Posts
I cannot believe some of the inane (and insane) analyis coming from the right wing regarding this AM's attacks on commuters in London. Let's be fair about this; some on the left, like Jerry Springer weren't much better (although, he at least ended his broadcast by playing the British National Anthem). Fox and Friends were practically gloating about it, saying things like, "well it's good it happened with so many of the world's leaders nearby". WTF?? Then, there were the callers on C-Span saying we should basically bomb the Middle East back into whatever century. I'm too angry and running on adrenaline (and caffeine) to respond with anything that might be helpful. My sympathies go out to those in Great Britain, by-and-large working class, who are mourning this evening. If people have to suffer, why is it always the common people?
Fortunately, there are people like Nathan Newman. It is all about economics and he usually nails it, as he did today.
July 07, 2005
Don't Forget Aid for Africa
The terrorists want us to concentrate on them, as does the rightwing which is thrilled to see aid for the global poor put back on the backburner.
But let's get some perspective. Less than a hundred people died today in London, but 15,000 Africans die EVERY DAY from preventable diseases.
The best way to fight terrorism is to drain the pool of public support. Supporting the victims of the Tsunami in Indonesia was one of the best ways possible to improve the image of the US in that country. A serious commitment to aid in Africa, aside from being the right thing to do, is the best use of money to fight terrorism as well.
If we took the money wasted in Iraq, we could build global support and allies around the world through a crusade to end poverty, even as we'd have additional money to secure our vulnerable facilities against the crazies left over.
London shows our current strategy has failed. Let's try a new one build on global justice abroad and intelligent security at home.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
The High Price of Oil
From Bloomberg (via Atrios):
New York Mercantile Exchange data show 6,900 options contracts outstanding that allow buyers to purchase oil for December delivery at $80 a barrel, compared with an average of 77 contracts in January. The probability that oil will top $75 a barrel when the December crude contract expires is 21 percent, according to Adam Sieminski and Michael Lewis, strategists at Deutsche Bank AG, up from 5 percent at the start of the year.
Oil has surged partly on concern that a dispute over Iran's nuclear program to generate electricity may lead to conflict with the U.S. and disrupt supplies from the Middle East. The cushion between output capacity and demand is narrowing as producers including most OPEC members pump at maximum.
``The perception is that the risk of higher prices now is higher than at the beginning of this year,'' Deutsche Bank's Sieminski said in an interview. ``The market is so tightly balanced that issues like a nuclear confrontation with Iran could add a great deal of worry'' about supplies.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the producer of about 40 percent of the world's oil, is pumping almost as much crude oil as it can to increase inventories before consumption peaks in the fourth quarter. Crude oil reached a record $60.95 in New York on June 27, deepening concern that the cost of energy would slow economic growth.
From JK at Clusterfuck Nation:
"Oil's remorseless up-ratcheting past $60 is as much a symptom of a weak dollar as a strained global energy allocation system, and the dollar is weakening because the way of life it represents is becoming more and more unreal. The harsh truth is that we've reached the limit of our ability to expand our suburban sprawl economy and there is no alternative US economy in the background ready to take its place. The world can't fail to notice this weakness. The inability to generate even fake wealth, in the form of ever more WalMarts, will take its toll on the consensus that the American Dream has enduring value."
From "High West" by Ed Dorn
"The hours spent recreational shopping...What will happen when/if the malls can no longer pay the electricity bill? Or the power just gets cut? What if the cine-plexes were to close? What if we could no longer be an ever expanding 24/7 consumer's paradise? What would folks do with themselves? The prospect is tantalizing. Twenty-five yard long strips of freezersfull ofStouffers, which should smell like cat-puke if the power gets cut. As in the Gulf War, when Iraqis had to throw thawed food to the dogs who soon got fat and ran in packs"
1750
July 4 (Bloomberg) -- Record oil prices may increase to $80 a barrel this year, options contracts on the New York Mercantile Exchange show. Investors are speculating OPEC won't produce enough oil to compensate for any disruption to supplies.
New York Mercantile Exchange data show 6,900 options contracts outstanding that allow buyers to purchase oil for December delivery at $80 a barrel, compared with an average of 77 contracts in January. The probability that oil will top $75 a barrel when the December crude contract expires is 21 percent, according to Adam Sieminski and Michael Lewis, strategists at Deutsche Bank AG, up from 5 percent at the start of the year.
Oil has surged partly on concern that a dispute over Iran's nuclear program to generate electricity may lead to conflict with the U.S. and disrupt supplies from the Middle East. The cushion between output capacity and demand is narrowing as producers including most OPEC members pump at maximum.
``The perception is that the risk of higher prices now is higher than at the beginning of this year,'' Deutsche Bank's Sieminski said in an interview. ``The market is so tightly balanced that issues like a nuclear confrontation with Iran could add a great deal of worry'' about supplies.
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, the producer of about 40 percent of the world's oil, is pumping almost as much crude oil as it can to increase inventories before consumption peaks in the fourth quarter. Crude oil reached a record $60.95 in New York on June 27, deepening concern that the cost of energy would slow economic growth.
From JK at Clusterfuck Nation:
"Oil's remorseless up-ratcheting past $60 is as much a symptom of a weak dollar as a strained global energy allocation system, and the dollar is weakening because the way of life it represents is becoming more and more unreal. The harsh truth is that we've reached the limit of our ability to expand our suburban sprawl economy and there is no alternative US economy in the background ready to take its place. The world can't fail to notice this weakness. The inability to generate even fake wealth, in the form of ever more WalMarts, will take its toll on the consensus that the American Dream has enduring value."
From "High West" by Ed Dorn
"The hours spent recreational shopping...What will happen when/if the malls can no longer pay the electricity bill? Or the power just gets cut? What if the cine-plexes were to close? What if we could no longer be an ever expanding 24/7 consumer's paradise? What would folks do with themselves? The prospect is tantalizing. Twenty-five yard long strips of freezersfull ofStouffers, which should smell like cat-puke if the power gets cut. As in the Gulf War, when Iraqis had to throw thawed food to the dogs who soon got fat and ran in packs"
1750
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Book News
I will be making an announcement in the next few days regarding When Towns Had Teams and the publication of the book. I will also be doing some marketing for the book over the next month at various Maine festivals, including this weekend's Moxie Festival in Lisbon Falls.
Stay tuned for details!
Stay tuned for details!
Monday, July 04, 2005
The 4th of July
Today is the 4th of July, that day when we celebrate the myth many of us have been socialized to accept--this idea that America is this beacon of freedom and liberty to the rest of the world. We are the shining example of democracy and equality that is so much hogwash when the facts are analyzed.
I won't be flying the flag today, nor will I be attending any fireworks tonight. I used to enjoy fireworks, but I've become uncomfortable gathering where jingoism is openly promoted and flaunted.
I've developed a deep respect for Howard Zinn that began when I read his A People's History of the United States. I'm eternally grateful for that book, as it opened my eyes to that which I didn't want to believe--that the United States and its history was one of imperialism, not exceptionalism. I've read several other books by Zinn since then.
I had the good fortune of being able to attend a lecture by Zinn back in November of 2002 at Bates College. Along with my son Mark, home from college, we went to hear Zinn--at the time, 77 years old--clearly make a case for the injustice of that war. Here we are almost two years later, without a clear plan and no intention of leaving the region.
For your 4th of July reading, I've posted a portion of Zinn's essay from Boston Review; a deflation of the American myth of exceptionalism. You can read the remainder here:
The Power and the Glory: Myths of American exceptionalism
by, Howard Zinn
The notion of American exceptionalism—that the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary—is not new. It started as early as 1630 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony when Governor John Winthrop uttered the words that centuries later would be quoted by Ronald Reagan. Winthrop called the Massachusetts Bay Colony a “city upon a hill.” Reagan embellished a little, calling it a “shining city on a hill.”
The idea of a city on a hill is heartwarming. It suggests what George Bush has spoken of: that the United States is a beacon of liberty and democracy. People can look to us and learn from and emulate us.
In reality, we have never been just a city on a hill. A few years after Governor Winthrop uttered his famous words, the people in the city on a hill moved out to massacre the Pequot Indians. Here’s a description by William Bradford, an early settler, of Captain John Mason’s attack on a Pequot village.
"Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword, some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived that they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy."
The kind of massacre described by Bradford occurs again and again as Americans march west to the Pacific and south to the Gulf of Mexico. (In fact our celebrated war of liberation, the American Revolution, was disastrous for the Indians. Colonists had been restrained from encroaching on the Indian territory by the British and the boundary set up in their Proclamation of 1763. American independence wiped out that boundary.)
Invoking God has been a habit for American presidents throughout the nation’s history, but George W. Bush has made a specialty of it. For an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, the reporter talked with Palestinian leaders who had met with Bush. One of them reported that Bush told him, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda. And I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did. And now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.” It’s hard to know if the quote is authentic, especially because it is so literate. But it certainly is consistent with Bush’s oft-expressed claims. A more credible story comes from a Bush supporter, Richard Lamb, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who says that during the election campaign Bush told him, “I believe God wants me to be president. But if that doesn’t happen, that’s okay.”
Divine ordination is a very dangerous idea, especially when combined with military power (the United States has 10,000 nuclear weapons, with military bases in a hundred different countries and warships on every sea). With God’s approval, you need no human standard of morality. Anyone today who claims the support of God might be embarrassed to recall that the Nazi storm troopers had inscribed on their belts, “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”).
Not every American leader claimed divine sanction, but the idea persisted that the United States was uniquely justified in using its power to expand throughout the world. In 1945, at the end of World War II, Henry Luce, the owner of a vast chain of media enterprises—Time, Life, Fortune—declared that this would be “the American Century,” that victory in the war gave the United States the right “to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”
This confident prophecy was acted out all through the rest of the 20th century. Almost immediately after World War II the United States penetrated the oil regions of the Middle East by special arrangement with Saudi Arabia. It established military bases in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and a number of Pacific islands. In the next decades it orchestrated right-wing coups in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, and gave military aid to various dictatorships in the Caribbean. In an attempt to establish a foothold in Southeast Asia it invaded Vietnam and bombed Laos and Cambodia.
I won't be flying the flag today, nor will I be attending any fireworks tonight. I used to enjoy fireworks, but I've become uncomfortable gathering where jingoism is openly promoted and flaunted.
I've developed a deep respect for Howard Zinn that began when I read his A People's History of the United States. I'm eternally grateful for that book, as it opened my eyes to that which I didn't want to believe--that the United States and its history was one of imperialism, not exceptionalism. I've read several other books by Zinn since then.
I had the good fortune of being able to attend a lecture by Zinn back in November of 2002 at Bates College. Along with my son Mark, home from college, we went to hear Zinn--at the time, 77 years old--clearly make a case for the injustice of that war. Here we are almost two years later, without a clear plan and no intention of leaving the region.
For your 4th of July reading, I've posted a portion of Zinn's essay from Boston Review; a deflation of the American myth of exceptionalism. You can read the remainder here:
The Power and the Glory: Myths of American exceptionalism
by, Howard Zinn
The notion of American exceptionalism—that the United States alone has the right, whether by divine sanction or moral obligation, to bring civilization, or democracy, or liberty to the rest of the world, by violence if necessary—is not new. It started as early as 1630 in the Massachusetts Bay Colony when Governor John Winthrop uttered the words that centuries later would be quoted by Ronald Reagan. Winthrop called the Massachusetts Bay Colony a “city upon a hill.” Reagan embellished a little, calling it a “shining city on a hill.”
The idea of a city on a hill is heartwarming. It suggests what George Bush has spoken of: that the United States is a beacon of liberty and democracy. People can look to us and learn from and emulate us.
In reality, we have never been just a city on a hill. A few years after Governor Winthrop uttered his famous words, the people in the city on a hill moved out to massacre the Pequot Indians. Here’s a description by William Bradford, an early settler, of Captain John Mason’s attack on a Pequot village.
"Those that escaped the fire were slain with the sword, some hewed to pieces, others run through with their rapiers, so as they were quickly dispatched and very few escaped. It was conceived that they thus destroyed about 400 at this time. It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave the praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them, thus to enclose their enemies in their hands and give them so speedy a victory over so proud and insulting an enemy."
The kind of massacre described by Bradford occurs again and again as Americans march west to the Pacific and south to the Gulf of Mexico. (In fact our celebrated war of liberation, the American Revolution, was disastrous for the Indians. Colonists had been restrained from encroaching on the Indian territory by the British and the boundary set up in their Proclamation of 1763. American independence wiped out that boundary.)
Invoking God has been a habit for American presidents throughout the nation’s history, but George W. Bush has made a specialty of it. For an article in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, the reporter talked with Palestinian leaders who had met with Bush. One of them reported that Bush told him, “God told me to strike at al Qaeda. And I struck them. And then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did. And now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East.” It’s hard to know if the quote is authentic, especially because it is so literate. But it certainly is consistent with Bush’s oft-expressed claims. A more credible story comes from a Bush supporter, Richard Lamb, the president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, who says that during the election campaign Bush told him, “I believe God wants me to be president. But if that doesn’t happen, that’s okay.”
Divine ordination is a very dangerous idea, especially when combined with military power (the United States has 10,000 nuclear weapons, with military bases in a hundred different countries and warships on every sea). With God’s approval, you need no human standard of morality. Anyone today who claims the support of God might be embarrassed to recall that the Nazi storm troopers had inscribed on their belts, “Gott mit uns” (“God with us”).
Not every American leader claimed divine sanction, but the idea persisted that the United States was uniquely justified in using its power to expand throughout the world. In 1945, at the end of World War II, Henry Luce, the owner of a vast chain of media enterprises—Time, Life, Fortune—declared that this would be “the American Century,” that victory in the war gave the United States the right “to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.”
This confident prophecy was acted out all through the rest of the 20th century. Almost immediately after World War II the United States penetrated the oil regions of the Middle East by special arrangement with Saudi Arabia. It established military bases in Japan, Korea, the Philippines, and a number of Pacific islands. In the next decades it orchestrated right-wing coups in Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, and gave military aid to various dictatorships in the Caribbean. In an attempt to establish a foothold in Southeast Asia it invaded Vietnam and bombed Laos and Cambodia.
Friday, July 01, 2005
When wrong is right and other morality tales
Moral relativism could be defined as moral propositions not reflecting absolute or universal truths. A relativist might posit that moral judgments emerge from social customs and personal preferences. There is no single standard by which to judge an ethical position as right or wrong, such as the Bible, or the Ten Commandments. You could even go as far as to say that one person's ethical judgments or acts cannot be judged by another, though most relativists propound a more limited version of the theory.
A moral relativist is often a pragmatist. His/her decisions as to right and wrong are determined by what’s best for them. While it’s convenient for many on the right to affix that label in a perjorative manner to those on the left, those “nasty” liberals or progressives, it seems as those their own personal Jesus, George Bush, is in fact a moral relativist, also.
Thom Englehardt at TomDispatch.com dishes out the dirt and shows us that George Bush, for all the political mileage and capital he garners from those with very fixed guideposts of ethical behavior, is actually a pragmatist afterall.
Englehardt writes, “In his speeches, George Bush regularly calls for a return to or the reinforcement of traditional, even eternal, family values and emphasizes the importance of personal "accountability" for our children as well as ourselves. ('The culture of America is changing from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to a new culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life.') And yet when it comes to acts that are clearly wrong in this world -- aggressive war, the looting of resources, torture, personal gain at the expense of others, lying, and manipulation among other matters -- Bush and his top officials never hesitate to redefine reality to suit their needs. When faced with matters long defined in everyday life in terms of right and wrong, they simply reach for their dictionaries.”
I mean, good ole' Bush is a card-carrying member of the postmodern club, bejesus! Don't believe it? There's alot more in Englehardt's piece for ammunition, such as this zinger; "Here's the strange thing, then: No one in our lifetime has found the nature of reality to be more definitionally supple, more malleable, more… let's say it… postmodern and relative (to their needs and desires) than the top officials of the Bush administration."
Let me break it down real simple for 'ya. Just because you say something's true, or happened when it didn't, doesn't change reality; no matter how many times you say it's so.
It's amazing how our Teflon president can continue to skate by, propped up by lies that aren't just immoral--they are getting young men and women killed. But, with the current state of our cowering press and an American populace addicted to flags and yellow ribbons, none of it matters. War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Oh yeah! And when you've drunk the Kool-aid, let's add that Bush is God!
A moral relativist is often a pragmatist. His/her decisions as to right and wrong are determined by what’s best for them. While it’s convenient for many on the right to affix that label in a perjorative manner to those on the left, those “nasty” liberals or progressives, it seems as those their own personal Jesus, George Bush, is in fact a moral relativist, also.
Thom Englehardt at TomDispatch.com dishes out the dirt and shows us that George Bush, for all the political mileage and capital he garners from those with very fixed guideposts of ethical behavior, is actually a pragmatist afterall.
Englehardt writes, “In his speeches, George Bush regularly calls for a return to or the reinforcement of traditional, even eternal, family values and emphasizes the importance of personal "accountability" for our children as well as ourselves. ('The culture of America is changing from one that has said, if it feels good, do it, and if you've got a problem, blame somebody else, to a new culture in which each of us understands we are responsible for the decisions we make in life.') And yet when it comes to acts that are clearly wrong in this world -- aggressive war, the looting of resources, torture, personal gain at the expense of others, lying, and manipulation among other matters -- Bush and his top officials never hesitate to redefine reality to suit their needs. When faced with matters long defined in everyday life in terms of right and wrong, they simply reach for their dictionaries.”
I mean, good ole' Bush is a card-carrying member of the postmodern club, bejesus! Don't believe it? There's alot more in Englehardt's piece for ammunition, such as this zinger; "Here's the strange thing, then: No one in our lifetime has found the nature of reality to be more definitionally supple, more malleable, more… let's say it… postmodern and relative (to their needs and desires) than the top officials of the Bush administration."
Let me break it down real simple for 'ya. Just because you say something's true, or happened when it didn't, doesn't change reality; no matter how many times you say it's so.
It's amazing how our Teflon president can continue to skate by, propped up by lies that aren't just immoral--they are getting young men and women killed. But, with the current state of our cowering press and an American populace addicted to flags and yellow ribbons, none of it matters. War is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. Oh yeah! And when you've drunk the Kool-aid, let's add that Bush is God!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)