(#168-1) March 20 2015. The U.S. has been at war—hot or cold—since WW II—with costs to match. That is too long—and it is showing.

THE DOMINANCE OF MILITARY EXPENDITURE IN THE U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET IS STRIKING, DISTURBING—AND SEEMS UNENDING

IT CONTINUES YEAR AFTER YEAR—UN-AUDITED AT THAT

MEANWHILE 46 MILLION AMERICANS ARE ON FOOD STAMPS, THE MIDDLE-CLASS CONTINUES TO DECLINE, AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE DEFICIT IS OVER $3 TRILLION.

THIS IS NUTS—AND UNNECESSARY!

---

The more I look at the U.S. economy the more bizarre the picture appears. The richest country in the world seems bent on self-destruction—yet there is no mass movement to do anything about the situation. In fact, it is not even being seriously discussed by the mainstream media—and certainly not by politicians.

The following two extracts come from the Fiscal Times—www.fiscaltimes.com It’s a useful publication, but certainly can’t be considered mainstream.

A paradox of the U.S. media situation is that the information is normally available—but you have to go and look. Though The New York Times and The Atlantic Monthly will take you a long way, you can’t just read a couple of publications and feely adequately informed. I go through about a dozen publications, in all, every day—with a heavy orientation towards the economy, defense, and technology.

What I know about sports could be filed in a thimble—and there would be space left over.

Is it time well spent? I find it hard to know. I certainly question it (you have to question anything in your comfort zone) but it seems to be the way I need to work, and work best.

I’m innately intellectually curious—and that curiosity is an imperative that demands satisfaction. Primarily, I’m looking for answers. I normally find them. Some problems are intractable—but most are not. They continue because some vested interest or other has a stake in the status quo. Greed and short-sightedness have a great deal to answer for.

I understand greed. It is very human. I have issues with short-sightedness. It normally stems from a lack of intellectual effort—or from stupidity. There are few more dangerous people around than the stupid.

I’m increasingly beginning to think that a core problem with militarization—especially if it encompasses large numbers of foreign bases (such as are possessed by the U.S.)—is that, apart from being crushingly expensive,  it is provocative in itself and results in a  series of arms races which, almost invariably, end up in war (or close). Our total National Security expenditure—if you include such directly related items as the Veterans Administration, Intelligence, much of Homeland Security and so on (which you should) tops $1 trillion.

Apart from its own military expenditure, the U.S. is the largest supplier of arms in the world. From a purely trade point of view, this is good—particularly because America consistently fails to balance its trade.

From the point of view of world peace—or even global stability—flooding the world with increasingly sophisticated weaponry is a dubious practice. It is also worth noting that:

• Again and again, we sell weapons to unpleasant regimes (most of South America in the past) which are the antithesis of democratic. Saudi Arabia is the epitome of such a regime right now. Saudi is not only a dictatorship but fundamentalist elements in it actively support various extreme Islamist movements including Al Qaeda. Egypt is another example. There are arguments in favor of selling to both—but the bottom line is that we are supporting rotten regimes. Is that really in our National Interest?
• Our own weapons have a tendency to be used against us. This happened in Vietnam and it is happening again in Iraq. Where military knowhow and expertise alone is concerned, the Chinese seem to have been the main beneficiaries. Not only have we been astonishingly careless with both nuclear and missile technology, but more than a few U.S. corporations have traded fundamental  security information for short-term profits. The fact that a whole range of recently introduced advanced Chinese weaponry look disconcertingly like ours is not a coincidence. The underlying point is that our overly-militarized economy and approach to world affairs has a tendency to be part of the problem as well as part of the solution.

As for our wars, we seem to have a disconcerting habit of either losing them or dragging them out near indefinitely. Such messy and unsatisfactory outcomes help to keep the defense oriented money flow going. In short, it serves certain interests for us not to win our wars. You can make a good case that our primary enemies are within.

I dismissed this for a long while because I’m not remotely paranoid. Nonetheless, this pattern of military failure over so many decades—despite our military dominance—is so consistent it made me wonder.

Could a group of senior level influence makers really gain from perpetual war—or the fear of it?

The answer is clearly in the affirmative—and they are hiding in plain sight. What is more, their pattern is consistent—so we lurch inexorably from one threat to another.

There is always a bogeyman.

We should think about this situation a great deal more than we do. It is one thing to want a strong U.S. It is another matter when our excessive expenditure is de-stabilizing and weakens us.

I think we have reached that point.

Could we be better defended for substantially less money? I have no doubt at all but that we could.

As matters stand, the MICC (Military Industrial Congressional Complex) is far more oriented on the total amount of the money flow than the effectiveness of our defense.

Is that a damning indictment of the MICC?

Absolutely—and I make no apologies for it..

With $8.5 Trillion Unaccounted for, Why Should Congress Increase the Defense Budget?

BY JACQUELINE LEO AND

BRIANNA EHLEY,

The Fiscal Times

March 19, 2015

The U.S. military is good at fighting wars, but it sucks at managing money. Partly because of its convoluted bookkeeping systems, $8.5 trillion—yes, trillion—taxpayer dollars doled out by Congress since 1996 has never been accounted for.

That was also the first year that Congress passed a law requiring the Defense Department to be audited, which it has failed to do. In 2009, Congress passed another law requiring the DOD to be audit-ready by 2017.  After spending—no wasting—billions on failed accounting software, the department is likely to miss that deadline, too.

Related: How the Pentagon Cooks the Books to Hide Massive Waste

So how does the military handle their books for the U.S. Treasury department?  They cheat.

A scathing investigative report by Reuters in November 2013 described how an accountant at DOD in Cleveland would face the same monthly problem: Missing numbers, wrong numbers -- numbers with no explanation of where they came from or what they were for. To rectify the problem, the accountant was instructed to “plug” in false numbers in the DOD’s books.

How can an agency known for superior strategic planning on the battlefield be so incompetent on the home front? Is it arrogance? Sloppiness? Or simply a misplaced disregard for what their lack of discipline is costing the country. 

 

The Middle Class Is Struggling in All 50 States

• by Rob Garver
• March 19, 2015
• 2 min read
• original

If the first decade and a half is any guide, the 21^st century will not be known as the era of the middle class in the U.S.

The middle class shrunk in all 50 states between 2000 and 2013, and median income, adjusted for inflation, was lower at the end of 2013 in the vast majority of states than it was in 2000, according to a new study by the Pew Charitable Trust’s Stateline. The analysis, conducted by Stateline’s Tim Henderson, defines “middle class” as individuals earning between 67 percent and 200 percent of the state’s median income.

Related: Why Middle Class Tax Relief Is Taking Center Stage

The study analyzed self-reported data from the Census Bureau through the American Community Survey that samples a percentage of the population including illegal immigrants as well as other data.

“In most states, the growing percentage of households paying 30 percent (the federal standard for housing affordability) or more of their income on housing illustrates that it is increasingly difficult for many American families to make ends meet,” wrote Henderson.

The findings could have some interesting implications for the 2016 presidential race, since the plight of the middle class in states currently governed by some presidential hopefuls is particularly grim.

Wisconsin was the single worst performer, with the percentage of residents in the middle class falling 5.7 percentage points, from 54.6 percent to 48.9 percent over the period studied. Inflation-adjusted median income in the Badger State plunged from $60,344 in 2000 to $51,467 in 2013.

This isn’t good news for Gov. Scott Walker, currently considered a frontrunner for the GOP nomination in 2016. Walker was only in office for the final three years studied, of course, so it would be unfair to blame him for a slide that’s more than a decade old. But nobody said politics was fair.

VOR words 516.

---

(#167-1) March 19 2015. The gods of consumption are laughing. As far as energy is concerned, they may laugh less in the future. Still, being gods, they will doubtless come up with a new twist.

WHO KNEW?

PRODUCING ELECTRICITY FOR THE AVERAGE HOUSHOLD IN THE U.S. REQUIRES BURNING 8,079 POUNDS OF COAL (roughly 4 tons)—AND USING 5,OOO GALLONS OF WATER (think of a gas tanker)

Being Irish, I tend to take water for granted. Unless matters have changed drastically (I have been away for a while), the skies over Ireland provide it to excess. Still, I am not unaware that water is in short supply in much of the world—and that we use it carelessly. I’m also concerned that, in the U.S. we contaminate it so much with medication that weird things are happening to fish—and probably to us.

The sexuality of fish is being screwed up. Could that be happening to humans too? It would explain a lot.

We don’t filter out medical waste from our water (we could and should). In fact, mostly, we don’t even test for it—even though, every year, much of our water supply becomes more and more medically polluted (and in other ways as well).

Virtually half the adult insured population up to 65 is on one or more  medications and virtually all over 65 are on multiple meds. Human  waste leads to medical waste and eventual contamination of our water. 320 million humans produce a lot of waste—and then there is a truly prodigious quantity of animal waste which is also heavily contaminated with meds. 80 percent of the antibiotic market is fed to animals—even if they are perfectly healthy—as a preventative measure (prophylactic is the correct term). That is causing more and more of us to become immune to antibiotics—a consequence which currently kills over 23,000 of us (and climbing) a year.

If we continue to use antibiotics so unnecessarily, we will all become immune to them with medical consequences which will be truly catastrophic.

Why don’t the FDA ban the practice—as is the case in many other countries? Because this is America where corporate power runs way ahead of the rights of individuals.

Nonetheless, I like water. I have even been known to drink it straight. It’s useful stuff.

Coal is also useful, but unpleasant to mine, transport, store, and use—so, as far as I am concerned, the less we consume the better. It is particularly worrying where air pollution is concerned. We mostly tend to ignore air pollution unless it is egregious—but it lowers the quality of life for all too many and kills a surprising number. In short, it is not a trivial problem—and it doesn’t have to be visible to be dangerous. You just have to breathe it. Of course you can decide not to, but that doesn’t have a good track record.

Coal may be less of a problem in the future.  We seem to be paying attention to solar power at last. The costs have been coming down dramatically and the efficiency of panels has been improving. The next stage will be equipping homes and other buildings with batteries—and the increasing use of micro-grids.

So where will that leave your typical electric utility?

Interesting.

 

Solar is the deep blue at 32% in 2014. Above it is Natural Gas at 42% and Coal at 23%.

Do I care?

I rather think I do.

I was made environmentally aware at a very young age by my much loved grandmother—so I think about these things. For some weird reason, I find energy particularly fascinating. It’s a great story because something dramatic and unexpected is always happening—and energy touches on so much else.

The recent fall in the price of oil is a good example. Price swings were predictable, but I don’t know of many who anticipated such a dramatic drop.

On balance, I’m far from sure it is a good thing. The U.S. was just beginning to wean itself off its addiction to oil—and now there are all too many signs that it is reverting. Hopefully, it won’t where solar power is concerned.

Coal and oil based energy has been a bad news story for so long it is rather encouraging to see positive trends emerging—and who doesn’t like the sun?

The Irish, poor things, scarcely know it exists. Ireland is a beautiful country, but truly sunny days are rare phenomena.

VOR words 705.

---

(#166-1) March 18 2015. The idea that a corporation should be run solely for the benefit of the shareholders is a distortion of the American Business Model—and has proved to be disastrous (except for a few).

I KEEP ON RUNNING ACROSS AMAZING FIGURES—AMAZING IN THE SENSE OF BEING BLATANTLY OUTRAGEOUS

THE FOLLOWING CONCERNS THE NOTION THAT A CORPORATION SHOULD BE RUN SOLELY TO BENEFIT THE SHAREHOLDERS (and, as a consequence, the CEO and senior management—who are paid mostly in share options).

From a Washington Post story.

As Elise Gould of the Economic Policy Institute has shown, real wages fell for virtually every American in 2014, save only the poorest, and presumably least credentialed, workers. Wages for people at the 10th income percentile actually increased by 1.3 percent, chiefly due to minimum-wage increases enacted by cities and states. But wages for workers at the 95th percentile — presumably, those with some of the best educations – fell by 1 percent. For workers at the 90th percentile, they fell by 0.7 percent, and at the 80th, by 1 percent. So education isn’t the great explainer after all.

For a more plausible explanation, we must, as the great leaker Mark Felt once told two Post reporters, follow the money. When we do, we find that the funds corporations earmarked for their own investment, research, technology and raises during the 20th century have been redirected to shareholders in the 21st. Over the past decade, more than 90 percent of Fortune 500 corporations’ net earnings have been funneled to investors. The great shareholder shift has affected more than employees’ incomes. As Luke A. Stewart and Robert D. Atkinson noted in a 2013 report for the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, business investment in equipment, software and buildings increased by just 0.5 percent per year between 2000 and 2011 — “less than a fifth that of the 1980s and less than one-tenth that of the 1990s.”

The power of major shareholders to appropriate corporate revenue has grown as the power of workers to win raise increases has dwindled — even though the actual commitment of shareholders to any one corporation has diminished. (In 1960, the average length of time an investor held a stock was eight years; today, it’s four months, and when computerized high-frequency trading is factored in, it’s 22 seconds.) The decimation of private-sector unions has flatly eliminated the ability of large numbers of U.S. workers to bargain collectively for better pay or working conditions. But the ability of financiers to threaten the jobs of corporate managers unless they fork over more cash to shareholders has greatly increased.

A pattern of financialization is that it is ever ingenious and ever greedier. As the above makes clear, not only have workers lost their bargaining position, but business investment in the future is suffering badly. We are underinvesting—in lay terms “eating our seed corn.”

The health of the economy as a whole is being is being systematically undermined This is manifestly disastrous —and bodes ill for the future.

Wall Street, which was originally meant to serve the economy, both through raising capital and by allocating it most efficiently through trading, has morphed into becoming a financial extraction machine playing on the real economy and unstable because it is inherently speculative and overly reliant on debt.

The recent Great Recession demonstrated the consequences of a financial system that is predatory, deliberately too complex for most of us to understand, and out of control.

We seem to have learned little from it. Where lessons have been learned, they have been largely brushed aside by financial special interests backed by politicians who have—quite simply—been bought.

It is now only a matter of time—and not much at that—before we have a repeat recession.

The booming stock market, and falling unemployment and gas prices are distracting us from vastly more serious issues.

• The stock market is a bubble inflated through speculation and share buybacks. The scale of share buybacks is vast and its significance is not generally understood.
• We are underinvesting in both business and infrastructure. These deficits are huge and ever increasing.
• Pay, in real terms, is declining.
• Most of the new jobs being created pay badly
• As a consequence, demand, in real terms, is declining.
• Areas of market growth—like cars and education—are primarily fueled by unsustainable debt.
• Low gas prices are perpetuating energy inefficiency.
• The strong dollar is undermining international competitiveness.
• The rise in health costs may have slowed—but they are still rising.
• Productivity, traditionally an American strength, is in trouble. Problems in this sector stem from chronic underinvestment in plant and equipment, an unwillingness to invest in training, and the innate deficiencies of our educational system. In addition, leading talent from our best universities is being siphoned off by financial institutions.

At the root of all this is the lack of a moral core. If CEOs and senior executives have no regard for anything other than shareholder returns, and attach no importance to employees, suppliers, customers, the community, and the National Interest, then fairly unpleasant human behavior is an inevitable result—and that is exactly what we are getting in all too many corporations.

It raises the stress level and lowers the quality of life of tens of millions of Americans. It makes the U.S. as a whole a less pleasant country to live in.

Is that really what we want? In all too many case, it is exactly what we’ve got.

Are we better than this? Based upon our acceptance of such behavior, it would appear not.

I live in hopes.

Well, I hope I do!

VOR words c.890.

---

(#165-1) March 17 2015. The enemy within. The enemy just about everywhere these days The enemy we depend upon. The enemy that is killing us..

I’M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE RUSSIANS—AND ONLY MILDLY ABOUT THE CHINESE

I’M WORRIED ABOUT THESE GUYS—THE MAJOR U.S CORPORATIONS (such as listed in the graphic below).

WE LIVE IN A CORPORATELY CONTROLLED OLIGOPOLISTIC (the stage just before monopoly) STATE.

CORPORATIONS NOW HAVE A LOCK ON JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING WE DO—AND MOST OF WHAT WE THINK (since they control the media)—FROM BIRTH TO DEATH.

LAND OF THE FREE!

YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!

 

We should be concerned by the fact that such a small group of corporations controls so much. Such dominance makes the myth that corporations are controlled through competition into a joke.

Corporations strive for monopoly as hard as they can—and, aided by Big Finance, they normally achieve it. They buy it. They have no problem getting the money. Big banks lend to big corporations. They hate lending to small businesses—far too much work. Big is good. Bigger is better. Biggest of all is the aspiration.

Most market sectors in the U.S. are now operated by a handful of major corporations—which constitute de facto monopolies. A monopoly is the antithesis of a free market.

That is not good.

Big Food, for instance, kills Americans wholesale (millions per year). Its over-processed foods are made from nutritionally inadequate raw material (from Big Agriculture) lose even more nutrition through over-processing—and then have an excess of salt, fat, sugar, chemicals, and other unspeakable things added.

We are talking the equivalent of the negative health effects of tobacco on steroids.

Look around at the health consequences of Corporate America.

• Half of adults under 65 are on meds—and almost all over that age (and multiple at that).
• Most are overweight.
• Chronic conditions are practically the norm—and all sorts of conditions like autism are increasing..
• We die three years sooner than the citizens of other developed nations. Quite why we obsess about terrorism when our way of live is killing us off a 1,000 days before these decadent Europeans escapes me. And those damn Europeans have long vacations.
• Our political system is dominated by corporate interests and the ultra rich who own them. Is this the way representative democracy is supposed to work? No. There theory is that the people we elect are supposed to represent us—not their paymasters. According to extensive research (and common sense) who do they listen to? Their paymasters, of course.

If communism and fascism were the two great threats of the 20th century, it seems fairly clear that corporate domination is the threat of the 21st—except that it is more than a threat. It is the current reality.

Can democracy survive? Not unless corporate power is controlled and balanced. There are few signs of that happening in the U.S. The situation is somewhat better in Europe—particularly in what I tend to think of as Northern Europe (Scandinavia, Germany, Austria etc.). Incidentally, Northern Europe has a population roughly comparable to that of the U.S.—though a higher standard of living for most of its citizens.

One counter-argument re corporate control of the media is the internet. Well, I would like to believe that the internet will save the day, but experience to date suggests that:

• It is primarily used as a distraction and escape.
• In all too many cases, it  absorbs, smothers, and muffles protest. Its effects are too fragmented and are dissipated.
• In that it can be monitored so effectively, it gives those with power—government and corporations—unparalleled social control.
• In the final analysis, it is controlled by corporations through the ISPs.

Personally, I don’t think corporations should be abolished. A corporation is an extremely useful and effective social legal mechanism for achieving objectives (whatever they may be). However, like pretty much everything where humans are concerned, there need to be some rules and they need to be kept in check.

That isn’t happening right now in the U.S. and, apart from all the self-evident negative consequences, our flawed system of democracy is going down the tubes. “Is going” may well be an optimistic assessment.

I don’t find that acceptable.

Is the situation recoverable? Theoretically, yes. In practice, most people don’t seem to care—or don’t believe they can do anything about it.

So is writing about the issue pointless?

I don’t think so. Just because a situation looks hopeless doesn’t mean it is—and Iive in hopes I will have some impact, even if small.

That apart, I enjoy thinking and writing about such matters. Intellectual thought—even if it accomplishes nothing other than exercising the brain—glow and warms rather like a good fire—and I like to bask in it. Besides, all action starts with thought—and many things seem impossible at the beginning. When they are achieved, we tend to take them for granted.

Is my writing corporately controlled? That’s really a philosophical question—and a whole other blog. But, I would be intellectually dishonest if I did not concede that I am dependent on corporately owned media for much of my source material—and doubtless am influenced to some extent by corporate propaganda.

All I can say is that I do my best to have an independent cast of mind.

VOR words 855.

---

(#164-1) March 16 2015. Paul Revere! Rise from the dead. We need you. Well, one can but dream!

A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER

ROBERT REICH NAILS THE ESSENCE OF THE ISSUE THAT IS UNDERMINING THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF MOST AMERICANS

WHICH OUR POLITICIANS ARE NOT  ADDRESSING—AND WHICH MOST AMERICANS ARE NOT  DOING ANYTHING ABOUT—ALTHOUGH THE EVIDENCE IS IN PLAIN SIGHT

And thus a Great Nation declines.

Robert Reich www.robertreich.org is well worth reading but this may be his most important blog yet.

It gets at the very heart of the whole thing. While the media distract and frighten us us with political horse races, celebrity gossip, terrorism, sports, and other infotainment, this is the core threat and the only issue they should really focus on until resolved.

They don’t do it because our media is owned and controlled by the very same corporations which constitute the problem.

“Why Americans Are Screwed and Europeans Are Not

The U.S. economy is picking up steam but most Americans aren’t feeling it. By contrast, most European economies are still in bad shape, but most Europeans are doing relatively well.

What’s behind this? Two big facts.

First, American corporations exert far more political influence in the United States than their counterparts exert in their own countries.

In fact, most Americans have no influence at all. That’s the conclusion of Professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University, who analyzed  1,799 policy issues — and found that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”

Instead, American lawmakers respond to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and of big corporations – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns.

The second fact is most big American corporations have no particular allegiance to America. They don’t want Americans to have better wages. Their only allegiance and responsibility to their shareholders — which often requires lower wages  to fuel larger profits and higher share prices.

When GM went public again in 2010, it boasted  of making 43 percent of its cars in place where labor is less than $15 an hour, while in North America it could now pay “lower-tiered” wages and benefits for new employees.

American corporations shift their profits around the world wherever they pay the lowest taxes. Some are even morphing into foreign corporations.

As an Apple executive told The New York Times, “We don’t have an obligation to solve America’s problems.”

I’m not blaming American corporations. They’re in business to make profits and maximize their share prices, not to serve America.

But because of these two basic facts – their dominance on American politics, and their interest in share prices instead of the wellbeing of Americans – it’s folly to count on them to create good American jobs or improve American competitiveness, or represent the interests of the United States in global commerce.

By contrast, big corporations headquartered in other rich nations are more responsible for the wellbeing of the people who live in those nations.

That’s because labor unions there are typically stronger than they are here — able to exert pressure both at the company level and nationally.

VW’s labor unions, for example, have a voice in governing the company, as they do in other big German corporations. Not long ago, VW even welcomed the UAW to its auto plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee. (Tennessee’s own politicians nixed it.)

Governments in other rich nations often devise laws through tri-partite bargains involving big corporations and organized labor. This process further binds their corporations to their nations.

Meanwhile, American corporations distribute a smaller share of their earnings to their workers than do European or Canadian-based corporations.

And top U.S. corporate executives make far more money than their counterparts in other wealthy countries.

The typical American worker puts in more hours than Canadians and Europeans, and gets little or no paid vacation or paid family leave. In Europe, the norm  is five weeks paid vacation per year and more than three months paid family leave.

And because of the overwhelming clout of American firms on U.S. politics, Americans don’t get nearly as good a deal from their governments as do Canadians and Europeans.

Governments there impose higher taxes on the wealthy and redistribute more of it to middle and lower income households. Most of their citizens receive essentially free health care and more generous unemployment benefits than do Americans.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that even though U.S. economy is doing better, most Americans are not.

The U.S. middle class is no longer the world’s richest. After considering taxes and transfer payments, middle-class incomes in Canada and much of Western Europe are higher  than in U.S. The poor in Western Europe earn more than do poor Americans.

Finally, when at global negotiating tables – such as the secretive process devising the “Trans Pacific Partnership” trade deal — American corporations don’t represent the interests of Americans. They represent the interests of their executives and shareholders, who are not only wealthier than most Americans but also reside all over the world.

Which is why the pending Partnership protects the intellectual property of American corporations — but not American workers’ health, safety, or wages, and not the environment.

The Obama administration is casting the Partnership as way to contain Chinese influence in the Pacific region. The agents of America’s interests in the area are assumed to be American corporations.

But that assumption is incorrect. American corporations aren’t set up to represent America’s interests in the Pacific region or anywhere else.

What’s the answer to this basic conundrum? Either we lessen the dominance of big American corporations over American politics. Or we increase their allegiance and responsibility to America.

It has to be one or the other. Americans can’t thrive within a political system run largely by big American corporations — organized to boost their share prices but not boost America.

Reich’s conclusions are interesting. It is noteworthy that he is not recommending the abolition of corporations—as some do. Instead, he recommends lessening corporate dominance—pointing out that such an approach works extremely well in Europe.

His approach is entirely reasonable—and the evidence support his conclusions. Unfortunately, there are very few signs that anyone is listening to the man.

It might be in corporations’ own interests to do so. If the American public is ever roused to react (a big ‘if’ as matters stand) then the consequences may be extreme.

VOR words c. 100

---

(#163-1) March 15 2015. I don’t write enough about my fellow authors—partly because I haven’t been reading enough books recently. E-mail is a time thief. I’m trying to rebalance. Books are essential to my life. One way or another, they practically are my life.

LET ME INTRODUCE

PETER CUNNINGHAM—A REMARKABLY FINE PRIZE WINNING IRISH AUTHOR—AND A THOROUGHLY DECENT  HUMAN BEING.

I first encountered Peter as a reader. I not only write thrillers, but love to read them—and was decidedly impressed by Peter’s work.

“This guy is good,” I thought—and was mildly jealous, though mostly admiring.

I kept an eye out for future Peter Cunningham thrillers, but they didn’t appear. Later, I was to find out that a family tragedy had affected Peter so deeply that couldn’t write his thoroughly entertaining escapist books for a while.

Instead, he adopted a more literary style and wrote work of great depth and substance. Now, enough time has passed so he does both. He can and does impress, move, stir, and amuse. He is a literary talent up there in the world class tradition that Ireland is justifiably so proud of.

My close friend and mentor, Niall Fallon—one of the finest human beings I have met in my life, and now sadly dead way ahead off his time—was very keen I meet Peter—and eventually I did. He and his family lived up to, and surpassed all my expectations.

It must have been nearly 20 years ago because I recall entertaining all and sundry with Army MREs that I had acquired when spending time in the Mojave Desert with the U.S. Army. The intriguing thing about MREs is not the quality of the food (it would constipate a crocodile) but the fact that the main course is self-heating. You pour in water, a chemical reaction ensues—and you have hot spaghetti or whatever. Doing this at night, without light, outside in a freezing cold desert is an interesting experience.

Well, enough about MRE’s. Peter is the subject at hand—and I can but suggest you read the following—he is an exceptional talent—and then rush out and buy his books.

The Number One Bestseller, Winner of the Prix de l’Europe 2013 (as La Mer et La Silence), and the Prix Caillou, it has attracted significant critical attention and praise on both sides of the Atlantic.
"You think of yourself as a moderately well-read person. And then you come across a book so brilliant, so moving, so enchanting, by an author you had not even heard of, and your world is henceforth altered. You feel a bit like John Keats when he came across a translation of Homer that knocked him out: "Then felt I like some watcher of the skies / When a new planet swims into his ken."

For me, that new planet is "The Sea and the Silence," a new novel by Irish writer Peter Cunningham. "The Sea and the Silence" is a love story, and a war story, and it's beautifully told in that lilting, lowkey style that syncopates the work of so many great Irish writers, such as William Trevor, John McGahern and John Banville: "As I stared, by one of those miracles of light, the sea shone as if all the silver of the world was buried just beneath its surface."

The last 20 or so pages will hold you especially spellbound. You can sense what's going to happen but not how — and that, come to think of it, is the way it is with life itself. The end is inescapable: All of us eventually die. But what we do before that moment — whom we love, how we live — is the subject of this brutal, luminous, unforgettable book.
- Pulitzer Prize winning author Julia Keller

“Cannot come more highly recommended. Once started it must be finished, and once read, it must be re-read.”
- Susan Connolly, Sunday Business Post Prize.

“Delightful . . . as moving as it is skilfully told.”
- Sheena Davitt, Daily Mail

“A book which will shorten any journey.”
- Eilis Ni Dhuibhne, Irish Times

VOR words 278.

---

(#162-1 March 14 2015. I no longer wonder why totalitarianism triumphs so often. People just give up on democracy. It takes too much effort. We’re doing that right now in the U.S.

DO AMERICANS HAVE CONFIDENCE IN AMERICA?

LET’S JUST LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE—AND THEN CONTEMPLATE ITS SIGNIFICANCE

The evidence suggests that Americans have lost faith in America to the point where they consider any attempt to fight back as being futile. Regarding the latter, I merely point to the lack of any widespread nationwide move to reform the country despite a pretty miserable time since 9/11. Terrorism, wars (largely of choice), recession, and the pervasive negative effects of ever increasing income inequality—linked with a toxic political environment—have dominated the headlines and much of the reality.

Well, of course, it hasn’t necessarily been miserable at an individual level—but it is hard to deny that the American Way of Life has been decidedly stressful for most of us for the last decade and a half. The ultra rich tend to be insulated from such pressures—though doubtless they have their own insecurities.

Frankly, I would (at one stage) have expected a decidedly more spirited response. Instead, we are heading towards what is increasingly looking like yet another Clinton/Bush encounter—with the political agenda continuing to ignore the real issues this country faces.

From a writer’s point of view, all of this is fascinating. However the game plays out, it is all material. From a purely human point of view—and writing as someone with great affection and regard for this Great Nation—I will freely admit that I am disappointed, saddened, and deeply disturbed.

These trends are beyond ominous—and I never expected to see the Great Experiment end with scarcely a whimper.

By the way, I got these Gallup graphs from www.fabius maximus.com –a consistently provocative website in which some friends of mine are involved.

Let me comment, in conclusion, that I find it particularly worrying that the military—about which most Americans know little – is regarded so highly.

The fighting military should always be supported—though you can debate whether we should be fighting in the first place—but the Pentagon centered MICC (the Military Industrial Congressional Complex) is deeply corrupt.

Blindly worshipping the military—without either differentiating or understanding its complexities—is not only unhealthy in itself, but sets the scene for a de-facto coup.

Or has that already happened?

And would we notice if it had?

Sadly—would we even care?

VOR words 326.

---