People Before Profit blog

A parting thought

Fri, 31 Dec 2010 08:18:00 +0000

With the end of the year fast approaching, I decided to join the pundits and leave one parting thought. So here goes!

The battle over taxes was a teachable moment. But left and progressive people missed the boat. An opportunity to teach millions about the realities of class power, politics, and tactics went by the board. Let me explain:

The compromise met nearly universal opposition from progressive and left people. I don’t know if anyone called it a “sellout,” but they might as well have. One writer said in the aftermath of the legislative compromise that we won the battle in 2008 and lost the war in 2010.

The question is: is this criticism warranted? In my view the answer is unequivocally – No. What was the president’s alternative given the balance of class and social forces in the capital and across the country at that time and later when the new Congress convenes in January? What was the policy option given the right-wing Republican comeback, the political confusion of the American people and the weaknesses of the left and broader movement that the election results revealed?

To stand down Mitch McConnell and his gang as his critics suggested would have been feasible, but only if a legislative alternative was available and only if millions of ordinary people, many of whom just voted for Republicans in the midterm elections, could be rallied to compel congressional Republicans to support that alternative – and let’s not forget that all the while this is going on working people’s paychecks are shrinking and their unemployment benefits are evaporating.

Finding an alternative legislative package, say one that sunset the Bush tax cuts and expanded spending for the jobs and the unemployed, would be easy enough to come by.

But setting millions into motion in an organized fashion is a different kettle of fish. A snap of the fingers won’t do it. Nor will a good slogan. Not even a presidential address. Indeed, it would depend in the end on the political and organizational capacity of the leaders of the main social organizations (labor in the first place), liberals, progressives, left thinking people, and so forth to activate millions – including again many who turned the election map red on election night this past November.

I’m not suggesting that we enter only those battles that we are sure that we can win, but we should have some confidence that in the battles in which we engage, we can make a respectable fight of it and stand some chance of winning – provided, of course, that we exploit every division among our opponents, look for allies – reliable and unreliable – and fill the streets and the corridors of Congress with an army of outraged people.

We don’t need moral victories at this moment, but real ones. And that is particularly the case for the unemployed who in this instance would have lost their benefits.

While we don’t set moral claims aside, it is imperative to take into account the balance of class and social forces at any given moment, our capacity to bring into motion masses of people, and our best guess of what can be realistically won.

Critics of the president say that the tax/unemployment extension compromise was demoralizing and unnecessary, but I would argue that walking into the jaws of a hungry lion with barely a weapon in hand can be far more demoralizing, even near deadly, which is what I think would have been the political residue in this instance if no compromise had been reached.

Obviously, I have a different estimate of our fighting capacity and public opinion (that by the way overwhelmingly supported the compromise) than the president’s critics. If the last two years have revealed anything to me, it is this – our ability to influence and bring into the streets millions in any sort of sustained way is limited and the political consciousness of the American people (as a whole) is contradictory and confused.

I wish that were not the case, but I’m afraid this is the reality. Some blame the president for this situation, others the Democrats, but this is too easy an answer. The president should take some responsibility, as should his party, for the present political mess to be sure, but shouldn’t we as well? Doesn’t it say something about our politics (which lean in the direction of narrowness), mass connections (not enough to the main mass social organizations), organizing skill set (not enough emphasis on broad unity), and ability to shape mass thinking (speak too much to ourselves and in a language that only we understand – the new buzzword is “Empire.”)

Over the past two years, don’t we have to admit that the tea party has better communicated its message to millions, united its supporters, and expanded its bases of power than our side has?

For too long we have assumed that the American people are ready to wholeheartedly embrace left solutions. If we, and especially Democrats, project them, "the people will come." Tell that to Russ Feingold!

This is wishful thinking. Notwithstanding the awful mess we are in, I don't see the system breaking down or people spontaneously rising up. In my view, the path to a progressive, and socialist, future will take long persistent work, flexible and broad tactics, and a sound strategic policy.

Supposedly, a deep and protracted economic crisis is the triggering mechanism for a lurch to the left, but in the current situation it is being resolved to the advantage of capital. This contrasts with the 1930s. During that decade, a broad upheaval and openings from above, thanks to President Roosevelt and congressional New Dealers, resulted in the New Deal. The current ruling class and especially its most reactionary sectors (politically represented by right-wing extremism that now controls the Republican Party) prefer a “raw deal” for the American people. Their aim is not only to multiply their wealth at the expense of working people, minorities, women, youth, seniors, and other social groupings, but also to crush any organized opposition.

It's amazing, isn’t it, how little reform transnational and finance capital will tolerate! In this latest battle over tax cuts, right-wing Republicans acting on their behalf drove a tough bargain – a hostage deal, the president correctly called it – on behalf of their clients who operate globally. And earlier this year it only took some very modest financial and health care reforms for the corporate elite, and finance capital in particular, to go apoplectic and beat up on the administration.

Which brings me back to the overriding necessity to significantly enlarge the political and organizing capacity of the working class and people’s movement. It’s the linchpin of progressive change at this moment.

Moreover, the starting point – not the ending point – for such an effort is not some long-range vision or a full blooded left, or even progressive, program of action. They have a place for sure. Ground zero, however, is the immediate struggles for relief that are stirring millions and the overarching task of decisively defeating right- wing Republicanism in 2012 – something we didn’t do four years earlier.

White House photo

Crowded theaters: Quick view of holiday movies

Wed, 29 Dec 2010 17:53:00 +0000

Black Swan
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
2010, R, 108 min.

Tangled
Directed by Nathan Greno and Byron Howard
2010, PG, 100 min.

The Tourist
Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck
2010, PG-13, 103 min.

True Grit
Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen
2010, PG-13, 110 min.

DALLAS - It's been noted that the movie business did especially well during the last big depression, and apparently, even with outrageous ticket and popcorn prices, the same is true now. The Christmas movie theaters here were packed with big family groups, some of them trying to reserve and hold entire rows of seats for each other. The films weren't all that bad. Here are a few of them, presented alphabetically.

"Black Swan" will probably get a Best Actress Academy Award nomination for Natalie Portman and possible Best Supporting Actresses nods for both Mila Kunis, as the star's friend and rival, and for Barbara Hershey, as her mother. Darren Aronofsky's heart-stopping directing may gather some attention as well. It is not nearly the first movie showing tension and compulsion pushing a woman over the final edge, but it may be the most powerful. It is a dangerously sad, twisted and moving experience.

At the other end of the happiness spectrum, "Tangled," Disney's full-animation movie, is one of the best they ever made. They completely re-wrote the bedtime story of long-haired Rapunzel to include wonderful characters, bright songs, and very touching emotions. It's available in 3-D, too!

For those who admire Johnny Depp's mannerisms and Angelina Jolie's looks, "The Tourist" is a simple crowd pleaser. The convoluted and completely unbelievable plot is somewhat relieved by the pretty people and their luxurious surroundings. It's shot in Venice. Those of us who fondly remember the 1960s stylish love-adventure films with Audrey Hepburn starring opposite Cary Grant or Gregory Peck may find "The Tourist" a pleasant reminder.

In "True Grit," the Coen brothers saw fit to include one of the most overtly racist scenes in any recent movie. Affable old drunk and gunslinger Rooster Cogburn, for no apparent reason, literally kicks the hell out of two tiny Native American children! The scene is completely gratuitous. They may have included it to remind audiences, if audiences needed reminding, that they were going for "authenticity," or maybe they just thought it was funny, but it's a major distraction from a plainly-presented film centered on the unlikely relationship of a plucky girl and a grizzled old frontiersman.

Class warfare looms in 2011

Tue, 28 Dec 2010 14:34:00 +0000

2010 is ending with praise of President Obama's first two years in office for producing more progressive reform than any chief executive since President Lyndon Johnson. Cited is his passage of sweeping health care reform, financial reform, a $787 billion first economic stimulus that saved or created 3 million jobs, placing two women on the U.S. Supreme Court including Sonia Sotomayor, the first Latina justice, and many other accomplishments.

In the waning hours of the 111th Congress, the Senate ratified the START treaty 71-26 and repealed the Pentagon's "Don't ask, don't tell" discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military.

Also approved was a bill strengthening food safety, a multi-billion-dollar settlement of discrimination lawsuits by Black farmers and Native American Indians, and a health care bill for 9/11 first responders long blocked by the heartless Republicans.

Over GOP opposition, the Democrats pushed through a 13-month extension of jobless benefits and tax cuts for middle-income taxpayers. As the price for winning Republican agreement to the $858 billion deal, Obama accepted a $139 billion income tax gift and estate tax cut for the rich which he long opposed, plus a 2 percent cut in Social Security withholding. Critics charge that Obama gave up too much. Yet without the deal real people's lives were on the line, if unemployment benefits were allowed to run out or workers were left with a cut in their take-home pay.

The weaknesses in all the reforms reflect the balance of forces in the House and Senate and in the nation as a whole. The Republicans were determined to block or gut any progressive reform and the Democrats lacked the votes to break their obstructionist tactics. That obstructionist strategy paid handsome dividends in the Nov. 2 election. When the ballots were counted, the Republicans with much help from the tea party, Fox News, and the billionaire Koch brothers had captured majority control of the U.S. House of Representatives, picked up six Senate seats and won a majority of the gubernatorial races.

It offers a chilling harbinger of the class warfare the emboldened Republican right will wage against the people when the new Congress convenes in January. Their first priority is outright repeal of health care reform. The same for the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Kill it by denying funds to enforce the law.

The GOP leadership vows to slash $100 billion in health, education, environmental protection and other vital human needs funding. Their agenda includes repeal or privatization of Social Security, Medicare, our system of public education and higher education. They even call for elimination of the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency.

We have no choice but to stand and fight back against this vicious plan.

We must work to reinvigorate the majority coalition that elected Obama in the first place. The October 2 "One Nation Working Together" rally in Washington was a first step. A second big step could be nationwide celebrations of Dr. Martin Luther King Day, Jan. 17. With one loud voice on that day we should demand jobs for the unemployed. No cuts in lifeline programs like food stamps and Medicaid. Stop the GOP drive to repeal health care reform! Defend our Social Security, Medicare, public education. End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; use the trillion in savings to fund human needs programs.

Above all, make 2011 a year to organize and unite, bigger and broader.

Corrected 1/6/11: An earlier version of this article incorrectly overstated the price of the tax cuts for the rich included in the unemployment insurance deal.

Coyotes in the city: lessons for 2011

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 10:37:00 +0000

People's World contributing writer John Bachtell tells us, via his Facebook page, that he and his dog encountered a coyote two short blocks from his Chicago home. What's more, he says, "At last count there were approximately 2,000 coyotes in Chicago. They may need some representation in city council soon." Yikes!

It sounds unnatural and scary. But it turns out that coyotes are common in our urban areas (several were spotted in New York City earlier this year), do little harm and actually do some good - helping curb urban over-population of Canadian geese and rodents.

There are some important lessons here: Expect the unexpected. Think, gather facts and analyze before reacting. There is balance in nature, and we human beings are part of nature.

As we ponder the state of our country and the world, this year-end season, it is good to keep those things in mind.

America's workers and their families have had their share of ups and downs this year. The economic picture remains bleak for many of us and our communities. Yet, amazingly, through it all, people are standing up and fighting for what's right, and they are increasingly doing it in unity with others. And the result has been some remarkable victories - victories that, frankly, would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. Right-wing hate-mongering may capture headlines, and garner some support, but this week's repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" is a symbol of a new climate, a broadening democratic understanding, among ordinary Americans.

No doubt about it: we face a tough battle in 2011. We're up against the power of the reckless, ruthless, most extreme right-wing sections of American capitalism. They are looking to roll us back to the robber-baron/Jim Crow age - by any means necessary. We have to take that very seriously. It's easy to get mad, but it's more important to figure out the winning way forward. That takes a deeper look, a longer view.

Chicago's coyotes teach us that.

And it's what we try to do, here at People's World. With your support, we look forward to continuing the good fight in the new year.

We'll be publishing on a lighter schedule between now and New Year's. Meanwhile, we wish all our readers very pleasant, healthy and safe holidays.

Photo: Sequoia Hughes CC 2.0

Which way forward for the left

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 15:59:00 +0000

There is a lively discussion in left progressive circles about the response to the tax (and unemployment insurance) extension compromise, and where to go after the midterm election set back. Left and progressive activists and voters have played a very important role in the fight against the extreme right-wing. I think most left people understand that the main danger to democracy and progress is coming from the extreme right, GOP/tea party and their powerful corporate backers.

The Communist Party will not agree with our liberal allies at every turn, but we keep pushing for unity, we keep working to find the tactics that keep a broad labor and people's coalition, that keeps the movement for change going.

In my view, too many people are arguing that the compromise tax bill "is the last straw" and "I'm through with Obama." This view singles out the tax breaks for the rich and largely ignores the concessions the GOP had to make to the working class. The fact is if the bill had been dumped it would have meant several million workers would go from low income to no income. Taxes would have gone up for working people.

And Republicans would still do their thing in the next Congress only with new powers.

I completely agree that it is wrong to continue tax breaks for billionaires. It's like rewarding the crooks for their crimes. But that is not the whole picture.

In my opinion, a winning strategy has to be based on the real world; on the facts, not on subjective feelings that we all understandably have at this point. Serious change makers should not let those feelings be the sole guide as to how to move forward. If we want to win more economic and democratic rights for working people, minorities, women, young people, etc., it is self defeating to use this tax compromise difference to "break" with Obama. (I have to add that there are some voices who advocate a "break" that were never "with" the coalition to elect Obama in the first place.)

The stakes for our country and world are too high for any break -- or left/progressive go it alone -- tactics. Theories that promote "the worst things get, the better the opportunity for progressive change" are too simplistic and one dimensional. The problem is more complicated then that.

The economic crisis is deep, and millions of working people are suffering. The facts are that the Republicans policies deepened the crisis yet, they made the greatest gains in the last election.

The times we live in call for a strategy and tactics that will bring victories; victories that can be built on. Victories that will better conditions of life not create more suffering. Working and racially oppressed people have suffered enough.

Everybody understands that running an election and running a country are different. It is my view that the Obama administration policies and legislative victories have helped tens of millions of working families -- perhaps more then any president in living memory -- considering the short time and the challenges he faced in office. Much more needs to be done but this struggle is a marathon not a sprint.

Communists say that even though we are not in agreement with the president on many basic issues, he implemented many of his campaign promises. Progressive researchers who track that sort of thing give him pretty good marks.

A significant problem that the president and others had to grapple with was while the Democrats had a majority in both houses of Congress, they did not have a big enough majority in the Senate to stop the filibuster. And on many questions Democratic members of Congress were not united enough to win. It was a fragile coalition to say the least.

The first woman speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and the progressive Democratic leadership did a heroic job from 2006-2010. They passed 290 pieces of legislation in the House that the U.S. Senate never acted on, everything from a clean energy bill to the DREAM Act.
The right-wing opposition to these bills and Obama policies have been unrelenting, unprincipled, well financed and well organized.

In my time, I have never seen a sitting president subjected to such an unrelenting, personal attacks. The level of racism and red-baiting, including violent threats, has been unprecedented.

What does it achieve when some on the left join in with the right wing, proclaiming Obama a liar who had deceived the voters; and worst of all that he was no different than Bush.

Tell that to all those workers who were able to put food on the table and keep their jobs and homes because of legislation proposed and passed by Obama and the Democrats in the Congress.

If it were the case -- i.e. Obama is Bush, etc. -- how do we explain those right-wing billionaires who finance so-called tea party and other anti-Obama movements. To these Bush supporters, Obama was the devil incarnate.

Some on the left saw any compromise with the right as "being too soft" rather then what was often a reflection of the real balance of power between the more lock step Republicans and divided Democrats.

I think Obama could have fought harder on many instances, but I also think when the racism was pouring down like acid rain polluting the atmosphere, and staining the political and moral fabric of the nation, the left was amazingly unresponsive. Too many times I heard people say it was Obama's fault for not fighting back. But the movement could have fought back. Blaming Obama makes it seem that the attacks are acceptable. Is that a principled position? For me, it's a form of capitulation to the extreme right and racism.

It's important to note, if the results had been more positive on November 2, the movement would be discussing taking the political offensive to help working people survive this horrible crisis by creating new, green jobs, ending the wars and attacks on immigrants.

The right-wing racist attack did more than mobilize their base, it also demoralized and demobilized Democratic voters. Some Democratic and progressive voters went from a messianic view of Obama to demonizing him. Neither are the right assessments to make.

For progressives, adopting an anti-Obama strategy is totally self-defeating. How do we distinguish ourselves from Sen. Mitch McConnell's and the Republicans' main goal of bringing down Obama?

2012 has to be part of any strategic and tactical thinking after these midterm elections. The next president will either be Obama or some right wing Republican. That's the reality for now. If the Republicans take control of all three branches of government -- again -- that will put the great majority of people on the defensive in the fight for economic and democratic rights. To not see that is a gross miscalculation of the right danger.
I think the most explosive issue is jobs and related economic crises -- like evictions -- facing working people. This will not be a easy time for the broad left/center coalition that brought the victory in 2006 and 2008.

One thing is clear to me, this fight cannot be won by making Obama the enemy. Those who are looking for a third party candidate on the left certainly have a right to do that, but it's not the path to victory at this stage.

The path to victory is in the critical fight for jobs and related issues. It's clear that the crisis of massive joblessness is not going to be solved in the halls of Congress and the White House alone. We need a united visible movement of the jobless to make it happen.

There needs to be a two year offensive for jobs through public works. In every city, state and town across the country we need to raise the demand.

Martin Luther King holiday weekend is an ideal occasion to kick off what should be a two year campaign all across the country.

King struggled for peace, jobs and freedom. The issue of jobs is not just an economic issue but a moral one, too. It can be linked to other issues including child welfare, poverty, immigrant rights, education, racial and gender equality, military spending and housing crisis.

Such a broad, grassroots movement will give real momentum to and build multi-racial unity for the 2012 elections. Franklin Roosevelt needed social movements to deliver the New Deal, and today, so does Obama.

Lead Belly: A stunning life in pictures

Wed, 22 Dec 2010 11:25:00 +0000

Book review

“Lead Belly, a Life in Pictures.”
Tiny Robinson and John Reynolds, editors
2007, Steidl Publishing, 224 pages, $50.00

In any public place, start singing, "Sometimes I live in the country..." and, before you can get to "sometimes I take a great notion," half the crowd will be singing the lyrics with you. "Good Night Irene," where those lyrics appear, is one of the best-known songs in American culture. A new book gives us a chance to know the man who wrote it.

Leadbelly's songs, great as they are, are only a smidgen more interesting than his life story. Researcher John Reynolds and Leadbelly's niece, Tiny Robinson, put together an outstanding collection of commercial and family photos, album covers, remembrances, tributes from other great artists, news articles, original lyrics, letters from Woody Guthrie, and discussions about acoustical guitars like Leadbelly's 12-stringer.

Some of the more romantic aspects of his life are repeated on his album covers. It's really true that he rose from the hot cotton fields of Louisiana before being arrested for "assault with intent to murder." It's really true that he wrote "The Midnight Special" while in prison in Sugarland, Texas. And it's really true that he sang his way out of prison twice, in Texas and again in Louisiana. It's true that he sang for protest groups, the Roosevelt campaign, the Communist Party and to raise money for the forerunners of the People's World. It is true that the FBI traced him, as they did to so many good people in his time. It is true that his songs energized the American South, the North, and parts of Europe. It's true that we still sing them.

But the new book goes much further. Huddie Ledbetter - his birth name; he only later chose to go by Leadbelly or, as he wrote it Lead Belly - was a family man who was especially good with children. Remembrances of those tiny tots who gathered around him are in the book, and they make him sound like the sweetest grandfather who every charmed a child.

Even though his earliest performances were done in prison stripes, Huddie Ledbetter changed, as fast as he could, into an immaculately dressed and sophisticated performer. He let it be known that he was the "king of the twelve-string guitar," but he also mastered other stringed instruments, the piano and the accordion.

Make no mistake about the man's role in civil rights history. Ledbetter stood up for himself and others in every way possible. Note, for example, his lyrics in "Bourgeois Blues:"

White folks in Washington, they know how,
Throw a colored man a nickel to see him bow.
It's a bourgeois town, it's a bourgeois town!

Leadbelly sang "Good Night Irene," for the last time in 1949. He died in New York, but went to rest in his hometown of Mooringsport, Louisiana, where his grave is befittingly marked. He wrote his own epitaph (page 20), "If anyone should ask you people, who composed this song, tell them it was Huddie Ledbetter, done been here, and gone!"

Image: Photo of Leadbelly, as appeared in Lead Belly: A Life in Pictures

"Fair Game": Valerie Plame, Iraq truth and lies

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 13:48:00 +0000

Movie Review

"Fair Game"

Directed by Doug Liman

2010, 108 mins., PG-13

Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson wrote a book about his long struggle to tell the truth about the origins of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It is part of the basis for this compact, fact-based, drama recounting how Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame, suffered for the truth about Iraq.

As they re-tell it, the audience remembers most of the story. Wilson was asked to go to Africa to verify a rumor that the government of Saddam Hussein was buying processed uranium in big quantities. He reported that the rumor wasn't true, but President Bush used it nevertheless to "prove" that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction, and America went to war. Wilson continued to assert the simple truth, and brought down a firestorm of retaliation from the White House, including the "outing" of his covert CIA-operative wife, Valerie Plame.

Sean Penn and Naomi Watts are perfect as the couple. Penn thunders righteous indignation, and icy espionage agent Watts melts into a confused, brooding housewife right before our eyes. Of course, a lot of the drama is conflict between her "America right or wrong" CIA values, and his desperate grip on integrity. In one of their arguments, Penn's agonizing face fills the big movie screen as he bawls out, "Bush lied, and that's the truth!" One of the audience members was so carried away that he began an extended applause, which is unusual in a movie theater.

OK, it was me. I had worried, since I remember the story, and since I knew that none of the principal liars who launched the invasion of Iraq had been brought to task, that the movie wouldn't be able to develop much emotional involvement. I was wrong about that. By the way, unindicted ex-president George Bush lives in comfort about a mile from the Dallas theater where we watched Fair Game.

The movie goes on. It steadily explains how the truth was twisted, exploded, exploited and finally suppressed, to convince Americans to sacrifice our riches and our children in Iraq.

The last frame of the picture shows two union logos: Stagehands and Teamsters. As my movie buddy and I prepared to go, a stern looking woman with her hands in her coat pockets stayed behind to confront us. "They're all in it together, the one-worlders," she told us grimly.

"All of them? You mean we can't believe anybody?" I asked.

"All of them," she asserted with finality. "You can't believe anybody, anywhere." She spun around and strode away determinedly, both hands still digging down into her coat.

That's what we've come to.

Photo: Actors Sean Penn and Naomi Watts in "Fair Game."

Thank goodness for the GOP

Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:45:00 +0000

Last week the Republicans on the congressional Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) released an "authoritative" report blaming our country's economic collapse on the Community Reinvestment Act (the act that expanded home ownership to middle-income families), on the quasi-government mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and on mortgage loans to people of color.

And to think that up to now I erroneously thought the causes were things like powerful unregulated financial institutions, the proliferation of hedge funds and risky financial products, reckless big-money managers, and Wall Street-driven debt and bubble economics!

All of that toxic brew, I believed, flowed uncontrollably through the arteries of our capitalist economy, whose singular dynamic is - am I wrong about this too? - to maximize profits for a tiny tier of rich financial managers, corporate owners and super-wealthy families.

Am I glad that these "good men of the GOP" set me straight!

Thanks to this report, I'm relieved from blaming Wall Street and the politicians who greased the skids for bringing down the country. I have spent much too much time and energy over the past two years cursing the "Greed is Good" philosophy and practice of the likes of Goldman Sachs and Citicorp. In this new mental universe, Gordon Gecko, the unscrupulous character in Oliver Stone's "Wall Street" movies, and Dubya can become my heroes - not low-life charlatans, not the scum, but the salt of the earth.

But hold on! My education didn't end here. I also learned from the Repubs on the FCIC that in addition to reining in Fannie and Freddie and irresponsible homebuyers, elected officials should "take seriously the need to reduce our federal deficit."

Really! Damn! I hate to admit it (nobody likes being wrong), but I was under the false impression that the lesson from this economic catastrophe was the pressing need to restructure and stimulate the economy in the interests of the American people and ecological sustainability.

The federal deficit - inherited from the Bush administration and then unavoidably enlarged due to declining revenues and necessary counter-crisis spending measures to jumpstart a stagnant economy - I wrongly assumed was a lower-order problem.

In other words, I incorrectly believed that the deficit had to be reduced, but not in the short or medium term. In fact, the corrective prescription to a slumping economy in my mixed-up mind was actually to spend more, not less, on jobs, local government and public services.

But thanks to the Republicans on the FCIC, I see the error of my ways. There's an easy recipe for revitalizing the U.S. economy and fixing its finances - reduce the federal deficit. It's that simple.

Cut out pork like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment insurance, funding for education, and food stamps. Tighten up lending. Create a stable, profit-friendly investment environment and before you know it the economy will go into overdrive. The two trillion dollars of idle investment capital will flood into the real economy in a heartbeat (even though most Americans - other then the tiny group of very wealthy people - don't have much money to spend for consumption goods).

This is good to know going into the New Year! And it makes me think: what a treasure we have in the right-wing-dominated Republican Party! It lights up the dark. It brings clarity where there is confusion. And it saves us from our worst selves.

I'm sure this holiday season I'll receive (hopefully) a gift or two under the Christmas tree, but none of them can match this report from the good fellows of the Republican Party.

Nothing is as precious as truth. Thank you my good friends.

And if you believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I am ready to sell you.

Photo: americans4financialreform CC 2.0

Prosperity Santa or austerity Grinch?

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 16:27:00 +0000

In a new article to be released shortly, Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz paints a stark picture of economic prospects for 2011:

"The global economy ends 2010 more divided than it was at the beginning of the year. On one side, emerging-market countries like India, China, and the Southeast Asian economies are experiencing robust growth. On the other side, Europe and the United States face stagnation - indeed, a Japanese-style malaise - and stubbornly high unemployment. The problem in the advanced countries is not a jobless recovery, but an anemic recovery - or worse, the possibility of a double-dip recession."

Asia's economic output is too small to pull up growth in the rest of the world, but it may be just enough to suck all the wind out of the recent effort by the Federal Reserve to stimulate the economy through so-called "quantitative easing" - that is, printing money. In globalized markets, money looks for the best prospects around the world, and these prospects are not the U.S. The money won't go where it's needed, and will likely cause further increases in asset and commodity prices, such as food and energy, especially in emerging markets.

Stiglitz argues that, given the high levels of excess capacity and unemployment in Europe and America, printing money is unlikely to trigger a bout of inflation. It could, however, "increase anxieties about future inflation, leading to higher long-term interest rates - precisely the opposite of the Fed's goal."

Despite the hysterical ravings of Federal Reserve haters like Rand Paul, this outcome is hardly the gravest threat. That threat comes from the wave of austerity sweeping the world, as governments, first in Europe and now in the U.S. especially with the new Republican House majority, come under tremendous pressure from a group known as "the bond vigilantes." That is just a new code word for finance capitalists. These forces are panicking, and spreading panic far and wide, over their anxiety about countries' ability to make their debt payments to these lords of finance. This panic is contributing greatly to financial-market instability.

The outcome of this hysteria is all but certain: Browth will slow, possibly even decline again. Tax revenues will diminish. And employment will not significantly recover - and thus deficit reduction will be disappointing, creating a self-reinforcing downward spiral.

In our globally integrated world, the slowdown in Europe will exacerbate the slowdown in the U.S., and vice versa.

Stiglitz argues it's clear what we should do: "With the U.S. able to borrow at record-low interest rates, and with the promise of high returns on public investments after a decade of neglect ... a large-scale public-investment program would stimulate employment in the short term, and growth in the long term, leading in the end to a lower national debt."

But the "bond vigilantes" will have none of it, and are exerting their immense and increasingly corrupt power in the opposite direction, applying pressure for spending cuts, even if that implies reducing badly needed public investments.

Political gridlock following the 2010 midterm elections ensures that - barring a big public rebellion and mobilization - little will be done to address the American economy. Mortgage foreclosures will continue unabated; small and medium-sized business will be starved of funds; small and medium-sized banks that provide the latter with credit will struggle to survive.

The European Union, after weeks of procrastination, managed to come to the rescue of Greece and Ireland with loans. But the interest rates on these loans are very high. Political instability is growing rapidly in both countries. In the run up to the crisis, both were governed by right-wing crony capitalism and worse, demonstrating once again that free-market fundamentalist economics doesn't work in Europe any better than it does in the U.S. Further, the contagion is spreading to Portugal, Spain and Italy. The latter two countries are large enough to ignite an avalanche of defaults and devaluations that could bring the collapse of the European Union and of the global recovery from the current depression.

In both Europe and America, the free-market ideology allowed asset bubbles to grow unfettered - markets always know best, so government must not intervene. "One might have thought," writes Stiglitz, "that the crisis itself would undermine confidence in that ideology. Instead, it has resurfaced to drag governments and economies down the sinkhole of austerity."

If politics is the problem in Europe and America, only political changes are the solution. Or else we can wait until excess capacity diminishes, capital goods become obsolete, and the economy's internal restorative forces work their gradual magic. The 20th century - and previous ones too - teaches that people don't wait that long. Wars, including world wars - intervene.

Following the recent debates over the tax deal Obama negotiated with Republicans (where the Republicans held unemployment benefit extension and workers' take-home pay hostage to tax cuts for the rich), some have expressed deep concern that the president has failed to pass the "Lincoln test." They fear that, in the confrontation with ultra-right forces, he will fail to meet the key challenge of our time, and our democracy: to roll back the power of finance capital in the wake of this devastating depression, and to choose peace and prosperity (Santa Claus) over war and austerity (the Grinch).

I think the tax deal is a bad foundation for making such charges, given the political relationship of forces currently in place.

However, it's true, I think, that we are at a telling moment. The deficit commission appointed by the president could not issue a majority report. But its co-chairs, former Sen. Alan Simpson, and banker and former Clinton chief of staff Erskine Bowles - the austerity Grinches - have placed a rollback in Social Security and other fundamental rights on the new year agenda. It's a stinking pile of manure under workers' Christmas trees, to be sure.

In Lincoln's time the firmness and depth of the free-labor, free-soil, abolitionist and anti-slavery movements gave the president the strength to persevere, and become perhaps our greatest president. So too here, in our own time, it will be the determination and unity of progressives and the working class movements that will win this emerging and fateful contest - being played for mortal stakes; and that will give President Obama the opportunity to meet the challenge of this century.

Santa goes nowhere without the labors, and leadership, of the reindeer and elves. In times of great upheaval a century's worth of changes can take place in days. Be prepared. It's a long night on Dec 24 - and we have to reach everyone in the world.

Image: Dr. Seuss' "Grinch." Mykl Roventine CC 2.0

Richard Nixon’s tapes and the psychology of division

Mon, 20 Dec 2010 15:10:00 +0000

New tapes from the Nixon White House were recently released. For many observers, the tapes are old news. Nixon's racism, and particularly his anti-Semitism, was an open secret through most of his political career. The bits and pieces released from his White House tape recordings over the years have only added more and more to this record. So why should we care?

The politics of Richard Nixon are still very much with us in the not-so-subtle racist sentiments of the Republican right, rooted in the "Southern strategy" and appeals to prejudice and fear as the basis for creating a "new Republican majority." So it is of value to see Nixon through these tapes, with help from Sigmund Freud and Jean Paul Sartre.

First Nixon, in conversation with his aide Charles Colson (who later served prison time for Watergate) "deals" with Irish Americans and Italian Americans. The Irish, Nixon pontificates, are mean violent drunks, especially "the real Irish" (whatever that means).

Freudian psychology uses the concept of "projection," that is, individuals, especially disturbed individuals, project onto others their own desires and fears and then scapegoat others for having such desires and fears. As a historian, I know that Richard Nixon was a mean drunk - someone who often expressed his deep contempt for his fellow man and woman when he was drunk.

Nixon then goes on to say that Italian Americans "don't have their heads screwed on." Many of course came to that conclusion about Nixon.

Later Nixon tells his secretary, Rosemary Woods, that William Rogers, his secretary of state, has a "blind spot on the black thing ... because he's been in New York" (the evil den of liberalism, I guess). Rogers, according to Nixon, believes that African Americans are good for the country because "they are physically strong and some of them are smart." Nixon feels this might be true in "500 years," but not in "50 years." He says, "What has to happen is that they, frankly have to be inbred ... that's the only thing that's going to do it." What he means by this in unclear - in earlier releases from the tapes Nixon, campaigning publically against abortion, did say privately that abortion was justified in two instances - when the mother's health was at risk and when the child was "interracial." The statements are the essence of racist thought.

Nixon's anti-Semitism goes back at least to the 1940s when he found himself in conflict with Jewish American progressives. There was often an anti-Semitic subtext in his red-baiting campaigns. But there are some new revelations here.

First, Nixon muses to Colson that Jews have aggressive, abrasive and obnoxious personalities. This is Freudian projection in the extreme, since most of Nixon's enemies and even many of his supporters came to that conclusion about him.

When Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meier visits for a state dinner, Nixon tells Rosemary Woods that it is the "Jewish dinner" and leaves orders that "no Jew" who didn't support his re-election campaign should be invited.

Nixon of course supported Israeli policies strongly in the region and a launched a major air lift in 1973 to assist the Israelis in the fourth Arab-Israeli war. Why? Israel had become the U.S.-NAT0 bloc's military middleman in the region to protect the oil, something that none of the Arab states could do, either because they were in opposition to the U.S.-NATO bloc at the time (Egypt and Syria) or because they were too weak militarily (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states}

But there may be another reason. In the 1970s the argument was made by certain Europe ultra-rightists that one could support Israel and be anti-Semitic. Anti-Semitic because "the Jews" stood for liberalism, humanism, socialism, integration and cultural pluralism - everything that the right hated. And support Israel because it stood for unrestrained use of military power, was an outpost of "Western civilization" in the Middle East, and finally represented a kind of self-segregation and rejection of cultural pluralism - everything that the right loved. For Nixon then, and for rightist U.S. supporters of Israel's right-wing policies now, this may very well apply.

There is one new grotesque revelation, though, which gives us insight into the world of imperialist power politics.

Nixon and Henry Kissinger (whose family were German Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany) are discussing the question of Soviet Jewish immigration to the U.S.

Here the statements are on the surface confusing. U.S. policy sought to encourage Soviet Jewish immigration to Israel over Soviet protests, and portrayed the Soviet Union, which had played the leading role in the defeat of Hitlerism and the saving of European Jewish lives, as the world's leading exponent of anti-Semitism. In this conversation, however, Nixon and Kissinger make it clear that they have no interest in Soviet Jewish immigration to the U.S. Kissinger tells Nixon, "If they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union it is not an American concern. Maybe a human rights concern?" Nixon agrees.

"Maybe a human rights concern?" Readers should stop and think about that statement. Henry Kissinger survived Watergate and all subsequent attempts to find some way to punish him for his Cold War crimes and crimes against humanity in Vietnam, Chile, former East Pakistan and Africa. His attitude here is a perfect expression of what "human rights" means to those who advance imperialist policies.

Nixon's anti-Semitic ranting goes on - the Vietnam War "deserters" are disproportionately Jews (a lie which for Nixon is a self-delusion). He even says that "the Jews'" personality problems are rooted in insecurity, a comic expression of Freudian projection

In "Anti-Semite and Jew," the French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre made the point that anti-Semitism (and one might say all forms of racism) is always about the racist, the problems he has, not the group for whom his bigotry creates problems.

Marxists would agree but add that capitalist society fosters racism as a politics of division. It rewards those who practice racism, sometimes in crude, more often in subtle, ways as it rewarded both Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger.

Also, capitalism as a system, whatever reforms it enacts to survive in the face of working class struggle , constantly seeks to revert to an economic jungle, to take away all forms of economic and social security working people have gained And societies which are economic jungles at their base must develop superstructures that are social jungles, filled with racism, sexism, national chauvinism. That is the lesson progressives can learn from Richard Nixon - to continue the fight for economic and social security and justice for all people, the struggle to create societies which will not produce and reward Nixons and Kissingers in the future.

Photo: Nixon aides H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger and Secretary of State William Rogers watch as President Richard Nixon talks with French President Charles DeGaulle, 1969. White House Photo Office Collection, National Archives, via wikimedia.

Estate tax versus Woody Guthrie

Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:20:00 +0000

Republicans demanded "liberalization" of the estate tax on inherited wealth as the second part of the payback to the rich (the first part was extending the Bush tax cuts for the super-rich) - in exchange for letting workers and the unemployed keep their benefits and income for the coming year. Why not?

After all, corporations and the rich lavished hundreds of millions on their Republican rubber-stamps through anonymous campaign contributions in the November midterm elections. The campaign contributions were enabled by the outrageous Supreme Court decision which permits "corporate fronts" to contribute unlimited funds to candidates without ever revealing the names of the real donors. Now they want theirs!

Together with extension of the billions in Bush-era cuts in taxes on their income, the rich certainly got a huge return on their investment: $139 billion for just the top 2 percent of the population, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

The estate tax rate was 55 percent through 2009, with a per person exemption of $1 million, but under Bush-era tax "reform" it went to zero in 2010. The rate would have gone back to 55 percent if the deal had not been passed.

Under the compromise, the rate was lowered to 35 percent, and the per person exemption was raised to $5 million. The cost to the public for this bennie: $23 billion.

As Justice Louis Brandeis once said, "We can have concentrated wealth in the hands of a few or we can have democracy, but we can't have both." Even robber baron Andrew Carnegie testified in Congress in favor of an estate tax as the best way to address wealth concentration.

The federal estate tax was established in 1916. In its first 60 years, it, along with other progressive policies, went a long way toward accomplishing the goal of reducing wealth inequality. By 1976, the amount of the nation's wealth controlled by the richest 1 percent of Americans had fallen from more than 50 percent to only 20 percent. And this greater dispersal of wealth fostered a strong middle class.

The tax policies of the past 35 years, however, have reversed the trend. Today the wealthiest 1 percent own more than a third of the country's wealth, leaving 80 percent of Americans with just 16 percent of it.

But there is no good reason inherited wealth should not be taxed the same as wages, lottery winnings and all other forms of income.

In an ideal world - at least my ideal - there would be no inherited wealth. Essentially, the concept violates the principle of equal opportunity. While it's not unnatural for people to want to secure their children's future, to do so at the expense of other children does them no particular favor, since the price tag always includes a strong dose of corruption. Death urges all to seek some measure of immortality, to leave a legacy remembered beyond one's time. Accumulated wealth creates an illusion that this can be found in property passed on to one's heirs. The illusion is often, ironically, exposed by the very richest men and women who choose philanthropy over their own children. Warren Buffet decided to pay for his children's education but donate the remainder of his immense fortune to public goods. Bill Gates' heir is really his foundation, involved, for better or for worse, with health care and education across the world.

On the other hand, Woody Guthrie died a pauper, but left a legacy more profound than Croesus - "This Land Is Your Land."

The song goes: "As I was wanderin', I saw a sign. That sign said, 'No Trespassin.' But on the other side, It didn't say Nothin' - This land was made for you and me"!

Eliminate inheritance and leave a legacy of public goods. In its place provide education and health care and housing and opportunity to pursue happiness - for all!

Un-American: government threatens students on WikiLeaks

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:24:00 +0000

With Cablegate being the center of attention on the international stage, and Julian Assange in jail, everyone is talking WikiLeaks.

We've already heard about the governments of the world trying to stifle the site and Assange, but what is more interesting is their attempts to prevent American citizens from reading the website.

With all the complaints about countries like China who strictly regulate Internet use, interestingly enough, as soon as the the World Wide Web poses a challenge to the American government they immediately try to find a way to shut it down. They successfully bullied Amazon.com from carrying the site on its servers forcing WikiLeaks to be moved to Luxembourg under the protection of the Pirate Party.

Now the government is bullying Americans into fearing reading it, posting about it on media sites, or even talking about it.

This manifested first in the U.S. military where their Internet use was altered so that a soldier would receive a page telling them that they were about to commit a crime if they attempted to find WikiLeaks content, which is of course a blatant disregard of First Amendment rights to our most dedicated citizens.

While the military makes the point to mention that the page is not blocked it simply gives them a warning that it's not suitable content.

The Library of Congress followed suit by adding a similar firewall for their employees and offices and even the wireless service visitors use.

The warning reads:

"Ad or Website blocked by LC DNSBH. Advertisements or websites that may be malicious are blocked. If this message appears in lieu of an advertisement (i.e., on part of the page), the advertisement site may be malicious. However the website is safe to use. If this message appears on a page by itself, the website is blocked due to potential malicious content. More information - LC IT Security"

The Social Security Administration is also warning its employees that the cables "remain classified and SSA employees should not access, download, or transmit them. Individuals may be subject to applicable federal criminal statutes for unlawful access to or transmission of classified information."

Now reports of colleges warning their students that if they "post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter" that it would "call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government." As if every college student in America is a member of the intelligence services and it's their job to keep these secret! The emails were confirmed at Columbia University sent by their "office of career services" and rumored to be in other Ivy League schools as well.

If the government wants to intimidate young college students now is the time, they could threaten to throw them in jail or waterboard them. But the worst thing in America right now is being a law student at a very expensive school and being told you might not be able to get a job to pay off that school when you graduate.

With the unemployment rates among youth staggering all around the country this is a very easy threat to make to really intimidate and bully these vulnerable young citizens of the U.S..

We here in America are used to taking a lot, but being told that we're not allowed to read something just seems un-American. It's the 21st century equivalent of a state-sanctioned book burning.

Despite many citizens' lack of general interest in politics, the war or global diplomacy, youths from all over the country feel rebelliously inclined to read them just because they are being told not to.

State Department spokeswoman Nicole Thompson widened the debate beyond just students looking to work for the state department saying, "I don't think that's a good move for anyone. Not Julian Assange, not WikiLeaks, and not any U.S. citizen."

Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, was arrested in the UK. He is also currently claiming that if any one kills him a supposed "poison pill document" would be released that would supposedly embarass the U.S. and the U.K. and reveal information about the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Despite Assange's super-villianesque tactics and reputation as a former hacker, the bottom line is that if such information exists and would enrage the public, it should either be public so that we know what is being done under our flag or they just plain shouldn't be doing them.

Jobs summit 2.0

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:26:00 +0000

The media is speculating this week about President Obama's Dec. 15 White House summit on job creation with many of the nation's top CEOs. Pundits are talking about how the administration can "improve" relations with companies over the next two years.

The Washington Post suggests that companies are already happy, in fact, with some of what the administration has put forward - tax cuts, increased "accountability" in the education system, and attempts to "grow" the economy.

That paper's editorial leaves out the thing that gives the CEOs the most joy: Despite the continuing Great Recession and the longest-ever period of massive long-term unemployment, corporate profits during the last quarter were the biggest in U.S. history.

Not satisfied, however, with their ability to wallow in unprecedented wealth while the majority of Americans suffer, the CEOs are resisting administration plans to reform the tax code, cutting certain industry tax breaks.

Even more outrageous, however, is the fact that as they entered the White House for their summit with the president they were holding on their balance sheets $2 trillion in cash. Up to now they have chosen to keep that cash in their wallets rather than to use it to create jobs.

Their behavior gives the lie to those who claim that the bigger the profits for big business, the better off everyone will be.
President Obama has made it clear that he expects them to open their wallets and use some of that cash to create jobs.

Because of corporate foot-dragging on jobs we think a White House summit with representatives of the nation's 26 million unemployed and underemployed workers is very much in order at this time.

During such a summit the unemployed would probably devise a recovery plan that would use much of that hoarded corporate cash to create jobs.

During such a summit the unemployed would probably insist that American companies come up with production plans that include domestic production - something not included in the CEOs' current plans.

Such a summit would probably call for an end to any further tax breaks for corporations and the rich and for a financial transactions tax that could raise untold billions of dollars that could be used to create jobs.

Such a summit would probably clarify for the country the truth: the long range deficit will never come down unless many millions of jobs are created now. And we'd hedge our bets on the necessity of public investment on green jobs, including the greening of America's infrastructure, and investing in public services. It's going to take public investment -- government investment -- in getting a new economy going. Corporations have proven they cannot or will not do this.

The people at that summit would understand that it will take strong government action to create jobs because many companies that have pulled the plug on America have no interest in doing this. Their interest lies with maximizing their rate of profit, and it doesn't matter at what expense to the environment, the country or people around the world.

The people at that summit will understand, as does the president, that even a modest 13 month extension of unemployment benefits creates more jobs per month than what companies have created since the beginning of the Great Recession. They will not buy into big business propaganda that cuts in Social Security and Medicare or rolling back health care reform are the direction in which we must go.

So how about it? Lets put a representative of the unemployed on the president's economic team and then have a White House summit with the unemployed. They're bound to come up with a robust recovery plan because their interests and the interests of the country they love depend upon it.

Photo: (CC)

Startling facts about infanticide and mothers

Wed, 15 Dec 2010 16:25:00 +0000

A disturbing, but unsurprising, article on infanticide has appeared in a recent issue of Science Daily (12-13-10: "Unlawful Killing of Newborns Soon After Birth Five Times Higher Than Thought, French Court Study Suggests.")

The technical term for this is neonaticide - the killing of a baby within the first 24 hours of life. Research published in the Archives of Disease in Childhood indicates that the frequency of neonaticide in certain regions of France, where the research was focused, was five times higher than official estimates had anticipated.

We have all read about the horrific levels of infanticide, especially female infanticide, in some developing countries, and have been more or less told this is due to backward social conditions in such "semi-feudal" areas. So to find that even in bourgeois France, an advanced industrial country, there can be five times the amount of neonaticide as officially predicted is an eye opener. And while there can be no doubt that the status of women and social context are major factors, this just indicates that that the "first world" should not be complacent in thinking that infanticide is especially a problem of so-called "backward" societies.

The authors of the study themselves have concluded that, contrary to expectations, it is not low social status or noticeable mental problems that are responsible for these killings in French society, but, rather, it is "low maternal self-esteem and emotional immaturity" that is responsible. These are factors having to do with the status of women and their treatment in general, not only in "semi-feudal" countries, but also those of advanced capitalism.

Simone de Beauvoir pointed out long ago, in "The Second Sex," that "there is no such thing as maternal 'instinct': the word does not in any case apply to the human species. The mother's attitude is defined by her total situation and by the way she accepts it."

Going over the profiles of women who had killed their newborns, the researchers discovered "that the perception of a young poor, unemployed, single woman as the culprit was not borne out by the evidence." The women were mostly around 26 years old, had other children, did not show evidence of mental problems, had no record of being abused as children, and had regular jobs. Half of them were living with the baby's father.

They shared a common low level of self-esteem (something you can get by the way you are treated by others), emotional immaturity (also a state contributed to by others including the society's depiction of the female) and a fear of being abandoned (definitely the product of a bad-faith relationship on the part of the other creating an atmosphere of dependency).

The authors write: "Feeling very much alone, and for nearly half of them, depressed, [these women] probably did not have complete control over their lives or their sexuality." It not only takes a village to raise a child, it seems, it takes one to kill one as well.

The authors conclude, "Our findings suggest that preventive action, targeting only young, poor, unemployed and single women, or women in pregnancy denial, may not be appropriate."

I also think we Marxists can conclude something from this study. We can conclude, with Simone de Beauvoir, that "only a balanced, healthy woman, conscious of her responsibilities, is capable of becoming a 'good mother.'" The same, ceteris paribus (all other things being equal), for the father. And what type of society are these good mothers and fathers most likely to flourish in? Madame de Beauvoir's suggestion seems correct to me: "A truly socialist ethic - one that seeks justice without restraining liberty, one that imposes responsibilities on individuals but without abolishing individual freedom - will find itself most uncomfortable with problems posed by woman's condition."

Photo: iandeth CC 2.0

“Four Lions”: comedy about would-be terrorists

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:06:00 +0000

Movie Review

"Four Lions"
directed by Christopher Morris
2010, 97 mins., rated R

The idea of "Four Lions," a comedy about Islamic suicide bombers in the West, seems rather offensive. But the same could have been said for Roberto Benigni's "Life is Beautiful," the Italian comedy set in Hitler's death camps. Both films took horrific subject matter and, using humor, brought important themes and ideas to wider audiences than the scores of dramas and documentaries that came before. For Benigni, the theme was the irrepressibility of the human spirit; for Morris, it is the root cause of extremist terror.

It's fitting that "Four Lions" hails from the UK - and not only because that country's film industry is less reluctant to take cinematic risks than our own. America's 9/11 was an attack from abroad. For the British, their first brush with this kind of terrorism was homegrown, 7/7 - the July 7, 2005, bombing of public transit was carried out by UK residents.

Americans have been prompted to fear terrorists from somewhere, but we haven't begun the same sort of soul-searching the British have, about why people born and raised in a Western society would kill themselves and others for "jihad."

The comedy genre may seem an odd place for a discussion of terrorism. But, as Britain increasingly turns its attention away from its crumbling monarchy and social rigidity, it makes sense that their comedy turns to questioning more modern threats.

"Four Lions" chronicles the stories of four would-be suicide bombers, born in the UK, desperate to martyr themselves.

This entertaining film dramatizes a view rapidly gaining ground, which has been espoused by people like the Marxist BBC Radio 4 presenter Kenan Malik in his "From Fatwa to Jihad: The Rushdie Affair and its Aftermath." Malik says that terrorism in the Islamic world represents the last dying gasp of political Islam. In the West, he argues, it is linked to the effects of racism, sterile official multiculturalism, identity politics and an atomized society, which have led some young people to find their place in a type of Islam that bears no relation to that of their parents, or, indeed, any traditional Islam at all.

While one would expect a comedy about Islamic suicide bombers to fall into the trap of base caricature and stereotyping, "Four Lions" does the opposite. The group of "Islamists" isn't very "Islamic" at all. In fact, they seem as if they would be equally at home identifying themselves as a group of football hooligans or punk rockers, particularly obvious in a scene in which they argue over who's the most loyal. ("I'm more al-Qaeda than anyone!" says one.) The ringleader mocks his traditionalist brother, who eschews terror and "spends too much time at the mosque." None of the group actually attends services, or prays. In fact, they thoroughly debate whether it might be a good idea to blow up an Islamic center. ("We'll blame it on the kaffirs!") A trip made by two to Pakistan also shows an extreme divergence between political Islamists there and the film's anti-heroes.

The film's production values are good, as are the acting and scripting. While it most definitely falls into the British comedy genre, there are some particularly unsettling moments that wouldn't fit anywhere in "Four Weddings and a Funeral." Scenes portraying the authorities' surveillance of the group are chilling. Further, some moments spark outrage. Saying much more would be akin to that most hated mistake of movie reviewers, the spoiler. Suffice it to say that the film makes a strong point regarding the misguided, some would say chauvinistic, tendencies of the security agencies.

Marketed as a laugh-filled romp, the movie offers much more. But "Four Lions" won't disappoint those looking for just a bit of humor, either. And it carries a subtle progressive message: there is no "alien" culture seeking to destroy our society from within; rather, our own society's rot is the problem.

Photo: http://www.four-lions.co.uk/

Exploding tea party myths about American history

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 11:29:00 +0000

Book Review

"The Whites of Their Eyes: the Tea Party's Revolution and the Battle over American History"
by Jill Lepore
2010, Princeton University Press, 224 pages, $19.95

Every society, social group or individual has a set of stories about its past that it passes on to the next generation. When these stories are supernatural or fictitious, they are called myths. When they seek verification in written sources or artifacts, we call them histories. Not all histories are true, but at very least, they all seek to explain persons, actions and events in other than fantastic terms.

Jill Lepore's "The Whites of Their Eyes" is two distinct histories in the space of a single volume.

First and foremost it is a history of the American Revolution. Drawing together the latest sources and hewing to the current canons of historical writing (a multicultural story which includes accounts of women, slaves and workers in addition to the usual generals and statesmen) it not only sheds new light on familiar characters of the period (Adams, Franklin, Jefferson, Hancock and Paine), but also introduces less widely noted actors (Attucks, Eades, Mecom and Wheatley). Lepore, a professor of American history at Harvard University, examines the media of the day and furnishes insight into the role of printers in the uprising. She traces the curiously paradoxical evolution of the ballot and how it was once considered anti-democratic. She touches on the distrust of political parties at the time and pays close attention to black writers, some of whom sided with the Tories over the three-fifths representation of slaves in the Constitution.

Not content to leave us with a first-rate treatise on the founding fathers, Lepore undertakes a second, and arguably more difficult task: making sense of the controversial role for history in present-day politics. Writing history is not a scientific exercise. It is an art form. It is often about the parsing of different words to describe the same reality.

For example, the "slave trade" and the "Atlantic triangular trade" both refer to the same phenomenon, the barter exchange of cash crops (particularly sugar and tobacco), slaves (the "middle passage") and manufactured goods between Europe, Africa and the American colonies during the 16th through 19th centuries.

Which is the more accurate? The Texas Schoolbook Committee, a bellwether for primary and secondary school history textbooks in the U.S. market, wants to replace "slave" with "Atlantic triangle." This small group of conservative non-educators and non-historians, in defiance of petitions from thousands of history teachers, wants the term to revert to the status quo ante that existed before the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

How many baby boomers remember when history books talked about the "war of Southern secession" as a dispute over tariffs between an industrial North and an agricultural South? Why didn't you learn how John Hancock got rich smuggling tea from Dutch traders on the eve of the Boston Tea Party? When were you told of Thomas Jefferson's dalliance with his slave, Sally Hemmings? Why not replace "capitalism" with "free enterprise system"? If the word for freedom didn't exist, would we still be able to think of it? Think for a moment. Think about the difference between history and myth.

It has been said that history is written by the victors or by the dominant group in any society. While I would argue that such is generally true, it is not without a struggle and that struggle has been afoot for much longer than the fight between the myth of creationism and the science of evolution. The last 60 years has seen a remarkable attempt to remove "dead, white kings" from their dominant position in the story of humankind's history.

Every politician with any gravity at all invokes the heroes of his constituents. "History is on my side," they claim, seeking to spin their version of bygone events to advance their own agenda. The strident call by the right-wing tea party movement for the resurrection of an America that never was has reached a clamor pitch since Obama entered the White House, with his supposedly "socialist" programs. Every day, Fox News talking heads and their Republican sycophants exhort audiences to commune with the writers of the Constitution by reading the sacred text in the same miraculous way they read their Bibles. Yes, reading is a miracle for some, but the writing was not.

One of Lepore's most interesting nuggets of scholarship concerns Jefferson's copy of the Bible. It was all frayed and tattered, not, as one might suspect, from constant use, but rather because he himself had cut out all the passages he considered miraculous and superstitious. "The Whites of Their Eyes" is a wonderful antidote to much of the willfully illiterate myths in the ether these days.

Two ‘Gangs’ of San Francisco keep radical spirit alive

Fri, 10 Dec 2010 14:12:00 +0000

Certainly there are many circles of friends and colleagues who meet regularly to socialize and network. What distinguishes San Francisco's "Fort Point Gang" and "Specs Gang" is their politics - firmly on the left; their lifelong activism and commitment to many struggles: labor, artistic freedom, peace, civil rights, Cuba solidarity and anti-fascism, among many others; and their longevity - each group has met every week in The City for nearly 30 years.

Both gangs welcome "outsiders" to their ranks and both now also happen to have a husband and wife couple as de facto cores.

Former San Francisco Poet Laureate Jack Hirschman can be credited with the informal creation in the mid-1980s of "The Specs Gang" - a group of mostly writers and artists who congregate regularly on the same weeknight at a large back table of a venerable North Beach watering hole.

Actually, two started the gathering, as Hirschman is the associate editor of an annual political literary magazine called Left Curve, whose founding editor, Csaba Polony, began to meet weekly with Hirschman in the bar to review submissions and select material for the journal. Friends would drift in to discuss poems and articles, and to enjoy their company; thus the weekly social circle grew to the present size - anywhere from 15 to 30 or more. Agneta Falk, a Swedish-British feminist writer who married Hirschman a decade ago, now completes the couple.

Nate and Corine Thornton are the current center around which "The Fort Point Gang" has crystallized each week for the past 30 years. The brick Civil War-era Fort Point at the southern foot of the Golden Gate Bridge is where the group congregates on the same weekday morning, on commemorative benches they installed long ago. Each bench has metal plates engraved with the names of past members who have died and left impressive legacies of union organizing, combat in the international brigades of the Spanish Civil War and/or World War II, and life-long dedication to civil rights, socialism and democracy.

At 95, Nate Thornton is one of only 12 remaining veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade - 3,000 Americans who fought in the Spanish Civil War (1936-39) to defend the democratic Republic against fascist Generalissimo Francisco Franco, alongside Spain's democratic forces and international brigades from other countries. The total number of volunteers in the International Brigades was an amazing 45,000 - many of whom lie in the Spanish earth.

Nate's wife Corine, who just turned 88, is Mother Courage personified and a stand-alone activist in her own right. She and Nate were married in 1988 at the Fort's benches. Together they have joined Freedom to Travel flights to Cuba, demonstrated at the School of the America's Watch, picketed with Grandmothers for Peace, and participated in many other movements.

Stalwarts of the Specs Gang include painters who wait tables, aging poets of the Beat Era, professional writers who have "made it," others who hold down semi-professional jobs to fund their art, music and writing, as well as filmmakers, spiritualists, and radicals of all stripes - plus their younger friends and aspirants.

Many of the Gang's poets have joined the Revolutionary Poets Brigade, which Hirschman and three others founded in the Spring of 2009 - their first anthology has just seen print. There are now more than 40 members in the Bay Area alone, and brigades have been formed in Los Angeles and Albuquerque. The very terms Brigade and Brigadista were taken directly from Spanish Civil War veterans like Nathan Thornton.

The denizens of The Fort Point Gang are much older and, unlike the Specs Gang, definitely working class - union members all. Whereas the intellectuals of North Beach tend to lean toward an anarchist philosophy and to live from hand to mouth, many of the unionized seniors of Fort Point were active in the Communist and Socialist Parties, especially in their youth. Most are retired now on good pensions with full healthcare, for which they fought tooth and nail.

However, the ravages of time and hard work have taken their physical toll on many of the Fort Pointers. A former fireman must now carry a small oxygen tank wherever he goes - the cumulative effects of on-the-job smoke inhalation. A former waitress has chronic back and foot pain; and a retired longshoreman and carpenter has asbestos in his lungs from the shipyards. On the other hand, some in the Specs Gang grapple with the debilitating consequences of lifelong infusions of booze and other substances.

Not all the Fort Pointers are working class. They proudly counted among their ranks Doris Brin Walker, a pioneering labor and human rights lawyer and former president of the National Lawyers Guild, whose death in 2009 elicited a lengthy obituary in the New York Times. Before attending law school in the 1940s, "Dobby" was a member of the Young Communist League and opted for a stint as a cannery worker, which set her firmly on the path of the labor movement, and the legal fight for justice and fairness for working people. She was a member of the Communist Party USA throughout her life.

Every year, on the Pointers' meeting day closest to May Day, Gang members hold a special ceremony under the Golden Gate Bridge, reading the names of comrades who have passed on while tossing red carnations into the waves lapping the rocks at the foot of the Fort. Many names are read in addition to the nine that grace the metal plates on the benches.

One comrade's plaque reads: "Bill Bailey 1910-1995, Labor and Human Rights Activist, Seaman, Soldier, Author, Actor." Quite a legacy. Besides writing his life's story and appearing in several films, Bill Bailey was also one of "The Lincolns" who fought and died to defend Spain's democratic Republic. Their efforts and those of the Spanish people failed, but after Dictator Franco's death in 1975, trips back to Spain and reunions of Las Brigadistas were organized. Apparently Bailey's lifelong desire "to piss on Franco's grave" was realized on one such visit. His son, also a seaman, now retired, is a part of the Fort Pointers today.

The Specs Gang's writers are tirelessly active, and are an important militant voice in local and global literary scenes. Jack Hirschman, San Francisco's 2006 Poet Laureate and Poet-in-Residence at the city's Public Library, organizes the biennial San Francisco International Poetry Festival. He and his partner, Agneta Falk, are regularly invited to read at poetry festivals in Europe and Latin America, and most recently in China. Last April they were invited to the longstanding annual Festival of Poetry in Basra, Iraq, the first to be held since the U.S. invasion.

Hirschman and editor Polony launch the annual Left Curve magazine every May Day with an April 30 reading at the venerable City Lights Book Store, directly across Columbus Avenue from Specs Bar.

At a recent poetry workshop at Boulder, Colorado's Naropa University, Hirschman made "The Communist Manifesto" required reading for his students. The first anthology of the Revolutionary Poets Brigade is now in print, and contains the works of many who have read at past SF International Poetry Festivals - "75 Poets, 26 Countries, One Voice," reads the cover. More than a dozen poems are printed in their original languages and alphabets (Arabic, Bangladeshi, Hebrew, etc.), alongside their English translations.

Whereas the Specs Gang meets in the evening and tends to drink copiously, the Fort Point Gang gathers in the morning, then drives to lunch at a local café. The two groups rarely intersect, but since this writer frequents both gangs, Hirschman of the Specs group was invited last January to Nate Thornton's 95th birthday, starting at - where else - Fort Point. Under a brilliant sun, with the orange bridge and blue sea as backdrops, Hirschman read a poem written especially for Nate.

Brigadistas of justice and light,
who cherish the vision of a world trans-
formed into ever blossoming tomorrows,
are part of the birthday acclamations for
you, Nate Thornton, who knows more
than most that that vision will never die.
"Beaten, chained, slandered - look, it's
reaching for your voice. Lift it! Let it
rise in its place. The Internationale
shall be the human race."

- excerpted from "The Great Legacy" by Jack Hirschman

After lunch and birthday cake at the café last January, Hirschman suggested singing "The International." With his deep baritone booming across the restaurant, he led the group, clenched fists in the air, in Nate's "favorite song" - much to the bewilderment of the other patrons.

A comprehensive and richly illustrated 36-page booklet on Nate and Corine Thornton, "I am an International," was published this summer by Sylvia E. Bartley of Noyo Hill House, Fort Bragg, Calif. Modestly-priced copies can be ordered by e-mailing: nhh@mcn.org or phoning (707) 964-6485.

The first anthology of the "Revolutionary Poets Brigade - 76 Poets, 25 Countries, One Voice" has just been published and is available at an affordable price. The 375-page anthology can be purchased by e-mailing: revolutionary at outofour dot com.

Image: Nate and Corine

Springtime for Franco and Pope Benedict

Thu, 09 Dec 2010 15:16:00 +0000

A friend sent me a troubling story from Spain. Pope Benedict, the former Cardinal Ratzinger, once a conservative theological brain-truster for Pope John Paul in his battles against liberation theology and progressive forces in the Roman Catholic Church, said in a speech that "in Spain, a strong aggressive lay mentality, an anti-clericalism and secularization has been born as we experienced in the 1930s."

Benedict was condemning the social legislation of the Socialist-led Spanish government, which has permitted abortion, liberalized divorce, and even legalized gay marriage.

He went on to say that Spain was a major center for a return to faith because Spain had played such a central role in "reviving" Christianity in past centuries. He didn't say what he meant specifically. Was it the Spanish Inquisition, Spanish colonialism's destruction of tens of millions of native peoples in the Western Hemisphere, the maintenance of a feudal social order that made Spain by the 19th century a weak backward nation, an example of what no one wanted to be?

My friend was outraged by the Pope's implicit defense of the fascist dictatorship that ousted the Spanish Republic and ruled Spain from the end of the 1930s until the death of the fascist dictator, Francisco Franco, in 1975. Let's look at what really happened.

In the 1920s and '30s Spain was at its core a feudal society without effective civil rights and liberties, a society in which the higher orders of the Catholic Church controlled vast amounts of land and other resources, making the Church a key component rather than a mere servant of the Spanish ruling class.

After five years of political struggle, in which the church supported reactionary forces and parties in Spain, a people's front coalition of liberals, socialists and communists defeated conservative and reactionary forces in a national election

In its 1931 constitution the Spanish Republic established religious freedom, which had never existed in Spain, as well as the separation of church and state and an end to the Catholic Church's control of education, and most importantly, placed restrictions upon church property.

It also sought to institute land reforms which would have returned poor church-controlled lands to the poor.

The most reactionary sectors of Spanish capital then supported General Francisco Franco's coup against the government. When the coup faltered in the face of worker and peasant resistance, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy entered the conflict to provide troops, weapons, planes and funds to Franco's forces.

In the bloody three-year civil war which followed, only the Soviet Union provided significant aid to the Spanish Republic. The global Catholic Church supported Franco's armies, not openly in defense of fascism, but on anti-Communist grounds, often countering the accounts of the atrocities committed by Franco's forces against workers and peasants with stories of attacks on monasteries and church-controlled feudal estates and the killing of clergy by the poor and other supporters of the Republic.

Following Franco's victory in 1939, a single party fascist state was established, property was returned to the upper classes and the church, and civil liberties and religious freedom were abolished (the latter for all non- Catholics, including Protestant Christians).

Hundreds of thousands of anti-fascist supporters of the Republic were murdered in the years which immediately followed Franco's victory, when Pope Benedict as a German teenager was a member of the Hitler Youth and then a draftee in the German Army.

Most commentators on the Pope maintain that he came from a passively anti-Nazi conservative Catholic family and was never an active supporter of the Hitler regime. But the crimes of German fascism and its central role in the establishment of Spanish fascism are still there. The German government, for example, provides Holocaust reparations to the victims and families of Spanish Republican fighters whom the Nazis captured in France and other countries and murdered systematically.

The Spanish Civil War served as a dress rehearsal for World War II, for the European fascist forces and the destruction of the Spanish Republic was their first major military victory.

The development of the Cold War and U.S. support beginning in the Eisenhower administration permitted Franco's regime to survive for 30 years after the 1945 victory over German and Italian fascism. The hopes of exiled Spanish anti-fascists for Spain's liberation, which the Soviet Union called for at the end of the war, never materialized.

If Benedict wanted to deal more seriously with Spanish history, he might take a page from Judaism and find his own Yom Kippur, a day of contemplation and atonement for the sins of his church against the Spanish people, in its hoarding of wealth and support for exploitation and oppression over the centuries.

He might atone for the Spanish Inquisition, the church's support for Spanish fascism during and after the Spanish Civil War, and perhaps its attempt to use the state to interfere in the lives of women and gays today by its call for state bans on abortion, contraception, divorce and gay marriage.

The Pope's official statements proclaiming mystical love and faith in Jesus through the Catholic Church as a road to peace and salvation can only be seen as smug and arrogant when they turn a blind eye to the institutional inequality and injustice which creates violence and hate and then feeds on it. Fascism was and is an expression of the violence and hate that lives through and feeds on inequality and injustice.

The Pope's statements in Spain should be seen as an insult not only to the Spanish people but to secular and religious people everywhere who seek knowledge which will help them fight social injustice rather than use ideology to preserve and protect wealth and power.

Photo: Nazi SS Reichsfurer Heinrich Himmler, second from left, and other Nazi officials, with Gen. Francisco Franco, second from right, in Spain, October 1940. (wikimedia/German Federal Archive CC 30.0)

Making a judgment on the tax deal

Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:39:00 +0000

What should progressives think about the proposed tax and unemployment insurance deal announced by President Obama? Here are some quick notes, meant as background resource for the discussion - more of a blog posting than an organized article.

Some disclaimers:
1) I have not studied the plan in detail, nor much of the commentary.
2) If I was in Congress, I don't know how I would vote. See the final paragraph.
3) I don't discuss the need for organized mass movements. So far, massive protests and general strikes in Greece, France, Portugal and Ireland have not defeated austerity programs there. But it is certain that without massive organization and mobilization, neither the workers in Europe nor those in the U.S. can win. Far too much attention is paid to quarterbacking presidential and congressional tactics.

A few background facts

* The economic crisis continues for the majority of working families.
* The richest 1 percent have seen their income triple in the last 20 years. Most of the rest of us have stood still or moved backwards.
* The Bush tax cuts did little to stimulate the economy - the recovery from the Bush-II recession was the weakest since World War II.
* The Clinton tax increase on the wealthy in 1993 did not hurt the recovery from the Bush-I recession. That recovery resulted in the lowest unemployment in decades.
* Corporate profits are at record levels, Wall Street bonuses still in the stratosphere, and the super-rich are rapidly regaining the dizzying heights they occupied before the current crisis hit.

Some things in the deal that are bad

* Provides tax breaks for the super-rich - money they don't need. Giving more money to rich people might boost sales of luxury cars or even yachts. But it is likely that the CEOs of Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, ExxonMobil, and News Corp. (Robert Murdoch) - each of whom will receive more than $1 million from this deal - already have as many yachts as they need. This does little to stimulate the economy, and increases the wealth and power of a class of people whose actions are increasingly destructive to the economy and the general welfare.
* Allows a huge $5 million to $10 million exemption for inherited wealth, and a very low rate of 35 percent above that. Allows further growth of a parasitic, hereditary aristocracy in the U.S.
* Continues the hedge fund managers' loophole and special treatment of capital gains and dividends, rewarding rich people for gambling in the financial markets.
* Allowing corporate tax deductions for 100 percent of new investment is a giveaway. It creates very few jobs, at high cost.

Some things in the deal that are good

* Avoids increasing taxes on working families. A worker making a typical wage will avoid a tax increase of about $800 a year.
* A 2 percent reduction in the payroll tax, thereby increasing workers' take-home pay. This replaces the more progressive Obama stimulus "making work pay" credit.
* Continues a college tax credit, and a few other good things.
* Extends for another year Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation (TEUC - extended unemployment benefits for up to 99 weeks).

Defending and condemning

President Obama defends the deal. "This isn't an abstract debate," he said. "This is real money for real people and it will make a real difference in the lives of the folks who sent us here. I'm not here to play games with the American people or the health of our economy. My job is to do whatever I can to get this economy moving. My job is to do whatever I can to spur job creation. My job is to look out for middle-class families who are struggling right now to get by, and Americans who are out of work through no fault of their own."

Any criticism of the deal that ignores the issue of Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation is irresponsible. If you condemn the deal, you have to explain how you will win the fight for unemployment benefits for over 4 million families, 1 million of whom have already been cut off.

Getting the economy moving: how?

On the other hand, the president says, "My job is to do whatever I can to get this economy moving. My job is to do whatever I can to spur job creation." But although this deal prevents some backward motion, it does not include any of the urgently needed measures to accomplish those goals (getting the economy moving and job creation). Those measures were never even on the table for negotiations. I agree with Campaign for America's Future leader Robert Borosage on this point:

"In a period of mass unemployment, the result of failed conservative economics, we get in return a largely conservative recovery package built around tax cuts. No public investment to create jobs. No aid to states and localities to save the jobs of teachers and police. No investment in new energy to keep us from defaulting in the race to capture a slot in the green industrial revolution." Borosage goes on to acknowledge the positive features of the deal.

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., also makes the point: "... if we're serious about creating jobs in this country, which should be our main priority, that's one of the worst ways to do it. [It's] much better to take that money, invest in our roads, bridges, railroad systems, infrastructure. You create jobs doing that."

Deficit argument is a mistake

Progressive critics of the deal make many good points about its weakness. But they tend to emphasize the budget-busting aspects. This is a mistake.

For example, Congressman Peter Welch, D-Vt., calls the plan "fiscally irresponsible. Adding $700 billion to our national debt, as this proposal would do, handcuffs our ability to offer a balanced plan to achieve fiscal stability without a punishing effect on our current commitments, including Social Security and Medicare." Nancy Pelosi issued a statement saying, "Any provision must be judged by two criteria: does it create jobs to grow our economy and does it add to the deficit?"

As a growing number of economists agree, including some conservative ones, deficit spending is both necessary and good for the economy as a temporary measure. As economist Dean Baker sums it up: "Of course we would be much better off if the $50 billion going to the rich each year instead went to other purposes, such as preventing cutbacks by state and local governments or rebuilding infrastructure, but if the question is whether the economy will do better with the tax cuts or a smaller deficit in 2011 and 2012, the answer is that we will unambiguously do better with the tax cuts to the rich."

And, we might add, the extension of unemployment insurance and tax breaks for working families are a positive good, not just a necessary evil.

By using the deficit as an argument, progressives give ammunition to the Republicans when, early next year, they will attack every useful government program in negotiations over raising the debt limit. Whatever was gained in this deal, and more, could be lost in this coming battle.

Whatever the politics, the economics of this are clear. While the economy, and the working class, are suffering from an economic depression, the deficit is not a problem. Deficit spending is necessary to overcome the crisis. The main problem with tax cuts for the rich is not that they cost $50 billion per year. It is that the $50 billion, and more besides, would be much better spent on other things.

Making a judgment

Spending money on tax cuts for the rich stinks. It is offensive to the majority of working Americans who are suffering in this economic crisis. And it is bad economics. But if it is a price necessary to continue unemployment benefits for millions of families, and to prevent a tax increase for all workers, it might be worth it.

The real weaknesses of the compromise are not what it contains, but what it does not contain. Federal intervention is urgently needed to prevent massive spending cuts and tax increases at state and local levels. Federal intervention is urgently needed to directly fund infrastructure and other jobs-producing, useful and necessary investments. But there is a real threat that the corporate-based ruling class, acting through the Republican-Blue Dog block in Congress, will go in the other direction.

They will try to prevent any of the necessary actions, and attack Social Security, Medicare, health care, education, and every program that benefits the people. To the extent they are successful, recovery from the economic crisis will be difficult, and the likelihood increases of a deeper depression, with double-digit unemployment, continued foreclosures and evictions, and deterioration and breakdown of local government services. The political judgment of the compromise should be, at least in part, based on whether it strengthens or weakens the forces that are opposing this corporate-Republican plan.

Photo: Jobless workers wait in line for information on unemployment benefits and job listings in Las Vegas this September. (AP/Julie Jacobson)

"Inside Job": Never steal anything small

Tue, 07 Dec 2010 16:47:00 +0000

Movie Review
Inside Job
Directed by
2010, 120 mins., PG-13

Academy award nominated documentarian Charles Ferguson has brought a breathtaking exposé of high crimes and misdemeanors to the screen. Without holding back, the movie accuses some of the highest office holders of the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations of conspiracy to swindle hundreds of billions of dollars out of suckers like you and me.

The facts portrayed play like an action movie: the main culprits are the handful of investment banks that carried out the crime of this - or any - century and brought the world to its financial knees in 2008. Fifteen million unemployed Americans are still being robbed, every day.

Government officials were more than henchmen; they were full-fledged players. Some of them continue today to hold the highest offices, including those of Secretary of the Treasury and Chairman of the Federal Reserve. At a slightly lower level in the conspiratorial apparatus, but just as despicable, were the academicians who were paid to reassure the public while we were being fleeced. Textbook writing economists and heads of prestigious business colleges are queried and condemned, along with the other crooks.

The conspirators carried home billions, and they still have them! No one was indicted. No one went to jail. By contrast, two African American women, Jamie and Gladys Scott, are shown suffering their 16th year in a Mississippi prison for participating in an $11 heist! The lesson is clear: while stealing a little bit is punishable in the United States, stealing a lot is a-okay!

Ferguson's documentary isn't the first to try to explain what happened when the unregulated derivatives market ate New York and then the planet. Michael Moore told it plainer and more directly in Capitalism, a Love Story, and a PBS documentary gave a legalistic view. Ferguson, though, gives details, not only the mechanics, of the crime, but the identities of the perpetrators.

As I left the theater, though, I realized that Ferguson had left out the guts of the story. He explained the crime and named the criminals, but he didn't even mention the economic system that permits and encourages such incredible unpunished massive robberies from the people.

Image: PW/Jim Lane with thanks to wikipedia.org