Corruption Indictment For Sen. Stevens

Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) has been charged with seven counts of corruption for failing to report more than $250,000 in gifts and services. What do you think?

Douglas Wakeford,
Ticket Taker
“Geez, 250,000 Alaskan dollars? How much is that in regular dollars?”

Tony Legas,
Pollster
“I’ll bet that little children all over Alaska are heartbroken that their hero, Ted Stevens, would do such a thing.”

Lisa Julius,
Data Entry Supervisor
“I’m sure a thorough investigation will reveal this is nothing more than a series of personal gifts given in exchange for political influence.”

Today’s photo of the day, which comes from SandraRose (and AllHipHop.com), shows a recent restaurant bill paid by Andre 3000. According to reports, Three Stacks got all types of special treatment from the restaurant, but didn’t leave any money for a tip. Even more curious is his decision to write “Thanks!” at the top of the bill. Personally, I don’t know (or care) if the story is true. Rather, I’m more fascinated by the increasing levels of surveillance that are enable through digital technologies.

Tangential question: How much should he have left? Would it be different if he weren’t a celebrity?

Today’s video of the day shows Ludacris’ new Obama song, which has many people in a conservative uproar. This morning, Obama has officially denounced the song…Thoughts?

Business Sense
Mumia Abu-Jamal
[col. writ. 7/20/08] (c) ‘08

If there is an overarching ideology at work in America today, it’s the ubiquity of the market.

On TV, stars shred every last fig-leaf of privacy to sell alleged ‘reality.’

Everyday folks join the shows in a realm of entertainment that might best be called “Indignity for Dollars.”

Politicians and press people are virtually for hire to the biggest corporate bidder.

Thus politics and media news outlets become multi-billion dollar industries.  Moreover, they become industries that feed on each other, as politicians buy millions of dollars worth of commercials, and of course, TV and cable outlets make big bucks by selling ads.

Meanwhile, the everyday economy — of food, fuel, housing and education — goes from bad to worse.

To the average network anchor who pulls in millions per year in fees, this is decidedly under the radar.

His (or her) job is to protect the status quo.

From this convergence we get the present political structure, where accepted political debate is that which doesn’t ruffle the feathers of Wall Street or the corporate elite.

When’s the last time you’ve seen or read (in the corporate media) about the sub-prime lending debacle as a crime — as truly the most premeditated of crimes designed to steal the wealth of millions? Not lately, I’d bet.

It’s a straight news story, no ‘B’ roll (or background video).

It’s usually an anchor reading a script, dry as day-old bread.

Because it happens primarily to people who are Black and Latino, it’s not a news leader nor headliner, even though it represents the biggest loss of Black wealth in history.

According to the group United for a Fair Economy, such people lost between $164 and $213 billion dollars.

If it weren’t so tragic, it would remind one of the silly character popularized by comedian Mike Myers in his Austin Powers movies — the nefarious Dr. Evil. (y’know -’$213 billion dollars!’)

But this is no joke.

It is the root of the current foreclosure crisis, which in turn has sent the Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) and Freddie Mac (Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation),the federally insured mortgage assistance agencies to the brink of bankruptcy.

How does the government respond to this crisis?

It has thrown a life preserver to the agencies (and through them the banks and traders who hustled the sub-primes), and turned its back on the people who got swindled.

Typical.

What we are seeing is the perverse logic of the market, or in a tighter phrase, ‘business sense.’

Anything goes to get money, and if you fail, don’t worry, for the fake free traders in government will bail you out, but only if you’re big enough.

–(c) ‘08 maj

Job Creation and War
Matthew Birkhold

People who oppose the war in Iraq normally say the war is caused by the Bush administration’s desire for oil, power, and oil money. While plausible, I believe these are only partial explanations.  If we want to completely understand the reasons for war, we have to understand something called the military industrial complex.  If we understand this, we’ll see that one reason we’re at war is because it provides jobs.

According to former CIA consultant Chalmers Johnson, the economic and political collapse of the US is near because of something he calls “military Keynesianism.”  According to Johnson, military Keynesianism creates a situation where “the domestic economy requires sustained military ambition in order to avoid recession or collapse.”  In other words, if we are to enjoy a fully functioning economy, we must be at war.

In the midst of the depression preceding WW II, British economist John Keynes put forth a series of economic theories widely referred to as Keynesian economics. According to Keynes, in order to prevent the social unrest and social movements that typically arise from hard times, governments should go into debt to create jobs for citizens. To accomplish this Keynes suggested that governments borrow money from other governments to fund job-creating projects. These projects may involve tearing down public housing and rebuilding it, or building things like bridges and roads. The crux of Keynes argument is that putting people to work incurs spending and creates jobs. When this happens, economies recover, contractions are resolved, and the government can repay its debts.

According to Johnson however, US military Keynesianism has not involved the repayment of debts by the federal government. Instead, the federal government has incurred tremendous debt financing economic growth through military production, which according to Johnson, decreases the value of the dollar and fuels the potential for economic collapse.

The term military industrial complex was first used in the US during president Eisenhower’s farewell address. As the cold war began, Eisenhower told US citizens that, “Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment.  We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.”

What Eisenhower called “the permanent defense industry,” the three and half million men and women employed by it, and the jobs and economic growth created as a consequence of defense industry employment make up the US military industrial complex.

Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Reagan used the cold war to justify massive defense spending and global construction of US military bases.  According to Johnson, if this were the only reason, when the cold war was over, defense spending and base construction would have stopped.

Because neither happened, Johnson assumed they served a post-cold war use. As it turns out, the economic growth created by the defense industry became a crucial part of the national economy and cutting it would have been costly. The military industrial complex has created jobs in the US and these jobs have fueled economic growth.  In the US, if we are not at war, unemployment will increase dramatically.

Because war provides income for families and individuals alike, we’ll be at war until that’s no longer the case.

Matt Birkhold is a Brooklyn based writer and educator.  He can be reached at birkhold (at) gmail (dot) com.