It’s been a little while since I’ve written anything here.  In part, my absence was due to just being busy with work, but that’s not the only reason.  Sometimes, I just need to stop and just soak in what others are writing, so I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading during my hiatus and that was what I was doing today when I ran across a piece by economist Joseph Stiglitz entitled “The 1 Percent’s Problem”.  I don’t know much about Stiglitz other than what he’s written.  I suppose the reason I say that is that he’s formerly the chief economist of the World Bank; an institution that clearly serves the same 1% he derides in his op-ed,  so it’s hard to understand his motivations in light of that.  The fact that I have that question in my mind speaks directly to the mistrust problem that he cogently outlines in the excerpt below:

The Mistrust Problem

One of the puzzles in modern political economy is why anyone bothers to vote. Very few elections actually turn on the ballot of a single individual. There is a cost to voting—no state has an explicit penalty for staying home, but it takes time and effort to get to the polls—and there is seemingly almost never a benefit. Modern political and economic theory assumes the existence of rational, self-interested actors. On that basis, why anyone would vote is a mystery.

The answer is that we’ve been inculcated with notions of “civic virtue.” It is our responsibility to vote. But civic virtue is fragile. If the belief takes hold that the political and economic systems are stacked, individuals will feel released from their civic obligations. When that social contract is abrogated—when trust between a government and its citizens fails—disillusionment, disengagement, or worse is sure to follow. In the United States today, and in many other democracies around the world, mistrust is on the ascendant.

It’s even built in. The head of Goldman Sachs, Lloyd Blankfein, made it perfectly clear: sophisticated investors don’t, or at least shouldn’t, rely on trust. Those who bought the products his bank sold were consenting adults who should have known better. They should have known that Goldman Sachs had the means, and the incentive, to design products that would fail; that they had the means and the incentive to create asymmetries of information—where they knew more about the products than the buyers did—and the means and the incentive to take advantage of those asymmetries. The people who fell victim to the investment banks were, for the most part, well-off investors. But deceptive credit-card practices and predatory lending have left Americans more broadly with a sense that banks are not to be trusted.

Economists often underestimate the role of trust in making our economy work. If every contract had to be enforced by one party taking the other to court, our economy would be in gridlock. Throughout history, the economies that have flourished are those where a handshake is a deal. Without trust, business arrangements based on an understanding that complex details will be worked out later are no longer feasible. Without trust, each participant looks around to see how and when those with whom he is dealing will betray him.

Widening inequality is corrosive of trust: in its economic impact, think of it as the universal solvent. It creates an economic world in which even the winners are wary. But the losers! In every transaction—in every encounter with a boss or business or bureaucrat—they see the hand of someone out to take advantage of them.

Nowhere is trust more important than in politics and the public sphere. There, we have to act together. It’s easier to act together when most individuals are in similar situations—when most of us are, if not in the same boat, at least in boats within a range of like sizes. But growing inequality makes it clear that our fleet looks different—it’s a few mega-yachts surrounded by masses of people in dugout canoes, or clinging to flotsam—which helps explain our vastly differing views of what the government should do.

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/279-82/11727-focus-the-1-percents-problem

This excerpt describes how I feel about a great many things and particularly about national politics.  I don’t advocate people not voting as it’s really not my place to do so, but disinterest in the process arises naturally when mistrust and irrelevance sets in.

The political parties and their candidates sell us their brand and we only have a choice between two brands; a democrat or a republican. But behind each brand, there’s a sameness or a oneness that really doesn’t distinguish the two in any significant way.  In other words, the branding sells the electorate on a difference that really doesn’t exist where it really matters and the staged fights that we see are actually designed to reinforce the branding more than anything else.  The nation has lurched towards a vast concentration of wealth and power with the assistance of both parties.  We’re in imperialist entanglements due to a very consistent foreign policy pursued by both parties.  That foreign policy has saddled us with trillions of dollars of debt and that is leading to a fiscal train wreck that’s been overseen by both parties.  There is really no difference between the two where it matters and the differences that are plied to us by the corporate controlled press are on issues that mostly don’t matter while the issues that do matter can’t even be discussed.   I liken it to a house that has a leaky faucet in the kitchen while it sits in the path of a raging forest fire.  The press and the politicians only talk about the leaky faucet, which is an issue, but it happens to not be as big of an issue as the fire.  So, we wind up voting for whoever convinces us that they’re the best person to fix the faucet while no one acknowledges the fire.  That’s not rational.

No, there’s no need to advocate that someone not vote, but awareness can lead one to the very rational conclusion that engagement with a broken political process that amounts to a fiction is a waste of time—particularly when there’s a fire lapping at the door.  It’s far better to make preparations to escape the flames.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I took a break from my busy schedule a couple of weeks ago to attend an event sponsored by the Philadelphia African-American Chamber of Commerce where Maggie Anderson, author of Our Black Year was a guest speaker.   I picked up a copy of her book, which I highly recommend, and have just finished reading it.   Ms. Anderson is a dynamic speaker and her book is thought provoking, however, given the backdrop of my own experiences both as a business person and as one who’s had a level of involvement in the community, some of her conclusions and observations aren’t particularly surprising. 

Our Black Year recounts the experience of Anderson and her family as they went on a buy black campaign by directing much of their everyday spending to black businesses in the Chicagoland area.  To accomplish this, the family really inconvenienced themselves by going out their way and traveling far from home to even find  black businesses to patronize.  Much of this additional effort was the result of  the sheer paucity of black business representation in basic industries such as grocery stores, specialty shops and the like.  Although studies have shown that African-Americans are forming businesses at a rapid rate, there’s still a very long way to go to build a significant presence in the business world and in local neighborhoods where small businesses normally thrive.  The single greatest challenge that the Anderson family faced was just being able to find black owned businesses to patronize and in many instances, they came up with none.   The Andersons also found that support for this effort from other African Americans and certain civil rights organizations to be mixed.

Ms. Anderson’s call for upper and middle income African-Americans to “buy black” has not been without controversy. There have been accusations that this call amounts to racism and I suppose that if this is seen as the equivalent of a call to “buy white”, I can see how that argument could be made, but that really misreads what she’s calling for.  Anderson is really calling for self help economic development in the African-American community.  Unfortunately, the accusations of racism were loud enough to result in a threatened lawsuit from Ebony magazine forcing her to remove the “Ebony” from name of the foundation she developed to study and promote self help economic development within African-American communities.  Apparently, the buy black campaign that was being run under the name “Ebony Experiment” resulted in the magazine being under pressure from advertisers who thought that the campaign was being run under the magazine’s aegis and that gave rise to the threatened lawsuit unless the name of the foundation was changed.   That experience along with a waivered commitment by some wealthy African-Americans to financially support the foundation introduced a cold slap of reality to Anderson who may have had some naiveté when it came to idealistic notions of what might be possible when dealing with certain elements within the community.  Clearly, not everyone is ready to board the bus, so to speak.

That cold slap of reality continued as it dawned on the Andersons just how few quality black businesses existed that could be supported even though Chicago has one of the largest African-American populations in the country.  And the few quality ones that did exist struggled to survive due to lack of support, ineffective marketing, insufficient capital and a myriad of other reasons.   Anderson describes in depth the situation of an African-American owned grocery named Farmer’s Best.  This was a quality black business that was competently managed that wound up folding due to lack of sales and insufficient capital for staying power.  Anderson attributes the grocer’s failure  to the lack of support from the African-American community, even though she and the grocer went all out with their marketing efforts by holding fairs and free events to build foot traffic to no avail. Particularly galling to Anderson was the brisk business being done by Hispanic grocers while Farmer’s Best suffered. 

I’m not so sure that this grocer’s failure can be ascribed totally to lack of African-American support and the comparison to Hispanic grocers may not be entirely valid.  First, Hispanics have an ethnic food thing going that isn’t necessarily replicated in major stores while African Americans lack the same entre.  The food we eat is more “American” and that means a small grocer without the ethnic hook is competing against the vast marketing and buying power of the major chains.    Once you combine the competitive disadvantages on marketing and buying power with lack of capital, a smaller grocer will simply not have the staying power to make it.  Having more support from the community might have helped, but the competitive disadvantages would have been tough to overcome even with that.   The grocer might have fared better as a scaled down operation specializing in certain products only.  The overall trend in the economy towards consolidation makes it tough for smaller business and that ultimately may impact Hispanic grocers also unless they scale up and put a vice grip on their market.  So there’s a lesson in the failure of this particular black grocer that’s not entirely attributable to a lack of African-American support.  Ironically, in a twist,  Anderson describes how the grocer himself felt that being identified as a black business may have actually hurt him in getting black customers.

Unfortunately, some of the other business that the Anderson family patronized during their odyssey also folded due to lack of sales which is almost always symptomatic of something else.   Some of the businesses were headed for failure anyway merely as a function of not really being ready for prime time, while others were ready and just simply lacked the capital to make a go of it.  Toward the of end of the book, it almost seems that Anderson has gotten so disappointed and dejected by the experience that she ends up with a call for more supplier diversity from larger corporations—which falls outside of the normal buy black mantra, but doesn’t note that the same issues she ran into attempting to patronize quality black businesses will likely be the same ones the supplier diversity people will run into.  As a matter of fact, and speaking from experience, that’s guaranteed to be a certainty. 

Ms. Anderson reminds me of a modern day Marcus Garvey.  Students of history will recollect that Marcus Garvey was one of the first Black Nationalists who called for black economic empowerment.   Although I really admire Anderson’s courage and tenacity here.  I believe her call to “buy black” is somewhat misdirected.  I believe this to be so because economic development of the African-American community isn’t necessarily a function of people buying black– rather it’s a function of people just buying.  Once you begin looking at things in the context of the broader market, then there’s some clarity developed around what needs to happen to set that up.

Anderson is really calling for investment in the African-American community through black to black consumerism.  I think the call really needs to one for investment of capital.  In other words, there’s needs to be an investment of  money, time and effort in building the types of businesses that can be supported by everyone.  Basically, we need to develop trade both within and outside of the community.  The end result of that is the same that Ms. Anderson really desires—the economic development of the African-American community to make a dent in the pernicious problems that exist.  

When I think about this call to “buy black”, I’m forced to think about the Chinese or the Indians from the subcontinent. Both of these groups have thriving business communities, yet we’ve not heard similar calls from these groups for others to “buy Chinese” or “buy Indian”. First, they don’t have the numbers where this sort of call would even be viable, but more importantly, they’ve focused their businesses on the broader market by effectively trading their unique ethnic food/culture to those who like to partake of it.  African-Americans do something similar in the fields of sports and entertainment, however, we mostly don’t control those industries and that’s the major difference.  For example, you’ll notice that Chinese restaurants seem to be never franchised or subjected to the forces that eliminated neighborhood hardware stores and small retailers.  As I understand it, this is a function of the manner in which the food is cooked as well as their firm control over all aspects of the Chinese restaurant industry.  Essentially, they’ve created a high barrier to entry.   On the whole African-Americans lack that sort of impregnable barrier to entry and that key difference accounts for why we don’t hear calls from the Chinese to “buy Chinese”.  They’ve got the thing set up where they don’t have to do that.  Our focus needs to be along the same lines.  So the call really isn’t about buying black so much as creating the compelling reasons for anyone to buy—and that takes serious work and planning. 

From my observations, the greatest challenge in developing the African-American community revolve around a few things—a leadership gap, an expertise gap and a capital gap.  You can buy black all day, but if those issues aren’t addressed, all that effort will amount to is a study in frustration—which happens to be largely the story told by Anderson in her book.  Of these three, closing the leadership and expertise gaps are the most critical.  It must be understood that the bulk of the community’s issues arise from the absence of Dubois’ talented tenth.  The best and the brightest aren’t deployed or focused on building and investing in the African-American community as they’re pre-occupied with their jobs and the trappings of success that are fueling someone else’s economic success.  In effect, that often leaves the second string in control of the politics, the businesses and everything else within and just as you can’t expect to win a basketball game with your second string when the other team is fielding its starters, so it is when it comes to a community.  The absence and lack of meaningful engagement of the best and brightest—our intelligentsia—is quite evident and this is the main difference between the African-American community when it comes to any comparison to other communities.  It is our best and most talented who possess the organizational ability and the know how to run the businesses, politics and anything else.  They’re not on the scene and this figures prominently—very prominently—in the conditions that exist within the African-American community.  Basically, we need to take our MBA’s and our training and begin investing and executing within.

This thing is far more complex and is going to require far more work than just calling for folks to buy black. But having said all of that, there’s another notion that must be challenged and that revolves around the idea that black people don’t support black business.   I happen to own a business and that’s not been my experience.  But black business not being supported by African-Americans is not that the only fallacy that needs to be dispensed with.  The other one relates to the fact that racism is so pervasive, that whites will not patronize a black business unless forced to with some diversity program.  That has also not been my experience.

Here’s what my experience informs me of—a real business is not about civil rights, buying black or any other romantic notions.  It’s about business and that means offering competitive services that the public wants.  If you’re not absolutely clear on that, you won’t be in business very long.  Now, once you’ve successfully done that, there may be some romantic notions you support—but that’s different, separate and apart from business.

When I started this post originally, my intent was to review Ms. Anderson’s book for the reader rather than insert my own thoughts, but as I began writing, that wasn’t possible. There are a few other things as a business person of color that I can and should share.  I’ll do that in successive posts over the next few months. 

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

This falls into the category of the sort of news  that’s significant, but is relegated to the back pages, while the diversionary infotainment that informs you of nothing is in the headlines.  Here’s the story:

While many sports fans are preparing for Sunday’s Super Bowl by organizing parties and shopping for TVs, the U.S. government is preparing in a different way. Just yesterday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency seized 307 different domains suspected of violating NFL copyrights. Of those, 16 were suspected of illegal streaming. The rest were allegedly selling counterfeit NFL merchandise.

The seizure was conducted under U.S. civil law, not criminal law. That means the affected parties need to prove that the internet domains were not engaging in illegal activity to get them back — an ugly mirror image of the country’s usual “innocent until proven guilty” right. Many of the domains were not being operated by U.S. groups. Because they used U.S. domain suffixes .net, .com, and .org, however, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency was empowered to act.

Visitors to any of the seized domains are now greeted by a message from ICE explaining the takedown. According to the government, these messages have already been viewed over 77 million times yesterday alone.

http://www.tecca.com/news/2012/02/03/ice-nfl-website-seizure-superbowl/

The story indicates that “many” domains were being operated by groups outside the US, hence the involvement of Homeland Security and US Immigration,  but doesn’t say exactly how many.  “Many” is a sort of word that’s highly subjective and doesn’t preclude that there may have also ”many” groups that were US  based.  Regardless of where they were based, all have to prove that they weren’t engaging in illegal activity—in other words, they’re guilty until they establish innocence.  For the legitimate US based businesses, that won’t do them much good at this point  as by the time they get around to that, the Super Bowl and the money making opportunity it provides will have passed.  I read somewhere that the way to get around this is to have a foreign domain, but it’s a bit late in the day for that at this point as well.  So what we have here is the US Government security infrastructure protecting private business interests by deciding who’s going to be in business and who will not.  If you needed confirmation why our vast and growing security state exists, this would appear to give an insight to its purpose and function.

This same security state, which includes the justice department, seemingly couldn’t do anything to prosecute those responsible for the robo-signing mortgage frauds— which have far broader impacts in the economy and which are largely responsible for the mess we’re in now — until  here of late and it’s uncertain at this point whether or not this is merely a populist election year ploy.  The point in making this comment is to not get into a partisan fray here as I truly believe that there’s really very little difference between what the current administration has done on this front versus what a McCain administration, a Romney administration or a Clinton administration would have done.  So the indictment here is really not against the Obama administration so much as the political system in its entirety.  Those who happen to occupy key positions in the executive and legislative branches of our government are figureheads and are there for us to vent our anger on and fight about in the left-right paradigm. The real control, which is behind the scenes, is constant and controls that paradigm. This is why certain policies are consistent across so called liberal or conservative majorities/administrations.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Robert Sengstacke Abbott--Publisher of the Chicago Defender

The republican candidates had much to say about African-Americans during the recent South Carolina primary.   Here an excerpt from a 1993 speech that Newt Gingrich made regarding African-Americans and business that’s causing some outcry:

For poor minorities, entrepreneurship in small business is the key to future wealth. This is understood thoroughly by most of the Asians, partially by Latinos, and to a tragically small degree by much of the American black community.”

Is this a true statement?  Well, yes and no.  First, the fact that owning a business can lead to future wealth is indeed true.  That happens to apply to anyone however, not just “poor minorities”.  In the main, Asians, particularly newly arriving immigrants, do tend to pursue entrepreneurship heavily.  The same can also be said for blacks coming from the Caribbean and Africa.  Hispanics seem to be heavily into business as well and depending on the area of the country, American blacks may or may not be engaged in starting small businesses.  For example, in Northern New Jersey, New York, Atlanta, Philadelphia and other large urban centers, you will find large numbers of black businesses while in other areas you may not.  The involvement of American blacks in business really depends on the area of the country you’re speaking of, however, it is true that most American blacks need to understand entrepreneurship as a path to freedom, first and possible economic wealth, second.  Fully 80% of most businesses fail within the first five years and those who survive may not necessarily provide vast wealth, but can provide another form of wealth that’s potentially far more valuable–that would be freedom and from that comes economic and political independence.  This sort of independence, above every other reason, is the main outcome of more African-Americans going into business. From my perspective, that sort of freedom is priceless.

This is an area that I can speak with some authority on as I’ve direct experience with both starting a small business and advising small business.  I’ve been running a Certified Public Accounting firm for 29 years and although my client base is quite diverse now, I started my business servicing  African-American communities in Northern NJ and New York and many of those clients remain with me to this very day.  Over time, my business expanded to other communities and my clients range from individuals to mid-sized businesses.  The bulk of my firm’s services are oriented towards tax, accounting and consulting work and generally in all instances, my firm’s clients are looking to me for advice, so some of the things I do directly impact the growth and viability of the client’s business which has a sort of symbiotic relationship to my own firm’s growth.  In other words, the situation is such that as the client’s business grows, they need more services which means that my business grows as well.  So as I commit to help them grow, I grow my own business at the same time.  Central to my philosophy in business is the concept of win-win.  Win-lose is never sustainable while win-win feeds itself. As I’ve remarked on several occasions in this blog, it’s the win-lose proposition that’s at the heart of America’s economic problems.

As my business has grown outside of the African-American community, I’ve come in contact with a wide variety of people with diverse views and philosophies. At times, very different than my own, yet we still do business.   I really can’t say that I’ve lost out on opportunity owing to race.  Perhaps I have and didn’t realize it, but I think I’d know.  It’s been my experience that people do business with those who establish competence and who they like and come to know.   I need to also say that I’ve always opted to operate in the broad marketplace and I’ve never participated in a set aside or any minority business sort of program where extra points are given because one is a minority or women owned firm.   I’ve not found these things attractive because they don’t align with my philosophy.  I do understand why they exist and I do understand that an argument can be made about an old boy network that amounts to affirmative action for white firms, but getting involved with this has never been my thing.  I operate and compete in the broad market and that’s where I comfortable with the odds of winning or losing. 

Strange as it may seem, I’ve found the dynamic of race in business far different for me as an independent businessperson versus when I was employed in corporate America.  As I mention above, I’ve really not found race to be an issue while I’ve been self employed, however it was THE issue when I was in corporate America and this was truly a burden that had to be borne along with all the other stuff one had to contend with.  Why the difference?  I’ve thought about this often and I guess a good analogy is going into a Chinese restaurant to buy lunch.  You go in there because you want the food and you really don’t care who’s behind the counter.  Of course, if the place looks like a wreck and the food smells like it has toe jam in it, you’re not going to want to have any part of the scene.  So if you can establish that you’re competent and honest while proposing a winning proposition, most people are going to do business.  In this sense, entrepreneurship is a great equalizer.

My business was started wholly due my complete dissatisfaction and wholesale rejection of corporate America and working for someone.  The racial politics I encountered was a huge part of my dissatisfaction. A job change wasn’t going to cure the problem.  There was really nothing for me to do other than start my own business.  I’m not the sort of person who likes to play political games, engage in water cooler talk, pretend I like you when you disgust me or put up with the nonsense that you’re expected to endure to get a paycheck.  It’s an unnatural environment.  I couldn’t do it nor could I make myself do it.  I really had no choice, so I took the lemons and made myself some lemonade.

The first thing that’s done when you go into business is choose freedom and because you choose freedom, by default you’re electing yourself to be a leader.  So my thinking wasn’t really about riches or anything like that when I started.  The main thing I wanted was freedom and the thing that rang in my mind was this quote from the great abolitionist and escaped slave Frederick Douglass:

“ Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them……The limit of tyrants is prescribed by the endurance of those they oppress.”

I don’t do “endure” very well at all and Douglass’ words called out across the century telling me what I had to do.   After I started out on the path for freedom looking for my North Star, I figured I needed to make some money and was able to begin getting that sorted out, but that’s another story that could literally yield several posts and most likely a book.  I tell you, I’ve learned a lot from running a small business.  It’s literally a life classroom on a great many things I never expected.  I just thought I’d be doing accounting, but it turned out to be much more than that—but I’m digressing.

I’d like to return to concept to the importance of Black business and rather than speculate about whether Gingrich is a racist for having said what he said, let’s put a positive actionable spin on what he said and glean out what’s true.  One of the reasons why the African-American community faces the challenges it faces is for lack of organization and a related problem that arises from that is a lack of capacity.  In other words, we lack the capacity to fully utilize any help that may come our way because we’re not organized to direct it, manage it  and maximize it.  The result of this is empty promises from the political system, symbolic gestures or promises to stamp out racism.  This is all we get, because that’s all we have the capacity to accept and manage.  Of course, if the African-American community developed broad based capabilities to organize and build internal capacities, concerns about racism or what folks are saying would dissipate as we’d be too busy taking care of business to even care what was said (By the way, that’s why I don’t care.  It’s not that I don’t abhor racism, I just don’t have the time or inclination to get overly worked up about what someone says, thinks or writes).  Moreover, our relationship to the political class would change from being a collective supplicant to actually driving an agenda which supports whatever we’ve got going on—or we might not even need them at all.

Within the African-American community, the core of leadership comes mainly from either the social justice ranks or from church leadership.  Frequently, those coming from the social justice perspective lack the organizational and managerial skills to execute broadly on something that’s sustainable while being wholly financed internally.  Whereas there are some churches that are doing great work, they can’t get very political due to restrictions arising from tax laws governing non-profits and political involvement.  This same stricture happens to apply to many non-profits like the NAACP and other black non-profit organizations. (Recall there were situations under Bush where there were threats to pull the NAACP’s non-profit status due to it getting too political).  When you add this to the fact that many of the organizations that are supposed to represent us get the vast majority of their funding from corporate America and others since there’s no capacity to develop internal funding streams, then it’s easy to see why we’re unorganized and powerless.  He who writes the check, controls the process and there’s no place where this is more evident than in the African-American community.  We are not organized internally to shape and fund our own agenda.  Instead it’s being done for us.

There are two groups of African-Americans who have the organizational and managerial skills to organize and execute.  This first group are those who are employed in corporate America.  These are Dubois’ talented tenth, yet they too are controlled and funded by someone else and this effectively mutes them for fear of job loss.  The second group is the entrepreneurial class.  Any successful entrepreneur knows how to organize, execute and raise money.  Moreover, any business is generally based on solving some problem and the most successful businesses are those who solve the biggest problems.  So, any successful business person is going to have strong organizational skills and possess expert problem solving abilities and in a community that is both unorganized and full of problems, individuals with this skill set are sorely needed.  Since they’re effectively self funded, there’s no threat of job loss and since they have freedom, they’re free to act.  There’s historical precedence with this in the stories African American entrepreneurs like Madam CJ Walker, Robert Sengstacke Abbot and others.

So, in the African-American community, business formation is about a different sort of wealth building.  It’s really about the sort of wealth that comes from freedom not only for the entrepreneur, but for all of us as they lead by executing.  But whether that sort of wealth can be built is reliant on the philosophy of those so engaged and what the community asks of them.  The best of business is always win win and when there’s a symbiotic relationship between business and the development of a community, it is indeed a powerful combination.  That same relationship needs to exist between the political class, those we trade with and etc.

I don’t view entrepreneurship as a panacea for all the ails the African-American community, but the entrepreneurs are a class of leadership that heretofore hasn’t been at the table in the numbers it should.  Much of that is owing to not enough people electing to go that route and/or those who taken the leap still caught up in the struggle to make sure their business survives.  Developing this leadership class is really a numbers game in the sense that more people electing to go this route will produce more successes.

Running a CPA firm is like being a canary in a coal mine in the sense that you see first hand the broader economic trends, both positive and negative.  One of the biggest things I’ve seen over the past few years is the absolute erosion of good paying mid managerial jobs.  These are jobs that normally pay well within six digits that have simply gone away due to outsourcing and/or technological advances and they will not be replaced.  Many of these people are highly educated and well trained and are being forced to become either accidental entrepreneurs and/or pursue other forms of employment that’s not the normal corporate career track which is now being now increasingly rolled up and eliminated.

One of the potential outcomes is more highly trained and educated African-Americans finding themselves being in the position of being accidental entrepreneurs.  Many people don’t do things until circumstances force them to and in a way this is a positive for the African-American community.  The best and brightest, some of whom faced some of the same frustrations in corporate America similar to my own, may return their talents to the community.  Depending on the shape and direction this takes, this may augur well for the African-American community.   

The Ewing Marion Kaufman Foundation does several studies on entrepreneurship and one particular study buttresses empirically what I’ve observed.  It has found that despite the recession, entrepreneurial activity is up and that African-Americans are showing the greatest increases in business creation rates while still lagging other groups however. The fact that this is occurring is a driver for my own business or for any other business who is positioned to support this trend.  Why is this? Because everyone of them needs an accountant.   I would further suggest that this trend has been in place for years and that much of the business I have in the African-American community is as a result of it.  Here’s another statistic that the reader needs to be aware of.  Less than 1% of all Certified Public Accountants in the country are African-American and of that 1%, even less are involved self employed in public practice.   (Also, there’s a general shortage of experienced CPA’s similar to that which characterized the nursing profession years ago).  Here’s a question: What do you think can happen to a  African-American CPA, who’s in short supply to begin with, in a community where the numbers of folks going into business is growing and who need your help? 

You’re going to be busy because the numbers are in your favor and that applies to any business who positions themselves in a similar manner.  This is why groups like the Koreans have taken over the Black hair care industry.  They’re filling a need that we’re not positioned to address.  It’s all about looking at trends and your positioning vis a vis  the predominant trend.   Because we’re too busy responding to the Newt Gingrichs of the world, we fail to see that our fixation on these sorts of things leaves our back door open for others to take care of things we should be doing.   Our entire infrastructure is geared toward the pursuit of social justice and much of that is being financed on our behalf while there is little infrastructure in place to actually develop the African-American community. No one is going to do that for us.  We have to do that ourselves.   Effectively, we’re unwittingly participating in our being gamed and it’s my eternal frustration that few people see this. 

Let me put it this way.  Suppose I have a waiting room full of clients waiting to be serviced and rather than dealing with them, I’m out on the street protesting, marching and complaining about not having clients.  Since, I’m not doing what’s directly relevant to serving the clients who are waiting for me, I shouldn’t be surprised when someone else opens shop to do what I should be doing.  Basically, since I’m not properly positioned, I leave the back door open for someone else to come in and make the money I should be making–and this is what is occurring in the main in the African-American community. Needless to say, there’s a reason why people are financed to do this as opposed to open businesses.  There are some who actually want us focused on issues other than taking actions truly relevant to conditions on the ground.

As I said, it’s not that I don’t abhor racism, but I really don’t have time to worry about what Gingrich says or even to discern whether he’s a racist or not.   It’s not relevant.  What is relevant are those clients (figuratively speaking) in my waiting room and there’s too much work to do to address their needs.  Our thinking needs to become far more entrepreneurial in this respect and once it does, we’ll experience a sea change in the African-American community and that’s the real importance of black business.  

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I now understand why Romney got shellacked in South Carolina while complaining that Gingrich is playing the class warfare card.  Take a look at the clip below.  It’s about a half hour long and gets into his activities at hedge fund Bain Capital.  It pretty much destroys the narrative he’s attempted to create around the fact that he’s been a job creator.

As with most things that are put out in the press nowadays, one must be very cautious about the motivations of those who put forth information even if some truths are revealed.   According to Reader Supported News, this is the back story on this film:

The video above, titled “When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” was produced by a so-called “Super PAC” named “Winning Our Future.” While Winning Our Future states on its website: “Not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee,” they also go on to say, “Winning Our Future means nominating Former Speaker Newt Gingrich for President in 2012. And advancing that goal is what Winning Our Future is all about.”

The backing for Winning Our Future appears to come in large part from Gingrich’s friend and longtime associate, billionaire gambling mogul Sheldon Adelson. According to the New York Times, Adelson staked Winning Our Future with a $5 million war chest.

“When Mitt Romney Came to Town” appears to have been a component of Mr. Gingrich’s strategy for defeating Mr. Romney for the Republican presidential nomination. However, Gingrich, under pressure from Republican power brokers to tone down the criticism, has now backed away from the film citing “inaccuracies” and saying, “I am calling on them to either edit out every single mistake or pull the entire film.” — RSN Staff

http://readersupportednews.org/video/4-video/9475-gingrich-film-slams-romney-angers-republicans

 

With his gambling enterprises, the film’s main backer, Sheldon Adelson, is exploiting the same people that Romney is exploiting as it’s a well known fact that the main demographic of those who gamble are individuals with incomes less than $ 50,000.   So the film tells a partial truth, but fails to look at the entire system of economic exploitation and disaster capitalism that both of these guys play a part in and Romney’s activities have to be viewed in context of an entire political, economic and legal systems that support this.  So while the film reveals a truth about Romney and those like him, it fails to tell the whole truth about the system that allows this to occur.   That would be a bit too much truth to tell and it appears that  Gingrich is now under pressure to back away from the small portion of truth that has been revealed here.

If this keeps up, Romney will lose even though he’s the republican establishment’s favored candidate.  I don’t think that’s going to be allowed.  We’ll see what happens over the next few weeks, but I suspect Gingrich is going to get “Cained”. If that happens, remember you read the prediction here first!

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The USS Maine

It seems to me that there’s an accepted narrative when it comes to history and current events that involve our nation. The theme that cuts across both is the idea that we’ve only entered wars for noble causes like the defense of freedom or to promote democracy.  These are vague and innocuous phrases that reduce the reasons for going to war into simple terms that one is supposed not to question unless he’s prepared to be accused of being “unpatriotic”.  A proper distillation of history certainly casts the accepted narratives about America’s past wars in doubt for those who become aware of the truth. The truth is that many of the wars that our nation has engaged in have involved false flags that have been used as a cover to engage in war for reasons far less than noble.  Often the real motivation was conquest and the false flag gave the cover of an excuse. After all, you can’t expect to galvanize people behind the effort if you tell them they must give their lives for oil, the US dollar or in general support of hegemony.    It’s important to look at the backdrop of history  with respect to war now as I happen to believe that we’re in the unannounced phase in the war with Iran that will soon be formally announced as soon as we can position them to appear as the aggressor.

So what has the history actually been?   Here are a few of examples to consider that will challenge the accepted narratives and directly call into question the narrative on Iran:

 Spanish American War of 1898:  How exactly did our our nation wind up with Puerto Rico and Guam as possessions while having broad influence in the Philippines and Cuba before Castro’s  revolution?  That came as a result this war where a weakened Spain lost the remaining remnants of  its colonial empire to the US.  The concept of manifest destiny was limited to sea to shining sea and the result was the extirpation of the Native American. The Monroe Doctrine extended US control and influence to the entire western hemisphere and simple hegemon type tendencies took us beyond the hemisphere.  According to the history books, the war began with the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana harbor which was sent to Cuba to support Cubans in their effort to “liberate” the island from Spain and to protect US “interests”.   Although uncertain of the cause of the explosion, the press of that time, led by Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer, whipped the public up in a frenzy claiming that Spain planted a mine.   In its weakened state, the last thing Spain wanted was war, but that’s what they got and subsequent investigation revealed that a weapons magazine explosion was responsible rather than the Spanish mine that was assumed.   But by the time that was acknowledged, Spain was relieved of its remaining colonies.  The general conclusion was that the US was looking for an excuse so it could achieve this outcome.

The Gulf of Tonkin/Vietnam War: Before hostilities get formally announced, the CIA is running a covert action against North Vietnam using speed boats manned by South Vietnamese to conduct a series of coastal raids.   This effort is supported by American warships conducting electronic surveillance in “international waters” that is used to direct the speed boat attacks against the North Vietnamese—in effect an act of war in and of itself.   In response to continued raids by the speed boats, the North Vietnamese respond by attacking the USS Maddox and are able to score a hit with a single 14.5 millimeter machine gun bullet which gets the boats they used to do this strafed and destroyed.   Our nation decides not to back down and the USS Maddox and another ship reappears a few days later along with more speed boats to do the same thing.  While doing this, the ships receive radar and sonar information indicating another North Vietnamese attack, but as it turns out “freak weather effects on radar” may have accounted for the attack as the USS Maddox’s captain is unable to visually spot any North Vietnamese boats.   Nevertheless, Lyndon Johnson goes on TV to address the nation about the incident and eventually gets the Gulf of Tonkin resolution approved authorizing military force without a declaration of war. So one attack was provoked and another was imagined and that was the entire reason for engaging in a conflict that cost about 50,000 American lives and untold numbers of Vietnamese lives.

World War II:  A new book authored by President Herbert Hoover is out entitled Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s History of the Second World War and It’s Aftermath that sheds new light on World War II involving Japan.   I‘ve not read the book yet, but according to all of the reviews, it sheds a lot of light on the history of WWII and does not paint a flattering picture of FDR’s role.  Hoover was an isolationist and was totally against any US role in what was occurring in Europe.  At the time Germany was on the move and primarily looking east for “acquisitions” which actually threw it at loggerheads with Russia.  Hoover’s council to Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain was to appease them by not interfering with their eastward expansion which he did for a while, but ultimately Britain and France decided to support Poland when it got in Hitler’s crosshairs.  Hitler promptly came an agreement with Russia to divide up Eastern Europe among them and with peace with Russia, turned his attention to France and England.  The common narrative with regard to Chamberlain was that his appeasement didn’t stop Hitler, but according to Hoover, it was his interference with Germany’s eastward expansion that was the source of his problem and France’s.

But even more interesting is how the US and Japan came to war.  I had heard previous accounts that Japan attacked the US because of an oil embargo, but hadn’t read anything definitive.  I find that quite interesting especially when one considers the effect of the current round of sanctions on Iran that are designed to strangle it economically by forcing it to sell its oil well below market.   It’s an act of war, much like how Japan apparently interpreted our actions back in 1941 and this is why they’re threatening to close the Strait of Hormuz –which is the casus belli that the US is looking for  just as it was in the Gulf of Tonkin, the sinking of the USS Maine and apparently even with Japan.    Here’s an excerpt of a book review describing what happened with Japan according to Hoover.  It’s an amazing story far different than the commonly accepted history book narrative and the parallels between our economic actions against Japan and the current ones against Iran are very apparent :

Consider Japan’s situation in the summer of 1941. Bogged down in a four year war in China she could neither win nor end, having moved into French Indochina, Japan saw herself as near the end of her tether.

Inside the government was a powerful faction led by Prime Minister Prince Fumimaro Konoye that desperately did not want a war with the United States.

The “pro-Anglo-Saxon” camp included the navy, whose officers had fought alongside the U.S. and Royal navies in World War I, while the war party was centered on the army, Gen. Hideki Tojo and Foreign Minister Yosuke Matsuoka, a bitter anti-American.

On July 18, 1941, Konoye ousted Matsuoka, replacing him with the “pro-Anglo-Saxon” Adm. Teijiro Toyoda.

The U.S. response: On July 25, we froze all Japanese assets in the United States, ending all exports and imports, and denying Japan the oil upon which the nation and empire depended.

Stunned, Konoye still pursued his peace policy by winning secret support from the navy and army to meet FDR on the U.S. side of the Pacific to hear and respond to U.S. demands.

U.S. Ambassador Joseph Grew implored Washington not to ignore Konoye’s offer, that the prince had convinced him an agreement could be reached on Japanese withdrawal from Indochina and South and Central China. Out of fear of Mao’s armies and Stalin’s Russia, Tokyo wanted to hold a buffer in North China.

On Aug. 28, Japan’s ambassador in Washington presented FDR a personal letter from Konoye imploring him to meet.

Tokyo begged us to keep Konoye’s offer secret, as the revelation of a Japanese prime minister’s offering to cross the Pacific to talk to an American president could imperil his government.

On Sept. 3, the Konoye letter was leaked to the Herald-Tribune.

On Sept. 6, Konoye met again at a three-hour dinner with Grew to tell him Japan now agreed with the four principles the Americans were demanding as the basis for peace. No response.

On Sept. 29, Grew sent what Hoover describes as a “prayer” to the president not to let this chance for peace pass by.

On Sept. 30, Grew wrote Washington, “Konoye’s warship is ready waiting to take him to Honolulu, Alaska or anyplace designated by the president.”

No response. On Oct. 16, Konoye’s cabinet fell.

In November, the U.S. intercepted two new offers from Tokyo: a Plan A for an end to the China war and occupation of Indochina and, if that were rejected, a Plan B, a modus vivendi where neither side would make any new move. When presented, these, too, were rejected out of hand.

At a Nov. 25 meeting of FDR’s war council, Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s notes speak of the prevailing consensus: “The question was how we should maneuver them (the Japanese) into … firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”

“We can wipe the Japanese off the map in three months,” wrote Navy Secretary Frank Knox.

As Grew had predicted, Japan, a “hara-kiri nation,” proved more likely to fling herself into national suicide for honor than to allow herself to be humiliated.

Out of the war that arose from the refusal to meet Prince Konoye came scores of thousands of U.S. dead, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, the fall of China to Mao Zedong, U.S. wars in Korea and Vietnam, and the rise of a new arrogant China that shows little respect for the great superpower of yesterday.

http://buchanan.org/blog/did-fdr-provoke-pearl-harbor-4953?utm_source=feedburner&utm_med

An amazing and astounding reset of the history of WWII that’s highly disturbing.  Basically, our dominance emerging from the War was planned.  . Perhaps the most disturbing thing beyond that is the whole idea that the architects of our war with Japan deliberately put American lives on the line in Pearl Harbor and in the battles beyond for conquest by maneuvering Japan into attacking us.  This is astounding.   When considered against the backdrop of history, several questions immediately present themselves about whether the narratives around many other things are truthful and that would include many current events.

This also brings the current situation with Iran in sharp focus particularly as it follows Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and countless other low intensity conflicts that we’re involved in.  The nuclear weapons narrative is a lie that’s being marketed to us to justify conquest.  That much is clear.

It’s also clear that the seeds of our current predicament were sewn back then when one ties this current events.  Here we sit economically broken conducting wars we can’t even finance internally for the benefit of a very small group of oligarchs.  Our congress who should have the authority to declare war can’t because they’ve been taken out of that by the precedent that Johnson set for this to come under the purview of the executive. (Hoover would argue that the precedent was set by FDR). Not only doesn’t the congress not exercise the voice of the people, it’s really lost the consent to govern in light of the recent polls showing only an  11% approval rating.  These things, our policies and the want of a truthful premise to support them combine to form our true crisis as a nation.  It’s a certainty that someone is waiting in the shadows seeking strategic advantage from our greed and stupidity and it’s highly likely that there are those who are just patiently waiting to pick up the remnants of our empire as we head for our own date with the scrap heap of history.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

image

I have my issues with Obama, however that doesn’t extend to literally everything that he’s done.  I detest the empty accusations around him being a socialist and a spendthrift.  These accusations are part of the left/right paradigm that’s superimposed on literally everything and are not only off the mark, but the fact that they’re bantered in the press so much means that the real issues with Obama and the politics in the country in general can’t even be discussed.  One of most ridiculous accusations is this whole idea that he’s been a spendthrift and has led the economy to ruin; two contentions that have absolutely basis in fact, yet the real serious threats to our liberty that are fact based, such as the National Defense Authorization Act and the on-going war in Iran, are valid criticisms but both parties tacitly agree on these, so we have no debate just silence. 

Conservative columnist Andrew Sullivan does an excellent job breaking the left/right vice on Obama’s economic policies in a debate with Bay Buchanan. 

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I just discovered Dr. Sam Richards, a sociologist at Penn State University who gives a lecture in the excellent video below.  The video focuses primarily on Iraq, but applies to US policy towards Iran and much of the middle east. It’s about 20 minutes long and well worth watching.

America could certainly use a very heavy dose of empathy and the truth.  Ignoring the truth doesn’t alter it.  Ultimately it has to be dealt with and that usually occurs at the most inconvenient time.  Our foreign policy does not benefit our citizens, but instead it puts a bullseye on each of our backs while benefiting a very small group.  But most Americans lack a full grasp of the entire picture and fail to understand how that bullseye has been placed there.  Moreover, our foreign policies are simply unsustainable from an economic standpoint and at the end of the day, we’ll have nothing but enemies while lacking the resources to protect ourselves or invest in ourselves. 

It’s clear to me that much of what we do around the world is designed to pick a fight so we can have the justification to engage in war for a resource grab.  Right now we’re at war with Iran even though formal hostilities have yet to be declared.  Iranian scientists have been assassinated,  their facilities have been sabotaged, we’re engaged in spying and a number of other things we would never accept if some nation did the same thing to us.   There’s not a day that goes by without some report of Iran doing something, but we’re not getting the full story because our provocations aren’t being reported.  This steady drumbeat ensures that we’ll probably be at war with them by summer and it will be essentially another undeclared war that the executive decides rather than the congress actually declaring it.  The so called nuclear threat is a lie.   For this reason alone, I can not vote for Obama and I certainly can’t vote Romney. So, I’ll be sitting this one out.  The only politicians that have the backbone to speak honestly to this are Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. 

For me this sort of thing is huge.  I view this first from a moral standpoint in looking at what’s right and wrong.  It’s also a big deal from the standpoint of our own rights in this country.  Here’s what I know—a tiger is a tiger in all environments and a government that will take resources from others abroad, will do the same here.  If it abuses the rights of others abroad, it will do the same thing here.  This is the logical outcome merely from the fact that these practices are perfected abroad.

It’s incompatible to be against democracy abroad while promoting it here mainly because the two positions can’t be reconciled. One only need to look at the National Defense Authorization Act, how our elections are conducted and the lies told to obfuscate the truth to see the erosion of rights here.  And once we go down that slippery slope, it’s just a matter of time before we find ourselves in the same position as those who chafe under US foreign policy abroad. 

The world is not as it’s presented in the press.  If only the citizens knew.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

I really dislike the labels of conservative and liberal as the implication is that these are mutually exclusive political positions.  I just happen to think that most people are rarely one or the other exclusively, yet these labels tend to reduce everyone’s political philosophy into either camp.  Once forced into a camp, many of us tend to get somewhat defensive and lose the ability to critically analyze our own positions as well as those of who we support.  I think this is a natural outcome of the conservative/liberal paradigm that sits astride the nation’s politics.

What this means from a practical standpoint is that attacks on someone like Obama result in not only in a circling of the wagons around the camp, but can actually cause the camp’s position to be shifted to align with the attacker’s agenda.  For example, the fact that attacks are launched on Democrats accusing them of being soft on defense, seemingly forces them into a position where they become aggressively war like to disprove the accusation.  Similarly,  attacks that suggest that Democrats are not supportive of business,  seemingly force them into positions where they’re overly accommodating to business interests.  The effect of these sorts of  attacks aren’t limited to shifting political positions as they also silence those within the camp from criticizing the camp leaders.  In Obama’s case, there are many who support him who may not criticize his actions for fear of causing a level of disunity that might be taken advantage of by the attackers.  So for fear of damaging Obama, there is silence where there should be accountability.  Effectively, the attacks have resulted in many feeling that Obama and his entire camp of  supporters are under siege and there’s no time to question anything because the enemy is about the overrun them.  Basically, this means a victory for those mounting the attacks as they get the opposing camp to carry out their agenda while forcing a level of complicity within the camp by effectively silencing dissension and it’s this very silence that provides the camp leader the cover to do as he pleases.     

Thinking back through events since the last election, it’s clear that some of the attacks on Obama have been absolutely insane.  We’ve had the birthier controversy in which a sitting president was forced to produce a birth certificate hence giving a veneer of legitimacy to an otherwise baseless accusation.  Even before that, we had a run on guns shortly after the election because Obama was supposedly going to curtail gun rights.  We’ve had numerous accusations of Obama being a socialist and a Muslim. We’ve had accusations that his justice department was going soft on supposed Black Panther intimidation at the polls.  We had the whole Shirley Sherrod affair and all manner of insults against the person of the president, his wife and his family.  We’ve had the all the craziness that occurred behind the passage of the health care bill which still continues to be challenged.  We’ve seen threats of secession and the formation of the tea party.  There have been numerous attacks from the likes of Glenn Beck and Fox news.  Crazy republicans have seemingly been popping up everywhere like we’ve never seen before while the grownups in that party are nowhere to be found. The list is endless and it’s pretty clear that the camp has been under attack like no other sitting president ever has been.  If you happen to be in the Obama camp and if you perceive him as being under siege, you’re going to engage the enemy and you’re not going to be inclined to challenge his leadership.  This is a natural response.  It’s a also a response that’s quite predictable if you’re in fact being “gamed”.  With psychological warfare and behavior shaping being firmly in the toolkit of modern American politics, the latter can not be excluded as a possibility.

Two questions immediately present themselves as I think about this.  First, if there wasn’t a “siege”, would more people be questioning of Obama’s war like foreign policies and his refusal to go after the criminals who’ve created the economic mess we find ourselves in?  After all, those silent now weren’t so silent when the previous administration did the same thing.  Secondly, and this is a question that must be carefully considered, what if these attacks are actually a ruse to ensure silence within his camp, hence giving him “cover” to do these things without a challenge from within his ranks?  In other words, are we being gamed?   It’s the challenges from within the ranks that would be most effective at curtailing and/or promoting certain policies. This is particularly so when the masses of people themselves are actually not supportive of the wars and would very much like to see Wall Street brought to heel. 

There could be various reasons for Obama continuing the Bush policies on the so called war on terror, the unyielding assault on civil liberties and accommodation of the Wall Street crowd.  Either the attacks have “forced” him into these positions or he’s been bought and the attacks designed to give him cover.  It’s interesting to note that in all of the mudslinging  and arrows that have been thrown his way, the right has not attacked him on these particular positions and those within his party aren’t attacking him on them either, so it can’t really be argued that he indeed has cover from all sides.   The excellent video below gets into the idea that he’s been bought and that he’s not an authentic progressive,  but fails to examine the complicity measured by the silence of those within the democratic and republican parties on these issues.  It’s not just Obama who’s been bought, but the entire US political system.  To understand that fully, one must arise above the partisan caricature of our political system that’s presented as the reality.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The republican primary has taken some twists and turns since the exit of Herman Cain a couple of weeks ago.  At first, it seemed that Newt Gingrich was the main beneficiary of Cain’s exit, but now it seems that he’s taken a dive in the polls as Ron Paul ascends the top of the heap.  Paul’s ascendency has the potential to herald in some rather interesting debates going forward on topics that are tacitly agreed to among both republicans and democrats as areas not to delve into.   This is particularly the case with Paul’s views on foreign policy.  For most part, there’s very little practical difference between the positions held by the two parties as far as foreign policies are concerned and this is why defense spending bills are never characterized by the sort of partisan rancor as one might see on something like the payroll tax cut extension.   A case is point is the National Defense Authorization Act, a $ 662  billion piece of legislation which included a provision to detain US citizens indefinitely without trial, was passed quickly with the overwhelming support of both parties while a fight broke out over a two month extension of the payroll tax cut/unemployment benefit extension.  So, ideological rancor is limited to certain domestic issues that pale in comparison to the significance of foreign and economic policies supported by both parties.  Hence, it’s the things that they both agree on that are the root causes behind the economic and political crises the nation faces.  Everything else is a staged side show and that includes the “panties in a bunch” act that the house republicans were engaged in over the payroll tax cut/unemployment benefit extension.  Honest debate on real issues is not something that occurs nor is it welcomed. Ron Paul’s leap in the polls potentially threatens that.

Paul has two positions that line up with this blogger’s views.  He believes that there are two millstones around  this nation’s neck that need to be removed– an interventionist foreign policy and an out of control monetary policy.  Both of these are largely beneficial to and controlled by private businesses who feed at the public trough. In the case of monetary policy, it’s  private banks that control and benefit from it.  In the case of foreign policy, it’s generally the military industrial complex, the energy sector and the banks who benefit and control it.  These two systems reinforce and feed each other while robbing the citizens blind. At a bare minimum, we need to have an urgent discussion about both and at a maximum, we need to ditch both systems to save this country from a certain fiscal and economic train wreck. (Although some believe we’ve already reached to point of no return and it may be too late for that).  I have reservations about Paul’s views of free unfettered market solutions as  laissez faire is just another name for “free for all” absent sensible government regulation, but I agree totally with his positions on monetary and foreign policies being the ruination of the country and this view has broad appeal among a number of people across the political spectrum.

Less appealing, however, are the thinly veiled racist statements that were published in a newsletter under his name 20 years ago and the fact that some of his support comes from KKK types.  Paul disavows the sentiments and says he didn’t personally write them. He also claims that he can’t control who gives to his campaign and vehemently denies he’s a racist.  He uses his advocacy of repeal of drug laws that disproportionately result in African-Americans being in jail as prima facie evidence that he’s not a racist.   I do think the congressman has some explaining to do about the newsletter comments and the statement that he never read the newsletters even though they went out under his name just isn’t cutting it. But I’d like to see him given an opportunity to air and defend his beliefs about our foreign and monetary policies as well.

It’s not my intent to minimize the issue with the Paul’s newsletter, but it’s clear to me that this issue is not being used to address racism, but to further the agenda of the power elite. The same press who seemingly can’t report any real news, has suddenly cast itself in the role of public watch dog here and is pretending to be so concerned about racism that it has to go after Paul on the newsletter first.  But the truth is that the main thing the press cares about is Paul’s polling in Iowa and unlike the recently deposed Herman Cain who had little to offer other than slogans, Paul is far more substantive.  Moreover, the power elite doesn’t want any discussion of foreign and monetary policies to see light of day other than in the form of simple slogans. 

The clear beneficiary of Paul’s demise would be Romney and the power elite wants to ensure that he winds up being the nominee.   If they’re successful, and I’ve little doubt that they will be, the debate over foreign policies will be about the differences between the traditional ping pong of “conservative” and “liberal” tactics while the strategic question of whether we should be doing what we’re doing to begin with will continue to go unaddressed— and monetary policy won’t even be discussed.  That will continue into the general election even though these are hugely important issues that affect the country.    This election is to be a contest between establishment approved candidates and that means there’s effectively no choice.

I first became familiar with Paul from his positions against the Iraq war and the militarist role that our nation frequently takes as evidenced most recently by events in Libya and now in Syria.  I happen to believe that what goes on in other nations is really none of our business and if we want to cheerlead, that’s fine but to do anything other than that is problematic.  As far as I can see, Paul is the only legislator willing to speak this sort of truth, but the truth is that even if he were to prevail in his quest for the presidency, there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that he’d be able to execute on changing much of anything—at least not by himself.  But for now, he’d do the country ample service by merely forcing a debate on these issues.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites