Just imagine for a minute that you wake up one morning to learn that someone has stolen the arm off of the Statue of Liberty. And with it, her torch. No more will she "lift my lamp beside the golden door." Instead, her great lamp is already shredded; it's on a slow boat to China as we speak.

To be followed, soon after, by the Verrazano Bridge.

Farfetched? Maybe today. Maybe not tomorrow.

Earlier in the week, I toured a scrap metal business in the Northeast Kingdom.

In a startling way, the price of scrap metal has risen so high that people are selling everything they can get their hands on. Suddenly, that old washer and dryer in the side yard, the ones with the vines growing through them, are valuable. So are those old tire rims.

There is a time in the life of every writer when you find yourself fearing that you have become a robo call phone machine--repeating the same message over and over with diminishing results.

That's how I felt after eight months of silence after labeling the credit crisis a "subcrime" scandal, lashing out at the fraudulent activity at its core and calling for the investigation and prosecution of wrong doers. Almost no media outlets accepted this way of framing the problem, although, as usual, the British press was ahead of its American cousins in putting the blame on the bankers, not the borrowers.

Think No Child Left Behind is working? It is if your definition on "No Child" equates to 70% of our children.

War has nothing on our failing education system when it comes to extinguishing the futures of our young.

Last month's report by America's Promise Alliance concluded that nationwide, nearly 1.2 million students drop out of school every year and that about seven out of ten of students graduate on time. While these alarming statistics may only seem a problem for failing schools and the children they affect, the loss of potential along with the economic burden on society as a whole should be of immense concern for all of us.

— from the Niagara Falls Reporter

"You know, if there was a magic wand to wave, I'd be waving it."
-- President George W. Bush, April 30, 2008.

DETROIT -- The sorcerer-in-chief is a failure for the ages. George W. Bush is now the most unpopular president in modern American history, an ignominious distinction he earned and richly merits. His magic touch wounds and scars the nation and world, and the suffering he wrought will last for decades.

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll shows 71 percent of the American people disapprove of Bush's handling of his job. Richard Nixon's disapproval rating in August 1974, just before he was forced to resign, stood at 66 percent.

— from Axis of Logic

In a broadcast interview with Daniel Mermet on French radio*, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean Ziegler, stated that the current world food crisis is not due to nature, but to man.

Introduction to the interview from the web site of 'Là-bas si j'y suis'*:

"A return with Jean Ziegler to the causes for food riots that are appearing all over the world. Far from being a scourge like a drought or an invasion of locusts, there are people who are responsible for the famines that have struck thousands of men, women and children – the speculators and their logic of maximizing profit."

— from Axis of Logic

The world is standing on its head. Logic and reason are gone. Humpty Dumpty had a big fall and is sliding downhill faster than has ever been seen in the times of so-called civilized life on earth.

Humane priorities are ignored by the dirt-covered oligarchs who decide over the future of our all but condemned planet. The best people with a sound intellect and an intact sense of compassion can do nothing in this up-side down world but write and speak about what ought to be done to save the people, to save the planet. Nothing makes sense any more. Biotechnical corporations are poisoning the planet, the arms industry is supplying the means for the extermination of millions of harmless people every year. Money is directed to warfare and other lethal pursuits and the huge fortunes amassed by the oligarchs is sterile money that doesn't contribute in any way to the solution of the global problems that are destroying the planet.

Well, he’s decidered again, and now he claims that he’s “an ethanol person.” And, simplistically, “It makes sense for America to be growing energy.” Of course it does, but of course his idea of common sense is, generally, everyone else’s idea of a utter lunacy. While President Bush is certainly not uniquely to blame for this, on his watch, years have been lost – years in which a different sort of leader (well, a Leader.) – could have transformed the infrastructure of the United States to non-carbon energy sources. There’s a basketful of different technologies to apply, but none of the technology means a thing if it’s just in a book. While leadership could have made the United States energy independent during the last eight years, instead, the one-time oil business loser became its Midas. And you, the taxpayer; you, the driver; have been defrauded. Not only is the tank half empty – so are the grocery bags in the trunk!

In case you didn't know, the loss of 20,000 American jobs in April is actually good news. You see, economists had predicted 73,000 jobs would be lost last month, so thank God we dodged that bullet, right?!

In fact, the unemployment rate fell to 5.0% from 5.1% in March. Therefore, the unemployment rate is going down!! Surely, a .1% drop in the unemployment rate means America's determined locomotive is chugging toward the dawn of a new economic renaissance...right?

While We Debate Reverend Wright, The Economy Goes To Hell

New York, May Day: Thomas Jefferson used a phrase in a letter that is still ringing all these years later. Here's his thought, a candidate for "THE WORD" segment on the Colbert Report:

"I had for a long time ceased to read the newspapers or pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant, but this momentous question like A FIREBELL IN THE NIGHT [caps mine], awakened and filled me with terror."

So many of us were content like that in the years leading up to the slow motion crash that rocked our economy in August 2007, and many still remain comatose like that today.

In the Roaring Twenties my grandfather, Diamond Ben, was a flashy guy. He had a taste for Cadillacs. He owned a tux and a diamond stickpin. He had a big house by the beach, and two garages on Broadway. He hung out with celebrities.

But my grandfather lost the house and the two garages and the flashy life in the early Thirties, and my mother's family was forced to move into a tenement apartment in the Bronx.

Diamond Ben turned out to be a standup guy. First he tried to sell vacuum cleaners door-to-door, but the doors were mostly slammed in his face. Who could afford a new appliance?

He ended up in the basement of a bakery. Above, in the retail shop, when crumbs of bread and cake fell onto the floor, they were swept down into a hole. The hole had a funnel attached to it. My grandfather stood under it, catching and bagging the crumbs for resale. He was the crumbcatcher.

I take Obama to task on a lot of issues, but it wouldn't be fair if I didn't acknowledge that he does take some good positions in this campaign. An example is illustrated in yesterday's column by the New York Times' Paul Krugman, which states:

The impression that Mr. McCain’s tax talk is all about pandering is reinforced by his proposal for a summer gas tax holiday — a measure that would, in fact, do little to help consumers, although it would boost oil industry profits.

"This money is going to help Americans offset the high prices we're seeing at the gas pump, at the grocery store, and will also give our economy a boost to help us pull out of this economic slowdown.” President George W. Bush, Friday, April 25, 2008 announcing that the “stimulus package” tax rebate checks would begin to be distributed this week.

For once, I think he is being totally honest. This money is going – quite specifically – to your gasoline bill and your grocery bill. And the only reason is that those very commodity markets are being shamefully manipulated. This is a swindle, plain and simple, but one with an unprecedented dynamic: Imagine if a bank robber [Bush] not only robbed the bank, but did so with the permission of the Bank’s president, who went so far as to borrow the money [Pelosi] for the thief to steal! That’s what’s happening here! Here, then, the result…

Last night MSNBC (including Keith Olbermann) was all over Jeremiah Wright for going on a book tour and — gasp! — daring to criticize Barack Obama. Reading today's hate-fueled rant on the web site, you'd think he had done something wrong. Why? Why shouldn't the man who was publicly tossed overboard by his former parishioner return the favor?

Reading Kevin Alexander Gray's assessment of the speech in which the Democratic candidate for president distanced himself from the man who presided over his marriage and baptized his children, I couldn't help but conclude that Wright had been thrown under the proverbial speeding bus by Obama — who apparently decided long ago to adopt Bill Cosby's out-of-touch, blame-the-victim rhetoric (an observation echoed by Adolph Reed, Jr., in the May issue of The Progressive).

— from Alternet

George Bush came into office. There was a recession almost immediately. Officially it began in March of 2001 and, officially, it ended eight months later.

The causes of that recession are vague and amorphous, generally credited to the "business cycle."

There is, in addition, a minor Republican industry dedicated to backdating the onset by five months, to November 2000, in order to make it a Clinton recession. Or, to inadvertently say that the very election of George Bush screwed up the economy; he didn't even have to come to power.

"Jacked: How 'Conservatives' Are Picking Your Pocket (Whether You Voted for Them or Not)" is a short book by Nomi Prins that makes an excellent education for those remaining Americans who still do not understand that right-wing politicians take from those who work and give to those who live in luxury off the sweat of others.

At the end of World War II, corporations paid half the cost of the federal government. They now pay 7 percent, and many of them pay 0 percent. Unless you are very wealthy, you pick up the tab, and the tab has grown. The federal government now spends more than what it spends on everything else on the military alone, and that cost keeps rising.

I’ve been thinking about subtleties. Actually I’ve been thinking about inflation, gas and food, frozen pizzas, my green bean casserole, instant coffee, and T-paper. Runaway inflation is a fact of life that far exceeds the under 3% that is still presently being hawked by the spin meisters for the Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve Bank. By definition “core inflation” conveniently excludes energy and food items which might be OK if we didn’t have to power the things we own and feed ourselves and our families. These two categories of necessities will continue to constitute a growing part of our expenditures. We now pay more for what we buy, or pay the same and get less! Please read on

Obama needs to shake up the campaign, to hit a "hard reset" on the political dynamic. The pundits are turning against him, which means superdelegates could soon follow. It's time for him to follow some well-worn advice from the suburbs: When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping.

If you believe the conventional wisdom, it's all coming down to those white "Reagan Democrat" voters. If they don't get behind the Democratic nominee, we're told, the Dems will lose. Of course, life has an unfortunate way of being more complicated than the conventional wisdom. (After all, can the Democrats afford to alienate black voters in their pursuit of working-class whites?) Still, it's becoming clear that Obama needs to do a better job speaking to the kind of voter once condescendingly described as a "regular person."

Can he do it? Probably ... if he's willing to make some changes to his message. He needs to make those white middle-class white voters comfortable with him before Indiana votes, because a loss there would do even more serious damage to his November chances. And he needs to address those simmering concerns about his ability to connect with all segments of the electorate. The best way to do that is by confronting them head-on.

Paul Krugman is probably the best known "leftist" economist in the "U.S." today. He provides insightful analyses in terms that the average person can understand, and has been most effective in exposing the fakery of the "policies" of the Bush criminal regime. His approach can best be described as "progressive." In Economics that term has a slightly different meaning from what it has in politics. It mostly applies to taxation, where people with higher incomes bear a greater burden, but can be broadened to describe an overall approach of increased responsibility required of those who receive the greatest benefits.

Like anyone else, though, Krugman has his limits, as he revealed in his latest New York Times op-ed. It is a tenet of orthodox Economics that output can and must grow as a "secular trend." According to this unquestioned (except by a few) axiomatic truth, it is the prospect of growth that produces innovation, entrepeneurship, and increased "capital formation," leading to increased employment, income, and profits. Without growth, supposedly, none of these things can happen.

I don't read Krugman's column on a regular basis, but found a link to his screed in Salon. Both Krugman and Salon columnist Andrew Leonard decry the lack of alternative energy development.

Exposing the fallacy of infinite growth is one of my favorite pastimes, and I responded to both articles. Here's the one I posted to Salon:

If we pray really hard

I don't read this column very often. This offering doesn't inspire me to read it any more often. Too shallow.

Predicting the future, as anyone who has done so and failed will attest, is tricky business. Predicting the future of humanity is supremely tricky, as the author of this column will find out.

It is easy to predict that technology will save our way of doing things, and our species, but this belief is more conventional wisdom than sound analysis or reasoning. As such, it is in the realm of religion. The religion of materialism.

Even a mild sense of intuition would give pause to advocates of endless expansion. Not this author: "Synthetic biology and nanotechnology, alone, will offer humanity almost unlimited power to rebuild nature and the physical world. "

Almost unlimited power. Almost unlimited power. You cannot have almost unlimited power!!! (Think Jim Morrison in The Soft Parade. See it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNplOezgI9M)

What few economists or anyone else are willing to realize is that we have a worldwide infinite growth economic system operating on a finite planet. By its very nature this system must grow in order to survive. This characteristic is known as the growth imperative. Without a promise of increase in output, and thus profits and income, the economy dries up, and goes into decline.

All of world human history has been a growth trajectory, with various indigenous tribes being isolated exceptions. Once they are "integrated" into the mainstream culture, they join the grand trudge to infinite growth.

Or oblivion. No amount of the king's economists, pundits, or other assorted know-it-alls is going to be able to put this Humpty Dumpty together again, I predict. We have to chage our way of being on this planet if we wish to survive as a species. This is a tall order, but the option - increasing everything - output, population, pollution, species extinction, global warming - is no option at all. That is, unless you pray at the church of materialism.

-- HappyJack [Read HappyJack's other letters]
______________________________________________

My reply to Krugman's article didn't make it past the censors, but I can post it here:

Limits to growth and related stuff

This is a curious offering from Paul Krugman. A better title would be "Limits to thought." While Mr. Krugman offers great insight into the workings of our economic system, and the Bush criminal regime's destruction of it, it is all within the conventional wisdom of modern economic thought.

What virtually no (employed) Western economist is capable and/or willing to admit is that the body of thought has its own limits. The chief limit is in recognizing that we have an infinite growth system on a finite planet. Much as we try, the planet is not an infinite supply of resources. Neither can it have an infinite growth of human population. Or garbage. Or fumes. Or melting. In this sense, the belief in infinite growth is a religion. A religion of materialism. Like the biblical loaves and fishes myth, the myth of infinite growth is adhered to by fundamentalists of materialism, of which Paul Krugman is a high priest, maybe even a monsignor.
______________________________________________

The prospect of a future without growth of output is not a particularly attractive one, but the longer we delay facing it, the harder it will be to create a viable alternative. So the real question for humanity, or at least one of the three or so top questions, is do we, as a species, have the capacity to even contemplate a future without infinite increases in output?

Based on all currently available evidence, the answer is no. It is too unthinkable. We will continue on, desperately grabbing at anything that promises a continued horn of plenty, a cornucopia of resources, products, markets, and wealth.

That is, until the ecosystem says otherwise, which could happen tomorrow. Or the next day. Or the next. Or...
_______________________________________________

Here's a song that can change minds.

Here's another.

Los Lobos, one of the great bands of all time.

A great song by the Waterboys. Feel free to ignore the video.

And, of course, Bob Dylan.

Neil Young.

Remember the Guess Who?

Talking Heads.

Spirit.

For this one I could only find words.

A bit of John Prine to soothe the soul.

Richie Havens.

And finally, the Beatles.

There is, it seems to me, an area in the political discussion which has been woefully ignored for much, much too long. Historical fact: Prior to the rise of the radical right some 30 years ago, America was the most innovative, most prosperous, most vital nation on the face of the Earth. And it wasn't just an obscenely rich fraction of one percent skewing the numbers, either...like it is today. Broad-based, bottom-up prosperity--in which liberal Democratic administrations specialize--really DID lift all boats. Lean in close and let me whisper to you an uncomfortable truth that the GOP will never dare mention...

Remarks delivered in San Luis Obispo, California, on April 23, 2008

When I started giving speeches about Iraq and impeachment three years ago, I liked to list the major impeachable offenses for Bush and for Cheney, but as the list grew it became rather cumbersome. It got to the point where adding another crime to the list would bring to mind four others I needed to add, and then someone would discover a whole new field of criminality and report it in the news while I was on the airplane to the speaking event. And if I left out somebody's favorite crime from the list, there would be hell to pay. So, I've decided to switch gears. I didn't do this last night down in Ventura, but starting tonight I'm going to give you my top 10 reasons NOT to impeach Dick Cheney.