Back in late 1989, only coincidental to the departure from office of George H.W. Bush, the United States struck Panama. Since “communism” was a flagging enterprise, the cover story was drug interdiction. During that attack an ordnance of some kind was released on a barrio in Panama City, and by their accounting, as many as 2,000 people were killed, after which ensued bulldozers and a mass grave.

We’ll never know, of course, as we were not the victims, and so there was no investigation. Interesting, however: there was no apparent tactical purpose for use of the bomb, which has led to speculation that the U.S. was merely experimenting with a new device of some sort, perhaps delivered by a then-new stealth bomber. If that is the case, it would have to be an anti-personnel weapon, and “personnel” would have to be people living in close quarters, or civilians. Military leaders are too smart to house soldiers in high concentrations in a few buildings, 1983 in Lebanon aside..

Since our own lives have beginnings, middles and ends, there is a tendency to attach far too much historical significance on events of our times. Americans have a maudlin sense of victimhood about 9/11, not even knowing it was self-inflicted. In the larger picture it is the events that followed, the attacks on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Now Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran (these are the military operations we know about*) that might warrant a paragraph in a history book.
Continue reading “Sanity and survival” →

I told my wife that we should see Les Miserables before the Oscars, as it will probably be the “best picture.” It has everything – a musical, a book few have read, and big stars – it is only missing a British-speaking cast member to punch it through.

I had not thought it through – “Zero Dark Thirty” is a shoo-in. I see where this thing called “Rotten Tomatoes”, which I assume is just a bunch of critics, like it at 100%.

It is about the killing of Osama bin Laden. Right away I thought a movie about a ten-year manhunt to find and kill a guy who has been dead for over ten years ought to be called “Mission Impossible.”

Now that I think about it, that movie and Argo will surely be nominated, as both have big-name actors, both are based on recent American lies, and ZDT will win. After all, this is America. We are first patriotic, and only secondly stupid, and each movie has great appeal in both areas.

Les Miserables? Bad timing, that’s all. Anyway, if 100% of our critics liked ZDT, it is safe to say that our critics are as stupid as our public.
____________
Oh, alright alright – in answer to the complaint that I am snide and condescending, please understand that there are many ways to approach a subject like 9/11 and the supposed killing of Osama – presentation of evidence and good manners, appeal to logic and such things. No approach works. So I just lay it out there. 9/11 and OBL and all of that are easily undone by evidence, or in the case of his killing, the lack of it. But people cling to the official stories anyway, and refuse to look at evidence, meaning that we are dealing with religious belief.

In that situation, 9/11 is no longer a real event, and Osama is not a person. We are dealing with metaphors and icons. There is a level at which religious belief transcends metaphor, and if smart people choose to indulge in such belief and ritual with the knowledge that it is the deeper meaning that matters, then I have no problem. 9/11 becomes a symbol for the United States and justification for aggression. We can have informed debate on that level. But if you, the reader, insist on clinging to the official word of authority figures on these issues, then I suggest that you are … words, words – what words to use … less than informed. Being uninformed is not a problem, as we are all such on many, many topics. But insisting on staying that way is … words words … reveling in ignorance.

The questions often presented as I prattle on about painfully obvious domestic crimes like 9/11 and the JFK assassination are … 1) How can so many people work together without being found out, and 2) How do they manage to keep secrets?

It doesn’t take many people, only key people, and even key people need not know the purpose of their activities. Lee Harvey Oswald said after his arrest something like “Now everyone will know me,” by which he meant that his cover was blown. He was working for the CIA and FBI at once, and had no clue that he was being set up to be a patsy. At every level of a crime like that or 9/11, people are carrying our their duties, oblivious to the bigger picture. Oswald was but one of many tools, one whose name we happen to know.

Once they find out, why don’t they speak up? For one, they are dealing with cold-blooded murderers, and would like to stay alive. And even beyond that, their jobs, careers and pensions are at stake. So why don’t they speak out after retirement? Again, pensions … but beyond that, what about death bed confessions?
Continue reading “If you like sausage …” →

Regarding Syria, there is concern that the Assad regime, which is “evil,” might have chemical weapons, and that there might need to be a military attack to save lives.

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. (H. L. Mencken)

My money says that the old WMD gambit works yet again. The US, the greatest terrorist force on the planet, operates as it does because its own population is in a state of perpetual fear and ignorance. I was born in 1950, and so came aboard during the second great Red Scare. This was peacetime propaganda. Joe McCarthy, fallout shelters, duck and cover, air raid drills – all of it was designed to create a climate of fear. I remember my family and neighbors out front of our house looking for Sputnik, the satellite put in space by the evil Soviets. A neighbor a block away built a bomb shelter and stocked it with food and weapons.

Humans naturally follow and trust authority figures. We are not designed as thinking machines. Back in the 1950’s there was not much information around – there was news filtered through Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley on TV and some radio agitators, but not pervasive. So in our defense it can be said of my generation and my parents that we were kept in the dark in part by lack of technology to access the outside world.

But you guys out there now with your computers and Internet – there is no excuse for you not seeing what is happening. None. Really. The ease with which you are manipulated is inexcusable.

The posts below (“My work here is done” and “Technology as our best friend and deadly enemy“) highlighted to me the utter and complete bankruptcy of our political system. If we hired the greatest criminal minds of all time and asked them to design a more corrupt system, they could not do better than this.

Take an ordinary man with no scruples, like Max Baucus, and put him in a position of power. Give him access to women and money, power and prestige, and give him enough attention to satisfy his narcissistic needs. Make sure that it is all legal, so that he does not end up in prison, where his type belongs, or on a used car lot.

Seed him now and then with a little money, and he is your bitch, a male concubine. The pittance, the small amount of money it takes to keep a man like him in power is dwarfed by the massive rewards for the health insurance and pharmaceutical companies who sponsor him. He is an investment that yields returns in a percentage range too high for the human mind to embrace. ACA alone yields billions of dollars in new revenue for a paltry few million it takes to keep this man in office.

I find Baucus to be particularly distasteful, and have similar feelings about Jon Tester and Michael Bennet, since I am a former resident of Montana and currently of of Colorado. These are the worst of the worst, and they rise to power not due to intelligence or integrity, but rather because of a low price tag.

We cannot fix this system, as the corruption is so deep now that it cannot be removed without killing the patient. Every office holder is bribed in some fashion, and has some skeletons that keep him/her in line. They are beyond the reach of the voter, and if replaced, by definition it is another of their ilk to occupy that slot.

We’re bankrupt now.

With Matt Koehler’s permission, I am reprinting below the fold an exchange from a public forum between him and Ben Lamb of the Montana Wildlife Federation regarding Sen Jon Tester’s “Sportsmen’s Act.”

In the 90’s when I was working around and for Montana Wilderness Association, MWF was one of those groups with which we held common objectives, even if we didn’t pick out curtains together. The essential bond was keeping public lands in public hands. Since there are always pressures from private wealth to privatize the commons, preservation requires a national impetus, and for that, we rely on the federal government. Private power seeks to fragment opposition by harping on “local control,” a means of fragmenting opposition into manageable portions. It is natural then that Lamb falls back on “local control” to advance his case that the EPA should not have the power to regulate lead in ammunition.

The exchange below below is preserved intact, and I have duplicated the links. I did take the liberty to italicize some PR language that Lamb used just for the sake of illustrating how that industry works – to come up with coded catchphrases that pack an emotional punch. That’s probably not deliberate – the advertising people, who are usually employed on the moneyed side of these debates, inject these words like a nurse administering morphine to an unconscious patient.

Also, I could help but notice that Lamb carries with him the same package of attitudes that Sen Jon Tester does about environmentalists – banning Koehler from commenting is akin to Tester’s fencing stakeholders out the discussions around his Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. Koehler is among the most respectful of commenters on the blogs, and always brings with him the actual language of bills and debates. However, industry and the moneyed interests have from the beginning attempted to marginalize the environmental community by insinuating that they are elitists; that use of the courts to bring lawbreakers in line is impolite; and that “mainstream” environmental groups (big budgets, foundation backing) are the only true representatives of the public interest. MWF appears to be a minor player in this regard, as its expenses only exceed revenue by about $100K.

Matt asked me to emphasize that he speaks for himself below, and not as a representative of any group with which he might be affiliated. He might also be politely suggesting that I not insinuate that he and I are working together – far from it. Everything above the line here reflects my own snarky attitude, and not Matt’s careful comments. (Full debate is beneath the fold.)
_________________
Continue reading “Lead in ammunition: An exchange of viewpoints” →

I worked for some very rich oil dudes in my early career, and each December they were forced with a choice: “Do I want to put my money in the ground, or turn it over to the government.” Without fail, they put it in the ground. It may have impacted their freedom, but it also served a greater good. The privileges of wealth should not override the health of our economy, especially when wealth results from mere rent-seeking.

The following is from economist Michael Hudson, who seems to have figured out the game:

Democracy involves subordinating financial dynamics to serve economic balance and growth – taxing rentier* income or keeping basic monopolies in the public domain. Untaxing or privatizing property income “frees” it to be pledged to the banks, to be capitalized into larger loans. Financed by debt leveraging, asset-price inflation increases rentier wealth while indebting the economy at large. The economy shrinks, falling into negative equity. …

…The private bank debts taken onto government balance sheets in Ireland and Greece have been turned into taxpayer obligations. The same is true for America’s $13 trillion added since September of 2008 …

…To put matters bluntly, the result has been junk economics. Its aim is to disable public checks and balances, shifting power into the hands of high finance on the claim that this is more efficient than public regulation. Government planning an taxation is accusers of being the “road to serfdom,” as if “free markets” controlled by bankers given leeway to act recklessly is not planned by special interests in ways that are oligarchic, not democratic.”

In other words, “free markets” are the real “road to serfdom,” as can be seen all around us. The science of economics has it all backwards.
____________
*A “rentier” is an entity, such as Bain Capital, engaged in “rent seeking,” or skimming off of income-producing activities rather than creating new wealth. The ultimate lie of economics is that mere wealth accumulation is a societal good. Wealth created from a newly created activity, as investing in a new invention, is not the same as merely buying stock in an existing enterprise and collecting dividends and capital gains. This is the economic basis for high marginal tax rates** – not to confiscate wealth, but to direct investment towards its highest and best use. Investors should always be given the choice – invest or pay tax.
**Two other benefits of high marginal tax rates: Charitable giving is encouraged by a high-tax environment. Given a choice between turning it over to the government or charity, investors most often choose charities. Secondly, municipal bonds flourish. A tax-free bond in a high tax environment is a powerful investment, so that cities, countries, states, neighborhoods have access to low-cost financing.