WillPatching.com

All wars encourage polemic views and popular misconceptions, especially when promoted by a fervently patriotic, and therefore biased, media. A current example is that many US citizens still believe Bush’s propaganda that the Iraq war came about to root out Saddam’s WMD, or that he was supporting bin Laden, despite much proof to the contrary.

Even with the perspective of seventy years of history there are some myths surrounding another war that are very relevant today, particularly this oft quoted gem:

“The Brits would be talking German if not for the USA.”

The whole ‘if’ question is somewhat pointless but, rather controversially, I would like explore some facts:

The Battle of Britain was won before the USA entered the conflict. Hitler, frustrated by the British stand that denied him the air superiority required for a sea-borne invasion, turned his aggression East – to the Soviet Union – a tactical error that bogged his forces down in a long and bloody campaign and gave Britain a chance to re-group.

Consequently, the Soviet’s suffered wartime casualties of over fifty times those of the US, yet their role in Hitler’s defeat is conveniently airbrushed from the Hollywood version of history. Could it be that their perceived lack of moral fortitude, as demonstrated by their Polish adventure and their initial equivocation over Germany, ranging from neutrality to potential membership of the Axis, makes their eventual contribution somehow unworthy?

Or did post war anti-communist hysteria, propagated by the US, help mask the facts?

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not denying or minimizing the US role in WW2, but I am clarifying it as I am at odds with the popular view held by those who seem to think the terms ‘Hollywood’ and ‘History’ are interchangeable, and those US ‘patriots’ who prefer not to acknowledge the role played by other nations, especially the Soviets and the immense human sacrifice their citizens made, during World War Two.

Frankly, you might more accurately say, “If it wasn’t for the Soviets the Brits might be speaking German now.” So the Brits should be thanking the Russians? Right?

Maybe.

More’ if’ myths.

One could equally argue that if Britain, in Churchill’s words, had not “stood alone” against Hitler and denied the Nazi’s the opportunity to invade, then US citizens might be speaking Japanese now…

Facile, yes. But only as facile as the popular Hollywood version of the ‘if’ myth.

Many things could have changed the course of the war, not least if Britain and France had accepted the Soviet offer to ally in 1939. Or how about if the British Royal family’s Germanic-genes and their natural preference to align with Hitler had prevailed and Britain had joined the Nazis? Or if the Soviets, (them again) had joined the Axis in 1941 Britain may well have been crushed — and the USA would have been vulnerable and ’standing alone’.

Regardless, I prefer not to deal in such spurious ‘ifs,’ and personally credit Churchill’s intransigence for Britain’s survival.

Why did the US go to war with Germany?

The American government only joined the war — some two years ‘late’ — after the attack on Pearl Harbour by the Japanese. Britain declared war on Japan in solidarity with the US… Hitler then declared war on America — not the other way around as some popular mythology implies.

Moral righteousness: the US credo?

Let’s smash that other commonly held misconception:  the USA did not join the war as part of a moral/Christian crusade against Nazi fascism/godlessness, nor in the pursuit of freedom for the occupied Europeans, and most definitely not for some special love of Britain.

On the contrary, it was only when US interests were directly attacked that involvement became inevitable: prior to Pearl Harbour 80% of the population did not want any part of another war. In addition to this isolationism, it was in the USA’s political interest, and part of its developing global strategy, to observe Britain’s former position as a colonial world power disintegrate, along with the French.

US interests always dominate its foreign policy.

While Britain was fighting for its survival the US government was bound by law not to provide weapons to the allies without payment. By late 1940, Churchill, realizing his coffers were depleting and that the war could be lost during the Battle of Britain, offered the US long-term and rent-free a number of strategically placed military bases on British held territory in the Caribbean and Newfoundland, in exchange for 50 warships.

OK, it could be argued that, without these ships, Britain would have lost its stand against Hitler, but again, who really knows? And who can tell what other options there were or what Britain’s pugnacious war leader would have chosen to do had the offer been refused?

Remember too, this arrangement served US interests at least as much as those of the UK: these bases could be used to defend the coast of America –instead of providing the Nazis a springboard from which to attack the US Atlantic seaboard in the event Britain was overrun by Hitler. This arrangement also had the attractive bonus of establishing bases that would facilitate America’s expanding global ambitions.

Meanwhile, the war was also a major business opportunity.

Business as usual.

Many people seem to believe that US financial and materiel aid to the UK during WW2 was a generous donation that deserves everlasting gratitude: as the above example shows, it was not. It was business as usual for the dollar driven USA — capitalism always trumps charity.

Admittedly, there was a general pooling of resources and some generous US write downs once the two countries were embroiled in the war as allies, but even so, there was an accumulation of UK war debt that increased under The Marshall Plan. Post war Britain was on its knees, and got short shrift when it went begging for a ‘grant’ (ie gift) from the US to compensate for some of the costs incurred when Britain stood alone. The government of the day had to make do with a much smaller loan instead, and it was only ratified by the Senate after Churchill personally went groveling.

A weak Britain suited expansionist US global policy at that time, and the legacy of Churchill’s fight to defeat fascism was a lost empire.

It took many years for Britain to rebuild a competitive industrial base after the devastation the Luftwaffe wreaked, and until Dec 2006 to repay the crippling debt incurred to the US as a consequence of the war. But business is business, even among allies…

What’s more, American corporations, especially transnational conglomerates, profited handsomely by selling supplies to both sides in WW2. Incredibly, some even managed to do so both before and after the US government was forced to take up arms by the Japanese.

Trading with the enemy.

This is not a myth but a historical fact: Bush’s family was financially involved with a company supporting the Nazis even after Pearl Harbour. You might ask why the numerous government documents that prove this allegation are not exposed and debated by the patriotic US media and why they receive little attention elsewhere. It seems that anybody with the temerity to mention these facts is denigrated, smeared as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ and marginalised. Or the story is just ‘not relevant’.

So much for ‘freedom of speech’ and investigative journalism when it comes to the US establishment and war propaganda.

Perhaps we should be asking other probing questions about the role of US business during WW2, such as: why did aviation fuel supplied by Standard Oil end up in Luftwaffe fuel tanks? Or what was the role of Ford Motors in helping the Nazis transport their military? Or the many other instances of US multi-national corporations that, pre-war, invested in establishing operations in Germany and France and continued to trade with the enemy during the war to protect these vested interests?

Conspiracy theory rubbish? If you think so then check out the facts. Try starting with the links below.

Follow the money…

Does anyone doubt that transnational corporations are not truly loyal to any state — only their own shareholders and the profits they can make? And could it be that war provides the industrial-military complex with its best opportunity to filch billions from the pockets of honest taxpayers whilst the ranks of the poor are cynically sacrificed as cannon fodder?

Relevant today?

In modern times should we be concerned about the massive annual military spending by the US — now equal to that of all other nations on the planet combined – and ask what agenda the government and their lobbyists are following? Should the US democratic system be revised to de-couple these self-interested uber-capitalists from the electoral process and their overwhelming influence on government action?

Most importantly, can US citizens finally penetrate the propaganda, myths and lies about why Iraq was invaded? Should they not be curious about why the war in Afghanistan is so important to the new president? And why does no one in the mainstream media ask the most enlightening question of all: who is getting richer as a consequence US aggression?

***

This is not a comprehensive list of links - more a starter for those intrigued by my ramblings. Much of the material quoted in these articles can be found at source and confirmed as genuine, if you take the trouble to look.

War debt consequences: An article from the UK’s Times newspaper

Russia’s true role in the conflict: Max Hastings writing in the UK’s FT about Churchill’s war

Dirty Bush Dynasty: Patriotic Presidental family explored by the UK’s Guardian

Patriotic Ford Motors: From the Nation - the US newspaper

Coca Cola: As American as apple strudel?

No, I am not about to wax lyrical on the remarkable phenomenon of an African-American’s ascension to the famous white house that black slaves built on Pennsylvania Avenue, or that his upbringing in Indonesia contrasts so vividly from the jingoistic insularity we have come to expect from the ‘Leader of the Free World’.

Nor am I revelling in the delicious reality that the feeble-minded Bush’s days are numbered and his contemptible policies of antagonism and hatred will no longer be visited on the weak and less fortunate by his administration – or continued by his McPalin clone.

Yes, it is refreshing that the new White House incumbent can string a sentence together, and he genuinely seems intellectually equipped to lead the US away from a constitutionally bleak period – one that threatened the very fabric of American society. But none of these things are reasons why I contend that democracy changed on November 4th 2008.

As a renowned cynic when it comes to politicians – it is my firmly held belief that pretty much anyone who aspires to political office is psychologically unsuited to the role – I have no great faith that Obama will deliver much change at all. He is constrained by the same two-party illusion of democracy that the millions of indoctrinated flag-waving, anthem-singing, gun-toting, bible-thumping US patriots hold so dear. The oligarchs, the bloated corporatists and their media machine will use the mechanisms and inertia of government to tie Obama’s hands so securely America will not be that different in four years or eight years – even if he does his best to deliver on his pre-election promise of ‘Change we can believe in’.

So, if Obama himself is not the true agent of change, then how can the date of his election mark a more fundamental shift for democracy?

The answer is simple: you are experiencing the defining element in this shift right now. It is pulsating at the speed of light on the screen in front of you and literally dancing at your fingertips. Yes, you may not realise it but you are reading this commentary via the most powerful new democratic medium ever conceived: the internet.

A technological battleground

Obama took the first tentative – but hugely successful – steps in harnessing this new medium in his campaign; he reached through the ether and used the web to involve more people in the democratic process than ever before, galvanising a massive land army of enthusiasts proselytising his message of change throughout the country, and he saturated the ground with devotees even in the most sclerotic Republican strongholds. This level of individual involvement is just one element in the technological shift demonstrated in this 21st century US election, one that could presage a new era of political representation.

The second strand in this seemingly mundane but fundamentally different battle for the White House was a function of a generation gap: McCain doesn’t even use email and seems fearful of technology, whereas Obama not only understood the potential power of the internet to boost involvement in his campaign, he exploited it to raise hundreds of millions of dollars from individual contributors. This level of bottom-up fundraising is a first, but it won’t be the last time a political candidate electronically dips into ordinary people’s pockets.

This populist approach to campaign financing is a very democratic way of funding presidential hopefuls, and could even spell the end of the Washington gravy train. Imagine severing political candidates’ reliance on the grasping porcine lobbyists, snuffling for post-election goodies as a reward for their patronage (ie cash), and how politics could then more accurately reflect voters’ concerns.

Okay, Obama still tapped into the corporate coffers, sucking as much cash from his Wall Street and Hollywood backers as he did from the general public, but the end result was that a Democrat finally outflanked the well-oiled Republican fundraising machine, allowing him to overwhelm McCain’s propaganda campaign with a hugely successful one of his own.

Blogging for the truth?

Citizen journalists, political bloggers and online news outlets also played their part in this election – they represent the third wave moving toward a new democracy – though the political parties were much more evenly balanced when it came to getting their messages across in the virtual world. Bear in mind that many of these blogs are relatively new (The Huffington Post did not exist at time of the last presidential election) yet the spill over to the mainstream media from informed commentary and analysis on both left and right wing sites generally improved the national debate.

More importantly, the power of the internet kept a check on the usual mainstream media political steamroller, releasing control over the messages the public received. Any contentious issue immediately bubbled into cyberspace and was debated and debunked where necessary. Spurious claims were hotly researched by the candidates’ supporters and immediately refuted in cyberspace, spiralling straight back to the mainstream outlets. This time round the media oligarchs could not dictate the messages: lies could no longer be pedalled and left to fester in the public consciousness without rejoinder.

Obama, the one on the receiving end of the most vicious campaign of vile mendacity, benefited most as his fans created a massive backlash against the rabid TV talking heads on Fox News and the anodyne Washington Post pundits, taking them to task on everything from his purported Muslim beliefs to his disputed birth in Hawaii. Through the power of the internet people are gradually becoming more aware of the narrowness of debate fostered by the traditional news outlets and fighting against the propaganda: this is A Good Thing for democracy.

Looking back 2500 years to look forward…

The Democrat’s stole the advantage in the technological arena through Obama’s internet savvy background and his antediluvian opponent’s inability to comprehend the potential of today’s technology, but the broader implications have yet to stir the public imagination.

Few people seem to realise how the internet has created an opportunity to dramatically change the US (western) model of democracy. Not to something new… but actually to something based on an ancient form of democracy, quite possibly the original form of democracy: Athenian style from twenty five centuries ago.

Towards a better form of democracy

One person one vote as the basis of western democratic government sounds reasonable, and these days we are rather more egalitarian than the Athenians whose model ascribed one male one vote, as long a he was not a slave. But whereas Athenians voted on all issues and policies, we are coerced into choosing representatives who, like Bush, then ignore the electorate for four years, cosy up to their corporate cronies at the expense of the citizens, and take hugely unpopular decisions even when opinion polls clearly show they are out of step with voters.

This charade, pompously claiming to be the best form of democracy in the world, has been directly responsible for the disillusionment and powerlessness felt by most of the western population when it comes to politics. It is outdated and should be tossed on the scrapheap of history: the Obama campaign has cracked open the door to an effective participatory democracy that would re-energise the people and re-engage the masses in the political process.

A government by the people…

Is it possible to emulate the Athenians by creating a system that would allow a referendum on every major policy proposal? And if we were able to do so can we dispense with elected representatives?

It has been argued that a pure democratic system would be too cumbersome; to reflect the will of the people there would need to be a referendum on all major issues, with any voters who feel they have an interest in the topic taking part. It does not take much imagination to understand how internet technology could make such a system a reality, both in educating the public on the options and alternatives, as well as giving them the ability to vote and affect the outcome.

Elected representatives would still have a role in government, but it would be very limited compared with today – a factor that explains establishment resistance to electoral reform and any push toward a true democracy. Ideally our politicians would be appointed by popular vote but restricted to formulating policies, putting forward their proposals and making recommendations for the electorate to vote on before implementation. Each politician would truly represent the electorate as an enabler rather than, as Bush rather grandly anointed himself, a decider.

We the people could decide. On everything.

Would the Iraq war have happened if such a system was in place?

Implementing such an electoral system would create a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Sounds like a good ideal to aspire to…

Change we should believe in

The technology is here, only the will is lacking. Sadly our political leaders are hardly likely to support changing to a system that would dis-empower them. Altruism and selflessness are no longer words you would associate with most politicians, and the dead hand of vested interest will inevitably stifle any progress toward a more representative form of democracy.

If we let it.

The beauty of the internet is that a quiet revolution is already underway and Obama has unwittingly boosted it by shining some light on the technology’s true democratic potential. We should all celebrate the fact of his elevation to the Presidency for this reason, if for no other.

Share and Enjoy:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Looking for a vacation with a difference? Do you feel you deserve the cruise of a lifetime? Then you’ve come to the right place!

Relax here…

or here…

…on this beautiful yacht!

Our fabulous new luxury motor sailing yacht is now operating in The Andaman Sea from Phuket, Thailand.

The Siam Junk is available for charter bookings for discerning clients who wish to cruise the spectacular Andaman Sea and beyond. With six luxury en-suite cabins, each boasting king sized beds, we can comfortably accommodate twelve to sixteen people.

Larger parties of up to sixty guests may arrange a day of island hopping or an evening dinner cruise enjoying spectacular tropical Thai sunsets with mouthwatering cuisine…

Rustic Asian Chic

The Siam Junk was constructed between August 2007 and September 2008 before travelling to her base in Phuket, Southern Thailand. Her sturdy rustic lines are based on a centuries old hull shape used by numerous fishing vessels and cargo ships plying their trade between Thailand and Burma – a design chosen for its remarkable record of stability, strength and safety.

Having bought one such cargo boat with a plan to refit her to a luxury standard we quickly realised we needed much more room to provide the sense of space so lacking in the modern yacht charter market… hence we decided to lay a new keel, salvaged as much material as possible from the original boat and built a larger version whilst remaining faithful to the original time-tested hull design.

The “Wow” Factor!

Those who have seen our breathtaking creation - a magnificent 280 tonnes of teak and ironwood, lovingly crafted and decorated with traditional Siamese features, including gorgeous working fan sails – have been unanimous in their verdict and have invariably uttered the same superlative in praise: “Wow!”

At around 34 metres (113 feet) long and some 7 metres (23 feet) wide she promises spacious on board living coupled with stunning Asian style… recently described by one enthusiastic admirer as ‘Rustic Asian Chic’ – something akin to the best traditional hotels and villas offered throughout Asia but with the magical difference of the scenery changing each day with your chosen itinerary!

Romantic fine dining in an unbeatable location…

The main superstructure houses a large dining salon that doubles up as a bar with an elegant upper level suite with its own deck that has proven popular for sunset dining. A further five below deck deluxe suites complete the accommodation.

Her foredeck is huge and we have designed our own customized pod seating units for optimal use of space… Each one cunningly converts from a dining table into a sunbed: the table top can be lowered to allow the whole platform to be used for chilling out during the day. As sunset approaches the table tops can be raised again and set for fine dining, allowing our pampered clients to view Thailand’s wonderful tropical sunsets while enjoying a mouth watering feast. Subtle lighting completes the stunning effect created by beautiful natural materials finished to a high standard - the hallmarks of The Siam Junk.

No sardines here…

We could have doubled the number of berths on board but we have opted to give our clients a sense of space rarely found in sailing boats these days… The Siam Junk harks back to an era when travelling was an experience to be savoured and enjoyed.

Our spectacular motor yacht will comfortably sleep 12 to 16 or so guests in a total of six gorgeous cabins each featuring a King Sized bed (72″ x 78″). The Siam Suite (bow cabin) and the Sea Breeze Suite both offer maximum living space, but even our smallest suites are some 6 metres (around 20 feet) by 3.5 metres (almost 12 feet) - spacious enough to compare with a decent sized hotel room. All five below deck rooms are air conditioned to offset the humidity and high temperatures we enjoy in the tropics!

The Siam Suite (Bow Cabin) and the Sea Breeze Suite (on the upper deck) both boast some 37 square metres (about 370 square feet) of contemporary Asian living room. The latter is air cooled - as the name suggests - and features patio doors that open onto a private wooden sundeck, almost doubling the available space.

A rugged design with matching technical specifications

Our main propulsion unit - a massive 500 bhp Hino engine from Japan renowned for reliability and durability - powers a gigantic 60 inch (1.6m) propeller. Sea trials have confirmed The Siam Junk’s stability and docile handling: she is a dream for our highly experienced Thai helmsman, Captain Yot - yes, really!

The Siam Junk cuts through the water at a comfortable 8 to 10 knots under power, and about half that speed using our alternate source of energy: the wind in our sails.

The major electrical equipment includes two diesel powered generator sets capable of producing 50kw and 20kw respectively. We need plenty of electric power for our fantastic spa showers - luxurious all round/seated power showers complement each of the five lower deck cabins.

Live the dream…

From our base in Phuket we can glide past Koh Phi Phi, cruise to Krabi or loiter at the best snorkelling sites and view points in Phangna Bay. Drop anchor by the incredible limestone karst stacks made famous in the James Bond movie, ‘The Man With The Golden Gun’, then enjoy a fresh seafood barbeque on the pristine white sand of a deserted palm-fringed island.

For the more adventurous we can tailor the cruise of a lifetime, exploring the many unspoilt tropical paradise islands dotted throughout the Andaman Sea and the Indian Ocean without compromising on luxury and style.

You can rest assured The Siam Junk is not a ‘floating caravan/trailer home’ like so many of the ‘luxury’ plastic boats offered for charter these days. And she is nothing like the massive cruise liners that offer pre-packaged floating resort hotels with fixed itineraries.

Private groups of up to sixty guests will delight in an unforgettable day cruise, or perhaps a truly memorable sunset dining experience. For those with more time to spare we can guarantee a once in a lifetime experience: we will tailor the trip of your dreams for whatever charter period you choose – be it three days or three weeks…

Contact details

We are taking bookings and offering special introductory rates right now.

If you would like further information please use the comment box below to contact Will Patching directly - don’t worry, all comments come to Will for moderation and any enquiries or personal contact details will not appear on this site - nor will they be passed to third parties.

Your confidentiality is assured.

Heartfelt thanks go to the hugely talented award winning photographer Cameron Hansen for sparing the time to take the images that appear on this page and also for the stunning pictures of Asia he has provided to decorate our magnificent boat… See more of his fabulous work at his gallery on Patong Beach or visit him on-line.

Meanwhile, to view some of my totally amateurish pictures taken during this fascinating boatbuilding project please click here.

So, Palin’s decided to ‘take the gloves off’ and attack Obama personally with another dreadful smear, accusing him of “palling around with terrorists who would target their own country” – a grotesque yet effective soundbite cynically designed to stir up yet more antipathy from those who believe the lies about Obama’s so called Muslim sympathies.

McCain and Palin are huffing and puffing, trying to blow Obama’s house down with lies…

For those who care to investigate further it becomes clear that Palin’s vicious and unfounded attack relates to Obama serving on a charity board with Illinois University Professor Bill Ayers, a former member of the Weather Underground – a 1960’s anti-war movement that undertook violent protests against US military intervention in Laos and Vietnam.

Defining terrorism

But was Ayers really a terrorist?

He had this to say in his book ‘Fugitive Days’: “Terrorists terrorize, they kill innocent civilians, while we organized and agitated. Terrorists destroy randomly, while our actions bore, we hoped, the precise stamp of a cut diamond. Terrorists intimidate, while we aimed only to educate. No, we’re not terrorists.” The Weather Underground were never found guilty of injuring a single person in their entire campaign, though they did damage (mostly) government property.

Palin’s blatant attempt to wed Obama to terrorism through such a tenuous link is pure political character assassination and gives us yet another glimpse into her vile personality. Unpardonable though Palin’s evil slur is, Democrats can at least take comfort in the fact that her desperation tactics are a symptom of McCain’s campaign struggling as Obama’s lead widens.

Ignorant and naive on foreign affairs

This latest poisonous outburst does not merely expose Palin’s true nature but yet again demonstrates her ignorance and naivety: how can a candidate for such high office be unaware of how shifts in political thinking can redefine relationships with people who have, in the past, been labeled terrorists?

Perhaps she can be forgiven for having no knowledge of Nelson Mandela - we are all painfully aware that she rarely reads newspapers and Africa is pretty irrelevant as you can’t see it from Alaska anyway - but surely her religious fervor and constantly repeated love of Israel must have given her some insight into how the definition of terrorism can shift. Such an ardent Zionist is surely familiar with the history of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon… a man once labeled a terrorist and subject to a US State Department bulletin demanding he be brought to account for his part in leading the Q’Biya massacre of 66 Palestinian civilians in 1953.

Well, maybe not.

Closer to home

Palin’s self-acknowledged lack of foreign affairs expertise is one thing, but even domestic current affairs seem to have passed her by. She apparently missed the fact that President Bush welcomed a convicted terrorist to the White House as recently as December 2007, and even shook hands with him for a photo-call.

Bush’s honored guest was once described as ‘Britain’s number one terrorist’, though the super efficient and ever vigilant US security services were a little tardy updating their records: in March 2006 he was detained at Washington’s Reagan National Airport as his name still appeared on a terrorist watch list… even though his organization was de-designated from terrorist status by the State Department in 1994.

The man’s name? Martin McGuinness, Deputy First Minister for the Northern Ireland Executive, Member of Parliament representing Sinn Fein, and former Chief of Staff for the Irish Republican Army.

Republican terrorist connection…

Not only was Bush “palling around” with this convicted terrorist and self-confessed leader of the IRA, but McCain is also a great fan. In September Palin’s benefactor attended a rally of Irish Americans, toadying up to them by praising terrorist McGuinness as some sort of political savior for Northern Ireland. He had this to say: “When in May of last year the world saw images of a devolved government in Belfast, restored under the stewardship of Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness, it captured a political courage the previous generation could have scarcely imagined.”

Political courage? Some might say McCain was complimenting those who supported Irish-nationalist terrorism…

McGuinness is hardly a poster child for advocating democracy either. He led a violent organization determined to grab power in Northern Ireland “…with a ballot box in one hand and an Armalite (rifle) in the other.” Mind you, some of us see the IRA’s guns and bombs terror tactics as similar to Bush’s approach to ‘promoting’ democracy in the Middle East - something akin to Torquemada ‘promoting’ the Christian message of peace and love through the Spanish Inquisition.

Thanks to Palin, the gloves are off, so let’s hope Obama’s aides fight back and highlight her colleague’s hypocrisy and the ‘amazing’ Republican Terror Connection…

***

Ok, let’s assume the proposal to spend $700 billion of taxpayers’ future earnings to prop up the sagging US economy will be approved by the House of Representatives even though there are still plenty of people who doubt the effectiveness of the Fed’s solution. Is there a better way to solve this problem?

George Soros has an idea worth considering – an idea that would, of course, allow him to benefit personally.

The Soros plan would probably work too, and while it would help him and his billionaire chums trouser yet more cash it would not help hard pressed homeowners. Not that they seem to be of any concern to the policy wonks in the Fed.

Unfortunately the economic numbskulls who lead the US are ignoring the experts who really understand the nature of this crisis, and have decided instead to turn the situation into a political jamboree: they have watered down the rescue plan and turned it into a general stimulus package that includes incentives for developing renewable energy and the like.

Er, what has sustainable energy got to do with the sub-prime induced credit crunch?

Well nothing.

Inclusion of this and other irrelevant measures are sweeteners to the various lobbyists whose pet politicians are determined to grab a piece of the action. After all there’s $700 billion up for grabs! What do they care that their favoured projects have nothing to do with the financial meltdown we are witnessing? It’s too complicated for them to comprehend anyway…

Or is it?

Delinquent mortgages

Mortgage defaults are the key to this whole mess. Period.

Bankers around the world are scratching their heads over a simple conundrum: they are finding it almost impossible to put an accurate value on the myriad securitized portfolios of US domestic mortgages that were bundled up and sold on to them. The bankers are wondering exactly what these assets are currently worth.

Worse, they don’t know how many of the underlying loans are truly toxic. They can’t say how many of these sub-prime time-bombs will blow up as more and more mortgagees toss the keys and walk away from their homes rather than struggling to pay inflated monthly instalments on assets nose-diving in value.

And with house prices falling so fast the only way to stop this crisis of confidence - and the domino effect that’s toppling banks around the world – is to shore up the value of the underlying asset base: US home prices.

But how do you do that when there is an oversupply of housing, a credit squeeze preventing any upswing in the market, and a likely 15% overpricing compared with historical figures due to the house price bubble still working its way out of the system? Oh, and you have some 10 million mortgaged properties in negative equity already… a figure that could double if the property market drops a further 15% back to ‘equilibrium’.

Looks like Bush was right for once: this sucker’s going down…

Wait a minute though. Forget George Soros and the existing TARP plan… What if the $700 billion dollars was redirected and used for a federally funded partial home purchase scheme for owner occupiers?

What’s that? Sounds complicated…

It is not.

Striking the root cause: stopping the defaults

Here is an example:

Let’s say someone bought a house last year for $300,000 with a 100% loan. The property is now valued at $240,000 and the homeowner has been hit by a hike in interest rates and can’t afford the mortgage repayments. He’s about to walk away.

Suppose the government immediately offers to buy a fifty percent stake in the property from the struggling homeowner by paying off exactly half the outstanding mortgage on their home, regardless of current market value.

No appraisal, no delay, just a straightforward payment to the lender.

So for $150,000 the government (ie the taxpayer) becomes a joint owner of the home, but holds an equity share valued at only $120,000. An instant loss of $30,000 doesn’t sound like a great deal for the taxpayer does it?

But, hold on…

The immediate impact on the homeowner is a reduction in mortgage payments by half. He’s very happy to pay the reduced amount as he would have to fork out rent if he moved elsewhere anyway, and so he decides to stay in his home instead of walking away.

This means there is one less distressed property crashing onto the market. If this scenario is repeated enough times the deflationary pressure on house prices from repossessions will evaporate, halting the downward spiral in home prices – benefiting all homeowners and eventually all taxpayers.

The really good news is that the homeowner still has somewhere to live and an incentive to pay the substantially reduced mortgage as any upswing in property prices will also benefit him – he still owns a fifty percent stake in his home.

Meanwhile, the taxpayer also owns fifty percent of the property. Although there will initially be a paper loss of $30,000 as the house is worth less than the total invested, a recovery in the market will eventually bring the value back up to par. Any capital growth beyond par value will ultimately benefit the taxpayer.

That’s ok for homeowners but does this idea help the banks?

In our example above the lending institution is delighted as it gets $150,000 in cash from the government immediately – ie half the troubled mortgage. What’s more, it does not suffer the huge write down a foreclosure would inevitably bring about – usually 60 to 80 cents on the dollar.

So it’s a double whammy for the banking system: cash now and immediate relief for a high risk loan resulting in a minimized potential write down. What’s more, as the homeowner can genuinely afford the reduced monthly payments the loan is no longer sub-prime.

If this scenario was repeated a few million times over the knock on effect would eliminate the toxic nature of the securitized mortgage portfolios, stabilizing money markets worldwide.

This amount of government money entering the mortgage market would free up seized capital flows, allowing the banks to lend again, thereby underpinning the housing market and easing the squeeze. House prices would stabilize. People would start spending. The economy would rebound rather than tipping into recession-depression.

All this could be done for the $700 billion Paulson wants to spend bailing out his fat cat mates…

Sounds like social housing to me

This is not a suggestion for a fundamental shift in US political thinking but an emergency measure to stabilize the markets. OK, so now the taxpayer owns a fifty percent share in several million properties across the US. Hardly a ‘free market’ solution but a practical one and frankly the recent Fannie, Freddie and AIG nationalisations have rather tainted the free market credentials of the US…

The critical question is really this: how does the government get the taxpayers’ money back – and when?

It will be natural for the homeowner to want to buy his home outright as soon as is practical, so we need a tie-in period to keep individuals from profiteering if there is a quick market recovery inflating property prices.

The minimum term for the equity share could be, say, three years with a maximum of ten. Anytime during that seven year period the homeowner could refinance to raise the cash to buy back the fifty percent from the government at current market price – subject to a minimum repayment equivalent to the sum paid at the outset ($150,000 in our example).

Simple enough?

But what if the homeowner wants to move?

Well, within the first three years the government would have the right to buy the remaining fifty percent by paying off the outstanding mortgage regardless of market value.

After three years the homeowner could sell the house on to a third party and the government would receive 50% of the price paid by the purchaser.

If the market has still not recovered the full value and the sales price would result in the government receiving less than the sum paid at the outset then it would have the right to buy the remaining fifty percent of the property at market price.

Buy the whole property? Then what?

The government would sell the home on to an injured war veteran with a subsidized government mortgage… Who else deserves a helping hand more than them? But of course, that’s an entirely different story.

***

McCain’s ploy to boost his flagging popularity by appointing so-called ‘beauty queen’ Sarah Palin as his vice-presidential sidekick was initially hailed by the mainstream media as a triumph of populism and a strike for feminism.

To some, the choice looked bold and fresh, complementing the hoary experienced senator: a relatively young, attractive woman, Palin appears to be the epitome of the American Dream – successfully pursuing a demanding career while bringing up a brood of children in a harsh frontier environment. A woman of wholesome American values, a small town citizen in touch with nature, an apple pie mom. She’s the girl next door, a real person - not another Washington suit but someone the public can relate to. A woman with strong principles and a fierce love of her country, a gun toting feminist, a poster child for the American way… The ideal Vice Presidential candidate.

How wrong they were.

Cynical politicians invite cynical punditry

Now the initial hype and flag waving Republican euphoria induced by this ‘pop idol’ presidential nominee has subsided the mainstream media is beginning to question McCain’s choice of running mate. In the space of just a few weeks the true extent of the vacuum between Palin’s ears has been exposed and McCain’s ill-conceived choice of running mate is acting as a magnifying glass exposing his increasingly desperate and dishonest grasp for the keys to the White House.

The Straight Talking senator, who ‘always puts his country first’, demonstrated appalling judgement by choosing this woman to be a potential commander-in-chief. At the age of 72, with a history of skin cancer and a body traumatised by wartime injuries – factors that ought to ensure his full medical details are made public despite his deliberate obstruction – McCain must know his choice of Vice President could all too easily become The President.

But the senator’s grab for power needed a boost and Palin certainly looked like she would provide it. In one fell swoop he hoped to scoop up the undecided rednecks distrustful of slick Obama and his ‘Muslim genes’, pander to the powerful evangelicals who’ve expressed doubts about his commitment to their blind faith, and, most importantly, secure the backing of those ‘disenfranchised’
by the loss of Hillary from the Democratic ticket: he created an elevator to whisk Palin through the glass ceiling and planned to drag those millions of women who vote with their vaginas along for the ride.

McCain miscalculated.

Fit for office?

His rather rash choice – an expedient selection from a lonely field of one – overlooked the following potentially devastating flaws in this disarmingly attractive hockey mom:-

Lack of Genuine Executive Experience

McCain’s oft repeated canard aimed at Obama has more than a grain of truth when applied to his running mate. Republicans point to Palin’s experience as Alaska’s Governor – for all of twenty months – as evidence of her gubernatorial skills, but although it’s a large state it contains only two-thirds of a million people, ranking it 47th in population, and, despite its oil revenues, a pretty limited budget to match.

More worryingly, during her much touted two-term reign as mayor
of Wasilla she demonstrated a total deficit of chief executive capability by hiring in a city administrator to do this rather undemanding job for her. The town’s population: 7028.

Avoidance of Scrutiny

Troopergate is not a side issue or a political football as the Republican media management machine would have us believe. Some simple questions need answering. Did Palin abuse her position by using her influence to demand the termination of her estranged brother-in-law simply because he offended her family? Did she then oust the Public Safety Commissoner for refusing to do her bidding?

The relevance of the answers is undeniable: her behaviour while governor is a reasonable indicator of her character and her fitness to hold the highest office in the land. The public has every right to know before they cast their votes, not in a few months when the issue will be deemed irrelevant.

Many Alaskans have stepped forward and confirmed Palin’s vindictiveness, her willingness to use her powerful status as a weapon against those who defy or offend her. If the Troopergate allegations are politically motivated smears as Republicans claim then why not hasten a legitimate independent inquiry to disprove them as such? Instead Palin is avoiding scrutiny while hiding behind a hastily constructed Republican guard. Surely the American public deserves a degree of due diligence in scrutinizing the people who aspire to govern them – but where’s the media outcry?

Corruption and Dishonesty

Palin claims to be a champion of ‘the people’ fighting corrupt government, pointing to the ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ as evidence of the same. In reality she initially campaigned for the allocation of some $250m of state funds for this white elephant project (the bridge aimed to connect the remote Gravina Island to the mainland for a cost amounting to some $5m dollars per head for the 50 people living there), and her anti-corruption credentials have been severely dented by her continued dishonesty in claiming the contrary.

What other lies are there in her fabricated VP persona? It is unlikely we will ever know the full extent as she regularly used her personal email to pursue official business, and therefore complete records of her correspondence while in office can never be subpoenaed. Such a deliberate ploy to muddy the waters regarding her actions while in power must raise questions about her fitness to rule.

And how about her record of appointing her chums to lucrative jobs – people with little experience to justify such appointments? Just one example, Palin’s school friend Franci Havemeister, a realtor, noted her childhood love of cows as qualification for her elevation to the position of director of the State Division of Agriculture, once again proving the adage ‘it’s not what you know, but who you know’. Franci’s price tag: a trifling $95,000 a year.

It’s obviously nice knowing you, Sarah…

Insularity and Ignorance

Palin’s facile belief that the proximity of Alaska to Russia is some sort of indication of her fitness to be President is mind boggling. She has no worthwhile foreign policy experience to speak of; in fact she has not much experience of anything foreign having felt no need of a passport until a couple of years ago.

Although Palin’s handlers have allowed the media to undertake only a few interviews her responses have amply demonstrated her worldview is similar to that of a great many Americans – insular and ignorant. Such a widespread cocktail is dangerous enough, particularly when polluted with patriotism and paranoia, but it seems these traits do not disqualify anyone from high office these days. Quite the contrary; much of the voting public regards educated ‘elite’ progressives as untrustworthy, apparently preferring to stumble towards an even more dumbed down presidency than Bush’s.

Evangelism

Although many Americans are willing to allow the distinction between state and church to be blurred by those in power, most people would be shocked if they knew Palin was an end times nut who thinks she will be wafted to heaven with her fellow evangelists when the world shortly descends into an apocalyptic war. To put her anywhere near the button that could create such a scenario is quite simply frightening – particularly to those of us who have no say in American politics.

So, why aren’t the traditional media exposing this character defect? Could it be that religious fervour surrounding ‘God and Country’ has taken hold in the States to such an extent that criticism of any branch of the Christian church is seen as unpatriotic, no matter how loony their beliefs?

And although Palin’s willingness to be blessed to prevent the influence of ‘witchcraft’ in her life may merely demonstrate the incredible mingling of superstition and faith that some modern American Christians adhere to, if the same African priest had performed the ceremony over Obama… well, you can imagine the headlines.

Incidentally Bishop Muthee, the ‘modern’ Kenyan witch hunter whose prayers Palin attributes her success in politics, hounded a woman from a suburb of Nairobi after accusing her of witchcraft and blaming her for all manner of ills, thereby whipping the locals into such a frenzy they wanted her stoned to death. No doubt this evangelical footsoldier at war with Satan is looking forward to his invitation to the Whitehouse.

Education

Palin’s desire to see the Christian creation myth taught in schools to combat Darwin’s scientific theory of evolution demonstrates her commitment to retrogressive thinking. That is bad enough but her ambition to promote ignorance does not end there: she also demands that state funded sex education is denied to schoolchildren, preferring to preach abstinence instead, despite the consequences of such puerile Puritanism adversely affecting her own family.

Perhaps some timely advice on contraception would have prevented her daughter ‘falling pregnant’ at the age of seventeen… The self-confessed ‘fucking redneck’ boyfriend, a school buddy who declared on his Myspace site he had no desire to father children, clearly lacked basic education otherwise he’d have used a condom to prevent the inevitable outcome. Perversely the Republicans are hoping the media coverage of the resultant shotgun wedding will somehow help their cause and are cynically aiming to cram the event in before the election…

Family Values

Consider how the mainstream media would have reacted if it was a black presidential candidate’s teenaged daughter who had been knocked up by a feckless schoolfriend, but Palin’s daughter’s mishap has been spun into a positive example of traditional Republican ‘pro-life family values’. By all accounts Palin did not give her daughter (or the reluctant father-to-be) any choice in the matter, so the hapless and inevitably dysfunctional couple will-be-getting-married-and-having-the-baby-and-will-live-happily-ever-after. Except statistically the ‘happily-ever-after’ bit is very doubtful.

Palin’s Downs syndrome baby is compelling evidence of her personal commitment to the anti-abortion cause, but although ‘pro-life’ sounds benign, it is not: this potential President insists abortion is plain wrong in every instance – even where pregnancy is the result of a vicious rape or incest. Palin’s promotion of these ‘family values’ will disempower women, denying them choice, by taking control of their pregnant bodies away from them.

Religious warfare?

Despite his professed anti-war stance, Vietnam veteran McCain likes to sing along to the catchy ancient Beach Boys hit ‘Barbara Ann’ while substituting the words, “Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb Iran!”, but even he might consider reining in his feisty number two who seems intent on fomenting a holy war. In June at an Alaskan church Palin told the congregation to pray for US soldiers as “our national leaders are sending them out on a task from God.”

Oh dear… Is it really so difficult to find a Presidential candidate able and willing to engage his or her brain before speaking?

The Great American Myth

The list goes on but there are already plenty of examples on display confirming Palin’s total lack of suitability for the role she’s had thrust upon her. Many Republicans are desperately hoping the intense tutoring she is undergoing in advance of her debate with Democratic VP candidate Biden this week will help her re-emerge as the ‘pop-idol’ princess, but already some of the GOP elite have realized she is a liability and are trying to pressurize McCain into dumping her.

Maybe they’ll get their way if she screws up her battle with Biden and Palin will bow out gracefully by claiming she wants more time with her newborn…

Or perhaps she’ll carry on championing the Great American Myth regardless, and eventually prove that even someone bereft of qualifications, intelligence, ethics, experience and talent, really can to get to the very top in the great US of A.

Gawd ‘elp us all if it turns out to be true…

***

Zombie nation. Is that what the US has become?

From Sartre’s beautiful introduction to Frantz Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth:

“Europeans, you must open this book and enter into it. After a few steps in the darkness you will see strangers gathered around a fire; come close, and listen, for they are talking of the destiny they will mete out to your trading-centres and to the hired soldiers who defend them. They will see you, perhaps, but they will go on talking among themselves, without even lowering their voices. This indifference strikes home: their fathers, shadowy creatures, your creatures, were but dead souls; you it was who allowed them glimpses of light, to you only did they dare speak, and you did not bother to reply to such zombies. Their sons ignore you; a fire warms them and sheds light around them, and you have not lit it. Now, at a respectful distance, it is you who will feel furtive, nightbound and perished with cold. Turn and turn about; in these shadows from whence a new dawn will break, it is you who are the zombies.” [Read more →]