SaversWorld
Here we blog to the world our opinions.
SHOULD THE WORLD COMMUNITY POWWOW IN D.C.?
Having just endured a 26" blizzard in my section of Northern Virginia, I was just advised about 7:00 PM that another two-day storm was imminent. Television viewers were advised to expect anywhere from 4" to 14" of additional snow between the evening of Tuesday, the 9th of February, and the evening of Wednesday, the 10th of February. In my case the current prediction was 6" to 12." Areas in nearby Maryland can expect 12" to 20" of snow. Areas 25 miles or so south of my location may have only 2" to 5" of additional snow. Therefore, in my case there may be 3' of snow or more which has been measured during the seven-day period ending Wednesday, when this latest "snowstorm" subsides.
The storm was sufficiently bad that my area had no Internet service from Friday evening through Sunday evening. A call to Cox Cable established that they were working desperately to repair the cable transmission by Super Bowl 44 kickoff. This is perfectly understandable, as irate football fans might migrate in droves to dish television, Verizon, or however else they might obtain reliable television/Internet service. Furthermore, tomorrow, viewers were advised by tv weather people, high winds up to 40 miles per hour may rip about my area. This conjured images of fallen trees and broken limbs wiping out electric lines. That could be chilling.
According to the radio news reports and also tv reports, the airlines had cancelled flights out of local airports. Due to closed government offices, businesses, schools, etc., the traffic flowing along the snowy roads were relatively light.
Considering all these matters and factoring in the power that President Obama can bring to bear for special, localized projects, I thought that this would be an excellent time to invite the leaders of the World Community to Washington, D.C. to discuss the urgent problem of global warming. The objective conditions would limit press intrusion, make security easier, and, when it was all over, the President could lead the World Leaders to the White House lawn for a good old-fashioned, snowball fight. When the World Leaders play together, then they stay together.
Andrews Airforce Base outside Washington, D.C. could easily make ready its airstrips to accommodate the flights from overseas. The National Harbor hotels and convention facilities could be pre-empted by presidential edict. Non-World Leaders could be escorted to suitable alternate facilities at some Virginia or District of Columbia site(s). Pet scientists and eggheads from around the world could also come to add factual evidence about global warming to persuade the most skeptical minds. Each World Leader could bring six. However, the White House snowball fight would be strictly limited to World Leaders.
February 09, 2010
BROADENING THE PRESIDENCY
One of a few unaddressed issues which surfaced in regard to candidate Barack Obama was whether he was a natural-born citizen. I say "unaddressed" because the evidence provided was not satisfactory and because there was evidence and testimony that had not been born in the United States. Since there are Constitutional requirements in regard to holding the position of president, the right to demand absolute evidence in proof of one's legitimate status as a citizen seems just and right. My understanding of the objections against Barack Obama's legitimacy according to citizenship rests upon an unwillingness on his part to fully answer the issues raised. There was a sense that the Obama camp considered the matter trivial and attempted to brush it aside by means of a declaration, the presentation of a short, possibly forged document, and a statement that all objections had been met and the Obama camp would not waste time on this
matter any further.
The position of the Democrat Party [there exist no "Democratic" Party] in the face of this objection speaks clearly to the Party's attitude toward the Constitution. It is a nuisance to be acknowledged with "lip-service" and gotten around, under, or through by any and all methods.
Since this issue hasn't been addressed and apparently will not be addressed, what possible ramifications can exist to which the American citizenry should be aware?
Imagine the following scenario. President Obama served two terms in office. After leaving office, he acknowledged that he hadn't "technically" been a natural-born citizen afterall. The Democrat Party rallied to his cause, which was that the provisions regarding the qualifications for President of the United States were no longer relevant in the modern, changed America of today. Perhaps, the then former President Obama might deliver a speech in which he shared his hope and dream that any child born anywhere in the world can one day become President of the United States of America. Such a speech would draw instant support from the Democrat leaders, from academia, from the great media complexes, from world leaders, and also the Republican Party leaders. Why the Republicans?
One of the Republican Party leaders happens to be glamorous, rich, connected politically, and known throughout the world. He is governor of California. He also is not a natural-born citizen.
Therefore, if Barack Obama served two terms as President of the United States, although he was not a natural-born citizen, why should not the Republicans have the right to nominate Arnold Schwarzenegger as candidate for president? Did not Barack Obama set a new precedent which, in effect, nullified the Constitutional provision that a president be a natural-born citizen? If President Obama's presidency was not declared a nullity, have not the Supreme Court and Congress in effect affirmed its legitimacy? Has not the Constitution in effect been amended by Executive Action? Either the president declared himself to be a natural-born citizen pro tempore, or he realized that a nation without borders recognized the rights of all born on this Earth to be eligible for its office of president.
It's that New World Order thing, doncha know?
January 26, 2010
GLOBAL WHAT? I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
Ever since the great assembly in Copenhagen, Denmark to discuss global problems, most prominently that of global warming, that latter issue seemed to have been - excuse the expression - put on ice. What gives?
Even President Obama and Michelle flew to Copenhagen to lobby the representatives of the "world community" on the urgent need for action. More than a few weeks have passed since then, and there has been no further alarming pronouncements.
Desperate for the latest knowledge, I attempted to contact former "world commnuity" spokesperson, Condoleezza Rice. I had no luck.
Cynical friends have opined that the fact that much of North America, Great Britain and Europe were dealing with unusually cold weather made jeremiads about "global warming" seem oddly inappropriate. Some viewed such preaching questionable at any rate. Given the tons of snow that fell upon Great Britain and straight across to Germany and beyond, warnings of global warming and melting polar regions seemed downright ludicrous.
No wonder, then, that the Great Chill gave birth to the Great Silence. However, this issue is not likely to go away. To quote Alexander Pope:
" 'Tis with our judgement, as our watches;
None go just alike, and each believes his own."
January 25, 2010
EMPTY INTELLIGENCE
As with many Americans, I've listened to the radio reports and watched the television reports churned out in regard to the Delta plane bomber and the suicide bombing that killed the seven C.I.A. agents. In these matters President Obama has gotten directly involved. High councils have been summoned to deliberate on these matters. Analyses have been offered privately (assertion based on probability) and publicly.
Comes now the President of the U.S.A., Barack Obama, to say in effect: "There was a failure of intelligence in our intelligence agencies and no one was to blame." The information had been gathered by our "crack" intelligence people, along with data that undoubtedly was gathered by our allies, which in sum contained the required information necessary and sufficient to neutralize the two terror events prior to their execution. The American public was advised that for unknown reasons the accummulated data had not engendered a well-formed view that a terror event was rapidly gathering into perilous form, and, hence, preventive steps ought to be taken.
As these individuals were - and are - well-paid government employees whose only known function is to study intelligence data with an idea of understanding potential dangers to America from its enemies, as well as potential threats to our allies, friends and others, and to bring this danger to the attention of suitable executive branch authorities, then how was it possible that no one was at fault? Individuals employed by government to protect America failed America. Was President Obama issuing a sort of "executive pardon?" Is this another case of American society being guilty, rather than a gaggle of intelligence personnel in possession of the intelligence data which revealed the potential threat and which gave cause for security warnings on these issues to be passed promptly to the executive branch?
The President explained that our intelligence people failed to "connect the dots." Are we children? Why did President Obama insult us by stating our "intelligence" agencies failed to connect the dots? "Intelligencc" is not the appropriate label to employ regarding these people. They are mere bureaucrats more interested in the machinations of Dan Snyder and the Redskins football team than in facing the masses of raw intelligence data gathered continually and understanding what their import might be for our America.
Maybe our "intelligence agencies" have outgrown America. Perhaps they perceive that there are larger issues with which the "world community" must come to grips.
One cannot help wondering, if this is true, does it also apply to the President?
January 11, 2010
I HATE TO SAY "I TOLD YOU SO!"
Several blogs ago, I voiced the opinion certain that President Obama needed to get money to small businesses. This was only one of my suggestions for getting money directly into the hands of the general citizenry. Small business has for years been the major source of employment for working Americans. Hence, it was only common sense to provide "dividends" or outright grants to small business to halt their perilous slide toward their extinction.
The money would return in taxes. But before that occurred, the money would have been banked by small businesses at the bank of their choice. This would have helped the smaller banks who are most directly related to small businesses, while lessening the pressure on them to "call in" loans. The latter situations only worsens an economic slide, as money is extinguished from circulation in the process of calling in the loans.
Alas, President Obama chose to first help the dinosaur mega-banks, beginning with Citigroup and Goldman Sachs.
Both of these were led by people who were politically influential. The financial support of Barack Obama's campaign by "bigwigs" at Goldman Sachs would naturally be "remembered." The AIG rescue again centered on an influential VIP of business. Good Gussie! The assumption of a political quid pro quo is utterly mundane. However, I lobbied by means of my blog for the general citizenry first, as well as small business. Emphatically, I opposed putting the interests of mega-banks first.
I believe that I've lost every fight I've ever engaged in. No matter! Why? Because I have been right. If being right isn't motivation to continue, what would be? Money? Sadly, for many the answer is just that. Mega-banks are dominated by this sort. For me the lure of an idea trumps the ability to buy things I don't need nor even have the time to enjoy.
However, money does bring political recognition and may bring power as well. Speaking of motivation, Dr. Henry Kissinger stated decades back that "money was the best aphrodisiac." Is Dr. Kissinger's "days of aphrodisial bliss" over? General Jones allegedly stated recently that he gets his orders from Dr. Kissinger. There is food for thought!
The mega-banks, mega-corporations, and mega-egoes all seem to constitute a "me-first" elite that is anything but wholesome for America or the world community.
I therefore applaud President Obama finally making a move to get federal funding going toward the remaining small businesses in America. For many of them it's not too late.
December 12, 2009
DOES OSAMA NEED A MAKEOVER?
Why would a wealthy, aristocratic gentleman want to war against the West? I've given the matter due consideration and arrived at the most plausible answer. Osama bin Laden suffers from thread envy. As proof of this, at every opportunity photographs reveal that the al Qaeda 'bigman" has slipped into western-style camos or hiking duds. He doesn't want to wear dresses! His mother-of-all-yentas culture forces him to wear dresses against his will. Bro, he's in deep rebellion. It is true that when he journeys to the west to party down, he can and does slipped into slick threads from Savile Row. That's because he thinks that Mom's not looking. The Muslim world knows. It's a downer. It brings frustration. They have to then sport long beards so no one will think they are western-style women. To prove their manhood, they turn to terror. The primary target is the hated West, which is the homeland of slick threads. Bro, it's a love-hate thing.
My suggestion is that we all back-off the triggers for an agreed period of peace. Instead of sending Pentagon warriors to wage war, let the State Department gather together several teams of expert tailors, hair-stylists, cosmeticians, decision-makers on "in" accessories, TV-talk show imagemasters, and gag-writers to go to the Levant to assist Islam into the New World Order of Norman Lear America. We were informed several years ago by the Wall Street Journal that the real imperial victory of the West over the world has come through syndicated TV shows and, of course, Hollywood movies, rather than by any military action. Bankers and Hollywood are bringing the world into the same room. If we are to "party down," it can't be an endless Mardi Gras or Halloween. Mostly, kool threads are the key to the new culture (which is admittedly a bit old to Americans surrounded by it). Kool threads and great hair will determine the new pecking order.
People, grow up! You know the Muslims have an inferiority complex on this issue. Help them! The United States must organize something akin to the Peace Corps to go to the Hobo Jungles of the world and get them up to cultural-running speed. I suggest the title "Makeover Corps." Osama bin Laden should be the first Levantine makeover. He will resist at first, but deep down, you know he wants it.
I'd like to add my personal encouragement to Osama. "Get laced and down, Osama. Keep your pockets full of spending loot. Get down, Sheikh, - shake your booty! Turn al Qaeda into a fashion statement. Terrorism? Forgetaboutit!"
November 21, 2009
"TRICKLING" NO "TREAT" FOR UNCLE SAM, SIR!
Greetings, Mr. President,
I'm posting you a little note, as you seem to have confused Goldman Sachs for Uncle Sam. Believe me, Mr. President, they aren't even related.
Using huge loans from Uncle Sam (that's the people's government) to Goldman Sachs, AIG and other banking and financial institutions, these same institutions have predictably "grabbed the money and run." They want to give huge bonuses to "key" personnel, such as partners, for the grand guidance provided these same institutions by the lucky recipients. Yes, there has been some negative media attention, which generates some negative political posing on Capitol Hill. You and they have weathered that storm. Good show!
I understand from "experts" reporting over radio airwaves that the economy shows signs of life, and in a few years Uncle Sam should be feeling pretty good again. Should he have gotten a vaccine, you think? Let's blame that carelessness on the Bush Administration, shall we?
Now, Mr. President, it's probably too late in your economic gameplan to allocate a significant national dividend to the citizenry, as all the money has been allocated to the big banks. How can Uncle Sam possibly borrow abroad any more money for the people? I can't help thinking that the best place to send all that money would have been to small businesses and to the general citizenry. Redistribution of the nation's wealth from big banks to the general population and the small businesses that are of, by and for these same people may not be everyone's "cup of tea," of course.
Your "boyo" over at the Department of the Treasury, Mr. Geithner, thinks that things have improved substantially for the big banks. Your "boyo" over at the Federal Reserve, Mr. Bernanke, intends to hold interest levels near zero on loans to big banks. This allows them to gather large sums of money at almost no interest and invest that same money in U.S. Treasury Bonds at higher interests, pocketing the difference. It's a very safe means of "pumping up" these big banks' assets. When they are "feeling their Wheaties," they will be willing to make many more loans.
Guess what? Trickle, trickle, trickle!
Now, for the more than 10 million unemployed Americans, there is precious little money. That makes spending much on products and services provided by American manufacturers almost impossible. These manufacturers and small businesses need that money to continue in business. Uncle Sams needs for them to have money.
You say: Wait patiently for a couple-to-three years for the big banks to - as with John D. Rockefeller, Sr., - hand out shiney dimes to the begging masses of Americans. Of course, that can only happen after they slice off half a billion here and a couple of hundred million dollars there in bonuses for themselves. I know you consider that "chump change" of no consequence.
Mr. President, you are very comforting about America "fighting" its way out of this "inherited" economic mess. And darn it! If the economy can't be fixed, then we can declare World War III (or IV) and make our debt-holders pay reparations to us! Won't that be fun?
The main thing to remember, Mr. President, is that - in the long run - we're all dead anyway. Soon, the big banks will have enough loot to finance our next "world war." There IS light at the end of the tunnel.
Your Pal,
JGS
November 08, 2009
HALLOWEEN "SPELLS" AT THE WASHINGTON POST?
Living as I do within the Washinton, D.C. metropolitan area, specifically Northern Virginia, I have had some exposure to international, national and local politics. Usually, one of the sources of information that observers utilize are news outlets employing the printed word. This week the "rough-n-tumble" contest for governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia took an unexpected turn. The usually partisan but measured approach of newspapers and news magazines witnessed a tantrum in their ranks, when The Washington Post went "wilding" against Mr. Robert F. McDonnell. Among his dreaded flaws, according to the Post is a law degree from a law school that is affiliated in some way with Pat Robertson, the Christian Cable Network founder.
The Post did not accuse him of being a "shyster" lawyer. I am not aware that the Post has charged that he is incompetent to practice law, due either to his education or to his demonstrated abilities (or lack thereof). The Post has not developed evidence which shows that the law school in question is not accredited. The Post has not produced evidence that Mr. McDonnell failed, or cheated on, his Bar Examination (presumably administered by the Commonwealth of Virginia). Is his crime that he didn't graduate from Harvard University Law? Or is it a religious thing with the Post?
Intolerance in matters of religion has been discouraged in America for many years. Is it this discouragement that the Post fears? Is religious intolerance toward people such as Pat Robertson the "tomorrow" that the Post yearns for - and feels that Mr. McDonnell threatens?
Perhaps only The Washington Post publisher, Ms. Catharine Weymouth, can answer this question. There is an unwholesome "state of mind" at the Post. It has become overtly divisive in expressing its most profoundly held viewpoints. There is a "flighty" quality haunting its belfry, which has been let loose to inform their nightmarish perception of a McDonnell "tomorrow." Yes, it IS almost Halloween. Has Ms. Weymouth merely directed the Post to don its costume for the Virginia elections? Will the dark arts of the Post melt away before the dawn of the November elections? Or are the signs of hate more substantial and consquential than a mere Halloween pose?
Say a little prayer for this "troubled" newspaper.
October 21, 2009
CONGRATZ, MR. PRESIDENT!
Way to go, Mr. President! I know that winning Nobel Prizes for Peace for American presidents is as easy as "falling off a log," Norwegians have a weakness for contradictions, not to mention guilt. They are still trying to resolve the grim Grendel affair, lurking in their collective memory. The results are obvious: A U.S. president invades another country, and they become frontrunners for the Nobel Prize. As with the Grendel "thing," they are trying to see beyond the facts of the matter to the rosy vision beyond.
Mr. President, you are not to feel guilty or unworthy. The Nobel Peace Prize doesn't go to anyone for their achievements; it is "cheerleading" for a game in progress. These are "best wishes" in your work of drawing the world together in peace by means of the "military sciences."
Mr. President, your wisdom is at one with the great political leaders of our times. Mao Tze-Tung had declared that the "people are the sea" and the "communist revolutionaries are the fish." Unfortunately, as you know, terrorists can also play the fish. Your decision to evaporate the water can only be "hailed," as a triumph of military science in pursuit of peace.
Mr. President, your actions in the Levant are consistent with the worldwide asperation for true democracy. In this you are now an acknowledged leader. With your noble vision, aided by your wise counsellors at international law, you have begun choosing the democratic leaders that will be the future patriarchs of these emerging democracies. One day soon, they will take their rightful place among the democratic leaders of the world in the march for collective progress and universal peace. How can hunger and suffering stand against our very own Ozimandias?
Mr. President, in you we come "full circle," and "loose ends" are fading from the memory of a world, which will soon be at peace. We prize you!
October 10, 2009
GOT MONEY?
With Obama Economics now solidly in place, what can the average American citizen expect ahead? Certainly, politicians and press will sing optimistic duets, and, therefore, there will be an inclination to be positive about matters. Still, upon sober reflection, it appears that the buying power of the dollar is going down and that taxes are going up. If true, then the average American is going to be spending basically on basics. There won't be too much "free" money to go elsewhere. This should be the natural result of spending several trillion dollars of borrowed dollars to stimulate the economy and achieving success thereby. Uncle Sam has played the role of a "Candy Man," and we all feel good - for a little while. Hey! Maybe we'll need another hit, doncha know?
With all that interest to pay on the borrowed money, the "loan sharks" are going to want their "vigorish." Where can Uncle Sam go for that money? To another "loan shark?" Not likely, but not because he's unwilling to go; at some point the lending purses will close. He is going to his own "bad boys" (IRS) to get the money he needs to pay the interest on his debts. The result will be that taxes are going up, probably across the board, and more audits will be made. The returns from such audits should break all IRS records. The IRS may well hire a boatload of new people for this purpose.
With many of America's former jobs now situated in various nations overseas and with many domestic employers, even in the less-well-paying service sector, laying off workers, free spending from the American people seems to be unrealistic. Yet, Mr. Obama's "money doctors," politicians generally, and the press assure Americans that the terrible state of the economy is the people's fault for not spending - and also for not saving. Crazy? Surely you do not think that they are going to shoulder the major burden for the economic wreckage?
Years of "Free Trade" have annihilated broad, deep areas of industrial America. The citizens were told that we were unloading polluting, heavy-handed industries - sometimes likened to dinosaurs - for hightech, intellectual enterprises. The latter are also migrating to overseas locations. Recently, I chatted with a man in India about a problem I was having with my computer. Such events are common nowadays. The glorious "It's a small world after all" praise of the course which has been set for the American Ship of State does not speak to the possibility that in the "world community" the Americans may find themselves born "on the wrong side of the street."
Mr. Obama's team of "money doctors" seem to believe that the worst of the disease is now past. The entirety of the world's economic system will probably not collapse into a black hole of debt. By adroit use of "monetary viagra," the money doctors believe that Uncle Sam's "manhood" has been saved.
What if Uncle Sam's romance with his trading partners went cold, because his "vigor" had just melted away? What if the economic implosion picked up steam? In that scenario, money would be scarce. Then the rich would get richer, as they buy up "fire sale" properties, which must be unloaded by desperate people trying to avoid their own personal collapse. Overall, money is scarce. How is Uncle Sam going to pay for all the trillions of dollars of debt newly entered upon?
Usually, under these kinds of circumstances, an American president thinks of distracting everyone by engaging in a major war. Iran is right there. A nation such as America, that has energy issues, might think of warring against a "wicked" nation, or nations, defeating them, putting puppet regimes in place, and then saddling the defeated nation with very generous allotments of oil to the U.S. (and to its allies) as reparations. After all, the wages of sin are reparations.
Mr. Obama is a man possessed of exceptional oratorical abilities. His words are assuring. Yet, they are like a "Potemkin village" - a facade hiding reality; there is nothing behind the glorious words.
Caveat emptor.
August 26, 2009
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
What, then, will be history's final verdict on the Barack Obama Presidency? Some will caution that it is too early to draw up a definitive capsule, but I am ready to categorize this presidential administration. With a well-defined cast of characters, such as Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Rodham Clinton, David Axelrod, and Michelle Obama, et al, I am ready to define the Obama White House as the "Triumph of the Gentrification of the Street Revolutionary." Indeed, this blog is a defining moment in American history. I believe that America is ready for definition.
August 21, 2009
GO STATISTICS, YOUNG MAN
While riding along in my van the other day, I heard on my radio the voice of an "authority" on jobs. She discussed the job market generally. Naturally, wanting to be upbeat, as many have lost good jobs, she mentioned those that should be attractive in the upcoming years. The focus was on well-paying jobs of the hundred thousand dollar plus type. Surprisingly, the field of statistics was mentioned. According to this expert, the development of the internet and international commerce has engendered new requirements and problems. Such areas as cyber-sleuthing and the like were relatively new and complex. The general drift was that advances in the cyber-world were proceeding faster than the body of trained statistical experts available to properly measure, gauge and analyze them. Big government, big finance, big corporations, and big science were a-swim in big numbers rapidly replicating. Help!
Years ago I purchased a book about using statistics. I recall encountering a book with a title akin to "How To Prove Anything With Statistics." Indeed, the merit of statistics is entirely dependent on the person who does the statistical project and the person who pays s/he to do it. 'Tis said: He who pays the piper calls the tune. Therefore, without knowing the motivation and influences that were brought to bear on the statistician, one is likely to be a bit deceived.
Newspapers are not the only ones deep "into" material omissions.
Further, politicians, government officials and businessmen are not the only ones who like to accentuate the positive. This can lead to embarrassing public admissions and "corrections" later. Often, statistical data are flashed to provide evidence of an assertion. The general public expects a politician or public official to use such "hard" evidence. They are reassuring.
Frankly, inertia is as valid a law in public policy as it is in physics. Familiar speed and terrain make a policy trip seem safer - even sound. Let's not go off "half-cocked," being a statement that begs for the same policies, albeit refurbished. In national politics radical changes from within only occur at the point of a threatened national mortality.
Statistics is a tool wielded by opponents as they seek advantage in the eye of constituents. The president of the United States, Mr. Obama, has a distinct advantage here. Only when his policies seem failed to the public are the statistics of the opposition given any widespread reception.
Whether derivatives, "bank swaps," cyber-wars, or public policy, masters of numbers - statisticians - should prove to be in demand.
August 09, 2009
PRICELESS ART - WHOSE IS IT?
A few days ago, an heiress lost her house to fire in Washington, D.C. The loss was virtually total. Among the "possessions" which this heiress lost was her "priceless" Art collection. This caused me to reflect upon this matter.
What made her Art priceless? It must have been the masterly composition of the various pieces. Also, there most probably was a scarcity of such works by such artists. Rareness tends to nudge Art objects toward the "priceless" category. Merit and scarcity, then, seem to be key elements in determining value. Also, there is the factor of cyclic changes in taste that affect demand for a given masterpiece. Being irreplaceable and a masterpiece would seem to elevate any Art work into the category of "priceless."
This heiress's loss may become mankind's gain.
The reason that led any given artist to devote his life to exploiting his talent for perception and rendering that perception into a finite, material objects is not knowable. It is highly unlikely that he devoted himself to an oeuve d'art to present to mankind as a beau geste. Artists seem to be - at a personal level - screwed-up and vain. Yet, if they were able to render visions that are universal, then their works by right of univesality belong to mankind -- and not one person, however rich.
Further, as governments of the world have already instituted museums to house such universal works, governments should demand that "priceless" Art be placed in an appropriate museum, where they can be protected best from time, nature, accidents, war, and rich people. There is no site on Earth absolutely protected from man, when he is in a destructive frame of mind, but a well-planned museum is the best bet.
Ultimately, "priceless" Art will be accorded the label of vanity. Until such Final Judgment, let's protect these pieces from the rich investors' folly by giving them a proper home in a museum, not a mansion. Nor should such collectors be unduly compensated for their "priceless" Art. A note of "Thanks" discreetly placed by a painting, sculpture, or other piece, along with one year's free medical attention at a Veterans' Hospital should be adequate compensation. The latter may be traded for a "lump-sum" payout. It's a "win-win" situation.
August 1, 2009
MR. PRESIDENT -- MAKE SCHMOOZE, NOT NEWS!
Having taken a week or so to ponder President Obama's schlepping a pedestrian arrest issue into front page news -- for almost a week, I make bold to declare that Mr. Obama should cease to act like some college smart-aleck and just be presidential. Mr. Obama was elected to concentrate on solving major issues that -- hello? -- aren't solved yet. There is the growing perception that the president has grown a little tired of coping unsuccessfully with the "biggies" and now would like to delegate all these matters to cabinet member "patsies," while he considers whether his 3/4 profile is better from the left side or the right. Mr. Obama is a fine orator, when he takes the time to consider his words, and it is our hope that he will utilize the "no comment" statement, when asked a banal or unworthy question, excepting those occasions when he can slip in a good "one-liner" that allows almost everyone a laugh. We aren't against humor; we're against the president's instinct to be a South Chicago politician, rather than a statesman and national leader.
July 30, 2009
YES --- BUT WHO IS IT?
I believe that the present confusion in the world is partially - and rightly - blamed on the Obama Administration's failure to follow the strong leadership provided by the "W." Administration in one important area. President Bush appointed Condoleeza Rice as the Spokesperson for the World Community. President Obama has not appointed anyone to this extremely important position. Hence, lacking leadership, the World Community drifts and scatters. Without clearly stated guidelines the various Ships of State run upon the sand bars, rocks and reefs of ill-considered policies. In too many cases they perceive one another as enemies and open fire. We suffer enough from man-made mayhem without having to bear the burden of a hundred different opinions setting courses for their nations.
Mr. President, do not put party vanity forward as an excuse not to appoint a new Spokesperson for the World Community. Do the right thing! Now!
One possibility is Senator Franken. Darn it all! People like him.
July 10, 2009
A LONELY WORLD TURNS ITS EYE TO...?
This week saw the passing of two entertainment stars. First came the news that Farrah Fawcett had succombed to cancer. Next came news that Michael Jackson had succombed to a massive heart attack. The world needs stars to distract them from its own long list of problems. They become both objects of admiration and envy. The world swoons in their great successes and turns down-right nasty at the revelation of foibles and, even worse, eccentricities. The tabloids live to exploit the latter. A whole photographic genre was created to focus exclusively on their doings.
Experts sniped at Ms. Fawcett's "beautiful smile" commercials and snickered at her emotive "depth" in Charley's Angels. However, she was indisputably a TV-film star for a few years. Young girls tried to be like her. She was a glamorous role model, as well as something of a feminist in the sense of being an action heroine. She and her Angel peers were doing things that were once exclusively the film turf of men. They were "kicking bad-guys' asses." They may have looked like angels but they behaved with the instincts of lionesses. Charley ate well because of them, and Farrah Fawcett was the leader of the pack. In life she was a heroine all the way.
Most Americans watched Michael Jackson from his "little bitty bundle of energy" days to his apparent self-exile to Arabia near the end of his days. More than any other entertainment star by far, Michael Jackson had a split public image. Few would ever criticize his performances on stage or video. He was multi-media, when multi-media wasn't even cool. With the exception of Big Screen musicals, no one in the music business had exploited the possibilities as Michael Jackson did. Elvis had arrived about the time that Dick Clark and others were just introducing video to the Rock-n-Roll scene. Ed Sullivan and others allowed TV cameras to "catch" a suddenly famous singer or group, including both Elvis Presley and the Beatles. TV programs might include the Grand Ole Opry or the like.
Elvis, the Beatles and a scattering of others made movies, whose purpose was to exploit their singing fame. I believe that Michael Jackson was the first to turn the tables and to exploit the format, rather than the format exploiting him. His Thrilla album struck me and many others at the time as sensational and mesmerizing. His introduction of the "moon walk" caught everyone watching in disbelief. It was a very modest piece of revolutionary showmanship, something akin to Fred Astaire's "dancing on walls & ceilings." It was - shall we say - unexpected.
Great talent is not necessarily predictive of the character of a person. Michael Jackson existed it seems as a haunted, neurotic Othello, loving not wisely but too well. He undoubtedly had his share of Iagos proffering him advice, as well. The media, acting in the stead of the worst instincts of humanity, focused on the "Achilles' heel" of the entertainment hero, their eyes glazed and nostrils flared with the scent of blood. The more they saw him soft as a deer, the more they keened to the hunt. Problems with health and wealth by Michael Jackson only added to this media's sense of his vulnerability to attack. Heroes aren't meant to fail. Failures and foibles ascribed to Michael Jackson gave the talentless but solid citizenry an opportunity to patronage the "King of Pop."
If the media can be said to represent the general perception of the people and if the people "loved" Michael Jackson, then it might be said that they, using the words of Oscar Wilde, "killed the thing they loved."
It is a fact of the heavenly universe that even stars must die. Thanks for the light.
June 29, 2009
SYMMETRY
In my casual observation of events in Iran in regard to recent elections, I was amazed at the American media, politicians, and "experts" featured in news outlets roundly denouncing the current Iranian leadership for election fraud, denial of opposition forces the right to peacefully protest, and the application of force to disperse such protesters. Have Americans so quickly forgotten the "stolen election" charges by Americans against George W. Bush in the 2000 election? What about Richard M. Nixon's supporters charging that Nixon was cheated by Mayor Dick Daly's "Chicago Machine," costing him the close election contest with John F. Kennedy in 1960? Folks, our elections aren't models of honesty and propriety.
Further, every year that the IMF "planners" gather in Washington, D.C., or any other American city, there also gather a potpouri of Americans to protest the financial machinations of a gaggle of unelected money administrators. If it is Washington, D.C., then you can count on the SWAT team and mounted police to rudely curtail their peaceful assembly. Invariably, tear gas and mace are at hand and one or both employed. Typically, one sees pictures of women - sometimes "grannies" - who have been injured. Naturally, the authorities blame the protestors, stating that they have brought it upon themselves, much as the Iranian authorities are doing now. Indeed, whether France, Japan or Argentina, the same measures seem to be meted out to protestors by police representing the power of the state authorities.
With Robert Burns' indulgence: Oh, if only some power the gift would give us to see ourselves as others see us!
Further, I was near to most event of the streets in Washington, D.C., during the period of 1968 - 1975, and typically saw the authorities unleash their police power against the assembled protestors. There is a fact about political power that is rather mundane: Establishments don't like to be dis-Established. Force is their usual answer to dogged resistance by opposition. I certainly agree that it would be better if St. Francis of Assisi were a typical political model, as opposed to the usual Josef Stalin. It's not going to happen. The only thing for certain is that the media and intellectuals will refer to the current Stalin as "Uncle Joe."
Given the long-running animosity between the United States and its allies toward the present ruling regime in Iran, the overthrow of that regime would be welcomed. This is such a certainty that supposition that clandestined operatives connected to America (or one or more of its allies) may have done much to enrich the efforts of any and all malcontents within Iran is no parlor game. We've created "friends" to lead nations we view as strategic, and then "stabbed them in the back" (Chiang Kai-Shek, Marcos, etc.), as more advantageous friends appeared on the scene. Realpolitik?
There is a bromide to the effect that "you should choose your enemies well because you will become your enemy. Frankly, I don't know whether we have learned from others, or they from us, but I do not think that "where we are at" is where we should be.
Many of the people and nations that we criticize might well reply - with a nod to the Wasp of Twickenham [A.Pope] - "Let such teach others who themselves excel and censor freely who have written well."
June 20, 2009
WHAT IS THE POINT OF GOVERNMENT?
As the price of a barrel of oil continues its trend upward, I cannot help but to think that it is beyond irresponsibility for Congress to continue its routine policies. There is no doubt that the reason for the sudden rise in the price of a barrel of oil is speculative activity in the commodity market for oil. Why is this allowed? Since the general welfare of the country is substantially determined by the price of basic commodities, why allow a small set of gamblers to do injury to the general welfare for a personal, big payoff, as they unload the artificially priced barrel of oil? These people in the commodities markets are there for reasons of greed. Manipulation of prices is the surest way to accomplish the desired end of a big profit. It is so favorable to the manipulators that they have established marketing campaigns that extoll their functional usefulness to the country. They are a pretty "cheeky" bunch.
Why does Congress buy into this self-serving rubbish? If one valid function of government is to protect the general welfare, why are they consistently avoiding their duty? My proposal is that the U.S. government "take over" the entirety of basic commodities, so that these essential goods are dispensed to American interests, such as manufacturers (not speculators, who then continue the old practices one-step-removed), to use in their provisioning of goods to Americans. Nor should the government allow any industry to resell purchased commodities outside of America. The U.S. government would "make a market" in each basic commodity. The government would be allowed a small operating profit to pay administrative costs, storage costs, and miscellaneous costs. The percentage above cost might be set at 2% by law. Everything would be reviewed by the General Accounting Office annually. Also, from its profits it would accumulate from extranational sources those needed commodities required to properly provision the storage facilities it establishes in America.
Several regional storage facilities would be established across the national boundaries of the 48 contiguous states. Each would "make a market" in its region. Prices, however, would be uniform across regional facilities. Why? To preclude a new gambler-network of arbitrage houses. A board might be established to provide oversight of the regional operations. By establishing such a new government mechanism, the general welfare of the nation would be much improved by the mere allotment of commodities at consistently lower prices. To protect the general welfare Congress must move into this essential area. What about the commodity speculators? Send them this message: "Hello! Vegas calling!"
June 15, 2009
TEXAS TEA
The rise in the price of gasoline over the last month has gotten some people a bit edgy. Since there is no real reason for the abrupt rise, other than unwise policies directly under the control of politicians, the point of "leveling off" may be equally irrational. One thing seems certain: The speculators in oil commodities are "back in the saddle again."
In the last go round speculators were credited with 70% of the price of a barrel of oil. When a barrel of oil was trading at $140/barrel, it real price should have been closer to $50/barrel. The apologists for speculators in the "market" claim that they provide a valuable service. Their risk-taking creates buffering in the rise and fall of commodities. However, though textbooks may be crammed with examples of speculations that improve the marketplace, the practical matter is that speculators are looking to "make a killing." They are interested in making lots of money.
This being the case the natural force operating on Wall Street is the creation of a monopoly, at least short term. All the speculators have a common interest in driving the price of a commodity, such as oil, higher. When they act in a union of purpose, the price does tend to rise. This movement gets the attention of others, who "join in the fun." The result is that the upward movement intensifies. At some point the continuing rise in the price of the commodity takes on the character of a "bubble." By this time the original speculators have sold out at great profits and are poised to sell the same commodity "short," betting on a sharp decline. Indeed, they typically mean to force the price down. Once it starts down, others join the short-selling and a precipitous drop may soon follow. Inside information that Washington, D.C., was about to make a move to freeze or drive down the price may hasten the sudden turn downward of this "high-flying" commodity.
However this common event unfolds at a given point in time in any of the commodity markets, its essential character is elitist, "clubbish" and self-serving. It does not function to improve the general welfare. Ordinary people are "johns" and "suckers" to this greedy crowd.
In point of fact a nation's commodities are too important to the general good of the citizenry to be left in the hands of self-serving people. The defenders of the latter dredge up "Adam Smith" and "invisible hand" to fend off any effort to alter Wall Street's "sweet science" of knocking out the people. I view their argument for what it is: A con.
In the days of pharaoh under the wise advice of Joseph, the abundance of Egypt was stored as a precaution against the evil day of famine. In short the Egyptian government took precautions to keep level the economy, whether times be abundant or lean. In America during its prime the Bible was reverred. Its wisdom was understood. When I was a boy, vast amounts of American commodities, gathered from the nation's rich soil, were stored in vast facilities erected for that purpose. In those times Americans thought of themselves as citizens of a nation, as opposed to "members of a global community." A certain pleasure was taken in our nation's being self-sufficient.
My belief is that commodity markets should be dismantled and that all commodites should be handled directly by the government. If mere speculators can be credited as useful in making a market, then the government can be great at it, as the government has an interest in the general welfare, whereas the speculators's interests end at the outside of the doors to their tri-plex abodes. In my view it would be better for companies or individuals to buy commodities from the government for reselling or to make a product, then to go to New York or Chicago to "bid" on the same commodities. The government can mark-up a commodity a modest amount to cover its costs of storing that same commodity. In fact the amount of mark-up can be set by legislation.
The key is for the commodites to be available to the nation's citizens at a reasonable, predictable basis. If there is ever a need for rationing a commodity, all would feel the same "tightening of the belt." The issue isn't equalitarianism but the general welfare, which the government is Constitutionally obliged to serve and protect. When a $50 barrel of oil is driven by speculators to the $140 level, then the national government is not doing its job well. Those in positions of power in any government should first serve the general welfare. If they cannot or will not do so, then they should not be allowed to exercise any power in the nation at all. The rich have proven to be a "cross" that the people should no longer be forced to bear. They have made the Promised Land of none effect with their greedy imperatives.
Driving up the price of a barrel of oil should be a crime punishable by jail time and a painful fine. Let's stop the nonsense.
May 28, 2009.
ITS YOUR FAULT
Today, May 27, 2009, I was driving about in Northern Virginia, listening to the radio, when once again the subject of the national economy was broached. The station I was listening to was one that featured traffic reports "on the eights." Besides traffic reports, weather, news, sports, entertainment, commentaries, and business regularly had their hourly "moment." Whether the program was business, per se, including stock reports and the like, I cannot recall. I don't own stocks, so the "ups and downs" of the market aren't personally matters of concern. Only great drops in the market get my full attention. This is because they may augur more than Wall Street.
What got my attention about this piece of commentary about the national economy was the terminology employed, which was that the American people were being "stingy" with their dollars. The reason why Americans weren't spending as they did two years ago is clear. The unemployment rate nationally must be near 8%. In the District of Columbia the rate is about 9.6%, in Suburban Maryland the rate is about 6.8%. The rate in Northern Virginia is also about 6.8%. Besides those who are listed as unemployed, there are substantial numbers of people who are unemployed, who have sought employment, but who now have ceased what may seem to be a fruitless quest.
People who are unemployed aren't "stingy" with their money. If they have money, they apportion its spending according to the necessity of the products which are thought to be required. Not only is this an obviously sensible approach used by the unemployed, it is more generally used by others who may feel that their short term working condition is all to uncertain to "waste" money on non-essentials. At a most fundamental basis these people are victims of an irresponsible elite, who, if they are not "big time" speculators themselves, operate and defend an economic system that periodically devastates the mass of people. These latter people take on the character of sacrificial victims who are offered to the "god of greed" in the hope that it will appease him.
Blaming the victim has become a characteristic of American society. It isn't a good sign. It also suggests a dishonest society. If that is the case, where can the blame rest but with the people who control policies, including those relating to education? "Stingy" Americans aren't the problem. Self-serving, unwise leadership is the problem.
May 27, 2009
THE REALITY OF POLITICAL CHANGE
Mr. Obama has been in office enough for observers to fully understand the nature of change he will bring about during his administration. Mr. Obama intends to change himself. He is not the first president (and is certainly not the first politician) to reveal that the great changes in America which he had proposed had emerged "stillborn" from the womb of federal policy. He cannot change America. He can only change himself.
The old Soviet description of power in America was "ruling circles." These "circles" staff the upper ranks of the American bureaucracy with their agents. High appointees tend to come from these sources. This is largely the reason that one always sees "retreads" given key, cabinet-level positions or key under-secretary positions by newly elected presidents. The pretex for putting an experienced, proven appointee in the office is the knowledge and experience he/she has acquired and/or demonstrated. Proven to whom? They are proven to the ruling circles from which they have emerged from their dormant positions as top business executives, finance executives, lawyers, "think tank gurus," or eminent, tenured academics to assume the appointed federal positions. These people overwhelmingly think alike in terms of ultimate goals. That they use a circular argument for continuing to appoint themseves is based on the well-considered fact that - it works!
One might have admired the fine oratory of Barack Obama, as he ran for the Office of President of the United States of America. One might have noted a promise of actual change. Of course, that is not unprecedented among the host of politicians that the average American will experience in a lifetime. Still, some of us have remained "cock-eyed" optomists willing to believe that "this time, we won't be fooled again." However, the character and composition of Mr. Obama's staff and political appointments had made immediately clear to experienced observers that the American Ship of State under his "captaincy" would not veer much from the course set by previous presidents. Indeed, he has obviously begun the process of "policy makeover" that guarantees a set of policy positions whose summary term is status quo ante.
Therefore, Mr. Obama's vision of a defining moment when America must change has suffered from the relentless pressure of smart, experienced advisers informing him that if you commit resources to a new Obama "policy A," then you will threaten old "policy B," upon which much money had been invested, which is finally showing signs of success, and which has now accummulated a strong base of support from important politicians, important captains of industry, and a large and growing portion of the citizenry, who now depend upon it for jobs. Hence, the president may not be able to pass the legislation required to proceed in the new direction he originally desired. In every direction that Mr. Obama will turns, he will find the same problem in slightly different "clothing." Thus, the hopeful "bud of change" is stifled by vested interests.
In the end Mr. Obama will present no idea more avant garde than share-cropping the White House lawn. Indeed, his wife, Michelle, will be given credit for that idea, leaving Barack Obama with little that he can put his finger on as a meaningful change. He is the victim of what I call "Regression to the Political Mean. It takes a "Hell of a man" to be a Historical Biggie. Barack Obama is just another team player. As always, the "ruling circles" devise the "game plan" for the next five years.
May 17, 2009
A MISBEGOTTEN ECONOMY
A part of the wisdom of the Bible is the expression: You reap what you saw.
For 21st Century Post-Modern Americans, the Bible, everything in it, and everyone who puts stock in it is irrelevant to America Today. Today's Americans are led by a small elite and their intellectual entourage who see that laws are passed of, by, for themselves. Their works are praised by their victims - the general citizenry. This is an outward sign of a poor educational system.
Once again, I was driving along listening to the radio, when suddenly a top editor at a very prominent financial magazine stated that the "consumers are the foundation of our economy." Obviously, if the consumers have a disposable income inadequacy, there are radical, or root, problems in our economy that need to be fixed.
In this same interview the conversation had originally begun with a discussion of the "surprising" positive income reports by such big banks as Bank of America. They apparently made more in the first quarter of 2009, than they made in the entirety of 2008. Other big banks seem to be doing better, as well. Yet, retailers have not seen the same sort of upturn because they depend upon the spending of consumers, and consumers are not spending very much. Unemployment is still high, and people are still pressed to pay their mortgages and other essentials.
If consumers are the "foundation" of our economy, why do our politicians not "first feed the children," as opposed to the banks?
The answer rests in the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act. This placed the money creation power in the hands of private bankers. The entire Federal Reserve System is private. It has never had to submit to public audits. Unlike a real federal government organization, it pays property taxes and always has.
When Congress needs money, it goes to the Federal Reserve Board to provide it, leaving Treasury Bonds as collateral for the borrowed money, which are denominated as "US Dollars" on a Federal Reserve Note ("FRN"), which is a debt instrument. At one time they were convertible into gold or silver, and this data was printed on the FRN. Hence, originally these pieces of paper were similar to "bearer bonds," exchangeable for real property at some places and for cash/gold at all banks.
Therefore, when Congress irresponsibly turned over the national money creation privilege to private banks, "saving the banks" became the recurrent theme of the political leadership of the Democrat and Republican Parties. Banks are the only ones, excluding Bureau of the Mint tokens and counterfeiters, who make our national money. Individuals and companies that try to employ gold or silver - or even barter - to obtain an agreed-upon unit of exchange are typically attacked by the I.R.S. or some other Treasury Department unit.
This is the true nature of the I.R.S. If the Federal Reserve Act created a national "loan-sharking" operation, which was placed in private hands, then the I.R.S. was necessarily reconstituted as an "enforcer" or "break-leg." Their targets were and are the general citizenry. The working-poor are far more likely to be audited than an elite figure. When Nelson Rockefeller was "appointee designate" for the Vice Presidency in the Ford Administration, he appeared before at least one Congressional Committee to testify. Upon inquiry by a Congressman, Nelson Rockefeller stated that neither he nor any major Rockefeller family member paid any taxes for the previous eleven years. It's hardly surprising that the entourage of the elite, such as Tim Geithner, now Secretary of the Treasury (and head of the I.R.S.) and Tom Daschle, political leader, skipped paying part or all tax for a tax year or two. The I.R.S. hasn't missed a trick in demanding taxes from me since 1980. I expect Mr. Geithner will keep his "enforcers" aimed at the general population.
The pretext for "attacks" on the citizenry to obtain taxes is that people won't pay otherwise. Not mentioned is the alienation of the elite from the general population. They fear the people, who are different. The people must be controlled by harshness.
In this whole matter are the unmet issues: Why have private banks been allowed to create national legal tender and why has a "break-leg" organization been constituted to collect it "to finance government?" As things stand now, the income tax revenues pay for little more than the interest on the national debt. The Social Security tax revenues are put in the General Revenue Fund account and spent along with any other money Congress can "beg, steal or borrow."
There is no need for an I.R.S. at all. It is a cruel overseer, whipping at the "wage-slaves" on Uncle Sam's Plantation. Revenue gathering was never the issue; control is the purpose. The U.S. Constitution provides Congress the power to directly create and issue the national legal tender through the Department of the Treasury. If its laws are "needful," then it surely has the power to create the money to pay for it.
I believe that the elites have created both the leftist arguments in politics and the rightist, or conservative arguments. Neither side makes sense, but they both function beautifully to guide the general citizenry away from any valid, sensible approach to government. People, if it does not serve the interests of the general population, it is not good law. The people are unequally harnessed to the elite. The General Welfare cannot be advanced so long as this state of affairs exists. Conservatives don't trust the people. Why should the people trust them? Leftist are crypto-statists who will expand government and the brutal controls its unrestrained expansion requires.
My approach is best. The federal government first and foremost should understand that the people must have the money to live a single day decently. This does not mean any Kennedy-type minimum wage, which pays a worker just enough to pay his transportation to the next job. The government should unburden business from income taxes, as also should be done to individuals. If the government has the power to create legal tender (and it does), it doesn't require the I.R.S. to squeeze money, which has been created by private banks, from the general population, which may not have it to pay, as the private banks may not have created enough.
The reason that the federal government, academics, media, international businesses and the like dismiss suggestions such as mine is that they are the beneficiaries of The System. As an example, an academic most typically dreams of a tenured position at a prestigeous university or college, which institutions also tend to pay the best salaries. If an academic is good enough at defending the system from any "unruly" voice challenging the contradictions and absurdities of the present system, he may well have his "dream come true." Certainly, academic opponents of the system will get no where, unless their line is "communistic" (which still upholds an elite ruling class, during the transition to the Workers' Paradise).
In my system the government is representative, employs experts, punishes mismanagement, and pays its own way. It creates money and pays it into the system through a national banking system. A totally computerized banking system would exist. Each person and company would have a checking account. Each would have access to it through plastic debit cards. The government would adopt a system that recognizes American labor as an asset. People who spent their lives using their labor to advance America would not be abandoned by America in their old age. There would be no concept of "useless eaters." The federal government would directly pay into the checking accounts of such people the money requirements to live.
Further, it should be noted that these recipients will utilize this money to buy things and pay for services. The money issued will soon return and help power the economy.
Fear-mongering conservatives - ever distrustful of the people - will grumble about "inflation" and "irresponsibility" on the part of the politicians. However, the track-record advises that people need to fear the elite and their fronts (in some cases hoodlum mobs), rather than their own good and decent instincts. Therefore, elite-controlled politicians may well try to sabotage a "People Friendly" system. Hyper-inflation would, indeed, be one of their tools.
I am convinced that a people that desired to "create" a Promised Land, can achieve a close facsimile by adhering to common sense. There are parameters to consider, such as what the general population is, what is the minimum amount necessary for each person to exist decently one day in the country, what infrastructural work is required, what utilities must be built, what ports and marine structures, including ships, what educational and medical structures and systems are needed? There needs to be a better definition of an asset. If the federal government spends money to acquire an asset, how is this "waste?"
Once the proper level of money for the immediate moment is ascertained, then the levels can be watched and administered "scientifically" to keep the supply at the predetermined ideal ratio(s).
This does not mean that an emergency consideration might not arrive, but that it be a stated time that cannot be immediately extended. [Otherwise, there is a chance elitist agents might execute a coup by making endless the emergency status of government and changing the nature and form of government.]
The federal government would generally be paying private contractors to do the work deemed needful. In some cases it would execute a monopoly, such as electrical and water services. It would also stock all available natural resources, selling them to private interests at a low but constant level of profit. Such revenue can then be sent as a dividend to the people every December, or redeployed for other needful purposes.
If too much money is determined to be in the economy, an excise tax of 1% could be placed on electricity for one year to remove the excess. Helpfully, usury would be forbidden. If a little inflationary "tax" occurred occasionally, it would be tolerable, largely unnoticed and painless. It would be far better than the present income tax system.
The banking system would be closed to outsiders, so monetary manipulations of the George Soros (a British knight!) type cannot occur, nor could European royalty, or others, buy up the land of America. A separate "promise to pay" currency, based on a commodity such as wheat or a basket of commodities (or "Modern Art" now located in the National Gallery), would be used in foreign trade, which only the national government could enter. America would cease to have international companies. America would make most of what it needed. The feudel dream of the elite would end. After a renewed America was achieved, a model would be developed to be employed in other countries desiring "good government." With favor from the Heavens one day the whole world would be comprised of governments of, by, and for the people, prospering and sharing.
The orientation of the military would be completely changed from aggressive wars everywhere on the globe characterized by insufficient troops and money, as well as hazy pretexts and uncertain results, to a strictly defensive, protect America approach. [This would make the British and other internationalists unhappy but - so what?] There would be a return to the citizen soldier led by a small number of professional soldiers. Military men who wanted to prove "that Napoleon and the Nazi Wehrmacht were error-prone and that a winter attack on Moscow is sensible" need not apply.
Military technology would therefore be aimed at destroying "incomings" and being "firstest with the mostest" in counterattacks in defense of the Fatherland.
This is not meant to be rough draft for a new constitution, but suggestions in furtherance of the project to re-achieve an America of, by and for the people. The large number of people in this country who can't "make it" - even when borrowing thousands on credit cards at high rates of usury - make a rather unmistakable "J'Accuse!" People, the pain isn't necessary.
April, 2009
ANGST, ANGER & IOUs
Classism is as dear to contemporary Americans as it is to their cousins across the Atlantic Ocean. Being "middle class" is a revered status in America. Almost all ambitious politicians at least pretend to cater to, defend the values of, and pledge to preserve the American middle class. The middle class is deemed essential to keep the debt-machine going. Yet, they are also the primary prey of Wall Street, the large aggressive banks, and their entourage of allies and agents in the debt-mongering businesses. Since almost all ambitious politicians have taken a de facto pledge to preserve the great aggressive banks, they automatically find themselves in a squeeze during economically troubled times, such as we have now. I sense that these politicians, counseled by the systems predators, will find a way to put some "mustard" on a fastball piece of legislation, and a misbegotten balance will be brought into being once more on the American (and global) Serengeti savannah.
The economy of the United States of America is presently based on transfers, or swaps, of instruments of debt discharge. Debt extinction is not viewed as healthy or desirable. With debt discharge the individual or company is made free of the debt obligation, but the debt obligation continues to exist and is the burden of someone else. With debt extinction the debt itself ceases to exist. However, since that debt also represents a stated amount of "U.S. Dollars" (plus interest, usually), the extinction of the debt also extinguishes an equal amount of U.S. Dollars. This means that there is not as much money circulating through the political economy. Further, since in the American system of fractional banking loans automatically generate the wherewithal for additional loans, minus the Federal Reserve Deposit mandated, then an extinguished loan may well put pressure on other loans. When these pressures build up enough, breaks appear in the expansion "balloon," leading to implosion, which can be frightening in its quickness and ability to spreadout.
The Loanshark's Principle is: Never let them off the hook. A loan by a loanshark should be made at a high interest rate that makes paying off the principal difficult. This is good business. A long-term relationship is created. Regular interest payments ("vigorish") make for a predictable financial calendar year. If a payment is missed, then this awkward situation can be turned over to enforcers. It is a rather effective tactic, whether "inside the law" or outside it. One important distinction is that those who turn to loansharks cannot avail themselves of an underworld bankruptcy court. There is some evidence that politicians are trying to help lenders under the law to get their principle and interest by altering bankruptcy laws to favor the predators.
While driving, I heard a wise man on the radio speak about our present economic problems. As the case usually is, his thoughts were about the "weakened" banks, suffering from "toxic loans" they had developed while sharing peculiar, intimate documents with a stranger. Naturally, some "lip-service" was offered in regard to unemployed and threatened workers. This financially insightful individual noted that "credit is the fuel of our economy." What he didn't note was that we are almost always running on empty. The citizens don't know that. Our financial system is a grand illusion in which people are led to believe that they see something that, in fact, isn't there. Provided a few scattered dots, the citizens themselves draw the dots into the image they want - or someone else says is there. A nation of sheep will follow the lead of the illusionists.
Gaining something real and valuable as one's own possession is a common desire. The Wizards of Wall Street have learned how to gain these things with basically --- NOTHING. Our "educated crowd" chuckle at the delusions of medieval alchemists trying to make gold from dross. They never perceive that modern alchemist do it every day. They are getting incredibly rich every day, while handing the credulous middle class a bag of dross.
In times of darkness it is not amiss to reflect upon the small boats filled with Christian faithful chancing the fearsome North Atlantic Ocean. Surely, in their hearts were the words of Joshua:
Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my GOD commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it. [Deuteronomy 4:5]
April, 2009
OBAMA BOOTY GOES BANKING
While listening to a news report around the 13th April, a learned individual provided information to the effect that the Pentagon planners had considered recent times dire enough to continence a "world economic collapse" scenario. Perhaps it has been finally realized that the great banks and investment companies are possessors of weapons of mass destruction. Since debt is their primary "product," as well as banks' primary weapon of international intimidation, they have amassed considerable leverage.
Now, let me make clear that in terms of America, the great banks are few in number but control upward of 80% of total bank reserves. They are the great "money creators," using deposits from the Federal Reserve, federal government, and other depositors to make theoretically infinite numbers of down-tier loans. These loans are denominated in United States Dollars. They have no physical reality. What has no substance can vanish quickly or be "reborn" as something else. In films these are usually monsters. In the political economy they are derivatives.
These great banks and investment groups may also invest in Treasury Bonds, state bonds, international bonds, or in packages of debt instruments known as derivatives. What they issue as a loan to a borrower is "money." It is so denominated and so employed. Through the "miracle" of fractional banking and the Federal Reserve System, perhaps 90% of this "new money" (a bank loan to a borrower) can be loaned to another borrower, once deposited. What that borrower received as a loan is denominated in U.S. Dollars and so deposited somewhere in the banking system.
This process is repeated as long as rationally feasible. It is most pronounced during "bubbles." A controlled deflation of this bubble may eventually achieve a certain state of banking sanity. An uncontrolled one is a frightening implosion of the structure of conceptual money. Such money without substance vanishes fast. The political economy is in big trouble, and pundits and sages talk of a Great Depression.
Although "conservatives" laud the "capitalist system," our system is 99% credit. Derivative debt alone has been estimated at something in the order of $56 trillion. These credits are "promises to pay" that typically translate to be the coerced labor of the general mass of people, due to the fact that their labor is the ultimate collateral. That is the hidden meaning of national debt. That most nations are led by traitors to the general population, which is the nation, is certain. Otherwise, there would be no such system. A course of action that will lead to massive bondage in the future doesn't seem to be Lincolnesque to me.
American leaders always help the great banks first in times of great deflation, as loans implode into nothingness and "money" vanishes. It would be simpler and more productive to send money directly to the people to deposit in local banks, and to let relentlessly mismanaged banks such as CitiCorp collapse. It would be simpler to send free grants of money to small businesses than to the inept "great banks." Let small businesses deposit the checks in the banks of their choosing. Issue the interest-free money directly from the Treasury to small business and adult Americans and the national debt would not increase; it would decrease as real money entered the system. The end of "funny money" and the return to Treasury issued, interest free dollars, wedded to an end to fractional banking, would be the beginning of "the Great Society." Let there be national reserve banks for the people in every state, not Federal Reserve Banks for the privileged.
All forms of debt are international. It is true that gold is - or might be - internationally accepted, if the leaders of the world's nations allowed it unhampered movement. However, only debt is given this "courtesy."
I do not advocate gold as a national currency. I advocate a closed domestic currency that is one hundred percent computerized, that is issued directly by the Treasury, that works in conjunction with national banks throughout the states, and that are accessible by debit cards issued by the Treasury to every citizen. Since usury would be outlawed, all bank accounts, including the federal government and state governments, would be checking accounts. Money would be spent into the economy by the Treasury, persuant to needful legislation, such as building roads, bridges, trains and rails, merchant ships, harbors, dams, stocking natural resources for sale to private enterprises, building and operating utilities, waterworks, and so on. Once the money liquifies the political economy, various enterprises may be entered into by those who wish to realize a dream. This is a society of plenty. Willful men cannot control people who are independent of their purses.
The power of a debt system is that a few at the top of the debt pyramid can control the entire lower system. It is good for the "hidden masters," unless the whole thing collapses like the Tower of Babel.
An interesting aspect of all this is that, although debt is international in its nature, knowing no boundaries, the various Lords of Debt may be a gaggle of provincial interests who speak the language of globalism but who harbor distinctly limited visions of its final manifestation. They may fall apart at the end. I expect this to occur between 2020 and 2025 A.D.
Therefore, I expect this nation and the world to crawl out of the hole into which all have fallen. There should be another fourteen years before final disaster. I assume that no fundamental changes to the global system of debt-engendered money will occur. As substantiation of this, I believe that I heard correctly on the radio that Goldman Sachs, formerly a preeminent investment bank, whose partners tended to support Barack Obama "big time" in his election race, had profits for the first quarter of one billion dollars. Quid pro quo? I can't say, but this datum is consistent with the American leadership's First Rule of Governance: Bail out the Big Banks. Usury on debt is unGodly, so the present world establishment will in the end become the Great Adversary.
Does that scare you?
"Fear not, little sheep..."
April, 2009
PIRATES!
The recent news coverage about gangs of pirates operating around the Horn of Africa call to mind that terminology is critical to explain actions and reactions. To most Americans the issue is pretty clear: Some form of theft and accompanying violence in international waters by hoodlums in boats. This justifies the use of force to liberate persons and property, to restore the "freedom of the seas," and to punish the malefactors. After all, sending American Marines to Tripoli to rout pirates in that North African locale in the early 19th Century was part of our national heritage. There is a Marine "fight song" that alludes to "the shores of Tripoli" and that episode of "pirate-bashing."
President Obama and our recent political regimes prefer to work as part of a "world community" and therefore are, likely as not, inclined to put together a naval task force of many colors (flags). There would be no problem in rounding up representative naval forces from Great Britain, France, Italy, Greece, Japan, Argentina and other marine powers. Whether or not the pirate gangs are well identified is another issue unknown to the layman in such matters. Certainly, marine troops must be landed to put the quietus on these cheeky bandits.
That's the way many Americans might look at the matter.
How do the pirates look at their actions? Why are they doing the piracies?
Certainly, money is a primary issue. The implication is that these pirates don't have any, or much, money. Are these seaways "fished out?" Were these fisherman once? I can't say - but it is possible. There are reasons to suppose that the "Horn of Africa" is a poor, largely jejune area. Finding a way to survive may not be "a piece of cake." Land areas that can be cruel to those who try to live in them may induce in such people a hard, even cruel, approach to life. Crime can pay. Therefore, one need only develope a new term for an old crime to justify and "launder" the planned action(s). This process may lead to grasping energetically at revolutionary doctrines, radical religious doctrines, et al, to make the actions taken, if rightly seen, altogether proper, moral and humane.
When I consider these African pirates, I cannot help but to think of the old "Robber Barons" that forced travelers on certain rivers in Europe, such as the Seine, to pay a "toll" to proceed safely along their way. Those who did not might be assaulted by boats or bombarded by cannon, or both. There was a kind of "travelers tax" imposed.
Now, this idea has not gone away by any means. The District of Columbia's political regimes have for more than twenty years tried to impose a "commuter tax" on residents of Virginia and Maryland. They have not succeeded yet, but, with statehood, they might well pass such a law.
The District of Columbia's political regimes, frustrated in their attempts to gain more "moolah" to spend well or foolishly by means of a "commuter tax," then turned to the "camera on every corner" strategy to increase the income from "speeding tickets." By setting unnatural speeds and employing quick light changes, these cameras have brought in a lot of loot for the Mayor and City Council to mispend. The AAA Organization even had a spokesperson employ the term "speed trap" to describe the District of Columbia. These cameras can be useful in expanding the revenue base by mailing "jaywalking" tickets to offenders and, potentially, by other natural or ingenious rationales for revenue expansion.
All this leads back to the pirates of northeast Africa. Rather than attacking them with violence, why not allow them to set up "toll bouys" at sea which include cameras that can identify a ship. A monthly "Toll Bill" could then be mailed to the ship's owner(s)? Similarly, "speeding at sea" in the area of the Horn might earn the "scofflaw" shipowner a "marine speeding citation." More developed technological countries could advance the former pirates the necessary and sufficient equipment, based on anticipated income. The Horn of Africa would become, as with most progressive countries, regulated. Some of the poor people in the area of the Horn would have a new, honest source of income. Role models would be created for the youth.
Rather than tax the citizens of "wealthy nations" (typically translated as taxing the poor of wealthy nations) for the purpose of directly providing aid of a charitable sort to distressed people in poorer areas of the Earth, why not give them a little monopoly upon which to build a base for an expanding, progressive economy? All one needs to do is expand the definition of natural resource to include these "artificial" resources.
Can't pirates develop by means of "quantum leap," social evolution into Post-Modernist Administrators?
April, 2009
THE LINCOLN-OBAMA COMPARISONS
In recalling the presidential campaign of Barack Obama I remember at least several allusions to the late Mr. Abraham Lincoln, who was, of course, President of the United States of America immediately prior to and during the War Between The States. The fact that Mr. Obama was a tall, lean, raw-boned sort of man, morphologically-speaking, in no way impeded this facile comparison. As a resident of the great state of Illinois, he shared another kinship with Abraham Lincoln. There were actually even rumors that Abraham Lincoln had an ancestor who was partially descended from African slaves. Whether it is factually true seems uncertain but improbable. However, this possibility nevertheless strengthens the comparison of the two men, as well as Mr. Obama's apparent affinity to Mr. Lincoln, for Barack Obama has a similar lineage.
Today, Barack Obama faces formidable economic problems which have resulted from the United States of America departing from a federal system of money-creation to one that is in private banking hands. This modern system creates money for the nation by loaning to businesses and individuals, often collateralized. These loans are denominated in U.S. dollars and become part of the money aggregates of the domestic economy.
The funny thing is that there is not sufficient "physical money," such as paper dollars or silver dollars, to cover all the money created by loans. The actual amount of real, physical currency in circulation is a tiny percent of the total "currency," which aggregates the Federal Reserve Board and U.S. accounting agencies utilize. Hence, at any time a downward-spiraling, monetary game of "musical chairs" can begin.
In short, the U.S. operates on a "phantom money" economy, which is controlled by private banking interests. Given the number of depressions and recessions that have occurred since Paul Warburg, the Rockefeller interests, and the Morgan interests met clandestinely to work out the new American central banking system on Jekyl Island, there is no need to go "back to the drawing board" again, as the system is intrinsically flawed. They can never "fix" human greed, stupidity, gambling, and unforseeable events that relentlessly sever the Achilles heels of their beloved system. Folks, this system is supposed to be "scientific" and to protect the citizenry from dunderheaded politicians. All it has done is to remove from the people the danger of Michael only to put them in peril of Jason. [The latter two are, of course, the implacable killing machines from Halloween and Friday the 13th film fame.] This process of the federal government "passing the buck" to private banking interests to create and regulate the U.S. money-creation process was institutionalized by the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
Our nations went from being solvent at the turn of the 20th century to massively indebted today. Thanks to Congress and the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, we have become a "beggar nation." Most Americans believe that by playing the role of "global hoodlum," while patting ourselves on the shoulder as a "knight in shining armor," we do well. Don't believe a word of it. This debt problem is systemic. As with Mickey Rourke's character Randy "the Ram" Robinson, the glory days end on the floor in the bowels of a third rate arena, as a once-great heart gives way to the effects of self-abuse.
The unwarranted embrace of "free-trade" by the same leadership that gave us a debt-based, phantom-money system of money creation has not helped the nation of the United States of America, although it may have helped other nations. It is not charity that inspires our leaders to cut out our heart and hand it to the hungry of the world; it is hatred of the nation and what it stood for once. Many of our ancestors came here and proclaimed it to be the Promised Land. Our "Moderns" have turned it into a citadel of the Resident Evil. Small wonder that our money-creation system was dubbed by one author as the "Babylonian Woe." Small wonder that our nation is despised around the world.
This is the system of money-creation that Mr. Obama is attempting to mend by "bailing out" the banks (if they're big enough), rather than confronting the root cause of our problem in this area. There is nothing new that he will do to "fix" the problem. He means to fix a deflated monetary balloon by means of a "blow-job" involuntarily administered by present and future citizens. He'll take the lion's share of the credit.
There is a similar, well-defined economic problem which confronted Abraham Lincoln. He was faced with great expenses related to suppressing the "Southern Rebellion." He went to bankers in New York and other urban areas to borrow the money to pay the Union troops and to pay for materiels of war. He was quoted by the bankers high interest on such loans. These were in the range of 30%, which is not so far from modern credit card rates. Abraham Lincoln refused to pay the outrageous usury. Still, he had to raise the money.
Neither Congress nor the Department of the Treasury could muster an alternate to the "big bankers" and their usury. Why? Most likely, a substantial number of key legislators were secretly owned by the bankers, and they would do little to undercut the bankers. As for the leadership of the Treasury, they were probably educated to imagine that taking a loan from a "sound" bank was the responsible economic course of action.
This left Mr. Lincoln in a difficult position. How was he ever to quell the rebellion without the emergency funding required for such an event?
In such times one often thinks of respected, tried-and-true friends that one encountered early in life. For Abraham Lincoln there was such a one. His name was Colonel Taylor. They were acquainted in Springfield, Illinois, and became close friends. President Lincoln decided to call upon his old friend for advice.
When Colonel Taylor was contacted and the President's problem set forth, he responded encouragingly. He told Abraham Lincoln to have Congress authorize the issuance of paper money that was legal tender for all debts, private or public. Use this interest-free money to pay "your troops," to buy your war materials, and to "win the damn war." President Lincoln did just that. This money became known as "green backs."
Later, President Lincoln was to return to Congress for additional "green backs." However, by then the "big bankers" (and not so big) had been galvanized into action.
For "big banks" the biggest, safest loans are to government. As a last resort, these loans are collateralized by the labor of the citizens thereof. Implicitly, this suggests national serfdom, if worse came to worse. This practice of loaning to a national government in the nation's name had been mastered by the Rothschild brothers in Europe, as well as their imitators, such as the Warburgs, Seifs, Davids, Speyers, et al. The Rothschild family was believed by informed observers to be richer than any nation of Europe by 1860.
At the time of Abraham Lincoln the United States had no central bank. The last experiment in central banking was stopped during the Andrew Jackson Presidency. Nevertheless, England did have a central bank known as "the Bank of England." It had been formed in 1694 by an agent of bankers, a Mr. Patterson, who was able to lure into the scheme key elements of the royal and aristocratic crowd. He, himself, was the agent of hazy financiers from Amsterdam and Iberia. After the creation of the Bank of England, the national debt of England began to skyrocket to its present level.
Parenthetically, wars are lucrative for bankers, as they helped to fund the costs of a war. The loans are to the safest class of debtor - nations, which collateralized the loans with the labor of their citizenry, including those as yet unborn. Not surprisingly, such lenders clandestinely work with foolish agents of national vanity to lead the nation into a war (and excessive debt).
Therefore, the European bankers had a decided interest in events unfolding in the United States. By Abraham Lincoln's Presidency the U.S. was viewed as one of the world's likeliest "plums." European bankers had established banking relationships with major American banks and investment banking houses. None of these people wanted to see the United States issue its own, interest-free currency. The principle of debt instruments as the origin, or basis, for a national currency - or at least a co-equal to gold and silver coinage - was accepted in Europe.
The danger of this system is that over time it places increasing influence and power over a nation in the hands of a small category of people, whose destiny is quite separate from that of any other national interests. Money such as gold and silver are international. Bankers were working to achieve the same status for debt instruments. The Rothschilds had "invented" the bearer bond. These had become internationalized at least in Europe and the European colonies.
Parenthetically, although most people do not think of "bearer bonds" as modern currencies, the fact of the matter is that Federal Reserve Notes, denominated in U.S. dollars, are debt instruments of this kind. At one time these "notes" were convertible into gold or silver coins.
All of this is a preface to establish that powerful interests inside and outside the United States were very antagonistic toward the Lincoln currency known as "green backs." Their full legal tender status insured that they would work in the American economy, which was self-sufficient at that time. That is, even if the external bankers organized an economic embargo in Europe and the British Commonwealth, the United States would continue to grow and prosper.
So, the bankers turned to legislators to change the legislation. Indeed, the Congress did enact a second issue of "green backs," but this time they impaired the "full legal status" of the issue. It could no longer be used to pay taxes and other public debt. This had the effect of turning such loan-seekers back to the banking crowd. It seriously harmed the people's regard for the "green backs." Victory goes to the bankers, but Abraham Lincoln gave them a scare.
Incidentally, a "Thank You" letter was written and preserved from Abraham Lincoln to Colonel Taylor, in regard to his wonderful suggestion to issue "full legal tender" papermoney. Mr. Lincoln had seen the promise of this form of national money. Had he lived, he might have used the same sort of money to help the South get "back on its feet," and at the same time prevent outside agents of Europe buying up much of the best property in the South.
Similarly, in a nation suffering from draining liquidity, as debt implodes, President Obama faces money problems at home, including the high costs of arming and paying the nation's military which is currently fighting in a war zone. Further, even with measured intentions, Mr. Obama cannot be certain about the length and intensity of this war. He can only be sure that it will be costly.
Although compared with Abraham Lincoln, Barack Obama seems more closely to resemble President Woodrow Wilson, who was the captive of the Morgan, Rockefeller, Schiff, Warburg, Baruch and Meyer banking crowd. Closely advising Barack Obama and financially supporting his campaign "big time" were the former partners and top executives of Goldman Sachs, the leading investment banking company on Wall Street. Intimately associated with Woodrow Wilson's Presidency was his adviser, the enigmatic "Col." House. Mr. Obama can readily confer with Rahm Emanuel or David Axelrod. Mr. Wilson pledged to never enter the European conflict. Mr. Obama has repeatedly criticized the lengthy, costly war in Iraq, and, at that time, advised President Bush to "bring our troops home." Not too many people noticed looming hazily in the background of his rhetoric his martial attitude toward Afghanistan. As with Mr Wilson, Mr. Obama became a sort of "peace" candidate.
On the war front Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with "yes" men toward his plan to withdraw slowly from Iraq and to intrude more significantly into Afghanistan. I predict that there will be a parade of "Afghanistan Presidents" over the coming years, as was the case in South Vietnam.
On the economic front Mr. Obama has surrounded himself with debtmongers. His Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner, was associated both with Wall Street banking and with the N.Y. Federal Reserve Bank adjacent to Wall Street. He is part of the "Babylonian woe" that besets this nation.
Can Barack Obama learn anything from Abraham Lincoln? He certainly could, if he bothered to study the advise of Col. Taylor to Abraham Lincoln on his financial problems. As was Mr. Lincoln's promise, inherent in the full legal tender "green back," to bring the greatest blessing ever brought to this nation, so it has become the promise of Mr. Obama. Will he follow the great example of Abraham Lincoln? Given the high stakes involved, for Mr. Obama this course might well be the road to martyrdom. Given his connections, it would seem an aberrant move. Therefore, in regard to Barack Obama key on Woodrow Wilson. Go back to the future.
March, 2009.
THE OBAMA CAMELOT?
The recent coverage of President Obama has appeared to be a conscious effort to associate him and his wife, Michelle, with the late President John F. Kennedy and his First Lady, Jacqueline, and their "Camelot Reich." The media has given Mr. Barack Obama a generally enthusiastic reception. There are great hopes expressed for his success in "changing" America. Beneath the glamour and the image of decisiveness resides the reality. He almost seems to be following a script.
Many of us who remember those Kennedy presidential days can still "see" the President, his brothers, family and friends out in the yard playing as vigorous a brand of football as they could muster. Rafer Johnson, the Olympian, or Rosy Greer, the professional football player, might well be there, joining in the fun. They all seemed youthful and energetic.
Today, Barack Obama likes to "toss at the hoops." He is seen, sometimes, practicing for the fun and challenge with top college squads. He probably has done a few "one on ones" with the Wizards professional basketball team. Again, the public sees a young, vigorous man at play, who is also that confident, cool politician and statesman they see, also, on television.
At this point in time President Obama has faced down Mr. Wagner of General Motors, much as President Kennedy faced down the head of the U.S. Steel Corporation early in his administration. Although it may not presently be known, at the time of John F. Kennedy's administration, U.S. Steel was a very powerful, central industry in America. Not only was it powerful, it was the "point man" for a solid rank of powerful steel companies, such as Bethlehem Steel, Republic Steel, et al. None of these companies were "beggar corporations," whose extended hand could easily be twisted. These steel companies had a bevy of supporting corporations which were part of the steel making and distribution process, such as mining companies at one end and finished tool-makers, construction, and other end-product users. Needless to say, this show of "presidentiality" by Mr. Kennedy made him seem even stronger and "King Arthuresque."
Camelot! Every day was the first day of Spring!
Yet, there were villains out there that had to be faced down. Fidel Castro became an obsession at the Kennedy White House, just as Osama bin Laden is to become an obsession of Mr. Obama's. Beyond that annoyance, President Kennedy had to confront the leaders of the U.S.S.R. over apparent nuclear missiles which Fidel had welcomed to his "Comradedom," Cuba.
My belief is that something of the same work is afoot in regard to Iran. Although the Russian people were able to break free of the "iron egg" of the U.S.S.R. and once again take their place among the self-ruling nations of the world, they remain as nuclearly potent as ever. If they did not plant nuclear missiles on Iranian soil, they have sold them hightech, non-nuclear missiles and other weapons. They have also apparently counseled the Iranians in certain areas of nuclear fuel processing, including upgrading to heavier forms of radioactive material. Hence, there seems to be a not-so-rough comparison between the Cuba-U.S.S.R. nexus during the John Kennedy years and the Iran-Russia nexus of Barack Obama's. Of course, Iran isn't "next door." Still, in an age when the North Atlantic Ocean is relentlessly referenced as a "pond" by media, Iran may seem only a "couple of blocks away."
Oddly, contemporary Russia may not be the only source of nukes. One can imagine an unraveling in Pakistan, resulting in a leadership friendly toward Iran and willing to share nuclear weapons.
Nor is the U.S.A. the only force that might be willing to confront the Iranian nuclear ambition. Not only is the Israeli state possessed of the fourth most powerful military force in the world - at least in terms of short-term warfare, it has stated publicly and privately that the Iranian situation was becoming intolerable and incompatible with its very existence. Beyond that, if Pakistan evolved politically into an Iranian "pal," then the nuclear-armed India might be drawn into an axis with the Israeli state to end their mutual problem with "extreme prejudice." The "I & I threat" to Middle Eastern peace might be quite real in the not-so-distant future.
As the "new kid on the block," Mr. Obama knows that he'll be tested.
Hence, the bright, vigorous days of Mr. Obama's administration may be doomed. Just as Mr. Kennedy began to show the pressure and burden in his face, so I expect will be the case for Mr. Obama. It's a tough job. Let's hope the parallel ends there.
March, 2009