TWILIGHT OF THE VAMPS

January 6, 2009 – 4:20 am

Catherine Hardwicke’s Twilight might be a hit among the younger crowd but for Critic After Dark Noel Vera, who has watched his share of vampire movies, this one sucks big time.

How’d it suck badly? Let me count the ways:

1. It runs for a hundred and twenty minutes, about a hundred and nineteen too long.

2. It’s a vampire movie without fangs, crucifixes, stakes, beds recycled from used coffins, and spontaneous daylight combustion - in short, all the paraphernalia that marks a classic vampire movie. Watching it is like watching a Western without horses, or a comedy without a sense of humor.

3. Its effects are less than special - when a vampire climbs a tree, he looks like a chipmunk being pulled up by string; when running to the top of a hill he looks like he’s being hoovered up the incline. And speed lines! Like in a Mutt and Jeff cartoon! If I wanted to suggest inhuman swiftness or supernatural agility, I’d take my cue from Gerardo de Leon, to name one master filmmaker able to work in the horror genre (see the duel between Ronald Remy and Eddie Fernandez).

4. A little romance goes a long long way; this picture heaps great steaming piles of the stuff with a shovel.

5. It features a lead actress whose idea of portraying adolescent female lust is to flutter her eyelids, twitch her head, and stutter like Eric Idle on a bad day. Sounds perfectly fine if someone had dropped an ice cube down her undies, but no - watching her antics, the word ‘lust’ does not immediately come to mind.

6. Its dialogue plays as if conceived and written by the living dead. People in this picture don’t react the way normal humans react, don’t ask questions or think the way ordinary folks ask or think. When saved from a sudden traffic accident the first thing our heroine Bella says to her rescuer isn’t “Thank you!” it’s “how did you get over to me so fast?” Yes she’d be curious, but eventually, when the initial shock wears off; meantime she should just be happy her ass isn’t pancaked between two four-wheel drive vehicles.

Later, she learns from the object of her not-too-particular desire that he’s a vampire - this after hearing news in the past two days about fatal animal attacks on the local folk. I don’t know about her, but the moment I hear the word ‘vampire’ - don’t care if it’s a cute boy or Dick Cheney himself - I’d immediately ask: “were you responsible for those attacks?!” Keeping stake and crucifix carefully close at hand, of course.

Granted, we’re talking vampires and their groupies here, but c’mon - you need to conform to normal behavior in a narrative film, or at least account for the flagrant lack of (”I was raised by apes;” “I’m an extraterrestrial;” “I’m a moron what lived in a cave”).

7. Did anyone notice vampire guy’s hair? It looks as if it had crawled to the top of his head back in 1918 and died there, and he hadn’t bothered to wash ever since (reportedly the actor in an interview admitted leaving his ‘do untouched for the duration of the shoot). Maybe the girl is a good actress after all - can’t imagine her coming close without being knocked backwards by the stench, or at least wrinkling her nose.

8. It features a dismemberment scene which, while horrifying to contemplate in theory, in practice happens in the background and with little comment or emphasis, as if the filmmakers were embarrassed to admit to what’s going on. Whitewashed atrocities - now that’s something fairly new.

9. It isn’t just a steaming pile of, it’s a steaming racist pile of. Bella meets everyone from a Native American to an Asian American, and who does she choose to date? The Caucasian-American with Nordic cheeks and questionable follicle hygiene. Not just that; when exposed to sunlight, her boy toy’s beautifully pale skin shimmers - God’s gift to women, in a star-spangled package (talk about Master Race).

The movie does feature one black man, who plays for the enemy team (to be fair, at one point he does prove helpful). But no one bothers (or seems particularly eager) to point out that this black vampire is also involved in at least two previous killings (see above, re: whitewashed atrocities).

Have not read the book and on the basis of this am not especially eager to, but from what I’ve heard, all of the author’s characters are white, and it was [director Catherine] Hardwicke who chose to cast some of them from different ethnic groups. Problem is, Hardwicke only exacerbated the problem, not helped solve it (or was that her intention?). What Bella badly needs (and so do we, to ease our fears of subtexted racism) is a pair of black lips (or other appendages) sinking deep into her lily-white neck (or other highly sensitive areas). If Edward and his family had dark skin, I submit, it would have made their alienation from society that much more dramatic, romantic, taboo-breaking, even sensible. Not to mention downright sexy.

10. It’s written by an actively practicing Mormon - which, truth to tell, is neither here nor there. I’m not particularly eager to condemn an entire religion on the basis of one work of art (can you imagine judging the Roman Catholic faith on the basis of specific passages in the Bible, sans context [Matthew 27:25 “His blood be on us, and on our children”]?). Both Lino Brocka and Mario O’Hara, two of the Philippines’ finest filmmakers, were and are practicing Mormons (asked how he can make sexually explicit films like Babae sa Bubungang Lata (Woman on a Tin Roof, 1998) or harrowingly violent films like Pangarap ng Puso (Demons,2000), O’Hara enigmatically replied: “because they’re true”).

So - condemning a movie for being a Mormon propagandist tract? Can’t do it. Bad enough it’s emotionally purplish, romantically embarrassing, somewhat racist, badly written, acted and, most of all, hairstyled, but. Can’t. Quite. Take. That. Last. Step.

I do think that as an introduction to the faith’s artistic potential it’s hardly the ideal picture; see instead Lino Brocka’s Insiang (1976) or Tinimbang Ka Ngunit Kulang (You Were Judged and Found Wanting, 1974) for a sample of what a Mormon filmmaker (okay, Filipino Mormon filmmaker) is really capable of.

11. Did I mention the hair?

Note: Click here for more movie reviews.

LIVING ON BORROWED TIME IN A STOLEN LAND

January 6, 2009 – 4:19 am


‘Palestinian right of return’ sounds like an amusing idea to an Israeli. Even the most advanced ‘Israeli humanists’ are not ready to share the land with its indigenous inhabitants. This doesn’t leave the Palestinians with many options but to liberate themselves against all odds. As commentator and musician Gilad Atzmon says, “Clearly, there is no partner for peace on the Israel side.”

Communicating with Israelis may leave one bewildered. Even now when the Israeli Air Force is practicing murder in broad daylight of hundreds of civilians, elderly persons, women and children, the Israeli people manage to convince themselves that they are the real victims in this violent saga.

Those who are familiar intimately with Israeli people realise that they are completely uninformed about the roots of the conflict that dominates their lives. Rather often Israelis manage to come up with some bizarre arguments that may make a lot of sense within the Israeli discourse, yet make no sense whatsoever outside of the Jewish street.

Such an argument goes as follows: ‘Those Palestinians, why do they insist upon living on our land (Israel), why can’t they just settle in Egypt, Syria, Lebanon or any other Arab country?’ Another Hebraic pearl of wisdom sounds like this: ‘What is wrong with these Palestinians? We gave them water, electricity, education and all they do is try to throw us to the sea’.

Astonishingly enough, the Israelis even within the so-called ‘left’ and even the educated ‘left’ fail to understand who the Palestinians are, where they come from and what they stand for. They fail to grasp that for the Palestinians, Palestine is home. Miraculously, the Israelis manage to fail to grasp that Israel had been erected at the expense of the Palestinian people, on Palestinian land, on Palestinian villages, towns, fields and orchards.

The Israelis do not realise that Palestinians in Gaza and in refugee camps in the region are actually dispossessed people from Ber Shive, Yafo, Tel Kabir, Shekh Munis, Lod, Haifa, Jerusalem and many more towns and villages. If you wonder how come the Israelis don’t know their history, the answer is pretty simple, they have never been told.

The circumstances that led to the Israeli Palestinian conflict are well hidden within their culture. Traces of pre-1948 Palestinian civilisation on the land had been wiped out. Not only the Nakba, the 1948 ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinians, is not part of the Israeli curriculum, it is not even mentioned or discussed in any Israeli official or academic forum.

In the very centre of almost every Israeli town one can a find a 1948 memorial statue displaying a very bizarre, almost abstract, pipe work. The plumbing feature is called Davidka and it is actually a 1948 Israeli mortar cannon. Interestingly enough, the Davidka was an extremely ineffective weapon. Its shells wouldn’t reach more than 300 meters and would cause very limited damage. Though the Davidika would cause just minimal harm, it produced a lot of noise.

[Israelis] fail to grasp that for the Palestinians, Palestine is home. Miraculously, the Israelis manage to fail to grasp that Israel had been erected at the expense of the Palestinian people, on Palestinian land, on Palestinian villages, towns, fields and orchards.

According to the Israeli official historical narrative, the Arabs, i.e., Palestinians, simply ran away for their lives once they heard the Davidka from afar. According to the Israeli narrative, the Jews, i.e., ‘new Israelis’ did a bit of fireworks and the ‘Arab cowards’ just ran off like idiots. In the Israeli official narrative there is no mention of the many orchestrated massacres conducted by the young IDF and the paramilitary units that preceded it. There is no mention also of the racist laws that stop Palestinians [1] from returning to their homes and lands.

The meaning of the above is pretty simple. Israelis are totally unfamiliar with the Palestinian cause. Hence, they can only interpret the Palestinian struggle as a murderous irrational lunacy. Within the Israeli Judeo-centric solipsistic universe, the Israeli is an innocent victim and the Palestinian is no less than a savage murderer.

This grave situation that leaves the Israeli in the dark regarding his past demolishes any possibility of future reconciliation. Since the Israeli lacks the minimal comprehension of the conflict, he cannot contemplate any possible resolution except extermination or cleansing of the ‘enemy’. All the Israeli is entitled to know are various phantasmic narratives of Jewish suffering. Palestinian pain is completely foreign to his ears.

‘Palestinian right of return’ sounds to him like an amusing idea. Even the most advanced ‘Israeli humanists’ are not ready to share the land with its indigenous inhabitants. This doesn’t leave the Palestinians with many options but to liberate themselves against all odds. Clearly, there is no partner for peace on the Israel side.

This week we all learned more about the ballistic capability of Hamas. Evidently, Hamas was rather restrained with Israel for more than a long while. It refrained from escalating the conflict to the whole of southern Israel. It occurred to me that the barrages of Qassams that have been landing sporadically on Sderot and Ashkelon were actually nothing but a message from the imprisoned Palestinians.

First it was a message to the stolen land, homes fields and orchards: ‘Our beloved soil, we didn’t forget, we are still here fighting for you, sooner rather than later, we will come back, we will start again where we had stopped’. But it was also a clear message to the Israelis. ‘You out there, in Sderot, Beer Sheva, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Tel Aviv and Haifa, whether you realise it or not, you are actually living on our stolen land. You better start to pack because your time is running out, you have exhausted our patience. We, the Palestinian people, have nothing to lose anymore’.

Let’s face it, realistically the situation in Israel is rather grave. Two years ago it was Hezbollah rockets that pounded northern Israel. This week the Hamas proved beyond doubt that it is capable of serving the South of Israel with some cocktail of ballistic vengeance. Both in the case of the Hezbollah and the case of the Hamas, Israel was left with no military answer. It can no doubt kill civilians but it fails to stop the rocket barrage. The Israel Defence Force [IDF] lacks the means of protecting Israel unless covering Israel with a solid concrete roof is a viable solution. At the end of the day, they might be planning just that.

But this is far from the end of the story. In fact it is just the beginning. Every Middle East expert knows that Hamas can seize control of the West Bank within hours. In fact, the Palestinian Authority [PA] and Fatah control in the West Bank is maintained by the IDF. Once Hamas takes the West Bank, the biggest Israeli population centre will be left to the mercy of Hamas. For those who fail to see, this would be the end of Jewish Israel.

‘You out there, in Sderot, Beer Sheva, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Tel Aviv and Haifa, whether you realise it or not, you are actually living on our stolen land. You better start to pack because your time is running out, you have exhausted our patience. We, the Palestinian people, have nothing to lose anymore’.

It may happen later today, it may happen in three months or in five years, it isn’t a matter of ‘if’ but rather a matter of ‘when’. By that time, the whole of Israel will be within firing range of Hamas and Hezbollah, Israeli society will collapse, its economy will be ruined. The price of a detached villa in Northern Tel Aviv would equal a shed in Kiryat Shmone or Sderot. By the time a single rocket hits Tel Aviv, the Zionist dream will be over.

The IDF generals know it, the Israeli leaders know it. This is why they stepped up the war against the Palestinian into extermination. The Israelis do not plan upon invading Gaza. They have lost nothing there. All they want is to finish the Nakba. They drop bombs on Palestinians in order to wipe them out. They want the Palestinians out of the region. It is obviously not going to work, Palestinians will stay. Not only they will they stay, their day of return to their land is coming closer as Israel has been exploiting its deadliest tactics.

This is exactly where Israeli escapism comes into play. Israel has passed the ‘point of no return’. Its doomed fate is deeply engraved in each bomb it drops on Palestinian civilians. There is nothing Israel can do to save itself. There is no exit strategy. It can’t negotiate its way out because neither the Israelis nor their leadership understand the elementary parameters involved in the conflict.

Israel lacks the military power to conclude the battle. It may manage to kill Palestinian grassroots leaders, it has been doing it for years, yet Palestinian resistance and persistence is growing fierce rather than weakening. As an IDF intelligence general predicted already at the first Intifada. ‘In order to win, all Palestinians have to do is to survive’. They survive and they are indeed winning.

Israeli leaders understand it all. Israel has already tried everything, unilateral withdrawal, starvation and now extermination. It thought to evade the demographic danger by shrinking into an intimate cosy Jewish ghetto. Nothing worked. It is Palestinian persistence in the shape of Hamas politics that defines the future of the region.

All that is left to Israelis is to cling to their blindness and escapism to evade their devastating grave fate that has become immanent already. All along their way down, the Israelis will sing their familiar various victim anthems. Being imbued in a self-centred supremacist reality, they will be utterly involved in their own pain yet completely blind to the pain they inflict on others.

Uniquely enough, the Israelis are operating as a unified collective when dropping bombs on others, yet, once being slightly hurt, they all manage to become monads of vulnerable innocence. It is this discrepancy between the self-image and the way they are seen by the rest of us which turns the Israeli into a monstrous exterminator.

It is this discrepancy that stops Israelis from grasping their own history, it is that discrepancy that stops them from comprehending the repeated numerous attempts to destroy their State. It is that discrepancy that stops Israelis from understanding the meaning of the Shoah so they can prevent the next one. It is this discrepancy that stops Israelis from being part of humanity.

Once again Jews will have to wander into an unknown fate. To a certain extent, I myself have started my journey a while ago.

[1] Jews only law of return - http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1950_1959/Law of Return 5710-1950

read more here (www.australiansforpalestine.com/press_room…).

Note: Gilad Atzmon was born in Israel and served in the Israeli military. He is the author of two novels: A Guide to the Perplexed and My One and Only Love. Atzmon is also one of the most accomplished jazz saxophonists in Europe. Visit his website at www.gilad.co.uk. Click here to order Gilad Atzmon’s CDs and books. The above article was posted at Information Clearing House.

STEALING GAZA

January 4, 2009 – 4:26 am


Stuff one and half million people in a ghetto, deprive them of basic necessities, destroy their livelihoods, and humiliate them regularly and Israel acts surprised when the people in Gaza turn hostile. Reflections by musician Brian Eno.

It’s a tragedy that the Israelis - a people who must understand better than almost anybody the horrors of oppression - are now acting as oppressors. As the great Jewish writer Primo Levi once remarked “Everybody has their Jews, and for the Israelis it’s the Palestinians”. By creating a middle Eastern version of the Warsaw ghetto they are recapitulating their own history as though they’ve forgotten it.

And by trying to paint an equivalence between the Palestinians - with their homemade rockets and stone-throwing teenagers - and themselves - with one of the most sophisticated military machines in the world - they sacrifice all credibility.

The Israelis are a gifted and resourceful people who fully deserve the right to live in peace, but who seem intent on squandering every chance to allow that to happen. It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that this conflict serves the political and economic purposes of Israel so well that they have every interest in maintaining it.

The great Jewish writer Primo Levi once remarked “Everybody has their Jews, and for the Israelis it’s the Palestinians”.

While there is fighting they can continue to build illegal settlements. While there is fighting they continue to receive huge quantities of military aid from the United States. And while there is fighting they can avoid looking candidly at themselves and the ruthlessness into which they are descending.

Gaza is now an experiment in provocation. Stuff one and a half million people into a tiny space, stifle their access to water, electricity, food and medical treatment, destroy their livelihoods, and humiliate them regularly… and, surprise, surprise - they turn hostile. Now why would you want to make that experiment?

Because the hostility you provoke is the whole point. Now ‘under attack’ you can cast yourself as the victim, and call out the helicopter gunships and the F16 attack fighters and the heavy tanks and the guided missiles, and destroy yet more of the pathetic remains of infrastructure that the Palestinian state still has left. And then you can point to it as a hopeless case, unfit to govern itself, a terrorist state, a state with which you couldn’t possibly reach an accommodation.

And then you can carry on with business as usual, quietly stealing their homeland.

Note: Brian Eno is a musician and music producer. The above article was posted at Counterpunch.com.

MAY WE NO LONGER BE SILENT

December 31, 2008 – 10:03 am


“How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal?” This question not only can but must be asked of Israel. By Paul Craig Roberts.

The title of my article comes from the sermon of the Episcopal Bishop of Washington DC, John Bryson Chane, delivered on October 5, 2008, at St. Columba Church. The bishop’s eyes were opened to Israel’s persecution of Palestinians by his recent trip to Palestine. In his sermon he called on “politicians seeking the highest office in [our] land” to find the courage to “speak out and condemn violations of human rights and religious freedom denied to Palestinian Christians and Muslims” by the state of Israel.

Bishop Chane’s courage was to no avail. When America’s new leader of “change” was informed of Israel’s massive air attack on the Gaza Ghetto, an area of 139 square miles where Israel confines 1.4 million Arabs and tightly controls the inflow of all resources - food, medicine, water, energy - America’s president-elect Obama had “no comment.”

According to the Jerusalem Post ( December 26), “at 11:30 a.m., more than 50 fighter jets and attack helicopters swept into Gazan airspace and dropped more than 100 bombs on 50 targets… Thirty minutes later, a second wave of 60 jets and helicopters struck at 60 targets… More than 170 targets were hit by IAF aircraft throughout the day. At least 230 Gazans were killed and over 780 were wounded…”

As I write, news reports are that Israel is sending tanks and infantry reinforcements in preparation for a ground invasion of Gaza.

Israel’s excuse for its violence is that from time to time the Palestinian resistance organization, Hamas, fires off rockets into Israel to protest the ghetto life that Israel imposes on Gazans. The rockets are ineffectual for the most part and seldom claim Israeli casualties. However, the real purpose for the Israeli attack is to destroy Hamas.

In 2006 the US insisted that the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank hold free elections. When free elections were held, Hamas won. This was unacceptable to the Americans and Israelis. In the West Bank, the Americans and Israelis imposed a puppet government, but Hamas held on in Gaza. After unheeded warnings to the Gazans to rid themselves of Hamas and accept a puppet government, Israel has decided to destroy the freely elected government with violence.

Ehud Barak, who is overseeing the latest act of Israeli aggression, said in interviews addressed to the British and American publics that asking Israel to agree to a ceasefire with Hamas would be like asking the US to agree to a ceasefire with al Qaeda. The terrorism that Israel inflicts on Palestinians goes unremarked.

For the US and UK governments, Israel can do no wrong.

According to the London Times (December 28), “Britain and the United States were on a collision course with their European allies last night after refusing to call for an end to Israeli airstrikes on Hamas targets in Gaza. The wave of attacks marked a violent end to President George W. Bush’s sporadic Middle East peace efforts. The White House put the blame squarely on Hamas.” The British government also blamed Hamas.

For the US and UK governments, Israel can do no wrong. Israel doesn’t have to stop withholding food, medicine, water, and energy, but Hamas must stop protesting by firing off rockets. In violation of international law, Israel can drive West Bank Palestinians off their lands and out of their villages and give the stolen properties to “settlers.” Israel can delay Palestinians in need of emergency medical care at checkpoints until their lives ebb away. Israeli snipers can get their jollies murdering Palestinian children.

The Great Moral Anglo-Americans couldn’t care less.

In his 2005 Nobel Lecture, British playwright Harold Pinter held the United States and its British puppet state accountable for “the systematic brutality, the widespread atrocities, the ruthless suppression of independent thought.” Everyone knows that such crimes occurred in the Soviet Union and in its East European empire, but “US crimes in the same period have only been superficially recorded, let alone documented, let alone acknowledged, let alone recognized as crimes at all,” this despite the fact that “the United States’ actions throughout the world made it clear that it had concluded it had carte blanche to do what it liked.”

Soviet crimes, like Nazi ones, are documented in gruesome detail, but America’s crimes “never happened. Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them. You have to hand it to America. It has exercised a clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”

America’s is “a scintillating stratagem. Language is actually employed to keep thought at bay. The words ‘the American people’ provide a truly voluptuous cushion of reassurance. You don’t need to think.”

Pinter presents a long list of American crimes and comes to Iraq: “The invasion of Iraq was a bandit act, an act of blatant state terrorism, demonstrating absolute contempt for the concept of international law. The invasion was… an act intended to consolidate American military and economic control of the Middle East masquerading - as a last resort - all other justifications having failed to justify themselves - as liberation.”

Americans and their British puppets “have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East.”

“How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal?” Pinter’s question can also be asked of Israel. Israel has been in violation of international law since 1967, protected by the United States’ veto of UN Resolutions condemning Israel for its violent, inhumane, barbaric, and illegal acts.

American evangelical Christians, who are degenerating into Zionists, are Israel’s greatest allies. Jesus is forsaken as Christians swallow whole the Israeli lies. A couple of years ago the US Presbyterian Church was so distressed by Israel’s immorality toward Palestinians that the church attempted to disinvest its investment portfolio from assets tainted with Israel. But the Israel Lobby was stronger. The Presbyterian Church was unable to stand up for Christian principles and knuckled under to the Israel Lobby’s pressure.

This is hardly surprising considering that the US government doesn’t stand for Christian principles either. America’s doctrine of “full spectrum dominance” means that, like Lenin’s dictatorship, America is not bound by law or morality, but by power alone.

Pinter sums it up in a speech he had dreams of writing for President George W. Bush:

“God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden’s God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam’s God was bad, except he didn’t have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don’t chop people’s heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don’t you forget it.”

If only our ears could hear, this is the speech we have been hearing from Israel for 60 years.

Note: Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He is co-author of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com. The above article was posted at Counterpunch.com.

THE GAZA GHETTO AND WESTERN CANT

December 31, 2008 – 10:03 am

Instead of blaming Hamas on Israel’s attack on the Gaza Ghetto, one outcome of this latest attack will be to inflame Muslim communities throughout the world and swell the ranks of those very organisations that the West claims it is combating in the ‘war against terror’. Tariq Ali explains.

The assault on the Gaza Ghetto, planned over six months and executed with perfect timing was designed largely to help the incumbent parties triumph in the forthcoming Israeli elections. The dead Palestinians are little more than election fodder in a cynical contest between the Right and the Far Right in Israel. Washington and its EU allies, perfectly aware that Gaza was about to be assaulted, as in the case of Lebanon a few years, sit back and watch. Washington, as is its wont, blames the pro-Hamas Palestinians, with Obama and Bush singing from the same AIPAC hymn sheet.

The EU politicians, having observed the build-up, the siege, the collective punishment inflicted on Gaza, the targeting of civilians, etc [See Harvard scholar Sara Roy’s chilling essay in the latest LRB] were convinced that it was the rocket attacks that had ‘provoked’ Israel but called on both sides to end the violence, with nil effect. The moth-eaten Mubarak dictatorship in Egypt and NATO’s favourite Islamists in Ankara failed to even register a symbolic protest by recalling their Ambassadors from Israel. China and Russia did not convene a meeting of the UNSC to discuss the crisis.

As result of official apathy, one outcome of this latest attack will be to inflame Muslim communities throughout the world and swell the ranks of those very organisations that the West claims it is combating in the ‘war against terror’.

The bloodshed in Gaza raises broader strategic questions for both sides, issues related to recent history. One fact that needs to be recognised is that there is no Palestinian Authority. There never was one. The Oslo Accords were an unmitigated disaster for the Palestinians, creating a set of disconnected and shrivelled Palestinian ghettoes under the permanent watch of a brutal enforcer.

The PLO, once the repository of Palestinian hope, became little more than a supplicant for EU money. Western enthusiasm for democracy stops when those opposed to its policies are elected to office. The West and Israel tried everything to secure a Fatah victory: Palestinian voters rebuffed the concerted threats and bribes of the ‘international community’ in a campaign that saw Hamas members and other oppositionists routinely detained or assaulted by the IDF, their posters confiscated or destroyed, US and EU funds channelled into the Fatah campaign, and US Congressmen announcing that Hamas should not be allowed to run.

Even the timing of the election was set by the determination to rig the outcome. Scheduled for the summer of 2005, it was delayed till January 2006 to give Abbas time to distribute assets in Gaza - in the words of an Egyptian intelligence officer: ‘the public will then support the Authority against Hamas’. Popular desire for a clean broom after ten years of corruption, bullying and bluster under Fatah proved stronger than all of this.

Hamas’s electoral triumph was treated as an ominous sign of rising fundamentalism, and a fearsome blow to the prospects of peace with Israel, by rulers and journalists across the Atlantic world. Immediate financial and diplomatic pressures were applied to force Hamas to adopt the same policies as those whom it defeated at the polls.

Uncompromised by the Palestinian Authority’s combination of greed and dependency, the self-enrichment of its servile spokesmen and policemen, and their acquiescence in a ‘peace process’ that has brought only further expropriation and misery to the population under them, Hamas offered the alternative of a simple example. Without any of the resources of its rival, it set up clinics, schools, hospitals, vocational training and welfare programmes for the poor. Its leaders and cadres lived frugally, within reach of ordinary people. It is this response to everyday needs that has won Hamas the broad basis of its support, not daily recitation of verses from the Koran.

How far its conduct in the second Intifada has given it an additional degree of credibility is less clear. Its armed attacks on Israel, like those of Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade or Islamic Jihad, have been retaliations against an occupation far more deadly than any actions it has ever undertaken. Measured on the scale of IDF killings, Palestinian strikes have been few and far between. The asymmetry was starkly exposed during Hamas’s unilateral ceasefire, begun in June 2003, and maintained throughout the summer despite the Israeli campaign of raids and mass arrests, which followed, in which some three hundred Hamas cadres were seized from the West Bank.

Hamas offered the alternative of a simple example. Without any of the resources of its rival, it set up clinics, schools, hospitals, vocational training and welfare programmes for the poor. Its leaders and cadres lived frugally, within reach of ordinary people. It is this response to everyday needs that has won Hamas the broad basis of its support, not daily recitation of verses from the Koran.

On 19 August 2003 a self-proclaimed ‘Hamas’ cell from Hebron, disowned and denounced by the official leadership, blew up a bus in West Jerusalem, upon which Israel promptly assassinated the Hamas ceasefire’s negotiator, Ismail Abu Shanab. Hamas in turn responded. In return, the Palestinian Authority and Arab states cut funding to its charities and, in September 2003, the EU declared the whole Hamas movement to be a terrorist organization - a long-standing demand of Tel Aviv.

What has actually distinguished Hamas in a hopelessly unequal combat is not dispatch of suicide bombers, to which a range of competing groups resorted, but its superior discipline - demonstrated by its ability to enforce a self-declared ceasefire against Israel over the past year. All civilian deaths are to be condemned, but since Israel is their principal practitioner, Euro-American cant serves only to expose those who utter it.

Overwhelmingly, the boot of murder is on the other foot, ruthlessly stamped into Palestine by a modern army equipped with jets, tanks and missiles in the longest armed oppression of modern history. ‘Nobody can reject or condemn the revolt of a people that has been suffering under military occupation for forty-five years against occupation force’: the words of General Shlomo Gazit, former chief of Israeli military intelligence, in 1993.

The real grievance of the EU and US against Hamas is that it refused to accept the capitulation of the Oslo Accords, and has rejected every subsequent effort, from Taba to Geneva, to pass off their calamities on the Palestinians. The West’s priority ever since was to break this resistance. Cutting off funding to the Palestinian Authority is an obvious weapon with which to bludgeon Hamas into submission. Boosting the presidential powers of Abbas - as publicly picked for his post by Washington, as was Karzai in Kabul - at the expense of the Legislative Council is another.

No serious efforts were made to negotiate with the elected Palestinian leadership. I doubt if Hamas could have been rapidly suborned to Western and Israel but it would not have been unprecedented. Hamas’s programmatic heritage remains mortgaged to the most fatal weakness of Palestinian nationalism: the belief that the political choices before it are either rejection of the existence of Israel altogether, or acceptance of the dismembered remnants of a fifth of the country.

From the fantasy maximalism of the first to the pathetic minimalism of the second, the path is all too short, as the history of Fatah has shown. The test for Hamas is not whether it can be house-trained to the satisfaction of Western opinion, but whether it can break with this crippling tradition.

Soon after the Hamas victory I was asked in public by a Palestinian what I would do in their place. ‘Dissolve the Palestinian Authority’, was my response and end the make-belief. To do so would situate the Palestinian national cause on its proper basis, with the demand that the country and its resources be divided equitably, in proportion to two populations that are equal in size - not 80 per cent to one and 20 per cent to the other, a dispossession of such iniquity that no self-respecting people will ever submit to it in the long run. The only acceptable alternative is a single state for Jews and Palestinians alike, in which the exactions of Zionism are repaired.

There is no other way. And Israeli citizens might ponder the following words from Shakespeare [The Merchant of Venice] that I have slightly altered:

‘I am a Palestinian. Hath not a Palestinian eyes? Hath not a Palestinian hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Jew is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that… the villainy you teach me, I will execute; and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.’

Note: Tariq Ali’s latest book, ‘The Duel: Pakistan on the Flight Path of American Power’ is published by Scribner. The above article was posted at Counterpunch.com.

DUMPLINGS WORTH DYING FOR

December 30, 2008 – 4:39 am


Everyone is dying to find out the secret behind the popular dumplings at Koji Kawano’s Cruel Restaurant. Suspicions run wild when human body parts start washing up at the beach but the real secret might just turn some people off these common Chinese snacks. Stephen Tan reviews.

The cover art shows an attractive-looking girl in a cheongsam holding a chopper. With a title such as Cruel Restaurant, Koji Kawano’s 2008 movie practically begs comparison with The Untold Story (1993), a film about a restaurant which serves human meat buns. And because it features a popular Chinese snack, it calls to mind another horror movie - Miriam Yeung’s Dumplings.Taking a page from The Untold Story, Cruel Restaurant starts with a fisherman on the beach reeling in what he thinks is a big catch. The big catch turns out to be part of an arm which sends the fisherman shrieking. Looking at the expression on the man’s face and hearing his scream, viewers already get an inkling that Cruel Restaurant will be a tour de farce. To further clue viewers in, it so happens that there is reporter Miho Funatsu sunning herself near the fisherman. Instead of jumping at what is a hot story, she calls her chief and talks about the story she is working on - the popular Tougen Restaurant serving Tougen dumplings.

At the Tougen Restaurant, while Lin (Mihiro) looks like she’s barely out of high school and serves the customers, she’s really the boss. The other staff is Chin (Yamazaki Sakae) who works in the kitchen. The sister of a food critic has disappeared and the food critic and two bumbling police officers suspect the disappearance is tied to the restaurant.

In the meantime, a young man keeps pestering both Lin and Chin to accept him as an apprentice cook. The young man attacks Lin who is doing martial arts (tai chi?) moves in the park but she is saved by one of the policemen. The wannabe cook later confronts Lin alone in the restaurant kitchen and rapes her. However, Lin blacks out during the rape but wakes up in bed with her hands covered with blood. She also gets flashes of the decapitated young man.

The food critic decides to do some snooping on her own at the restaurant and tries to strangle Lin during a scuffle. Lin blacks out (again) but sees the butchered food critic in the bloody kitchen when she awakes. She goes to look for Chin for help but returns to find him alone in the kitchen and no signs of any violence.

One of the detectives decides to shadow Chin but is killed by Chin instead. The reporter decides to do her own snooping and discovers the secret to the popular dumplings but is killed when Chin returns.

Cruel Restaurant might give viewers the impression that it is an ultra violent film though it is not. Sure there are slashings and hackings but much of the violence happens off screen and there isn’t any geyser-like blood splashing all over. It’s also possible the film’s limited budget put a dent on its splatter-gore intentions.

What viewers probably didn’t expect is the sex and nudity in the film. In her rape scene, Lin gets her top pulled off; and to get the secret of the Tougen dumplings, she has to undergo a sexual initiation that involves masturbation, stripping and what is tantamount to being raped.

In a way, Cruel Restaurant lives with the shadow of The Untold Story looming over it. Viewers keep expecting that the dumplings’ popularity is because it contains human meat and director Koji Kawano keeps delaying the denouement. This creates a nice suspense throughout the movie; and when the secret is finally revealed it actually raises the film’s “yuck” rating rather than satiate anyone’s suspense.

To help move things along, Cruel Restaurant also takes a little dig at things Chinese and Chinese cinema in particular. The Tougen Restaurant has Chinese decor and serves Chinese dumplings; its staff are Japanese of Chinese descent; the restaurant’s Master Hoi even wears a Chinese cap and has “typical” Chinese whiskers; Master Hoi’s look and mannerisms recall Simon Yuen Siu-tin [Jacky Chan’s master] in Snake In The Eagle’s Shadow if he had a lecherous streak; Lin practises what looks like tai chi moves and when the young apprentice confronts her, he uses the drunken fist technique. Unfortunately there is no “Chinese” payoff at the end and Kawano resorts to sex and shock for his ending, which owes more than a whiff to Peter Suskind’s Perfume.

Viewers should forget about The Untold Story or even Dumplings [a film based on the secret of youthful beauty] when approaching Cruel Restaurant. Filled with lots of red herrings and misdirections, the secret of making popular dumplings might not prove to be a sumptuous delight but it can be a wild and fun ride.

Note: The Cruel Restaurant DVD (ADV Films) is banned in $ingapore.

Click here for more movie reviews.

RIAA STOPS LAWSUITS, BUT NOT THE THREATS

December 24, 2008 – 4:33 am


For years the RIAA has been filing lawsuits against thousands of individuals who allegedly shared copyrighted music. Following recent court setbacks, the lobby group has announced it will stop mass lawsuits. Instead, it will focus on cutting deals with ISPs to disconnect ‘IP-addresses’ that repeatedly share copyrighted music. Written by Ernesto at TorrentFreak.com.

Ironically, the decision by the RIAA to stop their mass lawsuits is followed by a proposal to target an even larger group of Internet users. The music industry lobbyists state that they are in the process of cutting deals with ISPs to target Internet subscribers that repeatedly infringe on the copyright of the major record labels - the so called three-strikes approach.

This means that millions of people will receive warning emails from their Internet service provider, based on ‘evidence’ gathered by a third party with a vested interest in the outcome. This will also mean, however, that thousands of individuals will receive emails in error, as the evidence gathering techniques are not as solid as the anti-piracy outfits say. There have been a lot of false accusations already, and this was recently confirmed in mainstream media by the BBC show Watchdog.

The move from individual lawsuits to controlling piracy at the ISP level seems to be the new trend this year. Many countries have looked into the possibility of disconnecting file-sharers from the Internet, often gently pushed by anti-piracy lobbyists. France was the first to present their “three-strikes” law earlier this year, which would allow anti-piracy outfits to police the Internet. The IFPI now plans to implement this worldwide, with or without legislation.

It won’t stop there though, if the RIAA gets its way ISPs will also have to pro-actively check for copyrighted content on their network. In their list of suggestions for the controversial ACTA proposal, the RIAA wants ISPs to spy on the files that are transferred by their customers, and check them against a reference database of “copyrighted files”.

ISPs worldwide are not looking forward to policing their networks, but they might find themselves with no other option. Adding further pressure, the RIAA wants ISPs to be held liable for the copyright infringement that takes place on their network, as their proposal suggests “…in the absence of proof to the contrary, an Internet service provider shall be considered as knowing that the content it stores is infringing or illegal, and thus subject to liability for copyright infringement…”

So, while dropping the mass-lawsuits might be considered to be a step forward by some, the change in tactics might very well result in a virtual police state where consumers (and ISPs) are guilty until proven innocent. The RIAA has lost some major battles in court, but if they gain control over ISPs, the future might be even darker than the past.

BERNARD MADOFF: WALL STREET SWINDLER STRIKES POWERFUL BLOWS FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

December 24, 2008 – 4:33 am

For almost four decades, broker Bernard (”Bernie”) Madoff built a reputation as a highly respected Wall Streeter and a pro-Israel philanthropist. All the time he was swindling his clients and “levelling” the difference between the haves and have nots. Professor James Petras explains.

“We never thought he would do this to us, he was one of our people.”
- member of Palm Beach Country Club.

Wall Street broker Bernard (’Bernie’) Madoff, former president of NASDAQ, revered and respected investor confessed to pulling off the biggest fraud in history, a US$50 billion scam.

Bernie was known for his generous philanthropy, especially to Zionist, Jewish and Israeli causes. A one-time life-guard on Long Island in the 1960s, Bernie launched his financial career by raising money from colleagues, friends and relatives among wealthier Jews in the Long Island suburbs, Palm Beach, Florida and in Manhattan, promising a modest, steady and secure return of between 10 and 12 per cent, covering any withdrawals in typical Ponzi fashion by drawing on funds from new investors who literally pleaded for Bernie to fleece them.

Madoff personally managed at least $17 billion dollars. For almost four decades he built up a clientele, which came to include some of the biggest banks and investment houses in Scotland, Spain, England and France; as well as major hedge funds in the United States. Madoff drew almost all of the funds from high net-worth private clients who were recruited by brokers working on commission. Bernie’s clients included many multi-millionaires and billionaires from Switzerland, Israel and elsewhere, as well as the US’s largest hedge funds (RMF Division of the Man Group and the Tremont).

Many of the swindled super-rich clients forced their money on Madoff, who sternly imposed rigorous conditions on potential clients: He insisted they have recommendations from existing investors, deposit a substantial amount and guarantee their own solvency. Most considered themselves lucky to have their funds taken by the highly respected Wall Street… swindler. Madoff’s standard message was that the fund was closed… but because they came from the same world (board members of Jewish charities, pro-Israel fund raising organizations or the ‘right’ country clubs) or were related to a friend, colleague or existing clients, he would take their money.

Madoff set up advisory councils with distinguished members, contributed heavily to museums, hospitals and upscale cultural organizations. He was a prominent member of exclusive country clubs in Palm Beach and Long Island. His reputation was enhanced by his funds record of never having a losing year - a big selling point in luring millionaire investors.

Madoff shared with his super-rich clients (Jews and Gentiles) a common upper class life style, and mix of cultural philanthropy with low key financial profiteering. Madoff ‘played’ his colleagues with a soft-spoken, but authoritative, appearance of ‘expertise’, covered by a veneer of upper class collegiality, deep commitment to Zionism and long-term friendships.

Bernie’s mega-fund shared many signs with recent high level scams: The constant high returns, unmatched by any other broker; a lack of third party oversight; a backroom accounting firm physically incapable of auditing the multi-billion dollar operation; a broker-dealer operation directly under his thumb and the total obfuscation of what he was actually investing in.

The obvious similarity of signs with other fraudsters were overlooked by the rich and famous, the sophisticated investors and high paid consultants, the Harvard MBA’s and the entire army of regulators from the Security and Exchange Commissions (SEC) because they were totally embedded in the corrupt culture of ‘take the money and run’ and ‘if you’re making it, don’t ask questions’. The reputation of the superior wisdom of a seemingly successful Jewish Wall Streeter fed into the self-delusions of the wealthy and the stereotypes held by millionaire Gentiles.

The Big Swindle

Madoff’s investment fund only dealt with a limited clientele of multi-millionaire and billionaires who kept their funds in for the long haul; the occasional withdrawal were limited in amount and were easily covered by soliciting new funds from new investors fighting to have access to Madoff’s money management.

The long-term big investors looked toward passing their investments to their kin or eventual retirement. The wealthy lawyers, dentists, surgeons, distinguished Ivy League professors and others who might need to draw from their funds for an occasional fancy wedding or celebrity-studded bar-mitzvah, could draw from their funds because Madoff had no problem covering the withdrawal by attracting funds from rich owners of sweat shop garment factories, dangerous meat packing outfits and slumlords.

Madoff was no Robin Hood, his philanthropic and charity contributions facilitated access to the rich and wealthy who served on the boards of the recipient institutions and proved that he was ‘one of them’ a kind of super-rich ‘intimate’ of the same elite class. The shock, awe and heart attacks that followed Madoff’s confession that he was ‘running a Ponzi scheme’ drew as much anger for the money lost and the fall from the moneyed class as for the embarrassment of knowing that the world’s biggest exploiters and smartest swindlers on Wall Street, were completely ‘taken’ by one of their own.

Not only did they suffer big losses but their self-image of themselves as rich because they are so smart and of ’superior stock’ was utterly shattered: They saw themselves as suffering the same fate as all the schmucks they had previously swindled, exploited and dispossessed in their climb to the top. There is nothing worse for the ego of a respectable swindler than to be trumped by a bigger swindler. As a result, a number of the biggest losers have so far refused to give their names or the amount they lost, working instead through lawyers fighting off other losers.

Bernard Madoff ‘played’ his colleagues with a soft-spoken, but authoritative, appearance of ‘expertise’, covered by a veneer of upper class collegiality, deep commitment to Zionism and long-term friendships.

The Positive Side of Madoff’s Mega-Swindle (The Inadvertent Hand of Justice)

While it is understandable that the super-rich and wealthy, who have lost a large portion of their retirement and investment funds are unanimous in their condemnation and cries of betrayal of trust, and the editorials of all the prestigious newspapers and weeklies have joined the chorus of moral critics, there is much to praise in Madoff’s deeds, even if such praise was not at the heart of his fraudulent endeavor.

It is worthwhile to list the inadvertent positive outcomes of Madoff’s mega-swindle. First of all the swindle of $50-plus-billion may make a big dent on US Zionist funding of illegal Israeli colonial settlements in the Occupied Territories, lessen funding for AIPAC’s purchase of Congressional influence and financing of propaganda campaigns in favor of a pre-emptive US military attack against Iran. Most investors will have to lower or eliminate their purchase of Israel bonds, which subsidize the Jewish State’s military budget.

Secondly, the swindle has further discredited the highly speculative hedge funds already reeling from massive withdrawals because of deep losses. Madoff’s funds were one of the last ‘respected’ operations still drawing new investors, but with the latest revelations it may accelerate their demise. The dismissed promoters may finally have to perform an honest, productive day’s work.

Thirdly, Madoff’s long-term, large-scale fraud was not detected by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) despite its claims of at least two investigations. As a result, there is a total loss of credibility. More generally, the SEC’s failure demonstrates the incapacity of capitalist government regulatory agencies to detect mega frauds. This failure raises the question of whether alternatives to investing in Wall Street are better suited to protect savings and pension funds.

Fourthly, Madoff’s long-term association with NASDAQ, including his chairmanship, while he was defrauding his clients of billions, strongly suggests that the members and leaders of this stock exchange are incapable of recognizing a crook, and are prone to overlook felonious behavior of ‘one of their own’. In other words, the investing public can no longer look to holders of high posts in NASDAQ as a sign of probity. After Madoff it may signal time to look for a king-size mattress for safe keeping of what remains of a family’s wealth.

The fifth point is that the investment advisors from top banks in Europe, Asia and the US managing billions of funds did not carry out the most elementary due diligence of Madoff’s operation. Apart from severe bank losses, tens of thousands of influential, affluent and super-rich lost their entire accumulated wealth. The result is total loss of confidence in the leading banks and financial instruments as well as the general discrediting of ‘expert knowledge’. The result is a weakening of the financial stranglehold over investor behavior and the demise of an important sector of the parasitic ‘rentier’ class, which gains without producing any useful commodities or providing needed services.

The sixth point is that since most of the money stolen by Madoff came from the upper classes around the world, his behavior has reduced inequalities - he is the ‘greatest leveler’ since the introduction of the progressive income tax. By ruining billionaires and bankrupting millionaires, Madoff has lessened their capacity to use their wealth to influence politicians in their favor - thus increasing the potential political influence of the less affluent sectors of class society… and inadvertently strengthening democracy against the financial oligarchs.

A seventh point can be made that by swindling life-long friends, self-same ethno-religious investors, narrow ethnically defined country club members and close family members, Madoff demonstrates that finance capital shows no respect for any of the pieties of everyday life: Great and small, holy and profane, all are subordinated to the rule of capital.

Eighth, among the many ruined investors in New York and New England, there are a number of mega slumlords (real estate moguls), sweatshop owners (fancy name-brand clothes and toy manufacturers) and others who barely paid the minimum wage to their women and immigrant laborers, evicted poor tenants and swindled employees out of their pensions before moving their operations to China.

In other words, Madoff’s swindle was a kind of secular ‘divine’ retribution for past and present crimes against labor and the poor. Needless to say, this ‘unconscious Robin Hood’ did not redistribute the money fleeced from the employers to their workers, he reinvested part of it in charities which enhanced his philanthropic image and to payout to some of his early investors so sustain the overall Ponzi scam.

The shock, awe and heart attacks that followed Madoff’s confession that he was ‘running a Ponzi scheme’ drew as much anger for the money lost and the fall from the moneyed class as for the embarrassment of knowing that the world’s biggest exploiters and smartest swindlers on Wall Street, were completely ‘taken’ by one of their own.

Point number nine is that Madoff struck a severe blow against anti-Semites who claim that there is a ‘close-knit Jewish conspiracy to defraud the Gentiles’, laying that canard to rest once and for all. Among Bernard Madoff’s principle victims were his closest Jewish friends and colleagues, people who shared Seder meals and frequented the same upscale temples in Long Island and Palm Beach.

Bernie was discriminating in accepting clients, but it was on the basis of their wealth and not their national origin, race, religion or sexual preference. He was very ecumenical and a strong backer of globalization. There was nothing ethnocentric about Madoff: He defrauded the Anglo-Chinese bank HSBC of $1 billion dollars and several billions from the Dutch arm of the Belgian bank Fortes. $1.4 billion was from the Royal Bank of Scotland, the French bank BNP Paribas, the Spanish bank, Banco Santander, the Japanese Nomura; not to mention hedge funds in London and the US, which have admitted holdings in Bernard Madoff Investment Securities.

Indeed Bernie was emblematic of the modern up-to-date, politically correct, multicultural, international… swindler. The ease with which the super rich of Europe forked their fortunes over caused one Madrid-based business consultant to observe that, “picking off Spain’s wealthiest was like clubbing seals…” (Financial Times, December 18, 2008 p.16)

The tenth point is that Madoff’s swindle will likely promote greater self-criticism and a more distrustful attitude toward other potential confidence people posing as reliable financial know-it-alls. Among self-critical Jews, they are less likely to confide in brokers simply because they are zealous backers of Israel and generous contributors to Zionist fund drives. That is no longer an adequate guarantee of ethical behavior and a certificate of good conduct. In fact it may raise suspicion of brokers who are excessively ardent boosters of Israel and promise consistent high returns to local Zionist affiliates - asking themselves whether this business about ‘what is good for the…’ is really a cover for another scam.

The final and 11th point is the demise of Madoff’s enterprise and his wealthy liberal Jewish victims will adversely affect contributions to the 52 Major Jewish American Organizations, numerous foundations in Boston, Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere, as well as the Clinton/Schumer militarist wing of the Democratic Party (Madoff bankrolled both of them as well as other unconditional Congressional supporters of Israel). This may open Congress to greater debate on Middle East policy without the usual high volume attacks.

Conclusion

Madoff’s swindle and fraudulent behavior is not the result of a personal moral failure. It is the product of a systemic imperative and the economic culture, which informs the highest circles of our class structure. The paper economy, hedge funds and all the ’sophisticated financial instruments’ are all ‘Ponzi schemes’ - they are not based on producing and selling goods and services. They are financial bets on future financial paper growth based on securing future buyers to pay off earlier cash ins.

The ‘failure’ of the SEC is totally predictable and systemic: The regulators are selected from the regulatees, are beholden to them and defer to their judgments, claims and audit sheets. They are structured to ‘miss the signs’ and to avoid ‘over-regulating’ their financial superiors.

Madoff operated in a milieu of a Wall Street where everything goes, where impunity for mega-bailouts for mega swindlers is the norm. As an individual swindler, he out-defrauded some of his bigger institutional competitors on the Street. The whole system of rewards and prestige goes to those best able to juggle the books, to cover the paper trails and who have willing victims begging to get fleeced. What a mensch, this Madoff!

In a few days, one individual, Bernard Madoff, has struck a bigger blow against global financial capital, Wall Street and the US Zionist Lobby/Israel-First Agenda than the entire US and European left combined over the past half century! He has been more successful in reducing vast wealth disparities in New York than all the white, black, Christian and Jewish, reform and mainline Democratic and Republican governors and Mayors over the past two centuries.

Some right-wing conspiracy theorists are claiming that Bernie is a secret Islamic-Palestinian agent (from Hamas) who set out to deliberately undermine the financial base of the Jewish State of Israel and its most powerful, affluent and generous US backers and foundations. Others claim that he is a closet Marxist whose swindles were carefully designed to discredit Wall Street and to funnel billions into clandestine radical organizations - after all… does anyone know where the lost billions have gone?

Unlike the leftist pundits, bloggers and protest marchers, whose earnest and public activities have had no effect on the rich and powerful, Madoff has aimed his blows where it hurts the most: Their mega-bank accounts, their confidence in the capitalist system, their self-esteem and, yes, even their cardiac well-being.

Does that mean we on the left should form a Bernie Madoff Defense Committee and call for a bailout in line with Paulson’s bailout of his Citibank cronies? Should we proclaim “Equal bailout for equal swindlers!”? Should we advocate his flight (or his right of return) to Israel to avoid a trial? It might not fly with his many Jewish victims to make the case for an Israeli retirement for Bernie.

There is no reason to mount the barricades for Bernard Madoff. It’s enough to recognize that he has inadvertently rendered an historic service to popular justice by undermining some of the financial props of a class-ridden injustice system.

Postscript

Was it out of sheer admiration or because of some covert linkages with Madoff that our current Attorney General Michael Mukasey is removing himself from the investigation? Others of equal importance and influence are most certainly tied in the Madoff Affair, and not just the ‘victims’. We are facing a serious case of matters of State… No one can believe that a single person could by himself pull off a scam of this size and duration. Nor can any serious investigator believe that $50 billion dollars has simply ‘disappeared’ or been squirreled into personal accounts.

Note: James Petras is a Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York. He has a long history of commitment to social justice, working in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement for 11 years. He is the author of more than 62 books and a co-author of Multinationals On Trial (2006). Visit petras.lahaine.org.

FOUR SUGGESTIONS

December 23, 2008 – 4:29 am

Seth Gordon’s Four Christmases is meant to be your romantic comedy for the yuletide season but as Critic After Dark Noel Vera says, “I want to offer four constructive suggestions that might help improve the film (if any of you are even halfway sentient you’d want to improve this with a can of gasoline and a lit match).”

Dear Messrs. Gordon, Allen, Wilson, Lucas, Moore, Barber, Billingsley, Birnbaum, Disco (?!), Emmerich, Evans, Glickman, Kaufman, Nedivi, Riedel, Rohlich, Vaughn and Witherspoon

Saw Four Christmases, about a couple (played by Vince Vaughn and Reese Witherspoon) forced to spend the holidays with their four divorced parents (Robert Duvall and Sissy Spacek as Vaughn’s parents; Jon Voight and Mary Steenburgen as Witherspoon’s) and yes, it’s bad, yes it’s an almost complete waste of time (more on that “almost” later), and yes I can’t recommend it to anyone unless they’re some kind of Yuletide masochist willing to accept this as their only alternative to an eggnog enema (given a choice, I’d need a minute to think about it).

But I don’t want to dwell on that. ‘Tis the season to be jolly, so they say, and I want to keep myself happy, my smile wide and cheerful; I want to offer four constructive suggestions that might help improve the film, if you feel the need for improvement (if any of you are even halfway sentient you’d want to improve this with a can of gasoline and a lit match). I just hope y’all take this in the spirit in which it was given.

First suggestion: listen to Hitchcock.

Hitchcock famously said, “actors should be treated like cattle” (actually the entire quote goes something like this: “I never said all actors are cattle; what I said was all actors should be treated like cattle.” He was probably joking (for the record plenty of artists of the thespic (I just love that word; know a few critics who use it liberally, it’s so pretentious) persuasion that enjoyed working with him, and he in turn coaxed quite a few great performances from ‘cattle’), but like all Hitchcock jests there’s a kernel of truth to be found. Actors should be treated like cattle - not in the concentration camp sense, perhaps, but certainly in the sense meant by older cultures, where you use every part of the animal you slaughtered. I mean, used.

I mean - a movie with Robert Duvall, Jon Voight, Sissy Spacek and Mary Steenburgen, and I’m barely able to stay awake? Duvall and Voight aren’t known for comedy, but the filmmakers could have used that, blindsided us with carefully calibrated yet surprising roles for these two old hands to play; instead they have Duvall at one end of an elaborate gag involving an old TV set and a very long video cable yelling at the top of his lungs to little effect, and Voight at another being so serious I could have sworn the occasion was a wake, not a Christmas party.

Steenburgen - well, she didn’t have a lot to do, but I found myself in a more forgiving vein with regards to her, especially as she has managed to stay devastatingly sexy even past the age of fifty. Sissy Spacek is in a better situation - she’s involved in perhaps the only really funny joke in the movie, where a surprisingly younger man turns out to be her boyfriend (I loved Vaughn’s reaction to watching the man kiss Spacek. “Your mother is a very sexual being,” his stepfather explains). There’s an almost Woody Allen-esque quality to Vaughn’s mother of a problem (I wonder if one of the reasons they cast him weren’t because he played the Oedipally challenged Norman Bates in Gus Van Sant’s infamous Psycho remake), and for maybe ten minutes I was thoroughly entertained.

Second suggestion: Lose the concept

Cuteness is all - meaning every year, all they serve up is a cute concept. Last year it was Santa’s terminally underconfident brother (again starring the hardworking Vaughn - what is it with him and Christmas comedies?); the year past it was a decorating war between neighbors; some years before that it was Ben Affleck hiring a family for Christmas. Every December they come up with the same unfunny idea, that a seemingly funny idea (instead of decent writing, acting, directing) will carry a movie through. Enough already; you’re flogging a long-dead horse, and the stink is starting to bother the neighbors. Give it a decent burial or, better yet, cremation.

Third suggestion: be funny.

Not as easy as you’d think. As I’d already mentioned, I sat up and chuckled for all of ten minutes (Sissy Spacek playing a cradlesnatcher); most of the time I was just trying to find something - anything - to enjoy in this comic wasteland (maybe that’s why many of the women in the picture wear low-cut tops; “if you show it,” the filmmakers must believe, “they won’t leave”). To recall another quote: “Dying is easy, comedy, hard;” the movie has four writers and thirteen producers, you’d think that some time before the wrap party they’d all have more or less agreed that they were doing a comedy. If Witherspoon had been cast opposite of Daniel Day Lewis and the whole thing reshot as straight drama it might be funnier.

Fourth suggestion: be real.

Vaughn was said to have suggested Seth Gordon as director. Gordon did an excellent job telling the story of some of the world’s greatest video-game players in The King of Kong (2007); you’d think his experience in documentaries might have prepared him to tell us what Christmas really is: a monstrously overblown corporate excuse for pointless consumer spending, set in the center of a howling spiritual wasteland.

The ideal Christmas film for me (and Gordon might still have been the man to direct it) would tell of decades of corporate greed suddenly collapsing in an orgy of cutbacks and deflating values. Streets would be littered with the bodies of financial analysts; the rich would sit on the window sills of their million-dollar executive suites and contemplate the pavement far below. It may sound like a grim apocalyptic scenario, but it would at least be honest. And, I’m willing to bet, as funny as hell.

Well, those are my suggestions - make of them what y’all wish. I just hope they do the reshoots in time to save what’s left of the season.

Yours truly,
Wide and cheerful

Note: First published in Businessworld, December 5, 2008. You can also email Noel Vera at noelbotevera@hotmail.com.

Click here for more movie reviews.

BERNANKE’S FATAL FLAW

December 19, 2008 – 3:51 am


US Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke is limited in his understanding of the current financial crisis by his “monetarist” bias. He believes that the only way to fight credit contraction is by flooding the financial system with liquidity. But this remedy focuses more on reducing the symptoms rather than curing the disease. Mike Whitney explains.

Ever since the two Bear Stearns hedge funds defaulted 17 months ago triggering a global financial crisis, the Federal Reserve has been busy putting out one fire after another. Fed chief Ben Bernanke has slashed interest rates to .25 per cent, handed out billions in emergency funding to teetering insurance companies and mortgage lenders, and provided US$8.3 trillion in loan guarantees to keep the financial system from collapsing.

Unfortunately, nothing the Fed has done has either stabilized the markets or stopped the contagion from spreading to the broader economy where consumer spending has fallen sharply, unemployment has skyrocketed, manufacturing has slipped to a 30-year low, and housing prices have plummeted.

Bernanke, the Princeton academic who is an expert on the Great Depression, is limited in his understanding of the crisis by his “monetarist” bias. He believes that the only way to fight credit contraction is by flooding the financial system with liquidity (”quantitative easing”). But this remedy focuses more on reducing the symptoms rather than curing the disease. Christopher Wood sums it up in an article in the Wall Street Journal article “The Fed is Out of Ammunition”:

“The origins of the modern conventional wisdom lies in the simplistic monetarist interpretation of the Great Depression popularized by Milton Friedman and taught to generations of economics students ever since. This argued that the Great Depression could have been avoided if the Federal Reserve had been more proactive about printing money. Yet the Japanese experience of the 1990s - persistent deflationary malaise unresponsive to near zero-percent interest rates - shows that it is not so easy to inflate one’s way out of a debt bust.”

Bernanke’s strategy may provide some temporary relief, but it won’t fix the underlying problems. The debts will have to be brought forward and written off, insolvent institutions will have to be shut down, indictments will have to be served to those who defrauded investors, and transparency will have to be established. Bernanke and his colleagues at the US Treasury believe they can bypass these confidence-building measures by simply opening the liquidity-valves and waiting for the economy to come charging back to life, but it won’t work. Liquidity is not credibility and it’s the lack of credibility that has investors racing for the exits.

Last week, the yield on the 3-month Treasury went negative, which is to say, the buyer of the bond would actually lose money at the date of maturity. So, why would an investor buy a T-bill for $100 when he knew he would only get $99 back?

Fear; pure, unadulterated fear. The same fear that has pushed 30-year Treasuries to historic lows, kept the VIX (volitility index) - “the fear gauge” - in the stratosphere for months on end, and sent global stock markets into the biggest swoon since the 1930s. Bernanke’s liquidity injections don’t address the panic that has spread from the trading pits to every hearth and hamlet across the country where the tremors from the credit crunch are now being felt.

Securitization increased velocity which added significantly to GDP, but that part of the market is now frozen, the investment banks are gone, the hedge funds in distress, and the commercial banks are not capable of making up the difference. That means credit will continue to contract no matter what the Fed does. The recession will be long and deep.

The problem isn’t just money either, but how quickly the money is turned over. The Fed has increased the money supply at an unprecedented pace and expanded its balance sheet to $2.25 trillion, but velocity is down. Activity in the secondary markets has slowed to a crawl. Wall Street is leading the economy into recession.

In 2005 through 2007, nearly 60 per cent of the banks revenues came from securitized loans, that is, loans that were passed on to the big investment banks where they were repackaged and sold to foreign investors and hedge funds as securities. According to the Wall Street Journal, “the issuance of non-agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) in America has plunged by 98 per cent year-on-year to a monthly average of $0.82 billion in the past four months, down from a peak of $136 billion in June 2006. There has been no new issuance in commercial MBS since July. This collapse in securitization is intensely deflationary.”

This point is usually ignored by the pundits. Securitization increased velocity which added significantly to GDP, but that part of the market is now frozen, the investment banks are gone, the hedge funds in distress, and the commercial banks are not capable of making up the difference. That means credit will continue to contract no matter what the Fed does. The recession will be long and deep.

Obama’s economic team has signaled that they will try to revive consumer spending with a gigantic $1 trillion stimulus package. But $1 trillion barely covers the $800 billion that homeowners withdrew in home equity in 2007 alone. (Today home equity withdrawals have nearly disappeared altogether) But stimulus doesn’t deal with the deeply-rooted problems either; it’s just another band-aid for a sucking chest wound. Besides, as chief blogger at Naked Capitalism points out, it is unlikely that economist John Maynard Keynes would have approved of the stimulus which Obama is championing:

“Now to my doubts about the proposed remedies, namely monster stimulus and monetary easing. First, as mentioned before, the analogy is to the US in the Depression, which we have said repeatedly before is questionable. The US in the 1920s was the world’s biggest creditor, exporter, and manufacturer. Our position then is analogous to China’s now. Indeed, Keynes in the 1930s urged America to take even more aggressive measures, and argued that it was not reasonable for the US to expect over-consuming, debt-burdened countries like the UK and France to take up the demand slack. So even though most economists are invoking Keynes, it isn’t clear he’d prescribe such aggressive stimulus for the US and UK now.”

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and presidential adviser Lawrence Summers believe they can fire off a stimulus salvo and put the economy back on track, but it will take more than that. The financial system needs fundamental structural reform and both men rose to power because they proved themselves defenders of the status quo.

Geithner and Summers may nibble at the edges and make grandiloquent proclamations about rebuilding the system, but when it’s time to pull the trigger, they will subvert every attempt to regulate or oversee the system which they feel is the sole province of the establishment elites who own the big financial institutions. There’s bound to be plenty of blasting trumpets and celebratory confetti to greet Obama’s economic whiz kids. Just don’t expect change. Barring a complete economic meltdown, the rot at the heart of the system will continue to fester and grow under Obama just as it did under Bush and Clinton.

How can confidence be strengthened when no one pays for predatory lending, ratings manipulation, malfeasance, fraud, or any other white collar crime? So far, not one indictment has been served in the biggest financial swindle of all time. That’s not how a “rules-based” system is supposed to operate.

How can one maintain a free market system when financial institutions are not allowed to fail? And how can such a system function properly without stop signs, guard rails, speed limits or rules that determine what side of the road one can drive? And how can confidence be strengthened when no one pays for predatory lending, ratings manipulation, malfeasance, fraud, or any other white collar crime? So far, not one indictment has been served in the biggest financial swindle of all time. That’s not how a “rules-based” system is supposed to operate.

Meanwhile, the economy continues to deteriorate faster than anyone expected. Companies are cutting back on investment, slowing production and laying off workers. Corporations are unable to finance ongoing operations or expansion because of widening spreads on corporate bonds. The volume of debt issued around the world plunged by 75 per cent in the last three months, according to the Bank for International Settlements (BIS). “Net issuance of bonds and notes by corporations, financial institutions and governments fell to 247 billion dollars (195 billion euros) from 1.086 trillion dollars in the second quarter.”

US households have begun paying down debt for the first time since the Fed kept records in 1952, another setback for an economy that depends on consumer spending for 72 per cent of GDP. Also, the unemployment rolls have surged by 573,000 in November, creating 1.5 million jobless in the last 6 months. All of the economic data, including reinvestment and earnings, are showing weakness while asset prices across the spectrum - stocks, real estate and commodities - continue to lose altitude. The prospects for a quick recovery are slim to none.

Undeterred by the pervasive signs of deflation, Bernanke is planning even bolder moves to stimulate spending and get credit flowing through the system. The Central Bank is purchasing securitized debt from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, buying $200 billion of credit card and student loans from finance companies, and has stated its intention to buy US Treasuries to keep long-term interest rates artificially low. Buying Treasuries is the equivalent of trying to cover a bank overdraft by issuing a check to oneself. This is the point at which monetary policy and lunacy intersect. Nevertheless, the scholarly Fed master is convinced that with a little ingenuity and a well-oiled printing press, success is certain.

The economic headwinds Bernanke is facing are ferocious. Consumer debt is at an all-time high, more than $13 trillion. And, as journalist Stephen Lendman notes, “As a per cent of GDP, total credit market debt is now double its 1929 level at about 350 per cent.” We have reached peak credit, a tipping point where consumers are forced to curtail spending and hunker-down for leaner times. The conventional strategy of pump-priming with low interest credit or stimulus checks from Uncle Sam will only soften the blow from the hard landing ahead. The fear of job loss, insolvency and even destitution is gnawing away at the psyche of maxed-out consumers. Hardship is reshaping attitudes towards spending.

Bernanke’s “zero down”, “no doc”, “adjustable rate” easy money is out of step with the times. Profligate consumption is no longer cool. With housing prices crashing and the Dow Jones on track for its worst year since the Great Depression, people are no longer feeling flush. In fact, tumbling property values have chopped a hefty $4 trillion from household balance sheets already while wages have continued to stagnate.

The Fed’s persistent price-fixing and market interventions can only succeed as long as there’s a reliable pool of speculators willing to borrow capital and put it to work to turn a profit; that’s the basic premise of bubblenomics. With the financial system deleveraging, the broader economy contracting, and commodities, stocks and housing flat-lining; there are fewer and fewer opportunities for even the most risk-tolerant investor. That’s why Bernanke is planning to force-feed credit into the system via untested methods that, many believe, will engender hyperinflation when the recession winds down. If the economy kicks in faster than Bernanke figures, he’ll have to mop up $8.3 trillion of liquidity or watch while the dollar gets torn to shreds.

The Fed’s persistent price-fixing and market interventions can only succeed as long as there’s a reliable pool of speculators willing to borrow capital and put it to work to turn a profit; that’s the basic premise of bubblenomics.

For now, the problem is deflation; steadily falling asset prices which are shrinking profits, increasing layoffs and forcing fire sales of distressed assets. As unemployment soars, aggregate demand falls even more, causing a vicious downward cycle. Once deflation becomes entrenched - as Japan discovered during its “lost decade” in the 1990s - It becomes more difficult to eradicate.

Between 1994 to 1999, Japan initiated seven stimulus packages which amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars. All of them failed to restart the flagging economy. According to the Wall Street Journal: “Only in this decade, with a monetary reflation and prime minister Junichiro Koizumi’s decision to privatize state assets and force banks to acknowledge their bad debts, did the economy recover.”

By allowing the banking giants to conceal their mountainous debts, Bernanke and [current Treasury Secretary Henry] Paulson are following the same spotty path to disaster creating a zombie financial system that depends on regular infusions of state largesse to maintain operations and avoid liquidation. It’s a lose-lose situation.

The latest essay by London Banker, “Deflation has become Inevitable”, has been widely circulated on the Internet, but is worth reprinting here to underline the glaring and, perhaps, fatal flaws in Bernanke’s thinking:

“For a while now I have been on the fence on the inflation/deflation issue… I’m now coming down on the side of deflation for a very simple reason: there is no longer any incentive to save or invest, and so debt and investment cannot increase much beyond current bloated levels…

The determination to avoid any accountability for failed banks, failed business models, failed regulatory systems and failed academic rationales for all the above invites anyone with spare cash - an increasingly select crowd - to withhold it from further depredations. It is this instinct, more than confidence in the government, which is driving so many to seek the temporary safety of short-dated government securities.

The result of discouraging domestic and foreign creditors and investors must be inevitable deflation as debt levels become increasingly hard to finance and ultimately contract. Irresponsible central banks and governments can try to bail out the failed banks, businesses and municipalities at the centre of every popped bubble, but the bubble economies are ever more certain to deflate with each bailout. Each bailout further undermines the market discipline which is bedrock to a saver or investor’s decision to part with hard-earned cash by trusting it to the intermediation of the management of a bank or business.

It’s this simple: I won’t invest in a country that bails out failure and punishes savers. I won’t invest in the US or UK until they change course and protect savers and investors, ensuring a reasonably predictable positive return.

It is now clear to me that policy makers in the West are determined to apply every available resource to underpinning failure, misallocation and executive excess. As this discourages the honest saver from parting with cash, policy makers are ensuring that deflation will wreak its havoc on the financial and real economies of the world. Only when that deflation has played out and rational policies that reward market-based management and returns are restored will it be worthwhile to invest again. In the meanwhile, any wealth saved securely from state seizure will ’swell’ to buy more assets in future - a key aspect of deflation and a key means of restoring the control of the economy into the hands of more farsighted savers and investors.

Some day soon savers will revolt at financing further depredations. They will refuse to buy even government securities, gagging at the quantities of issue forced upon them under terms of only negative return. When that final massive bubble bursts, deflation will follow its harsh corrective course and clean out deficit-financed ‘unproductive works’.

The market has failed, and officialdom is collaborating in perpetuating that failure.” (London Banker)

Well said.

Note: Mike Whitney can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.