Alexander Cockburn 6/6/41-7/20/12

For Chaos heard his voice: him all his Traine

Follow’d in the bright procession to behold

Creation, and the wonders of his might.

-Paradise Lost, John Milton

It was fitting that writer and critic Alexander Cockburn’s funeral should include a passage from Milton. For more than 50 years, Cockburn combined polished, erudite writing with fierce political insight in the tradition of the great 17thcentury English polemicist. Cockburn died July 20 in Germany at age 71, following a two-year struggle with cancer. He was buried July 28 in his beloved Petrolia, Ca.

It is hard to sum up his career because it was catholic in true meaning of that word: all embracing. He wrote for newspapers in England, New York’s Village Voice, the Wall Street Journal, and the Nation, and, along with Jeffery St. Clair, founded the investigative publication, CounterPunch. For more than 50 years, Cockburn was a relentless critic of U.S. foreign policy, opposing the Yugoslav War, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the recent war in Libya.

He was particularly critical of Israel, and for that earned the undying enmity of people like Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who called him an anti-Semite. Cockburn responded by publishing a book of essays entitled “The Politics of Anti-Semitism,” commenting that one could always tell when Israel was misbehaving because of charges of anti-Semitism thrown at its critics.

He was born in Scotland, the oldest of three sons of Claud and Patricia Cockburn. He had two sisters from his father’s previous marriages. The family moved to Youghal, County Cork in 1947, and Cockburn lived there until he went to Oxford in 1960.  Graduating from Oxford in 1963 with a degree in literature and language, he worked as a journalist in London. He moved to the United States in 1972.

For 12 years Cockburn wrote a column for the Village Voice called “Press Clips,” which dismantled the myth of objective journalism and exposed the incestuous relationship between U.S. foreign and domestic policy and the media. The column sent shockwaves through the fourth estate in much the same way as A.J. Liebling’s critical writings had done in a previous generation.

He left the Voice in 1984 and began writing a column named after one of his father’s novels, “Beat the Devil,” for the Nation. He continued to do so up until a few days before he died. His last column appeared in the Nation July 30.

In 1996 he and Jeffery St. Clair founded CounterPunch along with Jeffery, a combination print and on-line investigative magazine that features some of the leading writers on the Left.

The Cockburn family was sort of a journalism collective. His father Claud was probably the best front-line reporter during the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War—and the competition was rather steep for that designation—and a brilliant essayist on everything from British foreign policy to Irish agricultural practices. The elder Cockburn’s ability to write about virtually anything paralleled Alexander’s career. As Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel told the Associated Press, “His range was extraordinary. He could write about fox hunting, and he could write about intervention.”

Cockburn wrote several books, including “Whiteout: The CIA, Drugs and the Press” (with St. Clair), “A Short History of Fear,” “Corruptions of Empire,” and “End Times: The Death of the Fourth Estate.”

Alexander’s brothers, Patrick and Andrew, are also journalists of considerable merit. Patrick, a Middle East expert for the Independent, spent several years in Iraq, writing an outstanding book on Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr. He is currently based in Britain and continues to report and comment on the Middle East.

Andrew, an expert on all matters military, has written several investigative books, including a recent one on former U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as well as a study of U.S.-Israeli covert relations, and a book on Saddam Hussein.

His Frontline story “Drugs, Guns and the CIA”—done in collaboration with his wife, Leslie Cockburn— is probably the best study of the long and sordid relationship between American intelligence and drug dealers during the U.S. war in Laos and the Contra War against Nicaragua.

Obituaries have labeled Cockburn a “contrarian,” although that term is inaccurate. He was famously fierce and could be absolutely scathing— woe betide those who challenged him in print—but his politics were always coherent and deep-seated. If he disagreed with you it wasn’t because he was being contrary, it was because he didn’t agree with your politics.

He was always suspicious of orthodoxy—a sentiment that he shared with Milton—which many times put him at odds with others on the Left. He was roundly criticized for his doubts about global warming, but his stance had nothing to do with crankiness and everything to do with his mistrust of group think. He was suspicious of assumed truths, and when he expressed those sentiments about global warming he was widely denounced. It was as if he had gone to Lourdes and done something rude to the Virgin Mary. Criticism of independent thinking always made him dig in his heels and if you wanted a good old-fashioned Donnybrook, Alex was your man.

His funeral was very much an Alexander Cockburn affair. The speeches were short and the funeral procession—led by his daughter, Daisy—was headed up by a yellow fire engine. A long line of cars followed, winding their way through the rolling Northern California hills to a flat plain surrounded by high hills crowned with ocean fog. “Over to the glory land” was sung and Cockburn’s beautifully handcrafted coffin—embossed with a typewriter—laid to rest.

We shall not see his like again in our time. 

TPJ MAG

When Big Brown (Fossil Fuel-Burning Companies) Trumps Green Energy with Big Long Green-Part II

Whenever the human mind sets out to distort the truth, reality and the good things of the earth always seem to suffer.  In fact, all forms of bizarre human behavior vex the spirit every time. It gives you pause.  Why, for instance, would someone tell you to jump off the Empire State Building, telling you that you could fly?  Or fill your gasoline tank with water and advising you that your Chevy would magically convert to steam power?  Why would someone advise you to light a cigar with a $100 bill?

Such bizarre behavior is not that uncommon.  Like when on the first day Ronald Reagan took up residence in the White House Ronald Reagan promptly had the solar panels taken off the roof.  Isn’t that the same as burning money?  Wasting tax dollars?  Ain’t that a jaw-dropper? 

Back 1986 I had lunch with an old boss, president and CEO of a large lumber manufacturer in the Southwestern United States.  We were in Albuquerque, adjusting to our new jobs in new industries, and trying to figure out what had just happened to our old company.  He now sold commercial real estate and I had resigned and had taken a position with a municipal bond underwriting company in Houston, Texas.  The lumber company had just been bought out by an international holding company in London with the word “Trust” at the end of the new company name.  My old employer had been fired and replaced with a young CEO from afar who would promptly begin working at the axing and selling-off of what had been the 64th largest lumber manufacturer in the world. 

All this happened during Ronald Reagan’s second term as president.  Reaganomics (Voodoo Economics so said Poppy Bush before joining the daffy Laffer Curve morons) was in full flower then.  Companies were buying and selling each other, cutting off the arms and legs of healthy companies, raining pink slips like a cow pissing on a flat rock from a high cliff, and pursuing the sacred bottom line for the sole benefit of stockholders and CEO bonuses.  It was like, don’t confuse me with the facts or any sentimental meanderings, just cut.  Employees were forced to scurry for new positions in a strange new world.  Some got new jobs manufacturing products (flipping burgers according to Reagan), and all had to settle for less pay.  The new tax codes allowed companies to buy tax credits from one another as well.  It was the anything-goes corporate buggering of employees and once profitable American companies. But all was made legal and respectable during Reagan’s reign.  Unions were scuttled, bonked, and rendered impotent after Reagan fired all the air traffic controllers.  And our lumber company was one of the first companies to see the blood of the legalized butchering.  Repositioning assets and wealth from one pocket to the other was all that mattered.  Human welfare and decent-paying jobs became the ultimate casualty. 

The mission of the new CEO of the lumber company was to chop off sawmills or shut them down, and auction off all the real estate, machinery and equipment.  This took only a few years before the second- largest lumber company in the Southwest became history.  We all had to say goodbye to a company that had had sawmills in Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.  The mills, 7 in all, had been top money-makers since 1945 and had employed several hundred people.  Poof.  All gone by the mid-1990’s, one by one. But I am getting sidetracked and ahead of the story and the point about human nature I wish to make.

So we sat there at the table back in 1986 having freshly been whisked away from such a fine old lumber company by a foreign international chopping block company.  Having worked for this great company for over 15 years, I was left scratching my head and wanting answers.

Right after the new company took over the first thing that changed was that the lumber quality that we had been so proud of all those years went to the dogs.  New companies back then were interested in profits.  The numbers.  Bean counters thrived.  And if you could squeeze out another nickel by lowering the quality of lumber stamped with the same old stamp, good for you.  You would be rewarded with a bigger bonus at year’s end.   

“How can you just switch from the quality lumber that has defined you for decades and take to selling crap lumber with the same grade stamp on each piece?”  I asked him. 

“What do you mean, ‘How can you switch?’”  he asked, with a crooked grin.  “You just do it.”

“But why?”  I persisted.  “Won’t there be repercussions from customers?  Won’t they complain and quit buying the lumber?”

“Nah,” he smiled, “They will just cut the price and the customers will love it and just adjust their presentations to their contractors.  Everybody will forget all about it in no time.”

“But it seems like such a deviation from what our former company used to stand for.”  I said.

He sighed a knowing sigh and put his palms on his forehead for a second.  He had been the nephew of one of the original founders of the lumber company that had created so many jobs in several states.  With him it was personal.  I knew that it was with me too.  It was the finest job and association with my fellow creatures of the business world I had ever known.  It wasn’t easy shooting your best horse, but it was necessary.  Business was business, and if the new owners could sell crap lumber cheaper and make it all work so be it.

He looked up at me with sad brown eyes.

“Have you ever heard the fable, ‘The Scorpion and the Horse?’” he asked.

“No.”

He proceeded to tell me the story, but years later I discovered that the most popular version called, “The Scorpion and the Frog.”  No problem.  I stuck with the “horse” version.

He began with, “Once there was a scorpion in a desperate predicament, clinging to a branch in high water due to a flood.  A horse came swimming by on his way to higher ground in the distance.  The scorpion pleaded with the horse to let him hitch a ride on his back.  The horse said, “Neiggghhh”, no way, that he feared getting stung and drowning on the way to high ground.  But the scorpion was a smooth talker and finally convinced the horse to let him ride on his back.  So when the horse almost reached the shore, the scorpion stung him right behind the right ear.  The horse began to founder and lose control of his muscles.  He was beginning to give out.  The horse said, ‘Why would you do this when you said you would not?  Now we both will drown.”  The scorpion knew all this.  In advance.  But he said, “I could not help myself.  Stinging is what we scorpions do.  It is because we are scorpions.”

There was no good reason for the scorpion to kill himself and the horse in the process, but the explanation is meaningless; there is no explanation beyond what is.  From the remote origins of human culture to the daily events of our time, what is most insanely stupid is that human beings can and will do harm to others and to themselves for no understandable reason, just because “it’s their nature”.

My old boss looked at me, slowly shaking his head and said:

“Don't be surprised by someone's actions. If it has always been a person’s nature to be destructive to himself and his company why would you expect any different?  Operating at a profit is secondary to acting out according to your scorpion nature.  Should it really be a surprise to the horse that the scorpion stung him?”

Wow.  He was absolutely brilliant when it came to understanding the human condition.  Even at its most bizarre limits.

I get angry sometimes at how people act stupidly and screw up the good guys for no valid reason.   I would have to guess that Reagan had some good coaching on the need for him to remove the solar panels Jimmy Carter installed on the roof of the White House some 4 years prior.  Perhaps Big Brown, nee the electric companies, General Electric, Exxon, you know the crowd, tutored the Gipper on why it would be in his best (do 327 PAC campaign contributions ring a bell?) interest to take the annoying solar panels down, you think?  Why else would you throw away something good that generates free electricity from the sun?  I mean Germany encouraged their citizens to build their own solar panels to generate megawatts of electricity for the common good.  They used their brains to prepare for the God-given solar energy of the future when times get hard and old inefficient power grids brown out and fail.  The government paid their citizens handsomely for all the net-metered excess electricity the people created.  Germans must think that we are a nation of idiots.  Yet Reagan is touted in many circles as one of our greatest presidents, do you love it?  Sheesh.

I just realized that I must write at least one more sequel to this ongoing solar massacre in these United States, and so I shall follow up with a Part III in 2 weeks.  Then I will strive to show how Big Brown bribes and uses the state legislatures of each state to thwart and kill net-metering of electricity produced by an American citizen in his own backyard.  Translation:  any electricity generated by a private citizen and put on the electric grid becomes the property of the electric company.  No compensation to the private citizen.

And so we are forced to sting ourselves into electric grid oblivion and inevitable brown outs and higher electric rates to keep us forever enslaved.  Thank you Big Brown.  For giving us a 50% efficient, outdated, electric grid due to your terminal greed.  Screw allowing American citizens to sell back excess electricity generated from their own private solar panels and windmills. 

We will take a look at the states that do not allow net-metering.  And those states who attempt to throw a bone when the private citizen generates and puts excess power back onto the grid. We will examine all the necessary hoops to jump through to even qualify.  And we will examine the more friendly states toward paying a decent price for excess electricity sent back to the grid by the American consumer trying to make a difference in America.  Stay tuned. 

TPJ MAG

It’s Hard to Imagine, But I Could Have Been A Republican!

We are deep into the political season. What political party best represents your value system? How about taking a pop quiz? See if you can identify the spokesperson for the Republican Party who spoke these words in support of his candidates: 

I am going to give you a few reasons for voting the Republican ticket. The Republican party depends upon reason, upon argument, upon education, upon intelligence and upon patriotism. The Republican party makes no appeal to ignorance and prejudice. It wishes to destroy both.

It is the party of humanity, the party that hates caste, that honors labor, that rewards toil, that believes in justice. It appeals to all that is elevated and noble in man, to the higher instincts, to the nobler aspirations. It has accomplished grand things...

The present question is, whom shall we trust? To whom shall we give the reins of power? What party will best preserve the rights of the people?

What party is most deserving of our confidence?

Well, who was it? Newt Gingrich? Sarah Palin? Rick Santorum? Michele Bachmann? One of the former Bush presidents? If none of the above, who then?

Of course the answer is none of the above. What’s more, no person affiliated with the Republican Party today would make such a speech. Contemporary Republicans do not emphasize personal freedoms or champion reason. The Party does, however, appeal to prejudice and ignorance, the opposite of what the spokesperson cited claimed. These words were spoken by a different kind of Republican on behalf of a very different kind of Republican Party. The words are those of Robert Green Ingersoll, speaking in Maine in 1876 on for the state Republican Senator than running for president, James G. Blaine.

The Republican Party is not one that Ingersoll, or Lincoln or any of the Party’s leading 19th century lights would recognize or respect. Today’s Republican Party is hostile to the values of the Republican Party of Ingersoll’s era. The head of the Center for Inquiry CFI), Ronald Lindsay, writes that Americans today have to decide basic questions about their country, owing to the agenda of the extreme Right-Wing theocratic rich people who control the 21st century. Republican Party. The questions are:

* Whose understanding of religious liberty will prevail? The one set forth in our Constitution—or the Orwellian redefinition of religious liberty currently being promoted by the Catholic Church?

* Whose view of the separation of church and state will triumph? The one held by the Founders—or the one pushed by many religious organizations that are continually seeking new ways to circumvent the First Amendment?

* Whose conception of human rights will win out? That of humanism, which respects individual autonomy and fundamental freedoms—or that championed by religious dogmatists who would suppress speech critical of religion and deny same-sex couples the right to express their love through marriage?

* Whose view of science will influence public policy? The one supported by those who value evidence-based reasoning—or the one accepted by those who disdain science in favor of pseudoscience with respect to climate change, alternative medicine and many other issues?

CFI is asking its supporters to do all they can to work for the advance of science, reason and secular values. CFI does not take endorse candidates. However, it can and does ask such questions as this: “Given some of the positions of the Republican Party on social issues, is it inconsistent to be both a Republican and a humanist?” Lindsay asks because he believes that being a humanist implies not only rejection of deities and spirits but also acceptance of certain fundamental principles, including “critical thinking, respect for individual autonomy, an ethics that is broadly consequentialist in nature” and other positions supported by evidence-based reasoning.

Ingersoll strongly promoted a strict separation of church and state. If this Republican “Great Agnostic” were making speeches for candidates today, you can be sure they would not be on behalf of any candidate whose policies would restrict a woman’s ability to make her own decisions about children and marriage or who would impose religious dogma on the entire populace. Ingersoll would not suffer theocrats in American bedrooms. I’m confident that he would lend his oratorical gifts to the Party that promoted women’s choices (e.g., access to contraception), to same-sex marriage, to cohabitation without marriage, to laws and regulations that protect and promote racial and gender equality, to freedom of expression and to universal suffrage - as he did in his own time on such matters. (See Lindsay’s editorial on humanism and politics in the current edition of Free Inquiry, August / September 2012, Volume 32, Number 5, the source of much of this material.)

Maybe someday the Republican Party will transform itself and once again become a force for decency and humanist values. I hope I live to see it, but to improve my chances, I’m not going to hold my breath. For now, I’m stuck with the Democrats and, by comparison with the non-Ingersollian Republican Party of yesteryear, that’s a dramatically clear choice for the better.

 

 

TPJ MAG

TPJ 238 (Mag. 36): What’s in a Name: Naming the Right the Right Way

Especially now that Mitt Romney has named the “Destroy Social Security, Medicare and every other Federal program the Right Doesn’t Like for One Reason of Another (but don’t mention, the military, the prisons, the “Drug War,” or domestic spying)” Congressman as his Vice-Presidential running mate, central to the Presidential election are the issues of the role of the Federal government in our society. Central also is what the role of the Federal government should be in the regulation of personal behavior, especially in the realm of sex and sexual relations.

Closely related to the latter is the matter of the place of organized religion in public life, and the matter of whether or not particular religious views on such matters should be embedded in the law, both civil and criminal. In the matter of Words Matter, Romney loves to quote the one time the word “God” appears in the Declaration of Independence, which was essentially the Declaration of War on Great Britain by the 13 Colonies.  What he never notes is that the word doesn’t appear at all in our governing document, the Constitution. That is because Romney is a big proponent of ending the separation of church and state. Central also are the economic issues of the concentration of wealth, what is taxation for, and given the unsustainable Federal budgetary deficit, the role of government in dealing with these problems. As well as others, such as whether being fed dog meat as a child in a country where such a practice is common equilibrates with transporting your dog in a dog carrier strapped to the top of your car.

In the political battles that occur over these issues, words matter. As it happens, many of the words presently used in the mainstream media and political culture are mis-leading and do not reflect reality. These terms are usually those that have been created/established by the Right Wing and their paramount wordsmiths such as Frank Luntz. (He is a very clever fellow [1]. Would that we had one like him on our side.) They are used not only by the Right but also by the media and often by what qualifies as the "Left" in the United States. This practice automatically gives the Right a leg up in any debate on any of the above issues as well as many others. This is a situation that has to change if any of the battles with the Right are going to be won. Consider the following.

Let's start with the term "conservative." The GOP candidates are all vying with each other to see who can out-"conservative" the other. But none of them are out to conserve anything. They all want to go backwards, and indeed spend a lot of time telling us that they want to go back to "America the way it used to be" (you know, no unions, no civil rights, no legal abortions, no Medicare or even Social Security, no environmental or financial markets regulation, and etc.). This is actually REACTIONARY politics and that's what our side should begin calling their side.

"Entitlements." When referring to the benefits provided by certain government programs for which people have paid for many years, like, for example, Social Security and Medicare, many politicians, of both major parties, use the term "entitlement." The (strong) implication is that someone is getting something for nothing, or is getting something only because of who they are (often "poor" or otherwise somehow "undeserving"). But no, they are getting it because they have paid for it. On the other hand, if a hedge fund manager gets $4 billion in a year (and one did in 2011), feeling that he is entitled to such a payout because he is such a smart and grand fellow, even though he "earned" it just by trading pieces of paper in an unregulated market, that's called "fair compensation." And so, the term "entitlements" should be replaced on our side by something like "earned benefits."

The term "Social Issues" refers to abortion rights, gay civil rights, end-of-life options, stem cell research, treatment and disease management, and in particular the interest of the Radical Religious Right to control personal sexual behavior through the use of the criminal and civil law (as mentioned above), thus imposing, through the use of the law, a particular religious ideology on the population as a whole. "Social issues" is a nice neutral term that emotionally defuses the whole thing for the Right, making it appear that there is some kind of balance to what they want to achieve. However, all of the issues that come under the rubric are based in the religious positions of a particular minority of the population. When Karl Rove got anti-gay marriage state constitutional amendments on the ballot in the 2004 Presidential election in order to get right-wing Christians to the polls to vote for GW Bush, he was not doing it because it was any old "social issue." It was a right-wing religious issue. Therefore, our side should stop calling these matters "social issues" and begin calling them what they really are, "RELIGIOUS ISSUES" or better yet "RIGHT-WING RELIGIOUS ISSUES."

While I'm on this subject, let's consider the term "evangelical." On the one hand, many right-wing Christians are evangelical in the way they promote their religious beliefs. But there are many evangelicals who are not right-wing. They just get lost on the shuffle. We should stop using the term "evangelical" and call the right-wing religious types, Christian and other (and there are Jews and Muslims who fit right in with them politically), what they really are: the RADICAL RELIGIOUS RIGHT or some variation thereof.

On the matter of abortion rights in particular, we should not use the term "pro-life." Given the Religious Right's policies towards people in general after they are born, they are actually not "pro-life" but only "anti-abortion," and then only in a very narrow sense. They are not broadly anti-abortion in terms of prevention because then they would be strong supporters of sex education and birth control. Thus indeed they are they are: ANTI-ABORTION RIGHTISTS, and that's what our side should call them.

Finally, consider the term "big government." From the Right, government is terrible if it does things like regulate the financial markets that when they were allowed to run wild put the country into the current economic mess from which it is recovering very slowly (and they are champing at the bit to destroy the mild re-regulation put in place to try to prevent the collapse from happening again). But "big government" is absolutely at the top of their list when it comes to such matters as criminalizing the religious belief that life begins at the time of viability and for some, the use of contraceptives. Presently, our side gives the Right a virtual monopoly on the use of the term, the way they want to use it. In the fight against them that is a monopoly that needs to be broken.

After the Fall of France at the beginning of the Second World War, when Great Britain stood alone, Winston Churchill spoke of mobilizing the English language and taking it into war. The other side has done this and done it very effectively. It is way past time for our side to begin doing the same thing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Politicus USA, October 30, 2011, "The Secret List of 14 Words Republicans are Never Supposed to Use," http://www.politicususa.com/14-secret-gop-words.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

An earlier version of this column was published on BuzzFlash@Truthout on 05.04.2012

 

 

 

 

 

TPJ MAG

To Inflame the Religious, A New 9/11 Desired

Religion is the glue that keeps the masses in line. But absent a recent major tragedy, religious fervor – particularly the rightwing flavor – tends to fade with time due to its foundation on sand. The “sand” is fear which generates intense hatred. The religious right is indeed moved by fear, not by love. While the Republican Party is Robin Hood in reverse, the base – the religious right – is Jesus Christ in reverse, i.e., antichristian or antichrist for short.

So, the right is anxious for another 9/11. Without religious zeal, the base evaporates. Reason and logic gradually regain prerogative over impulsive emotionalism. Of course, reason and logic are in direct conflict with Republican stratagem. The two virtues are vilified by the religious right as the cornerstones to “secular humanism” – manifestations of satanic influence.

Either the right artificially ignites a conflict with Iran, or some other major terrorist event is allowed to proceed. The first 9/11, of course, is suspicious. There are links with the Bushes, Cheney, Rove and PNAC. The business alliance between the Bushes and BinLadens for 30 years before 2001 raised no eyebrows on the right, and the left was somewhat speechless due to aftershock combined with its nauseating passive nature. Only a few progressives spoke truth to power in the months following. This columnist was one of the few.

The second 9/11, if allowed or covertly schemed, will be no coincidence either. Remember the Maine? The Spanish-American War required pretext. No WWII without Pearl Harbor; no Vietnam without Bay of Tonkin; no Iraq-Afghanistan without 9/11; no new war against Iran without an Iranian-blamed false flag. It follows the night the day. The military-industrial complex (MIC) has almost full control and aims to flex its muscle in the days ahead. Eisenhower was no dummy; MIC has America by the balls.

Neocons are eager to reclaim power via Romney. But a national tragedy must precede further military adventures beyond the regaining of power – given especially the state of the economy. A platform must be set for pretext through a false flag operation, or Israel will be issued a green light to initiate hostilities, as Romney’s adviser so clearly implied on the campaign’s recent visit.

Hate for Obama not only stems from his color but his notable accomplishments. The right’s world view cannot visualize an intelligent black man, much less one that’s elected President and leader of the Free World. Barack Obama is a major contradiction to everything they were taught to believe since infancy, and therefore in their view, he must be eliminated.

To win, Republicans must stoke the fires of fear. Fear, not love, is what motivates the religious right. A neocon 501(c)(4) non-profit called “Secure America Now” is distributing a new ad with the false claim the Obama administration hasn't been Cheney enough in the hunt for terrorists.

What they’re actually hoping for is another 9/11 to rekindle the hate, fear, ignorance and irrational emotion.

This election is not only a contest between two men, but between two starkly opposing worldviews. The right would drag us into another major conflict, more tax cuts for the wealthy, wider income disparity, a permanently depressed economy, and religious zealotry. “Dominionism” they call it; theocracy (old-school).

But the only way this can be accomplished is for another 9/11 to discharge. “Get ‘em all back in church so they can talk trash about another targeted minority. That way we can recruit their kids to join and fight our wars.” Undoubtedly, ignorance runs deep in the religious right. They’re but pawns of unseen elite spinmeisters who’ve craftily reversed Jesus’ teachings and made them to seem righteous to the dumbed-down.

Unfortunately, millions of Americans can’t see beyond skin color. More unfortunate is the mesmerizing power of religion, no matter how cultic, destructive, and counter to the authentic teachings of Christ.

If Romney and the right win, heaven help us. Because they’ll turn the world into hell.

 

 

TPJ MAG

LONDON 2012: Olympic Gold and Economic Gloom

The last Letter from the UK was written more than two weeks ago as the Olympic Games opened in London. Yesterday the games closed with a spectacular party to match the opening ceremony. For sixteen days millions in Britain and, so we are told, billions worldwide have marveled at a brilliantly choreographed spectacle that put to shame the best efforts of Busby Berkeley and Cecil B. De Mille. The mainstream media, from The Guardian and New Statesman to the Sun, the BBC and every other commercial TV channel, were unanimous in their unstinting acclamation of “the best Games ever”. As Union flags were waved in their millions, the words of Britain’s monarchist anthem were invoked by IOC president Jacques Rogge, to conclude that the games had been “happy and glorious”.

Back in 2005 it was estimated that the 2012 London Olympics would cost £2bn. The actual cost has turned out to be £9bn. Although Britain is still stuck deep in depression, facing years of ever harsher austerity, according to a Guardian/ICM poll (11.08.) 55% of Britons consider that “the games are cheering up the country in hard times, and are well worth the money”. This is against 35% who regard them as a “costly distraction from serious economic problems”. It seems that the young are most enthusiastic, with 60% saying that the games are worth the money. Opinion in Scotland is less impressed, with only 42% holding this view while another 42% consider the games a costly distraction. A spokesperson for the Counter Olympics Network (Guardian, Letters 13.08) was quite encouraged by the dissent of more than a third of Britons from the majority view. Looked at from the standpoint of London during the games, this sounds a bit like whistling in the wind. Day after day the hundreds of thousands packing the stadiums, the teeming crowds at the Olympic park and the thousands lining the streets and routes of the numerous events could hardly be ignored - except by those who chose to stay at home and turn off their radios and television sets. The Counter Olympics Network critic is certainly right in remarking that “virtually the whole of the media and most politicians have lost all sense of proportion in a self-reinforcing orgy of Olympics hysteria”. But what did he expect? That’s what happens during the Olympic Games. To take only the last 20 years, from Barcelona in 1992 to London 2012, in each case the games have been a corporate bonanza in which all sense of proportion has been lost.  It might have been hoped, and possibly expected, that this time it would be different due to the dire economic climate in which the 2012 Games are being staged. But in Britain there are plenty of precedents for successful austerity jamborees, going right back to the 1930s and 1940s. This one has upstaged them all.

The 2012 games are no different from the others in having showcased corporate sponsorship. Everyone knows that the winning athletes, despite their formally amateur status, are set to make millions from promoting corporate brands, while most of the ‘losers’ will sink into oblivion. In an age of hyper-celebrity, the big winners will either reinforce their status as super-celebrities with multi-million earnings (Usain Bolt, whose net worth is about $30 million, could make $100 million by the time of the Brazil Olympics in 2016. He has made $9 million from Puma alone simply by wearing their brand of shoes), or enter the ranks of super-celebrities. Mo Farah, the 5.000 and 10.000 meter gold medalist, could make more than £2 million in sponsorship and advertising, while heptathlon gold winner Jessica Ennis, who has deals with Adidas, Omega, British Airways, Aviva and BP, stands to make £3.5 million. The biggest winners of course are the corporations whose brands the athletes’ endorse. Needless to say, most of the young people who rise to such dizzying heights of sports and athletic prowess are not at the outset motivated by the attractions of celebrity and money. They submit to rigorous regimes of training and self-discipline to achieve their goals. But, like professional footballers, they enter a world that is dominated by corporate power and finance and it is almost impossible to escape its clutches and its allures. Coming, as many in Britain and the United States do, from poorer ethnic minority backgrounds, the attractions are all but irresistible.( All but; one exception comes to mind because he has just died at the age of 60. The Cuban heavyweight boxing legend, Teofilo Stevenson won three successive gold medals at the Olympic Games in Munich, 1972, Montreal, 1976 and Moscow, 1980. The US promoter Don King offered him $5 million to challenge world heavyweight champion Muhammad Ali. He refused with the memorable comment “What is $5 million compared with the love of eight million Cubans?” The Guardian’s boxing correspondent commented recently: “Had he gone, he might well have won.”)

Does the prominent corporate profile and sponsorship mean that there is nothing to be said in support of the Olympic Games, and that the millions who have been captivated by the extraordinary performances of the athletes over the past two weeks are simply dupes of corporate capitalism? That doesn’t make much sense. No-one seriously thinks that McDonalds’ Cadbury’s, Coca Cola and the other prominently displayed sponsors are committed to promoting healthy living and athletic prowess. The G4S fiasco necessitating the use of the armed forces to fill the security breach and the placing of ground to air missiles on local people’s rooftops, together with numerous other examples of organizational bungling, obduracy and ineptitude, understandably caused much anger and resentment. But in spite of all this it has been possible to enjoy and applaud the magnificent achievements of the competitors. It is true that seats in the Olympic venues were priced beyond the reach of most people, but the millions who got nowhere near the action sat glued to giant screens in the open air or TV screens in their homes. And for so much of the time the action was breathtaking.

There was swimming and diving of unimaginable skill. Jessica Ennis’s heptathlon triumph was a joy to behold as was that of double gold cycling champion Laura Trott at the Veladrome. The tremendous performance by the Jamaican men’s relay team, led by the phenomenal Usain Bolt (who had already won gold in the 100m and 200m), clinched a third gold medal for Jamaica by beating the US in the 4x100m in a world record time of 36.85sec. It was a memorable event. Also wonderful to watch were the triumphs of British long distance runner Mo Farah, who won gold medals in the 5.000m and 10.000m. This modest Londoner came to Britain as a refugee from Somalia at the age of eight. These are simply some of the most prominent of the countless competitors who have performed so admirably in London over the past two weeks. Generally the games have gone smoothly and have provided a great experience for the hundreds of thousands of spectators. Now they are over and some evaluation is called for.

Some critics on the left have chosen to ignore the games, except for odd references to the excessive cost and their value to the political elite as a “bread and circuses” (minus the bread) distraction from the reality of increasingly hard times in austerity Britain. There is something in this but it is not good enough. The widespread public engagement with the games and the carnival atmosphere cannot be explained satisfactorily simply as media manipulation. The enthusiasm was genuine and cannot be wished away. How long the mood will last is another question. The successful outcome, particularly Britain’s surprising third place behind the USA and China in the gold medal awards, will certainly be exploited by the government and its media supporters to claim credit for the “feel good” factor. There is already evidence of what the coalition wants to get out of this. They hope that the games may encourage a re-awakening of British “national pride”, by which they mean opposition to Scottish national independence. This card is already being played by all three main parties and will be played harder as the referendum draws nearer. They also want to use thegames as a counter-point to the 2011 riots by claiming that the games represent everything best about Britain – particularly its multi-ethnicity, pride in endeavor and achievement, etc. as opposed to what is presented as the nihilism, ignorance and aimlessness of an unrepresentative section of youth whose behavior requires no explanation other than as mindless criminality. These are two examples of the way in which the “Olympic legacy” is likely to be exploited. In these and other respects the government

will try to distract attention from the miserable state of the economy. Due to the pig-headed pursuit of extreme austerity in the face of depression and mass unemployment, Osborne has succeeded in producing the double-dip recession many predicted. Even Mervyn King is now forecasting that there will be zero growth for the rest of 2012. But, there are grounds for optimism – at least concerning the coalition government’s chances of survival. Once the bunting has been cleared away and the hangover wears off, the real world will come back into perspective.

There are good grounds for thinking that the coalition will not survive until 2015. The Lib Dems have been subjected to extreme humiliation at the hands of their Tory partners. Last year they failed to get their referendum on reform of the electoral system and now they have failed again to get their bill on reform of the House of Lords. These were two of their showpiece policies on entering the coalition in 2010. In both cases their failure was down to sabotage by their Tory coalition partners who basically hold them in deep disdain. But Clegg seems to have had enough. He has announced publicly that the Lib Dems will not support the Tories in their bill to redraw Britain’s electoral boundaries to their own advantage. They appear only now to have woken up to the fact that, if passed, they are likely to be virtually wiped out in the next election – a fate quite likely anyway but, if the Tories get their bill, it would be even more likely. If the Lib Dems jump ship it would leave a minority Tory government limping along until parliament delivers the coup de grace.

Post Script 14. 08. 2012

Lest We Forget.

On August 14. large hoardings went up in London with the flowing message:

There would be no GOOSE BUMPS, GASPS, Records Smashed, Strangers Hugged, or a whole world brought together without the world wide Olympic Partners.

(There follows a long list of corporate sponsors including:)

Coca Cola, Dow, Omega, Panasonic, Visa, Adidas, BMW, BP, British Airways, BT, EDF, Lloyds TSB, Cadbury and McDonalds

 

We are never allowed for a moment to forget that without corporate sponsorship the most simple and spontaneous of human interactions could not take place. Of the £9bn it cost to stage the London Olympics, the sponsors paid only 6%. The rest came out of public funds.

 

 

TPJ MAG