My Name is Bob, and I’m an Addict

Back in the days of my misspent youth, addiction referred to a self-destructive dependency on psychoactive, habit-forming drugs like heroin and alcohol. But as with so many words in this hyped up era, the meaning expanded to include, in addition to substances, a variety of behaviors, notably sex and gambling. Then the concept took on a positive tangent with the publication of William Glasser’s book, “Positive Addiction.” Glasser recommended the practices of meditation and distance running, claiming they could produce a euphoric, life-enhancing alteration of consciousness.

Speaking from experience as one who has pursued his share of serial passions, including distance running, chess, and photography, I am prepared to say that the line between a positive and negative addiction can be very fine; and it is quite possible, depending on circumstances, to cross the line from positive to negative, as I did more than once. I would not be surprised to learn that most all addictions, positive as well as negative, will be found to have common neurochemical causes at the level of the brain. The research seems to be trending that way. After all, virtually every experience alters the brain; and repeated experiences that activate reward circuits appear to change the brain in ways that lead to the compulsive behaviors we label addictions. Of course it’s more complicated than that, which means I will have to revisit the subject very soon.

Junkie is a closely related informal term that can refer to a drug addict or, according to the dictionary, “a person with a compulsive habit or obsessive dependency on something.” As in political junkie. By the way, in case you’re a newer reader who has wondered what TPJ stands for, the original name of our magazine was “The Political Junkies.” When I started writing columns here, I chose a pseudonym, “Reluctant Junkie,” intended to convey the idea that my obsession with politics was forced on me rather than stemming from any abiding interest or curiosity – except possibly morbid curiosity, as depicted in this little satirical masterpiece from the Onion News Network. Anyway, for most of my life before the Bush debacle, I was pretty much happily indifferent to politics, although I always leaned left. But then came Bush-administration-induced nagging paranoia. I mean, what thinking person who valued constitutional democracy would not have been alarmed by the machinations and serial misconduct of that organized crime syndicate? And lest you forget, “Bush’s Brain,” Karl Rove, is still out there, scheming with other members of the vast, right-wing conspiracy to bring about the utter destruction of all remaining progressive values.

So I became a reluctant political junkie about ten years ago. My addiction/obsession was mostly involuntary, bringing few satisfactions until I started writing a column for The Political Junkies that gave me a forum where I could express my thoughts, fears, hopes, frustrations and general loathing for most things political. Then Obama was elected, which still ranks as one of the most memorable and happiest nights of my life – it’s hard to beat the combination of relief and schadenfreude! But my happiness was, as I feared at the time, destined to be fleeting, soon to be replaced by my default lesser-of-evils mode, which is where I’m stuck now. I keep saying this is a Paul Revere moment, and I want to ride through the streets shouting, “Wake up and smell the theocratic fascism brewing on the right; it’s time to take the offensive rather than remaining mired in the sickening, self-defeating appeasement of the past three years.” This is no time for finesse: a near-critical mass of Americans are ready to wage an epic struggle, but they have to be inspired. Inspired by what? How about something along the lines of Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope”? Certainly not futile bipartisan efforts which elicit nothing but contempt from the right-wing warriors. 

Okay, that’s enough damn politics for a while. And considering that I’m more than halfway through this column, it’s time to get to the point and fess up about my addiction. Besides, there will be many opportunities in the coming months to rant about politics. Soon we won’t be able to escape the lies, non sequiturs and ignorance of another presidential campaign. So let me talk about my current addiction, which inspired my new pseudonym, “Science Junkie”:

I am addicted to reality.

I know it’s a stretch, but don’t laugh just yet. Strange though it may sound, reality needs defenders. So I shamelessly used the addiction shtick to call attention to the fact that despite the proliferation of “reality” shows on TV, Americans seem less committed to accepting it than at any time in my memory. Looking out across this vast cultural wasteland, I see more groups forming enclaves of ideology, setting up online, fact-free zones where they congregate like holy rollers reaffirming their bizarre dogmas, ignoring or denying all contrary evidence. And like religious fanatics, they are turning to vicious demonizing of scientists and other rational experts who reject their claims on the basis of competent science. The anti-vaccination movement is a particularly pernicious case in point, but these days any group with sufficient resources can make outrageously false claims with confidence things will play out to their advantage.

A major reason they get away with it is because of the profit-driven complicity of a mainstream news media that has abdicated its responsibility to pursue facts that might lower ratings or prove embarrassing to the wrong people. Even when convincing refutations of falsehoods are published, they rarely attract enough interest to even begin to reverse the advantages already gained by the charlatans and the sincerely deluded. So while corrupted news sources are pandering to corporate greed and the lowest common denominator, there is a highly effective and no doubt lucrative industry out there utilizing all the proven artifices of mass persuasion. And we are about to be subjected to a deluge of the very worst of it as the political season ramps up. But the sorry truth is it doesn’t take that much to persuade low-information voters who are complete strangers to critical-thinking skills. This is certainly not what Thomas Jefferson envisioned.

Anyway, that’s the reality I see every day. And because I’m addicted to it, I can’t look the other way or pretend things are okay or are going to get better. The tabloid mentality prevails far and wide, and the discourse – what little there is – sounds more like The Jerry Springer show than anything approaching civilized debate. I’d bet Jefferson would be rolling in his grave, if he could.

So while I facetiously call myself a reality addict and a science junkie, those labels are not far from the truth. On the other end of the spectrum, I know and read about lots of people who give the impression that they are attracted to pseudoscience and other forms of woo because they are unscientific. And they’re not all dolts: many fairly bright individuals seem to take perverse pleasure in rejecting or opposing the findings of scientific “elites.” I have to think Republicans bear much of the responsibility for this. If so, I’m sure they’re proud of it.

Next time: a look at some of the worst reality deniers.

Oil and the Human Struggle for Power, Domination, and the Right to Exist-Part II

When early man first discovered fire, it was the most significant discovery of all time. Now he could start fires at will to keep his cave and tents warm, cook his food, and clear land for planting crops. When man first discovered oil, he saw at once that it would burn. Just imagine such a glorious gift from the gods, he must have mused. Oil could be easily extracted in liquid form from the ground under your feet, and it would become the igniter and sustainer of fire. Fuel. Eons later, man found that oil could be easily transported in modern new inventions to propel automobiles, trains, and farm trucks to transport produce and cattle over great distances to market. Later oil would be used in making plastics that are now essential to most everything we touch from fabrics, synthetic shoes, leather, artificial heart valves and body limbs, to circuit boards for computers. Oil enabled the world to engage in world commerce and trade. And war. 

And war and oil go together quite well.

As the Neanderthals protected their source of fire, whether the origin was of flint rocks or of friction from a round stick twirled on a wooden base, modern man became the protector of oil. Oil was and still is the one ingredient a nation cannot do without. And the real estate where oil is present, the very ground, is essential to the prosperity and the very survival of a nation. Early man would fight another clan to protect his source of fire, and from that early time to present, nations are at war with each other in order to protect their vital sources of oil wherever it exists on planet earth.

The Spindletop Oil Field discovery in South Texas was one of the first bonanza discoveries that made real estate zoom many times in value in short periods of time, sometimes in mere hours. And then many of the modern discoveries such as the automobile had yet to be invented and mass-produced. Even then oil was more precious than gold.

Saudi Arabia with its deep pools of oil leads the world in oil exports. It is the most influential member of OPEC, a group of Arab nations which dominate world oil prices. It has vast underground oil pools that supply oil to the whole world, and that has made Saudi Arabia worth protecting militarily. The United States has been the primary protector of the Saudis and their oil so far. Many other small countries in that same region, Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen and hundreds of oil-rich countries all over the world have protection in place to guard their precious oil, too. While the Saudis generally show disgust for Americans and western ways, they tolerate us because our military protects their oil. And we could care less whether they like us Yanks or not.

As a result of the world deciding a century ago to give oil the honor of being the foremost source of energy on our planet, many other side businesses have grown into their own and have flourished. The protection business is possibly as big as the oil business itself. The United States with its superior military can and does occupy over a hundred countries all over the world with its 1000s of military bases. In many countries like Iraq, South Korea, and Afghanistan, the United States has boots on the ground by the 100s of thousands. One can say what one believes about the necessity of our overseas bases, but the bottom line every time is that our presence in other countries is to protect the oil nearby or directly underfoot.

China and France both have little oil as a natural resource. So they must import oil from overseas or pay countries like Ghana or Libya to let them drill and extract oil. Without a source of oil, these 2 countries would go to war at the drop of a hat to get and secure it. Why? Every country in the world must have oil or cease to exist. And what country would lay off all its dictators, kings, and mayors, turn the lights out and call it quits? If you answered ‘None’, correct. And China and France have megaton-yielding nuclear weapons and delivery systems.   And would not hesitate to use them if their world sources of oil were threatened.

Terrorism has caused America and other countries of the world to attack, invade, and occupy countries that sponsor terrorism. When Osama bin Laden crashed planes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, the world was devastated. President Bush knew he would have to react with force. He did by attacking Afghanistan, a country whose government, the Taliban, was known to allow bin Laden to train his terrorist forces there. But for good measure (and against the advice of many experts like Richard Clarke, Hans Blix, and our own CIA) Bush also attacked Iraq. Of course the wars were deadly and still are because we are still there. But why did we attack Iraq?

Rumsfeld, then Secretary of Defense, said it was the best target. Say what? But was it the right target, the just target? So what wrong did Iraq do to the United States? Well, Bush and Cheney said Saddam Hussein had been hanging out with Osama bin Laden. No intelligence report has ever proven that to be true. To get us into a war with Iraq, Bush said, in his address to the nation, Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy Uranium (Yellow Cake) from Africa. British intelligence quickly refuted that intelligence report as bogus. So did George Tenet, then head of the CIA when he cautioned Bush not to mention that falsified intelligence report in his State of the Union Address. Bush did anyway. Funny thing, eh? So why did the United States attack Iraq? Could it be that Iraq has the second largest known deposits of oil in the entire world? Many peoples of the world thought so. And rejected America as an honest, benign world power that would protect the less-powerful countries of the world.

After almost 9 years of occupation, and 10s of thousands of deaths and casualties later, American forces still occupy Iraq. President Obama says our troops are all coming home soon. But will we give up such valuable real estate laden with oil? We shall see. We recently built the biggest and most expensive American Embassy in the world there, and just how many Marines will it take to protect that? And the airstrips. And of course, the oil. The United States cannot allow Iraq’s oil to get away from a country running quickly out of this black life’s blood to all countries of the world.

Oil creates many new industries. Especially when terrorists are afoot trying to set fire to oilfields and to kill Americans. Take Blackwater. Please. Blackwater, an organization of lawless “contractors” as they are called, are a civilian group of paid mercenaries to supplement our own armed service personnel to help fight in Iraq. The owner at the time, Erik Prince, a born-again Bible-thumping Christian, charged George W. Bush about 5 times the normal pay per head uniformed soldiers of the United States Army, Marine Corp, Air Force and Navy were receiving. The first year the United States taxpayers paid Prince a cool Billion dollars for his services, namely mercenary soldiers who flew about in black helicopters shooting people. And these soldiers were immune from being prosecuted for crimes and wanton shooting of civilians. Doesn’t sound much like America, does it? Where oil is, there is corruption, it always seems.

Take Rudy Giuliani. Please. As mayor of New York City when the terrorists hit the Twin Towers, Rudy became an instant hero, a rock star of sorts. Neatly and smoothly he slid into a post Twin Towers attack face of benevolence and formed a consulting company. He hired himself out as a consultant to sell his services as an authority on how to protect a city or state or a sovereign country from terrorist attacks. Must have paid top dollar for Rudy to capitalize on terrorism because he took his former police chief, Bernard Kerik, with him. Kerik, among other sideline ventures into the anti-terrorism enterprises and consultations, was reportedly awarded $10 million in stock warrants for a Taser gun company he owned and used to sell products to city police forces all over the world.

Giuliani recommended Kerik to President George W. Bush to head Homeland Security as the replacement for Tom Ridge. Bush appointed Kerik who quickly withdrew investigations pending against him for criminal activities and ties to organized crime. He was later convicted. Some NYPD head cop, eh? 

Kerik’s Felony Convictions in Living Color

Giuliani's police chief could be problem

Bernard Kerik, ex-NYPD Top Cop, Faces Sentencing Thursday

Oil. It’s all about oil. And its ongoing impact on the world and humanity.

Next, in Part III we will discuss the US Energy Department, Alternative Energy sources and why they have been stifled here at home and why European countries lead the world in green energy today. And how our mimicking the green countries of the world might just save us from destruction and death by oil.

Why Religion Persists and Continues to Afflict Humanity

What would you say accounts for the fact that religions, evidence-free superstitions all, continue to attract and hold customers, despite the fact that we live in a scientific age?

In the Dark Ages, religions offered answers to life's persistant questions. Little was known about the natural world. The earth was flat and the sun revolved around us, the center of the universe and the reason for why everything exists and was put here by God 6000 years prior - or so everyone was told and had no evidence to the contrary. Thus, for 99.9 percent of the time of homo sapiens existence (and the homo strains before us), nearly all humans were cowed into submission by the high priests. Any god with the keys to a hellish dungeon was scary, all powerful and savagely vengeful.

However, for more than a century, mankind has had scientific knowledge about the real world. With the advent of the scientific method, the educated class has been encouraged to look for evidence, to demand objective confirmation of claims by independent third parties via controlled studies. Why would educated adults in the 21st century believe unsupported assertions alleging revealed wisdom and other myths of the elaborate crock on offer from religions? All of it comes free of any evidence whatsoever! Never in the history of gods ancient or modern has a single fact been discovered supportive of a claim for any god's existence. Ditto for claims attributed to said gods. No evidence, either, that prayers, anywhere, anytime were ever answered by any god prayed to nor of any favors granted for sacrifices offered.

Yet, billions of humans still to this day line up and bow down in acceptance of and obedience to iatollahs, priests, rabbis, ministers, preachers and others who claim to know the mind and wishes of some invisible Ruler of the Universe, Lord of Lords, Grand Wazoo, Infinite Goodness, etc.

Why?

According to Al Stefanelli, the answer in a word is fear. in a blog post entitled, "Religious Belief Is A Fear-Based Lie" (Freethoughtblogs.com, November 7, 2011),

Stefanelli explained:

"Fear. It‚Äôs what drives religion, gives it purpose, keeps a billion or so believers entrenched in willful ignorance, is responsible for the rampant denial of science and is the central emotion responsible for the bigotry, discrimination and hatred that is widespread amongst those who profess their undying love for their deity. It is the ally of the bully, the friend of the charlatan and a constant deterrent against self-esteem."

More than a century earlier, Robert Green Ingersoll said as much. Near the conclusion of what would be his last speech, an address to the American Free Religious Association in Boston on June 2, 1899, Colonel Ingersoll (1833-1899), America's greatest orator then widely known as "The Great Agnostic," said that fear was the foundation of all faiths.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/what_is_religion.html

"Religions assert that an infinite God created all things, governs all things and that the creature should be obedient and thankful to the creator; that the creator demands certain things, and that the person who complies with these demands is religious."

Fail to comply and God will send "pestilence, famine, flood and earthquake" - for starters. When you die, the real punishment kicks in, an eternity without surcease for even a moment."

Much has and continues to be made of the harm inflicted on children by predator priests of the Roman Catholic and other Christian religions. I believe that sexual child abuse, grotesque as this crime is that outrages our sensibilities, is less consequential than the mental abuse of religious dogmas, particularly that of hell-fires in waiting. 

In a speech entitled, "The Gods," one of his most popular, Ingersoll remarked:

"What, after all, is religion? It is fear. Fear builds the altar and offers the sacrifice. Fear erects the cathedral and bows the head of man in worship. Fear bends the knees and utters the prayer."

The fear of eternal torture for insufficient obedience to religious doctrines and/or failure to believe or follow a leader's teachings, rules and the like amount to one hell of a negative sales pitch. Give religions credit of sort where due - as a way to keep the sheep in line and control the flock, this hellish idea has been a great success. Again, Ingersoll had words to express his indignation about the infamy of hell fear - -mongering:

"Heaven's golden gates are shut, and you, with an infinite curse ringing in your ears, with the brand of infamy upon your brow, commence your endless wanderings in the lurid gloom of hell -- an immortal vagrant -- an eternal outcast -- a deathless convict...Is it possible for man to conceive of anything more perfectly infamous? Can you believe that such directions were given by any being except an infinite fiend?" (Source: The Gods, 1872.)

Of course none of it was given by a fiend, or a friend of man, but by the control agencies called religions. 

We should all consider offering what modest resistance we can manage this infamous idea of hell and the rest of the anti-science offal that religions invent and promote. Challenge efforts by theocrats to deface and lower the wall separating our state from their church. Remember, as Ingersoll noted, that "religions teach the slave virtues of obedience, humility, self-denial, forgiveness, non-resistance...the abyss of degradation. Religion does not teach self-reliance, independence, manliness, courage, self-defence. Religion makes God a master and man his serf...Religion can never reform mankind because religion is slavery. It is far better to be free, to leave the forts and barricades of fear, to stand erect and face the future with a smile."

All good wishes.

Right Wing Republican Religionists Are Functioning As Termites Undermining the Structure of Secular America

Some people in this country, particularly Republican politicians, employ faith displays in public places in order to weaken our historic tradition of church/state separation. Separation has benefitted the interests of both sectors for centuries. Alas, times are a changing.



Here are a few examples of in-your-face religiosity that menace this tradition of keeping the two realms apart: 


* Robert Jeffress, a Perry adviser and leader of the First Baptist Church of Dallas, declared that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney isn’t a “real” Christian. (Mr. Jeffress did not delineate a real from a fake Christian but he made clear his view that Romney is in the latter camp.) Jeffress also noted that the Mormon religion is a “cult,” but did not define a cult, either. Nor did Mr. Jeffress explain why Christianity should not be considered one.



* Michelle Bachmann defended her reputation as a weather expert. You might recall her unusual Christian explanation for the recent East Coast earthquake and hurricane. According to this Republican presidential candidate, her god, which she considers the only one of the genre, was unhappy because people were not listening to him/her or it. The candidate made no mention of how she gained this information. No explanation, either, as to why nobody else, not even Pat Robertson, made this remarkable connection.



* Mitt Romney reasserted his own conviction that his god created America to lead the world. So much for the credit historians and others had mistakenly given to the Founding Fathers.



* Just a few days ago, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution reaffirming "In God We Trust" as the national motto. This resolution, notwithstanding the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings to the contrary, called for displays of "In God We Trust" in public schools and other public buildings. Only nine Congresspersons voted against this resolution (396 voted in favor).



* A statue of Jesus, resting on public land in the mountains of Montana, was challenged in a district court. The statue was placed by the Catholic group Knights of Columbus.



* A cross sits atop a water tower in Whiteville, TN. The tower is city property, so a secular interest group (the Freedom from Religion Foundation) brought suit to have it removed. The suit states that the cross "unabashedly creates the perception of government endorsement of Christianity."



Countless additional examples could be cited across the land, all clearly divisive and all a menace to the tradition of church/state separation. America is sliding into theocracy; our secular Republic is under attack by a (so far) non-violent Christian Taliban.



The Center for Inquiry (CFI) calls this trend "irresponsible and shameful." Other secular groups have expressed concern that Republican politicians and Christian evangelists are dividing the country along religious lines. It would be a dreadful thing to undertake this kind of a campaign at any time, but it is irresponsible for politicians to do so at a time when the country is in the grip of such a serious financial crisis. 



Polls show that 16 percent of Americans have no religious identity; over 40 million do not identify with any monotheistic god. Will these natural allies and those who embrace a religion but respect the separation clause resist the march to theocracy in time to prevent it? 



Sir Ludovic Henry Coverly Kennedy wrote the following in a column in "The Guardian" a few years back ("Put Away Childish Things, April 17, 2003): "All gods from time immemorial are fantasies, created by humans for the welfare of humans and to attempt to explain the seemingly inexplicable. But do we, in the third year of the 21st century of the Common Era and on the springboard of colonising the universe, need such palliatives? Wherever one looks there is conflict: Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland; Jews, Christians and Muslims in Palestine; Muslims and Hindus in the Indian subcontinent; Christians and Muslims in Nigeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Is not the case for atheism made?" President Thomas Jefferson was a bit more concise, once referring to "this loathsome combination of Church and State.”



The assault on the establishment clause of our Constitution makes the case for keeping government free of religions and their symbols, rituals and all the rest. Perhaps much of this religious intrusion nonsense is a diversionary tactic by the religious Right. They worry that their dogma is increasingly seen as ridiculous, irrational, superstitious and anti-science - so they try to distract attention from substance to symbolism of their childish past, something familiar, traditional and yes, "sacred" (at least to them, thanks to cultural conditioning). They choose to test, inflame and stoke a culture war, and Republican politicians are only too happy to oblige. This removes the focus from our wretched economy.



In addition to offending non-Christians, the actions cited and others like them waste time and money and divide the citizenry.



Let's speak out, resist and apply the insecticide of reason to these pious termites eating away at the foundations of our freedoms, protected in part by what remains of the wall of separation between our state and their church. As Pat Condell has stated, "Remember, one person on his own can't do much, but a million people each doing a little every day can change things very quickly."

The Curse of Compromise

Civil discourse may be visualized as negotiating parties sitting as equals across the table discussing ways to resolve issues in order to arrive at a consensus favorable to both parties’ best interests. However, to launch such a constructive arrangement, both parties must (1) bargain in good faith and (2) own a similar vision for future results – seeking comparable goals, albeit diverse methods.

Compromise is only good when opponents set the table correctly.

Barack Obama is now in campaign mode, temporarily not beset, it seems, by his race to the right when in the “governing” mode. His poll numbers reflect a bounce. But words alone cannot repair three years’ damage when he was eager to give away the store to win Republicans unyielding in their contempt for the man, labor, environment, equity, justice, and all issues sacred to progressives.

Obama’s blind-side is compromise. Although it’s a good thing in suitable circumstances, compromise is a curse when unilateral. It’s been one-sided from Day One, but the man doesn’t seem to detect their venom nor hear their vitriol.

Obama’s biggest mistake was casting pearls before swine. His pig enemies promised him failure and absolute obstruction, then honored those pledges with a sense of accomplishment. Undoubtedly, Republicans are willing to crash the nation for power. Mitch McConnell’s vow to destroy Obama, making him a one-term president, should have been the wake up call. Yet the man still flowered them with concessions – even before talks began. Who would do such a thing?

The classic comparison is Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in 1938 – conceding Czechoslovakia for a few months of peace. Stepping off the plane, Chamberlain seemed ecstatic as he read Brits his fresh agreement signed by Adolf.

The Fuhrer, of course, was not bargaining in good faith. Mein Kampf and his speeches overloaded with imperial goals should have been clues. But somehow Chamberlain was deaf to it all – his vision blurred by his ambition to be a noble statesman and conciliatory negotiator. I believe Obama’s blind-side is similar.

When the goal is compromise (not the overall public good), style usurps the substance. Precisely, that is Obama’s albatross. Solid promises in 2008 turned into bargaining chips which were cast upon the swine. Labor, environment, economy, healthcare, and justice suffered. America went further down the path to the decline idiot Bush set in place. Obama was to be the vaccine to the virus Bush-Cheney infected us with. What utter disappointment. Is it incurable now?

The excuse may very well be Republican obstructionism. But weren’t Democrats granted huge majorities in both houses plus the White House? Assuming leadership does not entail conceding to losers for bipartisanship’s sake. Obama’s dawn was OUR day; it was our turn to make right the wrongs of the former. Unfortunately, our day turned to night as we saw ourselves thrown under the bus for the slimmest hope of a little Republican give-and-take. Obstinate they remained.

Only now, as we enter the next election cycle, do we hear words for the base – as if we didn’t exist for three years. The curse of compromise is a nation careening near the cliff.

A CRISIS OF TITANIC PROPORTIONS: The European Union in Uncharted Waters.

The difficulty these days in writing a two-weekly column of political commentary on current events is that things are moving so fast that by the time the column is posted, the commentary and any opinion offered, may be out of date. At the time of writing (04.11.11) the global political elites are gathered in Cannes for the G.20. summit which was, just a few days ago, heralded under the laughably inappropriate slogan “New World; New Ideas”. If only!

Whatever wishful thinking may have prevailed in the citadels of Europe’s two economic “powerhouses”, Germany and France, it was soon dispelled when Greek prime minister Papandreou threw a mighty spanner in the works by announcing that he intended to put the latest austerity measures to be imposed on the country to a referendum. Shock and horror! The last thing the arbiters of Greece’s destiny want is to allow the Greek people to decide on such important matters. They are expected to grin (or grimace) and bear whatever is coming to them. It has long been apparent that decision-making in the EU does not involve consulting public opinion in the member states unless it is absolutely unavoidable. Even then, as the resounding Irish “No” vote on the Lisbon Treaty showed, voting the wrong way is unacceptable. A further referendum must be held in which the preparatory propaganda and the question must be framed in such a way as to guarantee the right outcome. Papandreou was leant upon very heavily by Sarkozy Merkel and members of his own cabinet and he duly abandoned the proposed referendum. On news of this, share prices recovered after the earlier panic which had produced sharp falls in the FTSE 100 and in bank shares. But such market volatility is likely to continue as the roller coaster of the European debt crisis continues on its precipitous course.

The further dose of austerity that the Greeks are forced to swallow in exchange for the latest 8 billion bailout, will only exacerbate the problem. The bailout will enable the government to pay the salaries of public sector workers but it will do nothing to stimulate economic recovery. It will make things worse because, as with every preceding bailout, the draconian austerity measures demanded in return result in slashing wages and pensions, decimating public services and privatizing state assets. Consumer spending will be depressed further as purchasing power is cut yet again. Inevitably the reaction of growing sections of the population is to take to the streets in protests that are already making the country ungovernable. It now looks as though Papandreou’s government will be forced to resign, to be replaced by a caretaker administration pending new elections. Whatever happens in the next few days, there is no prospect of any solution to the crisis that will begin to release the Greek people from their deepening misery. They seem to understand this perfectly well, for they have lost faith completely in the political elites of all parties. Should opposition leader Samaras replace Papandreou as leader of a “national unity government” he is no more likely to win popular support than his predecessor. As a “fiscal conservative” he also accepts the terms of the EU bailout and has absolutely nothing to offer the people. The same may be said for the other option being touted by some of the business elites, namely a “non-political” government, led by a technocrat.

It is now likely that Greece will be forced out of the eurozone.  There is little point in speculating about what the consequences of this might be for the country. The EU leaders are mainly concerned to ensure that the banks that lent to Greece and are now having to “take a haircut”, do not go under. It is possible that they have already written Greece off as insolvent. Given such a collapse, the Greek people will have to take their destiny into their own hands. Should it come to this it is to be hoped that they will seek a solution through the creation of a popularly based government of the left rather than allow ultra-nationalists to take power.

The real problem that looms like a nightmare for the EU leaders is Italy. While it may just be possible to deal with Greece without breaking the banks, Italy is an entirely different matter. The third largest economy in the eurozone, it is nevertheless steeped in debt. For years Italy has claimed the headlines because of the shenanigans of its ludicrous prime minister, multi-billionaire media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, who only recently declared that he regarded his duties as prime minister as a part time job. His full time occupation was “bunga bunga” parties, and, in the words of his ex wife, “consorting with minors.” This is quite apart from legal proceedings against him for fraud and consorting with prostitutes. It now seems that his days in office are numbered, which, if true, will enable him to devote his time exclusively to his more enjoyable pursuits.

Heavily indebted eurozone countries begin to be judged according to the percentage interest rates on their governments’ bonds. Once the yield on such bonds edges closer to 7% they are deemed to be in serious trouble and in line for a bailout to prevent default. So far this has been the case with Greece, Ireland and Portugal – all small countries with small economies. Italy’s public debt stands at 1.9 trillion euros (120% of its GDP) and the yield on its bonds is above 6%. In short, the country is in deep trouble. But the funds that have recently been put together for such eventualities are quite inadequate to cope with a threatened default by an economy the size of Italy’s. The European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) with funds of 400 billion euros would require a five-fold expansion to 2 trillion euros to be fit for purpose. Or, maybe it would require 3 trillion. No-one seems to know. Therefore another plan has been hatched to set up something called SPIV – the Special Purposes Instrument Vehicle, in an attempt to muster the funds necessary to fill the coffers of the ESFS. (For once the Daily Mail got it right with the observation that “This is one of life’s more perfectly formed little ironies. In response to a financial crisis caused by spivs selling opaque financial instruments, Europe’s leaders are actually creating an opaque financial instrument called SPIV to sort the whole thing out.”).

As the Greek crisis rumbles on with no signs of abating, the much larger Italian storm is brewing. The EU pressure on Italy is increasing relentlessly. Brussels is demanding the same austerity that has failed so dramatically in Greece. Like Greece, the Italian economy has muddled along with declining levels of productivity, large-scale tax evasion and widespread corruption at all levels. A blind eye could be turned to all this before the financial crash of 2008. But now the only remedy the G 20 and EU leaders have to prevent Italy becoming insolvent, is the one applied unsuccessfully to Greece. Essentially this is all about protecting the banks. Merkel is adamant that the European Central Bank will not be allowed to become the lender of last resort for the euro. A humiliated Berlusconi is obliged to agree to the IMF monitoring the austerity “reforms” demanded by the EU. He claims that he has “dreamed all my life of making these reforms to the economy, but it hasn’t been possible because of the socialists and communists.” It is certain that any attempts by the EU and IMF to solve Italy’s problems at the expense of the Italian working people will be met with the same resistance that has met such measures in Greece.

What may we conclude from all this? It is looking increasingly as though not only Greece but probably Italy also will default. The G 20 summit ended yesterday (03.11.) in disarray with no agreement about how to deal with the crisis enveloping the EU and preventing it from spreading to the global economy and tipping the world back into an even deeper recession. There is a distinct sense that the political elites are fiddling while Rome burns. Yet they cannot agree to a simple measure that could (without bringing down capitalism!) raise the funds necessary to return to economic growth without recourse to the draconian austerity measures that have so signally failed – namely, the Tobin tax – a small tax on all financial transactions. The British government is opposed to this just as they are opposed to introducing a new version of the Glass-Steagall banking act (introduced in the USA by Roosevelt in 1933 but repealed under pressure from the Banking lobby by Clinton in 1999) which separated retail from investment banking. The reason for this is obvious: they do not want to offend their friends and supporters in the City of London who have always lobbied so hard and so successfully against regulation of the financial sector. This, after everything that has happened since 2007.

The Occupy London encampment that has now entered its fourth week of occupation at St. Paul’s Cathedral, has succeeded in bringing the discussion about the nature of the present crisis to the attention of a wide public. The occupiers have raised vital questions about inequality and injustice, greed, excessive wealth, poverty and unemployment in Britain. They are camped close to the Stock Exchange, initially the intended site of their occupation. They have their sights on the banks and finance houses that were responsible for the crisis of 2008. The protesters have no intention of ending their occupation soon. They are aware that they are part of a world-wide movement and they are strengthened by their sense of solidarity with millions of others. They will not be deflected from their objectives by the misrepresentation, the cynicism and the disdain of their detractors. And it must be said that whatever their shortcomings, their clarity of vision, their humanity their determination contrasts strikingly with the confusion, incompetence and sclerotic immobility of the global political and financial elites who are supposed to be responsible for the future of world capitalism. A phrase about re-arranging deckchairs comes to mind.