HMS Romney

The only thing that would make this fascinating bit of history better, would be the HMS Romney having been a French, rather then a British, ship. Even so, there is some rich irony in the fact that the British dispatched the Romney to Boston in 1768 to help enforce the Townshend Acts, which were a series of laws passed by the British Parliament to raise revenue in the American Colonies. In other words, these were taxes.

The Colonists reacted very strongly to the passage of the Townshend Acts. All of that fiery rhetoric about "no taxation without representation" would eventually lead to the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party, and the American Revolution. The Romney was involved in such things as impressing local sailors into the Royal Navy, providing a refuge for tax commissioners who were fleeing the mob, and the Romney even seized a vessel belonging to John Hancock. Yes, that John Hancock.

The Obama campaign should commission a reproduction of the Romney, in the form of a parade float, and send it around the country. JFK's campaign did something similar with his famed boat the PT 109. Of course, the intention there was to celebrate the heroism of the commander and crew of the PT 109. In this case, it would be to draw attention to the fact that a British warship named HMS Romney was, in effect, a tax enforcer during the American Revolution. It would be a clever, and intelligent, way to educate the voters about their own history, and that of the presumptive Republican nominee for president.

NOT MILK

Ah, Monica Lewinsky. The raven-haired vixen who almost brought down a sitting president. Or, should that be "went down on a sitting president?" Either way, she represents an simpler, and more innocent time. Wait, scratch that last sentence. Let me try again. Monica the young lady who proved that even if you can't grow up to be president, if you play your cards right, maybe you will grow up to blow the president. Hmm. Don't think that last one would work in a Middle School Social Studies Textbook. Definitely not in Texas, anyway.

In all seriousness, I'm surprised more attention hasn't been paid to the possibility that Monica Lewinsky was a GOP plant. Remember that hideous woman who Monica confessed all to? Wasn't she a Republican? It just makes sense. The Republicans were desperate to destroy Bill Clinton ahead of the 2000 presidential election. They knew they couldn't run on the economy because it was running strong. The country was at peace, and Al Gore would have a solid record of accomplishment to run on.

But, Gore instead ran away from that record as fast as he could. Because that's what his harpy of a wife told him to do. Tipper Gore was oh so outraged at the Monica Lewinsky scandal that she told Al Gore to distance himself from Clinton during the campaign. As well, Gore picked someone who was quite possibly the worst running mate imaginable in the person of Joe Lieberman. Supposedly, the so-called "conscience of the Senate" would help erase the stains of the Clinton presidency from the voter's minds. What he ended up doing was costing Gore a half-dozen or more states.

Even with all of that, Al Gore still won the fucking election. But, it ended up being close enough for the bastards to steal it.

Rails-to-Trails: A video history of the Putnam Division

White Man's Burden

An article that I read earlier today inspired me to write about with a bit more depth then my usual facebook posts. The story concerned a jewelry store in Brooklyn that is selling earrings in the shape of the swastika symbol, and the ensuing controversy. The Jeweler explained that the earrings are imported from India, and have nothing to do with Nazi ideology. That explanation did not satisfy Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, who demanded that the store remove the offending item. Stringer had this to say:

Let me be clear--a swastika is not a fashion statement. It is the most hateful symbol in our culture and an insult to any civilized person."

I will certainly concede thatthe Nazis took a venerable religious symbol of an ancient culture(s), and perverted it for their own purposes. But, only for a grand total of 12 years. Does it seem reasonable to only view the symbol through that lens?

Because, I seriously doubt that the swastika conjures up the same connotations, for people of Indian ethnicity (both the country of India, as well as Native Americans), that it does for westerners. The Jewish Holocaust was an example of Europeans murdering other Europeans within the context of a world war. A war that inevitably effected the people of the lesser-developed world, but one in which they were largely relegated to "off-screen" roles. It was a war fought largely between first world nations, that had the unintended effect of ultimately liberating the third world.

As strange as it may sound, Adolph Hitler may well have accomplished something that Ghandi was unable to do. Namely, break the British grip on India. By 1947, the year that India achieved Independence, the British Empire was entering it's death throes. Great Britain was left exhausted, and bankrupt, by the war. There was neither money, nor popular will, enough remaining to put into the effort of holding onto the "Crown Jewel", as India was called by British imperialists.

Also important to keep in mind is the example of the Japanese who, although ultimately defeated, conclusively demonstrated that the white man was not invincible. During the early stages of the Pacific War, the Japanese ran amok conquering Hong Kong, Singapore, Vietnam, the Philippines, and a whole host of other places ruled by white imperialists. There would be turning back the clock after that, as was demonstrated in the jungles of Vietnam during the postwar years.

To conclude, while we in the developed western world view the Holocaust, and Nazi Germany, as the ultimate expression of evil here on earth, not everyone on the planet necessarily shares that viewpoint. In fact, for the many millions toiling under the British, French, and Belgium thumb, the Germans may very well have been looked upon as the good guys. Because, after all, Germany attacked, and in some instances conquered, the countries that enslaved them. And, in the process, paved the way for their ultimate liberation.

Israel and the Map

"Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq," Clarke said on Sunday's 60 Minutes. "I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'

The vast nation of Iran, with a population of over 70 million people, is effectively reduced to one man: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Who is endlessly quoted as having said something awful about Israel and a map, but no one really knows for sure what he actually said. Or, if he even said it at all.

But, no matter. He has been photographed in a white lab coat, surrounded by shiny things, and we are told that proves Iran is trying to develop a nuclear weapon. And such a thing simply cannot be allowed to happen. In fact, we must go to war to stop it from happening. If you ask why that is the case, they will tell you about Israel and the map again.

And, if you are rude enough to point out the fact that the United States has thousands of nuclear weapons, and Israel likely has hundreds, you will quickly learn what it means to be a pariah. Friends will insult you, and block you on facebook. You will be called an "anti-Semite" for daring to suggest that bombing Iran might be more for the benefit of Israel, then for the security of the United States.

Ron Paul 2012. I don't want him to become the president, but I'm damn glad he is running.

An Inconvenient Truth

Fuck Al Gore, and his patronizing dismissal of Ron Paul's candidacy. The man who actually won the 2000 presidential election deserves a fair share of the blame for the predicament we find ourselves in today. Why? Well because Gore's craven surrender to the forces behind George W Bush dealt a mortal wound to our democracy. Prior to that infamous moment, most Americans were "silly" enough to believe that the candidate who got the most votes actually won the election.

At the point in time when he conceded the election to Bush, Gore still had plenty of options remaining to him. Instead, he meekly stood by and allowed the Supreme Court to install Bush as president. Gore had the legitimacy bestowed upon him by a half-million vote lead in the popular count. But, for reasons still unexplained, he unaccountably let the Republicans gain the moral high ground in the disputed election. Anyone remember the signs that the very well-organized GOP ground troops displayed?

"SORE-LOSERMAN" they read, and that was the perception that took hold in the public mind. Bush supporters even went so far as to protest outside of Gore's official residence as vice president chanting "Get out of Cheney's house!" over and over. Actually, I did find that rather amusing at the time.

But, where were all of Gore's ground troops while this was going on? Nowhere to be found for the simple reason that Gore never granted permission for them to rally to his cause. The Bush people hired family retainer/attack dog James Baker to lead the fight. Gore countered with a man whose demeanor positively screamed "kick my ass all over the state of Florida", Warren Christopher.

Personally, I believe that Gore was in on the fix. He was never supposed to win that election.

But, he did.

Privatized Profits Socialized Risk

On October 3, 2008 President George W Bush signed into law the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which authorized the United States government to spend up to $700 billion buying up assets and equity from private financial institutions.

“In particular, the program was designed to deal with "troubled assets" which it defined as (A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008, the purchase of which the Secretary determines promotes financial market stability; and (B) any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability, but only upon transmittal of such determination, in writing, to the appropriate committees of Congress."

In short, the government was reacting to the Subprime Mortgage Crisis which was wreaking havoc on the US economy. And, contrary to what you may have heard from conservative ideologues, the people that caused the crisis are the very same people who became the recipients of what is generally referred to as “The Bailout”. The economic leaders of the industrialized nations had no trouble identifying the culprits:

"During a period of strong global growth, growing capital flows, and prolonged stability earlier this decade, market participants sought higher yields without an adequate appreciation of the risks and failed to exercise proper due diligence. At the same time, weak underwriting standards, unsound risk management practices, increasingly complex and opaque financial products, and consequent excessive leverage combined to create vulnerabilities in the system. Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions."

The above paragraph grandly titled the "Declaration of the Summit on Financial Markets and the World Economy" was the conclusion drawn by the leaders of the Group of 20, meeting in November of 2008, to determine the causes of the ongoing global financial crisis. A crisis which was precipitated by the collapse in value of mortgage-backed securities issued by US financial firms, and sold to investors across the globe. What you saw during the manic years of the US real estate bubble was a complete abandonment of sound lending principles. There are those who will try and convince you that it was all the fault of poor people and deadbeats receiving loans they didn't deserve, and could never pay back. Don't believe it. Look at the compensation and severance packages that the CEO's of financial institutions received, after losing tens of billions of dollars for their shareholders and investors.