January 02, 2004
Michael Moore reprints letters from the troops.
If you want to know what at least some of the American troops in Iraq think of it all, Michael Moore has reprinted an extensive series of selections from letters that have been sent to him from those serving there. I suppose there's some selective editing going on here, but the tone of distrust in the American government is very clear and disturbing. Certainly something every American should read before they vote.
Selections from them, along with his comments, are
here, while the complete letters themselves are
here. There's a lot of them. A must-read I'd say. I especially liked
this one and
this one (great poem). Depressing as heck though.
Anyway, here's part of Mr. Moore's summation of it all.
It is Mr. Bush and his filthy rich cronies -- whose sons and daughters will NEVER see a day in a uniform -- they are the ones who do NOT support our troops. Our soldiers joined the military and, in doing so, offered to give THEIR LIVES for US if need be. What a tremendous gift that is -- to be willing to die so that you and I don't have to! To be willing to shed their blood so that we may be free. To serve in our place, so that WE don't have to serve. What a tremendous act of selflessness and generosity! Here they are, these 18, 19, and 20-year olds, most of whom have had to suffer under an unjust economic system that is set up NOT to benefit THEM -- these kids who have lived their first 18 years in the worst parts of town, going to the most miserable schools, living in danger and learning often to go without, watching their parents struggle to get by and then be humiliated by a system that is always looking to make life harder for them by cutting their benefits, their education, their libraries, their fire and police, their future.
And then, after this miserable treatment, these young men and women, instead of coming after US to demand a more just society, they go and join the army to DEFEND us and our way of life! It boggles the mind, doesn't it? They not only deserve our thanks, they deserve a big piece of the pie that we dine on, those of us who never have to worry about taking a bullet while we fret over which Palm Pilot to buy the nephew for Christmas.
In fact, all that these kids in the army ask for in return from us is our promise that we never send them into harm's way unless it is for the DEFENSE of our nation, to protect us from being killed by "the enemy."
And that promise, my friends, has been broken. It has been broken in the worst way imaginable. We have sent them into war NOT to defend us, not to protect us, not to spare the slaughter of innocents or allies. We have sent them to war so Bush and Company can control the second largest supply of oil in the world. We have sent them into war so that the Vice President's company can bilk the government for billions of dollars. We have sent them into war based on a lie of weapons of mass destruction and the lie that Saddam helped plan 9-11 with Osama bin Laden.
By doing all of this, Mr. Bush has proven that it is HE who does not support our troops. It is HE who has put their lives in danger, and it is HE who is responsible for the nearly 500 American kids who have now died for NO honest, decent reason whatsoever.
The letters I've received from the friends and relatives of our kids over there make it clear that they are sick of this war and they are scared to death that they may never see their loved ones again. It breaks my heart to read these letters. I wish there was something I could do. I wish there was something we all could do.
Hard to top all that. He goes on to list a number of ways to help the troops, along with links to various organizations that are doing so. I couldn't agree more with his conclusion.
I know it feels hopeless. That's how they want us to feel. Don't give up. We owe it to these kids, the troops WE SUPPORT, to get them the hell outta there and back home so they can help organize the drive to remove the war profiteers from office next November.
To all who serve in our armed forces, to their parents and spouses and loved ones, we offer to you the regrets of millions and the promise that we will right this wrong and do whatever we can to thank you for offering to risk your lives for us. That your life was put at risk for Bush's greed is a disgrace and a travesty, the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime.
And, stupidest of all, unleashing this horror on us is exactly what Osama wanted to do. It's good that Saddam has been deposed and captured, but there were, and are, less violent and destructive ways of doing it. The fact of the matter is that Bush and company LIKE war. They LIKE bloodshed, they LIKE seeing the Iraqi people suffer, and they LIKE seeing poor Americans, especially those of color, die. They're sadists; it gets them off. And they're making big bucks off of it. Very big bucks indeed. More every hour than you'll likely make in your lifetime.
Classic Mac visitors outnumber OSX ones, 5 to 1.
Apple, along with the rest of the Mac community, at least those writing on the web, seem to have entirely relegated the Classic Mac OS to the dustbin of history. If you browse the Mac sites you might get the impression that virtually all Mac users have moved to OSX by now. But in perusing my referrer logs, I notice that visitors to my sites using the Classic Mac OS (Systems 7, 8 and 9) outnumber the OSX ones, and by nothing less than a whopping 5 to 1 ratio.
Can't say I'm that surprised tho. I was using OSX for a while, and liked it too, but sold my Emac a while ago, and have been using System 9 on an older Mac ever since. Can't say I notice many differences. It's a bit slower, but not that much. One of these days I'll get a newer Mac, but I don't seem to be in much of a rush.
If you are still using the Classic Mac however, I still have the older Hypercard versions of my ebooks available for free downloading. Go to
the library ebooks home page, and scroll to the downloads section at the bottom. They still work great, better than ever, in fact. They also work great with the Classic OS running inside OSX. It's a nice HC program, if I do say so myself. The stacks are available in several versions, some that require HC players, which are also there, along with some saved as independent Mac apps. Put a lot of work in it, and it still runs rings around any other ebook program on the market. Even got a five-star review from MacUser back in 1996. For what it's worth.
And, also in the "for-what-it's-worth" department, I still think Jobs made a huge mistake when he decided to stop supporting the Classic Mac OS. He ought to take a look at his referrer logs as well. "Stupid is as stupid does," someone once said.
SARS is coming to the US too.
Since it's the time for predictions for the new year, I thought I'd throw this one out. Just a guess, but we shall see. There were a number of articles during November and December how how well, or badly, the American health care system is prepared to deal with a major crisis like SARS. Or any epidemic that would require the quarantine of many Americans. That would raise many civil rights issues along with the medical ones. But the American meat industry is an abomination, and has been for quite a while. A real disaster in the making. Watch what you eat. A good time to invest in organic and free-range meat production though.
Mad Cow USA: The Nightmare Begins.
Via
This Modern World and
Alternet is this article by John Stauber entitled
Mad Cow USA: The Nightmare Begins. A long and well informed summation of the history of the problem, which is not new at all.
When Sheldon Rampton and I wrote our 1997 book, "Mad Cow USA: Could the Nightmare Happen Here?", it received favorable reviews from some interesting publications such as the Journal of the American Medical Association, New Scientist, and Chemical & Engineering News. Yet although the book was released just before the infamous Texas trial of Oprah Winfrey and her guest Howard Lyman, for the alleged crime of "food disparagement," the book was ignored by the mainstream media, and even most left and alternative publications failed to review it.
Apparently many people who never read it at the time bought the official government and industry spin that mad cow disease was just some hysterical European food scare, not a deadly human and animal disease that could emerge in America. In March, 1996, when the British government reversed itself after ten years of denial and announced that young people were dying from the fatal dementia called variant CJD – mad cow disease in humans – the United States media dutifully echoed reassurances from government and livestock industry officials that all necessary precautions had been take long ago to guard against the disease.
Those who did read "Mad Cow USA" when it was published in November, 1997, however, realized that the United States assurances of safety were based on public relations and public deception, not science or adequate regulatory safeguards. We revealed that the United States Department of Agriculture knew more than a decade ago that to prevent mad cow disease in America would require a strict ban on "animal cannibalism," the feeding of rendered slaughterhouse waste from cattle to cattle as protein and fat supplements, but refused to support the ban because it would cost the meat industry money.
It was the livestock feed industry that led the effort in the early 1990s to lobby into law the Texas food disparagement act, and when an uppity Oprah hosted an April 1996, program featuring rancher-turned vegan activist Howard Lyman, she and her guest became the first people sued for the crime of sullying the good name of beef. Oprah eventually won her lawsuit, but it cost her years of legal battling and millions of dollars. In reality, the public lost, because mainstream media stopped covering the issue of mad cow disease. As one TV network producer told me at the time, his orders were to keep his network from being sued the way Oprah had been.
It goes on and on. Good stuff. I'd forgotten about Oprah being sued for disparaging the beef industry. But I shouldn't have. If I've learned one thing, dig deep enough into any crisis or problem in America and you hit the lawyers. Always, always, always.
McCloskey on the Endangered Species Act.
In an editorial in the LA Times, former Representative Paul McCloskey, a co-founder of Earth Day, and a Republican himself, writes of his dismay at the recent efforts by the Republicans to dismantle the Endangered Species Act.
Republicans Are at Risk of Becoming an Endangered Species he says. [Free registrated req'd.] Link via
The Smirking Chimp.
Thirty years ago, I was pleased to stand at President Nixon's side as he signed the Endangered Species Act into law. It was tough legislation, but also popular in a way that is all but unimaginable today: The Senate passed it unanimously and only a dozen of my colleagues in the House opposed it.
In the last three decades, the act has done much to protect eagles and other endangered species by protecting their habitats. I'm proud of what the law has accomplished.
I'm not so proud of my Republican Party and its current attitude toward this landmark statute.
... Now, however, the administration and its congressional allies are in a pitched battle against the act. The administration has moved to exempt the military from the law.
I once was in the Marine Corps. We do not need to drive species to extinction at Camp Pendleton or Guantanamo Bay or Hunter Liggett to keep our armed forces adequately trained and prepared for combat.
The administration has stopped designating "critical habitat" for listed species except under court order. It has stopped adding to the list of threatened and endangered species unless ordered to do so by a judge. It has moved to exempt the Forest Service from abiding by the law on the pretext of fire prevention. It is working to weaken the requirement that endangered species be protected from pesticides.
And that list barely scratches the surface. The assault on the law is widespread and relentless.
The administration and its comrades in arms argue that the law is ineffective, expensive and in need of drastic overhaul. In truth, they are acting as agents for the timber industry, the mining industry, land developers, big agriculture and other economic interests that sometimes find their profits slightly decreased in the short run by the need to obey this law.
These points are key: Species-protecting measures can have economic consequences on narrow interests in the short term, but in the long term the economy overall — along with the public and the natural world — benefits from a healthy ecosystem.
When I served in Congress, conservatives and conservationists worked together in friendship. Something dark and onerous has happened since the Republicans took over the House. It's time for Republicans to stand up and try to keep the party true to its historical concept that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness include the preservation of endangered species.
If we stand back and allow Democrats to be identified as the sole preservers of environmental values, the GOP could soon return to the minority status it occupied for most of the last 70 years. And that, however unfortunate for the party, would be a good thing for eagles, turkeys, ducks and rainbow
What's so frightening about this is not just the threat to endangered species (and to humans as well), but the contempt for the law being shown by these people. It's one thing to fight to change a law they disagree with, but to simply refuse to enforce public laws is malfeasance of the worst kind, and threatens the very fabric of American democracy. If people don't believe that the laws they get passed will be enforced, then what's the use of participating at all? Those in power will do what they want, and the law be damned. They can't just pick and choose which laws they feel like enforcing at any particular time. It just doesn't work that way.
This also illustrates that it's not just "lefties" (whatever they are) and Democrats who are appalled at Bush's actions. It's people of all ages, all stripes, all classes, all parts of America. This is a Republican speaking, not some "environmentalist" (whatever they are). George Bush took an oath promising to enforce the laws of the country, and it's disgusting that he isn't doing it. Beyond disgusting.
China is the joker in the global currency wars.
While most discussion of the changing values of the dollar and euro focus on those two currencies, and those of related countries such as the UK, the real joker is China. At the moment the Chinese yuan is directly tied to the dollar. But if the dollar continues to change so rapidly, they will have some rapid decisions to make.
For one thing, the Chinese economy is just beginning to achieve some real stability, for the first time in a long time, and the last thing they need is a shaky and constantly changing currency. So they might have to cut the ties sooner than they expected or wanted. Possibly even this year. They might also have to decide which market is of more interest in the short term: the European one of 500 million, or the American one of only 300 million.
On the other hand, they might decide that the long-term value of being tied to the American economy is worth the effort. Both nations have a lot of interests in common, and there are lots of reasons to work together. Unfortunately, the Bush administration doesn't seem to care about long-term issues, but only focuses on the immediate short-term. So they might end up cutting America's throat.
It really all is incredibly complicated. And seems to be getting more so. And then there's India. And Russia. And all of those eastern European countries getting ready to join the eurozone. Going to be a bumpy ride.
The dollar and the Euro in 2004.
In its year-end special section
business outlook for 2004, the NY Times finally addresses the rapidly changing value of the dollar, and discusses the various possibilities.
Analysts Hope the Weakening Dollar Will Avoid a Sudden Plunge. They acknowledge that a sudden plunge may hurt the economy, but they still seem to be the victims of wishful thinking.
The dollar plunged against most of the world's currencies in 2003, putting in its third-worst performance since it began trading freely in the 1970's. It was the dollar's second consecutive annual decline, and many forecasters see a further weakening this year.
If contained, a decline in 2004 would generally be good for American business and for Americans investing abroad. But a sudden plunge of many percentage points, which some analysts say is possible, could undermine financial markets here and abroad.
Robert Sinche, global head of currency strategy at Citigroup, expects the dollar to drop further early in the year and then rebound, ending 2004 up more than 6 percent against the euro, which he predicts will be around $1.18.
But he warns that the dollar's recovery could be short-lived. "The trend is there for a weaker dollar," he said, which means that the decline could resume in 2005.
In a more bearish forecast, David S. Gilmore, a partner at Foreign Exchange Analytics in Essex, Conn., predicts that the dollar could fall as much as 13 percent this year, ending with the euro around $1.45. That would put the dollar's value at or close to where it was in 1995, when it hit its post-1971 low against the German mark, one of the 12 European currencies merged into the new euro.
"The dollar is one beaten-down beast," Mr. Gilmore said. And he warned that there was a chance the decline could be fast enough "for things to get ugly, for disorderly markets and for interest rates to go up and stocks to go down.''
"The risk is greater than 5 percent," he added, "and that is statistically significant."
The global head of currency strategy at Citigroup would seem to be a position where one would look at the real picture. But the idea that the dollar may go up at all seems incredibly unrealistic. As I say, it should reach at least $2/euro this year, if not $3-4/euro, but anything remaining less than that would be doing very well. As far as the other prediction of $1.45/euro, at the current rate of decline it could hit that level within a month or two.
But I think it well to get these predictions on record. I could be wrong about my own predictions, but I really think that these people are simply claiming that the dollar will remain stable because: (1) They have their own investments in dollars, and are dependent on doing business with others who do as well, and know that any public expressions of weakness will hurt their own pocketbook; and (2) Because they simply assume that just because America was strong during the 20th century it will remain strong during the 21st. And they also assume that because Europe, Russia, China, India and other great nations have been week that they will continue to do so.
Basically, they won't ever admit any serious problems because the very expression of difficulties itself could cause damage. And because they can't admit that their American-centric view of the global economy is a 20th century anachronism, and don't have the education or knowledge of the world necessary to develop a more modern approach. They're living in the past.
Consider if you will the possibility that it's not the dollar that is declining at all, but rather the Euro that is rising. You have to break free of American-centrism to see this though. The British as well as the Americans are having a hard time breaking free of obsolete imperial pretensions and attitudes.
I could certainly be wrong about my predictions. But one thing I am definitely correct on is that all of these people were way off the mark during 2003. All of them stated a year ago, fairly conclusively, that the worst the dollar could do was $1.15/euro, or so. But they never learn.
Found a couple of interesting blog entries on the subject of the dollar and euro.
This one by Steven Kyle at
Economists for Dean, who discusses the possibility of the dollar being replaced as the world's reserve currnency. Interesting discussion in the comments there. And
this one by XXX over at
Atrios/Eschaton.
One note on the subject of the dollar's being replaced as the world's reserve currency. I think the very idea that any one currency will be the global standard is obsolete. The world is becoming more multilateral and intertwined (as we all know), and the global economy is simply far too complex for any one currency to dominate. And far too fragile for all of the eggs to be in any one basket. What's happening here is the emergence of a basket of major currencies serving where one used to do. But the idea of any single nation's currency becoming a standard is as archaic as the notion that any single nation could establish an old-fashioned "empire." It simply can't happen anymore.
But if there is just one as the standard, it will almost certainly be the Euro, probably tied in some way to the Chinese yuan. But it won't be the dollar; the American government, especially the Treasury Department and the pertinent congressional committees are far too corrupt and incompetent for the world to trust them anymore. Heck, I'm an American and I don't trust them. There are problems with the Euro, but with 20 or more countries keeping watch it's much more likely to remain competently and honestly managed.
January 01, 2004
Stocks up, but corporate sleaze remains.
The Guardian reviews developments in corporate America during 2003,
Scent of sleaze persists amid US boom, and observes that while the Dow may be up quite a bit, most of the problems which came to light during the post-boom crash still remain. "Sleazy" and "squalid" are the terms they use to describe corporate governance in America.
And get this, my fellow Americans, corporate profits during the third quarter of 2003 rose a very whopping 30%, the largest increase in 19 years. Did your income increase 30%? No, nothing's changed since Clinton. No limits to corporate greed and no end in sight. In fact, since they let them keep all of the money they stole the last time, there's no reason to suggest that they won't try to steal any more this time. Why not? With enemies like Eliot ("Just promise not to do it again, return one percent, and you can keep the rest") Spitzer being held up as "heroes", who needs friends? What a joke.
Wall Street and the rest of corporate America did little during 2003 to repair the squalid image which took shape the previous year.
... Two icons of US business returned to growth, McDonald's and The Gap. Another more recent addition to those ranks, Google, finally started planning for its initial public offering. The commerce department said that corporate profits in the fiscal third quarter rose by 30%, the largest year-over-year growth for 19 years. Economic growth in the third quarter reached 8.2%, the highest gain since 1984.
Whether the boom, fuelled by tax cuts and government spending lasts in 2004 is less certain. The dollar suffered a terrible year, largely due to the trading and federal budgetary deficits which fuelled GDP growth. In July 2001, one euro bought less than 84 cents. It now buys more than $1.20.
It's funny how eager and desperate everyone seems to claim that the "boom" is back, just because of a small rise in the stock market. A period of just normal business isn't good enough anymore; it has to be a "boom", or it just doesn't matter.
Their views are quite simplistic, and permeated by the sins of omission. "Fueled by tax cuts and government spending." It's so much bigger than that. No mention of the fact that most of the gain was due to war profiteering and the war industries, altho I guess that could count as government spending. But it's still blood money. And what about the lowest interest rates since World War II, thus flooding the markets with dirt-cheap capital, but at the cost of destroying any incentive for prudent Americans to save.
"Confidence returned to both the markets and the economy..." they say. But that's just it. It hasn't returned to the economy, not really. Just the markets. Overall things remain rather depressed. Where I live, in Oregon, they're still planning on more school closures this year. And no one I know expects the higher Dow to result in any significant decrease in the near 10% unemployment rate, at least not in the near future.
Schools and states challenging education law.
NY Times article. There is increasing resistance to President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education reform bill by schools, districts and states, which is increasingly seen as unworkable and counter-productive. Mostly though there simply is no money available for mandated programs.
The school district here in Reading recently filed suit contending that Pennsylvania, in enforcing the federal law, had unfairly judged Reading's efforts to educate thousands of recent immigrants and unreasonably required the impoverished city to offer tutoring and other services for which there is no money.
"We're not trying to make a political statement, but this law can just overwhelm a school system's ability to meet its requirements, especially when a district is as financially stressed as we are," said Fred Gaige, a school board member. His school system has been struggling to comply with the law, he said, even as it flirts with bankruptcy because the local manufacturing economy is collapsing.
The law, known as No Child Left Behind and signed in January 2002, seeks to raise achievement by penalizing schools where test scores do not meet annual targets. It is the most sweeping plan to shake up public education in a generation, as well as the most intrusive federal intervention in local schools. But until recently it had provoked little more than grumbling, though polls showed that educators in most of the nation's 15,000 districts considered several of its requirements ill-conceived.
In recent weeks, however, three Connecticut school districts have rejected federal money rather than comply with the red tape that accompanies the law, and several Vermont districts have shifted federal poverty money away from schools to shield them from sanctions.
Republican lawmakers from the National Council of State Legislatures, who consider the law a violation of states' rights, took their complaints to the White House in November, where they got a chilly reception.
Now, several say they will press their case in their home states. A Republican legislator has introduced a bill that would prohibit Utah authorities from complying with the law or accepting the $100 million it would bring the state. Half a dozen other state legislatures have voted to study similar action.
Some analysts see the scattered actions as the front end of a backlash that will probably swell this year, when early penalties are likely to be imposed on thousands of schools across the nation.
This sure is a good sign. It could turn into quite a struggle. But the bill really isn't about education at all, but about the federal government taking over the schools.
It also illustrates the increasing breakdown between federal and local balance. The idea that the federal government can simply require local communities and states to do things for which they don't have the money is patently ridiculous. It may look on paper but in the real world it simply doesn't work.
States passing legislation prohibiting authorities from complying with federal laws is quite a big step. This is also happening in regards to the Patriot Act, which is equally unconstitutional and unworkable.
December 31, 2003
American hawks call for global war.
Tom Tomorrow over at
This Modern World links to
this article in the Telegraph which reveals that the hawks in Bush's administration are demanding a rapid expansion in their war against humanity, beginning with regime change in Syria and Iran, pre-emptive strikes against North Korea, and continuing with aggressive actions against France, Saudi Arabia and pretty much going on to terrorize everyone else in the world.
President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.
The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.
The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington.
In the battle for the president's ear, the manifesto represents an attempt by hawks to break out of the post-Iraq doldrums and strike back at what they see as a campaign of hostile leaking by their foes in such centres of caution as the State Department or in the military top brass.
Their publication, An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror, coincided with the latest broadside from the hawks' enemy number one, Colin Powell, the secretary of state.
Though on leave recovering from a prostate cancer operation, Mr Powell summoned reporters to his bedside to hail "encouraging" signs of a "new attitude" in Iran and call for the United States to keep open the prospect of dialogue with the Teheran authorities.
Such talk is anathema to hawks like Mr Perle and Mr Frum who urge Washington to shun the mullahs and work for their overthrow in concert with Iranian dissidents.
It may be assumed that their instincts at least are shared by hawks inside the government, whose twin power bases are the Pentagon's civilian leadership and the office of the vice-president, Dick Cheney.
It's abundantly clear that they no longer in any way feel constrained by either American or international law, or by any democratic processes at all, and have nothing but contempt for the overwhelming majority of people, including Americans, who are utterly repulsed by their plans. And that they couldn't care less who ends up paying for it all. It certainly won't be them.
What's particularly frightening is that they intend to pursue their course of action no matter how much opposition there is to it, even if that opposition includes most Americans. Even the Secretary of State, who is supposed to pretty much be in charge of American foreign policy is quite opposed to the idea.
It seems clear that they intend to try to do this all before the election. But it's also clear that they will have to draft large amounts of poor people, mostly African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans, although quite a few white as well, to use as cannon fodder. I wonder how that will go over with voters in that group. I also wonder what Mr. Powell is going to do or say during this election year.
It's especially sad that you have to read about this in a British newspaper. American ones seem more concerned with pointing out the rise in the stock market.
Dollar continues decline.
The Financial Times
reports that the dollar continued its rapid decline on the last day of the year, falling to $1.26/euro. It's going down at about a penny a day, which is quite a bit. The most rapid decline in history anyway.
The dollar extended its losing streak into the last trading session of the year, falling to $1.26 against the euro for the first time and marking new lows against a wide range of currencies.
The euro climbed to a high of $1.2647 in London trade while sterling made it to $1.7937, a new 11-year high, and the Australian dollar reached a fresh six-year peak at $0.7536. The beleaguered greenback also slid to a new 10-year low against the Canadian dollar at C$1.2842 and made a seven-year low against the Swiss franc at SFr1.211
The latest slide took the dollar's losses against the euro to 17 per cent this year, with a loss of nearly 5 per cent in December alone. Sterling has added 4 per cent against the dollar on the month, up more than 5 cents.
I think it will continue to go down during 2004, reaching at least $2 to the euro sometime during the year. Which would mean its decline will slow down a bit. The current rate of decline of one penny a day would mean a value of $4.91 against the Euro in a year. That seems almost inconceivable. But in fact the rate of decline accelerated during December, especially since Saddam was captured, so who knows what the new year will bring. At a penny a day, it will cross the $2/euro threshold before April.
There doesn't seem to be much that the American government can do about it either. In fact they seem to think it's actually good for the US, which it may be in the short run. It's probably the major reason for the Dow's recent rise despite the lack of any significant economic growth in the US.
The major tool for managing currencies is the interest rate. But the Fed can't raise it very much without endangering the so-called recovery in stock prices, and that's extremely unlikely during an election year. The current easy money policies help corporate America in the short term, but at the long term expense of the economy as a whole. And the world markets are starting to realize that. The G7 meets in February so it will probably be the hot topic there. But again, what can they do?
There's
another article in the FT which reviews the changes during this year, and points out that a prediction of the current levels would have seemed "outlandish" a year ago. I'm sure my prediction of $2/euro by 2005 also seems "outlandish."
December 30, 2003
Amazing interview with Pete Townshend.
Very long article on and
interview with Peter Townshend by Sean O'Hagan in the
Guardian, a year after he was caught as part of an investigation into child pornography on the net. Amazing insights into him, his life and the dark forces underlying so much of his work, much of which deals with child abuse and its aftermath. Quite revelatory. A must-read for longtime Who fans.
As his rock opera, Tommy, first hinted, though, Pete Townshend is a troubled man with some dark shadows of his own. In it, a young boy is violently abused by Uncle Ernie, one of the creepiest characters to feature in a pop song. He has spoken before, albeit abstractly, about being abused as a child, aged six or seven, while staying with his maternal grandmother in Westgate, Kent.
'She was not very well. My parents' relationship was in trouble and it was convenient. I was there for about a year and a half and when I came home again, my parents got back together again, so it kind of fixed everything.'
Was his grandmother violent towards him? 'Yes, she was.' And, it was around this time that he was abused? 'You know, I don't remember, Sean. What I do remember is a sense of disturbed eroticism. She was promiscuous, she was crazy, and she was seeing men, and she didn't lock my bedroom. I think men came into my room.' Has he tried to recall this in therapy? 'Yes. In '82 and '83. But I stopped. I went to my therapist and said, "I can't do this."'
... It was later, when when he started writing and performing, Pete Townshend says, 'that it all just came out'. Revealingly, what he calls his 'first guitar smashing exercise' was sparked by the reappearance of his grandmother in his life. 'I was with John [Entwistle]. We were about 12. I'm strumming away on my guitar which is going through a little Selmer amplifier that I had done two years on a paper round to buy. She came in and said, "Turn that bloody awful fucking row down! Nobody can think." I just looked at her, and I picked up the amp, and I threw it at her. She shut the door and it went right through the plateglass, and she went white with fear. Suddenly, she realised I was a man and that she couldn't fuck with me any more. That was the very first time it happened, and I remember thinking, "Anger will fix this."'
Goes into quite a bit of detail on what he did and why, or at least his struggle to find out why. It sounds like it's had a devastating impact its had on his life.
Since that moment, Pete Townshend's life has been changed utterly. Two child-related charities have sent back his most recent donations, and, he says: 'The whole thing has changed my standing in society substantially.' He is 'nervous but confident' about going back out on the road with the Who, and says that, 'ultimately all I really want to be able to do is wander the streets on my own and end up somewhere unfamiliar, and still feel confident.'
What, I ask him, has he learned from all this? 'That this world is all about limits and boundaries,' he says, 'and this year I found the end-stop. When the police came through this door, it stopped being nightmare and insanity, and became reality. I just thought, I have to look at who I am, and what I did, and get through this calmly. Soon after, I realised that the public hadn't bought into it, and that was so humbling. I had hundreds of letters of support from friends and fans and strangers.
Anyway, all very sad. Especially for someone whose life work has been so much about exploring the dark side of human nature, and especially about expressing the viewpoint of frightened and abused children. Also very sad that those who claim they want to prevent child pornography and protect children are making it so difficult for concerned people to explore this world and deal with it.
A repressive embarrassment.
Via
TomDispatch. The
Toledo Blade reports on the abusive treatment the US metes out to foreign journalists who make the mistake of arriving here without a visa, which they call
A repressive embarrassment.
This is getting to be a widespread problem. Security is one thing, but deliberately hassling and being rude to people simply because they are foreigners is obscene. It's not only embarrassing, it's counter-productive and serves only to increase the growing hostility to America around the world. Not to mention seriously damaging American economic interests. One journalist was just here to review and promote an American movie.
Without notification to foreign media outlets, the immigration and customs people are arresting, detaining, and deporting journalists arriving here without special visas. This is so even when they come from nations whose citizens can stay for up to 90 days without a visa if they are arriving as tourists or on business.
If that threatening form of registration is not enough, members of the press arriving without the visas, which no one told them they needed, are treated like criminals, handcuffed as they’re marched through airports, photographed, fingerprinted, and their DNA taken.
Peter Krobath, chief editor for the Austrian movie magazine Skip, was held overnight in a cold room with 45 others who arrived without the visa. The room had two open toilets, a metal bench, and a concrete bench. He was here to interview movie star Ben Affleck and see the movie Paycheck.
Thomas Sjoerup, a photographer for the Danish paper Ekstra Bladet, was deported after a few hours during which a mugshot, fingerprints, and DNA sample were taken. A French journalist said he and five others from his country were marched across the airport in handcuffs, without belts or laces.
The International Press Institute in Vienna, a media freedom group, has complained not only about Mr. Korbath’s treatment but also, and indeed more important, the fact that only foreign journalists need special visas.
The Brussels-based International Federation of Journalists is about to launch a global campaign against the absurd and repressive rule that casts suspicion on working journalists who come to this country on business as valid as any other traveler’s.
A U.S. embassy official in Vienna said visas have always been required. If that requirement existed, it was more honored in its breach and ought to be rescinded.
It should not take a world media outcry to address this problem. It’s a policy that puts these United States in the ranks of Third World dictatorships.
Probably worse than so-called Third World dictatorships, since they don't usually claim to be a beacon for human rights and the rule of law the way the US does. This situation is out of hand.
Others' predictions for 2004.
I always like to predict the future, and am fascinated by articles that attempt to do so. I'll be gathering links to some of these for 2004, so that a year from now I can go back and see what's what, and what wasn't.
Here's
a list from
BBC News.
They predict Bush will get re-elected, which I heartily disagree with. It's hard to call at this point, and none of the Democratic candidates really appeal to me, but my feeling is that this will be a major Democratic landslide, the likes of which haven't been seen since 1932. I could be wrong, we shall see.
Some things they are definitely wrong about though are their assumptions that (1) Bush will outspend the Demos, since there's beginning to be an awful lot of money flowing to Democratic coffers; and (2) that money will be the deciding factor. People always assume this, but a study of presidential elections doesn't support the thesis. Bush didn't win in 2000 because he had more money, but because Gore ran the most incompetent campaign the US has seen in many years, and because of the incredible corruption allowed by him and Clinton. But people always like to use money as an excuse. It's convenient.
Another interesting prediction is that of the first black pope. I doubt that too, but it's an interesting idea.
Here's
Business Week's 2004 Forecasts.
They too predict Bush will win reelection by a narrow plurality. Like I say above it's difficult to call, but I think this reflects a common mistake people make in predicting: they predict what they WANT to happen, rather than what WILL happen. It's very difficult to separate the two, and business analysts are usually the worst at it than anyone.
Curiously, given the importance of the value of the dollar in business and economics, they don't even bother to mention it. Like most American news sources, especially the financial specialists, the policy seems to be if we just ignore it it will go away. But they should pay more attention. The declining dollar means that American assets are increasingly cheap on the international market, and other nations will start to gobble them up. Why wouldn't they? (See this NY Times article,
Weak Dollar Has Put U.S. Assets On Sale.)
But instead of concerning themselves with such minor inconsequentials as the selling-off of America, they reserve two of their ten predictions for the winners of the Super Bowl and the World Series. Very indicative of the level of maturity found in corporate America, I'd say.
There's another set of predictions from BW. In their "Movable Feast" column, Thane Peterson
reviews his predictions for 2003, and makes some for 2004. Curiously it's mostly cultural changes, not business ones, that he discusses. Although he does briefly mention the economy.
Buy American Will Become a Serious Movement Again.
Call me naďve, but I predict that the U.S. trade deficit, which is coming in at around $500 billion this year, will finally become a political issue with ordinary voters. People will start connecting this unsustainable drain with the flight of jobs overseas, outsourcing, and the steady downward pressure on the dollar.
More Americans will start wondering: Can you really have prosperity in an economy that imports nearly all its tangible goods and is almost entirely based on services? In my view, that can work only if international peace, cooperation, and free trade reign -- none of which the Bush Administration or Congress is pushing very hard right now.
I don't see what's "naive" about facing economic realities. And I also don't see what "Buy American" means anymore. Most of Wal-Mart's stuff isn't made in America. If you buy a Chrysler automobile, you're buying German, not American. If you go see "Lord of the Rings" you're buying New Zealand. If you buy a Harry Potter book, you're buying Scotland. You can't hide a trillion dollar debt behind a flag.
But that isn't a new story. Check out the lyrics to Bob Dylan's
Union Sundown, written twenty years ago, in which he outlines how the lack of homegrown products affects things.
Well, you know, lots of people complainin' that there is no work.
I say, "Why you say that for
When nothin' you got is U.S.-made?"
They don't make nothin' here no more,
You know, capitalism is above the law.
It say, "It don't count 'less it sells."
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else.
Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.
Land of the free?
Via
Common Dreams. In a moving article,
American 'Value's Cast A Global Shadow, James Carroll questions the claim that this was a year in which America helped spread democracy and "freedom" to the world by reviewing the increasing horrors happening in American prisons.
But the year just ending marked other milestones toward a reckoning with the real meaning of American democracy. In late October, in a speech in Fall River, Robert A. Mulligan, chief administrative judge of Massachusetts, noted current characteristics of US criminal justice. The American prison population recently went over 2 million for the first time, putting the United States ahead of Russia as the world capital of incarceration. Add to that number those on parole or probation and the total under "correctional" control grows to 7 million. Thirty years ago, one in 1,000 Americans was locked up; today, almost five are. In famously liberal Massachusetts, the prison population has grown, since 1980, from under 6,000 to almost 23,000. In 2003, for the first time, the amount of money Massachusetts spent on prisons was more than what it spent on higher education.
These statistics accumulate a punishing weight falling more on African-American males than anyone else, and from that springs the year's fundamental epiphany. Justice? Democracy? In the United States, according to Judge Mulligan, one in three African-American males between the ages of 20 and 30 is "under correctional control." In places like Baltimore and Washington, more than half are. The number of African-American men in college is less than the number of those under supervision of the courts. And why? Such facts reveal far more about the way justice is administered in America than about the moral character of any group.
Mulligan, for one, points to the "war on drugs" as key, a war that has seen the rate of imprisonment of drug offenders jump by 700 percent since 1980; a war that depends on narrowly targeted law enforcement and on mandatory prison sentences. In 2002, 80 percent of those receiving such sentences were minorities. The war on drugs has been disproportionately a war on young black men.
2003. The death penalty set loose. Prison populations setting records. Effective torture as part of punishment. A system of racial injustice that rivals slavery. American values across the world. Please.
That's a remarkable statistic: that thirty years ago only 1 in 1,000 Americans was locked up, while now it's 5 in 1,000. Despite the evidence that violent crime has been decreasing. It says so much about what is happening in this country and how bad it's become. More Americans are killed by government officials conducting racial cleansing in the name of some mythical war on drugs than by terrorists. Many, many more.
How long can Americans continue to lock up more of their people than any other country on earth and continue to claim it is the "Land of the Free?" And the claims of torture and slavery are quite accurate, backed up by many sources, including Amnesty International. Prison inmates are now routinely turned over to corporate interests to be used as free labor. And that's slavery.
But you won't hear a word about it from Howard Dean or any of the other Democratic candidates. No, they email you to "support our troops." And they ask for the endorsements of Clinton and Gore, two southerners under whose administration the rates of incarceration for black men, women and children broke all records. And those who blame Gore's defeat on Nader might better ask why he never even mentioned the issue. Not once.
Relief however seems to be coming from an unexpected source, California Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, who appears to have some sort of heart. He has begun paroling people that Democrat Grey Davis, who had a formal no parole policy, refused to release, even after recommendations from the state parole board. Even better, he recently called for the release of as many as one-third of California's inmates. His motives seem to be budgetary, but it's still the right thing to do. Prison costs have been skyrocketing in California, especially prison guard salaries, the average of which is now double the average teacher salary, and it's time someone addressed the problem.
At least Arnie is not hypocritical enough to advocate keep people in prison for smoking pot, something he himself has admitted doing. And while he has been accused of very sexist behavior towards women, it has to be noted that an awful lot of California's prison population is female, and that what they've been experiencing in prison is a lot worse than just being groped. A lot worse.
Reviewing Iraqi-American history.
Stumbled onto two different articles both recalling various aspects of the long American involvement in Iraqi affairs, especially the early support for Saddam. One by Robert Parry in
In These Times, entitled
Missing U.S.-Iraq History, and one by Robert Scheer in the
LA Times, entitled
The U.S. Winked at Hussein's Evil.
Parry details, among other things, how animosity towards Iran during the Carter and Reagan administrations led the US to encourage and support his regime, how Bush I continued their efforts, and how Clinton basically went along with it, and helped cover up what remained of the Iran-Contra affair. It's a very long and detailed article. Scheer is engaged in mostly Bush-Republican bashing, although he does seem to get his facts straight.
But I really liked Parry's analysis. It's important for people to know that there really hasn't been any difference between Democratic and Republican actions there, and one shouldn't expect much, if any, difference in the future. People really have no idea of the degree and extent of American involvement, or just how willing they were (and are) to sacrifice the long-term needs of the Iraqi people to short-term political goals.
Don’t Do What They Tell You, Tell What They Do.
Via
In These Times is
this article reviewing a new book on the war in Vietnam, an oral history which collects accounts of participants from all sides.
Near the end of the Vietnam War, as the antiwar movement roiled domestic politics and the Viet Cong showed no signs of giving in, a group of black soldiers formed an underground society named the Mau-Maus, in reference to a 19th-century uprising against the British in Kenya. Other soldiers, at about the same time, put up posters at Army bases reading, “Don’t Do What They Tell You, Tell What They Do,” and went on “search-and-avoid” missions—told where the enemy was, they’d march in the opposite direction. In 1971, for the Fourth of July, soldiers at one base held a peace rally, calling for “immediate and total American troop withdrawal.”
These were only a few signs of an army in revolt and a foreign policy in collapse.
At home, Nixon composed his infamous list of political enemies, and used federal agencies to harass them. The “Plumbers,” his secret agents, broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg’s psychiatrist to find documents that might be used to smear him after he released the Pentagon Papers. Vietnam veterans threw away their medals in front of the White House. Early in the morning before an antiwar demonstration on the Washington Mall, Nixon wandered down without Secret Service men in attendance, and gave a rambling speech to the college-age protesters, telling them to travel and see the world.
Such stories of Vietnam-era unraveling—and many more—can be found in Christian Appy’s Patriots: An Oral History of the Vietnam War Remembered from All Sides. Appy has interviewed soldiers, generals, North Vietnamese, South Vietnamese, antiwar protestors, politicians, Cold Warriors, artists, poets, flight attendants, conscientious objectors, draft dodgers and more. Juxtaposing the narratives of the men who planned the war with those who fought in and against it, the deepest theme of Appy’s book is the self-deception and moral blindness of American leaders, and their inability to justify the war—to American soldiers, to the general public, even to themselves.
Sounds like an interesting book. But it's sad that even a fairly progressive site such as In These Times refers to those who resisted the draft as draft "dodgers," which is a derogatory term. Draft "resistors" would be more accurate. "Dodgers" sounds like they were avoiding serving their country, when they were actually trying to protect it.
End of entries. ( ) ( )
