In Little Town people love to eat rabbit stew. Unfortunately rabbits are rare. In bad weather the hunters can not go hunting. In some years there are even hardly any rabbits to hunt. To eat rabbits is expensive. Only a few people can afford rabbit stew.

On Mellow Island people are poor, but some have great ideas. They fence off some land and start to foster rabbits on the new pasture. They butcher the grown up rabbits, freeze them and then scull them over the waters to Little Town.

People in Little Town are happy now. Some haul the rabbits off the boats, some cart them to town. New taverns open up and cater rabbits in tasty meals. Rabbits are cheaper now and can be bought all the year round.

Everybody is happy – the poor of Mellow Island, the people from Little Town – maybe even the rabbits. Only the hunters are grumbling. They walk in to the mayor and complain. “Those rabbits from Mellow Island are too cheap. We don´t want to go hunting for such low prices. They are cheating on us.” And they put a little oil on the mayor’s palm.

The mayor likes the hunters and understands. He issues a new decree:

“Rabbits from Mellow Island are too cheap! From now on, everyone who pays one shilling for a Mellow Island frozen rabbit also has to administer one shilling to our poor hunters. These are honest men like me and we have to promote their valuable trade.”

The price for rabbits doubles. Only a few people can afford rabbit stew now. The taverns stop serving rabbit meals, some close shop. No frozen rabbits are offloaded at the shore anymore. The cart pushers start looking for new occupations. People on Mellow Island are poor again. Only the hunters are happy. And the mayor washes his hands.

A young rabbit – Part of the storyline – The hunters – The tavern owners and cart pushers – The mayors findings one and two – The unhappy people from Mellow Island one, two and three – Who gets the extra money – Some (libertarian) economic background

Cont. reading: Health Care Moral Question

Barfly Colman made a suggestion for a follow up on the discussions on Billmons Minimum Wages piece.

“It seems to me that [discussing what aims an economy should have] is seldom if ever approached these days: everything is cast in terms of the free market and how wonderful it is.”

The need for such a discussion is fundamental to our societies. But when was the last time you did hear a politican openly recognizing it this clearly:

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. … The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society.
James Madison in The Federalist, No. 10 cited in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, Charles A. Beard, 1913

Madison sees the first objective of the government as the protection of the distinct interests of those who hold and those who are without.

The second part has been lost somewhere. Nowhere but in younger constitutions one finds remnants of the compromise that has been so fiercely fighted for throughout the last two centuries.

Article 14 [Property, Inheritance, Expropriation]…
(2) Property imposes duties. Its use should also serve the public weal. …
Article 15 [Socialization]
Land, natural resources, and means of production can, for the purpose of socialization, be transferred to public ownership or other forms of collective enterprise by a statute regulating the nature and extent of compensation. …
Current Cuban German Basic Law

Societies develop on compromises. These need discussion and arguments form both sides of the aisle. We do know that the right side is strong these days. The speakers list of the DNC convention may represent some middleground. But the communists have vanished – even as scapegoats.

As Colman says – the basic discussion on the aims of the economy, on redistribution of wealth, on the service of the public weal, seems gone. Thereby the economical compromises throughout the world have tilted to the right side – nationally and internationally. The government misses the objective Madisons sets out.

As Madison recognizes, the free market of ´those who hold´ is only one side of the spectrum. What should be the modern version of the compromises? And what is needed on the left side to achieve them?

Looking at the Democrats Convention site under ->Convention Info ->Party Platform – if you have Acrobat installed – is the REPORT OF THE PLATFORM COMMITTEE. Great – here comes the definite program of the opposition to the Bush catastrophe:

…
Our overriding goals are the same as ever: to protect our people and our way of life
…
To rise to those challenges, we must strengthen our military, including our Special Forces, improve our technology, and task our National Guard with homeland security.
…
Cutting taxes for middle class Americans.
…

Upps – not what I expected.
Who may call himself Democrat and claim as overriding goal to protect our way of life?
What Democrat may task our National Guard with homeland security?
Talking about tax cuts for the middle class Americans, would a Democrat probably mention what should be done for the lower class Americans?

Some years ago I was working in marketing intensive company. The advertising folks did run ads that claimed the product to be the Best Antibiotic Against Viruses. It was beyond their comprehension when some objected that there might be some problem with that claim. (Later a satiric magazine reprinted that ad series.)

Juan Cole, Professor of History and blogger of Informed Comment, is provocating by calling the Israeli Gaza settlers fascists.

Fascism remains a useful analytical tool for understanding modern politics. Each country’s fascism has been different, since fascism is more a style than a specific ideology. Among its attributes is

Cont. reading: Fascism a style?

In an article for the Toronto Sun (thanks to Fran) Eric Margolis writes on Iran new U.S. whipping boy

This column has long predicted the Bush administration would orchestrate a pre-election crisis over Iran designed to whip up patriotic fervour in the U.S. and distract public and media attention from the Iraq fiasco.

The growing clamour over Iran’s nuclear intentions, with rumblings about air strikes against Iran’s reactors in the fall, may prove to be a part of just such a manufactured crisis.

Remember, these latest fevered claims about Iran come from the same “reliable intelligence sources” and neo-conservative hawks who insisted Iraq had a vast arsenal of weapons of mass destruction that threatened the U.S., with intimate links to al-Qaida.

Cont. reading: Not just the Right but the Duty

by Jérôme Guillet

In the latest twist to the Yukos story, Russia’ Bailiff Service (part of the Ministry of Justice) has decided to seize its main production affiliate, Yuganskneftegaz, and sell it to pay for the approx. USD 3.4 bn owed by Yukos in year-2000 back taxes according to the recent court decisions.

Cont. reading: Yukos – A Tale of Professional Oligarchs

Update 25. July

The Army Report is available now at Global Security Org (PDF, long). The armys website www.army.mil is still not reachable.

End Update

The Ajax White Knight has done serious overtime:

WaPo has the 9/11 Commission Report as executive summary and in full.

At the same time, the Army finds 49 abuse cases in a report delivered at a hastily called Senate committee meeting.

Cont. reading: “The White Knight Is A Dirty Old Man”

Discussed in the last Open Thread there are rumours of an Israeli/US american air attack on Iranian infrastructure. The last days there have been several leaks to the press by “sources” who claim that the 9/11 commission finds links between Iran and Al Qaeda.

Cont. reading: Suburb of Tel Aviv?

Billmon did some premier economical pieces some time ago. It’s the Wages, Stupid and Wild Blue Yonder. These charts add to the picture.

Development from 1915 to 2005. End of 2002 Gross Domestic Product of the United States was about 10,600 billion US$. Total credit market debt was at 31,700 billion US$. This ratio of about 3 to 1 has increased since. Expressed differently, 3 $s have to be borrowed additionally to existing debt to have an additional production worth 1 $. This is unprecedented.
(There are discussions that GDP is “pumped up” statistically which, if true, would make the chart even worse.)

Cont. reading: Decline of the Empire?

via NY Sun , Jul 8, 2004, a report on Hersh speaking at an ACLU dinner on July 7.

Journalist Seymour Hersh yesterday accused President Bush and Vice President Cheney of committing war crimes in their prosecution of the war on terror before he backed off the charge somewhat, saying he was not certain the two leaders were culpable as individuals.

“What we had was a series of massive crimes,

Cont. reading: “Administration Committed War Crimes”

As a US foreigner, I do ask myself who should win the next US election.

The US is the No. 1 nation. It spends more money on military power than the rest of the world together. There are over 700 military US outlets in over 100 countries. The US dollar, as the reserve currency and commodity currency of world trade, has effects on the economical situation of many foreigners. If the US decides to deliberately inflate the dollar (as it already does to some extend today) this inflation will be exported to other countries. The US has the diplomatic power to bring all others to the table on any issues. As Kyoto, WTO and several other issues show, it decides the ecential outcome of such meetings.

The current Bush foreign policy would not change after a re-election. This should put me decidedly into the Anything-But-Bush-Camp. But if Kerrys foreign policy does not differ from Bushs way, would it not be better to keep Bush? He would definitely be more effective in ruining the US and its world relations. Then, maybe, a point will be reached,

Cont. reading: “…he´ll ruin you faster”

From Newsweek: Exclusive: Election Day Worries

American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call “alarming” intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.

…Ridge’s department last week asked the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place.

Cont. reading: Preparing the Coup?

Economist Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley looks at the quality of newly created jobs in the US: America’s Job-Quality Trap

An unprecedented hiring shortfall has crimped the economy’s income generating capacity as never before.

…While there has been some improvement on the hiring front in recent months, the quality of such job creation has been decidedly subpar.

…from the trough of the last recession in November 2001 through June 2004, private nonfarm payrolls have now risen a paltry 0.2%. This stands in sharp contrast to the nearly 7.5% increase recorded, on average, over the same 31-month interval of the six preceding recoveries.

Cont. reading: “What are we going to do about it?”

The Guardian runs a well researched story on Jonathan Keith “John” Idema getting busted for running a private torture prison in Kabul where among others “three men strapped to the ceiling and hanging by their feet” were found: The man who thinks he’s George Clooney. A story of today’s Kabul

The Guardian presents Idemas quite colorful background and suggests that he was hunting for US rewards on some Al Qaida leaders.

Here are some additional details around that story. Warning: Use your tin foil hat while reading.

Cont. reading: Tin Foil Hat Required

Reasons for the “New Imperialism” (1)

– Economics was the most important single factor in this “New Imperialism”. Much of this economic emphasis was brought about by the industrial revolution, which created large surpluses of European capital and heavy demands for raw materials. Additionally it brought about the accumulation of major european countries which sought investment abroad.

– Nationalism was another powerful factor. Social Darwinism, with it´s concept of “Survival of the Fittest” and the obligations of the “White Man´s Burdon” made popular by the Englishman Rudyard Kipling contributed to the spirit of nationalism in extending colonialism. There was also political prestige in having colonies as imperialism became a race to aquire more in the spirit of nationalism.

– A third reason for this “new” imperialism was military. Military organizations in each major countries wielded great political power, and they emphazied the need, whith their respective governments, of controlling strategic areas and establishing key military bases.

– A fourth reason was humanitarian/religious, which often became intertwined with nationalism.

(1) “NEW IMPERIALISM (1870 – 1914)” Lecture Notes by Professor Henry, William Paterson University

Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”

The Star Spangled Banner Francis Scott Key, adopted as National Anthem 1931

Your comments about this?

As Helpful Spook has posted in an earlier comment, a German TV magazine, Report Mainz, will today report on child abuse in US prisons in Iraq. Their press announcement (in German) refers to a statement form an ICRC official in Genvea: “Between January and Mai of this year we have registered 107 children during 19 visitations at 6 different locations. All those location were under control of coalition troops.”
The magazine did get its hand on an internal UNICEF document. There it is mentioned, that UNICEF is trying to get access to a special prison for children, errected by coalition forces. In July 2003 UNICEF requested to get access to this prision which was denied. “Unsufficient security in the area of the prison” forstalled visits by independend observers “since December 2003”.
An Aljazeera Reporter who had been imprisoned in Abu Graibh describes to the magazine how a 12 year old girl was bashed by US soldiers. The journalist reports of a prison for children: “When they did bring me to my prison cell, there was a camp for children, young, under age of puberty. For sure there were hundreds of children in this camp.”

Author Rick Pearlstein took notes (via Brad De Long) at a Seymour Hersh lecture: ´He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, “You haven’t begun to see evil…” then trailed off. He said, “horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.”.´

Sgt. Samuel Provance, of the 302nd Military Intelligence Battalion has witnessed specific cases and talks about it.

The UNICEF document Report Mainz has explains the outcome: “The percieved unjustified imprisonment of male Iraqis including juveniles … is becoming the main reason for the growing frustration of Iraqi adolescent and a potential for the radicalisation of this population group.”

As Richard Clarke writes in his book review on “Imperial Hybris”: “The Iraq invasion gave a new cause to the jihadists and new evidence to Arab militants that Americans are the “new crusaders” – i.e., foreign infidels bent on conquest. The result has been more recruits, more suicide bombers and more money to the jihadists.”

The child abuse by coalition troops will give something more valueable to the jihadists. A fresh generation of fighters, already deeply motivated to defeat their enemies at any costs.

by ck

Josh Marshall posted part one of a long interview with Senator Biden. It covers a lot of territory, but there are two main themes:
One is the failure of the BushCo NeoCons to differentiate between Al Qaeda Gangsterism and State Sponsored Terrorism.
The other is the need for an American Foreign Policy based on Enlightened Nationalism — as Senator Biden calls it.
I’ve described it as Enlightened Self Interest — a term used by Walter Simon, a history professor of mine back in the 1960’s.

Before the invasion of Iraq, I tried to formulate some arguments about this, using the Clinton Doctrine of Robust Internationalism as a contrasting framework the Bush Doctrine of Arrogant Unilateralism. That both schools can invoke Wilsonianism as justification is evidence of the complexity of this issue, and the mixed legacy of Woodrow Wilson.

Excerpts from the interview:

I think you’d see a Kerry administration being willing to exercise force in the face of — if two conditions pertained — One, that the exercise of the force was likely to result in the outcome that we were seeking. The difference between exercising force in Kosovo and force in Somalia is that we did not have the physical wherewithal and the likely allies to be able to succeed in the exercise of that force. …

It’s not preemption. It is a new standard for when you basically forfeit your sovereignty as a nation-state [if] you’re engaged in genocide. So, every place with genocide should we intervene? No There has to be the practical capacity to do so. …

Second thing is, so there’s kind of a new standard that has emerged, that I think is the combination of what I refer to as this enlightened nationalism, that we operate in our national interests in every circumstance where we can under the umbrella of international rules and the international community. But where the damage and danger is irrefutable, we reserve the right to act in our own interest or in the interest of humanity, if we have the capacity. …

That is different than the standard and the rationale of our neoconservative friends. They argue that the exercise of force is important because we are at the apex of our power and that we are more enlightened than the rest of the world. And when we have the ability to exercise force it allows us to leverage our power in direct proportion to the moral disapprobation of the rest of the world. …

[What you will see emerging in the Kerry administration, is] an adherence, and a value, and a promotion of international institutions like our grandfathers did at the end of WWII so we wouldn’t carry the whole load of the whole world all the time, and the willingness to exercise force if need be to enforce the rules of the road when they’re violated. …

TPM: Can I ask you a question? It seems that one of the shortcomings of the neoconservative worldview is their focus on states. …

BIDEN: … The fundamental flaw [of the neoconservatives] is that they genuinely believe — and put it in the negative sense — they do not believe it is possible for a sophisticated international criminal network that will rain terror upon a country, that has the potential to kill 3,000 or more people in a country, can exist without the sponsorship of a nation-state.

They really truly believe — and this was the Axis of Evil speech — if you were able to decapitate the regimes in Iraq, Iran, North Korea, you would in fact dry up the tentacles of terror.

I think that is fundamentally flawed reasoning. If every one of those regimes became a liberal democracy tomorrow, does anybody think we wouldn’t have code orange again in the United States? Rhetorical question. Does anybody think we don’t have to worry about the next major event like Madrid occurring in Paris or in Washington or in Sao Paulo? Gimme a break. But they really believe this is the way to do it. …

But the way Cheney’d respond to that would be to say, ´Well, are you telling me there’s not more terror when these guys are running [the show]´”

Yeah, there is. Do they aid and abet, do they have sort of a synergistic impact? But are they, if you eliminate them, the life blood that flows to these organizations? It is much more important for us to be able to go at their sources of funding. It’s more like organized crime. They love this thing about, you know, it’s not law enforcement. It’s not law enforcement in the sense that we have to have a warrant to go get them— that´s the implication. But it is basically gumshoe work.

It is intelligence; it is cutting off the source of their supply of money. It is infiltrating their organizations beyond bombing their training bases. That’s a good thing. They bomb their training camps — that´s a good thing. We did a good thing in getting rid of Saddam. That son-of-a-bitch was a butcher. But it had nothing to do with our central problem, terror.

And the reason why it’s so dangerous what they’re doing, their approach — it’s not intentional — but it takes their eye off the ball. It’s the wrong focus.

The question: do they have a synergistic impact? — is fundamental to the argument about the invasion of Iraq.

On this point, I part company with Senator Biden. The Middle East States that provided overt support “terrorists” — i.e., Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, and other Palestinian groups — do not have a synergistic relationship with Al Qaeda. In fact, the states that supported Palestinian groups — Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, etc. — are hostile towards Al Qaeda, which targets the governments of these states.

Al Qaeda received covert support from individuals within Saudi Arabia, and from the Pakisatani ISI.

Not only did Saddam not threaten the USA, but his suppression of Islamic Radicals prevented Iraq from becoming an Al Qaeda breeding ground.

The Bush Administration’s invasion and occupation of Iraq has made us less safe it three distinct ways:

1) It diverted resources from the hunt for Al Qaeda.

2) By removing Saddam, it turned Iraq into a terrorist breeding ground.

3) Bush’s arrogant unilateralism and hubris has destroyed America’s reputation in the world, and reversed the goodwill we enjoyed after 9/11.

Job growth disappoints
Job growth slowed dramatically in June, as employers added just 112,000 workers to payrolls last month, a number that came in well below forecasts by private economists.
…
Average hourly wages rose 2 cents, or 0.1 percent, to a seasonally-adjusted $15.65.
…
In Washington, President Bush hailed the report.
…
Bush said the job report shows that 1.5 million jobs have been created since August. “To me that shows the steady growth”

Chief Econnomist of Morgan Stanley, Steve Roach, asks What About Us?

Services-driven development models, such as the one now at work in India, cast globalization in a very different light. Most importantly, they broaden the competitive playing field, thereby bringing new pressures to bear both on job creation and on real wages in the developed world. This is where the debate gets prickly. Protectionists scream, “foul!” — arguing that trade barriers are the appropriate answer.

So, what about us? As education and skill levels are raised around the world, and as the world itself is brought closer together through IT-enabled connectivity, the wealthy developed world must rise to the occasion.

So far, I have not seen an answer to what kind of politics could be implemented, that can protect the workers in the developed countries from globalization. In Europe the negotiations between unions and enterprises are now for lower wages and longer working hours or less jobs. The wage rise in the US is less than inflation. Quite a change from 50 years of generally rising wages and shorter working hours.

What is the answer from the political left ? How will the next president answer to the problem ?