In my casual observation of events in Iran in regard to recent elections, I was amazed at the American media, politicians, and "experts" featured in news outlets roundly denouncing the current Iranian leadership for election fraud, denial of opposition forces the right to peacefully protest, and the application of force to disperse such protesters. Have Americans so quickly forgotten the "stolen election" charges by Americans against George W. Bush in the 2000 election? What about Richard M. Nixon's supporters charging that Nixon was cheated by Mayor Dick Daly's "Chicago Machine," costing him the close election contest with John F. Kennedy in 1960? Folks, our elections aren't models of honesty and propriety.
Further, every year that the IMF "planners" gather in Washington, D.C., or any other American city, there also gather a potpouri of Americans to protest the financial machinations of a gaggle of unelected money administrators. If it is Washington, D.C., then you can count on the SWAT team and mounted police to rudely curtail their peaceful assembly. Invariably, tear gas and mace are at hand and one or both employed. Typically, one sees pictures of women - sometimes "grannies" - who have been injured. Naturally, the authorities blame the protestors, stating that they have brought it upon themselves, much as the Iranian authorities are doing now. Indeed, whether France, Japan or Argentina, the same measures seem to be meted out to protestors by police representing the power of the state authorities.
With Robert Burns' indulgence: Oh, if only some power the gift would give us to see ourselves as others see us!
Further, I was near to most event of the streets in Washington, D.C., during the period of 1968 - 1975, and typically saw the authorities unleash their police power against the assembled protestors. There is a fact about political power that is rather mundane: Establishments don't like to be dis-Established. Force is their usual answer to dogged resistance by opposition. I certainly agree that it would be better if St. Francis of Assisi were a typical political model, as opposed to the usual Josef Stalin. It's not going to happen. The only thing for certain is that the media and intellectuals will refer to the current Stalin as "Uncle Joe."
Given the long-running animosity between the United States and its allies toward the present ruling regime in Iran, the overthrow of that regime would be welcomed. This is such a certainty that supposition that clandestined operatives connected to America (or one or more of its allies) may have done much to enrich the efforts of any and all malcontents within Iran is no parlor game. We've created "friends" to lead nations we view as strategic, and then "stabbed them in the back" (Chiang Kai-Shek, Marcos, etc.), as more advantageous friends appeared on the scene. Realpolitik?
There is a bromide to the effect that "you should choose your enemies well because you will become your enemy. Frankly, I don't know whether we have learned from others, or they from us, but I do not think that "where we are at" is where we should be.
Many of the people and nations that we criticize might well reply - with a nod to the Wasp of Twickenham [A.Pope] - "Let such teach others who themselves excel and censor freely who have written well."
June 20, 2009
Thursday, April 26, 2012
A LONELY WORLD TURNS ITS EYE TO...?
This week saw the passing of two entertainment stars. First came the news that Farrah Fawcett had succombed to cancer. Next came news that Michael Jackson had succombed to a massive heart attack. The world needs stars to distract them from its own long list of problems. They become both objects of admiration and envy. The world swoons in their great successes and turns down-right nasty at the revelation of foibles and, even worse, eccentricities. The tabloids live to exploit the latter. A whole photographic genre was created to focus exclusively on their doings.
Experts sniped at Ms. Fawcett's "beautiful smile" commercials and snickered at her emotive "depth" in Charley's Angels. However, she was indisputably a TV-film star for a few years. Young girls tried to be like her. She was a glamorous role model, as well as something of a feminist in the sense of being an action heroine. She and her Angel peers were doing things that were once exclusively the film turf of men. They were "kicking bad-guys' asses." They may have looked like angels but they behaved with the instincts of lionesses. Charley ate well because of them, and Farrah Fawcett was the leader of the pack. In life she was a heroine all the way.
Most Americans watched Michael Jackson from his "little bitty bundle of energy" days to his apparent self-exile to Arabia near the end of his days. More than any other entertainment star by far, Michael Jackson had a split public image. Few would ever criticize his performances on stage or video. He was multi-media, when multi-media wasn't even cool. With the exception of Big Screen musicals, no one in the music business had exploited the possibilities as Michael Jackson did. Elvis had arrived about the time that Dick Clark and others were just introducing video to the Rock-n-Roll scene. Ed Sullivan and others allowed TV cameras to "catch" a suddenly famous singer or group, including both Elvis Presley and the Beatles. TV programs might include the Grand Ole Opry or the like.
Elvis, the Beatles and a scattering of others made movies, whose purpose was to exploit their singing fame. I believe that Michael Jackson was the first to turn the tables and to exploit the format, rather than the format exploiting him. His Thrilla album struck me and many others at the time as sensational and mesmerizing. His introduction of the "moon walk" caught everyone watching in disbelief. It was a very modest piece of revolutionary showmanship, something akin to Fred Astaire's "dancing on walls & ceilings." It was - shall we say - unexpected.
Great talent is not necessarily predictive of the character of a person. Michael Jackson existed it seems as a haunted, neurotic Othello, loving not wisely but too well. He undoubtedly had his share of Iagos proffering him advice, as well. The media, acting in the stead of the worst instincts of humanity, focused on the "Achilles' heel" of the entertainment hero, their eyes glazed and nostrils flared with the scent of blood. The more they saw him soft as a deer, the more they keened to the hunt. Problems with health and wealth by Michael Jackson only added to this media's sense of his vulnerability to attack. Heroes aren't meant to fail. Failures and foibles ascribed to Michael Jackson gave the talentless but solid citizenry an opportunity to patronage the "King of Pop."
If the media can be said to represent the general perception of the people and if the people "loved" Michael Jackson, then it might be said that they, using the words of Oscar Wilde, "killed the thing they loved."
It is a fact of the heavenly universe that even stars must die.
June 29, 2009
YES - BUT WHO IS IT?
I believe that the present confusion in the world is partially - and rightly - blamed on the Obama Administration's failure to follow the strong leadership provided by the "W." Administration in one important area. President Bush appointed Condoleeza Rice as the Spokesperson for the World Community. President Obama has not appointed anyone to this extremely important position. Hence, lacking leadership, the World Community drifts and scatters. Without clearly stated guidelines the various Ships of State run upon the sand bars, rocks and reefs of ill-considered policies. In too many cases they perceive one another as enemies and open fire. We suffer enough from man-made mayhem without having to bear the burden of a hundred different opinions setting courses for their nations.
Mr. President, do not put party vanity forward as an excuse not to appoint a new Spokesperson for the World Community. Do the right thing! Now!
One possibility is Senator Franken. Darn it all! People like him.
July 10, 2009
MR. PRESIDENT - MAKE SCHMOOZE, NOT NEWS
Having taken a week or so to ponder President Obama's schlepping a pedestrian arrest issue into front page news -- for almost a week, I make bold to declare that Mr. Obama should cease to act like some college smart-aleck and just be presidential. Mr. Obama was elected to concentrate on solving major issues that -- hello? -- aren't solved yet. There is the growing perception that the president has grown a little tired of coping unsuccessfully with the "biggies" and now would like to delegate all these matters to cabinet member "patsies," while he considers whether his 3/4 profile is better from the left side or the right. Mr. Obama is a fine orator, when he takes the time to consider his words, and it is our hope that he will utilize the "no comment" statement, when asked a banal or unworthy question, excepting those occasions when he can slip in a good "one-liner" that allows almost everyone a laugh. We aren't against humor; we're against the president's instinct to be a South Chicago politician, rather than a statesman and national leader.
July 30, 2009
July 30, 2009
PRICELESS ART - WHOSE IS IT?
A few days ago, an heiress lost her house to fire in Washington, D.C. The loss was virtually total. Among the "possessions" which this heiress lost was her "priceless" Art collection. This caused me to reflect upon this matter.
What made her Art priceless? It must have been the masterly composition of the various pieces. Also, there most probably was a scarcity of such works by such artists. Rareness tends to nudge Art objects toward the "priceless" category. Merit and scarcity, then, seem to be key elements in determining value. Also, there is the factor of cyclic changes in taste that affect demand for a given masterpiece. Being irreplaceable and a masterpiece would seem to elevate any Art work into the category of "priceless."
This heiress's loss may become mankind's gain.
The reason that led any given artist to devote his life to exploiting his talent for perception and rendering that perception into a finite, material objects is not knowable. It is highly unlikely that he devoted himself to an oeuve d'art to present to mankind as a beau geste. Artists seem to be - at a personal level - screwed-up and vain. Yet, if they were able to render visions that are universal, then their works by right of universality belong to mankind -- and not one person, however rich.
Further, as governments of the world have already instituted museums to house such universal works, governments should demand that "priceless" Art be placed in an appropriate museum, where they can be protected best from time, nature, accidents, war, and rich people. There is no site on Earth absolutely protected from man, when he is in a destructive frame of mind, but a well-planned museum is the best bet.
Ultimately, "priceless" Art will be accorded the label of vanity. Until such Final Judgment, let's protect these pieces from the rich investors' folly by giving them a proper home in a museum, not a mansion. Nor should such collectors be unduly compensated for their "priceless" Art. A note of "Thanks" discreetly placed by a painting, sculpture, or other piece, along with one year's free medical attention at a Veterans' Hospital should be adequate compensation. The latter may be traded for a "lump-sum" payout. It's a "win-win" situation.
August 1, 2009
What made her Art priceless? It must have been the masterly composition of the various pieces. Also, there most probably was a scarcity of such works by such artists. Rareness tends to nudge Art objects toward the "priceless" category. Merit and scarcity, then, seem to be key elements in determining value. Also, there is the factor of cyclic changes in taste that affect demand for a given masterpiece. Being irreplaceable and a masterpiece would seem to elevate any Art work into the category of "priceless."
This heiress's loss may become mankind's gain.
The reason that led any given artist to devote his life to exploiting his talent for perception and rendering that perception into a finite, material objects is not knowable. It is highly unlikely that he devoted himself to an oeuve d'art to present to mankind as a beau geste. Artists seem to be - at a personal level - screwed-up and vain. Yet, if they were able to render visions that are universal, then their works by right of universality belong to mankind -- and not one person, however rich.
Further, as governments of the world have already instituted museums to house such universal works, governments should demand that "priceless" Art be placed in an appropriate museum, where they can be protected best from time, nature, accidents, war, and rich people. There is no site on Earth absolutely protected from man, when he is in a destructive frame of mind, but a well-planned museum is the best bet.
Ultimately, "priceless" Art will be accorded the label of vanity. Until such Final Judgment, let's protect these pieces from the rich investors' folly by giving them a proper home in a museum, not a mansion. Nor should such collectors be unduly compensated for their "priceless" Art. A note of "Thanks" discreetly placed by a painting, sculpture, or other piece, along with one year's free medical attention at a Veterans' Hospital should be adequate compensation. The latter may be traded for a "lump-sum" payout. It's a "win-win" situation.
August 1, 2009
GO STATISTICS, YOUNG MAN
While riding along in my van the other day, I heard on my radio the voice of an "authority" on jobs. She discussed the job market generally. Naturally, wanting to be upbeat, as many have lost good jobs, she mentioned those that should be attractive in the upcoming years. The focus was on well-paying jobs of the hundred thousand dollar plus type. Surprisingly, the field of statistics was mentioned. According to this expert, the development of the internet and international commerce has engendered new requirements and problems. Such areas as cyber-sleuthing and the like were relatively new and complex. The general drift was that advances in the cyber-world were proceeding faster than the body of trained statistical experts available to properly measure, gauge and analyze them. Big government, big finance, big corporations, and big science were a-swim in big numbers rapidly replicating. Help!
Years ago I purchased a book about using statistics. I recall encountering a book with a title akin to "How To Prove Anything With Statistics." Indeed, the merit of statistics is entirely dependent on the person who does the statistical project and the person who pays s/he to do it. 'Tis said: He who pays the piper calls the tune." Therefore, without knowing the motivation and influences that were brought to bear on the statistician, one is likely to be a bit deceived.
Newspapers are not the only ones deep "into" material omissions.
Further, politicians, government officials and businessmen are not the only ones who like to accentuate the positive. This can lead to embarrassing public admissions and "corrections" later. Often, statistical data are flashed to provide evidence of an assertion. The general public expects a politician or public official to use such "hard" evidence. They are reassuring.
Frankly, inertia is as valid a law in public policy as it is in physics. Familiar speed and terrain make a policy trip seem safer - even sound. Let's not go off "half-cocked," being a statement that begs for the same policies, albeit refurbished. In national politics radical changes from within only occur at the point of a threatened national mortality.
Statistics is a tool wielded by opponents as they seek advantage in the eye of constituents. The president of the United States, Mr. Obama, has a distinct advantage here. Only when his policies seem failed to the public are the statistics of the opposition given any widespread reception.
Whether derivatives, "bank swaps," cyber-wars, or public policy, masters of numbers - statisticians - should prove to be in demand.
August 09, 2009
Saturday, October 15, 2011
MONEY AND DEMONSTRATIONS
There may be a tie-in between the "Arab Spring" and the "Wall Street Camp-In," as the dialectic is still favored by Pan-Western Marxist. The leading Bilderberger group is still pressing for a meaningful world government. To be meaningful, such a government must issue its own money through a central bank. It must also be able to tax the people of the world. To be a successful tax-gathering government, it would need a group of "break-legs" to enforce the tax code. Therefore, the world government must have broad police powers. Just in case of revolt among the soon -to-be oppressed people, it would also need a military force.
Now, there are a phalanx of comrade associations to the Bilderbergers, but for convenience sake, I will let them stand for all the Western "liberal" elite.
Since debt is the only way a minority can control the teeming masses, the money issued by the new world government would be based on debt. The central bank would be privately held by unidentifiable owners. Its ledgers would not be available for public inspection. The world government would request a certain amount of money from the central bank, and the central bank would readily agree, but it would insist on collateral. The world government would agree and issue bonds, guaranteed by the labor of the citizens of the world government. A potential slave state is at once engendered. The elite get richer as they engineer "boom & bust" cycles.
Let us awaken from this "paradisial dream" of the elites for a moment.
I believe that it is apparent to the Bilderberger group that they can create the conditions for their dream becoming true by dragging out and even worsening the depressed economies of the world. In this scheme economists and other experts would testify that the problem is caused by the passe' system of national central banks and national economies. The stage of nation-states has been outgrown by global economic evolution, yet still remains perversely to thwart human potential.
The solution? We must shed the old skin of the nation-man so as to become our destined global-man. We must have world government. [See above for key aspects.]
If you listen to the complaints of the demonstrators at Wall Street, then you will not hear much meaningful commentary. Statements of personal hardships don't speak to the problem. To inveigh against "bank greed" or "corporate greed" will not meet the needs of the times. To announce that the whole economic system needs to be changed, however generally correct, does not address the specific need of our time.
We should maintain our national system. However, money creation and banking should be significantly changed. Using the United States as a stand-in for all nations, the United States should immediately establish its own national bank - The United States Bank, N.A. This bank would provide a checking account for each citizen. There would be no savings accounts or debt instruments issues by the government. ATMs for this bank would be readily available. Using Eminent Domain power, existing private banking facilities may be co-opted initially to house the national bank. All national payments would be made through these bank facilities.
The money for the nation would be created at a specially established unit within the Department of the Treasury. Parameters would be established for a proper sum of currency for the U.S. population and productivity. Treasury would direct the Bureau of the Mint to create the dollars in the form of interest-free Treasury Notes. These moneys would be used to pay federal workers and contractors for services rendered. They would be used to pay Social Security and Medicare, etc. Other money would be created to buy assets such as new highways, bridges, dams, etc. or to improve existing assets in the forms of highways, bridges, dams, etc.
Nationally owned, or newly purchased, assets would be accounted in the nation's books as assets. When the United States spent money to acquire these assets, it would be getting richer. The idea of government wasteful spending would be converted to wealth-building. The government would invest through its banks in housing for employed citizens, buying a house for a goven citizen and then renting-to-own the property to the contracting citizen. The house would be an asset for the government, which over time would be transferred to the citizen at the agreed to cost of purchase. Of course, there would be no interest charged the citizen.
The same principle should apply to government investing through its bank in likely small businesses. Newly designed and engineered electric cars might be developed by entrepreneurs, which the government might invest in, after careful consideration. I don't believe that any international corporation should be invested in. In fact, domestic only companies shoulds pay no tax at all.
Nor would there be any income tax. Excise taxes would be available for user fees, as in highways. Each vehicle would carry a shield which could be recognized by laser, or other beam, attached to "toll poles" placed along the highways , bridges, etc. Usage fees would automatically be withdrawn from the owners checking account and transferred to the government account.
The same principle might apply to dry goods, foods, clothing, etc. I don't believe that basic food such as bread and milk should be taxed.
Further, as part of the government's duty to regulate commerce, it should "make a market" in all commodities at slight mark-ups. Each farmer, herder, lumberman, miner, etc., would get a guaranteed fair price. Entrepreneurs requiring raw materials to construct or prepare a product would buy the goods from the government storage depots, which would be established in all sections of the country.
The goverrnment should also operate the utilities, unless the states choose to operate one or more. However, in all cases the national government would operate nuclear facilities. It would require each existent and all new plants to be "fail-safe" - rather than based on budget or profit considerations. Only the government has the money to see that the work is done correctly. These would be assets. Fees would be charged for electricity from nuclear energy.
New highways would be built with the idea of taking advantage of this nuclear energy capacity by establishing lighted highways, well-conceived oases for rest, food and either recharging electric vehicles or swapping them at rental agencies, which the government might choose to operate, etc.
There is much of an absolutely booming sort that can be done. Never again need people suffer from "booms and busts," as the national money could not implode. Well managed, it would never explode either. However, it would annihilate the $14 trillion dollars in debt of the U.S. in reasonably short time. Wall Street would be needed no more.
Tariffs would be imposed upon all products foreign interests and international corporations desired to sell in the United States. The tariffs would be calculated to offset wage differentials betwen the U.S. and another country, such as China. These funds might be earmarked for the Social Security/Medicare requirements. Incidentally, no longer would Social Security funds be placed in the general revenue account and spent like ordinary tax revenue. These funds would be protected from Congress by law.
All trade treaties/agreements would be nullified. The U.S. would treat every foreign state equally, but it would never treat one as if it were a member of the national Union.
A new "foreign dollar" based on commodities would be created to deal with our trading partners.
All American troops would be returned to the U.S.A. Foreign nations wanting to rent U.S. military units could do so, based on carefully designed rules. These would be voluntary mercenary units drawn from within the U.S. military and the National Guard. [Optional aspect of the renewed American economy].
This outline is only the beginning to a great future.
Now, there are a phalanx of comrade associations to the Bilderbergers, but for convenience sake, I will let them stand for all the Western "liberal" elite.
Since debt is the only way a minority can control the teeming masses, the money issued by the new world government would be based on debt. The central bank would be privately held by unidentifiable owners. Its ledgers would not be available for public inspection. The world government would request a certain amount of money from the central bank, and the central bank would readily agree, but it would insist on collateral. The world government would agree and issue bonds, guaranteed by the labor of the citizens of the world government. A potential slave state is at once engendered. The elite get richer as they engineer "boom & bust" cycles.
Let us awaken from this "paradisial dream" of the elites for a moment.
I believe that it is apparent to the Bilderberger group that they can create the conditions for their dream becoming true by dragging out and even worsening the depressed economies of the world. In this scheme economists and other experts would testify that the problem is caused by the passe' system of national central banks and national economies. The stage of nation-states has been outgrown by global economic evolution, yet still remains perversely to thwart human potential.
The solution? We must shed the old skin of the nation-man so as to become our destined global-man. We must have world government. [See above for key aspects.]
If you listen to the complaints of the demonstrators at Wall Street, then you will not hear much meaningful commentary. Statements of personal hardships don't speak to the problem. To inveigh against "bank greed" or "corporate greed" will not meet the needs of the times. To announce that the whole economic system needs to be changed, however generally correct, does not address the specific need of our time.
We should maintain our national system. However, money creation and banking should be significantly changed. Using the United States as a stand-in for all nations, the United States should immediately establish its own national bank - The United States Bank, N.A. This bank would provide a checking account for each citizen. There would be no savings accounts or debt instruments issues by the government. ATMs for this bank would be readily available. Using Eminent Domain power, existing private banking facilities may be co-opted initially to house the national bank. All national payments would be made through these bank facilities.
The money for the nation would be created at a specially established unit within the Department of the Treasury. Parameters would be established for a proper sum of currency for the U.S. population and productivity. Treasury would direct the Bureau of the Mint to create the dollars in the form of interest-free Treasury Notes. These moneys would be used to pay federal workers and contractors for services rendered. They would be used to pay Social Security and Medicare, etc. Other money would be created to buy assets such as new highways, bridges, dams, etc. or to improve existing assets in the forms of highways, bridges, dams, etc.
Nationally owned, or newly purchased, assets would be accounted in the nation's books as assets. When the United States spent money to acquire these assets, it would be getting richer. The idea of government wasteful spending would be converted to wealth-building. The government would invest through its banks in housing for employed citizens, buying a house for a goven citizen and then renting-to-own the property to the contracting citizen. The house would be an asset for the government, which over time would be transferred to the citizen at the agreed to cost of purchase. Of course, there would be no interest charged the citizen.
The same principle should apply to government investing through its bank in likely small businesses. Newly designed and engineered electric cars might be developed by entrepreneurs, which the government might invest in, after careful consideration. I don't believe that any international corporation should be invested in. In fact, domestic only companies shoulds pay no tax at all.
Nor would there be any income tax. Excise taxes would be available for user fees, as in highways. Each vehicle would carry a shield which could be recognized by laser, or other beam, attached to "toll poles" placed along the highways , bridges, etc. Usage fees would automatically be withdrawn from the owners checking account and transferred to the government account.
The same principle might apply to dry goods, foods, clothing, etc. I don't believe that basic food such as bread and milk should be taxed.
Further, as part of the government's duty to regulate commerce, it should "make a market" in all commodities at slight mark-ups. Each farmer, herder, lumberman, miner, etc., would get a guaranteed fair price. Entrepreneurs requiring raw materials to construct or prepare a product would buy the goods from the government storage depots, which would be established in all sections of the country.
The goverrnment should also operate the utilities, unless the states choose to operate one or more. However, in all cases the national government would operate nuclear facilities. It would require each existent and all new plants to be "fail-safe" - rather than based on budget or profit considerations. Only the government has the money to see that the work is done correctly. These would be assets. Fees would be charged for electricity from nuclear energy.
New highways would be built with the idea of taking advantage of this nuclear energy capacity by establishing lighted highways, well-conceived oases for rest, food and either recharging electric vehicles or swapping them at rental agencies, which the government might choose to operate, etc.
There is much of an absolutely booming sort that can be done. Never again need people suffer from "booms and busts," as the national money could not implode. Well managed, it would never explode either. However, it would annihilate the $14 trillion dollars in debt of the U.S. in reasonably short time. Wall Street would be needed no more.
Tariffs would be imposed upon all products foreign interests and international corporations desired to sell in the United States. The tariffs would be calculated to offset wage differentials betwen the U.S. and another country, such as China. These funds might be earmarked for the Social Security/Medicare requirements. Incidentally, no longer would Social Security funds be placed in the general revenue account and spent like ordinary tax revenue. These funds would be protected from Congress by law.
All trade treaties/agreements would be nullified. The U.S. would treat every foreign state equally, but it would never treat one as if it were a member of the national Union.
A new "foreign dollar" based on commodities would be created to deal with our trading partners.
All American troops would be returned to the U.S.A. Foreign nations wanting to rent U.S. military units could do so, based on carefully designed rules. These would be voluntary mercenary units drawn from within the U.S. military and the National Guard. [Optional aspect of the renewed American economy].
This outline is only the beginning to a great future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
