intent and not understanding Marxism is impossible!

When Adam Smith published his treatise on the Wealth of Nations (1776), he could not envision people making money by just investing the capital of others as Wall Street pirates do today. He writes:

A capital may be employed in four different ways: either, first, in procuring the rude produce annually required for the use and consumption of the society; or, secondly, in manufacturing and preparing that rude produce for immediate use and consumption; or, thirdly, in transporting either the rude or manufactured produce from the places where they abound to those where they are wanted; or, lastly, in dividing particular portions of either into such small parcels as suit the occasional demands of those who want them. In the first way are employed the capitals of all those who undertake the improvement or cultivation of lands, mines, or fisheries; in the second, those of all master manufacturers; in the third, those of all wholesale merchants; and in the fourth, those of all retailers. It is difficult to conceive that a capital should be employed in any way which may not be classed under some one or other of those four. (Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edwin Cannan, ed. 1904. Book II, Chapter V — "Of the Different Employment of Capitals Library of Economics and Liberty.")

In fact, it's possible that Somali pirates would find some empathy from Smith. In Wealth of Nations, he defends smuggling as a legitimate activity in the face of "unnatural" legislation—unnatural, I assume to mean unwarranted and irrational, such as the prohibition legislation on alcohol in the first decades of last century, and the current legislation regarding marijuana in this generation. Where he is unlikely to show empathy, however, is with the type of unethical piracy shown by CEO's of Wall Street financial institutions that appeared arrogantly before Congress recently. News reports have it that four of these CEO's received bonuses in excess of $120 million dollars. Where did this money come from? Was it really "created" by their labor? The answer to the second is absolutely not; it was stolen from the public trust.

Which is to say, in response to the first question, that the money came from average working Americans, past and present, through the machinations of institutional investors, organizations that pool large sums of money and invest those sums in companies. These include banks, insurance companies, retirement or pension funds, hedge funds and mutual funds. "Their role in the economy is to act as highly specialized investors on behalf of others. Furthermore, because institutional investors have the freedom to buy and sell shares, they can play a large part in which companies stay solvent, and which go under. Influencing the conduct of listed companies, and providing them with capital are all part of the job of investment management." (Wikipedia).

In brief, then, prior to the implosion of the US economy, income on Wall Street came from investment profits rather than the creation of new wealth. And the income that Wall Street was amassing was overwhelmingly in the form of paper profits that have now vanished as quickly as they appeared.

In other words, once the implosion began, those recent gross bonuses that Wall Street executives gave themselves came directly from the PRINCIPLE held in pension funds of working and retired Americans. These executives and the whole of Wall Street have had their own private run on the banks while the American people have been kept in the dark. The deregulation of capital markets has rendered the entire financial services industry one BIG Ponzi scheme in which the entire US Congress is an accomplice. In terms of relative guilt, the US Congress under Republican stewardship was no different from Bernie Madoff. Madoff may, however, become the proverbial straw that stirred a social revolution. He only absconded with $50 billion, some of which will be recovered. The Wall Street financial services community and their local partners have absconded with $100s of billions, NOT as investment profits, but as principle from their accounts, and the Obama administration is not showing that it cares.

In fact, what this administration appears to be doing is hiding the fact that our treasury is empty. So much for transparency. The administration's posture, as the editors of The Nation have noted with respect to the lack of rational discourse concerning the "Bailout," is deafening.

What are they hiding? If Geithner had spoken with any clarity, he would have revealed that his "new" plan is basically a continuation of the one that failed spectacularly in the closing months of the Bush administration: Washington intends to deliver vast additional sums of public money to the very largest banks while demanding little in return for the public interest. The Obama administration is adding new wrinkles to a doomed effort, attempting to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Since the old order led the country into this mess, enlarging its rescue package is certain to stoke further the ferocious public outrage. So Geithner cannot say plainly what he is up to. Neither he nor Larry Summers, Obama's chief economic adviser, can think his way out of the problem or propose a more aggressive approach, as both men are wedded to the old way of doing things.

Worst, apparently Obama's economic advisors are arrogant enough not to seek advisement from the Japanese about their economic crisis in the 1990's. Perhaps, the only question remaining at this point is how much real money actually remains in these pension funds or in social security, for that matter. Obviously, it's all virtual monopoly money, not real property. My guess is not much, which is why the public is not being told what has happened to their savings. Paulson and the Fed knew. The TARP funding is being used to hide the bad news. We now see why the past and current presidential administrations asked the Federal Reserve, the bank that is not a bank, to print more money. Can you say "revolt"? I hope so. Americans need to do with peaceful force of will what the Icelanders and Argentinians have been forced already to do—drive these neoliberals to the prison cells they have earned. "All of them must go!"

African Americans Experiencing an Economic Depression

2009-02-12T21:20:00.005-05:00

Is it surprising, that some citizens are in a deeper economic crisis than others or that some sectors of the economy are in a deeper ditch than another? It shouldn't be. For the past 30 years, Republicans have attacked the Democrat voting bloc with impunity. At the vanguard of this attack are African Americans. Documenting this economic and political malaise is the "State of the Dream" report published by the Institute of Policy Studies, which found that people of color in the United States are experiencing a silent economic depression. "It's silent because it's going unnoticed, unacknowledged, and unaddressed — and yet the evidence is striking. While the general population has been in recession for one year, people of color have been in recession for five years. By definition, a long-term recession is a depression."

The report details "additional evidence that shows the current racial economic inequity, including poverty rates, wealth and assets and economic mobility. While racial barriers did not prevent an African American from becoming president, they continue to impede many people of color from achieving the same economic success as their white counterparts." Download the full report here...

Make speculators pay for the bailout

2009-02-12T18:11:00.007-05:00

As Americans celebrated the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln on February 12, 2009, we need to be reminded that Lincoln's name is sometimes used in vain. One of these was Charles Keating. As head of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, California, Keating took advantage of loosened restrictions on banking investments, just as the current group of Wall Street bankers have done. Every 50 years in US history, the conservatives cook up schemes to rob the national treasury. Sometime this takes decades as legislation and policy are fixed. With the inauguration of Ronald Reagan in 1981, this last debacle began.

In between, conservatives rob the nation's Commons, without building anything. Always, they are bailed out by taxpayers. In 1989, Congress created the Resolution Trust Corp. to take over $125 billion in assets owned by 296 failed savings and loan associations. Over the next six years it added $394 billion in assets belonging to an additional 747 insolvent thrifts. The RTC’s main job was to sell those assets, mostly real estate, at the best price it could get.

In the end, the S&L cleanup cost American taxpayers an estimated $124 billion. The RTC ceased operation in 1996. Despite the price tag of the thrift bailout, many believe the RTC successfully averted even worse consequences and higher costs. Heading the RTC was Vice President George H.W. Bush despite the fact that his son, Neil, was one of the key perpetrators in robbing the S&L's. It's not coincidence that the majority of the perps were Republicans, only one of whom, Charles Humphrey Keating Jr., to my knowledge was convicted of any crime. And, once again, the US taxpayer is called upon to pay the bill, despite enormous wealth the CEO's have piled up during their tenure simply by moving pension fund wealth around that had already been made. From this wealth, they extracted gross bonuses that should have gone to the owners of this money, workers and retirees who should have gotten the majority of the interest on these funds, but were given only a pittance.

As a result of Wall Street's ponzi schemes, the Institute for Policy Studies has identified the staggering income inequality in the US population as the root of a deeply flawed political economy in a recent report entitled: Second Chance A Sensible Plan for Getting the Recovery Right. The authors -- Sarah Anderson, John Cavanagh, Chuck Collins, Dedrick Muhammad, and Sam Pizzigati have outlined a plan that begins with government rebuilding accountability and trust severly undermined by the Bush administration's lack of oversite with the Wall Street financial services industry. Briefly stated, the report warns that

"Congress assumes that the funding for the Wall Street bailout and stimulus investments will come from additional federal borrowing. But this rush to borrow merely shifts the recovery burden onto the backs of future taxpayers. Congress needs to change course — and develop a 'pay as we go' plan that makes Wall Street pay. The lion’s share of bailout funding should come from the high-finance gamblers and CEOs who have so profited from our casino economy."

The IPS report suggest several tax reforms that it believes could generate over $500 billion in revenue to pay for economic recovery. Program basics are:

Fund a green stimulus for the real economy;
Restructure mortgages for families put at risk by predatory lenders;
Make Wall Street speculators pay for the bailout;
Shut down the global casino: Assert real oversight of financial markets; and
Limit CEO pay and prohibit profiteering from the bailout.

Download the complete report here...

Is the Obama Administration Undermining Equal Justice Under the Law?

2009-02-12T14:25:00.008-05:00

A recent USA TODAY/Gallup Poll finds that 65% of Americans are in favor of investigating allegations that the Bush administration used torture to interrogate terrorism suspects and its program of wiretapping U.S. citizens without getting warrants. In writing for The Nation magazine, David Cole challenges the Obama administration to hear the will of the people:

"President Barack Obama came to office promising change and, to his credit, has already issued orders to close Guantánamo and the CIA's secret prisons and to stop the CIA's use of cruel and inhuman interrogation tactics. But in a pair of recent cases, Obama has shown a troubling unwillingness even to acknowledge the wrongs that the Bush administration committed. Both cases involve Binyam Mohammed, a Guantánamo detainee who was allegedly a victim of rendition and torture at the hands of US captors. On February 4 an English court announced that it could not disclose how US officials had interrogated Mohammed, because Washington would not let it do so, declaring the information secret. And on February 9 a Justice Department lawyer told the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that a lawsuit challenging the legality of Mohammed's treatment had to be dismissed because it touched on 'state secrets.'

In both instances the 'secret' is that we tortured suspects in the 'war on terror'—a secret heard round the world, but one the Obama administration is apparently unwilling to have acknowledged in a court of law. As the British judges wrote, 'We did not consider that a democracy governed by the rule of law would expect a court in another democracy to suppress a summary of the evidence contained in reports by its own officials...relevant to allegations of torture and cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, politically embarrassing though it might be.' Accountability demands open acknowledgment that serious wrongs have been committed, not inflated claims of secrecy that allow the wrongs to go unremedied."

Simply saying that the Bush administration and its various security officials were shameless or were only following orders is not good enough. These officials violated international treaties to which the United States is a signatory. The ball is in your court Mr. President. Can you rise to the occasion? This is not 1865 in which racism and slavery were still issues. This is the 21st century and the nation is different and enforcement of human rights violations must be punished.

Read more...

Military Spending Killing All Americans

2009-02-09T16:27:00.012-05:00

Are you starving yet? If you do not want hunger in your future, you would be well-advised to get involved with your government's budgeting process. While millions of Americans struggle with individual survival, the makings of a catastrophe is made worst by a military that is strangling our capacity to stop the slide. And, they continue to lobby for more. Much of the US military budget is hidden from taxpayers, but Robert Higgs, a military analyst, has proposed that "in considering...defense budgetary costs, a well-founded rule of thumb is to take the Pentagon’s (always well publicized) basic budget total and double it. We may overstate the truth, but if so, we’ll not do so by much." (The Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here, March 15, 2007). The 2006 budget for national security was extrapolated by Higgs below:

National Security Outlays in Fiscal Year 2006 (billions of dollars)
Department of Defense	499.4
Department of Energy (nuclear weapons & environ. cleanup)	16.6
Department of State	25.3
Department of Veterans Affairs	69.8
Department of Homeland Security	69.1
Department of Justice (1/3 of FBI)	1.9
Department of the Treasury (for Military Retirement Fund)	38.5
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (1/2 of total)	7.6
Net interest attributable to past debt-financed defense outlays	206.7
Total	934.9
Source: Author’s classifications and calculations; basic data from U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2008 and U.S. Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970.

"Each year," Chalmers Johnson writes, "we Americans account for nearly half of all global military spending, an amount larger than the next 45 nations together spend on their militaries annually." (The Looming Crisis at the Pentagon: How Taxpayers Finance Fantasy Wars. What's worse is the enormous waste and lack of fiduciary responsibility the US miltary command and Congress exercises over taxpayer money. Over 87000 weapons are reported missing in Afghanistan. Is it possible that private contractors are selling these weapons on the blackmarket? Yes, it is.

For more information, download the fifth annual edition of the “Unified Security Budget.” As with the previous four editions, a non-partisan task force of military, homeland security, and foreign policy experts laid out the facts of the imbalance between military and non-military spending. The ratio of funding for military forces vs. non-military international engagement in the Bush administration’s proposed budget for the 2009 fiscal year has widened to 18:1 from 16:1 in the 2008 fiscal year, according to the report.

They don't really care about our money! Just ask the invalided, injured, and homeless veterans on the street.

Wall Street Pirates v. Somali Pirates

2009-02-09T12:05:00.018-05:00

"...talking about the benefits of free markets [is] like...promoting the benefits of rape." — Icelandic writer Haukar Mar Helgason

Quick question: Why are more than a dozen of the world's navies converging on Somalia to battle pirates there instead of sailing into New York to capture the Wall Street pirates? After all, CEOs captured over $20 billion in taxpayer money using tax loopholes, according to an Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) study. Surely the global economy would be made more secure by forcing former Merrill Lynch CEO John Thain, who doled out $4 billion in executive bonuses even as his company was collapsing, to walk the gangplank than by cracking down on the bands of privateers in the Horn of Africa. Read more here...

Executive Excess. The

U.S.

tax code is riddled with loopholes that allow top corporate and financial leaders to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Ordinary taxpayers wind up picking up the bill – to the tune of more than $20 billion per year. All five executive-friendly tax loopholes highlighted in the report are the targets of Congressional reforms. However, these efforts have stalled in the face of fierce opposition from corporate lobby groups. The report also finds that S&P 500 CEOs averaged $10.5 million in pay in 2007, 344 times the pay of typical American workers. Compensation levels for private investment fund managers soared even further. The top 50 hedge and private equity fund managers averaged $588 million each, more than 19,000 times as much as typical

U.S.

workers earned. Download the report here...

Stealing the Wealth of A Nation: When Adam Smith published his first edition of the Wealth of Nations, he could not envision people making money by just investing the capital of others as Wall Street pirates do today. He writes:

A capital may be employed in four different ways: either, first, in procuring the rude produce annually required for the use and consumption of the society; or, secondly, in manufacturing and preparing that rude produce for immediate use and consumption; or, thirdly, in transporting either the rude or manufactured produce from the places where they abound to those where they are wanted; or, lastly, in dividing particular portions of either into such small parcels as suit the occasional demands of those who want them. In the first way are employed the capitals of all those who undertake the improvement or cultivation of lands, mines, or fisheries; in the second, those of all master manufacturers; in the third, those of all wholesale merchants; and in the fourth, those of all retailers. It is difficult to conceive that a capital should be employed in any way which may not be classed under some one or other of those four. (Smith, Adam, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edwin Cannan, ed. 1904. Book II, Chapter V — "Of the Different Employment of Capitals Library of Economics and Liberty.")

In fact, it's possible that Somali pirates would find some empathy from Smith. In Wealth of Nations, he defends smuggling as a legitimate activity in the face of "unnatural" legislation. Where he is unlikely to show empathy, however, is with the type of unethical piracy shown by CEO's of Wall Street financial institutions that appeared arrogantly before Congress yesterday. News reports have it that four of these CEO's received bonuses in excess of $120 million dollars. Where did this money come from? Was it really "created" by their labor? The answer to the second is absolutely not; it was stolen from the public trust.

Which is to say, the money came from institutional investors, organizations that pool large sums of money and invest those sums in companies. They include banks, insurance companies, retirement or pension funds, hedge funds and mutual funds. "Their role in the economy is to act as highly specialized investors on behalf of others. Furthermore, because institutional investors have the freedom to buy and sell shares, they can play a large part in which companies stay solvent, and which go under. Influencing the conduct of listed companies, and providing them with capital are all part of the job of investment management." (Wikipedia).

In brief, then, prior to the implosion of the US economy, income on Wall Street came from investment profits rather than the creation of new wealth. And the income that Wall Street was amassing was overwhelmingly in the form of paper profits that have now vanished as quickly as they appeared.

In other words, once the implosion began, those recent gross bonuses that Wall Street executives gave themselves came directly from the pension funds of working and retired Americans. These executives and the whole of Wall Street have had their own private run on the banks while the American people have been kept in the dark. It's one big ponzi scheme that the entire US Congress is an accomplice. In terms of guilt, the US Congress under Republican stewardship is no different from Bernie Madoff.

The only question remaining at this point is how much money remains in these pension funds. My guess is not much, which is why the public is not being told what has happened to their savings. Paulson and the Fed knew and the TARP funding has been used to hide the bad news. Now you see why the US government and the new administration is asking the Federal Reserve, the bank that is not a bank to print money. Can you say "revolt"? I hope so. Americans need to do what the Icelanders and Argentinians have done—drive these neoliberals to the prison cells they have earned. "All of them must go!"

The Media Begins Reading Progressive Blogs

2009-02-09T10:24:00.005-05:00

Finally, the mainstream media is beginning to read the progressive blogs that for years have been telling truth to power: alternet.org, TruthOut.org, TomDispatch.com, and The Nation New York Times, entitled "Slumdogs Unite!" Rich identifies the neoliberal economists in the Obama administration that potentially can destroy public trust in his administration and undermine his economic recovery plan. He writes:

"There are simply too many major players in the Obama team who are either alumni of the financial bubble’s insiders’ club or of the somnambulant governmental establishment that presided over the catastrophe.

This includes Timothy Geithner, the Treasury secretary. Washington hands repeatedly observe how “lucky” Geithner was to be the first cabinet nominee with an I.R.S. problem, not the second, and therefore get confirmed by Congress while the getting was good. Whether or not this is “lucky” for him, it is hardly lucky for Obama. Geithner should have left ahead of Daschle.

Now more than ever, the president must inspire confidence and stave off panic. As Friday’s new unemployment figures showed, the economy kept plummeting while Congress postured. Though Obama is a genius at building public support, he is not Jesus and he can’t do it all alone. On Monday, it’s Geithner who will unveil the thorniest piece of the economic recovery plan to date — phase two of a bank rescue. The public face of this inevitably controversial package is now best known as the guy who escaped the tax reckoning that brought Daschle down."

Even before the president appointed these folks to his staff, liberal and progressive bloggers have shouted out loud and clear – NO! This week, it looks like President Obama is going to become more personally committed to a new direction. Let's hope so. The real work will begin when the income disparity between employers and employees is narrowed, so that the majority of American workers are spending discretionary income into the economy rather than credit card debt. More...

An Economic Bill of Rights

2009-02-07T13:02:00.012-05:00

President Franklin D. Roosevelt
Excerpt from message to Congress on the State of the Union
11 January 1944

It is our duty now to begin to lay the plans and determine the strategy for the winning of a lasting peace and the establishment of an American standard of living higher than ever before known. We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.

As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.

We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are:

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.

Source: Rosenman, Samuel (ed.) The Public Papers & Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt , Vol XIII. (NY: Harper, 1950), pp. 40-4.

Know your Nature

2008-03-12T17:46:00.004-04:00

This above all: To thine own self be true,
for it must follow as dost the night the day,
that canst not then be false to any man.
- Shakespeare (Hamlet) inspired by Socrates (Know thyself).

Some observers suggest that humans make up themselves “from a tool kit of options made available by our culture and society ... We do make choices but we don't determine the options among which we choose.” Well, yes and no. As psychologists, like George Kelly has suggested, experience is not just what happens to us, it is also about what we do with what happens to us. And, a significant component of the what we do with what happens to us is programmed into our genetic profile.

Humans are part of the natural world. Consequently, our options also come from some innate forces. Walt Disney may have been the first media mogul in the last century to capture this in his iconic characters. Although we recognized many of his characters as animals, their innate selves were clearly visible, whether duck, mouse, rat, dog, or cat. Our various individual behaviors, too, can be found in animals, which is to say that a particular type of animal behavior can be found in all humans, some with more than one. For example, I may think of myself as a bird with the following profile: do not like chatter; a hunter, who can sit quietly for hours; domestic, preferring the nest (home) to roaming; can live alone or with others; and, enjoy certain aspects of childrearing. What type of bird am I?

Why is it important to relate to yourself as an animal? Because humans are animals! And, the type of animal you are determines many things: the type of mate you need to be looking for or why certain social and business relationships do not work for you. There can be a relationship of tragic consequences formed between two persons whose innate natures are that of a bird and a cat. Everyone needs to know the inner animal of potential mates early on so that when faced with relationships of choice, we can select with wisdom.

Most of us move through life looking for a "soul mate," expecting some "chemistry" to let us know if someone is "the one." That chemistry may only be a primordial feeling. Any two humans can get it on up to a point, but it takes a special person that can and will commit to a single person to help them get on with life and derive satisfaction from that commitment for a lifetime.

Another reason for better understanding the animal in you is that by doing so you can become a better judge of the animal in others: the predator (hawk, lion, shark, or dog), the scavenger (hyena, rat, or chicken), the hunted (gazelle, deer, or bison), the gatherers (bees, squirrels, bears), the colonizers (ants, bees, termites, mammal), royalty (elephant, rhinoceros, giraffe, lion, whale), the solitary (panda, tiger, snake), the spirits (ravens, horses, bats, spiders), the migrators (birds, sea turtles, whales, seals) There is an animal group that correlates to any human emotion; a flavor for every taste.

Gaining an understanding of the kind of being you are can lead to less self-esteem problems and a greater conviction in the value of your being and that of others. If you find your animal among the negative categories, just remember that human beings have the capacity to change just as some wild animals can be domesticated; whether we do change or not is not an easy thing to do, but we know that it can be done.

At any rate, avoiding criticism is impossible. Do not try to please everyone. To do so, will cause you to forget who you are or to become much that you should not. A story from the Arab world about Nasrudin, a Sufi folk character in jokes, and his attempt to avoid criticism illustrates this:

Nasrudin and his son were traveling with their donkey. Nasrudin preferred to walk while his son rode the donkey. But then they passed a group of bystanders, and one scoffed, “Look—that selfish boy is riding on a donkey while his poor old father is forced to walk alongside. That is so disrespectful. What a horrible and spoiled child!”

Nasrudin and his son felt embarrassed, so they switched spots—this time Nasrudin rode the donkey while his son walked.

Soon they passed another group of people. “Oh, that’s detestable!” one of them exclaimed. “That poor young boy has to walk while his abusive father rides the donkey! That horrible man should be ashamed of himself for the way he is treating his son. What a heartless parent!”

Nasrudin was upset to hear this. He wanted to avoid anybody else’s scorn, so he decided to have both himself and his son ride the donkey at the same time.

As they both rode, they passed another group of people. “That man and his son are so cruel,” one bystander said. “Just look at how they are forcing that poor donkey to bear the weight if two people. They should be put in jail for their despicable act. What scoundrels!”

Nasrudin heard this and told his son, “I guess the only way we can avoid the criticism of others is to both walk.”

“I suppose you are right,” the son replied.

So they got off the donkey and continued on foot. But as they passed another group of people, they heard them laughing. “Ha, ha, ha,” the group jeered. “Look at those two fools. They are so stupid that both of them are walking under this scorching hot sun and neither of them is riding the donkey! What morons!”

Stand for something because some people have the innate nature always to find fault. If you find yourself in such a relationship or in a bevy of quail, my advice is to get a passport and find a new home.

Value Intellectual Curiosity

2008-03-12T00:50:00.001-04:00

"The man who never alters his opinions is like standing water, and breeds reptiles of the mind." – William Blake (1757-1827)

In general we learn, and even recognize at the perceptual level, what has value or significance to us. As used here, intellectual curiosity refers to a healthy, insatiable appetite for purposeful knowledge by inquiring minds. An individual with such a mind will not say “I don’t need to know that.” How does one know when some specific knowledge will be useful? No, the inquiring mind asks: "Why is this knowledge valued and what meaning does it have for me, for my community?" It is only through intimacy that one knows something whether it is knowledge or another human being. Get intimate with learning as one would any other natural thing. For all learning is organic and needs to be cultivated as a farmer does his crops. The better the care given the crops, the greater the harvests.

Yet, one should not study just for self – which is important, for knowledge takes on a greater importance when we look at it not only in terms of how it can enrich one's own life, but in how one can use that knowledge to enrich one's community. This is the difference between information and knowledge. One is passing and the other is lasting, shared by generations into the future. Gossip is information, but its life cycle usually is finite. Knowlege has universal application, gossip is situational and does not.

One exemplary example of an inquiring mind is that of W.E.B. (William Edward Burghardt) DuBois (1868-1963), a graduate of Harvard University in the late 19th century and one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century, and a man who made purposeful learning his life-long mission:

Night – grand and wonderful. I am glad I am living. I rejoice as a strong man to win a race, and I am strong – is it egotism – is it assurance – or is it the silent call of the world spirit that makes me feel that I am and that beneath my scepter a world of kings shall bow[?] The hot dark blood of a black forefather is beating at my heart, and I know that I am either a genius or a fool. O, I wander what I am – I wonder what the world is – I wonder if life is worth the Strum. I do not know – perhaps I shall never know: But this I do know: be the truth what it may I will seek it on the pure assumption that it is worth seeking – and Heaven nor hell, God nor Devil shall turn me from my purpose till I die . . . I therefore take the world that the unknown lay in my hands and work for the rise of the [African-American], taking for granted that their best development means the best development of the world . . . .[1]

1. W. E. B. Du Bois, The Autobiography of W. E. B. Dubois: A Soliloquy on Viewing My Life from the Last Decade of Its First Century. International Publishers, 1968. p. 171.

Nurture the God in You

2008-03-10T22:57:00.000-04:00

"Experience is not what happens to us, experience is what we do with what happens to us." — George Kelly

I have often returned mentally to a trip I was taking by car from northern Minnesota to the east coast of the United States back in 1969. We were four college students in the car – owned by the parents of one of them–who were traveling east that Christmas holiday intersession each for a different reason. As a senior in college that year, my purpose for the trip was to visit several college campuses in the Northeast in order to make a decision later about where I wished to attend graduate school.

However, before we even arrived, the trip almost ended. Here’s why. It was my turn to drive and we were on the Pennsylvania Turnpike heading toward New York City. The weather was horrible. Growing up as a teenager in Minnesota and learning to drive there, I was not unaccustomed to bad winter weather. In Minnesota, however, the cold is usually a dry cold. In Pennsylvania, the weather that evening was a mix of rain and snow, making the road icy slick even with the high volume of car and truck traffic along this section of the turnpike. What’s worse, it was foggy.

Our adventure begins sometime around 9:00 pm. I was driving in the passing lane. I remember some comments about the weather and we were guarded about the inclement weather conditions, especially the potential of icy roads. Then, out of nowhere seemingly, we passed a warning marker with what appeared as blinking yellow and red lights situated just over a rise instead of on its opposite side. That was the brilliance of the Pennsylvania Highway Patrol who I assumed later had family in the towing business. The usual response – and it was mine – is to slow the car so as to avoid whatever potential danger is being advertised. Therefore, I tapped the brakes as I had learned to do in Minnesota to avoid spinning on ice. Of course, the car began to spin. Usually, I was in the habit of checking my rear- and side-view mirrors to determine where I was in relation to other cars, but, at that moment, I could not remember if there was another car to my right or behind. And, I did not want to take my eyes from the impending crisis below to look.

In front I could see cars ahead straddling the road following an obvious accident, whose drivers probably did exactly what I did – tapping the brakes and losing control of their vehicles on the icy road. My traveling companions are now going bananas, but I remember time slowing down for me as a myriad of millisecond calculations was being assessed about what to do. What now was the primary question? Option one was to continue to tap the brakes and gain traction. That was clearly not working.

Finally, the time for options was closing as we neared the collision of cars in front of us, so I decided that our best option was to go off the road to the left and at worst hit a steel barrier in its middle if we had not stopped before then. I assumed that the barrier would absorb some of the shock. So, that’s what I did to the terror of my fellow passengers who were still looking ahead when I quickly turned the car to the left onto the medium. My calculations were accurate, except for one unaccounted for problem. After we hit the barrier, which did, in fact, absorb the collision as there was little impact, but instead of stopping us, the barrier acted as a rubber band and rebounded the car back across the road! This time, I looked to the left with big eyes in the night to see if any cars were barreling down on us. I remember thinking a short prayer or blasphemy–I can’t remember which–that there would not be any and was relieved to see none as the car safely crossed the road and stopped perfectly on the emergency strip to be pointed in our initial direction.

This was not, however, the end of the story. Relieved, the guys bounded from the car to check on their vitals and also to get out of the way in case another car experienced what we had just gone through. Of course, one did, and as I was walking from the car, someone yelled that another vehicle was out of control on its way directly towards us. I planted my foot to take off and slipped to the icy ground, scraping my right palm on broken glass and stone, the scars of which still remain. While down, I looked up to see the car coming right for us. At that moment, unable to get to my feet, I simply said to myself that if it’s my time, so be it, or words to that affect. As the car came within 15-20 feet of me, it veered back suddenly to the left and across the road to the other side, with the help of its driver, or not.

Later on, I would describe this incident as a miracle. Today, however, with more worldly experience, I believe that everything that occurs in life is a miracle. The whole of life, to me, is a miracle we receive from nature and shaped by the God in us. To some, this will sound blasphemous, but to many peoples not shackled by established religious beliefs, it will not. The difference between miracles and "the natural order" is only one of perception. Most humans in Western culture refer to "the natural order" as the laws of cause and effect that God set up at the creation of the universe – such as gravity and electromagnetism, things that the human eye can see or the brain can reason. In general, when these laws operate consistently, except when there is an exception, we call the outcome "a miracle."

According to Rabbi Eliyahu Dessler, a noted Hebrew scholar, nature is an illusion which God created in order to give human beings free choice to recognize God or not. Once a human being has risen above the illusion of nature as an independent power, he is no longer constrained by "the laws of nature."

Respectfully, I disagree with the rabbi. Nature is not the illusion, God, as defined by established religion, is the illusion. The God in me is not the same as the God in him, you or anyone else. If this is the case, how can you believe in my God and me in yours? Because of the laws of Nature. The single most comprehensible thread that holds our gods in common is Nature. It is nature that is orderly, that has a systemic plan, and nature that established coherent fundamental laws that humans can observe and hear and touch and smell.

Well, how is it that someone else’s God is a tyrant and another person’s God is kind? It’s quite simple, humans are a reflection of their nature as is their god. A god in the body of a tyrant will be a tyrannical god. A god in the body of an altruistic person will most likely be a kind god. Each of our gods, however, will be forged by the forces of nature that began before our births, in the sperm and eggs of our parents and nature’s water that bonded them together to launch the age-old process of human procreation and natural selection.

Nonetheless, all humans live in social units and as organisms we must adjust to survival as the environment dictates. As organisms, we are not always weak, but neither are we always strong. Understanding our nature provides us with a roadmap for navigating our trials and tribulations, whether we are confronted by predator beasts or embracing angels. Most often, distinguishing between the two is not as simple as it seems. The predator may wear the garments of an angel and an angel may speak the language of a predator.

What I have found in my own life is that as soon as I connect to the God in me, I acquire a mature understanding of my environment, and if something is meant to happen, there are signs, and depending upon what I do about things I can control—mostly my own body and emotions—I wait for nature to take control of the processes that it controls and respond in ways that my nature permits. What I learned from the car hurtling toward me, catastrophe written all over its front bumper, except there was no catastrophe, only crisis resolution, was that sometimes waiting and watching is preferable to acting too quickly.

Because of these experiences I gained a fuller appreciation of both my nature and the freedom that comes with being acclimated to life by its forces. This occurred when I acknowledged that the car incident and my life had no existence independent of nature and the God in me. Although the God in me had walked with me before this event, it was not always consciously so because I did not understand cerebrally that nature walked in tandem inside me as well. But since that event, I have been more conscious about my relationship with nature within and external to me and the God in me and am thankful for their presence. More importantly, there have been numerous blessings, big and small blessings that have enriched my consciousness about life and time since that watershed moment in my evolving consciousness.

There are some for whom any god is an abomination. What's wrong with a life devoid of God? I can’t say or, perhaps, won’t say. Each person must make that declaration. What I know quite simply is that the God in you is a reflection of reality – both ultimate reality and immediate reality – but it is still only your reality until you transform that reality into universal, natural law and coexist on this planet peacefully with others irrespective of differences. As a human being, life should be an aspiration toward greater consciousness, that place that humans call wisdom.

There is a spiritual law in many human religions that says whatever humans do, God responds to them in kind – measure for measure. In other words, when we want the God in us to go beyond the laws of nature, we must first journey beyond our own nature. This is a journey not easily made, and sadly, many established religions are not true to their nature so their communicants may never know theirs. Of course there are humans who do not permit other humans to coexist. What shall one do? It's quite simple, give measure for measure and do not look back.

To live in this world oblivious to this amazing journey is like being a bird oblivious to the wind, which seems to me a good measure to take of this rite of passage. For to fully appreciate a bird – a raven or a condor for example – soaring in the sky in perfect harmony with the wind and be able to connect yourself with their flight is to know what it means to aspire beyond your limits and reach for a higher level of consciousness, spiritual and physical, feeling not only what the bird feels, but also the wind, the earth, and the heavens.

Capitalism and Consumption

2008-03-09T12:19:00.001-04:00

“The worker leaves the capitalist, to whom he has sold himself, as often as he chooses, and the capitalist discharges him as often as he sees fit, as soon as he no longer gets any use, or not the required use, out of him. But the worker, whose only source of income is the sale of his labour-power, cannot leave the whole class of buyers, i.e., the capitalist class, unless he gives up his own existence. He does not belong to this or that capitalist, but to the capitalist class; and it is for him to find his man – i.e., to find a buyer in this capitalist class.”

– Karl Marx, “What are Wages? How are they Determined?"

In the context of Western intellection, there can be few fields of academic study as fictitious as that of American economic theory, as its practitioners largely have excommunicated their only credible intellectual critique from the marketplace of ideas — that critique derives from the Collected Works of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. To my knowledge, nowhere will their ideas be found in the U.S. secondary educational curriculum, a process accelerated after WWII with the "Red scare" and attack on "communists" championed by Joe McCarthy and other right-wing politicians in the 1950s. The McCarthy hearings were a media event, much like the hanging of skulls on posts alongside roadways in ancient times or lynchings in recent history; a real witch-hunt and vampire experience. Since this great propagandizing watershed in U.S. history, the public and the academic establishment largely was kowtowed and the political elite, acting for and on behalf of the military industrial complex, ramped up the fear levels of most Americans. Consequently, our educational system was designed to first and foremost graduate sheep, making the U.S. population one, if not the, most self-absorbed and misinformed on the planet.

The miracle is that this strategy did not fully succeed, though the self-absorption rate of xenophobia in the United States remains the highest of any place on the planet in the 21st century, with Germany and France attempting to catch up. In the U.S. one need only to monitor the machinations and negative commentary regarding the immigration issue today to understand some of what other Americans went through in the 50s whose only crime was that they valued ideas. Of course, school age children were taught that this WAS a war of ideas without being given an intellectual diet containing all the ideas. It was only when I entered college and took an economics class that I began to understand what the TV and propaganda farce was about. I compare the majority of Americans to the colony of ants in the really serious, must-see cartoon film that's not just for your kids: Antz.

General Mandible: [Z has broken through to the surface where Mandible and his soldiers wait for them to be drowned] Let go! Don't you understand? It's for the good of the colony!
Z: What are you saying? We are the colony!
[Mandible is about to strike Z when Cutter knocks him aside]
General Mandible: Cutter, what are you doing?
Colonel Cutter: Something I should have done a long time ago.
[extends his hand to the worker ants]
Colonel Cutter: *This* is for the good of the colony, General.
General Mandible: You useless, ungrateful maggot! *I* am the colony!

Sound familiar? Unfortunately, there were few Americans willing to come to the aid of those targeted as "Reds" in the 1950s. One of them, in his own indubitable way, however, was the late great Paul Robeson.

American economists like to say that economics is about scarce or limited resources, that not all human needs can be met, particularly yours and mine, and that the role of the economist is to determine the most efficient and equitable ways to distribute these resources. If this is the case, and the decisions are based on merit, why does that determination always insure that those who control the capital always get the lion’s share, and that labor is relegated to the garbage heap? Well, of course, that's the way the system is designed.

Some American economists even claim that their work is “science” based upon human behavior. Well, it is to some degree based upon human behavior, but that behavior has been carefully selected in favor of predators, rather than humanists or naturalists from which the works of Marx and Engels derive. For it is not “human behavior” writ large in world history who decides on the allocation of resources, scarce or not, but a mere few who have monolithic control of planetary resources and their derivatives by their control over capital and politics, but who, nonetheless, are able to mobilize other subordinated humans to work against their own self-interests either out of ignorance, powerlessness, or an innate scavenger nature.

Wealth consumes power or to paraphrase Marx's observation relative to history from The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, “Economics does nothing, people do.” Economics does not decide who eats and who does not; humans make this decision. In short, all economic systems are first and foremost political, but of all economic systems that humans have devised capitalism is the most predatory, predicated on infinitely expanding market share, increasing both production and consumption on a planet where the only thing that is not finite is capitalist greed.

Frederick Douglass, the great 19th century American rhetorician and human rights leader, knew intimately the tyranny of consumption as a self-emancipated slave. He had these words to say about hierarchically-structured systems:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they would oppress…. Men may not get all they pay for in this world, but they must certainly pay for all they get." [Douglass, 1845]

More than anything else, Capitalism is about who controls the “gross consumption” of resources – natural, human, manufactured, or spiritual. A few statistical bullets will suffice to support this observation:

It is estimated that "the richest 225 people in the world today control more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people. And that the three richest people in the world control more wealth than the poorest 48 nations. A.H. Bill, Facing the Future: People and the Planet. 1998.
http://www.mindfully.org/Sustainability/Consumption-Industrialized-Commercialized.htm

The U.S. spent half a trillion dollars in 1998: 50% went toward the military budget; 6% was spent on education; health, the environment, and justice each received 5%, transportation less than 3%; economic development almost 2%; and agriculture and energy less than 1% each. A.H. Bill, Facing the Future: People and the Planet.

Americans constitute 5% of the world's population, but consume 24% of the world's energy. On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese, 6 Mexicans, 13 Chinese, 31 Indians, 128 Bangladeshis, 307 Tanzanians, or 370 Ethiopians. P. Ehrlich, Population Bomb [PBS website– website now retired but book by same name should contain this information].

250 million people have died of hunger-related causes in the past quarter-century — roughly 10 million each year.

700 to 800 million people, perhaps even as many as a billion, don't get enough food to support normal daily activities.

1.7 billion people lack access to clean drinking water and, by the year 2000, the number of urban dwellers without access to safe water and sanitation services is expected to grow by 80%.

One-third of the world's fish catch and more than one-third of the world's total grain output are fed to livestock.

38 million people are poor in the United States; 19 million of these are working!

Afrothetic's First Law of Consumption: Humans are born from consumption, live by consumption and, at death, are by-products of consumption. Corollaries: “Dust to dust, ash to ashes.” "We are what we eat."

On the Merits of Single-Sex Education - Part I

2008-03-09T11:35:00.001-04:00

The issues of gender are complex, ranging from cultural expectations and childrearing methods to sexual preferences and neurological and physiological issues. When you add to the mix a discussion on Black manhood, it's like adding gasoline to a fire.

I know that, as an African-American male, I'm always frustrated by the outcomes of such dialogues, primarily because as individuals we belong to one gender or another or sexual preference or another, and, therefore, believe that we know the full-scope of what that gender or sexual preference lifecycle is about. NOT!

Few of us understand, for example, that the needs of the male in the first five years of life are dramatically different from that of females nor is it appreciated that although males catch up with girls physically in their teens, recent neurological research tells us that males may not catch up with females in brain development until their late teens (ages 18-20). We are told that only the X chromosome carries a full set of defining body characteristics; a man's single X chromosome may be defective, whereas a woman, who has two chances, is believed to seldom fall short. And, even when partners can possibly understand this, how is the information integrated in their childrearing patterns? Among caregivers? Nursery school providers? Educators? Grandparents?

To create an environment for equitable education for Black males will require a complete overhauling of the system of knowledge delivery in public schools up to at least the 6th grade. That will not happen soon, of course, as the larger society does not accept the need for change, particularly for Black males. More to the point, the failure of young Blacks and Latinos (male and female) is important to the criminally unjust law enforcement and incarceration system in the United States.

As an adult male, I understand more clearly that the current warehousing method of education worked partially for me, but not for most of my peers. Boys in general, regardless of ethnicity, are exploratory by nature, and sitting in rows and forbidden to explore is going to cause conflict. The problem is not the child or the gender; it's the inability of the teacher and the system to adapt to the neurological and physiological needs of boys. To create better men, our parents, our community, and our schools must make creating healthier boys a priority.

Additionally, how gender roles are defined by BOTH women and men needs increased discourse as the roles of husbands in the household is changing. But, I also know that many women have not made the full shift to equitable gender sharing. While men now perform domestic tasks in their households more than ever before, fewer women have taken up "outside tasks" like lawn, landscaping, home repair activities, because these do not reinforce their standard of beauty, and are still considered male tasks. In my opinion, until some women and men redefine their image of beauty, change is going to be slow. Are nails and hair or condition of hands more important than family and relationship? Not if we are parents. I believe that it's healthier for parents to work together in all tasks in our fast-paced economy and for children to see them doing so, even if one or the other is only showing spiritual support.

On the Merits of Single-Sex Education - Part II

2008-03-08T23:20:00.002-05:00

Parenting, today, is more important than ever. There are great risks and challenges facing the next generations. Both males and females must come to grips with definitions of manhood since both genders reinforce the image. In his new book, Marc Anthony Neal, who is viewed by some as the leading African-American intellectual interpreting Generation X today, argues that the idea of a "Strong Black Man" is not compatible with parenting, because parenting functions reflect female gender roles. As the father of two daughters, Neal says that raising children with this gender view of the world today cannot be sustained in an economy where African-American females are increasingly likely to be the bread-winners in families. More importantly, to maintain them will continue to put all African-American children — male and female — at risk. Nurturing males has many benefits, but only one is paramount – the survival of a people.

Yet, there may be hope. In 2002, Lee Mansell, principal of Foley Intermediate School in Foley, Alabama read a book by Michael Gurian called Boys and Girls Learn Differently! which started her thinking more seriously about single sex education. After that she discovered the ideas of Leonard Sax in a magazine article and thought that his insights would help improve the test scores of Foley’s lowest-achieving group, minority boys. Sax went on to publish those ideas in Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences. In 2003, Mansell began educating teachers and parents about single-sex education and launched the program in 2005. It has been so successful that Sax, a family physician turned author and advocate, will quit his medical practice this May to devote himself full time to promoting single-sex public education.

That the integration of brain maturation and gender has finally made it into the public school system is a miracle and is the making of a revolution. This acceptance is due, I believe, because nothing else educators have done since the 1970s has worked. That's when politics entered the educational system in the form of collective bargaining. How much did politics play a role? Well, in 2003 Hillary Clinton briefed the American Federation of Teachers about the threat that Iraq represented, whereupon the nation’s second-largest teacher’s union supported the Bush administration's jihad to attack Iraq. What is an American teachers union doing involved with supporting military action in a sovereign nation, you ask? That's what some Congressional oversight committee should be asking because the behavior of the AFT and its board clearly shows that there are some citizens managing your child's future who need to be doing something else, and if this something else is global imperialism, they should be shown the door.

This beginning is not the end. What must happen next is that the textbooks and standardized tests need to be written at the language and grade level at which the children are being taught, and not 4-5 grade levels above. Language is where the cultural discrimination has been taking place to thwart the dreams of young people for the pass 30 years no matter what their complexion. Of course, some school districts also removed music, physical education, and health care from the schools to further degrade the educational process and prevent youngsters who are right-hemisphere dominant, particularly African-Americans, from advancing intellectually into historic areas of self-employment — better to have the dropouts ready for all those jobs in the military or to feed the excessive appetite of an unjust predatory penal system.

It's a long road to reconstruction, as the first American social reconstruction proved, but there are leaders in this 21st century social revolution that have at least kick-started it. Parents can learn more about Foley Intermediate School here: Teaching Boys and Girls Separately by Elizabeth Weil, New York Times, 2 March 2008.

A Word (or two) on Free Speech

2008-03-08T19:58:00.000-05:00

Whenever free speech absolutists speak of "free speech" I often think what they mean is that "agree speech" is free speech, usually followed by a personal attack against those who disagree with them. From their perspective, "your 'free Speech' has limits, while theirs does not."

As the Biblical James writes: "...the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts." Sir James recognized that words can be used as weapons, and he recognized that words do not operate in a vacuum. Like everything else in our world, speech is governed by the laws of nature. The science used to describe the motion of objects using words, diagrams, numbers, graphs, and equations is called Kinematics. Since speech is language in motion, it is governed by the laws of motion as defined by Isaac Newton, the 17th century scientist.

According to Newton's third law, for every action force there is an equal (in size) and opposite (in direction) reaction force. Since forces always come in pairs, known as "action-reaction force pairs," speech, too, follows this rule. Someone who bullies another person, for example, can expect three types of opposite reactions of a varying nature. One reaction may be a passive retreat, which may lead to harm by undermining a victim's sense of self-worth, with any name-calling significantly reducing a person's self-esteem as recent studies on bullying and spousal verbal abuse has revealed. One of the these studies was conducted by Dr. Stephen Joseph, a psychologist at the University of Warwick, who researched bullying at Secondary Schools in the United Kingdom. His work dispels the well-known myth "Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me".

A second reaction could be a verbal repartee in which the subject responds to the attacker tit-for-tat. These tit-for-tats can lead to a third reaction, which may turn physical or extremely violent if the targeted individual or group believe themselves to be a victim of verbal abuse or if a blaspheme is thrown at them like an offensive warhead. It's highly unlikely that a sober college professor, for example, will meander up to a 250-lb NFL linebacker and with conviction call him a "sissy" — at least where it can be heard.

Free speech absolutists are being disingenuous if they suggest they never modify their speech or their reporting under any circumstances. Our speech is governed by situational ethics, which is Newton's first law of motion: "An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."

The object here is the tongue, of course, and an unbalanced force can be a social, political, economic, military or natural environment that requires the tongue to be restrained. Some humans may require either force or wisdom to know when restraint or silence is appropriate. Speech that is offensive is not free speech. It is just what it is, offensive. Those who require force to curb offensive speech will almost always find an opposing reaction that will assist them in doing so. It's a law of nature.