Global Reality: Surplus of Labor, Scarcity of Paid Work

Charles H Smith publishes a  blog of uncommonly thoughtful and candid analysis -- contrary thinking vis a vis the likelihood of economic "recovery".....

The industries that are increasing productivity do so by eliminating entire industries and entire job categories.

The global economy is facing a structural surplus of labor and a scarcity of paid work.Here is the critical backdrop for the global recession that is unfolding and the stated desire of central banks and states everywhere for "economic growth": most of the so-called "growth" since the 2008 global financial meltdown was funded by sovereign debt and "free money" spun by central banks, not organic growth based on rising earned incomes.

Take away the speculation dependent on "free money" and the global stimulus dependent on massive quantities of fresh debt, and how much "growth" would be left?

What policy makers and pundits dare not admit is that the global economy is entering the "end of paid work" foreseen by Jeremy Rifkin.....     Read the rest at  Of Two Minds

Brigadier General John Adams calls for Cuba to be taken off the list of countries sponsoring terrorism

From Granma,

WASHINGTON, March 22.—Influential U.S. Brigadier General John Adams has publicly stated that his country should remove Cuba from the list of countries sponsoring terrorism and end its counterproductive and hypocritical policy toward the island, PL reports.

"Cuban presence on the list damages U.S. credibility with almost all of our key allies and puts us at odds with every country in Latin America, who view the listing as capricious and politically motivated," Adams noted in an article also signed by Capitol Counsel David W. Jones, published in The Hill, a U.S. Congress publication.

Retired from active service since 2007 and with much influence in the upper echelons of the Pentagon, Adams accumulated more than 35 years of experience in military missions.

The former U.S. military representative to NATO added that U.S. policy is damaging the interests of businesses and workers by justifying an economic, commercial and financial blockade of Cuba, which is preventing the creation of new jobs.

He confirmed that after the Cold War, many people in the intelligence services came to the conclusion that Cuba was not a threat to U.S. national security.

Adams recalled State Department pronouncements in its 2009 and 2010 reports acknowledging that there is no evidence of financial support for terrorist organizations in Cuba and that the national government has publicly condemned acts of terrorism.

He argued, "U.S. policy cripples efforts to cooperate with Cuba on important American national security issues, including transnational human, drug and weapons smuggling, as well as environmental disasters."

'The Pope will visit Cuba - so what?' - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

  Make no mistake: Benedict XVI and Cardinal Ortega are trying to gain new spaces for the Catholic Church, not for the Cuban people.  Of course, that raises new questions, such as why the Cuban government would cooperate with their agenda. It also raises even more worrying questions about the extent to which this Catholic recovery may have a negative impact on some of the most important milestones achieved by Cuba in the past years, especially a well-defined secular system of education, and ever more progressive policies on abortion, gay and lesbian rights, et cetera.
Ultimately, we will have to wait and see what transpires during and after the visit. In the meantime, one can only agree with Cuban writer Abel German, who recently put it better than anyone else when he said: "The Pope will visit Cuba - so what?"

Read the full article at Opinion - Al Jazeera English

"If President Obama really can arrange for, as he says, the “tides of war” to recede...

...he is still left with a big task, of seeing to it that the veterans and their families are better served in the treatment of the less visible wounds they carry. While the Veterans Administration has improved in the past decade on these issues, mental health and brain injury treatment are still inadequate, both for service people and Vets.
Americans in general should rethink our policy of perpetual war and constant foreign intervention, of war as a standing industry with lobbies and paid-for TV spokesmen, purveyed by all the US news networks to keep us hooked on foreign deployments. War should be rare and a last resort. One thing Panetta got right is that the UN Charter should govern it, so that we can finally put the crimes of the Axis behind us as we move into the 21st century. War should either be for self-defense after an attack, or it should be to preserve dire threats to international order as deemed by the UN Security Council. Otherwise, it is not just a problem of a rogue sergeant, or of a rogue base. It will increasingly be a problem of a rogue nation.

Juan Cole @  Informed Comment, thoughts on the Middle East, History and Religion

A Petition:

Push the Swedes to Start Thinking About the 
Banality of the Nobel Peace Prize


Dear Members of Stockholm’s County Administrative Board:
The signers of this petition ... understand your Board has formally asked the Nobel Foundation to respond to allegations that the peace prize no longer reflects Nobel’s will that the purpose of the prize was to diminish the role of military power in international relations... “Nobel called it a prize for the champions of peace,…and it’s indisputable that (Nobel) had in mind the peace movement, the movement which is actively pursuing a new global order … where nations safely can drop national armaments.”

The undersigned non-profit peace organizations and activists base their endorsement of your inquiry on the following facts:

Alfred Nobel’s will, written in 1895, left funding for a prize to be awarded to “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”

After only a few years, however, a disastrous trend was begun of awarding the prize to government officials and political figures who had done more to promote war than peace. For instance in 1919, the Nobel “prize for peace” went to Woodrow Wilson who had needlessly dragged his own nation into the worst war yet seen; who had developed innovative war propaganda techniques, conscription techniques, and tools for suppressing dissent; who had used the U.S. military to brutal effect in the Caribbean and Latin America; who had agreed to a war-promoting settlement to the Great War; but who, in the war’s aftermath, promoted a “League of Nations” in the hopes of resolving disputes peacefully.

Although the Nobel peace prize came to be heavily, but by no means entirely, dominated by elected officials, yet some excellent award choices occurred in the ensuing years: that of Jane Addams as co-recipient in 1931, Norman Angell in 1933, and organizations, such as the Red Cross in 1944 (and again in 1963) and the American Friends Service Committee in 1947. It’s worth asking, however, why even more principled war opponents including Gandhi were never deemed worthy.

In 1953 the Nobel went to General George Marshall. In 1973 a co-laureate was none other than Henry Kissinger[*] and whatever their merits, these were major makers of war who would almost certainly have also won the Nobel War Prize, were there such a thing. This insanity competed, however, with the bestowing in other years of the prize on leaders who were not holders of high office, not necessarily born to wealth, and not only opponents of war but also advocates of the use of nonviolent resistance to violence and injustice. Thus the peace prize went in 1964 to Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1976 to Betty Williams and Mairead Corrigan, in 1980 to Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, in 1983 to Lech Walesa, in 1984 to Desmond Tutu, in 1991 to Aung San Suu Kyi, in 1992 to Rigoberta Menchú Tum, etc.

The Kissinger style “peace” laureate, and the MLK type differed in that one was the path of peace activists who dedicated their careers to international fraternity and demilitarization and the other was the path of powerful figures and makers of war who had either shown some restraint in a particular instance or had appeared (accurately or not) to have acted on behalf of peace in a particular situation. Honoring both nonviolent human rights advocates and mass murderers has moved the prize away from advocacy for the elimination of standing armies and is at odds with the words in Nobel’s will as well as the early tradition of awarding the prize to true advocates of peace.

In 2006 and 2007, Muhammad Yunus and Al Gore took home peace prizes for work that, at best, bears only an indirect connection to peace.

Despite these previous examples of falling short of Nobel’s original intent in establishing the Peace Prize, at least from 1901 to 2008, no peace prize was given to anyone who had neither done nor even pretended to do anything significant for peace nor done any other good and significant thing that some people might believe would indirectly contribute to peace. That all changed in 2009 when US President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Obama had just been placed in a position of great power promising to expand the world’s largest military, to escalate a war, and to launch strikes into other nations without any war declarations. He showed up to collect his winnings and gave a speech justifying and praising war. His acceptance speech rejected a previous laureate’s (MLK’s) speech as too peaceful.

The 2009 Nobel Prize recipient, President Barack Obama, did not even attempt to earn his award as some had hoped but has instead followed through on his speech justifying and praising war. This hypocrisy has not gone unnoticed by many other people in the world, prompting 1980 Peace Laureate Adolfo Pérez Esquivel’s recent letter to the 2009 peace laureate bemoaning the fact that Obama is waging wars on behalf of the military industrial complex and “burying himself more and more in violence and devoured by the domination of power”. In addition to directly contradicting the terms of Alfred Nobel’s last will, the awarding of the world’s foremost peace prize to a militarist who states his intent to wage war, perniciously serves the opposite purpose.

We therefore commend your investigation of the betrayal of the award in order to re-establish criteria for the Nobel Peace Prize that is aligned with Nobel’s original intent. We also suggest your Board communicate with the Nobel Foundation urging them to rescind Obama’s award so that the Nobel Peace Prize does not serve to sugarcoat, obfuscate and enable more use of violence and military force, the exact opposite purpose for which it was created.

http://warisacrime.org/nobel
By davidswanson – Posted on 29 February 2012
Endorse as an organization.
Endorse as an individual.


*  Tom Lehrer, born April, 8, 1928.  American singer-songwriter, satirist, pianist, and mathematician.   He had the last word on the Nobel Peace Prize way back in 1973:   "Political satire became obsolete when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."

No Embarrassment
by David Atkins

George Clooney, speaking about marriage equality gets what bothers the most about social conservatives: 

It's always been this albatross that stood out to me as the final leg of the civil rights movement,  Well before Prop. 8, I've made the point that every time we’ve stood against equality, we’ve been on the wrong side of history. It’s the same kind of argument they made when they didn’t want blacks to serve in the military, or when they didn’t want blacks to marry whites. One day the marriage equality fight will look as archaic as George Wallace standing on the University of Alabama steps keeping James Hood from attending college because he was black. People will be embarrassed to have been on the wrong side.

Opponents of  progressivism are almost always wrong on scientific and social issues. They were wrong on burning people at the stake to preserve theocratic geocentrism, wrong on opposing the renaissance to preserve the primacy of the Church, wrong on opposing democratic/republican government to preserve the nobility and divine right of kings, wrong on opposing the abolition of slavery to defend their feudal racist system, wrong on opposing women's suffrage and liberation to preserve the patriarchy, wrong on opposing the creation of the welfare state to preserve social darwinism, wrong on opposing the labor movement to preserve the power of robber baron capital, wrong on opposing desegregation to preserve white privilege. The list goes on and on and on and on.

And they're demonstrably wrong on opposing marriage equality, action in the face of climate change, and universal healthcare today.

Demonstrably wrong. Just as wrong as they've ever been, and always are.... [read the rest at Digby]

Are the screeners and rent-a-cops gonna feel the least bit foolish sending me back to my car when I (routinely) forget that this is in my pocket?

It's just disproportionate.  Somebody with concealed lethal weapon strolls right in.  I take a hike.

I often look for a planter outside the entrance where I can stash this little instrument of mayhem. Once a courthouse deputy spotted me doing it and gave me the stink eye, said that was out-of-bounds.

End the Embargo and Travel Ban on Cuba

Again, we are reminded of the fact that the rest of the world is against us for our policy towards Cuba. Rather than serving the interests of dwindling minority group of Cuban Americans in the United States, we want the President to address the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens that have been for years calling for a change in our relationship with Cuba. Happy 20th Anniversary! Or maybe “un-happy” anniversary. Today for the 20th year in a row, the UN General Assembly has voted to condemn the United States’ 50-year-old economic embargo on Cuba. How did the votes turn out this year? YES (against embargo) – 186 NO (in favor of embargo) – 2 ABSTAIN – 3 (details of the country lists in the vote count have not yet been published) Last year there were 187 votes in favor of ending  U.S. sanctions on Cuba, two against (Israel and the U.S.) and three abstentions (Palau, Marshall Islands, and Micronesia).      Many people had high hopes for President Obama and his promise to change our international image, including in reference to Cuba. We’ve seen small but significant changes in travel/remittance regulations and cultural exchanges; however, the maintenance of the economic sanctions is the basis for and most cruel aspect of our foreign policy towards Cuba.  As the delegate of Egypt reminded us in the opening statement of this year’s general assembly, “On a recent trip to Latin America this year, President Obama stated that ‘The U.S. seeks a new beginning with Cuba.’ Again, the members of the Non-aligned Movement ask the U.S. to match these words with actions.”      This vote in the UN has become a sad tradition and only underscores the hypocrisy of our role in the international community. While we tout humanitarianism and justice to the world, we cannot even follow our own advice in our own backyard.      You may read the statements of all the United Nations countries in response to Cuba’s motion to the United Nations to condemn the embargo, here. We've highlighted some strong country statements here.    Statements from 2011 UN General Assembly Vote on Cuban Embargo Australia “Since 1996, the Government of Australia has consistently supported General Assembly resolutions calling for an end to the trade embargo against Cuba. Australia has no trade or economic legislation or measures which restricts or discourages trade or investment to or from Cuba.” Brazil “The Brazilian Government has consistently opposed the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed against Cuba. Accordingly, Brazil has also continued to foster and pursue a growing economic relationship with Cuba.”      “The maintenance of the economic, commercial and financial embargo against Cuba is inconsistent with the dynamic regional policy that has recently been marked by the return of Cuba to dialogue and cooperation forums of the Americas.” China “This [embargo] is not only a serious violation of the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and of relevant United Nations resolutions, but also a source of immense economic and financial losses for Cuba. It is an impediment to efforts by the Cuban people to eradicate poverty, to promote their economic and social development and to attain the Millennium Development Goals, it impairs the Cuban people’s right to survival and development, and it adversely affects normal economic, commercial and financial relations between Cuba and other countries.”      “China hopes that the United States, in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and relevant United Nations resolutions, will put an end as soon as possible to its blockade against Cuba and it also hopes that relations between the two countries will continue to improve, thus promoting stability and development in the entire Latin American and Caribbean region.” Colombia “The Government of Colombia will continue the political support it has always given Cuba, and reaffirms that in conformity with its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law.” Costa Rica “The Government of Costa Rica wishes to reiterate that it has not enacted or applied laws intended to enforce the economic embargo against Cuba, and that it is complying with United Nations General Assembly resolution 65/6.” El Salvador "Reiterating its support for the Latin American and Caribbean consensus and the solidarity of the majority of United Nations Member States in their endorsement of General Assembly resolution 65/6, the Republic of El Salvador calls for the elimination of these measures against the Republic of Cuba and reports, in accordance with the above-mentioned resolution, that it has never promulgated or applied laws or measures the extraterritorial effects of which would affect the sovereignty of the Republic of Cuba and its citizens." European Union “…the European Union and its member States have been clearly expressing their opposition to the extraterritorial extension of the United States embargo, such as that contained in the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act of 1996.” Holy See “The Holy See has never drawn up or applied economic, commercial or financial laws or measures against Cuba.” Honduras “Honduras, in fulfilment of its obligations under the Charter of the United Nations and international law, has refrained from promulgating laws and regulatory provisions that might affect its trade relations with Cuba.” Japan “Japan shares the concern, arising from the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 (known as the Helms-Burton Act) and the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, that, if application of such legislation causes undue hardship in relation to the economic activities of the enterprises or nationals of a third party, the legislation is likely to run counter to international law regarding the extraterritorial application of domestic laws.” Mexico “Mexico emphasizes that [the embargo] has serious humanitarian consequences that are contrary to international law and, moreover, signify the abandonment of diplomacy and dialogue as the appropriate ways of settling disputes between States.”      “The Government of Mexico has also consistently opposed Cuba’s economic and political-diplomatic isolation. It has therefore firmly supported Cuba’s inclusion in all regional integration machinery in order to promote economic and commercial exchange, cooperation and development.” Russian Federation “The blockade against Cuba, which has endured for almost half a century, has manifestly demonstrated its inability to influence the Cuban people in their sovereign choice of a model of development. The sole consequences of the sanctions that have been imposed are the worsening living conditions of the Cuban people, the erection of artificial barriers to the growth of the country’s economy and encroachments upon the rights and interests of third countries.”      “We are convinced that [lifting the embargo],unlike the discriminatory practice of economic “strangulation”, will help ensure the success of the progressive social and economic reforms currently being implemented by the Cuban authorities.” World Food Programme “The United States embargo continues to severely limit trade and has a direct impact on the capacity and efficiency of Cuba’s logistics infrastructure, […] food processing and agricultural production. The efficiency of the food-based social safety nets of the Cuban Government’s, which are instrumental to household food security, is thereby negatively affected. This year, the effect is even more crippling because of the combined factors of rising food prices and persistent drought in Cuba.” World Health Organization “In the health sector, the consequences of the embargo have a negative multiplier effect on the cost of basic everyday health products, on the difficulties in acquiring health products, on the availability of basic services and, therefore, on the overall living conditions of the population.”       “The embargo also stunts public health development in Cuba by preventing the country’s access to loans and donations from international financial institutions, such as the World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank, as well as by limiting its access to philanthropic contributions and donations from civil society in the United States.” “The embargo affects the individual health care of all people, regardless of age or gender, through its impact on Cuba’s unified health system institutions, research facilities, epidemiological surveillance institutions and disease control agencies.”

Reprinted from LAWG     Latin American Working Group

Senator Wacko

‘”I am doing this pretty early in my career. Yeah, I realize that,” said Johnson, who called himself an “impatient” legislator. “I wouldn’t look at this as a career move.  [many years ago Ron, with just two words, became a captain of industry.  Amazing what can be built from scratch by merely uttering "I do".]  I would look at it as a way I believe I can be effective and can have an impact.”
Johnson said he viewed the position as mainly a communications job, helping the GOP caucus marshal information [gibberish] and arguments [the circular kind].
“My primary goal in the first two years here is to communicate to the voters of Wisconsin, really to the voters of America, how serious our financial situation is in this country and how urgent it is we address it,” he said in an interview.
“Certainly sitting at the leadership table is going to dramatically increase my learning curve here,” said Johnson, who said his private-sector, non-Washington background would be a good addition to leadership. [Oshkosh is fundamentally a microcosm of the whole universe]   “I do believe I bring a valuable personal perspective, particularly from a communication standpoint.  I’ve been the audience for what comes out of Washington for 31 years.  I hear things differently."  [and I occasionally have visions].     MJS   September 30, 2011

I'd bet the GOP Caucus is going to ease Ron down a bit from his hallucinations.  They'll likely suggest a more behind-the-scenes communications, private-sector, non-Washington background, career path in the Senate.  In the land 'o crocodiles, the impatient barge into the middle of things and the crocs do what crocs have always done.

Rejection might impel him to start mulling a flying hop into the mosh pit of Iowa caucuses.

We're wasting our time....

Doc Daneeka: You're wasting your time
Yossarian: Can't you ground someone who's crazy?
Doc Daneeka: Oh, sure. I have to. There's a rule saying I have to ground anyone who's crazy.
Yossarian: Then why don't you ground me? I'm crazy. Ask Clevinger.
Doc Daneeka: Clevinger? Where is Clevinger? You find Clevinger and I'll ask him.
Yossarian: Then ask any of the others. They'll tell you how crazy I am.
Doc Daneeka: They're crazy
Yossarian: Then why don't you ground them?
Doc Daneeka: Why don't they ask me to ground them?
Yossarian: Because they're crazy, that's what you said.
Doc Daneeka: Of course they're crazy, I just told you they're crazy, didn't I? And you can't let crazy people decide if they are crazy or not.
Yossarian: Is Orr crazy?
Doc Daneeka: He sure is.
Yossarian: Can you ground him?
Doc Daneeka: I sure can. But first he has to ask me to. That's part of the rule.
Yossarian: Then why doesn't he ask you to?
Doc Daneeka: Because he's crazy. He has to be crazy to keep flying combat missions after all the close calls he's had. Sure, I can ground Orr. But first he has to ask me to.
Yossarian: That's all he has to do to be grounded?
Doc Daneeka: That's all. Let him ask me.
Yossarian: And then you can ground him?
Doc Daneeka: No. Then I can't ground him.
Yossarian: You mean there's a catch?
Doc Daneeka: Sure there's a catch, Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy.
Yossarian: That's some catch, that Catch-22.
Doc Daneeka: It's the best there is.

Between the Illusory Tenant and Dahlia Lithwick, I think emigre Canadians are miles ahead of most local thinkers...

 

Republicans like Rick Perry are skeptical of everything the government does—except when it executes people.

By Dahlia Lithwick in Slate

Either you believe in government or you don't.

The current field of Republican contenders for president are hard at work to prove they don't. The best government, they insist, will leave you alone to repair your own ruptured kidney while your neighbors bring you casseroles and cigarettes. In recent weeks, leading Republicans have made plain they don't believe in government-run health care (lo, even unto death). They don't believe in inoculating children again HPV (lo, even unto death). They don't believe in government-run disaster relief (ditto, re death), the minimum wage, Social Security, or the Federal Reserve. There is nothing, it seems—from protecting civil rights to safeguarding the environment—that big government bureaucracies can't foul up.

Read the rest

I remember September 11th, 1973 with anger and contempt for filthy murdering thugs...

Filthy murdering thug #1:  Richard Milhous Nixon
Filthy murdering thug #2:  Henry Kissinger

 From the Nixon tapes, five days after thug/murderer Pinochet (#3) murdered the democratically -elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende and took over in Chile:

Nixon: Nothing new of any importance...or is there?

Kissinger: Nothing of very great consequence. The Chilean thing is getting consolidated and of course the newspapers are bleeding because a pro-Communist government has been overthrown.

Nixon: Isn't that something. Isn't that something.

Kissinger: I mean instead of celebrating – in the Eisenhower period we would be heroes.

Nixon: Well we didn't – as you know – our hand doesn't show on this one though.

Kissinger: We didn't do it. I mean we helped them. [garbled] created the conditions as great as possible.

Nixon: That is right. And that is the way it is going to be played

 Every bit of it caught on tape in the Oval Office:

^ The Kissinger Telcons: Kissinger Telcons on Chile, National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 123, edited by Peter Kornbluh, posted May 26, 2004. This particular dialogue can be found at TELCON: September 16, 1973, 11:50 a.m. Kissinger Talking to Nixon. Accessed online November 26, 2006.

I've gotta agree with TBogg...

"...making plans for Sunday’s 9/11 observance which is shaping up to be 'stretching out on the couch and napping during NFL games' like most American’s who don’t feel the need for calculated show-offy somber reflection designed for public display.

To do so would mean that the terrorists won."

for those who believe in the death penalty...

     "...it's hardly surprising for a country which long considered public hangings a form of entertainment and in which support for the death penalty is mandated orthodoxy for national politicians in both parties.  Still, even for those who believe in the death penalty, it should be a very somber and sober affair for the state, with regimented premeditation, to end the life of a human being no matter the crimes committed.  Wildly cheering the execution of human beings as though one's favorite football team just scored a touchdown is primitive, twisted and base."
  Glenn Greenwald

China, Cuba, oil and the 90 miles

In recent weeks and months, President Barack Toricelli-Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Helms-Burton Clinton have been working America's foreign policy magic by trying to effect some regime-change in North Africa and gunning down innocent pedestrians in Lahore, along with the routine butt-smooching of  Avigdor and Bibi.

They have not bothered to pay any attention to diplomatic events 90 miles from Key West.

Their going-in position with the pesky Cubans was articulated shortly after Clinton assumed the diplomatic portfolio:  You Change; then, we'll talk.

Just goes to show; if you don't watch those Cubans they'll do something treacherous and sneaky.

The incomparable Rebecca Solnit 'splains all for you.

Worlds Collide in a Luxury Suite
Some Thoughts on the IMF, Global Injustice, and a Stranger on a Train
By Rebecca Solnit
How can I tell a story we already know too well? Her name was Africa. His was France. He colonized her, exploited her, silenced her, and even decades after it was supposed to have ended, still acted with a high hand in resolving her affairs in places like Côte d’Ivoire, a name she had been given because of her export products, not her own identity.
Her name was Asia. His was Europe. Her name was silence. His was power. Her name was poverty. His was wealth. Her name was Her, but what was hers? His name was His, and he presumed everything was his, including her, and he thought he could take her without asking and without consequences. It was a very old story, though its outcome had been changing a little in recent decades. And this time around the consequences are shaking a lot of foundations, all of which clearly needed shaking.
Who would ever write a fable as obvious, as heavy-handed as the story we’ve just been given? The extraordinarily powerful head of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a global organization that has created mass poverty and economic injustice, allegedly assaulted a hotel maid, an immigrant from Africa, in a hotel’s luxury suite in New York City.

Click here to read more of this dispatch.

A stranger comes to town... A man with a history of intimidation... A black man... A Muslim

Was enjoying a nice little hour to kill last night in the lobby/piano bar of  the Pfister with a friend from Chennai.  We were enjoying a locally brewed dark beer and a small pizza; my back was turned as she remarked about seeing the tallest man she'd ever seen, passing through the Jefferson Street entrance, heading  for the desk, carrying his own luggage.

Welcome back, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. I hadn't seen the man in-the-flesh since he headed west in the mid 70s.

Tried to be cool, avoided gawking.  Some nearby youngsters in their 30s--who'd never heard of, much-less seen the skyhook--marveled at his stature, seemed in-the-dark on his history in Milwaukee.

On the way out a bit later, the doorman mentioned that he comes to the Pfister whenever he has a speaking engagement here.

A speech?    Maybe another speech to go back-to-back with Herb Kohl's announcement of his coming retirement as the Senior Senator from Wisconsin. 

What's the best protest song ever?

Asks The Nation.

It's clearly a naked grab for your e-mail address. They've already got mine; I've had a sub since the 60s. 

I remember this question--best protest song?-- popping up among nostalgists in the late 70s, when we'd hit our thirties, when disco and MBAs elbowed their way to center stage.

My perennial nominee:  Compared to What.  Les McCann and Eddie Harris jamming at Montreux in 1969; then, going big on the pop charts in '71.  What good is a protest song if it only gets sung at hootenannys and movement potlucks?  The BEST protest song has the lines you want to shout right now.

Slaughterhouse is killin' hogs
Twisted children killin' frogs
Poor dumb rednecks rollin' logs
Tired old ladies kissin' dogs....

The President, he's got his war
Folks don't know just what it's for
Nobody gives us rhyme or reason
Have one doubt, they call it treason....

Runner-up choice: something--almost anything--from Phil Ochs.

Three Myths of Israel's Insecurity. And Why They Must Be Debunked

This piece by Ira Chernus at Tom Dispatch, published overnight, took me right back to the 2008 post on how candidate Obama went to AIPAC in Chicago in early 2008 to swear that Israel's Security his first priority in the Middle-east.

Here are the Three Sacred Commandments for Americans who shape the public conversation on Israel:
1. For politicians, especially at the federal level: As soon as you say the word “Israel,” you must also say the word “security” and promise that the United States will always, always, always be committed to Israel’s security. If you occasionally label an action by the Israeli government “unhelpful,” you must immediately reaffirm the eternal U.S. commitment to Israel’s security.

2. For TV talking heads and op-ed pundits: If you criticize any policies or actions of the Israeli government, you must immediately add that Israel does, of course, have very real and serious security needs that have to be addressed.

3. For journalists covering the Israel-Palestine conflict for major American news outlets: You must live in Jewish Jerusalem or in Tel Aviv and take only occasional day trips into the Occupied Territories. So your reporting must inevitably be slanted toward the perspective of the Jews you live among. And you must indicate in every report that Jewish Israeli life is dominated by anxiety about security.

U.S. opinion-shapers have obeyed the Three Commandments scrupulously for decades. As a result, they’ve created an indelible image of Israel as a deeply insecure nation. That image is a major, if often overlooked, factor that has shaped and continues to shape Washington’s policies in the Middle East and especially the longstanding American tilt toward Israel. (more)

Fifty years ago today; the beginning of a half century of stupidity and failure...

Half a century ago I was cruising through the last weeks of high school when the news of this clown act hit the front page of the Cleveland Plain Dealer.  
We are wedded to failure, addicted to licking imaginary wounds, immune to reason, living in the past, doomed to continue to fail.

No end in sight.

Free the Cuban Five

End the Embargo and the Travel Ban


NY Times front page, 4/17/1961