Wisconsin Union Busting: Convoluted Economics?

In my years of exposure to the writings of economists it has become clear to me that there rarely is a convergence of opinion as to the nature of a fiscal crisis or of a viable solution. There is generally some degree of accuracy to all conclusions, with future hindsight being the only indicator of veracity. I'm sure that our current economic and budgetary conundrum is no different.

                                                  1912 Textile Strike, Lawrence, Mass.



It is from this perspective that I am both perplexed and disturbed by the current events in Madison, Wisconsin where it would seem the political powers are intent on "union busting" as becoming the solution to the state's budgetary woes. Several other states are considering similar bills in their statehouses. I have not heard one economist, whether liberal or conservative, state that excessive power of organized labor was in any way to blame for our economic meltdown. Nor have I heard any one of them make claims that overpaid state and public sector workers were responsible for our demise. On the contrary, despite their many differences, most respected economists agree that the single most overriding cause of the Great Recession was the excessive power of capital, specifically finance capital and it's use of trading in ficticious mortgage instruments and derivatives that created a housing bubble. There is an unusual level of agreement, even among academia, that this was the case.

While the financiers have gotten off scott free, and with taxpayer funds racked up record profits and bonuses, real wages here in the U.S. as well as across the free world have been in steady decline since the 1970's. Interestingly, the power of organized labor has been in decline over this same period. Concession after concession on wages, benefits and retirement plans have been made to both management of private sector companies and public sector entities. In some cases unions have given up decades worth of gains. Governors and mayors, particularly in right to work states, make gleeful announcements of companies bringing a few hundred new jobs to their area that pay ten dollars per hour and only mediocre benefits. Most of the time these companies were enticed by tax incentives and sometimes given low cost or even free leases on publicly owned property. Many of the "fortunate" hirees end up drawing food stamps or some other form of assistance just to survive.

As is the case with any disaster, blame for the global economic crisis needs a scapegoat. From the very outset of the catastrophe financial moguls, their lobbyists, pundits, and bought politicians have been orchestrating a calculated program of misinformation and demagogy. Their targets have alternately been poor people who received sub-prime mortgages, illegal immigrants, Medicaire and Medicaid recipients, persons on disability, environmentalists, non-Christians, the school lunch program, the Department of Education, Planned Parenthood, American Civil Liberties Union, socialists, and spoiled people who refuse to work for minimum wage. As with most victims of scapegoating, many of these targets have no means of defense.

Organized public labor unions in Wisconsin can now be added to the rediculous reasons for state governments going broke. Never mind that of the 137 million dollar shortfall in Wisconsin's budget, 117 million dollars is due to a tax cut for the wealthy pushed through recently by Gov. Scott Walker. Ignore the fact that in the short time he has been in office he eliminated the Department of Commerce and replaced it with a public/private corporation funded with 80 million dollars of taxpayer money with little or no oversight. The public unions have agreed to ALL of the wage and benefit concessions demanded of them. But that is not enough. The governor is intent on busting the union as well, setting a horrid precedent for other states and municipalities to follow suit.

As sad and disconcerting this all is, the real tragedy is that the singular cause of our peril will not be addressed. The problem will be left to languish, awaiting it's inevitable return. The finance juggernaut, free from meaningful regulation and with the backing of America's largest lobby, will continue to rack up enormous profit while getting those who are of the least means to shoulder the burden. No one can say what the next crisis will be. It could be a commodities bubble,a sovereign debt crisis, or a failure of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. But it will come. Perhaps they are searching already for the next scapegoat.

WMD and Radical Islam: The Dubious Case for a Suleiman Solution

While the Obama administration gets fairly high marks in most domestic quarters for it's response to date regarding the serious crisis in Egypt, the skeletal remains of American credibility throughout the rest of the world have taken yet another body blow with the news that at least some of the 1.3 billion dollars in military aid to Egypt's regime has gone towards the development of WMD's. It seems that, under Mubarak, Egypt has had an active and ongoing program to develop chemical, biological and even nuclear warfare technology, ranging from a three-way deal with N.Korea and Pakistan involving medium range missiles to a covert facility in Argentina for experimental uranium enrichment. Of particular embarrassment to the U.S. is that while Mubarak supported the overthrow of Sadaam Hussein, it was he who supplied the sarin gas to the latter to be used on the Kurds. Sarin gas that was developed with American funds. And obviously this all occurred with the full knowledge and at least tacit consent of the American government. Not that any of this is necessarily breaking news. For most of the last 30 years this information has been there for the asking. It's just that mainstream American media have not had cause to report it, at least not until now. I'm wondering why? One plausible guess could be that the U.S. government would have had too tough of a time explaining that we were invading Iraq because of WMD, when in fact we were supporting the same sort of behavior in Egypt. However onerous this news may be, the injection of WMD's into the Egyptian equation sets up a late in the game opportunity for American fear-mongers.


The purveyors of fear were in the game from the very beginning. From the first hours of the Egyptian uprising there began whispers of the "Muslim Brotherhood". Over the last weeks those whispers have become loud voices, portraying them in the most exaggerated terms not only in numbers but as to their purpose. Despite the mutual disdain and hatred between the two groups, the usual reference to al-Qaida creeps into the narrative. The right-wing media jockeys are already pointing to a conspiracy of radical Islam with the American left to overthrow Mubarak, with one even suggesting the inane claim that the Egyptian revolution has as it's aim a new "caliphate" to spread Sharia law across the entire globe.

It is beginning to become troublingly clear that the U.S., along with others of our allies, like Israel, are embracing the Suleiman solution, whereby the newly appointed Egyptian Vice-President would preside over a transition government. The so far leaderless populist revolt has already voiced it's adamant rejection of this scenario. Omar Suleiman, a decades long supporter of Hosni Mubarak, is a firm entrenchment of the old regime, correctly viewed by the people as a torturer and a "yes" man. He is a retired army general and former intelligence chief who as director of the Egyptian General Intelligence Service (EGIS) entered an agreement with the U.S. in 1995 that allowed for suspected militants to be secretly transferred to Egypt for questioning. He was reportedly required to provide assurance that prisoners brought to Egypt would not be subjected to torture, but at least one CIA officer testified that such assurances from Suleiman were worthless as "a bucket of warm spit". While Suleiman's official duties at EGIS regarded foreign and military intelligence it requires a contorted imagination to believe that he did not also use his power to spy on and intimidate unsuspecting Egyptians. In my view Omar Suleiman has the appearance of a common thug wearing a coat and tie. All of this aside, the question stilll presents itself as to the legitimacy of any high ranking military official having the necessary motivation to oversee an honest and fair transition of power. Albeit the Egyptian army at it's lower level of conscripts appears to be supportive of the people, it is difficult to believe that the higher level of generals and ministers are not at first interested in maintaining as much of the corrupt status quo as possible. Along with their wealthy business-class counterparts, the military elite are not likely to let go of power or the purse easily. Do the majority of Egyptian people wish to see this group overseeing a revision of their constitution or setting the rules of engagement for new elections? I think not.

What we are witnessing has become all too familiar. On the one hand our government extends the hand of America by extolling the virtues of democracy, offering aid to the innocent, decrying injustice, supporting the cause of the people, and assuring all that the future of their nation is to be determined by them and only them. Leaders and politicians give grand speeches and make emotional statements of support. It all looks wonderful on the evening news. This is what Americans really believe. It is what we want to believe. We embrace these principles. It is at our core and serves as the cornerstone of what we see as the goodness of America.

But behind the scenes something very different is taking root. Fear is setting in. Those in the know are increasingly concerned about our past complicity with the guilty party. Every effort is being made to place the proper spin on past and current events. We are starting to hear the phrase "peaceful, orderly transition", a translation of which could be "how do we effect the best possible outcome for America?". The prospect of a functioning, truly democratic nation that is not fully on our team is too much to swallow for some in our government. Spoiled by the relative ease of dealing with a well entrenched dictator, they just are not ready. Nor or they ready to accept any responsibility or blame for the three decades of policy in which they were complicit in the demise of the Egyptian people. In spite of all it's pronouncements of support for a transparent hands-off approach to the formation of a new government, the U.S. is actively promoting it's own agenda. Enter the Suleiman solution, with all the shallow promises, vague gestures and back room deals that are sure to accompany it.

But in this self-serving attempt lies a real dilemma. How do our policymakers sell this idea of an already rejected caretaker government to an overwhelming majority of altruistic Americans who support the populist cause of the Egyptian people? Actually it is a relatively simple task. It has been done before. In one word.... "Fear". It is the brand of fear that trancends all idealistic notions of democratic freedom and trumps our deepest desires for affinity with the Egyptians camping in Liberation Square. It is the same imagery that closed the deal with us on Iraq. It requires only the mention of two phrases: "Takeover by Radical Islam" and "Weapons of mass destruction". With these two elements added to the mix, a justification for U.S. influence in the shaping of any transitional government in Egypt becomes not only a possibility but a likelyhood.

So now we have it. A fresh revolution in the Middle East. A popular, secular uprising of an honorable and proud ancient society who have had enough of pharaohs, dictators and military regimes. And unlike our episode in Iraq, it is a totally self-generated movement with no outside forces, no ideas of "occupation" by a foreign military, and no U.N. resolutions. For once it would be nice to end up on the right side of history. In light of our recent questionable affiliations with dictators and illicit regimes it would be a huge step in the right direction if we were to place our principles above our fears and just do what is right. Certainly diplomacy will be much more difficult with a properly represented democratic nation that has such diverse political viewpoints, and there are some legitimate concerns about Egypt's future relationships with it's neighbors that can't be ignored. But we should not blow these things out of proportion. The new Egypt will disagree with us on many issues, of that we can be quite sure. Our own is a nation of political diversity with radical elements of all flavors having a voice. For what reason do we find such great difficulty in granting that same latitude to our Egyptian counterparts? In spite of the potential conflicts there most assuredly would be enormous opportunities for us to find common ground, and I believe that any compact between our nations would be a real milestone towards a peaceful and prosperous middle east.

We should remember that we had our own revolution. The American collection of colonies had it's own transitional government and had no singular leader. Our new nation required over a decade to write it's constitution and elect it's first president. During our transitional period there was a myriad of viewpoints to be dealt with, from those who wanted appeasement with England to others who did not wish there to be a "united" states at all. We were a Christian population of different denominations who had some serious conflicts with each other, yet we settled on a secular government. Accounts by it's own members portray our Continental Congress as being a difficult and sometimes ugly affair. The rest of the civilized world didn't quite know how do deal with us and were concerned as to our intentions. Other colonial powers worried that our revolution would spread across the globe. But we avoided any foreign intervention or influence. What we ended up with was truly of our own making. We owe the Egyptian people that same opportunity.

Proof of US Government Support for Egyptian Uprising

The following is the secret document just released three days ago by Wikileaks. It was sent on Dec. 30, 2008 from the US Embassy in Cairo to Washington disclosing the extent of American support for the protesters behind the Egypt uprising. The April 6 Movement is the primary opposition group leading the current uprising. It is not a political party, but rather a grassroot collection of opposition parties, groups and individuals who have been trying to affect regime change in Egypt. The name of the activist who made the trip to the USA for conferences on Capitol Hill has been blocked out, as have the names of the American diplomat and other individuals. I take this to be conclusive proof that, while skeptical as to the possible success of their movement, the US government has in fact lent support to their cause.
Brief History of April 6 Youth Movement
NOTE: USG refers to U. S. Government and GOE refers to Government of Egypt.


10:30PM GMT 28 Jan 2011

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 02 CAIRO 002572 SIPDIS FOR NEA/ELA, R, S/P

AND H NSC FOR PASCUAL AND KUTCHA-HELBLING E.O. 12958: DECL:

12/30/2028 TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, KDEM, EG SUBJECT: APRIL 6 ACTIVIST ON HIS

U.S. VISIT AND REGIME CHANGE IN EGYPT REF: A. CAIRO 2462 B.

CAIRO 2454 C. CAIRO 2431 Classified By: ECPO A/Mincouns

Catherine Hill-Herndon for reason 1.4 (d ). 1. (C) Summary and

comment: On December 23, April 6 activist xxxxxxxxxxxx expressed

satisfaction with his participation in the December 3-5 \"Alliance of

Youth Movements Summit,\" and with his subsequent meetings with USG

officials, on Capitol Hill, and with think tanks. He described how

State Security (SSIS) detained him at the Cairo airport upon his

return and confiscated his notes for his summit presentation calling

for democratic change in Egypt, and his schedule for his Congressional

meetings. xxxxxxxxxxxx contended that the GOE will never undertake

significant reform, and therefore, Egyptians need to replace the

current regime with a parliamentary democracy. He alleged that

several opposition parties and movements have accepted an unwritten

plan for democratic transition by 2011; we are doubtful of this claim.

xxxxxxxxxxxx said that although SSIS recently released two April 6

activists, it also arrested three additional group members. We have

pressed the MFA for the release of these April 6 activists. April 6's

stated goal of replacing the current regime with a parliamentary

democracy prior to the 2011 presidential elections is highly

unrealistic, and is not supported by the mainstream opposition. End

summary and comment. ---------------------------- Satisfaction with

the Summit ---------------------------- 2. (C) xxxxxxxxxxxx expressed

satisfaction with the December 3-5 \"Alliance of Youth Movements

Summit\" in New York, noting that he was able to meet activists from

other countries and outline his movement's goals for democratic change

in Egypt. He told us that the other activists at the summit were very

supportive, and that some even offered to hold public demonstrations

in support of Egyptian democracy in their countries, with xxxxxxxxxxxx

as an invited guest. xxxxxxxxxxxx said he discussed with the other

activists how April 6 members could more effectively evade harassment

and surveillance from SSIS with technical upgrades, such as

consistently alternating computer \"simcards.\" However, xxxxxxxxxxxx

lamented to us that because most April 6 members do not own computers,

this tactic would be impossible to implement. xxxxxxxxxxxx was

appreciative of the successful efforts by the Department and the

summit organizers to protect his identity at the summit, and told us

that his name was never mentioned publicly. ------------------- A

Cold Welcome Home ------------------- 3. (S) xxxxxxxxxxxx told us

that SSIS detained and searched him at the Cairo Airport on December

18 upon his return from the U.S. According to xxxxxxxxxxxx, SSIS

found and confiscated two documents in his luggage: notes for his

presentation at the summit that described April 6's demands for

democratic transition in Egypt, and a schedule of his Capitol Hill

meetings. xxxxxxxxxxxx described how the SSIS officer told him that

State Security is compiling a file on him, and that the officer's

superiors instructed him to file a report on xxxxxxxxxxxx most recent

activities. --------------------------------------------- ----------

Washington Meetings and April 6 Ideas for Regime Change

--------------------------------------------- ---------- 4. (C)

xxxxxxxxxxxx described his Washington appointments as positive, saying

that on the Hill he met with xxxxxxxxxxxx, a variety of House staff

members, including from the offices of xxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxx),

and with two Senate staffers. xxxxxxxxxxxx also noted that he met

with several think tank members. xxxxxxxxxxxx said that xxxxxxxxxxxx's

office invited him to speak at a late January Congressional hearing on

House Resolution 1303 regarding religious and political freedom in

Egypt. xxxxxxxxxxxx told us he is interested in attending, but

conceded he is unsure whether he will have the funds to make the trip.

He indicated to us that he has not been focusing on his work as a

\"fixer\" for journalists, due to his preoccupation with his U.S.

trip. 5. (C) xxxxxxxxxxxx described how he tried to convince his

Washington interlocutors that the USG should pressure the GOE to

implement significant reforms by threatening to reveal CAIRO 00002572

002 OF 002 information about GOE officials' alleged \"illegal\"

off-shore bank accounts. He hoped that the U.S. and the international

community would freeze these bank accounts, like the accounts of

Zimbabwean President Mugabe's confidantes. xxxxxxxxxxxx said he wants

to convince the USG that Mubarak is worse than Mugabe and that the GOE

will never accept democratic reform. xxxxxxxxxxxx asserted that

Mubarak derives his legitimacy from U.S. support, and therefore

charged the U.S. with \"being responsible\" for Mubarak's \"crimes.\"

He accused NGOs working on political and economic reform of living in

a \"fantasy world,\" and not recognizing that Mubarak -- \"the head of

the snake\" -- must step aside to enable democracy to take root. 6.

(C) xxxxxxxxxxxx claimed that several opposition forces -- including

the Wafd, Nasserite, Karama and Tagammu parties, and the Muslim

Brotherhood, Kifaya, and Revolutionary Socialist movements -- have

agreed to support an unwritten plan for a transition to a

parliamentary democracy, involving a weakened presidency and an

empowered prime minister and parliament, before the scheduled 2011

presidential elections (ref C). According to xxxxxxxxxxxx, the

opposition is interested in receiving support from the army and the

police for a transitional government prior to the 2011 elections.

xxxxxxxxxxxx asserted that this plan is so sensitive it cannot be

written down. (Comment: We have no information to corroborate that

these parties and movements have agreed to the unrealistic plan

xxxxxxxxxxxx has outlined. Per ref C, xxxxxxxxxxxx previously told us

that this plan was publicly available on the internet. End comment.)

7. (C) xxxxxxxxxxxx said that the GOE has recently been cracking down

on the April 6 movement by arresting its members. xxxxxxxxxxxx noted

that although SSIS had released xxxxxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxxxxx \"in the

past few days,\" it had arrested three other members. (Note: On

December 14, we pressed the MFA for the release of xxxxxxxxxxxx and

xxxxxxxxxxxx, and on December 28 we asked the MFA for the GOE to

release the additional three activists. End note.) xxxxxxxxxxxx

conceded that April 6 has no feasible plans for future activities.

The group would like to call for another strike on April 6, 2009, but

realizes this would be \"impossible\" due to SSIS interference,

xxxxxxxxxxxx said. He lamented that the GOE has driven the group's

leadership underground, and that one of its leaders, xxxxxxxxxxxx, has

been in hiding for the past week. 8. (C) Comment: xxxxxxxxxxxx

offered no roadmap of concrete steps toward April 6's highly

unrealistic goal of replacing the current regime with a parliamentary

democracy prior to the 2011 presidential elections. Most opposition

parties and independent NGOs work toward achieving tangible,

incremental reform within the current political context, even if they

may be pessimistic about their chances of success. xxxxxxxxxxxx

wholesale rejection of such an approach places him outside this

mainstream of opposition politicians and activists.

SCOBEY02008-12-307386PGOV,PHUM,KDEM,EGAPRIL 6 ACTIVIST ON HIS U.S.

VISIT AND REGIME CHANGE IN EGYPT

Egypt, Tunisia: Answers? A Warning?

In a mere three week period we've seen the overthrow of an old-line government in Tunisia and, as I write, the impending similar result in Egypt. The rapid succession of events in the latter is simply staggering. All of this history unfolding in full view of the world is both awe inspiring and frightening. What initially seemed to be somewhat "old news" cable releases by Wikileaks has served as a spark plug for simmering tensions in both countries. The implications of these events are cause for grave concern by other similar middle eastern nations and, perhaps more importantly, the world as a whole. The prospect of a spreading revolt throughout all of the middle east is most unthinkable. The delicate balance of power in the region, particularly regarding Israel, is at stake. The potential opportunity for terrorist activity is certainly a possibility, though perhaps somewhat exaggerated. The economic ramifications to a world just recovering from global recession could be unfathomable. While Egypt has little oil to speak of, a huge percentage of the middle eastern oil, as well as other goods, travel through the Suez Canal, dug by the Egyptians 5000 years ago.. As we all learned in grade school geography, the 100 mile trip through the canal could turn into a 6000 mile trip around the Horn of Africa. Whether intentional or not, any interruption of the canal's operation could cause gasoline prices to rise to astronomical levels overnight. But perhaps the most disturbing is the inevitable suffering of the innocents in the chaos of anarchy. There have already been some killed and numerous injuries, but the foreboding prospect of continued instability could cause a rapid implosion of basic services. Hospitals are already suffering strain from the injuries. There no longer seems to be an operational government in place as all the ministries have been under siege. The usual criminal element to be found in any society are out in force robbing and looting, and some 10,000 prisoners have escaped jails. The citizens have formed vigilante groups to protect property, the police having disappeared. One can only surmise as to the effect on public utilities if there is a protracted conflict.


But what lessons and conclusions can be drawn from all this? What exactly is going on here? And should all this serve as a warning? The experts are raising all sorts of scenarios as to what has happened and where it is all leading. There most likely is some validity to all of them , and I have my own guesses as well.

I believe what we are witnessing here boils down to two growing realities.

The first reality is a function of our 21st century technology. It is clear now that there really are no secrets. Not for governments. Not for the rich and elite. Not for anyone. Any analysis of these events that does not include the effect of the recently released Wikileaks documents would be remiss. Many of them were secret diplomatic cables that shed a most unfavorable light on governments of the region and their relationships both with each other and with businesses. In an obscure article last month in The New York Times a former NSA director admitted there was no such thing as a totally secure computer, not even in government. There are now copycat sites ready to open such as Openleaks which plans it's launch soon. They are promising even more damaging document releases that will target governments and business interests. Even the most disadvantaged individuals on earth now have access to knowledge that was once kept secret.

The explosion of communication technology has far outstripped the ability of most governments to effectively stop the flow of information. Wireless internet, cell phones, texting, and social networking are the tools of the current uprisings. Egyptian protesters are even calling their revolt the "Facebook Revolution". In the face of government shutdown of these services a trickle of information still got out and in. Service provider experts are saying that newer technology and distributed networks are making it more or less impossible to totally stop the flow of information by any government crackdown.

Governments and the well-connected elites they do business with can no longer hide the dirty business they have used to oppress the unfortunate. In this regard the world and how we relate to each other has changed forever.

The second and, I believe, far more important reality is one of historic economic certainty, that has repeated itself time after time. The majority of populist uprisings have more to do with poverty and wealth disparity than with lack of freedom. Human beings have a tendency to accept certain restrictions on their freedoms as long as their basic needs are being met (see Maslow's Theory of Heirarchy of Needs). The current situation is very similar to the European Wars of 1848. The nations of Europe had all been, in one form or another, monarchies or leftover feudal states like those in Germany closely allied with the Church. The sole exception had been the mostly failed Napoleanic outcome of the French Revolution. The people had accepted their plight and station in life. The poor had remained fairly silent and docile even in the midst of The Inquisition and Protestant Reformation. So what changed? For one thing the noble classes had become more and more greedy, holding little regard for the poor. The ideas of the French Enlightenment were beginning to ferment with many commoners seeing the success of the American experiment and beginning to think "Why not us?" Add to that the effects of the worldwide potato famine and there could be only one result, a population craving change. Of course, we here in America and in Australia saw this as the time of the great immigration. But for Europe, 1848 saw one populist revolt after another. Most of them were at least to some degree failures and in retrospect we can see, particularly in the case of Germany, the result was an almost complete century of pain and instability. There are other, more recent examples. More than anything else, economic disparity most certainly led to the Bolshevik Revolution, and to the downfall of the Shah of Iran. In both cases the population had remained compliant under autocratic monarchies for centuries. One could make a similar case for Cuba. In their time, both the Russian and Iranian revolts were widely praised by many in the free world. No one could envision, however, the horrors of the Soviet goulags or the violation of human rights by the mullahs of Iran's quasi- theocracy. Nor could most predict the failed socialist experiment of Fidel's Cuba. There have been uprisings among nations in the middle east with positive conclusions. The Turks, while certainly not willing to bend to every whim of the west, are enjoying not only a representative government but improved living standards of it's peoples. But the crown jewel is the case of India. Poverty has seen a substantial decrease, their economy is one of the world's largest, and their government is the only secular democracy in the region. There is no way to predict at this point wether the results of the current turmoil will be positive or negative. But one thing is certain in the midst of anarchy. Many innocents will suffer. The tragedy is that it could have been avoided.

From the live reports I'm seeing and hearing from the major news sources like Reuters and the BBC, and from blogs of many independent reporters I have concluded that, once again, the real seeds of these revolts are economic in nature. I have particularly listened to the statements and chants of the protesters. They repeatedly are saying that they have no jobs, no money, and are angry at the government and the rich elite who they see as having robbed them for decades. To back their statements economists are reporting rising unemployment and disparity of wealth in many middle eastern countries like Egypt and Tunisia, as well as in Yemen, Algeria, Jordan, Syria, Iran, Sudan, and Lybia. Sixty percent of the population of the middle east is under 30 years old. For example, in Egypt the median age is 24 years. It is estimated that among the young unemployment may be as high as 40 percent. The trend towards polarization of economic condition has worsened over the last decade, not only in the middle east, but throughout the world. Document releases by Wikileaks have only confirmed suspicions of government improprieties and collusion with corrupt business interests, particularly in autocratic governments which show favoritism and loyalty to a select few families and businesses.

What is remarkable to me is that this appears in no way to be a revolt inpired by Islamic extremists. I hear no one chanting "Allah". If anything, the Muslim leaders have been unusually silent to this point. It could very well be that this doesn't bode well for Islamic fundamentalists either. This appears to be simply about economic suppression. The protesters speak excellent English for the most part and wear western clothes. I have also heard hardly any hatred speech towards America. In fact, one protester said that "we love Obama, and beg him to help us". What they are chanting is that they want jobs. The freedoms they are demanding are seen mainly as a way to improve their economic condition. They want justice for those they see as responsible for their plight, primarily the government and rich business people. Late reports indicate that many of the elite are chartering planes to leave the country. I can only assume they've already transferred their wealth to foreign banks. They appear to know they are the enemy to which the Egyptian people are referring.

There is no possible way to predict the results, or whether a new regime will be favorable or unfavorable to us. One thing appears clear. In spite of his maneuverings, Mubarak is finished. I can only hope that our own nation will do the right thing in spite of the potential ramifications and take the high road. We need to revisit our relationships with dictatorships like those in Egypt and elsewhere and withhold aid to those who are violating the basic needs of their poor. In their defense, both George Bush and President Obama have put great pressure on Mubarak regarding these matters, but evidently not enough. We need to make it clear to all the citizens of middle eastern countries that they have our support and will only take action based on their best interest, regardless of their government. If our principles are to have any relevancy at all, we should certainly practice them in all of our affairs. In the long run only this will build any element of trust and chance for meaningful partnerships.

The revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the unrest being reported in several other countries in that region should serve as a warning. What we are witnessing now on our televisions is the least attractive and, in fact, most horrible method of wealth redistribution. There are many other better, more effective, and less painful methods available. But without peaceful, orderly change, the method we are seeing is eventually not just a possibility, but a certainty. Those persons in this world who build their fortunes on the backs of the working poor without respect for their well-being, collude with corrupt governments, and wish to deny the unfortunate even the most basic assistance should take heed. Just because the world's Marxist experiment was a failure doesn't mean the problem disappeared. Any society that shows no regard for the disadvantaged is on the road to self-destruction. Wealth, in and of itself, is not the problem. There are many of the world's rich who have earned their money by hard work, have made sure those who work for them have adequate incomes, have practiced honesty in their dealings, and are good citizens of their communities. Many are champions of the causes of the poor and are much deserving of our admiration and respect. It is my belief that the guilty parties know who they are. And in these days and times we know too. To them I say the world has changed. To them I say the blood of the innocent is on your hands.

Let us all pray for peace.

WikiMania?

The latest cable release by Wikileaks reported by the world's news sources indicates that the Vatican, and in particular Pope Benedict, impeded the investigation of sex abuse by priests in Ireland. Am I surprised? No, not really. Is this not something that was suspected all along? And what exactly will be the result of this revelation? Does anyone actually believe the Vatican will now come out from hiding behind it's shield of sovereign immunity? The cable release goes on to expose the equally non-surprising tidbit of news that the Vatican had some concerns about alienating the Archbishop of Canterbury when it opened the door to some Anglicans to rejoin the Catholic Church. Well, all I can say is "ho-hum".

I must admit that in the days leading up to the Wikileaks releases I was fully anticipating to see information of monumental proportions, some of which may have changed governments and caused a certain degree of diplomatic chaos. While I generally am at odds with conspiracy theorists, I guess there has been some part of me that feared perhaps there WAS some sort of "secret" order of things, particularly as to nations' governance. Surely, these 250,000 documents would contain some eye-opening clues.

Having followed closely the media reports of the leaks as well as some of the original documents, I'm beginning to arrive at a markedly different conclusion. The majority of the disclosures as of right now do not expose anything that could be construed as being really new. Aside from embarrasing statements by nearly all of the world's diplomatic regiment, and a blow by blow description of the "who said what and when", I'm not seeing much "substance" to any of it. Even in cases where there were no prior concrete evidence, there were certainly a great deal of suspicions or speculations already in existence as to some degree of malfeasance or complicity involving nations, corporations and powerful individuals. Courtroom prosecutors and defense attorneys appear to be the biggest potential beneficiaries of what has been exposed to date. I don't see there being much more than a 72 hour news cycle for most of the individual stories coming out of all this.

The singular exception may be the sheer volume and nature of cables related to how the whole of the Arabic world views Iran. There are some surprising statements by nearly all of the leaders and diplomats of these countries, in particular, those of Saudi Arabia. No big news here that these nations have an ongoing concern about Iran. But when King Abdullah gives encouragement to the U.S. to strike Iran to "cut off the head of the snake", this should do more than raise eyebrows. However, even in this case there were plenty of signals ahead of time. While Iran's president has spouted much vitriole in his rantings against Israel, the real harbingers of Iranian power, the Ayatollah and the mullahs, have been publicly clear for years that the immediate aim of their "fatwa" was to consolidate Islam and it's oil-rich nations either directly or indirectly under the power of Iran.

Overall, though, I just don't see the big deal. Is it going to change the world knowing that nations use their diplomats periodically as spies? Or that we and others sometimes use covert activities to further our respective interests? Or that a Saudi prince held "underground" wild parties? What about large sums of money that sometimes change hands in mysterious ways? Or corporations that try to influence elections? And did we really believe that diplomats are always polite and considerate towards others? I just don't think we can delude ourselves into believing these were truths we didn't already know. Unless there is something special in Assange's threatened "poison pill" or in the yet to be released banking documents, this whole thing could end up being perceived as a real dud.

There are in my mind some much larger and more important questions that loom as a result of all this "WikiMania".

First and foremost there are serious questions about national security. How can a Private First Class in the military become an intelligence analyst with access to these documents in the first place? Keep in mind Private Manning just a couple of years prior had been working in a pizza parlor. He evidently smuggled the documents out on a disc labeled "Lady Gaga", hand-written no less. (I suppose there should be no shock in this matter. Drug cartels seem to have minimal trouble building elaborate multi-million dollar tunnels under our borders.) What does this say about our ability to protect ourselves from our real enemies?

And then there is the disturbing situation of internet hackers. Both the cyber-world supporters and critics of Wikileaks along with a group of internet whiz kids interested only in general mayhem have been able to take down websites almost at will. More cause for alarm comes from experts who are admitting little can be done to stop them. I find it both maddening and ironic that these self-described "hactivists", while extolling the inalienable virtues of free speech, have appointed themselves the sole arbiters as to which webpages can be viewed. With so much of our daily lives, communication and commerce so interwoven and dependent on the internet the prospect of an all-out "cyber war" is frightening indeed.

In the end, though, the subject of real debate for the forseeable future will be the argument over the balance between the public's right to know and the individual or institutional need for privacy. At what point does transparency trump privacy? Or vice versa? How does the First Amendment come into play? With the exceptions of child pornography and thievery there are very few regulations of the internet and even in those cases regulation is only marginally effective. Is it even technically possible to regulate the net if we wanted to? Or have we created the ultimate tool of anarchy? Hopefully we won't be eventually faced with some sort of Orwellian solution where we are forced to relinquish our most precious rights to avoid the chaos engendered by a few megalomaniacs. Greater minds than my own will have to sort this one out.

Driving While Blind

I remember vividly the day the Berlin Wall came tumbling down. The newreels of German citizens chipping away at the blocks, the jubilant cheers of Berliners, and the sighs of relief in the free world all led to a feeling of celebration. There was much talk of a "peace dividend", the idea that we would now have more money to spend on projects other than defense now that the Cold War was finally over. The neo-cons collectively declared the "death" of socialism. Capitalism could, and eventually would, become a worldwide phenomenon. Even places like China and Viet Nam were openly participating in free markets. Our economies were to become global. There grew much talk of the emerging economies of third world nations and new stock exchanges opened in many such places. According to many, we were on the verge of a new world, where American free market ideals would spread rapidly. All could participate if they worked hard enough. Some were even forecasting an eventual end of poverty. It would be likely we could all look forward to a comfortable retirement. All was good.

Or so many of us thought. But were we driving while blind?

I'll cut right to the chase. We Americans have made many into demons, and some deservedly so. I personally, thank God, am not acquainted with anyone who thinks Hitler was a good man. Charles Manson is another good example. Their bad deeds are clearly documented. But in the case of a few others the evidence just isn't there. I'm referring to a man named Karl Marx. His name is most generally associated with the tragedy of the aforementioned Iron Curtain and with the Maoists of Red China. People like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung combined in their efforts to give Marx a bad name. Never mind that they followed a narrow version of socialism that hardly resembled what Marx had in mind. The truth is, all Marx did was write a book.

I believe there is good evidence that the solution Marx presented in "Das Capital" has at least one, if not more, fatal flaws. His solution was grossly inefficient, creating oversupplies followed by shortages of goods and services. It required a huge government bureaucracy with all of the elements of fraud and collusion that goes with it. Even Fidel Castro has recently admitted that the model doesn't really work very well. Furthermore, Marx's ideas on collectivism were grossly misused in Russia and elsewhere for political purposes.

But just because Karl Marx's solution was flawed, can we really afford to ignore his analysis of the problem? I think not. I have always thought his description of capitalism was remarkably accurate. His tracing of it's emergence from the mercantilism of the fuedal ages is still regarded by economists as one of his greatest contributions. In light of the current global economic plight, and the blame game that is now occurring, I believe it is time to revisit Karl Marx for a closer look at his analysis of the problems capitalism faces. That is, if we want it to survive. Just because socialism failed doesn't mean capitalism won.

The following is a video by one of the preeminent students of Marx, David Harvey. David is a professor of Anthropology at City University of New York. He gives a chillingly compelling account of recent economic events from a Marxian point of view.

My Right To Vote

This morning I ventured out on a couple of errands which included a stop at the polls. As is usually the case I was pleased that there was no line and the whole process took less than the time it takes to make a pot of morning coffee. Actually in all the years of my voting I've never had any problem excersizing my constitutional priveledge save one instance when I had moved and not updated my registration.

Perhaps it's too easy. I'm guessing the things I didn't have to do are what is important. I didn't have to fight an angry mob to get inside. I paid no poll tax. I didn't have to prove I owned property or show a "party" card, nor did I have to prove my gender. No one asked me if I was Catholic, Protestant or Atheist. I wasn't required to swear allegiance to a corrupt government, or even a non-corrupt one for that matter. They didn't ask me if I was gay or straight, black or white. I got exactly one whole vote, not the total tally of 3/5 vote per slave given to slave owners. Nobody asked if I were "pro-choice" or "pro-life" , wether or not I was employed, or if I had an education or not. And above all, I had no fear of being attacked or put on somebody's "hit" list when I left.

Overall we have a pretty good deal here. But our freedoms are precious...and fragile...There are some who would limit our constitutional freedoms in the name of all sorts of causes, some worthy, but many not. No matter the reason, our Constitution and it's Amendments including the Bill of Rights are all we really have to protect us. With it comes a responsibility to educate ourselves as to its contents and its origin. There is a movement afoot to diminish and ignore the ideas of founders like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison and Thomas Paine. Purveyors of selfish causes wish to remove the words and ideas of these great men from our children's textbooks and replace them with fairy tales. Even in these times of bankrupt budgets state lawmakers, pandering to fear, waste millions of taxpayer dollars enacting laws that they know from the outset are unconstitutional and will be struck down. There is an ongoing movement to diminish the meaning of separation of church and state, in spite of the overwhelming evidence that under our uniquely secular government, religions of all denominations have flourished like never before anyplace on earth.

I urge you to be vigilant. Our country's original documents and a plethora of accompanying original source material, as well as historical research and biographies written by respected authors is all hiding in plain sight in libraries and more and more on the web.

And please excersize your right to vote.