What Americans Need to know about Mordechai Vanunu

By Eileen Fleming

I’m not a traitor. I’m a man with a conscience who did what he did out of a deep belief after much thought and many doubts. But I knew that I had to do it, that I had no choice…somebody had to do it…I contributed my share by making public what the public ought to know and they shut my mouth behind the prison walls. -Mordechai Vanunu

Mordechai Vanunu was released from Ashkelon prison to open air captivity in east Jerusalem on April 21, 2004 after 18 years-most all in solitary-on April 21, 2004.

In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu was clubbed, drugged, bound and kidnapped from Rome by the Mossad because he told the truth and provided the photographic proof of their clandestine 7 story underground WMD facility in the Negev.

In the case of Mordechai Vanunu, Americans need to know that the restrictions that have held him captive in Jerusalem come from the Emergency Defense Regulations which were implemented by Britain against Palestinians and Jews after World War II.

After WW II, Attorney Yaccov Shapiro, who later became Israel’s Minister Of Justice, described the Emergency Defense Regulations as “unparalleled in any civilized country: there were no such laws in Nazi Germany.”

During one of my seven trips to Jerusalem since 2005, I asked Vanunu, “If the British Mandate has expired why not the British Mandate’s Emergency Defense Regulations?”

Vaunu replied, “The reason given is security but it is because Israel is not a democracy unless you are a Jew. This administration tells me I am not allowed to speak to foreigners, the Media, and the world. But I do because that is how I prove my true humanity to the world. My freedom of speech trial began January 25, 2006 for speaking to the media, the same day as the Palestinian elections…When I decided to expose Israel’s nuclear weapons I acted out of conscience and to warn the world to prevent a nuclear holocaust.”

In 1963, Peres was Israel’s Deputy Minister of Defense when he met with President Kennedy at the White House. Kennedy told Peres, “You know that we follow very closely the discovery of any nuclear development in the region. This could create a very dangerous situation. For this reason we monitor your nuclear effort. What could you tell me about this?”

Peres replied, “I can tell you most clearly that we will not introduce nuclear weapons to the region, and certainly we will not be the first.”

In 2005, Vanunu told me, “President Kennedy tried to stop Israel from building atomic weapons. In 1963, he forced Prime Minister Ben Guirion to admit the Dimona was not a textile plant, as the sign outside proclaimed, but a nuclear plant. The Prime Minister said, ‘The nuclear reactor is only for peace.’

“Kennedy insisted on an open internal inspection. He wrote letters demanding that Ben Guirion open up the Dimona for inspection. The French were responsible for the actual building of the Dimona. The Germans gave the money; they were feeling guilty for the Holocaust, and tried to pay their way out. Everything inside was written in French, when I was there, almost twenty years ago.

“Back then, the Dimona descended seven floors underground. In 1955, Perez and Guirion met with the French to agree they would get a nuclear reactor if they fought against Egypt to control the Sinai and Suez Canal. That was the war of 1956. Eisenhower demanded that Israel leave the Sinai, but the reactor plant deal continued on.

“When Johnson became president, he made an agreement with Israel that two senators would come every year to inspect. Before the senators would visit, the Israelis would build a wall to block the underground elevators and stairways. From 1963 to ’69, the senators came, but they never knew about the wall that hid the rest of the Dimona from them.

“Nixon stopped the inspections and agreed to ignore the situation. As a result, Israel increased production. In 1986, there were over two hundred bombs. Today, they may have enough plutonium for ten bombs a year.”

On January 25, 2006, after nearly two years of speaking to hundreds of foreigners since his release from prison, Vanunu was convicted by the Jerusalem Magistrates Court of 15 violations of a military order that had prohibited him from talking to non-Israelis and because he attempted to “leave the state” by taking a cab from Jerusalem to Bethlehem to attend Christmas Eve mass at the Church of the Nativity in 2004. The original indictment included 22 different violations; Vanunu was charged with 19 and acquitted of four. He was acquitted of speaking to foreign nationals on the internet and via video and voice chats.

Just prior to the taping of “30 Minutes with Vanunu” on March 26, 2006, Vanunu told me, “Many journalists come here to the American Colony, from CNN and NY Times. They all want to cover my story, but their EDITORS say no…CNN wants to interview me; but they say they can’t do it because they don’t want problems with the Israeli censor. BBC is doing the same thing. Sixty Minutes from the United States from the beginning they wanted to do a program, but because of the censor situation they decide not to do it.”

On July 2, 2007, Israel sentenced Vanunu to six more months in jail for speaking to foreign media in 2004. On September 23, 2008, the Jerusalem District Court reduced Vanunu’s sentence to three months, “In light of (Vanunu’s) ailing health and the absence of claims that his actions put the country’s security in jeopardy.”

On June 14, 2009, Vanunu told me, “The Central Commander of the General Army testified in court that it is OK if I speak in public as long as I do not talk about nuclear weapons.”

Vanunu’s restrictions will be reviewed again by the Israeli High Court after Dec. 21, 2009. On July 6, 2009, the Supreme Court stated, “pending a review of his conduct, Vanunu will be able to ask for the restrictions to be lifted and be allowed to travel abroad…The state’s representative noted that six months may be too short a time period to determine a change in Vanunu’s behavior and that the state will reconsider the restrictions based not only on Vanunu’s behavior but a host of other considerations, including the time that had lapsed since he divulged state secrets to the British paper.” [1]

It will soon be twenty-four years since Vanunu “divulged state secrets” and as Vanunu told me, “All the secrets I had were published in 1989 in an important book, by [Nuclear Physicist] Frank Barnaby, The Invisible Bomb: Nuclear Arms Race in the Middle East.” [2]

Regarding Israeli behavior towards Vanunu, Americans need to know that in 1986, Israel kidnapped him from Rome but Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: “No one shall he subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention”, including abduction of a person by agents of one state to another state.

Vanunu was charged with and convicted of treason and espionage. According to Section 99 of the Israeli Penal Code, treason is defined as “an act calculated to assist (an enemy) in time of war…delivering information with the intention that it fall into the hands of the enemy.”

Section 113 defines aggravated espionage as “deliver(ing) any secret information without being authorized to do so and with intent to impair the security of the state” and a sub-clause provides for a penalty of seven years for the unauthorized collection, preparation, recording or holding of secret information; if this is done with intent to impair the security of the state and then, the penalty is increased to 15 years.

Vanunu got 18 years and was also rendered defenseless when the court ruled that his motivations were not ideological and they refused to allow Vanunu’s own statements regarding his intentions to be considered in his defense.

A few days before Vanunu was lured from London to Rome, where he was clubbed, drugged and kidnapped by the Mossad, he spent three days being interviewed by Nuclear Physicist, Frank Barnaby.

Barnaby had been employed by the London Sunday Times to review the 57 photos Vanunu had obtained at various restricted locations in the Dimona and he also went to Jerusalem to provide expert testimony at Vanunu’s closed door trial.

Barnaby testified, “I found the fact that Vanunu was able to smuggle a camera and films into and out of Dimona and photograph highly sensitive areas in the establishment astonishing. I very vigorously cross-examined Vanunu, relentlessly asking the same questions in a number of different ways and at different times…I found Vanunu very straightforward about his motives for violating Israel’s secrecy laws he explained to me that he believed that both the Israeli and the world public had the right to know about the information he passed on. He seemed to me to be acting ideologically.

“Israel’s political leaders have, he said, consistently lied about Israel’s nuclear-weapons programme and he found this unacceptable in a democracy. The knowledge that Vanunu had about Isreal’s nuclear weapons, about the operations at Dimona, and about security at Dimona could not be of any use to anyone today. He left Dimona in October 1985 and the design of today’s Israeli nuclear weapons will have been considerably changed since then…Modern nuclear weapons bear little relationship to those of the mid-1980.”[3]

A total of 1,200 pages of transcript of that closed door trial have been released and Vanunu told the court: “I wanted to confirm what everyone knew, I didn’t want Israel to go on denying that it had nuclear weapons, and Shimon Peres to go on lying to (then US president) Ronald Reagan, saying that we didn’t have a nuclear arsenal. I also wanted controls to be placed on these weapons.” [4]

Defense witness and the Sunday Times journalist who broke Vanunu’s story, Peter Hounam, stated, “It is clear that, as far as Vanunu’s accusers are concerned, the trial is not only about whether this decision to reveal the secrets of Israel’s atom bomb amounted to treason and espionage, it is also about whether his decision to become a Christian was at the root of his alleged treachery”.

Hounam also testified that “We did not pay him money, but only covered his expenses… Money did not motivate him.” [5]

Sunday Times journalist Wendy Robbins wrote, “Mordechai never asked for nor received a single penny for his information… he blurted out the whole tale without first setting out any financial preconditions. Mordechai got nothing out of the whole episode. He never `sold’ Israel’s secrets — he told them.”

In the 80’s, Vanunu was transported to and from his closed door trial in a crash helmet, handcuffs and leg-irons, inside a van with blacked out windows that blasted noise to assure Vanunu would not communicate with journalists or supporters. During the court hearings, two Israeli security agents flanked him at all times in order to be able to cover his mouth if he began to reveal anything they deemed secret. The public, the press and all observers-even Amnesty International- were excluded from the hearings and the court’s judgment was censored before publication.

On January 25, 2006, the first day of a freedom of speech trial in Israel only two reporters from minor media showed up for Vanunu’s historic court case. Not one was in the court room on February 22, 2006, when it was revealed that Israel had gotten Microsoft to hand over all the details of Vanunu’s Hotmail account before a court order had been obtained by eluding that he was being charged for espionage.

Vanunu wrote, “Microsoft obeyed the orders and gave them all the details…three months before I was arrested and my computers were confiscated…it is strange to ask Microsoft to give this information before obtaining the court order to listen to my private conversations. It means they wanted to go through my emails in secret, or maybe, with the help of the secret services, the Shaback, Mossad…Sfard [Vanunu's attorney] proved that the police had misled the judges who gave the orders to arrest me: to search my room, to go through my email, to confiscate my computers and that they misled Microsoft to believe they are helping in a case of espionage. The State came to the court with two special secret Government orders; Hisaion [documents or information that are deemed confidential by the government and kept from the court, the defendant, and lawyers.] This allows the prosecution to keep documents related to my court hearing secret. One was from the Minister for Interior Security and one from the Minister of Defense.”

Americans need to know that Vanunu’s secretly taped police interrogations, his 2004 Christmas Eve arrest for “attempting to leave the country” when he attempted to celebrate his first Christmas out of prison at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem and the confiscation of his private property by thirty Israeli Forces that stormed into his room at St. George’s Cathedral in 2004, according to Vanunu had all “been done…under the false and misleading statements to the courts of ‘suspicion of espionage’, and yet they are not charging me with spy crimes… and the fact is that I have not committed any crimes.”

When Vanunu next faces the Israeli Supreme Court, the world will know more about Israeli democracy and Justice.

1. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1246443734213&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

2. http://www.wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1370&Itemid=223

3. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/barnaby.pdf

4. http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/onvan.htm

5. http://www.toysatellite.org/babel/vanunu/vaninfo.html#top

The Great, International, Demonic, Truly Frightening Iranian Threat

The United States is “facing a nuclear threat in Iran” – article in Chicago Tribune and other major newspapers, May 26

“the growing missile threat from North Korea and Iran” – article in the Washington Post and other major newspapers, May 26

“Iran’s threat transcends religion. Regardless of sectarian bent, Muslim communities need to oppose the attempts by Iran … to extend Shia extremism and influence throughout the world.” – op-ed article in Boston Globe, May 27

“A Festering Evil. Doing nothing is not an option in handling the threat from Iran” – headline in Investor’s Business Daily, May 27, 2009

This is a very small sample from American newspapers covering but two days.

“Fifty-one percent of Israelis support an immediate Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites” – BBC, May 24

After taking office, on Holocaust Memorial Day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “We will not allow Holocaust-deniers [Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] to carry out another holocaust.” – Haaretz (Israel), May 14, 2009

Like clinical paranoia, “the threat from Iran” is impervious to correction by rational argument.

Two new novels have just appeared, from major American publishers, thrillers based on Iran having a nuclear weapon and the dangers one can imagine that that portends – “Banquo’s Ghosts” by Rich Lowry & Keith Korman, and “The Increment” by David Ignatius. “Bomb, bomb, bomb. Let’s bomb Iran,” declares a CIA official in the latter book. The other book derides the very idea of “dialogue” with Iran while implicitly viewing torture as acceptable.¹

On May 12, in New York City, a debate was held on the proposition that “Diplomacy With Iran Is Going Nowhere” (English translation: “Should we bomb Iran?”). Arguing in the affirmative, were Liz Cheney, former State Department official (and daughter of a certain unindicted war criminal) and Dan Senor, formerly the top spokesman for Washington’s Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. Their “opponents” were R. Nicholas Burns, former undersecretary of state, and Kenneth Pollack, former National Security Council official and CIA analyst and author of “The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq”, a book that, unsurprisingly, did not have too long a shelf life.²

This is what “debate” on US foreign policy looks like in America in the first decade of the 21st century AD – four quintessential establishment figures. If such a “debate” had been held in the Soviet Union during the Cold War (“Detente With The United States Is Going Nowhere”), the American mainstream media would unanimously have had a jolly time making fun of it. The sponsor of the New York debate was the conservative Rosenkranz Foundation, but if a liberal (as opposed to a progressive or radical leftist) organization had been the sponsor, while there probably would have been a bit more of an ideological gap between the chosen pairs of speakers, it’s unlikely that any of the present-day myths concerning Iran would have been seriously challenged by either side. These myths include the following, all of which I’ve dealt with before in this report but inasmuch as they are repeated on a regular basis in the media and by administration representatives, I think that readers need to be reminded of the counter arguments.

• Iran has no right to nuclear weapons: Yet, there is no international law that says that the US, the UK, Russia, China, Israel, France, Pakistan, and India are entitled to nuclear weapons, but Iran is not. Iran has every reason to feel threatened. In any event, the US intelligence community’s National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of December 2007, “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities”, makes a point of saying in bold type and italics: “This NIE does not assume that Iran intends to acquire nuclear weapons.” The report goes on to state: “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program .”
• Ahmadinejad is a Holocaust denier: I have yet to read of Ahmadinejad saying simply, clearly, unambiguously, and unequivocally that he thinks that what we know as the Holocaust never happened. He has instead commented about the peculiarity and injustice of a Holocaust which took place in Europe resulting in a state for the Jews in the Middle East instead of in Europe. Why are the Palestinians paying a price for a German crime? he asks. And he has questioned the figure of six million Jews killed by Nazi Germany, as have many other people of all political stripes.
• Ahmadinejad has called for violence against Israel: His 2005 remark re “wiping Israel off the map”, besides being a very questionable translation, has been seriously misinterpreted, as evidenced by the fact that the following year he declared: “The Zionist regime will be wiped out soon, the same way the Soviet Union was, and humanity will achieve freedom.”³ Obviously, he was not calling for any kind of violent attack upon Israel, for the dissolution of the Soviet Union took place peacefully.
• Iran has no right to provide arms to Hamas and Hezbollah: However, the United States, we are assured, has every right to do the same for Israel and Egypt.
• The fact that Obama says he’s willing to “talk” to some of the “enemies” like Iran more than the Bush administration did sounds good: But one doesn’t have to be too cynical to believe that it will not amount to more than a public relations gimmick. It’s only change of policy that counts. Why doesn’t Obama just state that he would not attack Iran unless Iran first attacked the US or Israel or anyone else? Besides, the Bush administration met with Iran on several occasions.

The following should also be kept in mind: The Washington Post, March 5, 2009, reported: “A senior Israeli official in Washington” has asserted that “Iran would be unlikely to use its missiles in an attack [against Israel] because of the certainty of retaliation.” This was the very last sentence in the article and, according to an extensive Nexis search, did not appear in any other English-language media in the world.

In 2007, in a closed discussion, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that in her opinion “Iranian nuclear weapons do not pose an existential threat to Israel.” She “also criticized the exaggerated use that [Israeli] Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is making of the issue of the Iranian bomb, claiming that he is attempting to rally the public around him by playing on its most basic fears.” This appeared in Haaretz.com, October 25, 2007 (print edition October 26), but not in any US media or in any other English-language world media except the BBC citing the Iranian Mehr English-language news agency, October 27.

Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s Changeman!

In January 2006 I was invited to attend a book fair in Cuba, where one of my books, newly translated into Spanish, was being presented. All my expenses were to be paid by the Cuban government and I was very much looking forward to the visit. Only one problem – the government of the United States would not give me permission to go. My application to travel to Cuba had also been rejected in 1998 by the Clinton administration. (On that occasion I went anyhow and was extremely lucky to avoid being caught by the American Travel Police on the way back and being fined thousands of dollars.) I mention this because Obama supporters would have us believe – as they themselves believe – that their Changeman has been busy making lots of important changes, Cuba being only one example. But I still don’t have the legal right to travel to Cuba.

The only real change made by the Obama administration in regard to Cuba is that Cuban-Americans with family on the island can travel there and send remittances without restrictions. The April 13 White House announcement listed several other provisions concerning telecommunications companies, but what this will actually mean in practice, if anything, is unknown, particularly as it affects Cuba’s access to the Internet. American anti-Castroites have long blamed Cuban’s deficient Internet access on the proverbial “communist suppression”, when the technical availability and prohibitive cost were to a large extent in the hands of American corporations. Microsoft, for example, bars Cuba from using its Messenger instant messaging service.⁴ And Google has long blocked Cuban access to many of its features.⁵ Venezuela and Cuba have been working on an underwater cable system that they hope will make them less reliant on the gringos.

The multifarious US economic embargo, which causes unending hardship and expense for the Cuban people, remains in place. Here is Changeman in a recent press conference:

Reporter: Thank you, Mr. President. You’ve heard from a lot of Latin America leaders here who want the U.S. to lift the embargo against Cuba. You’ve said that you think it’s an important leverage to not lift it. But in 2004, you did support lifting the embargo. You said, it’s failed to provide the source of raising standards of living, it’s squeezed the innocent, and it’s time for us to acknowledge that this particular policy has failed. I’m wondering, what made you change your mind about the embargo?

The President: Well, 2004, that seems just eons ago. What was I doing in 2004?

Reporter: Running for Senate.

The President: Is it while – I was running for Senate. There you go.⁶

Yes, there you go; you shouldn’t confuse campaign rhetoric with the real world and the real Changeman.

The case of the Cuban Five is another chance for Changeman to come to the rescue. This outrageous perversion of justice whereby Cubans were sent to the United States to try to learn of further terrorist attacks in Cuba planned by anti-Castroites in Florida and were themselves arrested by the FBI on information partly supplied to the US by the Cuban government as their contribution to the War On Terrorism.⁷

The Cuban Five have been in US prisons for more than 10 years. Around June 15 the Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on whether or not they will hear the appeal of the Five. The Clinton administration arrested them. The Bush administration continued the awful, mindless, crimeless persecution for eight more years. But now comes the Changeman administration. Hooray! Oh, in late May, the Changeman administration filed a brief urging the Court to deny the Five a hearing, and on June 2, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told an Organization of American States meeting: “I want to emphasize the United States under President Obama is taking a completely new approach to our policy toward Cuba.”⁸

Another opportunity for Changeman to come to the rescue also involves Cuba – closing the Guantanamo prison. But our hero is once again displaying a woeful lack of political courage and imagination. If there’s good evidence that certain detainees are a danger to anyone, then try them in US civilian courts with full rights, a decent defense team, and excluding secret evidence and coerced confessions. If they’re found guilty – and with an American jury sitting in judgment of “terrorists”, this, in almost all cases, would be the verdict – then imprison them in one of America’s maximum security prisons, which already houses about 355 men labeled as “terrorists”.⁹ The new ones will not be any more of a danger in prison than the ones already there.

However, if they’re found innocent, then declare them free men. It would be much easier then to find a country to accept them, including the United States. Until now, the world has been told repeatedly by Washington that these men are “the worst of the worst”. Small wonder that no country or community wants them near. But if they’ve been tried and acquitted, this situation should change markedly.

So Mr. Obama, we’re waiting for you to step into a phone booth.

It’s part of America’s ideology to pretend that it doesn’t have any ideology.

Oh, a woman nominated to be a Supreme Court justice. A woman whose parents are from Puerto Rico. A Latina! A Latina Supreme Court justice! Oh, hooray for America!

Who cares? Clarence Thomas is a Supreme Court justice. He’s black. He’s as hopelessly reactionary as they come. No one should give a damn that Sonia Sotomayor is a woman with a Latin American background. All that counts is her politics. Her ideology. Her positions on important social and political issues. Yes, I know, we’re talking about the Law, the Majesty of the Law, judges who are scholars, impartial scholars, who study the fine points and the history of a law, experts on the Constitution of the United States, not swayed by today’s partisan squabbles but take the long view, looking at precedent, considering what precedent may be set for the future.

Don’t believe it. That may be true in the infrequent Supreme Court case where no ideological question at all is raised. Otherwise the judges are all biased human beings, appointed by a biased president, confirmed by biased members of the Senate.

Patrick Martin recently observed on the World Socialist Web Site: “For the past 12 years … under two Democratic presidents and one Republican, the post of US Secretary of State has been occupied by, in succession, a white woman, a black man, a black woman, and a white woman.”¹⁰ And they all loved the empire. When the empire called for it, they bombed, invaded, and killed; they overthrew, occupied, tortured, and lied; and swore allegiance to Israel and the corporations.

And now we have a black president. Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, or Stokely Carmichael he’s not. His policies and his appointments have all fallen in that area that runs from ever so slightly to the left of center to clear conservative and imperialist on the right. He’s more loath to being identified as, or collaborating with, progressives than with right-wingers. Team Obama sees the left as an eccentric old aunt who keeps showing up at family functions, making everyone uncomfortable and wishing she’d just go away.

America, and the world, have to grow up. Forget color. Forget ethnicity. Forget gender. Forget sexual orientation. Forget even the class the person comes from. Look at the class they serve. And understand that the person wouldn’t be in the position they are, or be nominated for the position, if there was any serious question about their loyalty to the capitalist ethic or American world domination.

It also matters not whether the president is comically inarticulate or whether he speaks in complete grammatical sentences. Keep your eye on the policies.

Obama

To the numerous fans of Barack Obama, on the left, in the middle, on the right, and to the apolitical Obamaniacs, my advice is to read “Being There” by Jerzy Kosinski, or see the film version of the same name starring Peter Sellers.

Also read “The Emperor’s New Clothes” by Hans Christian Andersen.

“Men go mad in herds, but only come to their senses one by one.” - Charles Mackay, 19th century Scottish journalist

Notes

1. Washington Post, May 26, 2009 book review^↩
2. Washington Post, May 15, 2009^↩
3. Associated Press, December 12, 2006^↩
4. Associated Press, June 2, 2009 ^↩
5. Does Google Censor Cuba? ^↩
6. White House Press Office, April 19, 2009 ^↩
7. Cuban Political Prisoners … in the United States ^↩
8. Washington Post, June 3, 2009. ^↩
9. “There Are Already 355 Terrorists in American Prisons“, Slate Magazine, May 29, 2009^↩
10. “The fundamental social division is class, not race or gender”, World Socialist Web Site, May 28, 2009^↩

Lorrie Moore, Daniel Pink, Pat Conroy & “You time-wasting ding-dong!”

More notes from the NYC Book Expo…

If you are interested in finding out what is new in the world of book-publishing, all you gotta do is ask me. After spending two whole days poking around at the massive 2009 Book Expo in New York City, I now know just about EVERYTHING there is to know about new books.

Every year the book-publishing industry puts on a huge show for book sellers and librarians and they pull out all the stops to make sure we all know just exactly books are going to be published next. Staged at the gigantic glass-and-steel Jacob Javits convention center, you walk in the front door and there spread out before you, “like a patient etherised upon a table,” is a vast amount of information about what’s going to be hot in the book-publishing industry next year. There are bunches of information booths, lots of shiny brochures, several Authors’ Breakfasts and they are even giving away free books! I’m there!

This Saturday they also held an Authors’ Lunch (I’m sorry but those sandwiches looked like they shoulda been catered by Subway), and several authors gave talks about their upcoming new books. The first author to speak was was Ken Auletta, a columnist for The New Yorker who specializes in reporting on digital stuff. “In 1998, I interviewed Bill Gates and asked him what scared him most. He replied, ‘I’m most afraid that in somebody’s little garage somewhere, someone is going to invent something that’s going to make Microsoft obsolete’.” Auletta has just written a book entitled, “Googled: The End of the World as We Know It”.

“The people at Google don’t think of a consequences when they invent. They just think about creating newer and more efficient ways of doing stuff. Why is it that traditional media also didn’t think of ways to get ahead of the digital wave? They could have. But they didn’t. Google has already digitalized over 10 million books. If you live in a third-world country and can’t afford textbooks, you now have the ability to access textbooks through Google.” In third-world countries, almost EVERYONE has a cell phone. You could just text them their textbooks!

“Traditional media needs to figure out how to ride this digital wave or it will crash into it. And by whining about the digital wave, they are playing defense.” Like when traditional media sued Google and YouTube instead of working with them. “If you want to survive, you have to learn to play offense.” The Democrats should take that lesson to heart and start playing offense too!

This statement was brought home to me recently when a police auto-call alerted us residents that a dangerous gunman was running amok in my neighborhood. I immediately googled around to find out what the freak was going on — and found out that, except for the Oakland Tribune’s ever-vigilant Kristin Bender, there were no breaking media stories about the gunman online. So I had to go out there and ask the police myself.

The next author to speak at the luncheon was Lorrie Moore. Never heard of her. But then I’d never heard of Craig Ferguson either and when he spoke I thought that he seemed rather dull. But now that I’m reading his new book, “American on Purpose,” I take it all back. It’s an excellent book. And it’s even quite funny.

Moore’s new book is called “A Gate to the Stairs,” and is a novel the describes how that terrible post-9-11 period of fear and uncertainty in America effected the people in her book. “If I was a good public speaker,” said Moore, “I never would have become a writer. I would have just gone from speaking platform to speaking platform. But here I am. So I’m just going to read questions from my readers and answer them.”

First question: “It’s been 11 years since you wrote your last book, ‘Birds of America’. What have you been doing all that time, you time-wasting ding-dong?”

Second question: “How do you do it? A single mother of a teenage boy, having to support yourself and having to constantly answer meaningless e-mails from your ex?” Hmmm. I’m beginning to suspect these questions are staged. But they are also totally funny. “Can you sum up the body of your work with the phrase, ‘Boys will be boys?'” And, “If I met you and got to know you, would I be afraid of you — but in a good way?”

Next question: “You keep writing about 20-year-old girls. Aren’t you a little long in the tooth for that?” Moore’s answer: “At age 20, that is when you most feel passion. After you turn 21 and you can legally drink, your brain starts to decay. All the years of your life before 20 go by as fast as all your years after 20 — so 20 is the midpoint of your life.” I know what she means. When I look into the mirror I see an old lady, but when I look into my mind, I only see “Age 20″. I am still filled with passion — at least with the passions of the mind. So that’s a good thing?

“Literature is the essence of the air that we breathe. It’s the oxygen. It’s a construction but its also a dream.” Then I got three free copies of her book’s new galley proof.

The next speaker was Daniel Pink, talking about his new book entitled, “Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.” Rats. They aren’t going to give out no free copies.

“There are two main drives that power primates — replenishing physical needs and avoiding punishment.” Threats and bribes. “But maybe there’s a third drive — doing things for their own reward. One professor who was doing some testing brought two groups of people into a room with some puzzles and then left them. What do the groups do after he leaves? The group not receiving money for working puzzles gets interested in the puzzles anyway, while the ones getting monetary rewards soon lost interest. Rewards make even interesting things become uninteresting.”

That probably explains why I keep blogging my heart out even though I never get paid for it and hardly anybody ever reads what I say. Hmmm.

“This book is about why people do what they do. We respond to more than just carrots and sticks — because we get interested. The way that we run our schools and business right now is way off. The wheels have fallen off the bus.”

The next author was Mary Karr. Never heard of her either. Apparently she wrote about some of her crazy relatives in Texas and became a best-selling author. I got crazy relatives! My sister Ann? As far as I can tell, she’s certifiable. But I already wrote about her. So why aren’t I on the NYT best-seller list too? Humph.

“The average rich American WASP can ignore reality even better than Texans. They will hook onto a fact at one point and, from then on, that will just be the way things should be. They ignore everything else. These people were the anti-venom for the snake-bite of my life! My book is about how to become a good mother when your own mother has schooled you that there are two solutions to every problem: Firearms and alcohol. Literature saved my life. Librarians saved my life. Reading saved my life.” I can relate to that. The name of Karr’s latest book is “Lit”. But I only got one free copy of her book.

And now we were supposed to hear from Pat Conroy, author of the “The Prince of Tides”. But apparently he couldn’t make it. But they did give us free galley proofs of his new book, “South of Broad Street,” which, according to the dust jacket, is about some friends in Charleston whose ties of friendship “endure for years, surviving marriages happy and troubled, unrequited loves and unspoken longings, hard-won successes and devastating breakdowns….” I scored three copes of that book too.

Then after the Authors’ Lunch was over, I snuck three or four extra sandwiches into my free McGraw Hill messenger bag to last me through the day and went out on the floor of the Expo again, where I scored several children’s’ books for baby Mena and a whole bunch of free pens. Baby Mena loves pens that click and she loves to write. I got her eight different pens. She’ll be my slave!

Then I went over to the “Arab World” section of the Expo and talked with some publishers’ reps there about distribution rights for my book on the Hajj. Then I got stuffed onto the cross-town bus, dragged another 20 pounds of free books back to my youth hostel and took the subway down to the Lower East Side to see my old apartment at 317 East Fifth Street where I lived in 1965 for $28 a month when I was pregnant with baby Lorraine, bought some borscht and rice pudding from B&H Dairy and stopped in to see my friend Ben Treuhaft but he wasn’t home.

Other than not connecting with Ben and only scoring 20 pounds of free books, this was a perfect day!

Seeds of Truth

I have learned over the past decade if I want to know what’s really going on in the United States, I have to cruise through the foreign media to see what’s creating a furor or causing a stink. So, while searching for the status of Spain’s on-again, off-again criminal proceedings against six Bush Administration war criminals, this headline in Der Spiegel caught my eye — “Frankenfood Ban is Neither Populism nor Panic-Mongering.”

A closer look at the article revealed it wasn’t a Norm Coleman ploy to get folks in Minnesota to quit eating burgers and fries, nor a menu for the genetically obscene monster in Mary Shelly’s “Frankenstein,” but an announcement by Germany’s Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner that Germany is banning the cultivation of MON 810, a genetically modified (GM) corn produced by US biotech giant Monsanto.

The GM Monster

It appears that MON 810 is also believed to be the “Frankenstein” of GM crops by at least five other European countries — France, Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg — all of whom have banned its use. MON 810 was approved by the European Union in 1998, and was the only GM crop approved for cultivation in Germany. Aigner said she had legitimate reasons to believe that the genetically modified Monsanto seed “presents a danger to the environment.” The plant produces a toxin that not only destroys the larvae of the corn borer moth, but other, beneficial, insects as well.

Andreas Thierfelder, spokesman for Monsanto Germany, responded that Monsanto would decide “as quickly as possible” whether to take legal proceedings. She said the “matter was very urgent as the planting season was about to start.” Just how urgent was evident days later when Monsanto filed a lawsuit against the German government, claiming that its ban on MON 810 is arbitrary and contravenes EU rules. Although Monsanto sued France in an effort to overturn its ban on genetically modified corn, and lost that battle in March when France’s highest court ruled that the corn “may” harm the environment and wildlife, the German government is justifiably edgy, as it must prove conclusively to the German court that MON 810 damages the environment.

But the feeder GM corn is just one tiny blip on the Frankenfood radar. And, it’s not just Europeans who should worry. As Jim Hightower, former two-time Texas agriculture commissioner warned way back in June 2004…

“For some time, the likes of Monsanto have had their white-smocked engineers tinkering merrily and dangerously with the very DNA of food, genetically modifying the natural composition of things like potatoes so they contain a pesticide in every one of their cells, or altering rice so it contains a diarrhea drug in every bite. This is no mere lab experiment, for unbeknownst to the vast majority of Americans, Monsanto and a handful of other global biotech giants have quietly spread the seeds of these genetically altered Frankenfoods to so many farms over the past decade that about a third of the foods on U.S. supermarket shelves now contain organisms with tampered DNA — everything from baby food and milk to products made with soybean and corn. Thanks to well-placed campaign donations and powerhouse lobbying, this infiltration of our food supply has been done with practically no consumer awareness, since both Bill Clinton’s and George W’s administrations have let these foodstuffs be sold in America without so much as a label on them to tell us that we’re buying something that our families might prefer to avoid.”

Kinda ruins the appetite, doesn’t it? Not just the fact that Monsanto has infiltrated the bulk of our food chain, but that it clearly believes it has the right to do so with or without our knowledge. It has fought oversight, regulation, labeling and scientific research for years. The arrogance with which multinational biotech corporations such as Monsanto are disrupting and modifying life’s natural genetic order — from seeds to food to animals to humans to the environment — is creepy. The Almighty must surely be watching in slack-jawed amazement.

The Profit Plan

These giants are “chemical” corporations, and one of their goals is to create seeds that will withstand more (and more and more) of their herbicides. Monsanto, which gave us the deadly Agent Orange and the toxic weed killer Roundup, is not alone in its quest to manipulate, or to control the world’s order. Germany’s chemical giant Bayer, well known for its popular and effective Bayer aspirin, and for Aleve and Alka-Seltzer, was the first to introduce heroin as well as mustard gas, and produces a series of neonicotinoids — insecticides that attack the central nervous systems of insects, such as bees. Other mega-corporations dealing in both pharmaceuticals and pesticides, to name a few, are Merck, DuPont, Dow Chemical, and Syngenta — but Monsanto has been around for more than a century, produces 90-percent of genetically modified seed — and has many friends in high places. Many high places.

Last year, Vanity Fair’s Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele teamed up to present a well-researched background article, “Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear,” wherein they listed some, but not all, of these friends…

(…) Monsanto has long been wired into Washington. Michael R. Taylor was a staff attorney and executive assistant to the F.D.A. commissioner before joining a law firm in Washington in 1981, where he worked to secure F.D.A. approval of Monsanto’s artificial growth hormone before returning to the F.D.A. as deputy commissioner in 1991. Dr. Michael A. Friedman, formerly the F.D.A.’s deputy commissioner for operations, joined Monsanto in 1999 as a senior vice president. Linda J. Fisher was an assistant administrator at the E.P.A. when she left the agency in 1993. She became a vice president of Monsanto, from 1995 to 2000, only to return to the E.P.A. as deputy administrator the next year. William D. Ruckelshaus, former E.P.A. administrator, and Mickey Kantor, former U.S. trade representative, each served on Monsanto’s board after leaving government. Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas was an attorney in Monsanto’s corporate-law department in the 1970s. He wrote the Supreme Court opinion in a crucial G.M.-seed patent-rights case in 2001 that benefited Monsanto and all G.M.-seed companies. Donald Rumsfeld never served on the board or held any office at Monsanto, but Monsanto must occupy a soft spot in the heart of the former defense secretary. Rumsfeld was chairman and C.E.O. of the pharmaceutical maker G. D. Searle & Co. when Monsanto acquired Searle in 1985, after Searle had experienced difficulty in finding a buyer. Rumsfeld’s stock and options in Searle were valued at $12 million at the time of the sale.

Bartlett and Steele go into some detail about the lengths Monsanto will go to protect its patent rights, not only against GM or GE (genetically engineered) farmers, but organic farmers as well. They write…

Monsanto goes after farmers, farmers’ co-ops, seed dealers — anyone it suspects may have infringed its patents of genetically modified seeds. As interviews and reams of court documents reveal, Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records.

Once you opt to buy Monsanto seeds, you are no longer a farmer, you’re a “grower” — a serf — and you must sign a Technology/Stewardship Agreement wherein you agree, among many other restrictions, to use Monsanto seed for planting only a single commercial crop…not to sell or give seeds to any other person for planting…to pay annual technology fees (in addition to the price of the seed) due Monsanto…to turn over your records and receipts anytime Monsanto asks for them. In short, you sign your life — and your livelihood — over when you become a “grower.” And, if you’re ever taken to court (and it’s likely you could be), and you lose (and it’s likely you will) — you will find you agreed to pay Monsanto and its attorney fees and all related court costs.

The End Game

This goes way beyond garnering profits for agriculture conglomerates such as Monsanto. It is about disrupting the natural order of life — whether plant or animal. And, for those orchestrating this havoc, it is about control. As Henry Kissinger once said matter-of-factly, “If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population.” Kissinger has long been obsessed with two things — depopulating the world and establishing a New World Order.

What better way to control the food than to ban seed saving — what better weapon is there to use against starving populations than food? The answer is laid out in detail in F. William Engdahl’s November 2007 about genetic manipulation, “Seeds of Destruction.” Engdahl is no conspiracy theorist. He is a leading researcher as well as an economist and an associate and regular contributor for the Centre for Research on Globalization.

In his extensive three-part review of “Seeds,” investigative journalist Stephen Lendman reveals “… the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting life forms to gain worldwide control of our food supply and why that prospect is chilling.”

Lendman reminds us that Kissinger has been both at the forefront and behind the scenes since the 1960s when, as Engdahl wrote, “the Rockefellers were at the power center of the US establishment (and) Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (was) their hand-picked protégé.” Kissinger was there as Nixon’s Secretary of State in 1973 when the food crisis hit and, as Engdahl said, he decided US agricultural policy was “too important to be left in the hands of the Agricultural Department so he took control of it himself.” Even back then, Kissinger’s goal was to go global and seize control of the agricultural food market. Kissinger’s “food diplomacy” was to use food to “reward friends and punish enemies.”

Lendman writes, “Food is power. When used to cull the population, it’s a weapon of mass destruction.” He says “One way or another, the Rockefeller Foundation aims to reduce population through human reproduction by spreading GMO seeds.” And the “world’s number one” in patenting seeds is Monsanto. He explains…

Like it or not, they’re advancing their agenda, and a 2004 Rockefeller Foundation report shows it. GM crop production achieved nine consecutive double digit year increases since 1996. More than eight million farmers in 17 countries now plant them, over 90% in developing nations. Far and away, the US is the world’s leader “with aggressive Government promotion, absence of labeling, and the domination of US farm production.” Here, “genetically engineered crops (have) essentially taken over the American food chain.” In 2004, over 85% of soybeans were genetically modified, 45% of corn, and since animal feed is mainly from these crops “the entire meat production of the nation (and exports) has been fed on genetically modified animal feed.” What animals eat, so do humans.

According to Engdahl, agribusiness giants, aided by the Rockefeller Foundation, the US government and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are progressing relentlessly toward the second pillar of Kissinger’s end game — controlling food to control (and expunge) populations of lesser nations. In December 2007, Engdahl sounded the alarm about yet another seed venture (adventure?), “Doomsday Seed Vault in the Arctic,” a steel-reinforced concrete seed bank built deep inside a mountain on the remote Norwegian island of Spitsbergen. This “program” is funded by the Rockefellers, by such seed giants as Syngenta and Monsanto — and by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who knows a bit about monopoly.

The Way Out

Engdahl says that, since 2007, Monsanto and the US Government together hold the patent for a commercial seed called “Terminator,” designed to commit suicide after just one harvest, and farmers will be forced to return to Monsanto or other seed giants to purchase new seeds each year for crops needed to feed their populations. He said if they’re allowed to continue their reckless pursuit of power, in a decade or so, the small farmer will be but a memory and the majority of the world’s food producers would be little more than feudal serfs in bondage to three or four giant seed corporations. “Those who say ‘it can’t happen here’ should look more closely at current global events,” he wrote. “The mere existence of that concentration of power in three or four private US-based agribusiness giants is grounds for legally banning all GMO crops even were their harvest gains real, which they manifestly are not.”

The good news is that Europe is fighting back against being forced to plant genetically manipulated seeds for plants and food. Countries like Austria and Denmark, France — and now Germany — are standing up, and standing together, to ban biotech products. As is always the case, when those who lust for power and control concoct their grand schemes, they fail to factor in the human response. Lendman says public opinion throughout Europe is strongly opposed to GMO foods and ingredients. He writes…

Several EU countries, including France, Germany, Austria and Denmark, even ban some EU-approved biotech products to further cloud the outlook. Polls show why, with European public opinion strongly opposed to GMO foods and ingredients, with hostility levels in France as high as 89% and 79% wanting governments to ban them. This shows European consumers are far ahead of Americans and much better protected (so far) by their overall exclusion as well as having labeling requirements for those allowed to be sold. That provision is crucial as it empowers consumers to use or avoid eating these foods. If enough people abstain, food outlets won’t carry them.

It’s not that Americans don’t care that the Rockefeller-Gates-Monsanto plan to solve world hunger is but a ghastly scheme to cull the population of its nonproductive bottom-feeders. Thanks to conspiratorial US media, most of us are either blissfully unaware or are unable to make a sound because, as Hightower said, our “Congress and the White House (and the media) have Monsanto checks stuffed in their ears.”

The way out is to become informed — and just say no to having unlabeled, untested products crammed down our throats. If we do nothing, we will reap what we sow. We will, as Charles Galton Darwin, grandson of evolutionist Charles Darwin, wrote in his 1952 “The Next Million Years,” be condemned to the status of workers in a beehive.

We must stand up and support Europe’s attempt to organize a ban on genetically modified crops and food. It is the way — the only way — out of this mess. Lendman, who maintains “the stakes are much too high — human health and safety must never be compromised for profit,” suggests that we read Engdahl’s book, which is a “wake-up call” for all of us.

I suggest we start by reading Lendman’s review of that book, which is a much louder wake-up call.

Natural Adversaries

In any debate regarding the current economic crisis, the antagonistic relationship between workers and investors seems most conspicuously missing from discussion. Everyone seems to have a solution for fixing the economy, and every theory is a little bit different. The best ones suggest placing purchasing power directly into the hands of consumers, which actually makes the most sense in terms of “fixing” the economy. But even this approach naively assumes a prevailing desire to actually “fix” or stabilize the economy. It also relies heavily upon cooperation from the US government, and as we’ve already seen, this doesn’t seem very likely.

Like Barack Obama, Franklin Delano Roosevelt also received thousands of “open letters” from people all over the world advising him how to “fix” the broken economy. An insightful letter from John Maynard Keynes was among them, but FDR ignored it along with all the others. Roosevelt made genuine efforts to correct the unemployment problem of the 1930s, but nothing helped until World War II finally forced full-employment in the US. Even so, recession returned in 1954, immediately after the Korean conflict , and we’ve struggled ever since to minimize the many strategies of private investors to drive wages down. [1] Moreover, the US Government has been hijacked by Big Business for at least the past 30-years, and no longer functions as a safety net for the general interest.

So I’m afraid the overall problem is that US wages are simply too high to support investor confidence. The interests of investors and the interests of workers are directly opposed. Yes, there are plenty of other problems. But it always boils down to wages. The general function of economic crisis is to drive wages down. Even if Barack Obama’s heart is in the right place, I doubt he can generate investor confidence in US wages compared with far cheaper labor in other countries.

Since before the Great Depression people have been shouting for “social revolution”. There’s never much agreement about how exactly this should be accomplished, but permanently removing human labor-power from the capitalist system seems the most obvious and proven approach. This can be done in the United States, as it’s already been done elsewhere, by simply transferring labor-power to the cooperative system. With a little persistence and organized financial collaboration, business becomes far more regional and democratic. The cooperative movement nonviolently removes both wages and the tyranny of private investors from the economic system altogether, and voila! — no more crisis.

No, it’s not easy. But it is fairly simple: “Tyrants need not be expropriated by force; they need only be deprived of the public’s continuing supply of funds and resources.” [2] If we understand that human labor-power -IS- the “continuing supply of funds and resources”, then Rothbard’s observation suggests some very practical application in terms of economic withdrawal — a real-world “transition” from Capitalism toward Economic Democracy. [3]

For now, the interests of investors and the interests of workers are directly opposed. This mutual antagonism accounts for the instability of our current economic system. Workers strike for higher wages by withdrawing their labor from production. Investors strike for lower wages by withdrawing capital. But Instead of “investment strike”, we politely refer to the latter as economic crisis, recession or depression. “The Hoover administration tried to popularize the word ‘depression’. They thought this was a milder word that would somehow soothe a worried American public.” [1]

However, the battle over wages threatens millions of lives and renders economic stability impossible. Insipid labels don’t soothe the heated anger of homeless workers. But the miseries of “Hooverville” don’t seem to alter their blind consent much either. Between 1929 and 1933, US investors withdrew 90-percent of their spending from the overall economy. Since wages are a direct provision of capital investment, consumer spending dropped 20-percent and $4-billion in consumer savings were depleted. [1]

Now, Bloomberg News reports $8.85-trillion is being hoarded by private investors. [4] Millions of US jobs have been lost and more of the same is on the horizon. Increased competition for jobs drives US wages down. Whether this is the intended goal or not, it is most certainly the result. The interests of investors and the interests of workers are directly opposed, particularly regarding wages.

Moreover, the capitalist economy will not automatically correct itself. It has no automatic self-regulatory device. [5] Quite the contrary, “an investment strike is a particularly formidable weapon, since it requires no planning or coordination to implement. Indeed, it will come into play ‘automatically’ if a government should come to power deemed unfriendly to business interests.” [6] As long as labor is a cost of production, investors will be highly motivated to drive wages as close to zero as possible through capital flight and capital strike. [7] [8]

Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for the Reagan Administration and a nationally syndicated columnist, Paul Craig Roberts summarizes the function of capital flight: “The off shoring of American jobs is the antithesis of free trade. Free trade is based on comparative advantage. Jobs off shoring is an activity in pursuit of lowest factor cost — an activity that David Ricardo, the originator of the free trade theory, described as the betrayal of one’s own country in pursuit of absolute advantage.” [9] [10] Short-selling is another clever investment strategy. [11] But by yanking jobs out from under millions of workers, “short” becomes a mere technical term for aggressively leveraged capital strike.

The interests of investors and the interests of workers are directly opposed. On this essential point, not everybody agrees. In fact, most people tend to disagree. Sadly, the people who most vehemently disagree are those who stand to benefit the least from continuing the sick relationship. These people are called “workers”. Their incomes are derived primarily from work, and they are paid in wages. White collar, blue collar, salary, hourly, middle-class and lower-class all fall into this general group. They also happen to comprise the vast majority of the human population, including a reserve army of unemployed — “workers”.

“Investors”, on the other hand, is a term that refers to people whose incomes are derived primarily from ownership — not wages. This group unanimously agrees (albeit very quietly) that the interests of workers and the interests of investors are directly opposed. This group also stands to benefit most from the adversarial relationship. Workers’ lives depend upon wages while investors provide and control those wages. A general conflict of interest in this regard seems readily apparent. But there is no confusion amongst the tiny group of immeasurably powerful investors regarding — wages.

Even as independent competitors, the decisions amongst individual investors tend to be very consistent, sometimes presenting the appearance of conspiracy or even central planning. If wages are too high or business is too regulated in a certain region, then investors either transfer investments to regions where wages are cheaper and business is less regulated (capital flight), or they stop investing altogether (capital strike). This is the main reason why Barack Obama’s “regulation” will not likely “save Capitalism from itself”. [12] The interests of workers and the interests of investors are directly opposed.

But while investors tend to be very unified in their understanding of Capitalism, workers tend to be stubbornly and chaotically divided. This is a powerful advantage for investors and a severe disadvantage for everyone else. Investors don’t need to organize a union or meet in a secret room to plan an investment strike. Nowadays, they can do this from the comfort of their own homes, sitting in their underwear in front of a computer screen.

Investors simply understand how the capitalist system works and they respond — “automatically” — against the best interests of every life on the planet whose sustenance relies upon wages. Since private investment is the primary source of wages and workers have little or no control of those wages, workers always find themselves at the mercy of investors — particularly regarding wages.

If we could all agree that this sick relationship is the root of all our socioeconomic problems, we might have withdrawn from it in favor of more balanced and sustainable arrangements a long time ago. But we don’t all agree. Unfortunately, no matter how painful the abusive relationship becomes, most proud “Americans” continue chasing an illusion called “The American Dream”. Since US wages are generally insufficient to maintain exorbitant levels of US consumption, brave Americans throw themselves head-long into debt to maintain their delusional pursuit of upward mobility.

All goes well for 40-years or so, even as Big Business continues to castrate labor and deregulate banking. Our trusted government plays along with the game, and nobody seems to notice. After all, we’re getting what we always wanted, right? Something for nothing — the “American Dream” — Yay team.

But then the spring-loaded trap slams shut with a loud metallic “CLANK!” Workers suddenly lose their jobs and their homes, unemployment and crime escalate, and government officials point fingers at each other to evade the blame as a supposedly “liberal” administration not-so-coincidentally comes into power.

“Save us, Obama! Save us!” comes the desperate cry of the American middle-class as they look down in horror at the rest of society, “We don’t want to be like THOSE people!”

But FDR didn’t “save Capitalism from itself”, and neither will Barack Obama. [12] Turns out the Japanese actually “saved” the American economy when they bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941. Expensive as they might have seemed, Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programs were far too small to stop the avalanche of growing US unemployment.

Instead, the Great Depression finally ended with the vast production of the wartime economy. “Government spending, which had frightened Roosevelt when atop $15-billion in 1936, soared above $100-billion in the middle of the war. The massive government intervention in the economy finally brought full production and full employment.” [1] And for a short time after World War II, fiscal policy seemed like an effective counter strategy for the ups and downs of investor confidence.

But now, even Keynesian government intervention seems awash, as Big Business controls our trusted government with seductive lobbying and campaign finance. Moreover, US workers are now confronted with an army of competition in the labor market imposed by civil rights, feminism, immigration and the hypermobility of capital driven by technological advancement. [6] [13] Forced into poverty by a US middle-class pursuit of the “American Dream”, cheap labor in Mexico, India, China, Korea and the Philippines are now the greatest competitors for middle-class American jobs.

Justice is a funny thing, ain’t it? Groping and grabbing and stabbing each other in the back, “Americans” stand on each other’s throats in a desperate attempt to ascend the corporate ladder of individual success. But the greatest obstacle to “The American Dream” seems to be — “The American Dream” — and there’s not a thing that George W. Obama can do about it.

Thanks to all his Republicratic predecessors, the bulk of Uncle Tom’s [14] “economic recovery plan” will most likely be paid to workers outside the United States — because — most of the world’s manufacturing now resides outside the United States. [15] As Obama himself has observed, batteries for electric cars and hybrids are manufactured in Japan and wind turbines for electric power are manufactured in Europe. Meanwhile, Bill Gates and friends are pressuring the US Congress for more lenient immigration laws so that Microsoft and other US corporations can avoid hiring “American” workers within the United States. [9]

None of this comes as much of a surprise. Workers and investors are natural adversaries because their interests are directly opposed. Human beings tend to produce more than they consume, and human labor-power is the one commodity that creates more value than it costs to buy. But as long as labor is a cost of production, investors will try to drive wages as close to zero as possible. This conflict of human interest is the dysfunctional root of our entire economic system.

Eventually, the “marginal utility” of this sick relationship must come into question. Eventually this general dysfunction must be rejected and replaced. Most of our economic problems could be solved by permanently removing the antagonism between workers and investors with regard to wages. Since about 99-percent of us happen to be workers, the most obvious approach might be to get rid of both wages and investors to arrive at a more balanced and sustainable system of “Economic Democracy”. [3]

But the proposal of a new economic model, or even reform agendas, only raises more questions about “transition”. How can we possibly get from “here” to “there”? In this regard, the power of economic withdrawal seems largely misunderstood and grossly underestimated. If most of us can’t even admit that the current crisis was created by collective consent, then how can we possibly reform or replace the existing model through either democracy or consensus?

Despite Barack Obama’s flowery claims regarding faith and hope, it was “work” — human labor and innovation — that made the United States a dominating force in the modern world. The US could continue to provide an innovative and glimmering example for the rest of the world to emulate. But if we cannot generally agree that labor-power is the most fundamental basis for any human economy, then how can we collectively withdraw that power from the current crisis in favor of a more balanced and sustainable system?

Of course, a new and improved economic system will not save the earth or even save the human race. Turns out the planet doesn’t need any “saving” –WE DO– For the first time in the Earth’s 4.5-billion-year history, human influence is THE most significant factor in ecological change that threatens to kill us all. Assuming this self-created human disaster doesn’t completely exterminate the human species, how should human survivors reorganize to prevent similar calamities in the future?

These and many other questions must be explored with regard to “transition” from Capitalism toward Economic Democracy. In general, creation cannot dominate its creator. People like to worship their own creations just as dogs seem to enjoy sniffing their own feces. But at some point the human species needs to grow up and realize that Capital cannot dominate People, and People cannot dominate Nature. The model is upside-down, ladies & gentlemen. It’s time to flip it over.

_________

David Kendall lives in Washington state and is concerned about the future of our world.
_________

Notes:

[1] Shoumacher, David and Richard Gill. (1997 – 2008). “Economics USA: John Maynard Keynes”.  Annenberg Media. ISBN: 1-57680-527-1. http://www.learner.org/resources/series79.html

[2] Rothbard, Murray N. (1975). “The Politics of Obedience”. LewRockwell.com. http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard29.html

[3] Wikipedia. (01/02/2009). “Economic Democracy”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_democracy

[4] Martin, Eric, and Michael Tsang. (01/04/2008). “Cash Glut Could Take Markets on a Ride”. Bloomberg News/The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/03/AR2009010300027_pf.html

[5] Shoumacher, David, and Rober L. Heilbroner. (1997 – 2008). “Economics USA: John Maynard Keynes”.  Annenberg Media. ISBN: 1-57680-527-1. http://www.learner.org/resources/series79.html

[6] Schweickart, David (June 2002). “After Capitalism”. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. ISBN 0742513009

[7] Wikipedia. (3/21/2009). “Capital flight”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_flight

[8] Wikipedia. (3/21/2009). “Capital strike”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_strike

[9] Roberts, Paul Craig. (2/19/2009). “President Of Special Interests”. Countercurrents. http://www.countercurrents.org/roberts190209.htm

[10] Wikipedia. (3/21/2009). “Comparative advantage”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage

[11] Wikipedia. (3/21/2009). “Short (finance)”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_(finance)

[12] Obama, Barack (2006). “The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream”. Crown Publishing Group. pg 155. ISBN 0307237699.

[13] Barnes, Peter and Chuck Collins. (11/1/2006). “Capitalism 3.0: A Guide to Reclaiming the Commons”. Berrett-Koehler Publishers. ASIN: B001KYEZPG. http://www.capitalism3.com/

[14] Kendall, David L. (11/10/2008). “The Truth About Ralph Nader and Uncle Tom”. OpEd News. http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Truth-About-Ralph-Nade-by-David-Kendall-081110-496.html

[15] Ford, Glen. (2/25/2009). “How Can the U.S. Economy Recover Without Manufacturing Capacity?”. The Market Oracle. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article9109.html

We Might As Well Face It, We’re Addicted To War

Two weeks ago, I had never heard of South Ossetia and I could only tell you four things about Georgia.

1. It was a former Soviet republic.
2. It was somewhere on the southern periphery of Russia, but I could not tell you exactly where.
3. It was Joe Stalin’s home country.
4. It was the Georgia the Beatles sang of in “Back in the USSR.”

Now, Bush, Cheney and McCain are foaming at the mouth over a purely regional conflict involving Georgia that has no bearing whatsoever on America.

RR in suburban Denver sent me a very lengthy article the other evening about the libertarian approach to all of this. While it appeared to contain many fine points, I just skimmed it as I did not have time to read it. My reply went something like this:

“RR,

“Thanks for sending.

“Two words: STAY OUT.

“Two more words: ARMED NEUTRALITY.

“Doug – www.tfot.us”

I am over it. Over America’s endless involvement in every last conflict around the globe. Over our military presence in 130 countries. Over our belief that this superpower thing will last forever.

As Bob Strodtbeck wrote recently on EtherZone, “If great empires continued through perpetuity, then we would all be Babylonians.”

Empires always fall. 800 years ago, Mongolia was the mightiest empire on earth. And what is Mongolia now?

Oh sure, Americans think we are all that. However, as the Bible says:

“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18)

Thomas Jefferson once stated, “Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” I profoundly believe that God is getting ready to slam America hard for its pride and arrogance.

Our Founders gave us the greatest system of government in the history of the world. One of the countless ways in which we have rejected it is our military adventurism. Indeed, our Constitution forbids so much as a standing army.

Consider these prophetic words from John Quincy Adams: “America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit…. America’s glory is not dominion, but liberty.”

When W took office in 2001, he promised that America would be a humble nation. After 9/11, we became the most arrogant nation on earth. You couldn’t go five minutes without hearing that 9/11 happened because America was wonderful and because the Muslim world sucked.

The Founders gave us a tool with which to fight such things as piracy, terrorism and other such non-state crimes. It was called a Letter of Marque and Reprisal (LMR), which is a kind of warrant.

If, for instance, Uncle Sam has probable cause that – to paraphrase Chris Isaak – Osama did a bad, bad thing, let Congress issue a LMR to go after Osama. Perhaps you can send some Marines, SEALS and Rangers to take care of business. However, you do not need to start two wars over it.

War is a horrible thing. And our power elites just cannot seem to get enough of it. General Robert E. Lee once remarked that “It is well that war is so terrible, or else we might grow too fond of it.”

Most of the politicians, pundits and preachers who so recklessly agitate for war have never lifted a finger to serve one day in the military. However, they sure love to talk about war in theory. Perhaps if they actually made some personal sacrifices for the wars that they glorify, they might think differently.

You have to give Cindy Sheehan one thing: she made a sacrifice in the Iraq War. What have those who so roundly condemn her ever sacrificed? What has Glenn Beck, who called her a “tragedy slut”, ever given up? For some of these people, “sacrifice” means seeing a Ron Paul yard sign. I would love to see these people make a real sacrifice and see if they are still so slavishly devoted to the cause.

My Microsoft Word spell checker is surprisingly comprehensive. I am quite impressed with the words it does not underline in red so as to remind me to check my spelling. One word that was lined in red when I sat down to write this was “Ossetia.” South Ossetia was that obscure.

Are you willing to die because of events in South Ossetia? Are you willing to send your kids to die because of events in South Ossetia? You can have whatever opinion you want. But if you are going to sit in your suburban easy chair endorsing every last war America is involved in, at some point you need to grab a glove and get in the game.

I am not a pacifist. If another nation comes here to fight a war, then, dadgummit, let Congress declare war and let’s get after it.

9/11, even if you buy the official story, was an attack, not a military invasion. It called for a limited response, such as an LMR. It in no way justified war on Afghanistan, war on Iraq and the proposed war on Iran.

A war on terrorism is a frivolous concept. Terrorists are horrible people who vent their grievances in very bad ways. However, they do not even control the government of Afghanistan. So the idea that World War III is necessary to stop terrorists from taking over America is absurd beyond words.

I am not afraid of radical Islam. America has no duty to destroy Islam. And terrorists are not going to “follow us over here” if we bring our troops home.

But what about our allies? The Founders warned repeatedly against alliances. They knew that alliances led to war and they wanted no part of Europe’s wars. Our alliance with Kuwait led us to endless war in Iraq. Our alliance with Israel has earned us enmity all over the Middle East. Our alliance with Georgia could very well lead us to a showdown with Russia. Is it worth it?

Again, let us remember the words of Thomas Jefferson: “Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none.”

The purpose of the military is to defend the borders and the shores and be done with it. Currently, America has troops in 130 countries and our own borders resemble a screen door on a submarine.

I have never had kids, so I am not going to tell you how to raise yours. However, I would not encourage anyone to join the military nowadays. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines are being used for purposes that have nothing to do with our borders and our freedoms. Do you want your kids to be meat on the hoof for all of this? Do you yourself want to do any of the heavy lifting?

If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. America, it seems, cannot look at any situation anymore without calling for war. Yes, we live in a messy world where people hate us and sometimes do bad things. But not every slight is grounds for war.

To paraphrase Robert Palmer, we might as well face it, we’re addicted to war. This is an addiction we can not afford any longer.

I have a good friend, age 58, who had a recent health scare that prompted him to quit smoking cold turkey. I am happy to report that, despite temporary inconvenience, he is going to be okay. I pray that America gets over its war Jones so uneventfully.

Come home, America. And come home now.

Doug Newman is a regular columnist for Novakeo.com

You can visit his website at: The Fountain of Truth
He can be reached at:

Allocating the Hours

By plan and by happenstance…

My wife works and since I am far past the age of retirement and have mostly extinguished my business activities, I wash some dishes, do the laundry and ironing, some shopping, and some outdoor work. The remainder of my waking hours are spent reading (both books and internet sites) and writing. In past weeks I have been sidelined.

First, with justifiable fear and trepidation, I installed Windows Live Mail and Windows Live One Care on our computers (we have three). As is usually the case, these two new programs had several glitches that required hours of frustrating attempts to get tech support and when tech support was found understanding the individual that was attempting to provide it. Microsoft offers telephone support for Live One Care but since Live Mail is free but necessary if one wants to continue to use hotmail, the only support is by email.

Centralization and market domination have removed the need to satisfy the consumer and massive corporations like Microsoft provide services at their discretion with only moderate regard for the convenience and satisfaction of the customer. This is an interesting phenomenon since it was not long ago that Japan’s ability to produce zero defect manufactured items set off a decentralizing rage that swept the nation. Now billion dollar mergers are creating mammoth international corporations that protect their decision makers from the unwashed masses by presenting the public with a quasi-monopolistic product packaged to their specifications with a take it or leave it attitude.

Following all those hours of listening closely to English that is remarkably good considering the source but extremely difficult for aging ears, my Windows Live Mail seems to be working. However, I am still unable to properly install my contacts into Live Mail and Microsoft’s email support is hopeless.

Since the computer is the vehicle of my principle activity, malfunctions become full time jobs.

The other time consumer might come under the heading of, “there is no fool like an old fool”.

One of my uncles was a well known professor at a large university. He lived into his late 80s and was active when most men of his age were sedentary. His intention was to “wear out rather than rust out”. I am trying to appropriate his mantra.

In the tedium of my rapidly progressing age I decided it would be a good idea to plan a motorcycle trip around the country doing some interviews in medium sized cities that have large unemployed or underemployed citizens as a result of globalization.

I began shopping for a motorcycle and listing potential visits.

I knew some cities that had been devastated by the loss of major industries but was unable to find a good source that would cover the geography.

When I told the motorcycle dealers I was planning a cross country trip they showed me big bikes, the Harley Davidson Electra Glide, the Honda Goldwing, and the Yamaha Royal Star. Being contrary, I ended up with a Victory Kingpin Tour. It is a good looking, very powerful machine.

When we moved to Florida over twenty years ago I brought a 650 Honda motorcycle with me and rode it around for a couple of years before selling it. During our trips to Italy I fell in love with the Vespa scooters and purchased a 150cc Vespa for around town use. I maintained the motorcycle addendum to my driver’s license and needed it to run the scooter. When I purchased the Victory motorcycle from a dealership located close to a hundred miles away, I thought I would have no problem riding it home.

After riding a scooter for six years the gears on the big bike were difficult and its weight was intimidating. The other problem was turning. The radius on the Victory was considerably larger than either the scooter or a smaller motorcycle; radius is important since many new riders have been killed by mistakenly turning their bikes directly into the path of cars or crashing into obstacles that surround the highway.

After riding the bike jerkily around the dealership several times, dropping it once, and feeling inadequate, I was reluctant to attempt to ride it home. I needed to negotiate two right turns, four stop lights, and a left turn onto the Florida Turnpike; once I got the bike on the turnpike riding would be easy. My son had come with me but he does not have a motorcycle license so getting the motorcycle home was my problem.

Riding from light to light was easier than trying to keep the proper gear on the dealer parking lot. I made it to the turnpike and things went smoothly with the exception of one frightening incident where the bike seemed to feel as if it was on an icy surface. It quickly came back under control and I gave it no more thought until I read in the manual that the Tour model has a limited highway speed.

We have a gated downhill driveway which drops at a right angle off the road and as I turned the bike to go down the hill I was headed for the left gate pylon. I hit the front brake and down went the motorcycle. I was not hurt and the worst damage to the bike was burned shoe leather on the pipes; that came off with oven cleaner and the bike was in ship shape.

I have signed up at the local community college for a highly praised motorcycle course and will not attempt to ride the Victory until after I get more familiar with riding. Several times I have backed the Victory out of the garage, started the engine, shifted the gears, and rode it down the driveway partially letting out the clutch. This has helped me get a feel for the controls and a better knowledge of how the bike operates. I am still intimidated.

The Vespa scooter has taken me around town for six years. During that time it has never been down. That was about to change. A few weeks ago, as I was thinking how much easier the scooter was to control than the new motorcycle and how comfortable I felt riding it, I hit a six inch wide patch of sand in the gutter as I made the 90 degree turn up the slight rise in the driveway into Best Buy (returning a computer part they recommended but I didn’t need); out went the front wheel, down went the scooter and bang went my right eye socket, right shoulder, and knee on the pavement. Since I was able to stand and move, I washed the blood off in the men’s room, finished my business, and rode the scooter home. At the hospital they took a CAT Scan of my head and found nothing. My wife said she knew that already…. Boy, did I look ugly! As my right eye swelled closed my right cheek doubled in size and a dark blue hematoma crept down my right cheek and down my neck. My right shoulder was bruised and I could not raise my arm, my right foot was black and blue from being caught under the scooter and I had skin missing from my knee and wrists. I felt like I had been hit by a truck. Almost two weeks have now gone by and I look and feel much better. I am healing and the scooter is being repaired.

It is now a month since the scooter mishap and I have completed the motorcycle course. The toenail on my right big toe is loose and will soon come off leaving a raw toenail cavity that will take up to a year to heal. I still have a raw sore on my right knee that has not healed and there is a small bump under my right eye that is receding day by day. The motorcycle course was informative and helpful but the bikes they used were 125CC Kawasakis that are quite different from 1600cc Victorys. I did well with the course and the instructor said I should be able to handle the Victory but will need lots of work. I will continue to work at learning to ride the big bike safely.

Al Cronkrite is a regular columnist for Novakeo.com
Al Cronkrite is a writer living in Florida, reach him at:

« Previous Page