Showing posts with label Corporatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Corporatism. Show all posts

Saturday, December 3, 2011

Neither America nor any other country are Businesses .. We are not electing a CEO

Perhaps this is a sign of the corporatization of American government.  That it's the next step after the Supreme Court's Citizen United ruling saying that Corporations had unlimited ability to spend money in politics, and there was surely a step before that which looked like an egregious example of the corporatization of our Politics and Government.  What I'm concerned about is a tagline attached to Herman Cain's 2012 Presidential campaign, where he is campaigning to become America's CEO.

Perhaps he'll be bowing out of the race later today due to sexual misconduct.  But for the moment let's just ponder this on its face.  The Cain campaign released a video today, an advertising pitching a not-quite-accurate line of reasoning about jobs creation, and featuring Cain saying "I've spent a life time creating jobs, and if you make me Americas CEO…" which just clicked in my mind as WRONG.  So here I am, writing about how WRONG this is.

Countries and Businesses are different animals, and most importantly play different roles and have different goals.  It is wrong to run a Country as if it were a Businesses.

I'm not entirely sure if there is a canonically correct list of attributes of companies versus countries but this list illustrates what I have in mind.  Perhaps a debate is in order about this sort of thing to make it clear what the differences are.

In fact there is a debate related to this - happening via the Occupy protests and some other organizations like Slow Money, Slow Food, Transition Towns, Resilience Circles, and other groups where we the people are gathering with the idea to recreate our society in a way that works for all of us.

Are we going to continue living under the government that was constructed by and serves the elite, or are we going to create a government that is truly our common body of all of us acting as a united whole?

Businesses are:

  • Purpose is to be profitable - highest revenue possible
  • Current business practice is the "growth at all costs" mantra that's completely unsustainable
  • Based on a web of contracts where people make bargains for money that remove their rights --- for example employees sign employment contracts that in part remove their right of free speech, because employees are required to not speak publicly about corporate proprietary knowledge
  • Businesses are essentially top-down dictatorships with, for example, Management holding rights to fire people as a threat to keep everyone in line with corporate dictates
  • Formed by getting a permit (business license) from a Government

Countries are:

  • Purpose is to maintain a piece of land for the betterment of the people living there
  • Purpose is to maintain common resources and well-being
  • Collects money through fees and taxes
  • Does not have shareholders - instead, in effect, governments are in the ideal mutually owned by the people
  • Is not expected to maintain a profit - indeed many politicians have claimed that when a government runs a surplus, that's a sign of the government taking too many taxes, and that's a reason for a tax cut (but such tax cuts later cause government deficits leading to government borrowing and government debt causing a wastage of government resources)
  • Is not expected to grow faster than the rate of population growth - indeed many politicians decry overly large government (some of whom hypocritically create massive expansions of government)

 

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Lobbying Firm's Memo Spells Out Plan to Undermine Occupy Wall Street

An exclusive report from Up With Chris Hayes exposes a lobbying firm pitching to the American Banking Association that the Occupy movement is dangerous, which must be killed in order for the Bankers to be safe.

The piece concerns a proposal written on the letterhead of the lobbying firm Clark Lytle Geduldig & Cranford and addressed to one of CLGC’s clients, the American Bankers Association.  The proposal (linked below) is pretty damning evidence of how worried officialdom is about the Occupy movement, and some of the strategizing.  The proposal theorizes that the Obama campaign might attempt to join forces with the Occupy movement if Wall Street gets tarnished badly enough.  It also suggests some Republicans might do so as well if the tarnishing gets bad enough.  Never mind that all politicians are tainted with receiving huge sums from Wall Street.

The vision is that Occupy and Tea Party overlap in terms of being angered populist movements.  The radical left and radical right are both channeling frustration about the economy into political action.  Somehow in some weird parallel universe the two movements might join together to do something traumatic to Wall Street.  At least that's the story GLGC spins to the Bankers.

Their proposal outlines some actions:-  Polling in some key states (Florida, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, North Carolina, Nevada, and New Mexico) which are both states that Obama won, and states facing key issues in front of the electorate right now.  For example, Nevada is described as "ground zero for the foreclosure crisis".

Next they'd do "opposition research" looking for the financial backers of the Occupy movement, presuming that there are deep pockets people like George Soros behind this.  The idea will be to show these backers have "the same cynical motivation as a political opponent" to undermine the Occupy movement credibility.  Maybe at this point they're showing a profound misunderstanding of what's going on?

Social media monitoring to anticipate future Occupy actions and messaging, as well as "identify extreme language and ideas that put its most ardent supporters at odds with mainstream Americans."

Coalition planning activities would demonstrate that the companies targeted by Occupy still have political strength and that making those companies into political targets will carry political risk.

The ultimate deliverable is identifying messages that will "move numbers" (polling numbers), combat Occupy messages, and "provide cover for political figures who defend the industry."

As Chris Hayes points out, two of the names on the proposal are former staffers of Speaker of the House John Boehner.  

They also had an Obama campaign spokesperson on, Anita Dunn, to discuss this.  One critique of the Obama campaign is that they've taken a huge pile of campaign contributions from Wall Street, so doesn't that tarnish the campaign?  Ms. Dunn replied, sidestepping the question, that the majority of their contributions are small ones from individuals.  Didn't really answer the question.  She also said that the tough financial reforms against Wall Street were won by the Obama Administration, demonstrating that Obama isn't in the pocket of Wall Street.








Exclusive: Lobbying Firm's Memo Spells Out Plan to Undermine Occupy Wall Street (VIDEO)

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/CLGF-msnbc.pdf

Obama Campaign Responds to "Up" Exclusive on Lobbyist Plan to Take Down Occupy Wall Street

Friday, October 28, 2011

Crusading state-level Attorneys General seeking to take down corrupt financial industry - Maddow

This week a major focus on Rachel Maddow's show is the corrupt financial industry that nearly killed the U.S. economy.  The deed was enabled by corrupt business practices that were in turn enabled by relaxed regulatory regime.  Largely speaking, even though many companies in the financial industry died, bankrupted, merged, etc, the people who committed the practices are often still employed in the same financial industry, and the regulatory system around them has changed very little.

As Maddow recounts, earlier in this decade a crusading NY Attorney General, Elliot Spitzer, took down several corrupt NYC financial industry titans.  That was before he went on to a prostitute scandal and a stint as a CNN host.  In her coverage this week she focused on two Attorneys General, Eric Schneiderman from New York and Beau Biden from Delaware.   One take-away from this is that Change can happen when bright people pursue a course of correcting wrongs, and use their position of power to enable change in the world.

Of course there is positive change and negative change.  Someone in a position of power can create a corrupt system, or work to remove corruption.  It depends on how they apply the power their position gives them.

These people who are in public service - ideally their job is serving the better interests of all.  Consider the Attorney General job.  It's about seeing justice is served, lawbreakers are found and punished, the law is applied in a just manner, etc.

But history is replete with people who used positions of power to instead feather their own nests, or work with cronies to feather each others nests, or create a regime of dictatorial control, or .. etc .. on and on ..  There have been plenty of Attorneys General who used their positions of power to hide corruption, to stonewall investigations, etc.  Again, it's a matter of how each individual uses their time in the position of power.

During the interviews below, Maddow asked Beau Biden (son of Vice President Biden) why these investigations are happening at the state level rather than the federal level.  Interesting question, and he answered that while there is a lot of state-level investigation, that it seems the state level investigators are cooperating, there is also federal level investigations.

 

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This starts a little slow with analysis of Republican advertisements, the poor pitiful state of Democratic advertisements .. etc ..  The segue point is a Democratic ad that really hits hard on the mortgage crisis corruption.   Almost half of Arizona home-owners are "under water" with foreclosures "everywhere" but Romney's message to Arizona is that he wants the mortgage crisis to "hit bottom" and that home-owners are on their own.

In other words - the banks (e.g. the rich 1%) got bailed out, while we the 99% get foreclosed.

Would it work to brush the corruption under the rug and ignore it?  The business-friendly Republicans want to brush this aside, but does this mean they think "business-friendly" means "corruption-friendly"?

A lot of the base raw feelings driving the Occupy protests is this exact issue.  Rampant financial corruption and corrupt practices.  Who is going to step up to the plate to correct this?  A minute ago I suggested that people in positions of political power have a choice, to use their power for the good of all, or to use their power to protect corrupt practices keeping the game going.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Later in the show they had Glenn Greenwald on to shill for his latest book, but this weaves into the same narrative.  This book, With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful, "lays bare the mechanisms that have come to shield the elite from accountability" and "shows how the media, both political parties, and the courts have abetted a process that has produced torture, war crimes, domestic spying, and financial fraud".

The book has a chapter titled - Too Big To Jail - great meme.

Basically, he was there to talk about officially sanctioned corruption and the general pattern that the rich get away with things we little people would be in jail over.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

In this segment Maddow shows, with numbers charted on a graph, the effect of the system.  Note that Greenwald identified a tipping point 40 years ago when Richard Nixon got pardoned, and by being pardoned started this "Too Big To Jail" precedent that's been used to let others get off with little or no punishment for misdeeds.

Here the graph shows how, upon the election of Ronald Reagan, the economic well-being of the 99% and 1% began to diverge.  The Rich got Richer far faster than the rest of us, creating an enormous gap in financial well-being.  Reagan did a lot to remove the regulatory system that had kept the financial system in check, keeping corruption out of finance.  One thing that enabled was for the rich to get richer, and it enabled the rampant corruption.

Oh, and this more-or-less proves how bogus were the "Trickle Down Economics" of the Reagan era.  We see right here that there's no trickle-down.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is the segment where she talks about Elliot Spitzer in the period he was the crusading New York Attorney General, the role now held by Eric Schneiderman above.  The segment starts with a quote from the Chamber of Commerce complaining about Spitzers effectiveness.  From the Chamber of Commerce perspective we can imagine they saw Spitzer as a threat, but that just fits the meme where "business-friendly" really means "corruption-friendly" doesn't it?

Thanks to Spitzer, Wall Street was being "perp walked" for stuff they used to routinely get away with.

Sure, investments are not a sure thing and investors should certainly know this.  THe one thing investors deserve is honest advice.  Instead what they got was crap self serving advice that actively misled investors to investing in crap.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Immediately after the prior segment, we have Beau Biden (VP Biden's son) on to talk about what Delaware is doing.  Where Delaware enters the picture is jurisdiction.  Where Delaware is the preferred state to register corporations, those corporations are subject to accountability by Delaware's judicial system.

Beau Biden as the Delaware Attorney General has just launched a lawsuit against the entire mortgage industry.

The allegation is that in the mid 90's the banks privatized regulation of mortgage notes, so that mortgages could be securitized so that they can be traded on the open market.  A result of the securitization was that it's now nigh-on-impossible to determine who actually owns a given house, because the mortgage originator securitizes the mortgage to sell the mortgage securities on the market.

 

Friday, October 21, 2011

Dylan Ratigan calls the 2008-9 bank bailout the greatest theft in history

An interesting analysis of the bank bailouts - a process which began during the Bush43 administration.  There was fraudulent banking going on, fictitiously inflating the value of bad securities, and the problem hit hard when the regulators said "wait a minute" and revalued everything to its proper value.  The bad debt was then transferred to the taxpayers, but the people who created the bad system still got their yearly bonuses.

Dylan Ratigan demonstrates the fraudulent shell game leading to the 2007-8-9 mortgage crisis

The youtube video is from October 2009 and has Dylan Ratigan, Eliot Spitzer and comedian Sherrod Small play a game of credit rating theater. There is extreme truth in this little bit of comedic fiction, including the fact that absolutely nothing has changed. Pass this one to a friend.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

Will the economic hitmen undo the political change from the Arab Spring and Occupy Wall Street movements?

Today it appears that Libya's leader Moammar Ghaddafi has fallen after an uprising / revolution that had a certain amount of support from Western Powers.  Other countries have seen massive protests this year, in a couple cases resulting in a change in the government.  The massive protests include in the U.S. with the Occupy Wall Street movement that's inspired similar protests around the country.  But videos like the one below make me wonder just how much difference will be made in the long run, and whether the international power elite are working overtime to gain leverage over the protest movements so they can control the outcome.

e.g. in Libya, what agreements were made between "rebels" and the outside powers who supported the "rebels"?  Is the Libyan rebellion truly independent?  I doubt that.  The zillions of dollars spent on sending cruise missiles, unmanned drones, and military air support of the rebels, that monetary support had to come with strings attached, right?

The Egyptians toppled their leader, but now have a Military government who isn't behaving much better than the previous leadership.  The Libyans have toppled their leader (apparently) but will the result be any better than before?

The audio in this video is John Perkins, author of 'Hoodwinked: An Economic Hit Man Reveals Why the World Financial Markets Imploded--and What We Need to Do to Remake Them' and 'Confessions Of An Economic Hitman', talking about the system of globalized control via economic leverage that's spewing pain and suffering all over the world.

An interview with RT TV in 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

U.S. not "trying that hard" on exports according to GE's Immelt - Balance of Trade and economic weakness

Reuters recently ran an interview with GE's CEO Immelt in which he laid out a case that the U.S. economy is weak because the U.S. is not trying hard enough to raise exports.  The basic idea is that it's other countries who are building actual products for export, and that the countries who export actual products are the ones earning revenue.  The U.S. manufacturing has been weakened by decades of globalization moving what used to be U.S. manufacturing to other countries.  I'm sure that General Electric has done their share of offshoring and moving manufacturing overseas, so this is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

"We're not trying that hard," Immelt told a Thomson Reuters Newsmaker event in New York on Monday. "We haven't really tried as hard as we can to compete, educate and sell our products around the world, and I think we can do better."

Immelt is a CEO of a major corporation, a life-long Republican, and a top advisor to the Obama Administration on Jobs and the Economy.  Hence what he has to say carries some weight.  He's also part of the 1% right?

The nation's economic malaise, now in its third year, has left many Americans angry and frustrated, Immelt said, and people in power need to empathize.  "Unemployment is 9.1 percent. Underemployment is much higher than that, particularly among young people that don't have a college degree," Immelt said. "It is natural to assume that people are angry, and I think we have to be empathetic and understand that people are not feeling great."

Immelt offers a poorly stated plan for a solution to this:  "The only way to solve this specific problem is growth," Immelt said. "If unemployment comes down, people will feel better. If unemployment goes up, people will feel worse, no matter what goes on Wall Street."

Ah.. if only it were that simple.  Growth!  Right!

Uh.. the reason the U.S. manufacturing is weak is because of offshoring production into a globalized economy.  Sorry, Immelt, but I think your suggestions deserve to be ridiculed.

See:

U.S. not "trying that hard" on exports: GE's Immelt

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Arrests of OccupyWallStreet protesters in Boston, arrest threats in Seattle ...

The OccupyWallStreet movement is the latest happening thing in America.  To me it seems like some memes from the "Arab Spring" touched nerves in the U.S. and became this outrage at Wall Street.  What's happening is in cities across the U.S. (maybe it's spread to other countries?) clusters of people have formed, camping out in their downtown areas (e.g. in San Francisco they're camped out on the sidewalk in front of the SF branch of the Federal Reserve) demanding ..something..  It's one thing to have outrage, it's another thing to focus the outrage into meaningful change especially when there's so many opinions of just what change there is to make.

It's also interesting to view this process through the different lenses available.  These popular uprisings have happened in several countries this year, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Libya, and now the U.S., and in each country events have unfolded in different ways, and it's been portrayed differently.  There's a way ones perspective or point of view changes how you interpret these things.

In the U.S. we're seeing Officialdom responding to protesters camped out downtown with police force and arrests.  In NYC a couple weeks ago hundreds of protesters were herded onto the Brooklyn Bridge, where they were arrested for blocking traffic.  We see below that in Boston a hundred or so protesters were arrested in a 1am raid with police attacking a group named "Veterans for Peace".  Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino has expressed sympathy for the issues expressed by the protesters, saying that corporate fraud and greed are issues he's worked on his whole political career, "But you can't tie up a city" in defending the arrests.  In other words he's saying that the functioning of the city is more important than the protest/ers?

In Seattle the protesters were told the city was not at that time planning to commit any arrests.  However the location of their encampment, Westlake Park, is supposed to close at 10pm each night and the city officials are demanding that protesters obey that regulation, and are threatening arrests.  Further police there are banning people from carrying umbrella's; it's Seattle, everyone carries umbrella's, but protesters who want to stay outside for days at a time and stay dry will rely on umbrella's, so by banning umbrella's it's a sneaky way to make it hard on protesters to do their thing.

I'm sure the Mayor of Cairo had similar thinking last Jan/Feb with the thousands upon thousands of protesters camped out in the center of that city.  I'm sure he woulda said something like "But you can't tie up a city."   The throngs of Egyptian protesters had huge international positive press coverage, with throngs of people around the world rooting for them.  I'm sure it was inconvenient to the Egyptians to have their city blocked up by protesters, with Officialdom in part simply desiring to restore "order".  The Egyptian protesters could have complied with "you can't tie up a city" and kept their protests limited enough to let the city keep functioning, but they didn't.  They had a political regime to change, a society to remake into a positive format, converting it from brutal dictatorship to one that treats its people humanely.

The job of the Mayor is to keep the city running, right?  One could argue that a Mayor who lets protesters run rampant and disrupt things isn't doing his/her job in keeping order.  Even if in the greater scheme of things, the protesters are advocating for positive and worthy change, in the process they're disrupting order.  It's the job of the Mayor or Governor or whatever Officialdom, to work to keep the population orderly and functioning smoothly.  In other words "you can't tie up a city".

On the other hand creating change does mean interrupting the current order of how things are done, so things can be changed into a new/different order.  You can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs.

You might think that in the U.S. we don't have as dire a situation as they had/have in Egypt.  That our situation in the U.S. isn't as desperate as the Egyptian's or Libyan's.  But, maybe our situation is as dire, or more so, and maybe our situation is part and parcel of their situation.

The Occupy<City> movement has identified "Wall Street" as the culprits.  What they're be pointing to is the corporate-greed-control complex that has subverted the political systems not just in the U.S. but around the world.  In the U.S. a symptom has been the rampant fraud in housing mortgages - Almost a quarter of all home mortgages today are currently underwater, 2 million homes are in the foreclosure process – and at least 5 million homes have already lost to foreclosure since 2007.  A lot of it due to corporatists who set up a fraudulent system to defraud these millions of home owners out of their homes.

But the same corporatists are committing other financial sins all around the world.   "Globalization" means that it's the same global-elite-power-corporatists everywhere.  They are dominating not only the U.S. but the whole world economy.  The issues faced in Egypt in part are the same issues we have in the U.S.  In both cases our political systems have been subverted by the global power/money/elite structure, and many rightfully see e.g. the economic meltdown etc as a symptom of the looting and fraud behind the banking chaos.

 

 

Boston Police Attack Veterans for Peace by @haveyoumetter for @DigBoston

Boston’s mayor: “Civil disobedience will not be tolerated”

The worst OWS moment so far

Seattle pressures protesters to relocate

Jubilee 2012?

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Corporate take-over of American cities and Republican led authoritarianism (Rachel Maddow)

Last night Rachel Maddow's show led off with a powerful piece using Benton Harbor Michigan as an example of authoritarian big government Republicans trampling on local government and overturning Democracy. The issue is a recent law passed by the Michigan state legislature giving their Governor the power to dissolve local governments that are in financial crisis, and replace the local government with a corporate-run management team.

While many such as myself has been pointing at corporatism as an abstract danger, this is a concrete example of corporate power replacing government power.

Her piece asks us to recall the Biblical phrase, "By their fruits ye shall know them". The Republicans have an ideological bias towards small non-intrusive government and personal freedom, but when they have official power they tend to become overbearing authoritarian neo-fascists.

There is an existing industry of Emergency Financial Managers who step in to governments in financial crisis. For that matter this has an analogue in corporate governance where there are people and organizations who specialize in corporate turnaround or dissolving corporations in the final throes of bankruptcy. Some people specialize as being the CEO of flailing companies. So, if there's a city who is in a similar near-failure case it would be useful to have people and organizations that specialize in assisting the financial turnaround of a flailing government.

But this is a little different. Taking cue from the "By their fruits ye shall know them" line, their first action under the emergency financial managers law is a doozy. Benton Harbor is a relatively poor predominantly black city neighboring a relatively rich predominantly white city, both straddling a river along the Lake Michigan shore across the lake from Chicago. Benton Harbor is slated to be the site of an exclusive Golf Course and high priced home development targeted at rich persons. The development is meant to encompass Benton Harbor's shore-side city park. The golf course enclave is obviously not going to benefit the citizens of Benton Harbor, and with their city government out of the way there's almost certainly zero defense against the planned development slated to take over land currently owned by the city.

In other words - the first official use of this law is to negate a local city government to make it easier to build an exclusive rich persons enclave and deny public access to yet another stretch of beach.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

What do you think? Let me know in the comment boxes below.

An earlier corporate take-over piece with video from Maddow's show: Corporations are not human, that's why we have government (Rachel Maddow)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Summary of the Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act Process

http://www.michigan.gov/treasury/0,1607,7-121-1751_51556-198770--,00.html

Step One: If one or more conditions indicative of probable financial stress in a local government exist, the State Financial Authority (State Treasurer or Superintendent of Public Instruction) may conduct a preliminary review, after providing the unit of local government with specific written notification of the review.

Step Two: The State Financial Authority must inform the Governor within 30 days of commencement of the preliminary review whether or not probable financial stress exists.

Step Three: The Governor must appoint a review team if the State Financial Authority informs the Governor that a preliminary review has been conducted and a finding of probable financial stress was made.

A review team consists of the State Treasurer (or his or her designee), the Director of the Department of Technology, Management, and Budget (or his or her designee), a nominee of the Senate Majority Leader, a nominee of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and any other State officials, or other persons with relevant professional experience selected by the Governor. The Superintendent of Public Instruction (or his or her designee) also is a member if a school district is involved.

Step Four: Unless the Governor specifies an earlier date, or grants a 30-day extension, a review team must report to the Governor within 60 days of its appointment and indicate whether specific statutory conditions exist or are likely to occur which constitute no or mild financial stress, severe financial stress, or financial emergency:

  • (a) No or mild financial stress exists in the unit of local government if any of the following occur:
    • -- The review team reports that none of the specified statutory conditions exist or are likely to occur.
    • -- The conditions may occur, but will not threaten the capability of the unit of local government to provide necessary governmental services.
  • (b) Severe financial stress exists in the unit of local government if any of the following occur:
    • -- The review team reports that one or more of the specified statutory conditions exist or are likely to occur.
    • -- The chief administrative officer of the unit of local government recommends that the unit of local government be considered in severe financial stress.
  • (c) A financial emergency exists in the unit of local government if:
    • -- The review team reports that two or more of the specified statutory conditions exist or are likely to occur within the current fiscal year that threaten the future capability of the unit of local government to provide necessary governmental services.
    • -- The unit of local government failed to provide timely and accurate in-formation to the review team.
    • -- The unit of local government failed to comply with one or more financial plans.
    • -- The unit of local government materially breached the terms of a consent agreement.
    • -- The unit of local government is in a condition of severe financial stress and a consent agreement was not adopted.
    • -- The chief administrative officer of the unit of local government recommends a financial emergency be declared and the State Treasurer concurs.

Step Five: Within 10 days after receipt of the review team report, the Governor must make one of the following determinations:

  • (a) The unit of local government is not in a condition of severe financial stress.
  • (b) The unit of local government is in a condition of severe financial stress, but a consent agreement containing a plan to resolve the severe financial stress has been adopted.
  • (c) A local government financial emergency exists and no satisfactory plan exists to resolve the emergency.
  • (d) The unit of local government entered into a consent agreement containing a continuing operations plan or recovery plan to resolve a financial problem, but materially breached the consent agreement.

Step Six: If the Governor determines that a financial emergency exists, he or she must provide written notification to the chief administrative officer of the unit of lo-cal government who may request, within seven days after receiving notice, a hearing conducted by the State Financial Authority or his or her designee.

Step Seven: After the hearing or, if no hearing was requested, after expiration of the opportunity for a hearing, the Governor must either confirm or revoke the determination of a financial emergency.

Step Eight: A local government, with a two-thirds vote of its governing body, may appeal the Governor's determination to Ingham County circuit court. The determination may be set aside only if found to be either:

  • (a) Not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.
  • (b) Arbitrary, capricious, or clearly an abuse or unwarranted exercise of discretion.

Step Nine: If the Governor confirms the determination of a financial emergency, the Governor is required to declare the unit of local government in receivership and appoint an Emergency Manager who serves at the pleasure of the Governor.

Step Ten: Upon being placed in receivership, the governing body and chief administrative officer of the unit of local government are prohibited from exercising any of their powers of offices without written approval of the Emergency Manager, and their compensation and benefits are eliminated.

Step Eleven: Within 45 days of appointment, an Emergency Manager must develop a written financial and operating plan.

In addition to other powers, an Emergency Manager may reject, modify, or terminate collective bargaining agreements, recommend consolidation or dissolution of units of local government, and recommend bankruptcy proceedings.

Step Twelve: A unit of local government is removed from receivership when the financial conditions which were the basis for the underlying financial emergency are corrected in a sustainable fashion as determined by the State Treasurer in accordance with the Act.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Corporations are not human, that's why we have government (Rachel Maddow)

Last nights Rachel Maddow show ended with a powerful piece covering the ability of Corporations to commit evil, while the show started with a piece covering Corporate influence in skewing some politicians to benefit corporate interests.

There is a fiction in this country called "Corporate Personhood". That Corporations have various rights of persons and it's been skewing the United States ever since the late 1800's when this fiction was created. You look at a corporation and it's hard to see it as a person, but try driving down the highway and look at the cars on the road and also see that it's a human driving the car. We talk about that stupid car that cut us off almost causing an accident, when it's really the person who's operating the car. We also talk about evil corporations or stupid corporations or corporate influence on politics, without recognizing that there are humans operating the corporations. We also talk about overbearing, abusive or stupid government, when again there are humans operating those governments.

It seems true that when you gather enough humans into an organization, that the organization takes on a life of its own. The people operating the corporation are following certain rules which govern corporate livelihood. These rules include:

  • the pyramid shaped command-and-control paradigm allowing the board of directors and executive team to hold near dictatorial powers over the actions of their employees (or should we call them serfs?)
  • the laws of accounting, bookkeeping, finance, securities, investment, and so on
  • employee rights, marketing, etc

In other words - successful corporations behave within certain parameters. One of the parameters is cutting costs to have the best chance at causing profit. That ideal taken to extremes means cutting so many corners it endangers safety.

In Maddow's piece last night she showed a rapid fire sequence of pictures, airplane crashes, nuclear meltdown, exploding oil drilling rigs, and so on. She was incited by the owners of the exploding oil rig, Transocean, whose Board decided that due to their exemplary safety record (in a year where their oil rig blew up killing 11 workers) they'd award bonuses. This is an extremely shocking fact but the truth is the operators of corporations do stuff like this all the time. They're often able to keep it quiet because corporations are dictatorships with a shroud of secrecy surrounding them, and what's different about Transocean is the scrutiny they're under due to the exploding oil rig.

One of the big challenges of our time is Corporations, operated by people but driven by inhuman rules of corporate behavior, trouncing over all of us.

The history of Corporations has shown time and again that they are willing to sell crap poison products as food, that they are willing to screw everyone, commit any felony, any crime against humanity, in order to make their all-holy profit margin.

The cure Maddow proposes is one I largely agree with. That government has to be there to rein in corporate excesses. If corporations are going to be powerful, then the government which should be reining in corporate power should be as powerful as the corporations.

But ... there's a long rabbit hole of conversation which follows on from that thought, which is best left for another day, or for the comments boxes below the videos. Let me know what you think, below.

This first video dives into the political battle in Wisconson, a state suffering from leadership who's doing the will of corporate backers in trying to destroy unions.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This second video goes over some of the political leadership in Wisconson, the conservative mantra that "government is the problem", and hence their hatred of government, and asking what happens when government hating conservatives get their hands on a government.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This third video is the one mentioned earlier, going over Transocean and their idiotic safety record. The prior videos are great contextualization of this video.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This fourth video was referred to from the previous video. The Transocean announcement awarding bonuses for their exemplary safety record in the year when their corporation killed 11 of their employees when their oil rig blew up, that announcement was sent on April 1. No fooling.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sunday, November 7, 2010

The Tapeworm economy, looting the world financial system, by Catherine Austin Fitts

The following is a very important interview with Catherine Austin Fitts about the looting of not just America, but the world economy. It's being done by what she calls the "Tapeworm Economy". A tapeworm lives by causing a host organism to eat foods which benefits the tapeworm, but isn't necessarily helpful to the host organism. The analogy is that various organizations in the world economy are enticing the people into economic activity that's not healthy to individuals, but is healthy to the tapeworm-like organizations. The result is a looting of the world economy to benefit these tapeworm-like organizations.

Catherine Austin Fitts was the deputy Housing Secretary in the Bush41 Administration. Prior to that she was a high level Wall Street executive. Definitely an insider, but she since bailed out of that sort of role and has been working to educate and inform the population about the massive looting that's going on.

Catherine Austin Fitts: The Looting Of America part-1of5

Catherine Austin Fitts: The Looting Of America part-2of5

Catherine Austin Fitts: The Looting Of America part-3of5

Catherine Austin Fitts: The Looting Of America part-4of5

Catherine Austin Fitts: The Looting Of America part-5of5

Thursday, November 4, 2010

Interview - Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

Interview with John Perkins author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" - This is a very important set of information to hear and understand to get an inkling of what's really going on in our world. You may think the war in Iraq or Afghanistan is about some people who attacked a building in NYC a few years ago. Nope. It's part of a global game of controlling the resources of the world.

The interviewee is the author of an important book (linked at right) that exposes the line of work he used to hold.

An "economic hit man" is an especially placed person inserted into companies by a secretive group who uses both government and businesses to maintain the economic empire the global elite is using to control the world.

The work of an economic hit man is behind the scenes, producing slanted reports and otherwise pulling strings of control. The result is control over the worlds resources to benefit the rich.

Scroll down to find a pair of youtube video's with an extensive interview with John Perkins

Saturday, January 2, 2010

Mega Giant Corporations Are Very Bad for America | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

This is a tale of globalized megacorporations gone awry. I want to say at the outset that I believe the current state of deregulated globalized megacorporations comes about because the government has been weakened to the point it cannot rein in corporate excesses. Corporations have proved over and over they cannot be counted on to behave according to enlightened self interest, instead corporations have proved over and over they are willing to lie, cheat, steal, poison, and otherwise act to destroy their customers or employees. Corporations have proved over and over they have no ethics and no compunction about anything in the pursuit of profit. This despite the fact that corporations are made up of people, people who are making the horrendous decisions that lead to unethical business practices.

The story is about Walmart - the great bugaboo hobgoblin of the progressive. I myself immensely dislike that corporation and never set foot in one despite passing by their store quite regularly (it's across the street from the Whole Foods). The story in this article just cements my opinion about them.

When you have a corporation that "delivers at least 30% and sometimes more than 50% of the entire U.S. consumption of products" that corporation holds an inordinate amount of power. Namely: Walmart.

A few years ago a pet food quality scare opened up knowledge about bad stuff in the food industry. It was learned an Ontario-based company named Menu Foods was producing a massively large proportion of all pet food sold in the U.S. They delivered pet food under at least 150 different brand names from the high-end, expensive brands like Iams and Hill’s Pet Nutrition Science Diet to more pedestrian ones like SuperValu. Then double clicking on this food source it became known that essentially all production of wheat gluten had come to be controlled by China.

It isn't just wheat gluten and pet food at issue. It's that Chinese companies have gained complete control over production of various essential product components.

The issue isn't about China, it's about the risk inherent in putting control over essential resources in the hands of any other country. For example the U.S. is entirely beholden to OPEC countries for oil imports, a fact which puts the U.S. at risk to being controlled by those OPEC countries. As was proved during the mid 1970's during the fake oil crises of that era, if a country were to control supply of vital materials, that country can wield economic warfare against other countries.

China in particular has managed to gain a really strong position over the rest of the world through control over production of all sorts of things.

For those Americans who believe in what we were taught in civics class and Econ 101, the most disturbing revelation was not even the fragility of our food systems, but that some of our most cherished beliefs about how the U.S. economy works appear no longer to be true. We are told that companies are engaged in a mad scramble to discover exactly what we the U.S. consumers want and to devise perfectly tailored systems to supply those want as efficiently as possible. We are told that our economy is characterized by constantly chaotic yet always constructive competition and that any American with a better product and bit of gumption can bring that product to market and beat the big guys.

The true situation we have is nowhere near the wide open competitive paradise we seem to have. Instead we have stores full of basically identical products whose differ only in the color choice on the labels. It's all the same crap inside each one of the products.

Until we elected Ronald Reagan president, both Democrats and Republicans made sure that no chain store ever came to dominate more than a small fraction of sales in the United States as a whole, or even in any one region of the country. Between 1917 and 1979, for instance, administrations from both parties repeatedly charged the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, the chain store behemoth of the mid-twentieth century that is better known as A & P, with violations of antitrust law, even threatening to break the firm into pieces.

Then in 1981 we stopped enforcing that law. Thus, today Wal-Mart is at least five times bigger, relative to the overall size of the U.S. economy, than A & P was at the very height of its power.

A walk down the aisles of a megastore like Walmart may make it hard to believe there is no real choice. The dizzying array of brand names and product choices certainly looks like a huge variety of choice. But the truth is that megacorporations own the majority of the brand names, they enter into fake competition between their own brands, and in any case outsourcing means the source materials behind each product is the same.

Article Reference: 

Michael Chertoff's Pushing "Full-Body Scanners" for Airports but He Has a Conflict of Interest | World | AlterNet

When a former high ranking official preaches for a particular solution to a problem - maybe that former official might know some things about the cause of the problem, and know something about the best solution. Clearly the former official as a former insider would have better insight to the problem than us typical normal people. Or maybe, just maybe, that former official is abusing an emergency to push a product that he's being paid to promote regardless of how good (or not) that thing is.

When Michael Chertoff, the former DHS secretary, is repeatedly calling for installation of full-body scanners for airports. Well, maybe he knows something or other about the matter. But what if he and his lobbying agency were being paid by the manufacturer of the machines in question?

Regardless of how good (or not) those machines are - that Chertoff is being paid by the manufacturer makes this smell.

Article Reference: 

Saturday, November 28, 2009

Bailed-Out AIG Forcing Poor to Choose Between Running Water and Food | Water | AlterNet


Thanks to AIG, some of the poorest residents of rural Kentucky learned you can always be made poorer by corporate villains. In 2005 AIG begain buying up water companies, especially a company named Utilities Inc that held scores of water companies around the country. This is part of a movement of commercializing water utility systems around the world. "We have long considered water infrastructure as an attractive investment opportunity and an excellent complement to [our] existing energy infrastructure portfolio. Utilities Inc. is a leader in this industry and we are pleased that [we have] the opportunity to acquire this business,” AIG Chairman and CEO Win J. Neuger gloated in a press release.


Article Reference: 

Sunday, April 2, 2006

Utopia? Maybe...

I just listened to an National Public Radio piece that presents one mans concept of utopia. Namely, individuals or small scale organizations working on small scale work projects.

The guy is a University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds, also happens to oversee a blog, a music label and a microbrewery. He's written a book An Army of Davids : How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths, which I haven't read. But I am living what he's talking about, so with that let me write a few things.

In the NPR piece the situation is described thusly.

Up until the Industrial Revolution humans did most things on a small scale. A few people running a farm, or running a mill, etc. These were very human scaled organizations, he claims.

Then the Industrial Revolution happened and suddenly the scale of organizations had to expand dramatically. A cost effective factory for that time was huge, and employed thousands of people. To go along with it was the rise of huge corporations.

But, today, technology has come full circle to being able to enable individuals to work on small scale organizations.

An example is what I do with my web sites. I have a "day job" in a large corporation, but I also am a web site publisher and earn a tidy side income at that. Additionally I see a way to totally divorce myself from the large corporation, and instead operate several small operations each of which would provide part of my income.

In the interview they gave some more examples.

For example all the people making a living (partial or not) via sales through eBay.COM. He exemplified eBay as a wave of future business style. Another example was someone making custom guitars at home, and he uses eMachineShop.com for parts production.

The way eBay makes their money is through taking advantage of others doing what they want to do. This is drastically different from the large corporate style organization, where the organization exists to tell thousands of people what to do. There are dozens of companies making money through enabling others to do what they want. Google, for example, makes a lot of money from individuals like me who run AdSense advertising on their web sites.

I think, though, he's selling a bit of a pipe dream.

These individuals making their small organizations are riding on the back of some very large organizations. An individual selling stuff through eBay is absolutely dependant on eBay, as well as the package delivery industry (FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc). These are all very large companies who operate in the top-down style of telling their employees what to do.

Let's take another example. Suppose you have a great salsa recipe and you want to make and sell salsa. Go to any farmers market and you'll find several people living a similar dream. It's relatively simple, you need to pass health inspections, be able to operate a healthy kitchen and production facility, find FDA certified packaging, get a FDA certified label made showing the ingredients, etc. One could launch a salsa business with a small group of people, and then go to farmers markets or local Whole Foods stores to sell your product. If you keep working at it, you might eventually have national distribution and so on.

But, let's get back to the beginning. Where does your packaging come from? Are you going to make the packaging, or are you going to buy that? How big is the company who makes the packaging? Where do you buy the ingredients? The local farmer, or from an agribusiness?

What I'm getting at is that this utopia Glenn Reynolds holds out in front of us won't be there for all of us. Some of us will have to work in large organizations like UPS so that others of us can run our humanely-sized home businesses. And that's probably okay, because not everybody is inspired to do this. Many people seem content to go to work and be told what to do with their lives. If that's what they want to do, then more power to them.

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Theocracy in America, an "Unholy Alliance"?

Kevin Phillips is one of the political operatives who helped bring the Republicans into power in the 1960's and 1970's. He's billed as a Republican Strategist, and eventually worked in the Reagan White House. With that as background we have a very interesting book from him, warning of the danger of the neo-Theocracy we find ourselves with today in the United States.

Here's some resources:

American Theocracy : The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21stCentury

Interview with Democracy Now, March 21, 2006

The Unholy Alliance Kevin Phillips believes the U.S. is threatened by a combination of petroleum, preachers and debt

This gives a sense of where the book is going:

AMY GOODMAN: Kevin Phillips, you talk about radical religion, about debt, and about oil, about this being an oil war. You also talk about peak oil. That's not talked about very much in the mainstream. Explain.

KEVIN PHILLIPS: The peak oil idea is that just as the United States oil production peaked in 1971, that we have a limited amount of oil globally, and that it’s something that can't be re-created. It’s running out. And the expectation of some is that the oil production of the non-OPEC countries will peak at some point during the 2010s, and that then the production of OPEC itself will peak in the 2020s or 2030s. Now, some people think that Saudi production has already peaked.

Now, if you believe this, and it’s possible, then we face an enormous convergence, again under specific oil-related circumstances, of a global struggle for natural resources as the price of oil climbs, as we turn the armed services into a global oil protection service, which has been happening, and as we see the administration refuse to grapple with the need to really curb oil consumption in the United States, which is mostly through transportation and especially motor vehicles.

And I just have a sense, as many others on the conservative side do, this administration has no strategy to deal with these converging problems, be they foreign policy, military, oil, debt. They are like the three little monkeys on the old jade thing – the one sees no evil, one speaks no evil, and one hears no evil. Do they know anything? You know, that's an open question.

But, it just goes on and on. Such as an assertion that: "that the Bush electorate is probably 50 to 55% people who believe in Armageddon and probably more or less the same numbers who believe that the Antichrist is already on earth. And when you have this backdrop and you have a president who got his start in national politics as his father’s liaison with the religious right back in 1987 and ‘88, you just have an enormous exposure to this whole psychological context and an awareness on the part of people in the White House that this huge constituency interprets the Middle East in this very unusual way."

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

Asia Times Online :: India to join Turkmenistan gas pipeline

Hopefully you saw Fahrenheit 9/11, the movie by Michael Moore that was prominent in 2004. His main topic throughout the movie was to explore cronyism and how that created the war in Iraq. The main example is the laundry list of business ties between the Administration, the Saudi royalty and even to the bin Laden family. That most of the Administration has ties to the Oil Industry (both GW and GHW Bush owned oil companies, VP Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, Chevron named an oil tanker for Condoleeza Rice, etc) figured heavily in this movie.

In one segment Moore talked about the oil in Central Asia and the U.S. plan for bringing that oil to market. The Central Asia oil has been a matter of power play for several years, and it's land-locked position that isn't easily accessible makes it difficult to "extract" and sell on the market. Taking it in one direction, you'd be going through Russia. Another direction and you're going across Siberia and then the port is in the arctic and probably locked in by ice. And to the south are steep mountains, some of the highest in the world. Also to the south is Iran, a sworn enemy of the U.S.

The chosen U.S. route was through Afghanistan. The U.S. has pushed for this route since the 1990's. The problem was, neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan were terribly friendly to the U.S. The Taliban was in control, and Pakistan was very friendly with the Taliban. It didn't make any difference that during the 1980's the U.S. worked closely with Pakistan and the people who became the Taliban. In the 1980's the menace was Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, and the U.S. effort to drive Russia out, which meant a secret operation supplying the mujahadeen (as they were known then) with arms and training. By the 1990's that was long in the past, and U.S. policy had shifted away. Even so the Taliban government visited the U.S., as Michael Moore documented, working to negotiate both the opium poppy eradication as well as the pipeline deal.

BTW, since the toppling of the Taliban government, opium poppy production has sprung back to pre-Taliban levels.

In any case there was an existing plan to run an oil pipeline through Afghanistan. And you can imagine the big question in U.S. and oil industry planning -- how the heck do we get access to Afghanistan? Essentially that country had become enemy territory.

Conveniently the September 11, 2001 attack provided the needed excuse. The culprits were in Afghanistan, which gave us all the excuse in the world to invade that country, topple its government, etc.

And, now, conveniently the path was clear. Afghanistan was no longer essentially enemy territory. Further, in the process of making war on Afghanistan the U.S. established bases and cooperation with several Central Asian countries. These countries had been carved out of the former Soviet Union after its collapse in the early 1990's.

A nagging question is whether the September 11, 2001 attack was merely a coincidence, or whether some behind the scenes conspiracy created it? There's enough connections there to make one ponder. The Bush family had ties with the bin Laden family, to the point that one of the bin Laden cousins bailed George W Bush out of at least one of his failed businesses. And there was the pre-existing plan for a pipeline through Afghanistan, and coincidentally the major players in creating that plan are now major players in both the Afghanistan government and the U.S. relationship with Afghanistan.

But there isn't enough proven data to truly connect the attack to any behind the scenes conspiracy. So we'll just leave that question dangling out there.

What's of interest now is this article: India to join Turkmenistan gas pipeline

It discusses two different pipeline projects to bring Natural Gas to "market". One is the US-backed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) while the other is the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI).

This appears to be part of the larger geopolitics power struggle. The different sources of these two pipelines is interesting. Iran being an U.S. enemy at this moment makes this statement interesting:

Moreover, unlike IPI, the project does not run the risk of being blacklisted for participation by US and European financiers and companies. The US has been encouraging Pakistan to abandon the IPI project and consider TAP for meeting its gas needs.

Blacklisted?? This isn't explained, but clearly the official relationship with Iran is problematic for many countries. But Pakistan probably has a lot of cooperation with Iran, given they share a long border and probably have common cultural elements. But to the U.S. and the "west" Iran is a pariah, being controlled by fundamentalists who are opposed to the western powers.

Thursday, February 16, 2006

The confessions of an economic hit-man

Democracy Now for February 15, 2006 has an interesting interview with John Perkins, author of "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man". Ostensibly he worked as an economist for a big consulting company, but he describes his real job as

JOHN PERKINS: We economic hit men, during the last 30 or 40 years, have really created the world's first truly global empire, and we've done this primarily through economics, and the military only coming in as a last resort. Therefore, it's been done pretty much secretly. Most of the people in the United States have no idea that we've created this empire and, in fact, throughout the world it's been done very quietly, unlike old empires, where the army marched in; it was obvious. So I think the significance of the things you discussed, the fact that over 80% of the population of South America recently voted in an anti-U.S. president and what's going on at the World Trade Organization, and also, in fact, with the transit strike here in New York, is that people are beginning to understand that the middle class and the lower classes around the world are being terribly, terribly exploited by what I call the corporatocracy, which really runs this empire.

His story is as an insider to the creation of the current empire, what techniques are used by these self-described economic hit-men. The empire was constructed quietly through economic leverage rather than in obvious ways like marching armies into a country and toppling governments. The fact that we're in Iraq and Afghanistan today is more an example of the extremes to which the economic hit-men will go, that they begin with threats and bribes, but if the individual government leaders do not cooperate under threats or bribes then they can create wars as needed.

He ends with this thought: "...I look at myself as an extremely loyal American citizen. I believe in the principles of this country, which I think that in the past few decades, increasingly, we've put them way in the back burner. But as good Americans, we need to insist that our government and our corporations honor democracy."

But I think that, while he said that very nicely, it's very short sighted. This empire is economic, and is based on the corporations being used as leverage against other countries and to control other countries. In my view this story isn't about the United States controlling other countries ... but instead some other entity, which is not beholden to any one government but instead beholden only to itself. It's using the United States government today simply because of the power the U.S. holds.

I think the same leverage is being used against the United States as well. For example consider the debt being run up under the Bush Administration. John Perkins describes how debt is being used as a lever against these other countries, so of course it's also being used against the U.S. as well. A huge amount of our national strength is going towards paying off that debt.

And, always, when you owe money to others, those others has some measure of control over you.

At a personal level what happens when you "own" a house? The vast majority of people don't own their houses, they have a mortgage and it's the mortgage company that owns the house. If they don't keep up a sufficient income level to pay the mortgage payments, the mortgage company will forclose and take away their house. Therefore the debt they have against "their" house forces them towards some kind of work life, towards having a job so they can have the money to pay their debt. They wouldn't have the freedom to quit their stinking job and go off to the country and paint art. They have to stay in their job to pay their debts.

So it goes also for governments.

Is this the world we want to live in? Where a kind of secretive entity of some kind is controlling the world, toppling governments, etc, all to maintain some kind of power stranglehold?

Sunday, February 12, 2006

"Why we Fight", a movie you must see

On January 17, 1961 (45 years ago) President Eisenhower delivered his farewell address as he was leaving office, and as President Kennedy was taking office.  It is this speech in which he made the fateful warning to beware the growing influence of the military-industrial complex.  I'll copy the text of that address to the end of this posting.

"Why We Fight" is a new movie, released on January 17, 2006, which takes his speech and examines the state of that military-industrial complex.  Well, it's clear the military-industrial complex is alive and well, and has great influence in all branches of U.S. government.

A point made strongly by this movie is that supplying the military with weapons and equipment and services is big business.  Somewhere around three quarters of a Trillion dollars, per year.  That's more than a lot of money.  Which makes me wonder, just how much of the current U.S. militarism is inspired by those companies.

As a speaker says in the movie, the companies in the defense industry have fiduciary requirements just the same as any other company.  Those fiduciary requirements obviously require keeping the shareholders happy, require continued improvement in revenue and earnings.  But what if the natural course of the country were peace, and to require fewer armaments, wouldn't those companies have decreased revenues?  It's well understood the defense industry has powerful lobbyists and everything else in the halls of government, so can't the defense industry pull some strings to create wars and conflict?

This movie makes a very powerful statement about the current conduct of war.  It includes in-depth interviews of a range of people who were directly involved with either creating that war, or the consequences of it.   The movie is presented as several story threads that proceed together to tell a joint story, one of an overbearing U.S. power being used for Imperialistic ends.

One of the moving story threads is that of a NY City cop who was a Vietnam veteran.  One of his sons worked in the World Trade Center, and on his way to work on September 11, 2001 he saw from the subway train the WTC burning.  In his grief from losing his son he became, like many of us, angry and vengeful.  Through the progress of the movie he tells that story of vengeance, including how he got his sons name painted on the side of a bomb which was used in the Iraq war.  And then he heard President Bush admit on national television that he was confused how anybody could have thought there was a connection between Iraq and the events of September 11, 2001.

President Bush lied to us.  He lied us into war.  As this NY City cop says, the stereotype of the office of the President is Integrity.  President Bush ran on a platform of Integrity.

But, as the movie says, in almost every armed conflict the U.S. has been involved in, the President and other leaders lied to us.  One of the clearest cases was the Gulf of Tonkin incident which President Johnson used to justify launching the Vietnam War.

This movie contains so much information and ideas.  It is a very moving and full of powerful statements from all sides of the debate over the military-industrial complex.

Since Eisenhowers farewell speech plays such an important role in this movie, and contains some powerful statements, I thought to see if it could be found on the Internet.

The Disclosure Project has the video of the address.

On CommonDreams.org Eisenhower's Farewell Warning Was Meant For Our Time by James Carroll, says what I tried to say above very well. And, it's interesting that article was written in 2001, on the eve of GW Bush being sworn in as president.

Here is the text (copied from informationclearinghouse.info):


Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation
January 17, 1961

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good evening, my fellow Americans: First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunity they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening. 
Three days from now, after a half century of service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. 

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. 

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all. 

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on questions of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. 

My own relations with Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. 

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation well rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together. 

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment. 

Throughout America's adventure in free government, such basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations. 

To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. 

Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt, both at home and abroad. 

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle – with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment. 

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. 

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress. 

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. 

Of these, I mention two only. 

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. 

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. 

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. 

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. 

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. 

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. 

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. 

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. 

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. 

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. 

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. 

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. 

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. 

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. 

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield. 

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war – as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years – I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight. 

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road. 

So – in this my last good night to you as your President – I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future. 

You and I – my fellow citizens – need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals. 

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: 

We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love. 

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it. 

Thank you, and good night.