www.nationalview.org and Note From a Madman brought to you by
for your Information Technology needs
owned and operated by Noah "The Madman" Greenberg
This Is What Democracy Looks Like
www.NationalView.org's Note From a Madman
August 25, 2008
Yeah, I know that the Democratic National Convention is going on as you receive tonight's Note From a Madman, but I wrote it already. So here it is. -NG
A Real AP Headline
Bernanke: Financial crisis taking toll on economy
It never ceases to amaze me how these people are charged with running the most
important economy in the World. How is it that just now the head of the Federal
Reserve Bank realizes that we are having a crisis in our economy? Look at
Bernanke's statement below, as reported by the Associated Press:
"Although we have seen some improved functioning in some markets, the financial
storm that reached gale force" around this time last year "has not yet subsided,
and its effects on the broader economy are becoming apparent in the form of
softening economic activity and rising unemployment,"
-Bernanke
So much for George W. Bush's and John McCain's belief that the economy is
"fundamentally sound."
Each and every one of us in the US middle class knows all too well what Bernanke
is speaking of when he speaks of the hard times ahead. However, what the
elitists in the Bush administration, and the McCain camp a well, don't realize
is that we've (us middle-classers) been living this way for the better part of
seven-plus years. There is no way out of it for us because there is no one
making the decisions based on our needs, Bernanke, and his predecessor Alan
Greenspan, included.
You see, those in charge of our economy don't look at that economy something
which needs to be controlled by all members of our economic society. It is their
belief that only the very few need to worry themselves with the day-to-day
operation of that which affects us all. Our dollar is merely another economic
tool for them while, for us, it's the hard currency which we pay our bills;
purchase our groceries; and pony up medical insurance with.
I forget the move I was watching when I heard this line:
MAN 1: Why would you want to go into politics? You're already a
multi-millionaire.
MAN 2: Politics - Now that's REAL Money.
Our "leaders" don't get it that it's the middle class who truly drive the
economy. Putting money into our hands is the only true way to keep the wheels
going at a pace which can sustain everybody.
The thinking of the Party of Diminished Responsibility is that by making sure
those at the top not only stay there, but flourish we will all benefit. That
Trickle Down theory of Economics doesn't work and it was proven so time and time
again.
Leaders such as Greenspan and now Bernanke, along with economic advisors like
Dr. N. Gregory Minkow who once said, "Outsourcing.... is a good thing," suffer
from a condition I call "Market Blindness". They see only what the various
markets do; what the Big Stocks accomplish; and the wealth of the very few and
estimate our economy on those factors. They don't see those of us near or at the
bottom just trying to get through another day.
And it's worse: These guys and gals in the Market Blindness Bubble can't even
fathom that we regular people are living this hand-to-mouth life. They talk
about savings accounts as if every American has one; they talk about tax breaks
as if each and every one of us pays huge sums every April 15; they talk about
disposable income as if we have even a small fraction of what they have.
We don't.
So when Ben Bernanke says things like he said above, we all stand there
scratching our heads and ask, "What took you so long?"
-Noah Greenberg
RE-STARTING THE COLD WAR
by Victoria A. Brownworth
copyright c 2008 Journal-Register Newspapers, Inc.
This week, the political battle for the presidency moves into high gear as
the Democratic National Convention ends and the Republican National Convention
begins.
Meanwhile, another battle is on the horizon–one most Americans over the age of
40 thought was over: a re-vamping of the Cold War with Russia.
Most of the war talk by President Bush and the men who would replace him–Sen.
John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama–has centered on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and
Pakistan. Bush remains eager for war with Iran, even as, on August 22, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice announced a time line for troop withdrawal from Iraq.
McCain also has made warmongering statements about Iran, while Obama has made
his own warmongering comments about Afghanistan and Pakistan.
But events of the past few weeks have brought the specter of America’s former
super power adversary back like Marley’s ghost and brought all three men–Bush,
McCain and Obama–into agreement: Russia must be stopped.
Russia is no longer the super power it was in the days when Moscow was the pivot
of the Soviet Union, which ruled with an iron fist throughout the Communist
world.
Today there are few Communist nations left–China, Vietnam and Cuba being the
last viable strongholds; democracy felled the Soviet Union with Boris Yeltsin’s
bold coup in 1991 which formally broke up the 15 republics that were the Soviet
Union, with Russia at its head. The so-called “Glasnost years” of Mikail
Gorbachev, from 1985 through 1991, began the move toward democracy in the Soviet
Union and also heralded the fall of the Berlin Wall. But it was Yeltsin who
formally disbanded the Soviet Union, for good or ill.
The break up of the Soviet Union has been complicated, without question.
Democracy has not been won easily or readily by former member states. Vestiges
of the old regime certainly obtain, and former Russian president Vladimir Putin,
who many consider the puppet master behind current president Dmitry Medvedev,
ruled Russia with less than an openly democratic hand.
While inside Russia citizens had mixed views of Putin–many for, some against--in
the West, Putin was perceived as having begun to turn back the clock on
post-Soviet democracy and the former KGB operative did little to dispel that
notion.
On August 8, Russia invaded Georgia, bringing international condemnation,
particularly from the U.S.
Georgia was long an independent region and was briefly democratic prior to being
subsumed by the U.S.S.R. in 1921. But since 1991 and the breakup of the Soviet
Union, Georgia has become one of the most independent of the former Soviet bloc
republics. Georgia’s strategic placement, however, has made Russia determined to
hold onto the republic whatever way it can: Georgia sits on the southern border
of Russia, but is bordered also by Turkey and Armenia. It is also the republic
through which oil travels and thus is vital to Russian exportation.
Georgia belongs to the United Nations and the World Trade Organization and
recently moved to join NATO. Georgia also eventually hopes to join the European
Union.
The skirmishes of recent years under Putin–in 2007, the former president
virtually shut down supplies of oil and natural gas to Georgia–reached an
escalation point on August 7, after fighting broke out in a region/state within
Georgia, South Ossetia, which Russia would like to control and which has tried
to secede from Georgia and become independent–with Russia’s support. South
Ossetia has been the site of numerous conflicts since Georgia declared
independence in 1991. The current conflict began August 7, when Georgia sent
troops into South Ossetia to attack pro-Moscow separatists. Russia responded by
invading Georgia on August 8. This led to heavy fighting with Georgian forces
that spread to another breakaway territory, Abkhazia.
The fighting was so intense that Georgian troops withdrew and Russian forces
took control of several areas beyond South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Thus far,
despite a brokered peace agreement, Russia has refused to withdraw entirely from
Georgia. Human Rights Watch says more than 150,000 people have been displaced
and thousands have been killed.
As esoterically internecine as this conflict may sound, it is far from it.
Anyone who remembers the first round of battle with Afghanistan in the
1980s–which led to the Taliban takeover--knows that the simmering conflicts
between Russia and the U.S. did not end with the break up of the Soviet Union.
Detente is not a word in either Putin’s or Bush’s lexicons.
The battle lines have been drawn with allies: the U.S. is Georgia’s ally and
American tanks have helped Georgia in the fight with Russia. Meanwhile, Medvedev
has declared–as has Putin, who is anything but a silent partner in the current
Russian presidency–that the U.S. has imperialist designs on Georgia.
Bush, McCain and Obama have all asserted that the U.S. will take any measures
necessary to secure Georgia from Russia, which certainly implies military action
if not actually outlining a strategy. Conversely, Russia is determined to help
the secession in South Ossetia with a mind to securing not just that region, but
the whole of Georgia as well.
Reports vary widely, but many people have been killed on both sides and
thousands have been displaced in the fighting. Each side accuses the other of
ethnic cleansing and of premeditation. (It does seem difficult to imagine Russia
was able to invade Georgia with over 1,500 tanks and 20,000 troops overnight.)
Russia launched air attacks on Georgia from South Ossetia and Georgian President
Mikheil Saakashvili called for help from the U.S.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy brokered a peace plan with Medvedev on August
12, which demanded immediate withdrawal of Russian military from Georgia and
South Ossetia and that Georgian military withdraw from South Ossetia while the
United Nations worked on a plan vis a vis South Ossetia’s secession.
On August 14, Secretary Rice met with Saakashvili, but did not meet with
Medvedev, further antagonizing the Russians. On the same day, President Bush
insisted on Russia withdrawing and also alerted both the Air Force and the Navy
to prepare for humanitarian relief to Georgia.
Close to midnight on August 22, the Russian Defense Minister asserted that
Russian military had withdrawn to pre-fighting boundaries, but CNN reporters
assert that there is still a Russian presence within Georgia, particularly near
the capital of Tblisi. What’s more, Russia has decided to leave 2,500
“peacekeeping” troops in Georgia, a move decried by both Bush and Sarkozy and
which is in contravention of the peace agreement the Russians signed.
There seem to be no winners in this battle seemingly left over from the Cold
War. But here are the facts: the U.S. has both U.S. troops and military
accouterments in Georgia. (Those *are* U.S. tanks being captured by the Russians
on CNN video footage.) But what are we doing there?
Bush called Georgia a “beacon of liberty” in the Caucasus. But what does that
mean if the U.S. has refused or at the very least, dragged its politically
forceful feet in helping Georgia gain acceptance into NATO? Why does Russia want
so badly to keep Georgia out of NATO? And why are the current presidential
nominees engaging in this unpredictable battle as if they know what they are
talking about when both clearly do not and neither is suggesting anything but
force?
Like most Americans of my generation, I grew up with the uneasy detente between
the Soviet Union and the U.S. This was back in the days before China had opened
to the West or India was anything but the world’s most populous democracy.
But the super power sweepstakes have changed dramatically since the Cuban
Missile crisis, and Russia flexing its now-depleted muscle shouldn’t mean very
much.
Except it does. Russia is still a very high-stakes player on the international
stage and the West badly miscalculates if it perceives Russia to be too small in
the game. Russia has the majority of undeclared nuclear weaponry on the planet
and Russian black market sales of plutonium and other nuclear weapons has been
discussed soto voce–but worriedly–for years now as Russia fails to account for
many of its nuclear weapons.
In addition, Russia still commands not merely respect from a large portion of
the non-Western and Islamic world, but also has diplomatic muscle to flex with
regard to countries like Iran and China.
Enter Poland.
As if the war of words over Georgia were not concerning enough, on August 15, at
the height of the Russian/Georgian conflict, the U.S. decided to unveil its
plans to have Poland “host” a bevy of interceptor missiles.
Poland agreed to host elements of a U.S. global anti-missile system after
Washington agreed to boost Poland's own air defenses. The Bush Administration
insists the interceptors and a radar system in the Czech Republic will form part
of a global shield protecting the U. S. and its allies from long-range missiles
that could in the future be fired by Iran or groups such as al-Qaeda.
Washington has agreed to move a battery of Patriot missiles from Germany to
Poland as part of the deal, which would also require about 100 military
personnel to operate the system. The Patriot missiles would provide protection
against short-range ballistic missiles such as the SS-21 system used by Russia
in Georgia, according to the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, a U.S. group
that lobbies in favor of missile defense.
Medvedev, already angered by the U.S. involvement with Georgia, was outraged by
the move–long-planned, but temporarily on hold–and argued that the
missile-shield accord that had been brokered between Poland and the U.S. posed
an obvious and imminent threat to Russia, despite U.S. assurances to the
contrary.
Moscow threatened retaliatory action against the two former Eastern-bloc
nations, both of which have been strongly supportive of Georgia.
Meanwhile, Moscow was not to be outdone and in a quid pro quo, has made a
similar agreement with Syria, which announced August 21 it will host missiles
for Russia. This announcement followed exactly two days after Moscow claimed
Israel was arming fighters in Georgia.
Complicating matters further, Moscow has moved Russian naval fleets into the
Black Sea off Georgia.
What’s next?
Diplomacy, diplomacy, diplomacy should be the only words coming forth from
Washington. The cowboy tactics of the Bush Administration have met their match
in Putin/Medvedev.
What’s necessary now is for McCain and Obama to resist the temptation to run
like pack animals with the Bush Administration rhetoric and step away from that
dying presidency and assert themselves in a way Bush never has: diplomatically.
The choice of Sen. Joe Biden for Democratic vice-presidential nominee should
have signaled a move by the Obama campaign to calm rhetoric, not inflame it. And
if McCain wants to distinguish himself from the Bush record, there is no more
obvious way than to act diplomatically rather than pledge more military
intervention.
Both Obama and McCain have already stepped badly into the minefield of this
apparent revisiting of the Cold War. Both would do well to not only re-read the
history of that era in which detente was what prevented a nuclear holocaust.
They would also do well to revisit the 2004 election which became a referendum
on Vietnam, rather than current politics.
Washington has failed American citizens for eight long years under Bush. Whether
Russians believe Moscow under Putin and now Medvedev has failed them or not
depends on who you ask. But what is certain is that neither the U.S. nor Russia,
both in the midst of alarming economic crises, can afford to become embroiled in
a dangerous war of words that could escalate readily to real war with Georgia as
proxy, given the bellicose nature of both countries’ leaders.
McCain and Obama once again have the opportunity to prove their leadership
abilities by attempting to broker detente. Bush won’t do it. The question is,
are McCain and Obama any different, or just the same tired, reactionary rhetoric
dressed in different suits and the rest of us their unwilling victims?
Send your comments to: NationalView@aol.com
-Noah Greenberg