Will anyone run for Peace in 2016?

How many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
—Bob Dylan, Blowin' in the Wind

When I was a child (in the 1960s) and realized the world was full of lies and liars, I became aware of the vast distance between the rules for goodness I was taught and what was actually going on in the world. The U.S. War against the people of Vietnam was the most glaring example, but it took me considerable time to figure that out.

Even as late as 10th grade (1969) I was conflicted as to whether the U.S. was in the right. I had heard people were against the war, but in my Marine Corps, Roman Catholic, Southern Democrat family and society, it was communists who had started the war. American soldiers were defending the freedom loving people of South Vietnam. You might believe that if you believe Jesus appointed the Bishop of Rome to be Pope and that white people are all that is good in the world. We believed American peace protesters were a bunch of communists.

Here I am, alive and bitching 50 years later. The massive genocide that was the Vietnam War has been replaced by the Bush/Obama war on terror. Some think that it is a war on radical Islam, but a quick check reveals that ultra-conservative Islam is okay if it is pro-U.S. No form of anti-U.S. Islam is okay, not even liberal or moderate. You don't have to be a terrorist. All you have to do is point out the war crimes and crimes against humanity the U.S. has committed and President Obama will put you on his kill without a trial list. You don't have to plan an attack in America or on a U.S.-allied government or local thug; all you need to commit is thought crime.

In fact, a lot of the deaths reported as victories over terrorism are what could be called "false positives." The CIA and Special Murdering Forces go out and ask around Yemen and Somalia and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Libya and Mali and the Philippines, "hey, can you finger any Al-Qaeda operatives around here?" Money is held out. Mohommed is having a feud with Muhammed, it is relatively new, just 3 generations old, so he says "sure, that Muhammed guy is the local Al-Qaeda leader, I overheard him talking to Osama on his cell phone."

The Special Forces report this "intelligence" up the chain of command until Barack Obama says "kill that MF Muhammed." The Predator drones go out and blow up his little village, killing women and children, but not killing everyone. It is a pretty good bet the young men who survive will be looking for an Internet connection to have a meet up with Al-Qaeda.

When you start looking at where Al-Qaeda is now compared to 2001, you will see they are beginning to look like the old British Empire. Expanding faster than a fast food chain backed by Goldman Sachs.

But Obama does not care about killing innocents. Signing off on assassinations makes him feel like God and keeps the Republicans and the National Security people off his back. All those Democrats in Congress with military bases and factories in their districts love the war too. What does it matter if a few Somali women get caught in the cross fire, when it means a Senator can pretend she is keeping jobs in her state?

So what we (peace loving people) need is a Congress and a President that will close down the CIA and Special Forces hit squads, turn Predators into solar arrays, and transfer funds from the Pentagon and Homeland Security to making life better for citizens. Maybe even pay some war reparations.

Where will our candidates come from? In 2006 the nation elected a Democratic Party dominated Congress, based largely on a promise of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That Congress evolved into what we have today. I can only conclude they were (and are) a bunch of lying politicians. They'd tell you chocolate is vanilla if they thought it would get your vote. (And sadly, most good party members would report "tastes like vanilla!")

So we would hope for independent or third-party peace candidates. But we know how that goes. The press mocks or ignores them. The donors don't donate. And the voters, well, I don't think the majority of voters are anti-war. They won't be anti-war until their own cousins are picked off by Predators. Which probably won't be long, but we are talking here about the 2016 elections.

For President we can expect Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee. Among the fire-breathing, imperialist, war mongering, lies if her lips are moving candidates, she would be my preference. Just as Barack Obama proved a sorta black man could be a President just like any white liar, Hillary would prove a woman can be President. Not a President I would like, but something lying, greedy, hypocritical young females can aspire to.

The Green Party and the Libertarian Party will each nominate someone as usual. Almost certainly it will be someone with no experience in political office. Sorry, but that is not going to win an election, or even put a dent in the American consciousness.

It gets grim beyond that. Rand Paul might be anti-war, but I don't trust him. Dennis Kucinich probably would not run as an independent; he feels safer in a war-crimes organization like the Democratic Party than out of it. Same for former President Jimmy Carter. The only real, heavy-weight peace candidate of my life-time, George McGovern, died in 2012.

But somewhere out there maybe there is a Representative or big-city Mayor or Governor who would make a credible peace candidate. I'll let you know if I hear of one. But my main hope is that the world's investors will realize the U.S. government is bankrupt and stop lending it money. Then we might finally see some serious reduction in war spending.

Churchill's Gold, Rand Paul, and Janet Yellen

Senator Randal "Rand" Paul has threatened to hold up the confirmation of Barack Obama's nominee for Chair of the Federal Reserve Bank, Janet Yellen.

Rand Paul is suspicious of the Federal Reserve, and I don't blame him for that. The Federal Reserve is not very transparent about what it does, and it is not very accountable to Congress or even the President.

Rand Paul, on the other hand, is pretty transparent. He wants to be President, and he needs the Tea Party to support him in his bid for the Republican Party nomination. Like most Tea Party members, Rand Paul seems to be a primitivist with regard to economics. When the economy fails, that is always blamed on Socialism, even though there was precious little socialism to be had in the United States when the economy failed in 1929.

Rand Paul and other primitivist free-market faithful also tend to believe in the Gold Standard, the idea that only the metal gold is real money. Rand Paul's father, Ron Paul, is a famous proponent of gold. Which is to say, he ignores history when it interferes with his ideology.

Winston Churchill (best known to Americans for his leadership of the British Empire during World War II) was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer by Conservative Party Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin in late 1924. On April 25, 1925 he proposed that Britain would return to the gold standard, and it did. Unlike many people, Winston was able to learn from experience. In September of 1931, Churchill said:

"I accept my share of the blame for restoring the gold standard in 1925. We were promised reality and stability by our financial experts. We have had neither. The price of gold has increased by 80 per cent. That is as though the foot rule had become twenty-two inches and the pound weight twenty-eight ounces. Think what that means in terms of debt—the extra production demanded to satisfy existing mortgage indebtedness. This financial condition amounts to a hideous oppression." [quoted in A History of England by Goldwin Smith, third edition, page 747]

The Federal Reserve may need better over sight by the public, but nothing, like imposing a gold standard, should be allowed to compromise its historic mission. Modern economies need an elastic money supply. We are long past the era of paper money. Money now consists of electronic accounting book entries.

Even when the Federal Reserve is doing its job, things can go wrong. The main problem with the modern (post-Depression) Fed is that it has been too lenient about asset bubbles. Such bubbles (the Internet stock bubble and the Housing prices bubble) cannot grow to a dangerous size if the Fed keeps the money supply inside of reasonable bounds.

I don't think there is any doubt that the way the Fed is set up favors banks (in particular the banks that it uses for its bond trades), and works on a trickle-down system. As Rand Paul and others (including Democrats and independents like myself) have pointed out, at the very least we deserve transparency.

Holding up Janet Yellen's nomination confirmation as a tactic to pass a particular bill the Federal Reserve Transparency Act is inappropriate. Congress should make sure the act is really about having a full annual public audit of the Fed (changing nothing else) and pass the bill, and Barack Obama should sign it.

The American economy is big and complicated, and many parts of it are rotted to the point that a small-scale collapse should be expected from time to time. The Fed needs to encourage growth while discouraging bubbles. It needs the power and the tools to do that. In my opinion it could use some reforms beyond the Transparency Act. But they should be carefully considered, and should be in the interest of the economic welfare of the citizens as a whole, not the wealthy Wall Street aristocracy.

William Meyer's work in progress is The Accounting: Your Fate is in the Cloud