Chapter Eighty-Seven
AFTER THE GOLD RUSH
A Song Sung Blue
"I dreamed I saw the silver spaceships flying
In the yellow haze of the sun
There were children crying and colors flying
All around the chosen ones...
However inadequate the completed outcome may now be, the writing of this book took over a
decade and many more years of research through personal experience in the real world of economic
and social struggle, as well as from historical, scientific, literary and other
sources. Some historians are of the opinion that it is a serious mistake, due to lack of
fair and adequate perspective, to attempt written analysis on events taking place within one’s
own lifetime. Many more consider it unwise to suggest the honorableness, mediocrity or
fallacy of persons, ideas and events as they currently unfold and otherwise, self-destruct in
the immediate present. Bowing to the latter if not the former persuasion, though
actively involved in the protest movement against the recent illegal American invasion of Iraq,
I have for the most part, resisted an overwhelming temptation to address the current Bush
administration directly, limiting most comments concerning Bush Junior and his corrupt crew of
corporate cronies to a few select credits and footnotes. Here perhaps, Credit #1 at the
bottom of the chapter entitled Ronald and His
Ray-Gun bears repeating and thus, it is copied verbatim (minus the first sentence) in the
two paragraphs immediately following. . .
Obviously to anyone possessing rudimentary intelligence, Bush Junior is leading us down the
same crooked pathway promulgated by Ronald Reagan and Bush Senior towards national bankruptcy,
if not first, nuclear or worse oblivion. Based on their combined rhetoric and a few
scattered memos uncovered by a reluctant press (and for the most part, deliberately buried in
back pages beneath mounds of superfluous pro-war ‘patriotic’ propaganda), it would appear that
the only reason that Bush, Rumsfeld and Company have not already dropped a 'limited' nuclear
bomb on Iraq or some other relatively small and defenseless nation is fear of national and
global public outcry. ¹ Judging by the administration's own words and more
importantly, actions, it appears that neither patriotism nor common horse sense have even a
remote connection to their maniacal warmongering, corporation coffer-enhancing neo-conservative
agenda. Posing as homeland ‘protection’ and ‘democratization’ of the world, the obvious
goal is more aptly defined as globalization of American economic interests at the expense of
democracy, peace and both homeland and international security.
The destructive legacies of the Reagan and Bush Senior administrations included deliberate
cuts in aid for the sick and poor, heating subsidies for impoverished senior citizens (some of
whom literally froze to death) and programs to feed and immunize poor American
children. Many of these were severely curtailed or dismantled entirely in order to fund
massive buildup of armaments without historical precedent or practical
necessity. Meanwhile, denial of America's growing homeless and jobless populations became
the accepted White House theory of political rhetoric, while ‘supply-siding’ huge tax cuts for
the ultra-wealthy at the expense of everyone else emerged as standard backdoor political
partisan practice. And as bad as these legacies may be, they will more than likely pale
in comparison to the disastrous mess left by the tyrannical thugs of Bush Junior's national and
global wrecking crew, again offering up huge tax cuts for the benefit of less than one percent
of the population ² at the expense of education and programs for the jobless,
homeless and poor and the economic future of all Americans (including their own
offspring). All the while, in flag-waving step with neo-conservative political corporate
cronyism, media advertiser-pleasing and ratings-protecting bias (more correctly, outright
propaganda) and the full blessing of onward conservative Christian soldiers of the genocidal
right, marching us on down the utterly corrupt deep and wide pathway of historical death and
destruction towards international suicide row. *
Some survivors of the sixties claim that what turned the majority of Americans against the
Vietnam war, forcing Nixon and Kissinger to eventually march to a political drum of a somewhat
different beat, were two things unique to the historical timeframe: 1) Scores of Vietnam War
veterans were publicly seen demonstrating against the very war in which they had risked their
lives and 2) Bloody television footage in real-time of the actual maiming and blowing to bits
of both soldiers and civilians by the thousands. Judging by the opaque media farce of
“embedded” journalism ‘covering’ the recent Iraq massacre, including a most obviously censored
camera blackout of virtually all civilian casualties, if nothing else, the Bush administration
has perhaps unwittingly underscored the death of American journalism and of a free press in the
United States (not that we have necessarily achieved much true freedom of the press in the
past). ** It appears that the corporation-patronizing non-elected
neo-conservative hawks actually controlling and setting American political and media policy
have learned a thing or two from the Vietnam experience and thus, Bob Dylan’s now famous line
“only a pawn in their game” ³ has perhaps more than ever before, become a
clearly defined American political and media reality.
When sincere men and women are labeled “traitor” and “un-American” for daring to speak out
against a blatantly unconstitutional, illegal and morally bankrupt attack of unwarranted
aggression, waged in open defiance of our own Constitution, as well as international conscience
and law and, when a few brave American authors, commentators, musicians and poets are
black-balled whole-sale McCarthy-style for having enough conscience and integrity to insinuate
a dissenting view, there can be little doubt that the American ideal of government of, by and
for the people has long since been left in the corporate gold dust of oligarchy (perhaps more
correctly, “oil”igarchy) by the wealthy elite, of the wealthy elite and for the wealthy elite. And
though it may be true that Bob Dylan still abhors being called a voice for the sixties
generation, there can be little historical doubt that a “hard rain’s a gonna fall”
4
on the United States of America---likely to come down very hard and perhaps sooner than
later. Our Father in heaven probably can only stomach so much and apparently, even the
current pope believes that neo-conservative far, far, very far wrong so-called “Christian
America” is most assuredly, no historical exception to the Sodom and Gomorrah sick and poor
ignoring rule of Thumb.
The recent feeble attempt by Senators John McCain and Russell Feingold at campaign finance
reform was whitewashed down to a compromised barebones and entirely ineffective legislated
minimum before passage and, as predicted (probably the only reason many members of our
ever-malfeasant congress cast a favorable vote), was soon after almost entirely thrown out by
the federal courts due to alleged unconstitutional technicalities. Perhaps as much as any
reform attempted in recent history, McCain/Feingold clearly demonstrates the total
inability of much needed legislation even remotely favorable to the American majority becoming
actual applied law. Obviously, any hope of true election reform requires a complete overhaul
of the election process, including abolition by constitutional amendment of the electoral
college and of all political contributions except for limited individual donations (absolutely
no business, special interest or other organizational contributions of any kind can ever be
allowed if true election reform is to be accomplished) and complete elimination of all special
interest, business and lobby perks and other gifts to elected officials for any reason. ***
Because of the corporation-entrenched stranglehold of utter corruption that grips the
modern-day American political reality, there is very little reason to hope for any effective
legislative reform helpful to the vast majority of We The People of the United States in the
foreseeable future and there is every reason to expect the opposite. Short of a
well-coordinated national march on Washington D.C. involving millions of angry taxpaying
Americans demanding major changes by threat of a national strike of unheard of magnitude and
cooperative effort, involving major unions, small business associations, activist organizations
of every legitimate cause, wealthy individuals of conscience and the joint cooperative effort
of a great many media pundits and personalities, the United States of America is more than
likely to dissolve into the depression, chaos, revolution and destruction of warmongering,
greedy and foolhardy civilizations past.
There is a collective voice burning deep within the heart of We The People of the United
States: “This land is your land, this land is my land. . .” This is a song for
Sitting Bull, Eleanor Roosevelt, Helen Keller, Martin Luther King, Jr., Cesar Chavez and Mitch
Snyder. This is a song for a generation that remembers a great depression and a worldwide
war, a song for the beat generation of Woody Guthrie, for an angry nineteen-sixties generation,
for generation “X” and for generations of America’s future. . . This is a song for The
People’s March. . . A song sung blue if there ever was one. **** ***** ******
...All in a dream, all in a dream
The loading had begun...
I was thinking about what a friend had said,
I was hoping it was a lie
Thinking about what a friend had said..." 5
Earth
Share MoveOn Democracy In Action
WE THE PEOPLE OF CONSCIENCE,
UNITE ! ! !
DEDICATED TO: Wes Boyd, Joan Blades and Eli
Pariser of
MoveOn Democracy In Action. Also dedicated to Ed Asner, Martin
Sheen, Susan
Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sheryl Crow, Ed Begley,
Jr., Phil
Donahue and the
far too few other media personalities willing to speak out against the corrupt
war-mongering Bush
administration of international ill repute.
Credits:
1. A defense appropriations bill working its way through Congress at the time of this writing
(May, 2003) contains a clause revoking the Spratt-Furse Amendment (1993) prohibiting
U.S. development of ‘limited’ nuclear weapons. According to CBS News, the Bush
administration claims that “smaller nuclear arms may eventually be needed to deal with the
emerging threat of rogue states hoarding weapons of mass destruction” and in 2002, “the U.S.
spent more in real terms on atomic defense activities than [anytime] since 1962.” Also
according to the same source, “in its Nuclear Posture Review [2002], the [Bush]
administration identified Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea as countries where
contingencies could arise that U.S. nuclear strike capabilities must be geared towards”---this
information was obtained from a leaked copy of the report. A leaked memo obtained a few weeks before
the recent invasion of Iraq quoted Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as asking the recipient
of the memo, one day after the 9/11 tragedy, if this would now be enough so we could justify
(i.e., sell to the American public) a war against Iraq. In other words, while the
president was publicly seen expressing his supposed sympathy for 9/11 victims, his fellow
henchmen were already plotting how to use this tragedy toward their New World Order war-machine
corporation coffer-enhancing advantage. Another news report in early 2003 noted Vice
President Cheney commenting that dropping a ‘limited’ nuclear weapon on Iraq may be a viable
option.
In a May 2003 editorial, Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times wrote: “It turns out
the threat is not from Iraq but from us. . . the Bush administration is now doing its best to
ensure that the world becomes increasingly unstable and armed to the teeth. Although the
nuclear threat from Iraq proved to be nonexistent, the United States' threat to use nuclear
weapons and make a shambles of nuclear arms control is alarmingly vibrant. . . Having
failed to stop a gang of marauders armed with nothing more intimidating than box cutters, the
U.S. is now using the war on terror to pursue a long-held hawkish Republican dream of a
‘winnable nuclear war,’ as the president's father memorably described it. . . In such a
scenario, nukes can be preemptively used against a much weaker enemy---millions of dead
civilians, widespread environmental devastation and centuries of political blowback be damned.”
FOR THE RECORD: A kiloton is equal to the explosive force of one ton of TNT. A
one-kiloton bomb detonated 30 meters below the earth’s surface would leave a crater wider than
a football field on the surface. So-called “limited” nuclear weapons carry an explosive
force of 4.75 kilotons and up. To compare, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima carried
an explosive force of about 15 kilotons and the current submarine-launched MK-5 has eight WW88
warheads of 475 kilotons each. One such submarine-launched nuclear missile detonated on a
large population center would create approximately 250 times as much damage as the atomic bomb
dropped on Hiroshima, estimated to have killed 100,000 people initially and 100,000 or more
from after effects, not to mention untold thousands more were left homeless, limbless, severely
burned, crippled and blind and a major metropolis was left in shattered ruins. (Source;
CBSNews.com). Some sources, including
President Truman himself, claim that the atomic bomb had an explosive force of over 20 kilotons
and killed an initial 130,000 civilians (Nagasaki 70,000 more). There is overwhelming evidence that dropping
weapons of mass destruction on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was entirely unnecessary in order to end
World War II and prevent many thousands of more allied soldier deaths, the excuse given
by Truman and his advisors at the time (and swallowed whole even today by a gullible
public). There is strong evidence that Truman and his advisors new this but were determined
to drop them anyway (see Ronald and His Ray-Gun; FootNote
for more details). The common saying that one would have to be out of their mind to desire
the presidency of the United States is apparently, far more accurate than most of us choose to
believe.
2. In a recent Washington Post article, Warren Buffett, one of America’s richest men,
slammed the Bush administration’s (final Senate version) tax cut plan as representing “voodoo
economics” and Enron-style accounting”. Comparing his own tax situation with that of his
secretary, Mr. Buffett stated that the Bush plan would shift massive tax burdens away from the
wealthy and onto the backs of poor and working-class Americans. Meanwhile according to
ABC News, after four years of revenue surplus under President Clinton, the Bush
administration in a little over two years, has managed to create a growing deficit that
required raising the U.S. borrowing limit by 984 billion
dollars, largely due to massive tax cuts in 2001 that benefited the ultra-wealthy far more than
everyone else combined and utterly failed to “jumpstart” a sluggish economy as Bush promised
(this 984 billion figure does not cover the protracted cost of rebuilding Iraq, Afghanistan
and proposed massive shifting of troop and equipment positioning around the globe). Tax
cuts agreed to by the Senate in May, 2003 of 330 billion dollars, again benefiting the top 1%
of the population more than all other Americans combined, will likely cause the deficit to spiral well
beyond 1 trillion dollars by the beginning of 2004 and most probably beyond 2 trillion by the
end of 2006 (if not sooner).
This ‘conservative’ agenda comes from the party that claims to want to “limit big
government” and “wasteful spending” and which consistently blames the Democrats for being the
cause of federal deficits. Although Bush asked for more than double this amount initially,
the latest tax cuts of 330 billion approved by a tail-wagging Senate of knee-jerking miscreant
pawns, due to their legislative chicanery, may eventually exceed the Bush requested
amount. At the time this reverse Robin Hood fiasco was approved, the majority of states
were experiencing massive deficits, several major American cities were cutting back on police,
fire and other necessary services, some states such as California were laying off thousands of
teachers and virtually every state was raising the cost of college and university
tuition. All of this despite earlier claims by Bush Junior of representing the
“compassionate conservative” party line which will “leave no child behind” in
education. Quite obviously, if the vast majority of American tax-payers receive a few
dollars in federal tax cuts and end up paying higher sales, state income and other taxes (not
to mention, higher tuition costs and losses of necessary services such as fire and police
protection), there will be no benefit to anyone other than the super-rich, nor will such an
utter twisted lie ‘jumpstart’ the economy toward anything other than increased recession, if
not depression. Additionally, the vast American majority and our offspring will be paying
in the form of higher future taxes to make up current mounting deficits for generations
to come. Calling the current administration and Congress thieves and liars is truly not
fair to the average flimflam artist, who would never in a million years contemplate pulling off
a national public-fleecing of utter disgrace such as this. (See also FootNote V below.)
3. “Only a Pawn in Their Game” by Bob Dylan; from The Times They Are A-Changin’ (1964).
4. “A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall” by Bob Dylan; from The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan (1963).
5. From “After The Gold Rush” by Neil Young (last two lines out of sequence of original work,
as is America clearly out of sequence at the turn of the 21st and perhaps, final century of the
current civilization of our species); from After The Gold Rush (1970).
*FootNote I: Those who might tend to balk at some of the harsh verbiage directed toward
the Bush Junior administration here may want to first consider the following. Shortly
after the physical invasion of Iraq in 2003, in spite of pre-invasion objections by millions of
both U.S. and world anti-war protestors, often seen carrying signs reading "No Blood For Oil"
and, in spite of Bush administration and conservative pundit loud denials of the invasion
having anything to do with oil and other corporation profit advantage (yeah, sure) and, in
spite of Bush Junior himself promising that Iraq would be given control over its own oil, here
are a few of the many contradicting Bush administration actions that actually transpired. . .
Halliburton, a shadowy company of extremely shady reputation (see below) formerly headed by
Vice President Dick Cheney personally, was awarded (actually, outright given) without benefit of
fair market (or any other) competition, contracts amounting to 71.3 million and an only later
disclosed 425 million dollars for various and sundry 'war-cleanup' projects. It was also later
disclosed that Halliburton was awarded an additional 200 million contract to provide barracks
for long-term occupation of Iraq by American troops. Not that
this isn't corporate cronyism enough to warrant much more than the relatively mild descriptive
retaliation here, these numbers pale in comparison to the potential billions that Halliburton
is bound to eventually reap due to the fact that, in spite of direct pre-invasion promises by
Bush himself to the contrary, this politically graft-connected company was given control of the
entire Iraqi nation's oil output indefinitely, again a secretly bid contract 'awarded' without
competition or public discussion. Also clearly demonstrating the true motivation behind
the illegal invasion, U.S. television networks proudly announced while the bomb-explosion dust
was still settling, that the Iraqi oil flow had been reinstated---this all-important priority
was secured before attention was given to restore hospital, electric or even water supplies to
a defenseless Iraqi population (imagine trying to survive in a recently bombed city hotter than
Phoenix, Arizona without electricity or water)---it would seem that there is nothing like a
little oil to put Bush Junior administration priorities in true "compassionate conservative"
perspective.
And just what kind of law-abiding patriotic American company is this
Halliburton? According to California congressman Henry Waxman, Halliburton has gone out
of its way for years to conduct business with Libya, Iran and Iraq, three countries that the
United States has accused of supporting terrorism. In an April 30th letter to Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld, Waxman wrote: "Since at least the 1980's, federal laws have prohibited
U.S. companies doing business in one or more of these countries. Yet Halliburton appears
to have sought to circumvent these restrictions by setting up subsidiaries in foreign countries
and territories such as the Cayman Islands. These actions started as early as 1984,
. . . [continued]between 1985 and 2000, when Vice President Cheney headed the company and,
they are going on even today [April, 2003]." Waxman also claims in the same letter to
Rumsfeld that a subsidiary called Halliburton Products and Services opened an office in Tehran
in February 2000, that Halliburton was fined 3.8 million dollars in 1995 for re-exporting U.S.
goods through a foreign subsidiary to Libya in violation of U.S. sanctions, that Halliburton
has been accused of overcharging the U.S. government for work it did in 1990 and in 2002,
Halliburton agreed to a 2 million dollar settlement in order to avoid possible criminal charges
of price gouging. Talk about sleeping with enemy, in today's climate of unprecedented
blatantly open corporate mega-donor bribery and reciprocal multi-billion dollar contract
payoffs, it is becoming increasingly difficult to know just who the terrorists in fact, in
reality are.
**FootNote II: The myth of a “liberal” media appears to have been formed by the about face
that many (perhaps most) journalists gradually took, including Walter Cronkite himself, regarding
the gross immorality of the Vietnam War; the truth being that for the most part, a very
conservative media was simply wagging their corporation-sponsored tails to the surging American
ratings-points threatening tide of anti-war sentiment. This turnabout took several years
and should not be confused with the “wagging the dog” love-it-or-leave-it parroting of the
current flag-waving, ratings-points embedded American media. The obvious reality is that
major American media has only achieved a semblance of moderation at best (it has never been
even remotely liberal by any known historical standard) and today, the overall slant may be
accurately described as conservative to ultra-conservative to fanatically blind (in the case of
Fox Television News and day-time radio). The most ‘liberal’ aspects of major modern
media are “moderately conservative” at best. For example, which of the four major networks
during the recent illegal invasion against Iraq openly opposed this pointless massacre and how
many newspapers of national prominence portrayed Bush as the illegitimate warmongering
international bully he obviously had become? An even moderately liberal (and any sane)
voice would have opposed this utter atrocity against the Iraqi people and our own people’s
future in a heartbeat. Phil Donahue, the one lone moderate liberal (very moderate by
historical standards) voice of major television news media, was perhaps the first known
casualty of this brutal aggression against a population of helpless men, women and children
whose only sin against America, it would appear, was being born in the Middle East.
***FootNote III: For any semblance of true election reform to occur, a bare minimum of
changes required would be the following: 1) Abolition of the Electoral College by
constitutional amendment. 2) Elimination of all political donations other than by private
individuals up to a maximum of 1% of the national median wage by constitutional amendment
(constitutional amendment necessary to avoid Supreme Court and other court challenge). 3)
FCC requirement that qualified candidates be given a predetermined amount (according to station
size, regional population size and elective office sought) of free television and radio airtime;
stations not complying would lose their FCC license to operate and qualification of candidates
determined by a minimum amount of signatures (number determined according to population size of
region and public office sought)---this would eliminate the excuse currently espoused for a
necessity of large business and personal donations to pay for media exposure in order to win
public office. 4) Elimination of all lobby, business and personal (or any other) gifts
and all other perks to elected public officials; i.e., absolutely no bribery allowed.
****FootNote IV: In no small part because of internet technology, the recent rapid
mobilization of millions of anti-war demonstrators in cities throughout the United States and
around the globe to oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq clearly demonstrates that The People’s
March is a viable and feasible option. If there is not a strong and coordinated enough
massive effort to wrench control of government away from corporation and other power-broking
thieves and placing control in the hands of the people where our Constitution already
dictates it should be, the only reason will be is that a great many sincere individuals of
conscience sat around bemoaning the “impossibility” of such a dramatic positive peaceful
shifting of power ever taking place. Mohandas Gandhi did not end up being the most
effective individual for positive peaceful change in modern history by bowing to criticism of
the recalcitrant and fearful foolish, nor did Martin Luther King, Jr. end up giving the
greatest speech in American history at the Lincoln Memorial by sitting down and crying about
impossibility.
*****FootNote V: Former commerce secretary for President Nixon Peter Peterson recently
stated that when Bush Junior first took office, the projected ten-year federal budget was a
$5.6 trillion surplus. After the ensuing first and second Bush tax cuts, coupled with the
projected cost of the invasion against Iraq, the ten-year projection is now a $4 trillion
deficit. In other words, in less than three years under the Bush Junior administration,
the party that habitually blames Democrats for being the “tax and spend” party has initiated an
approximate $10 trillion dollar federal government deficit.
According to Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, the $5.6 trillion alone could have
easily solved our looming social security insolvency woes for years to come. Friedman went
on to say that the federal government will not have nearly enough funds to offset huge deficits
now being faced by almost every state and what the Bush tax cuts actually should be called are
“service cuts”, because that is what they in fact are. That is, cuts for ‘wasteful’
government spending on services such as health care, education and of course, eventually cuts
in social security. (See also Credit #2 above.)
******FootNote VI: Title concept inspired by “After The Gold Rush”, by Neil young; After
The Gold Rush (1970) and “Song Sung Blue”, by Neil Diamond; Moods (1972).
WE THE PEOPLE OF CONSCIENCE, UNITE ! ! !
If we would desire
peace and social justice, if we desire a clean and healthy environment
for our children’s future, if we desire individual and collective freedom and free quality
public education for all, if we desire to alleviate and eliminate poverty and disease and the
murder and mayhem we experience daily in our cities and communities, if we would desire to be a
positive force and influence for our fellow brothers and sisters and our fragile planetary
home, then we must set aside our petty political, social, intellectual, religious and other
differences and unite under the common banner of Human and Civil Rights. For this is the
great and just cause and sum of what matters, that we love our neighbor as our self. And
as the greatest American, who saw better than most, heard better than most and spoke more
eloquently than most, has left for us a clear understanding and a common
inheritance: “Alone we can do so little and together, we can do so much.”
|