US Politics: After the Shut Down and Default

[A MeanMesa note:  This post was finished literally minutes before the final collapse of the most recent tea bag extortion scheme and the subsequent unconditional surrender of Speaker Boehner.  Normally, this would introduce enough irrelevancy to justify hitting the "delete" key, but in this case we can actually count the hours before the tea bags try it again in February.  Because this is the case, MeanMesa stands with the original post.  Enjoy.]

The Apocalypse Waltz

Tea bags not provided.

There has been no shortage of apocalyptic prognostication regarding the incredible potential damage which could follow the GOP's recent failed extortion scheme.  Any post with only the modest ambition of somehow embellishing such horrifying tales would amount to nothing more than "adding fuel to the fire."  However, MeanMesa visitors have, no doubt, by this time thoroughly invested sufficient apprehension over the imaginings which accompany these dire predictions.

Yet, even the time period for even the most agonizing of the various scenarios seems limited to the weeks and months following such dismal events.  What about a year later?  What about four or five years later?

It is precisely these longer term consequences which have captured MeanMesa's perpetually optimistic, creative vent.  In this post, another segment of the now famous "MeanMesa Future History," we can explore -- together of course -- how the ramifications of the shut down and, more importantly, the debt ceiling default, might appear in the near, but not too distant, future.

Selecting a literary mechanism to clearly present these furtive prophecies was a bit of a challenge, so to accomplish this task we will examine a few speculative news paper clippings which reflect the changes inflicted upon the nation.  Rather than spout one issue of damage after another, perhaps these "oblique glimpses" will communicate a more complete idea.

The "News" from MeanMesa Future History

MeanMesa as Harry Seldon? (image source)

[Seldon was the mathematician who finally mastered psycho-history, an empirical means to predict and "intervene" in future crises.  If any MeanMesa visitors haven't enjoyed Asimov's trilogy, Foundation and Empire, don't miss it!]

The News From 2017

Washington, D.C.

President Clinton signed the final version of the "Money is Not Speech" bill into law this morning.  Designed by the Democratic majorities in Congress to legislatively prohibit the influx of corporate interest campaign money into political campaigns -- originally ushered into practice by the Roberts Court  Citizen's United decision -- Washington insiders predict that most candidates in the 2018 mid-terms will opt for public campaign financing.

In related other news, a number of the established Super PAC organizations have announced that they will be folding up shop, a development based primarily on their inability to attract political clients.

New York, N.Y.

Pundits on the broadcasters remaining as affiliates in Rupert Murdoch's FOX network continue to accuse the Democratic Congressional majorities in the House and Senate of "revenge seeking," a charge strongly denied by the House Speaker.  She was quoted in a news conference this morning:

"Who cares what they are saying now?  This Congress is not being run by political talk show hosts.  This Congress is being run by voters.  If any of you doubt that, spend a morning answering constituent phone calls in my office."

Washington, D.C.

The final revisions in the IRS tax code regulating the use of 501C3 and 501C4 tax exemption status for political organizations cleared the House Oversight Committee this morning.  Congressional staffers predict a short Senate Conference Committee reconciliation, probably further strengthening the provisions with Senate Finance recommendations, before the final bill is sent to the President.

Green Party House members had sought increases in the bill's prosecution with more serious prison sentences for convicted violators, but both this and the Green's original proposal for 20 year Statute of Limitations for Justice Department prosecutions were withdrawn dues to a lack of Committee support.

DOJ spokesman announced that the new legislation would be adequate for the on-going sedition trials of the large cash donors in the 2010 - 2012 election campaigns.

Washington, D.C.

The Federal Reserve Board bankers, meeting this weekend, have decided to curtail some of the anti-inflationary monetary policies adopted after the 2013 default crash.  The Head of the Federal Reserve outlined the changes at a news conference Saturday:

"With the current inflation rate dropping below the 10% 'trigger,' the Federal Reserve is in favor of decreasing the Treasury Bond interest levels to around 8% for the next fiscal year.  We are far from 'out of the woods' after the explosive inflation cycle of 2013-2014, but the American economy is showing signs of a slowing inflationary trend -- which is good news."

The spokesman for the Peoples Republic Of China, holding approximately $2 Tn worth of Treasury Bonds and other US dollar investments, complained about the interest rate drop at the meeting of the International American Debt Council in Geneva, but other creditors were "satisfied" with American recovery efforts.

The PRC representative at the meeting indicated that the Chinese State Council might reset the Yuan/dollar exchange value higher to compensate Chinese investors, suggesting that the current exchange rate now set at $0.38 for the Yuan might be increased to around $0.42.

Washington, D.C.

The Secretary of Labor, commenting on the latest employment figures for the last quarter, noted that improvements in the unemployment rate -- dropping below 12% for the first time since the 2013 default -- showed that the US domestic labor market was beginning to show additional strength.  He was quoted at the quarterly meeting of the National Labor Council:

"The adjusted tax policies intended to repatriate jobs exported during the late 1990's and 2000's are finally beginning to positively impact the post-default unemployment rises.  It took a while longer than the Congress anticipated, but the national unemployment rates have fallen from their 31% high in 2014 to the current 12% largely thanks to the re-importation of manufacturing jobs to the US."

"The higher valuation of currencies in the Asian countries along with the new tax policies have created a steady flow of jobs back into the domestic labor market."

Washington, D.C.

President Hillary Clinton nominated a respected environmentalist from the Green Party as the new Environmental Protection Agency head this afternoon in a short ceremony at the White House.  The Green Party's strong minorities in both the House and the Senate applauded the choice, and the nomination is expected to pass through Senate hearings smoothly.  In her official statement at the nomination she told reporters:

"Yes, the Green Party is a minority in our Congress, but unlike their predecessors, they win elections -- they contribute very sincerely to the work of running the country.  I look forward to having this new voice in my cabinet."

Washington, D.C.

The rate of prosecutions under the 2015 "Truth in Media" laws has dropped for the third straight quarter.  A Justice Department spokesman attributes the decline to "getting the message out."  He told reporters at the National Media Convention in Seattle:

"If you have a microphone, you don't need to tell the American people blatant falsehoods to make a profit.  The days of irresponsible media broadcasting every sort of inflammatory propaganda have passed.  This law had a 90 day delay written into its implementation, and the folks who kept going after that 90 day grace period are in Federal prison today.  No American citizen has to believe anything, but our democracy has become stronger from having truthful information."

Philadelphia, Pa.

Speaking at the Liberty Bell Monument this morning, the newly confirmed Federal Judge of Election Courts announced "good progress" on the implementation of the Congressional bi-partisan election reform law.  

"Working with the close coordination of the Department of Justice, every one of the law suits filed against the law's redistricting regulations are being litigated quickly.  By the 2018 mid-term elections every election district in the country will conform to the standardized design regulations for district maps."

"We have established the uniform voter registration laws in every state in the Union.  Legal, qualified voters will never again face obstacles from local or state governments attempting to disenfranchise them to create political advantages in elections.  The newly formed election courts will monitor voter registration policies and practices.  No American citizen will be sent away from the polls after being unable to vote.  This is a democracy."

UN, New York, N.Y.

The Security Council today accepted as "advisory" a resolution submitted by a majority of Council member states requiring US de-nuclearization moves.  The Brazillian UN Ambassador, now occupying the Council seat previously held by the US, continued to insist that the US nuclear arsenal be reduced to "stable levels" established by the almost unanimous General Assembly vote earlier this year.

Speaking to Ambassadors from the Council membership states today, the Brazilian Ambassador said:

"This world can longer trust having such destructive weapons under the control of a government as clearly unstable as that of the United States.  The damage inflicted on the Brazilian economy and economies around the world by the 2013 default was too great, and the cavalier flippancy of the US government during that same 2013 default must not be repeated in a future incident involving nuclear weapons."

Although the Clinton Administration has expressed a strong reluctance with the idea of complying with the Security Council resolution, US creditors speaking through the International American Debt Council have indicated they they, too, will insist on the de-nuclearization of the US as a condition of the continuing credits for the American economy.

In other UN news A unanimous vote in the General Assembly has led to another Security Council discussion with respect to American oligarchs.  A Security Council spokesman addressed the international press today:

"The American billionaires have enjoyed an unregulated sponsorship under the American government.  With the remainder of the world now approaching, once again after the 2013 collapse, a more or less normal rate of economic development, the activities of this class of Americans can no longer be tolerated by other member nations in this Assembly, many of whom have suffered as their traditional victims in the past."

"This resolution of the General Assembly is a clear message to the US government: 'Control them, or we will.'"

Disaster's Durability

Americans have had disasters before, and in each case the country emerged to re-establish its previous global economic hegemony. The effect of such catastrophic political failure and national mismanagement has -- too often -- been even greater in other nations, and the costs of recovery have -- too often -- also been dire for these non-US economies.

This pain on others has been inflicted with a strident disregard for the welfare of humans who could not vote in US elections.

We may have assumed that this perod of international "involuntary grace" would be extended indefinitely. MeanMesa is saying,

maybe not.

Obama's Foreign Policy for the 21st Century

How Can We Help You?

After decades of exporting U. S. Army's School of the Americas’ grads to our “friends,” why have those countries become so ungrateful for all the secret police, intelligence officers, death squads, authoritarian armies and crooked dictators? Did we win their “hearts and minds yet?” 91

Having only just emerged from the gravest threat ever to the Rule of Law here in the United States we can turn our thoughts outward to the same nightmare actually realized in other countries throughout the world. In the United States, when we see injustice and the deliberate castration of our Constitution, we can squawk, and squawk very loudly -- especially on our way to the polls! Unhappily, in much of the rest of the world the response to such insults is a well reasoned silence.

Not by coincidence, the nations where this “well reasoned silence” is the loudest tend to be precisely those same nations which currently present the most puzzling foreign policy challenges. Such a simplistic generalization is quite a claim. But, if that argument is valid, what has brought us (Try it out. In this instance, “US” means “humanity,” all the people in the world, not an abbreviation for the “United States.”) here? What was the part of the United States in the creation of this mess? What can correct it and restore our honor?

Two troublingly similar, destructive engines seem to have been at play in the creation of all these embarrassments. Although the complexion of both suspects might be quite individual, the foundations of power and mischief employed by both are quite similar. What we face is the final toxic remnant of power and control ruthlessly extracted from the “fear franchise.” The result of this numbing extraction of human life force has been, so far, both relentless and perpetual. The sponsors -- that is, the two suspects mentioned here -- seem to remain locked in the frenzied promotion of the myths of what’s left of 1.) the Cold War, and, 2.) the most aggressive modern hybrids of all religions throughout history, Islam and Christianity.

A little history from MeanMesa:

We’ll take on the second item first. We can rightly term the religionist aspect of this “fear franchise” the IslamoChristian extremist terrorists. Strange name? Naturally, we will expect the soldiers on both sides of this unfortunate throw back to terrorize each other, but should we tolerate them as they terrorize the rest of the world, too?

To date, of course, the Christian terrorists have been far more successful in the horrific slaughter thanks to their great wealth and corresponding military potency. It is a “dance contest” where contestants on one side strap dynamite to their bellies while the other side shows up in F-15’s, but on both sides all are on their path to a “heaven of vindication,” filled to the gunnels with the patriotic and the pious. By the way, this was the exact same “great wealth” that the Islamic terrorists had hoped to use for their own “projects,” but the Christians got it first, so they are, at least temporarily, the “big dogs,” if not the “chosen ones.” Could even their god be so fickle?

“Never saw us coming? Too bad for all you unbelievers. Now, let’s talk peace.”

Regardless of side, the religionists “fight the good fight” against Satan, heretics, infidels, the fallen and any other proclaimed enemy. Of course, the whole affair is an obstreperous medieval holdover, but there is no shortage of volunteer blood in teenagers paralyzed by every convenient temptation from dogmatic illiteracy to a stubborn unwillingness to actually think about anything.

Here, we can point our righteous finger of judgment to all those horrid madrases where the young Islamic bomb boys are pumped full of crazy anti-Christian ideas. But also here, we must not point our righteous finger of judgment at what goes on, for example, in the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, where military officers who actually behave as little more than the cheapest kind of “dirty shirt preachers” and other hillbillies force their out dated religion on cadets who are unable to resist their “message of supreme truth.”

Yeah. These guys are good. On both sides. Sure, part of the issue is the guarantee of a constant flow of controllable, obsessively energized, unthinking cadre, but the other part of the issue is the question of precisely what sort of weapons will he carry. On the second count, of course, the rich guys win -- or, at least, they think they should, or, uh, they think they are, regardless of who may, at the moment, be more violently terrifying.

For those among us who might be more cynical, we see some underlying “feet of clay” in all this high borne, righteous violence. For example, there always seem to be matters of masculine uncertainty below the bellows of every burka and new marketing opportunities in the aftermath of every application of holy, cleansing, high tech fire power.

This serves as a suitable buffer as we ease our discussion on to the second suspect, that is, the apparently endless shadow of the Cold War. The lingering thrall of that “fear franchise” seems to survive regardless of any scope of changed conditions. Ideologues are cursed to follow in lock step in their pursuit of Ouspensky’s condemnation of “mechanical intellect,” unable to adopt any new frame of reference even long after circumstances have changed.

For the terrifying decades of the U.S. -- Soviet “H-Bomb Era,” the United States had a rather homogeneous entreaty to all potential global players. One important aspect of that was our post-colonial-pragmatic version of what was called “training.” Now, years later, this “training” still has legs, still haunts us and has come home to roost. In fact we still promote this unusual “training” of ours when we address conundrums such as Iraq and Afghanistan. To any government seeking our assistance, no matter how repressive, we offer “training.”

During the Cold War the United States and the Soviets felt duty-bound to show up in every dirty little corner of the world to promote their respective hegemonies. Predictably, when one side showed up, the other was soon to follow. No blood sacrifice was too great to, uh, prevent the dominoes from falling! In those cases when one of these “distributed,” global competition arenas descended to an intractable state, that is, when the host-victim populations divided themselves into interest groups supporting one side or the other, both of the major players immediately offered “training.”

The pitch?

“If you want us to be more loyal, less violent, more predictably allied and more controlled, train our secret intelligence service so we can reliably strangle all dissent before it becomes an international crisis and train our military so, rather than being threatened by our neighbors, we can intimidate them instead, thus, of course, avoiding any distraction of an international crisis.”

If that was the pitch, what, exactly, wasn’t the pitch?

What we never said and what we never heard from any of these tin hat autocrats was “Train our judges so we can establish the Rule of Law.” Why would we expect them to bother with such a little nuisance when they could coast into an elite dictatorial aristocracy well lubricated with “walking around dollars” from our State Department? After all, in those days avoiding the prospect of The Republic of AlmostSomewhere sliding into the grip of the Red Devil was a real bargain at almost any price! If that “price” including a judicious overlooking of a few Rule of Law problems, so be it.

Now, President Obama, to some 21st century solutions.

In the conflicts of our modern day we see a sickening repetition of the same problem. It arises from a common complaint. After our U. S. Army’s School of the Americas provided the “training” for ever more efficient and ruthless secret police, military intelligence and “public opinion control” experts for these friendly, enlightened, pro-western dictators of the last century, conditions changed. That approach, although tediously short sighted even then, is now outrageously out of focus compared to its legitimatizing “sort of out of focus” status while it was being executed as Cold War policy.

The modern complaint is about the Rule of Law much more than anything even similar to the Soviet Menace. Pakistan is a good example, although there are many.

The official shift of the border provinces to Sharia Law had immeasurably more to do with a dangerously unreliable judicial system than with Islamic piety. The residents of those areas were previously expected to wait years for the services of a corrupt judge and then, finally, consider it Law and Order. The substantial result of that ridiculous system was essentially lawlessness. The move to the horrors of ancient Sharia was a very practical adoption of what was, although admittedly seen by the locals as a descent from the high born promise of modern law, an alternative which could, at least, provide some sort of order in the lawless mayhem.

Why did the fledgling government of Pakistan “cave in” to such a proposal?

There seem to be two prevailing reasons, and they are not “prevailing” only in our example of Pakistan. Happily, these two prevailing reasons seem to have approximately an identical solution. Also happily, that solution is one which we can afford at an incredibly lower rate of investment than our current military suppression approach. We can also, probably, expect far better outcomes if we make certain that our plan is thoughtful, effective and rational, that is, if our plan is not a repeat of the old style, violent American arrogance and greed.

The first reason is corruption. In the hinterlands of Pakistan, the border provinces, have been subject to almost total war lord rule. The exceptions, drug lords and corrupt judges, are equally unpalatable. Judicial appointments there are not unlike a Roman Emperor giving Africa or Spain to his favorite noble cronies. Loyalty to a national constitution is gleefully cast off in favor of some real profit opportunities. Understandably, when the local folks with real grievances grew tired of such an affront substituting for justice, the Sharia idea started to look better and better.

The second reason is money. It costs a lot of money for a country such as Pakistan to establish and maintain an operational judicial system. When difficult, lawless places such as the border provinces are considered, the potential vote count hardly justifies the extraordinary expense. Even that measure may be generous, that is, it may be optimistically presuming too much democratic responsibility at this point.

The same outcome arises everywhere. In Kenya, when election results were unbelievable to the masses, they grabbed their rifles and machetes instead of looking to their courts. In the Congo, insurgents rely on the well established idea among the population that no solution can be found in the nation’s court system, making the brutal, violent revolution start to make sense. In Zimbabwe, no outrage is obvious enough to spark confidence in relief from the nation’s courts. In Saddam's Iraq and the Ayatollah’s Iran, the same pattern prevailed or continues to prevail with the same predictable results.

The traditional American response to such problems has been to consistently “beef up” the suppression forces of governments we like and to aid the insurgents in their chaos against governments we didn’t like. We never seemed to miss the robust, coincidental economic opportunities, either.

“Training” opportunities at places such as the School of the Americas paid tangible dividends to U.S. “entrepreneurs” who were well enough connected to reap their rewards. Now, all those wealthy elitists have died, safely leaving their prizes and rewards to their trust funded off spring and the political calamity of their greed to the rest of us.

Given the state of both the world and this country, it is clear that these economic terrorists will do anything for cheap labor. A year after the unemployment benefits run out, desperate American workers will take any job at any price, obey orders and accept almost any conditions. After a war of insurrection has paralyzed a third world economy for a decade or so, foreign workers can be satisfied with -- very profitable -- subsistence wages and conditions. Distatorships are only bad for business if one doesn't own the dictator.

Americans need to put the School of the Americas out of business.

We need a 21st century version of the School of the Americas. One which will provide whatever assistance we can offer to the establishment of the Rule of Law wherever it is needed. If our ambitions for world peace and prosperity are finally real, if we have matured enough to put our claim of idealism on the road, this will be where the "rubber meets that road." This is a rational approach to an effective foreign development policy -- one that might very well accomplish the goals we say we stand for.

The details might vary with the countries of origin for the students in such a place, but we have handled more complicated problems in the past. Surely, there are some constants in the application of law and the provision of justice no matter where the court house might sit. We should be able to train judges and lawyers in some beneficial way regardless of the nature of the laws they will uphold when they return home. We need to change the paradigm sufficiently so the graduates of such a school don’t simply apply for a visa and start looking for office space in Manhattan.

We have enough ideals and commitment to change the paradigm. We are already spending fifteen times the amount of money it would require to bring hope by establishing justice instead of trying to suppress violent reactions to corruption all around the planet. Will it be bombs or verdicts? What exactly are we trying to accomplish?

Developing countries need the same things we do. Honorable judges to save the democracy. Dedicated prosecutors to end corruption. Successful defense attorneys to protect the people.

It’s an old saying, but it seems pretty darned durable. “If you want peace, work for justice.”

For some interesting reading about the U. S. Army's School of the Americas:

http://www.soaw.org/article.php?id=205 school of americas watch
http://www.geocities.com/~virtualtruth/soaback.htm us army school of amercias

and, for an overview of recent Taliban advances, Sharia Law and Pakistan's democracy, CBS 60 minutes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/02/13/60minutes/main4800926.shtml

“How Far Must the Dow Plunge Before Confidence Is Restored?

Spending too much time "ducking" the old things? Spending not enough time dreaming about the new things?

These days hold only cold comfort for the timid.

The newspaper headline titling this post betrays what may be an unexamined paradox. The sensation of "confidence" is an allegedly rational one which may be insinuated by past history, but probably not the past history being cited in the discussions of this moment. Likewise, the "restore" idea is visiting every area of pain in the present economy. There are the dreamy desires of those who would like the declining value (market price?) of their real estate "restored" to the figures of a year or two ago. There are those who feel that economic recovery implies that the stocks they purchased in the past might be "restored" not only to their previous trading values, but also in their vivacity and mobility with respect to potential profits or losses demarcated in the "numbers and the systems of the past."

Folks who are entertaining this expectation for the "recovery" are not founding their ideas on circumstances which enjoy much of a chance to materialize in reality.

The less lofty have ambitions for a stable floor to the decline where, although the numerical "prices" of monetary assets would be defined by lower numerical values, the relative values would become, once more, as promising as they had been before. Perhaps even the wage earners are gradually becoming adjusted to the idea that their "restored" wages, although not bearing the same figures as on the old paychecks, might have a "restored" purchasing power or offer an investment opportunity equivalent to the ones on those old stubs.

The economic pedestrian has only a slightly more realistic view of the possibilities at hand. He, at least, has the common sense necessary to envision an economic solution which is not the "restoration" of his previous conditions, but something of a hybrid, located between full "recovery" or "restoration" and some intermediate state where his comfort level is comparable to what it was before.

Likewise, the critics and cynics (uh, that would be the hillbillies, Senate bigots and other free market criminals) seize on the predictable, codependent opportunity of establishing that true "recovery" or "restoration" can be nothing less than a sterile return to the artificial successes previously derived from the avarice of the recent past. They would, foolishly, like to establish that vision as the only possible outcome which might legitimatize Obama's desperate efforts ideologically. The public opinion attraction to that insistent approach is waning rapidly, most likely, as was the tragic case with "confidence," another victim of “common sense” on the main street.

My advice? Quit dreaming of the past. Quit trying to measure the possibilities and challenges of the near future by the currency of the past. All those “restorations” require more than a duplicated economic flow of factors and equations. Frankly, they all depend on more than a resurgence of familiar numbers on the Wall Street trading boards. They also, in a way as subtle as the “elephant in the living room,” also depend upon the resurrection of all sorts of imaginary asset values, labor rates, real estate ambitions and even international trade relations. There is no part of the economic stimulus plan which can re-materialize these old, opium dreams. They cannot be “restored,” because they were never material in the first place.

We can join the wailing of the Wall Streeters and the bankers and the quiet, arrogant ultra-rich with their effected accents if we like, but all the old deceptions of this crowd have evaporated just as concretely as the sale price of the duplex next door. All the illicit advantages they promoted as “sharp business practices” for the last dozen decades have been exposed now. Worse, their dreams of the precise value of such deceptions have also been smashed. They sold them to us once, and that worked out well for them. But now, those balloons have popped -- perhaps largely in the very faces of these “pretend Captains of Industry.”

No one can still reasonably hope that those “balloons” of theirs can be “restored.” Further, citizens of both the United States and the rest of the world where their extractive schemes have reached, seem to have a new, much more informed style of awareness of exactly what had been done before. The hordes of what had previously been “easy marks” have now entered a period of renewed understanding of what the responsibility of “self-interest” actually means. An understanding which excludes the necessity of supporting these parasites in the style and luxury of the past.

Obama gets this. One wonders how many familiars of the old White House have appeared once again with “offers he can’t refuse.” One wonders what was on their deflated faces when he did, in fact, refuse.

Without the hordes of the sleeping, the mistaken certainties of the past are beginning to rot on the vine. Mistaken certainties? The sanctity of the free market as the ultimate director of the economy. The acceptability of the well (and not so well) disguised, noncompetitive subterfuge, whether a no bid contract for billions or some doo-dad added to a House bill at the last minute making new profits an automatic reality for some crony.

But wait. No matter how refreshing it might be, a modern correction of these sorts of things amounts to little more than a tweeking to the system. Such a development might turn out to be the final result of this economic melt-down, but there are others -- developments which can hardly be defined as a “tweeking.” In any event, it looks constantly less likely to be a mere “restoration.”

The economy is not experiencing a little difficulty, it is evaporating before our very eyes. We have heard fifteen thousand reasons why this is happening, but what seems the most logical conclusion at this point is that no one has either any complete or rational explanation of precisely why this is happening or how far down it will go. All the old reasons are approaching a region of logical discontinuity far too similar to what might be encountered on a classic Riemann Equation’s first surface. We have probably left explanations or their possible comfort somewhere behind us.

The classical parameters which used to drive everything have ceased functioning. What was successful “tweeking” in the past system no longer produces any effect at all.

So, where does it go?

It “goes” through the discontinuity, and we go with it. The hilarious threats of creeping Socialism or nationalization or Fascism or vacant promises of capitalism or free marketism or a “restored” hegemony are all now parked in the "used car lot" history of the past, in our memories, in our dreams. That old currency fills the entire stage, constructs all the sets and writes all the play. We can make no new play which requires parts other than those old familiar ones. Our imagination has beached itself on the remnants of our fears.

The choices for the face of the future system will not be variations of the faces of the past. What has begun as an economic aberration has become an ideological meat grinder, and its product may well arrive without so much as a reasoned hint or even a wild speculation from the past.

The “new thing” approaches.

It won’t be all bad, either, but these last few months before its arrival will be terrifying -- especially for those who were able to prosper in the false world of the false values of the past. Still, we must prepare ourselves for a new system. It arrives just as the widower's new wife. The recipes and the bedroom, although quite satisfying, can never "restore" what has passed before. We have no firm ideas about what the new system will require of us or what new opportunities it may present, of course, but we do know one thing. We prepare ourselves by watching for its arrival with hope, not dread.

Adjusting our ideas of “necessity” and “comfort” might help a little. Experimenting with values which have evolved beyond imposed scarcity and insatiable greed and impossible security is probably a good idea, even if such a discipline hasn’t ever been reasonable in the past. We must clear our road weary slate of ancient false priorities, thrash out the cobwebs and steel ourselves for a new day.

As humans, we are now stranded with the frightening necessity of charting our way forward. We find the press of events has cast us not as survivors, but as designers.

The “new thing” approaches.

A Two State Solution: From Vapor to Concrete

BD82

The New World of NEOPHILODIPLONEERING!
Ditch the diplomats, start with philosophy, then let the engineers solve it.
When the parties are so stuck on the “little” they can’t get started on the “big,” much less figure out the rest of it, it's time to change the game.

A Short Lesson in NEOPHILODIPLONEERING:

First, what exactly does that word mean?

Well, this awkward term implies a new synergy between the three tools already in our kit when it comes to finally making headway with the Palestinian-Israel debacle. The idea here is to create a new, three pronged approach with components from our great, Twenty-First Century strengths: new philosophy, new diplomacy and new engineering.

Don’t quit now. We promise not to use that troubling term too often. However, the idea behind it is important.

The Three Legged Stool:

The stalemate in the middle eastern matter seems to have a different obstacle in each of those three areas.

First, the philosophical problem. The thinking to date has been one seeking a “fantastic breakthrough” originating from an astonishingly simple, painless tweeking of minute details. Should anyone of the parties have stumbled on that sort of solution, such a statesman or diplomat would have been instantly heralded as a “great modern thinker,” or even, “a 21st Century Gandhi.”

All those with the ambition of being heralded as such, well, haven’t been. None of those astonishingly brilliant solutions has materialized into anything more compelling than an ongoing toothache. We can’t say for certain that no fantastic solution exists, but history suggests that maybe we need to move on. The longer the thing remains static, the more hopeless it seems to be.

The First Leg: Philosophy

The premise here is that the promise of solving the dilemma won’t come from something “tweeky” and clever, but rather from something philosophical and shocking. There is already a landfill full of blood and misery from attempts in the past. Everything previously discarded is there -- except any progress.

The “philosophical component” is the adoption of a new realism. The inter party enmity is nothing superficial. The consequences are intolerably perpetual and serious. The cost in both money and almost everything else is outrageously extravagant. (Disagree? Throw in Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, the US economy...)

Cheap little attempts at solutions, attractive because they are cost effective, painless, unilateral or for some other specious reason, amount to little more than, of course, “lipstick on a pig.” This toothache needs a big, bold, confident kind of philosophical turning point to get things moving. The system needs a good shock.

The Second Leg: Diplomacy

The proposal submitted here considers diplomacy as a different priority than its present “lantern leader” status of the moment. The philosophical quandary has continued to shove diplomats into tantrum parties so intense that not even their proffered details can so much as catch the attention of the screamers. There have been a few exceptions, but those were more the product of exhaustion than any particular interest in moving toward a bright new day.

The diplomats need to stay at the ready, but in a back room for the moment. Their craft might actually, finally produce some startlingly tangible results in this scenario, but only when applied at the right time in the process. There are plenty of astonishing successes on the table, or, at least, there will be soon enough.

The Third Leg: Engineering

All engineering projects are a dutifully cautious mix of money and technology, two great strengths of modern culture which have been entirely omitted from any solutions to the Palestinian-Israeli question. Most operative money matters have amounted to relief shipments, illegal weapons business and naval blockades. The technology in play so far has been limited to homemade rockets, the formidable Israeli military machine and Masad’s equally formidable intelligence penetration capabilities.

Hardly the best and highest use of modern economic or technological assets.

Could modern engineering and a reallocation of costs already committed suggest a more positive approach? You bet! Could that application ever extend itself to an actual, compelling, on-the-ground, political, philosophical, diplomatic engineering solution?

The stage is set for a, you guessed it, NEOPHILODIPLONEERING PLAN!

A Quick Recap of the Present Dilemma:

One of the reasons that the “two state” idea has never generated much traction deals precisely with what the two states would look like if there ever were, actually, two states. Peace isn’t too likely so long as one of the two states is a perpetually isolated basket case where ships cannot dock and citizens cannot come and go as they please -- conditions which would be required for any sort of successful economy and culture.

Gaza is essentially a Warsaw ghetto with one side wet in the Mediterranean. The West Bank is a scrappy little spot hemmed in by Israel and Jordan, another ghetto with one side wet in the nearly dry Jordan River. Does Israel really intend to set the price of peace so high that its preconditions are that all its partners be desperate urchins surviving only by UN food relief? No paranoia can be great enough to ever propose that such a solution could eventually foster a calm, productive neighbor.

Philosophically, this may present an “unexamined maxim.” Philosophically, it’s time to reattach all thoughts to a solution, leaving old style minutia such as history and vengeance behind. Diplomatically, a cessation of rocket fire and uninterrupted relief shipments are hardly ambitions which are foundations of real accomplishments ten years from now. Too small, low return, too temporary. They may look appealing at the moment, but the situation calls for more. Much, much more. As for economic and technological efforts, well, no one has seemed very interested in the proposition that poor, starving, hopeless people almost automatically get desperate enough to fight.

The thing has gone on long enough that most observers simply conclude that the will for better days isn’t even there anymore with either party. To complicate matters, there are some really unpleasant players with a “dog in the fight.” Those with a “dog in the fight” continually try to convince the reasonable people in the world that everything is so complicated that no comprehensive or comprehensible solution is even imaginable, much less possible.

Who has a “dog in the fight?”

American politics, historically overweight already with Jewish lobby pac money, has always been able to “jump the polls” a point or two with chest beating epithets about defending Israel. Wing nut fundamentalists who are counting on a final explosion to signal the end of the world incessantly pump biblical evangelical drama into the mess. Oil companies and other resource extractors who yearn for an entirely controllable oil field along with various other bottom feeders who, for example, sell real estate to the Saudis seem to think that they appear a little more stable when they can be compared to Hezbollah, although the differences fade a bit in the larger picture of ruthlessness, greed and power avarice.

It seems that current efforts at resolving the conflict are “targeted” at overwhelming the violent factions. However, bombings and incursions appear to make little lasting difference. It is becoming dismally clear that these approaches will probably never produce the calm, prosperous results everyone claims to seek when they start them. Any effective new plan will need some other, more persuasive mechanism at its heart. Mature states in modern times realize that the Law of Threefoldness seriously questions the exclusive ideas of either dominating or surviving. With or without the philosophy, the ongoing record of such a pathetic, self-defeating mindset may be evidence enough.

The NEOPHILODIPLONEERING Solution:

The Israelis have already, for whatever reasons, done some serious “heavy lifting” on the philosophical shock side of the affair. Relinquishing control of Gaza, no matter how incomplete, was a shocking philosophical accommodation. One executed at a very high price.

This solution will require another such action, possibly at a lesser but still shocking price. One more contribution on the part of the Jewish state will be required.

In challenging moments all through history an interesting gambit of rulers and governments continues to reappear. When things started to get tough, they built roads! Following along those historical lines, this answer has more to do with civil engineering than numbed out, moribund philosophy or arcane, breakthrough style, ineffective diplomacy. It’s time for the State of Israel to build a road! One which will carry at its core a new philosophy and a new diplomacy, all mounted on the back of some great new 21st Century technology!

Details of Some New, Shocking Possibilities:

The new highway will run from the West Bank to Gaza, across Israel. The right of way territory, perhaps a mile wide, will be perpetually ceded to the United Nations. Somewhere along the route will be provisions for a city where Arabs and Jews can peacefully trade everything except offensive weapons. The Corridor Zone will be permanently manned by peace keeping troops with the authority to defend UN territory and monitor the goods transiting through the new territory.

We would be copying at least the more constructive parts of that old Soviet idea from Germany. The new arrangement wouldn’t be too dissimilar to the Berlin Corridor we had so much fun with during Eisenhower’s airlift. After everything is in place, the now isolated Palestinian states would be connected.

The new, unified Palestinian state would have a Mediterranean sea port in Gaza and a UN supervised trading city to share with Israel. The beginning of a viable Palestinian state would be at hand. The misery inducing hodgepodge of what presently exists there might seem less desirable to Palestinian nationalists. At least in the beginning, other Arab states in the region would find the new road an opportunity to reintegrate the Gaza population economically and socially.

Such a freeway would almost certainly separate Israel into northern and southern sections. Yet, having already “kissed the girlfriend” by embracing technology for the West Bank -- Gaza Corridor, the Israelis, never bashful about innovative progress, could certainly solve the problem with tunnels or some other approach.

Three Cross Country Alignments:

Where should the new Corridor Zone be placed? There are some general suggestions, but those involved will inevitably resolve all the exact details. One feature of the system acting in favor of the proposal is the proximity of everything. The length of the Corridor Zone, measured in actual miles, will probably be less than the distance from San Diego to Lahoya.

Route One: The Southern Border with Egypt

If this location were selected, Egypt might be willing to contribute half of the right of way. The international zone of the Corridor would begin its life as territory ceded over to UN sponsorship from two separate countries!

Running along the southern most part of the state of Israel would also place the new Corridor in territory with less than optimally valuable agricultural or industrial value.

Route Two: The Shortest Path Between Two Points

This route would be located at the shortest path between the West Bank and Gaza, of course, manipulated here and there when advantageous to Israel. This selection would consume some seriously valuable Israeli territory, but the limited length of the route might compensate for that. If this approach is chosen, the Palestinian - Israeli trade site might be a new city, one built in some favorable spot along the new highway.

Route Three: Include Jerusalem

Although unquestionably the most complicated choice, this approach really does solve several problems at once. Jerusalem would be ceded to the UN with the perpetual charter of open access to all. That holy city would become the new Berlin of the West Bank - Gaza Corridor Zone. It would also be the official site for Israeli Palestinian contact and commerce.

What a promising prospect! Maybe such a choice could end the wars fought over that place for good. All the religious people wishing to visit there would find the place much more civil under strict UN supervision. The International City status wouldn’t have to encompass the whole, sprawling place, either. So long as the principal religious areas and a suitable commercial facility were included, other matters could be worked out gradually.

Amazingly, maybe the best way to edge crazy, violent religion out of the mix is to inject it directly into the mix! Since zealot nut cases don’t want to cede Jerusalem to Jews or Palestinians (depending on which side they are standing...), maybe they can be persuaded to cede it to the UN. That is the job of the UN, working toward peace and prosperity without mindlessly creating new hordes of victims.

New Diplomacy After Solving the Incentive Problem:

Time to trot out all those diplomats who’ve been waiting in the back room. How could all this possibly work? Here is where the “shocking new philosophy” really comes home for dinner.

The diplomatic efforts to date have been misdirected. These diplomats have been sent into the maelstrom to negotiate with partners who lack the motivation to actually move forward. In Palestine, Hamas and Fatah constantly scrap about the destruction of the “800 pound gorilla” next door. In Israel progressives and conservatives are deadlocked over whether or not they should ever trust the Palestinians, even a little. All the outside players from the United States to Syria have been spending way too much time feeding the “dog they have in the fight.”

Diplomatic efforts have run into a brick wall. Unresolved philosophical problems have been able to sabotage every approach. “Small thinking” and violence has left the entire matter in constant turmoil. The fact is simple. People are much more likely to trust motivations than they are to trust people.

If the Corridor idea is immediately turned over to the diplomats, we can assume that they will immediately begin frenzied work on all the wrong things. In no time, the whole affair will probably start looking like aging dynamite in the parking lot of a firecracker factory again. That approach need not be taken.

Nope. It’s time for Israel to act unilaterally. Without any diplomatic consultation, thrash out the selected route, purchase the right of way and build the road bed. Of course, everyone will be watching.

Once that is completed, certainly amid all sorts of speculation as to the final purpose of such a giant undertaking, offer the whole works to the UN on the provision that some concrete “two state” solution progress be offered in return. The crazy appeal of Hamas might begin to fade rather quickly along with the sticks and stones chant of death to Israel. Mischievous Iran might find its trouble making ambitions staggered by a lack of interest. Motivations for peace and prosperity might start popping up all over the place. Even al Quaeda’s successful energy and recruitment parasitism might run into marketing problems.

Israel might find that the project has created sufficient incentive to barter for a real calm down in the region. When things taper off to an acceptable level of threat, lift the sea embargo. Put it all on the table. See if there isn’t enough incentive to work out the details once there is a real possibility of having a lasting arrangement of some kind. This is the proper use of diplomats.

A Much Brighter Future

Once things begin to take a turn for the better, all sorts of regional problems become solvable. The new, demilitarized Corridor will be wide enough for a high speed train. If West Bank commercial air carriers request it, a UN sponsored air corridor could be added above the highway route. Cooperation with this project might lead to advances in the relentless water and power problems in the region.

The cost, although substantial, would amount to far less than the recent wars with Hamas and Hezbollah. Maybe the United States could contribute now that we have a functioning State Department again. Israel’s public relation problem would certainly be laid aside once the plan gained traction.

Obama said it all. Governments are judged by what they build, not what they destroy.

For a comprehensive look at the Palestinian West Bank encompassing both history of current developments and an overview, Wiki is a good first choice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Bank
For a similar look at the Gaza:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaza_Strip
For a rundown on a few of the typical "dogs in the fight," take a look at the CIA Fact Book:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html

The Kalashnikov Paradox and the Gaza Solution

Enlightened Export of 2nd Amendment Democracy? 72

After being in “school” for half a century, we have learned a great deal about the Kalashnikov automatic rifle. At least we have learned all sorts of technical things. Along with other ambitious colonial powers and decades of rather sordid schemes and other adventures, our own American forces have met this weapon all around the world, and our diplomats have met the unexpectedly determined men and women who carried it.

We certainly haven’t missed many details about the machine itself. What we have missed is the essence of precisely what it meant to be one of those carrying one. The United States has consistently tried to frame the motivation of those we have confronted in our own frame. They were not in our frame of reference at all. Our insistence that these adversaries were, somehow, just like us aside from some ideological differences allowed us to make them incomprehensible.

Portrayed in our press as it ignored this “frame” problem, we simply could not understand these enemies of ours very well at all. It turns out that our awkward mystery had less to do with the Kalashnikovs than with the minds and bodies pulling their triggers. Now, at the start of 2009, we find ourselves, once again, paying an uncomfortably heavy wage for our lack of perception.

Kalashnikov imposed interesting requirements on his design. One was the extreme durability of the weapon. Did he think that “wars of liberation” could never finally succeed? His weapon design was so durable that it almost always remained quite serviceable at the moment when victory finally prevailed in these conflicts. That led to a new, revolutionary government inheriting a population of well armed former insurgents. In these historically dynamic moments, an experienced and well armed revolutionary force of irregulars could turn on the new government as quickly as it had risen up against the previous one.

Our lingering view of war

Thanks largely to the “incomprehensible motivation” of these adversaries mentioned before, we have gradually mutated our most fundamental concepts about war, not to necessarily make them more realistic or accurate, but at least to make them more comfortable, that is, more comfortable than “incomprehensible motivation.”

We have made all these variations within what we call insurgencies, vacuously homogenous. We have formalized, for ourselves, a blanket condemnation of war, devoid of details. We have repeatedly sought what we called “ceasefires,” regardless of the substance of the issues of combat, claiming that our position was “high ground.”

Worst of all, we have wandered into this unusable wasteland with the perspective of a colonial power, a “super power,” although we deny it. Naturally, that approach strands our considerations of the reality of such matters back in the frame problem. Again.

At the moment we are confronted with folks, most carrying, of course, Mr. Kalashnikov’s rifles, in eastern Congo, Zimbabwe, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and, most recently, in Gaza among other places. If all these conflicts ended tomorrow, another list of other conflicts is already prepared to replace them. In every case our insistence on what we call “negotiations” or our proposals for “disarmament” seem to be strange songs played out in alien notes. When we speak of limiting proliferation of conventional weapons, our song becomes even less interesting.

“Gosh,” we think, “if only we could get them to stop fighting. They just seem to prefer the mayhem of war.”

Three quick visits to the war zones

Consider Darfur. The problem seems to be that only one side of the conflict is doing all the shooting. If you are a refugee woman who needs to gather firewood, you face the prospects of being raped. You are effectively helpless. The bad guys have all the guns (What else? Kalashnikovs, of course), and you’ve seen them in action. You are trapped without any particular protection or alternatives.

Consider Zimbabwe. The government and the army seem intent on wrecking everything. There is no work. There is no food. There is no help allowed. You have seen everyone who has raised his voice disappear. Usually for good. Sure, there’s probably politics involved somewhere, but at the moment it is a problem of food for your family, cholera and desperate, hopeless violence. You are trapped without any particular protection or alternatives.

Consider Gaza. Your home and family know that the “crazies” are in your backyard shooting rockets at Israel. You know that, inevitably, an Israeli jet fighter will come and bomb them. And you. And your house. And your family. Yet, there is nothing you can do. Even if you have a bit of ideological sympathy for the situation, they have all the guns and you’ve seen them in action. You are trapped without any particular protection or alternatives beyond abandoning your house. With your family.

An unlikely proposal

All these unfortunate situations have reached their present grave states based on a firepower problem. The reasonable folks caught up in them have no weapons. The unreasonable folks who seem to be in charge have plenty of weapons.

The solution? Arm everybody, except arm them in a special way.

Of course, pouring modern firepower into these already troubled regions seems outrageously stupid. We know that arming people has a bad habit of coming back at us, especially when we are arming them with our normal ambitions of exploiting them later, when they’ve run off the current crop of bad guys who won't let us exploit them.

We need to consider a different approach to arming them. We need to reinvent the Kalashnikov. We need a new weapon, and it needs to be a “Temporary Rifle.”
Please consider the following design specifications before you quit reading.

1. Temporary: It lasts no longer than one year. It can’t be repaired or refurbished. It can’t be stored away for later. One year is it. Replacement parts won’t help. It can’t be modified to last longer than one year. After that, it’s useless. Perhaps it can only fire two hundred shells before it’s, of course, useless.

2. Durable: It’s tough enough, not for longevity, but for rough delivery. A single rifle and its ammunition needs to be tough enough for an air drop. We won’t be making ambitious little stinky agreements with warlords. We will be arming everyone who can pick up a rifle that has been air dropped. The provision of these weapons will be what diplomats call “unilateral.” No strings attached.

3. Caliber: These rifles use ammunition of such a bizarre caliber that absolutely nothing else will fit or fire in them. If things move in a positive direction, we can drop more ammunition the same way we dropped the rifles. Should we adopt this plan, we can change the ammunition every year or for every conflict. Black market ammunition production won’t look so appealing if the only rifles it will fit are all going to be gone in a year.

4. Range: A 100 yard maximum range should be plenty. Any more, and our rifles suddenly become useful for invasions. That’s not the plan. These are strictly home (and possibly village, possibly neighborhood) defense weapons. No rockets launched in our back yards. No women raped gathering firewood. No “disappearances” at the heavy hands of the police. At least not here and not now.

5. Simple: These rifles have to be easy to use, easy to fire, easy to clean and easy to learn. No one gets any training. Everyone who has one understands the nature of the weapon and its limits. The caliber needs to be small enough for old people, women, and, yes, children to successfully aim and fire.

Is the old frame of reference beginning to slip a little?

If you are that family man in Gaza with the rockets firing from his back yard, and you are armed, you are no longer helpless. Especially if your neighbors have a similar position. If you stop the rockets, you are no longer a civilian. If you don't stop the rockets, you are also no longer a civilian. At least there will be no invasion.

A new picture of strategic success

When all these rifles have done their duty for a year, does it mean that our American businessmen will have complete access to the place where we dropped them? No. The rifles will simply be gone. The results on the ground will be the results accomplished by the people with the rifles.

Hopefully, the people who gathered them up after the air drop have made some progress for themselves, for their situation. Hopefully, the bad guys have mellowed a little once all their old victims started shooting back.

Maybe a popular government is hatching out of the chaos. Maybe the new “man in charge” will remember how quickly his entire population can be armed, for a year, before he starts getting as outrageous as the last government he's replaced.

So, perhaps a good shipment of our new “Temporary Rifles” brings about a “little more war.” Maybe a “little more war” is what was needed all the time, especially when, in this “little more war,” everyone has a gun. At least, everyone has a gun for a year.

Do we have to land troops? Do we have to sit back and bemoan the cruelty that we just can’t stop? Do we have to fire up an endless hot bed of one crazy autocrat murdering the last crazy autocrat? Do we have to attempt “ceasefires” one after another while every opportunist in the play maneuvers for another tidbit, oblivious to the hardship he is imposing on all the people and the rest of the world giggles?

Our 2nd Ammendment has served us well for two hundred years. There have probably been some who would have launched usurpations but abandoned their plans because everyone was armed. Maybe we should share a good idea.

Think about it.

Not up to date with the details of Gaza's conflict? Juan Cole is a fairly good choice:
http://www.juancole.com/2009/01/gaza-war-hunh-what-was-it-good-for.html

and a pretty good, "bigger picture" link:
http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/MUHLBERGER/2009/01/gaza-war-in-wider-context.htm

Youth for McCain!

A short and passionate tale of elderly street theater.

Senator McCain scheduled a nice, dull town hall meeting here in Albuquerque. Some of the younger ones wanted to travel down to the UNM (University of New Mexico) campus and stand around demonstrating.

All that seemed reasonable enough. After all, it was a magnificent New Mexico autumn day, sunny and mild, and who knows? A friendly crowd offered the portent of pleasant company and new acquaintances.

I got busy on my home-made sign right away. Spreading the cardboard out on the living room floor and unceremoniously dumping all three boxes of various, colored magic markers nearby on the carpet, I began. As a neighborhood organizer for the Obama Campaign, all manner of aggressive and outlandish ideas for my sign's message were rushing through my mind. Still, there was my anticipation of some design problems, not the least of them the fact that half of the markers were, well, frankly, dried up and useless. Naturally, those would be all the good sign colors.

Furtive memories of that now ancient rebellious glory in Chicago at the Convention in 1968 were, by now, coursing through these old bones like an IV of adrenalin. One lesson of those halcyon days was to always use at least a 1" x 2" for a holding board. Another lesson was to never underestimate the persuasive impact of, yes -- you've got it -- street theater!

The right wording and a few of my "most geezerly" old people clothes would be enough for me to launch my one man mission to sign up young people for my "Youth for McCain" movement! Taping an American flag from WalMart (spelled: China) on the handle of my cane, finished the picture!




Of course, it would take both sides of this masterpiece to fully communicate the compelling nature of this invitation to these, till now, misdirected young people. I added a great, paper sunflower from Dollar General to "draw in the young girls."

That Obama rally was clearly on its last legs. Moving bravely into the midst of the crowd, I began.

"Get a haircut!"
"Join the Army!"
"Buy some stock!"
"Get with the McCain ticket, you spoiled back sliders!"

For those intrepid enough to endure these "American Dream" introductions, I immediately followed up with:

"I'll bet you don't even have a mortgage."

It was a great success! The mortgage crack kept eliciting responses such as "I'm only eighteen," but nothing could deter me once I was obviously on a run. To top off any of these dramatic epithets which got this far, I went on:

"Damned spoiled punk kids! Ingrates! Can't you appreciate all the sacrifices and hard work us old geezers have done to make this world what it is?"

"Grampy McCain is better than you deserve! Now. just hold your nose and get out there and vote for him!"

"You'll look good with a uniform and a rifle!"

Naturally, I offered some well seasoned geriatric advice to the young ladies, too. The astounding and inspiring fecundity of the second candidate in the "Youth for McCain" movement could hardly be overlooked. They were all transfixed by me, my well aged wisdom, that is.

"Have some babies, dammit!"

"America's tax paying future is depending on you!"

Oh well, I assume you have a fairly good picture by this point. Everyone had a good time except the Republicans who found themselves trapped in the auditorium.

Obama for President!

Honestly Appraising Why We Can't Do Much

The birthing mist of a new world order or the tears of the patriots?
It just becomes so tedious to keep pretending. 48

How far will we extend the destructive echo of this President and his tormented friends? How grave will we determine his petulance for the desecration of everything in his sight? Of course, we lick the economic wounds of a country looted to exhaustion and exasperation by his cronies, always covered by the authority of his office. Of course, we try to overlook the outrages his friends have perpetrated on our fellow American citizens, elections stolen in brazen crimes, bizarre, ambitious power concentrated with his penchant to be able to “arrest” any of us without charge, hearing, lawyer or law, policy disasters at home and over seas.

Are they somehow feeling more secure with the Governor of Louisiana secreted away in a federal prison? Are they reassured when the desperate voices of Katrina’s victims are silenced by their media friends? Do they feel vindicated when the outrageous crimes of Tom DeLay and Jack Abramhoff drift into the morass of yesterday’s news? Are they laughing and saying “I told you so! They’ll do nothing!” when they seem to have eluded the consequences of their illegal wire tapping? It is a grim picture of our descent from the rule of law, a grisly movie the world's worst watch for inspiration.

Are these usurpers frightened yet?

We, as citizens, might still claim that our failings here amount to no more than a little bad hygiene in the maintenance of our election powers and our democracy. We could, in fact, claim that had we somehow limited the spread of this greedy toxin to only the regions within our own shores. If that had been the case, our tragic embarrassment would have been solely our own private national affair, a domestic thing. We could have credibly told the world to wait, that we would correct our transgressions here at home, then, when that house keeping was accomplished, we would have once again begun to behave in a rehabilitated way consistent with our claims about ourselves. Consistent with our brave traditions. Consistent with our ideals and our national heritage.

Consistent with the incredible possibilities of our Constitution.

Sorry. It has spread beyond the borders and beyond our hope that it might be contained. It is raging around the world as a violent science fiction monster, encouraging every despicable cast off loser everywhere to abandon any fear of either our decency or our retribution. All these wretched little villains have found gangrenous bravado as they copied this President and his criminal friends. Whatever reluctance previously visited on the machinations of these little demons has been castrated. Now the brutes are finally emancipated from any concern that their monstrous ambitions might be countered, or even, criticized by the optimistic insistence of ideals from this country. Not only have we unleashed our own government’s threatening hubris on our own citizens, we have made the bloody spectacle of every tinhorn savage around the world abundantly acceptable. Once that minor detail was actualized, the blood bath began. And began quite horribly with a wrenching impunity that simply wasn’t there before we made a shallow, unmarked grave for our old high born thoughts here at home.

What in the hell are you talking about?

So the Russians invade Georgia, an ally of ours (or, at least, an ally of our President. Georgia turns out to be one of the three places on the planet where the locals still like him.). Naturally, as we sit here stupefied, bankrupt and effectively demilitarized, we are no more than a toothless bore as our President pleads with the new (not pretended) powers of the world to try to be a little more decent. Should our irritating complaints about Georgian sovereignty become too shrill, perhaps those mean old Russians will trot out the most deflating argument of all, the argument about our own failed colonial ambitions as we attack and occupy based on unexamined lies.

It seems that we have fumbled even the cheapest of our neo-con traditions, that is, of course, the choreagraphy of our famous, Republican "October Surprise." Its rescheduling to August is understandable, given the disheartening McCain campaign. The usual, really "stinky" side of things is certainly trotted out in fine form. McCain's primary international affairs adviser is a well paid lobbyist for the government of Georgia, no doubt providing a "wink and a nod" concerning that country's self-destructive challenge to the Russian Federation's 58th Army.

Massive deception being the currency of the neo-con realm, perhaps the Georgians were led to believe that, with our backing, their aggressive moves against their giant neighbor might be tolerated. Now, the Georgians, along with most of the rest of the countries in the world, understand that our backing is not much more than talk. Our "October Surprise," usually initiated by some sort of "unprovoked" attack by one of our "saved for a rainy day" enemies somewhere, is designed this time to use the military resources (and the blood) of others.

Will someone as inept as our President actually be able to replace the old "saber rattling" of our past "October Surprises" with an entirely "privatized" version where all the players are foreign? Wasn't there another Island of Granada somewhere with "trapped" college students closer to home? Sorry. Not if it requires anything from the American military. The cupboard is bare taking care of our violent international oil extraction schemes.

At least they can film a few dead Russians there in South Osetia to “justify” their violence.

Did we think that a punkish, out of date dictator such as Mr. Mugabe would show his blood soaked indifference to his people without the benefit of a failed, vacuous government here? Once his dread of some sort of American response to his outrages was nicely laid to rest, his real nature began to surface. Hollowed out as we are, the world can hardly expect the skeletal remains of the United States to actually do anything except send our useless diplomats to whine in chorus. Without an army or an economy those diplomats have also been rendered toothless.

In Sudan we have mastered the ability to countenance genocide. All of our promises after Rwanda have been made into cold soup for our meager breakfast. We dare not ostracize our cash master, the Chinese, or in any way perturb their profitable, and now, understandable complicity in the killing. Perhaps our task now is to learn how to continue our pretenses about ourselves while we watch helplessly.

Mr. Bin Laden’s great victory was once well diluted by our media and opinions. Now we see that he has emaciated our resources with his clever management of the poor, frightened old women in Washington. Bin Laden’s targeting was superb and astonishingly effective. With only a pocketful of insurgent tactics he has disabled our Constitution just as certainly as if he had hit Habeas Corpus with a shoulder fired grenade launcher. If we think the blasted hole in the Cole was a terrifying development, perhaps we should compare it to the ashy remnants of our Bill of Rights.

Bin Laden’s suspicious immunity has even become acceptable to us. Perhaps better said, his constant escapes have been made acceptable to us. We have even been slowly convinced that this failure, among all the others, doesn’t imply that we remain anything but a super power, an absurdity made possible by the ugly implication that skepticism had become treason.

This ugly list of nobodies who have embraced this opportunity to behave any way they wish could go on for many pages. Silly us. We thought Iran would be the next addition to this rolling disaster.

Do those vacuous eyes, wallowing in a pathos of psychotic bewilderment, betray a deep inner terror when considering the murderous complexity of Hamas and Hezbollah, now met with little more than hopeful abstractions of foreign policy? Do those weary jowls blush while watching Mr. Putin, into whose soul he claims to have glimpsed a trustworthy hint of reason, massacre our friends? Can his machine of deception somehow reconcile his associates’ rage about appeasement by the reasonable to his own desperate appeasement made necessary in the ruins of no other possibilities?

The awful example of our leadership has caused harm to the people of the world far beyond our borders. His comment that “Oceans no longer protect us...” is little more than a nagging migraine to those of us left stranded here in the corpse of America. We have long ago lost the luxury of bemoaning our own dilapidated state. We are now fully in “survival mode,” frighteningly distant and uninterested in much more than the painful, grave challenges we now face on almost every front. Our intuition as citizens now faces the unavoidable. We have lost a class war.

The whole idea of the protection of the oceans, frankly, became much more a warning to those outside our country. Our national self-serving misdirection and greed seem to have established themselves as propositions both devoid of shame and quite waterproof.