Door To Hell

I just finished Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States after starting it in late September.  Throughout the period of time I was reading the book, we have experienced the election of the first black President and an economic turbulence that harkens back to the Great Depression.  That being said, Zinn's message seemed much more relevant and present during these historic times.  The book is extensive, it covers from 1492 to present times, therefore, I really just want to touch on a couple of themes that really resonate now.

First, the election of Barack Obama was an historical event and symbolizes the success of so many people's struggles throughout history that Zinn chronicles.  Zinn makes the point over and over again that the equality and freedom won for blacks was literally fought and paid for in blood through the people rising up.  The government did not give the blacks equality, it was not their's to give, in fact the US Government did little to help the movements and did much to hinder them.  Read about Bobby Kennedy's time as Attorney General.  The people are the source of power for change and justice, not the government.  Does this sound familiar?  It should as it was the central theme of Barack Obama's campaign and promises.  However, if Zinn's book shows us, we should be skeptical of Obama as every single President before him has done little to change the inequitable system that protects and enhances the elite in society through misguided policy.  I want to hope and believe that Obama is different but his actions will have to prove it to me, until then I will be skeptical.

Another related theme that Zinn discusses is the concept of Patriotism.  In recent years Patriotism is used as a Scarlet Letter, "either you're with us or against us."  The most deceitful tactic is implying that disagreeing with the government is unpatriotic.  Zinn makes it clear that love of country is not love of government.  We as a society have to unravel the brainwashing that started as children that intertwines government and country.  Zinn also makes the complaint that most classical history tells the story of states and their government as if they were on some noble, theatrical stage, ignoring the actual people. 

Finally, with the events recently I believe that in the near future, political consciousness will once again be raised to unprecedented levels.  The people of the United States will stand up to demand for equality through classes.  The economic crises has seen the US Government give a mind boggling amount of money to Banks and Big Corporations, while meanwhile people are losing their jobs, houses, and means of living at a pace we haven't seen in decades.  The greed of the corporations led us down this path, with the government allowing it, what's going to happen when millions of people realize not only have they been robbed, but robbed of everything?  My answer:  I believe that if events continue down this road that we will have an economic revolution soon.  It will be a transformation to a system that is more just and equitable. Whether Barack Obama can lead that will be interesting, but if I am right he will not be able to deny it.

Nothing is more annoying than intellectual dishonesty hidden under the guise of fairness and balance in journalism.  I cannot watch MSNBC's election coverage anymore, it's sickening me because they refuse to acknowledge what is obvious to most of the world; that Barack Obama will not only win today but win big.  Yeah that's right I'm going out on a big limb here, calling it before the votes have been cast (well that's not even true considering early voting has accounted for a third of the total in some states).

I generally like MSNBC but lately Mika Brezinski and Joe Scarborough are getting out of hand.  Every 2 minutes they make a qualifying statement along the lines of " you know this is far from over, McCain still has an electoral college path…"  this is often in response to some other commentator's innocuous praise of Obama or his campaign.  Two things Brezinski and Scarborough need to understand:

1)  Their credibility rests upon being able to reflect some sort of reality, not on their ability to appease both political parties.  Here is the reality; both anecdotally and mathematically it appears by all rational viewers to be an Obama blow out or at the very minimum an electoral victory.  This is not opinion or spin this is reality.  Check any polling you want.  A McCain possibility is possible, yes we can all acknowledge that, however possible and the degree of probability are far different.  MSNBC's coverage is implying that this a McCain victory is more along the lines of 45% than the more realistic 3% ( see www.fivethirtyeight.com).  Yes, it is possible McCain will pull out the slim chance or that the polls and math is all wrong but no credible evidence suggests that!  It's also why their horrible analogy's to elections past and sporting events are wrong, those were wholly different situations. 

2)  There is no reason to try to be balanced when doing so is dishonest.  Trying to pander to the Conservative Republicans by not calling this race what it is is ludicrous.  First, it accomplishes nothing, no matter what the media does it will always be labeled "liberal."  This is a rallying cry for the Conservatives, and they have made it their mantra for years and no election coverage is ever going to change it.  Secondly, an objective commentator is supposed to be, OBJECTIVE, shocking isn't it.  Objectivity does not mean compromising two points of view, it means interpreting reality as clearly as one can.  It's like being a football fan and your team is down big in the 4th Quarter, you can want them to come back, you can envision all these scenarios, you can say that your team should have been closer, you can say the other team is dirty, or that the refs were unfair, but the objectively you have to acknowledge the mathematical probability of your plight.

The media needs to step up.  They've been battered by the right wing for so long with the claims of media bias that they cower to even call a spade a spade.  Through constant claims of liberal bias the right wing is able to spread their dirty propaganda and not have it contested.  So on this historic day, when a new, uplifting candidate finally prevails over the Republican slime, please for one day can't the media just call a spade a spade and acknowledge that Obama will be the next President of the United States.

                In the midst of the 2008 Presidential election, awareness of
America’s foreign policy should be at its height.  Unfortunately after reading Noam Chomsky’s Failed States,I have become almost despondent at the state of our country.  This is not my first foray into Chomsky’s
writings.  Having read Hegemony or Survival
and What We Say Goes: Conversations on U.S. Power in a Changing World, I am familiar with his
perspective.  Failed States once
again reiterates what those books state, that America is first and foremost
concerned with Hegemony and protecting the interests of the privileged and
elite.

                Chomsky’s
writing brings relentless logic, page after page.  His writing, although brilliant and
illuminating, is also repetitive and overwhelming.  If reading a nice enjoyable novel is like
floating down a stream, then reading Chomsky is like trudging through
quicksand.  My review is not an attempt
to capture point by point Chomsky’s assertions, that would entail me writing a
book.  Instead, I will proceed by taking
a couple of broad overviews that I found interesting.

                As one
may imagine, Chomsky is extremely critical of Bush II.  In fact much of the book highlights Bush’s
failings and misguided stances.  What may
surprise most about Chomsky is that he is critical of almost all U.S.
Presidents and their policy.  In Failed States Chomsky goes as far back as Andrew Jackson and the atrocities
committed toward the Seminoles.  Bill
Clinton is not spared either.  In fact,
Bush II stands out not for his policy but instead how he conducts it.  Whereas past Presidents were subtle and
feigned respect for the rest of the globe, Bush II has become the outlaw cowboy
doing as he damn pleases under the guise of some “moral vision.”

                Another
claim that Chomsky makes, that we all need to increase our awareness about, is
that the U.S. has done more to enhance the threat of Nuclear proliferation and
a Nuclear disaster than any other global state. 
The U.S. throughout history has had many opportunities to decrease the
likelihood of a nuclear disaster yet insists on taking policy stances that
force the hands of other countries to nuclear weaponry.  These are areas where the government rather
than looking out for the survival and wellbeing of mankind, is instead more
concerned about U.S. hegemony.  The
problem is they take it to the point of irrationality.  Hegemony could still be attained, without
ramping up the threat of nuclear destruction. 
Chomsky points this out several times.

                Well
known by readers of Chomsky is his distaste for the US-Israeli relations.     Chomsky
delves into this subject again extensively. 
Chomsky paints Israel as the lapdogs of the US.  Israel pursues its own ugly foreign policy by
continually taking more and more Palestinian lands and refuses to honestly
negotiate a peace.  However, still bows
down when the master speaks. 

                Chomsky
takes on the subject of democracy promotion. 
This is typically the red herring that allows us to justify our actions
in third world countries.  The problem
is, we only truly allow democracy if the “right person wins.”  If the democratically elected leader of
another country is at all a perceived threat, then the principles of democracy
are thrown out the window.  In addition,
our own democracy is failed.  The leaders
of the country do not follow the general will of the populace.  This is shown extensively in Failed States
when Chomsky addresses the issues that matter to the population, such as health
care, reducing military spending, signing the Kyoto protocols, and generally
accepting International law. 

                Chomsky’s
vision of a just foreign policy is one that adheres to the principle of
universality.  In other words, the Golden
Rule.  We, as a country, declare
pre-emptive wars, interfere in the democracies of other countries, carry on torture,
allow inhumane treatment, and yet at the same time declare moral superiority to
ourselves and the rest of the world.  I
enjoy reading Chomsky, though at times it is a chore and at times it is
discouraging to my hope for the future. 
Whether you agree with him or not, he must be acknowledged.  His thoughts and ideas are important enough
that they merit discussion.  This is what
saddens me the most.  That in the current
climate, to state the ideas Chomsky promotes is heresy.  Americas has come to a point where it is
necessary to examine ourselves as a nation. 
Examining the faults will be the most important thing going forward.  The virtues of America are well known and
hopefully appreciated.  I know I am
thankful everyday to be born so lucky. 
However, examining our faults is what will allow us to progress to a
more humane and just society.

Finally it's going to come out.  The baseball player's union is going to take it to MLB Owners for colluding against Barry Bonds.

Wasn't it obvious they colluded to keep Bonds out? Freaking Infuriating.  I
hope MLB gets nailed to the wall for this.  This really pissed me off
this season, Bonds should have gotten a fair chance to play.  As a fan
I wanted to see him play.  You know he's clean for sure, so let's see
what he can do clean and in his early 40's.

I have no vehemence
to Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens or anyone else they slimed.  Well, maybe
Palmeiro was a little sleazy but I feel bad for people like Clemens and
McGwire.  I wanted to see Bonds play.  If Florida was going to pull the
trigger on the Manny Ramirez trade and decided not to because of the
cost, WTF?  Why not pick up Barry Bonds, pay him league minimum (which
he was going to donate to charity anyway)?  It's a no lose, if he sucks
drop him – no cost, if he is disruptive, drop him – no cost, can't play
defense, drop him – no cost.  Tampa Bay, a DH AL team, same thing when
Longoria went down.  No Crawford and no Longoria, in a pennant race,
why not?

Biggest sham in the world, do they think everyone is stupid? 

Here's the deal and the parallel with Wall St.  The players in baseball most likely used some enhancing drugs, but the rules allowed it.  In fact there were no rules.

1)  In an extremely competitive atmosphere players used performance enhancers to get ahead.  Why?  Because others were doing it and their livelihoods depended on it.
1a)  In an extremely competitive atmosphere banks leveraged gaboodles of money to make risky investments.  Why?  Because others were doing it and making even more gaboodles of money.  If not them it was going to be their competitor, livelihoods depended on it.

2)  The result of an increase in performance enhancing drugs in the league caused more offense and as a result more attendance and as a result more money for the owners.  Times were good, players were chasing records and attendances were finally coming back from the dismal 1994 strike season.
2a)  The result of the increased investing and leverage for the banks allowed for everyone to be happy, the economy grew, the market went up and the corporations made lots of money.  The economy was coming back strong after the dismal recession after 9/11.

3)  This was the direct result of the MLB rulers, namely Bud Selig, turning a blind eye to the performance enhancers.  There were no rules or testing in MLB for performance enhancing drugs.  Why bother, everyone is doing well.
3a)  The increased investments made by banks were a direct result of the Fed giving out money.  Interest rates were so low, you were stupid not to use it.  The government and Fed had no reason to step in, instead turn a blind eye and delude yourself.  Everyone is doing well.

4)  Finally alarm bells start to go off.  Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Balco.
4a)  Alarm bells go off.  Defaults, foreclosures, mortgage companies failing.

5)  Public turns on players using steriods, attacking them from moral stances.
5a)  Public turns on Wall St.  Calling them greedy and immoral.

6)  MLB cleans up its system and persecutes the stars of its game, whom they ALLOWED to use performance enhancing drugs.
6a)  Treasury attempts to clean up its system and will try to persecute the banks and bankers it ALLOWED to leverage so high and make risky investments.

Are the players and bankers guilty?  Yes, but they only did what the system allowed them to do.  The people that deserve the wrath in both situations are the rule makers of the games, not the players of the games. 

This article examines how life would be without a bank account.  First one caveat, this is from the BBC and the article concerns the British culture, however it's essentially the same here in the US.

I have long been anti-bank and pro cash.  My thoughts are the further you subject yourself to their system and rules, the more you subject yourself to their power and whims.  This paragraph is absolutely horrifying to me:

Intrinsic to my identity?  No, not at all.  In fact there was a time where I did live as bankless as possible.  Relying on cash, no credit cards, no debit cards, and virtually no credit history.  Guess what?  It can be done.  It is more difficult and more costly, that's a result of allowing ourselves to be sucked into a no cash culture.  This ultimately benefits the banks.  It benefits them by allowing them to set the rules.  They, like organized crime, skim off of everything.  If you're a merchant, they charge to process transactions, which ultimately get passed to the consumer.  The banks set unreasonable and arbitrary fees.  Why does it cost $39 dollars if I am one day late on my credit card payment?  How many of us ask these questions?  What is the rational behind needing a checking account in order to rent
a place?  As long as cash is a form of currency it should be accepted
as payment.

Furthermore, the article makes no mention, most likely because it is British, of a gigantic class of people who make due without the banking system, illegal and legal immigrants.  Many immigrants come from countries without reliable banking or currency and tend to distrust the banking system.  They also fear that they may jeopardize their status in the country.  They get along without the banking system, of course it can be more costly and also shut people out from certain financial products.  The solution should be not to incorporate the bankless into a banking culture, instead create a more accepting culture for the bankless by accommodating cash.

Cash allows for freedom and privacy, it should not be shunned, but embraced by a society that proclaims freedom as it's highest

This article struck me as fascinating and at the same time repulsive.  In brief:

1. Germany has a law against the denial of the holocaust.
2. Dr Toben allegedly violated this German law by publishing his beliefs on a website.
3. Dr Toben is a citizen of Australia.
4. Dr Toben was arrested in the UK, detained by a European Arrest Warrant issued by Germany in 2004.

The situation is fascinating for several reasons:

• Freedom of Speech – First, this case brings up the issue of Freedom of Speech, how we define it and to what extent do we value it.  Germany obviously believes it's in its self interest to limit free speech in reference to the holocaust.  Dr. Toben's ideas are misguided and wrong, however, if he is not making any call to action or sedition it truly is thought control.  The government, in this case Germany, is clearly dictating what ideas are ok and which are not. 
• European Union – Even more fascinating is how the EU is affecting these nations that comprise it.  UK believes in total free speech and Germany believes in limited speech, they agree to an expedited extradition process, should now the UK be responsible for fulfilling its end of the obligation?  Even if they fundamentally disagree with the law and no crime was perpetrated in the UK?
• Expanded Governmental Powers – This is a prime example of why all powers granted to the government have to be thought out with ultimate care.  The Warrants were supposed to apply to "terrorists and drug dealers", as you can see Germany has expanded it to Website Publishers of questionable ideas.  Yet another example of a government overreaching its powers at any opportunity.  Now the UK is in a difficult position because they agreed to the Warrant policy.
• Applicability – So now, in theory, German laws apply to all citizens of the world.  If I decide to publish ideas that the German government decides to outlaw, I become a criminal.  Fine, I'll just never visit Germany, but Woahhhh, hold up, that was most likely Dr Toben's line of thought too and it did him no good because Germany came after him!  Germany invoked European Arrest Warrant to come after Dr Toben in another sovereign nation, a country where he is not a criminal and his actions are not criminal.  In addition, am I going to have to have a working knowledge of all these different countries legal code in order not to ignorantly break some law and somehow find out about the law as I'm being arrested.

If I were a European citizen, I would be extremely interested in the result of this affair.  It has long ranging implications in the laws of those countries.  I will be interested in seeing what happens as I believe it's a fascinating quandary.