Friday, May 24, 2013

From the Empirical Archives: What I'd Ban by Carol V. Davis

What I'd Ban
Carol V. Davis
Originally published in the November 2012 issue of Empirical


If I were queen of the world,
Dictator, Minister of Culture, I’d ban the phrase
At the end of the day, especially this election season
with the endless whine of interviews.
My husband vows to prohibit golf, but what’s
so bad about it, other than the dumb outfits?
Middle-aged men should stay away from shorts
that turn knees into the knobs of walking sticks.
I despise purposeful misspellings.
Do you really gain anything by dropping a letter?
Light to lite or night to nite?
I’m starting to sound like Andy Rooney now, but thick
as my hair is, I’ll never match those eyebrows.
When Rooney’d get really annoyed, they’d start to twitch ,
twin propellers warming up on a prop plane.
Or a pair of moths about to swoop in tandem
to attack a tree dripping with ripe peaches.

Be sure to visit the Empirical website to subscribe!

If you are a writer and are interested in writing for Empirical, check out this link to find out how to submit.


Thursday, May 23, 2013

From the Empirical Archives: In My Father's Silence by Finn Kraemer

In My Father's Silence
Finn Kraemer
Originally published in the November 2012 issue of Empirical



Joey needed to open the note. Not Mae. She was too delicate to be dealing with such a thing. But Joey could take it. I’d seen it in him. And he’d just have to.

I stood at the workbench in the garage and wrote the note. Beside me, my old welding toolbox stood open, the lid hanging. The pencil felt awkward in my hands, and the paper too smooth and clean under my fingers where I held it still against the bench. I didn’t write often. My fingers’d not been made for such things. Joey was a hand with writing. He must’ve got that from Mae. I never knew what to say.

I looked over at my old Jeep, the tail doors ajar, showing the duffels and gear I’d packed in tight, leaving just enough space for Joey’s bag and my toolbox. The dogs could lay on top it all. It was well done, well packed.

I looked back at the paper and shifted my grip on the pencil. It was just another tool. I was good with tools.

I wrote again. The pencil caught sometimes on the gouges in the old wood of the workbench, the letters shifting on the paper, ending not where I’d meant them to be. But no matter. Joey could read it. And it said all it needed to say.

All he needed to know.

I set the pencil down and it rolled a little away from me on the workbench. I looked at the note for a moment, then pressed folds into it, and slid it into the envelope. It looked like a proper letter, from the outside, though I’d not signed it, nor put Joey’s name on the envelope. But when the time came, Joey’d know it was for him.

I set the envelope in the toolbox, on top of the pistols, closed the lid, locked it, and slid it into its space in the back of the Jeep. It fit nicely and I shut the doors.

Good. No more words. No more talking. Or writing. Just the doing of it.

*

It rained the day I opened my father’s gun safe. It wasn’t a real safe. More like a toolbox with a lock on it, a beat-up old red thing with his name painted in yellow block letters on the lid, a leftover from his days working as a welder. He liked to keep old junk around, just in case it might turn out to be useful. It did; he kept the pistols and the gun-cleaning gear in that toolbox on trips to our cabin in the hills.

Quail season had started and we’d left town Friday evening, wanting to have a full day in the hills Saturday. We drove the old four-wheel drive Jeep my father had kept from his college days for these trips, the dogs riding in the back on top of the gear, leaning forward over our shoulders, panting in our ears. We made the trip in four hours, four long, quiet hours, punctuated only by the slam and clank of the Jeep as my father threw it at the rock-strewn and potholed ranch road.

“Take it easy, would ya?” I’d said, after a particularly nasty wrench threw me against the sidepost. “You’re gonna break something.”

My father’s face tightened a little and he stared forward over the wheel. “I know my own rig,” was all he’d said.

Sometimes, I tried, said things just to fill the silence, to pretend. But we didn’t talk much. Not even when we were hunting. He knew where I was, I knew where he was, and the dogs ran between us as we paced through the hills with the sounds of pebbles sliding downslope and the rubbing of the manzanita brush and dry grass against our jeans. We only spoke commands to the dogs and occasionally one of us called out to claim a shot on a lone bird rising.

But it rained that day I opened his toolbox, the light resting dim and grey on the hills and the thunder rumbling faint and steady in the distance and the constant flux of sheet lightning flaring deep in the clouds. It had rained all morning, with no sign of quitting. The quail would be hunkered down hard in the brush, leaving no scent for the dogs to find. And walking the brushy foothills in the rain was miserable enough without having anything to show for it. The rain dripped in erratic staccato rhythm in the puddles off the porch and I stood in the cabin doorway and leaned against the jamb, looking down the slow slope of the hills to the vague distance of the valley. My father sat under the overhang out on the bare deck of the porch, smoking a cigarette, his back to the splintered boards of the cabin wall.

“Well, this sucks,” I said.

“Hmh,” my father said. One of the dogs got up from the hearthrugs inside and came and stood in the doorway next to me, leaning against my knee and whining.

“Not today, girl,” I said. “Not today.”

My father lit another cigarette and we just waited, listening to the rain and watching the distance.

“Well, shit. I gotta do something,” I said.

The dog wandered out onto the porch and I turned back into the cabin.

The cabin held an old quietness, three makeshift rooms pieced together with rusty nails, rawhide, and dirt, adorned only with some castoff wooden chairs, a table, and a stone fireplace. The wind came in cold whistles through the gaps in the walls and the floorboards creaked as if tortured as I walked to the table and picked up my father’s keys. I looked around the front room and the other dog eyed me from her place on a rug, her tail thumping slowly.

The dog, the ice chest, our bags and kitchen gear; it all looked out of place, the colors speaking of brevity in their brightness, set strongly against the faded patient hues of the old cabin. I walked into the bedroom, and even the old red of the gun-safe seemed too bright, sitting there at the foot of my father’s cot.

His cot was neatly made, the rough green of the army surplus blanket stretched tight over the thin mattress. 

My cot was a mess.

“I’ll do it later,” I’d said earlier that morning.

“Don’t do anything later you can do now,” he’d said, not looking at me as he bent over his cot. 

I’d made some rude noise and walked out of the room.

I sighed and ignored my cot and sat on the floor in front of the old toolbox and dragged it toward me. It slid across the gritty un-swept floor with a hollow scraping sound.

“What are you doing?” my father said, his voice abrupt, suspicious. He was still on the porch, just on the other side of the thin boards of the cabin wall. The wall flexed inward and the boards of the porch creaked as he got up. “Joey?”

“I’m gonna clean the pistols,” I said.

“No,” he said. “No, wait. I’ll do it.” I had the key in the toolbox’s lock, already turning. His boots scraped into the front room and the floorboards squealed.

“I got it,” I said. “I’ll just give ‘em a once over. I’m bored anyway.” I heard the dogs scrambling to their feet and following him. I unhooked the lock.

“No, lemme just. . . . Wait,” he said again, his voice louder, too loud. One of the dogs barked, as if something was wrong. I hesitated for a second. What was with him? Why would he care if I cleaned the pistols? I undid the latch, and started to open the lid. By then he was in the room and his boot hit the lid of the box and slammed it shut. I yanked my hands back.

“What the hell!” I said. I looked up at him. “You coulda cut my fingers off!” I said. “What the hell.”

“I said wait!” he said. He stared down at me, breathing too fast, his face pinching, all the wrinkles pointing to the hard anger in his eyes. “I said I’ll do it,” he said.

He didn’t apologize. Just stayed looking at me, as the dogs came after him into the room and pushed in between us, breathing with their tongues hanging out and pushing their wet muzzles against my face. Then my father’s eyes softened a little and he looked away from me. “I’ll do it,” he said.

“Fine,” I said. I didn’t ask why; I just got up and walked out of the room. My coat was hanging from the pegs by the door. I grabbed it and shrugged into it. “Come on, dogs,” I called out.

“Where you going?” my father said from the other room.

“Wherever. Walkin’. Come on, dogs,” I said again. I kicked the door shut behind them and pulled up my hood as I stepped off the porch into the rain.

*

The road was rougher than last trip, and in the dark the rocks and potholes appeared out of nowhere. The Jeep slammed through them hard, clanking and groaning, but she was a tough rig. She could take it. I didn’t slow down. Joey grumbled in the passenger seat. The dogs stood on widespread feet atop the gear in the back and finally decided it was better to lie down.

The drive stretched long. Every now and again Joey would say something from the passenger seat, but in between there was just the dark of the road, the quiet, and too much thinking. I focused on the road. I didn’t want to remember anymore. But the goddamn thing still stayed, a knot inside me, the turns of it layered with their faces.

Most of such things came out with time, and doing. But not this one. I didn’t even want to try to figure out how many years it’d been with me.

I’d tried. I’d tried to say something. As if that would help. But words were never my thing. I was better at doing. And talking never did any good anyhow.

I tried to watch the road, think about something else: I remembered when I lost my welding job. I started welding out of the service; a man I knew out in ‘Nam hooked me up and I got certified right away. Then that catwalk broke. Nobody died, but they as might as well of. Nobody’d hire me. My welds were the reason it broke, they said. Money was already tight back then, with Joey in that private school and Mae not wanting to work anymore.

“I don’t know what to do,” I’d told her. Mae closed her eyes and put her head in her hands.

“Don’t tell me this,” she’d said. “I can’t worry about this too.”

Mae always was a delicate thing.

I looked over at Joey in the passenger seat of the Jeep, holding himself steady with the oh-shit handle. I thought about him reading my note and I wondered how much he could really take. I wondered if he could handle their faces always looking at him.


Maybe I should’ve told him about them.

The Jeep bucked through a pothole.

“Take it easy, would you?” Joey said. “You’re gonna break something.”

No. Joey didn’t know anything about the kinds of things I’d done. He wouldn’t understand. Besides, he shouldn’t have to carry such a thing as that. I let it alone and looked forward to the road again. “I know my own rig,” I said.

*

I walked straight west from the cabin, down into the valley. The rain wasn’t letting up and the dogs didn’t like it. They squinted against the spit of the rain on the wind and hung behind me, looking back toward the cabin where I’d left my father, torn between loyalty and comfort.

Bastard.

I ignored the dogs and kept walking, across the ground trod rough by cattle, through short dead brown grass hiding scattered chunks of old mudflow rock. Ankle- breaking country. I didn’t stop and the dogs eventually followed.

Always gotta be his way.

The ground made for slow going, and I just walked, trying to not think, keeping only the steps before me in my mind. The rain slowly soaked through my jacket and my hands started to stiffen with the cold.

Shit.

I stopped for a moment and dropped my head, then kept walking. I’d run away again. I hadn’t said anything to him. Again. I was still afraid of my father. He seemed steady, but a background, like pavement under the tires at night, present, involved, but unnoticed. But then the pavement just abruptly ended, dropped to sliding gravel, potholes yawning open. No warning, just an unwarranted reaction, the sudden fierce exercise of his forgotten authority. He scared me. I could never get to know the man. I never knew what was inside him–where that came from.

He didn’t talk. I wandered around with him, hunting, fixing things, and he said nothing and I waited to see what he’d do. It was as if he wasn’t even really there, until he lunged out of the dark.

He’d never hit me. But fear always rose in me. Not the cramped anxious dread in my chest, but hot present fear reaching up from my belly, my heart turning to a juddering, pulsing bag of warm fluid. I hated the feeling in myself. I didn’t even know the reason for it.

I just wanted to clean the pistols. I’d done it before. Shit, half of them were mine, though he’d kept them for me since I moved out.

I tripped on the rough ground, my ankle twisting out sideways off the edge of a rock. I went down on one knee, my hand reaching toward the ground, a jagged stone’s edge stabbing into my palm, mud squishing up through my fingers.

“Son of a bitch.” The two dogs gathered in front of me, standing with their backs to the wind, watching me, waiting. I looked at my hand and red ran through the dark brown of the mud.

“Son of a bitch,” I said. The dogs whined. 

“All right, all right,” I said. “C’mere.” 

I wiped my hand free of mud on one of the dog’s backs. I pulled the edges of the gash open, letting it bleed. The cut was small, but flecked with dirt. I picked at it through the blood. 

I should head back and clean it out. I stood up and looked at the hills behind me. The storm was settling in, the wind picking up, the clouds dropping lower, grey shapes dragging across the hills. The small dark box of the cabin huddled singly on the pale slope of the hill, just below the scrubline, between the wide-spaced oaks. I took a few steps back toward the cabin and a low concussion sounded, far off. I hesitated, not sure if I’d heard it. It might have been thunder. But the dogs perked up and started forward a little with plaintive whines.

I looked at them and waited another moment, listening, but heard only the gusting of the wind by my ears and the wet patter of raindrops against my jacket. It couldn’t have been my father. He wouldn’t go hunting in the rain, and certainly not without the dogs. But I couldn’t think who else it would be. Not out here. Not in the rain.

The dogs looked at me expectantly.

“Let’s go,” I said. They barked and ran on ahead.

*

I sat on the porch of the old cabin and smoked a cigarette. Joey stood in the doorway, shifting and sighing and saying small things. He’d never learned very well to just be still. To wait. Being a soldier’d taught me that much.

It rained. There wasn’t going to be any hunting. I didn’t care for it either, but I didn’t say anything.

I dragged on my cigarette. The cherry flared and slid toward me. There was a brown stain on my fingers from the nicotine. Mae didn’t like that. Said it looked like white trash. I exhaled and looked at the rain falling grey across the valley.

I could see their faces. So many of them, watching me.

Joey’d only ever killed birds. Animals.

It wasn’t the same. They’re meat, made for eating. People ain’t the same.

Bullets open places in a body a man’s not supposed to see. And then they lay in the mud, thrown anyhow, just bloody pieces of people held together. Their arms and legs tangled together in the graves and their faces looked up at me.

I’d started seeing them again, nights.

Their faces. Their skinny eyes. And the jungle, that nightmare green.

When the Army sent me back stateside and I started with the welding, I didn’t see their faces. All that was over there. It was different place, far away. Done, buried, and Army-whitewashed. There weren’t any faces no more. Just memories, which I thought were nothing at all anyhow. I had Mae at home waiting for me, and Joey born while I was gone. It was good. I’d slept deep back then.

Joey shifted again in the cabin doorway and sighed.

“This sucks,” he said. I grunted at him.

Joey must’ve got all the talking from his mother. She was always jabbering on about something. Sometimes Joey knew when to be quiet. Out when we walked the hills for quail. Down at the river after a long day, tying the boats down. We tossed the ropes to each other over the truck with the sunset light lapping across us off the water. Talking didn’t belong. No need. There were plenty enough better things.

The rain dripped in puddles off the eaves of the porch. It was wet, hanging-on, jungle rain. Joey said something and went inside. I saw their faces all the time now. First it was just some dreams, waking up too hot and the sheet slick with sweat, Mae’s hand on me asking what’s the matter. Now I didn’t even have to sleep to see them.

Lining up the sights on a quail rising, the kick of the gun against my shoulder, and I saw their slitty eyes going wide at the bullets. Then they were just half-open, looking up at me as we threw them in the pit. Their mouths hanging wide like they wanted to say something to me. But of course they couldn’t anymore. But damn it if they didn’t keep trying.

One of the dogs came out on the porch and lay next to me and I put a hand on it. I heard Joey in the room behind me, and some sound, the grinding slide of metal and dirt.

“Joey? What are you doing?” I said, but I was already moving. That sounded like the toolbox, and I’d left the keys on the table.

Joey said something about the guns. “I got it.” I said. “Wait.” Goddamn it. Wait.

He’d find the note and mess it all up. Then there’d be no end of talking.

Joey was opening the lid when I got in the room and I could see the white of the envelope there on top of the guns. I stepped on the box and the lid slammed shut and for a moment I thought I’d hurt him, the way he jerked his hands back. The dogs scrabbled into the room behind me, barking.

“I said wait.”

Joey looked up at me. He looked angry. I wondered if he’d remember my face like I remembered theirs.

“I’ll get it,” I said.

I stood there with my foot on the toolbox as Joey said something and walked out. The door slammed behind him and the old cabin shook a little.

*

Back at the cabin, I scraped the mud off my boots at the edge of the porch. The dogs shook, water flying every which way, and pushed up against the front door, scratching at the wood.

“Hold your horses. I’m coming,” I said. I stood a minute and let the water off the shingles run into the cut on my hand. When the dirt was gone I opened the door and the dogs rushed in to bicker over their places on the rugs. The cabin was dry and empty and cold, the table bare but for the open toolbox. He hadn’t cleaned the pistols either.

“Where you at?” I said. No answer. I stripped off my wet coat and hung it on the peg by the door. I was hungry and hoping that my father had heated something up for lunch.

“Are you here?” No answer. He must have gone for a walk too. Maybe he had decided to try hunting alone in the rain. Yeah right. Maybe he regretted yelling at me for no reason. Just as likely.

Whatever. I toweled the dogs off with some rags and wrapped a clean strap of one around my hand. I knelt at the hearth to start a fire. The dogs approved, curling nose to tail as near as they could get. I sat with them, feeding split oak to the flames, my hands on their backs as the fire grew, the heat swelling out into the cold of the room, steam rising from the wet front of my shirt.

My hands were cold, my fingers still slow and clenched. I wanted chili, a hot can of chili, with some toasted tortillas. That would go over nice. I got up and walked to the box of foodstuffs next to the table. The toolbox caught my eye. Open. No guns on the table. No gear. Like he was interrupted. Or never started. I walked to the table and put my hand on the rim of the box, the metal a cold hard line against my palm.

In the toolbox, the envelope cut white sharp edges against the dark hues of the gun’s blued metal and the deep gloss of the worn brown leather holsters. I picked up the envelope, the damp of my hands tacky on the dry paper.

Beneath the envelope, the holster for the .44 was empty. It was a big gun, with a hefty rise when we shot full loads, which we almost always did. But we target shot on Sundays. Always. Not Saturdays. And not in the rain. We punched holes in chili cans set on rocks down the hill, and sighted in the rifles on targets drawn on cardboard boxes we’d brought along. There was no reason for him to have taken the .44 with him. Unless something was wrong.

I turned the envelope over in my hands and remembered his voice, his boot slamming down on the top of the box, the lines of anger on his face, the way his eyes changed for a moment.

I said wait.

There was no name on the envelope. I didn’t want to open it. I laid it on the table and sat down slowly on one of the chairs. It creaked at my weight and the dogs eyed me.

“Jenga,” I said. “Mandy. C’mere.” I stared at the envelope and the dogs came to me. They were good dogs. Pointers. I’d helped my father train them. I’d grown up with them, chose them from the litter. They were my dogs as much as they were his, though he had kept them after I left home, just like the guns.

“Down,” I said, and they sat with me and I roughed their ears and talked to them. I petted them, their hair wiry under my hands. I told them how good they were, how I loved them. They panted smiles at me and I could smell their wet breath as they nosed at me.

“Yeah, Jenga,” I said. “Good dogs. Yeah, Mandy. Good girls.”

On the table, the envelope waited.

*

Joey’s small shape moved in the distance, walking down into the spread of the valley, the dogs trailing behind him. I leaned against one of the posts on the cabin porch and watched him. The rain splattered on the toes of my boots and the wind blew wet and cold.

I taught Joey to shoot at seven years old, down in the river bottom. We started with a .22 but I remember when he shot the .38. I put muffs on his ears and knelt down with him on the gravel bar behind an old cottonwood log. His hands were little and fat and white on the grip of the old pistol.

“Just hold onto it,” I’d said. “And squeeze.” They were light loads, but the crack and jump of it scared him. He missed the can by a mile and dirt cascaded down from high up the bank behind. He turned to me with his face pale and looking like he was going to cry.

“You missed,” I said. “Try it again.”

He never even hit the can, but he kept shooting, and walking back to the truck through the willows you would’ve thought he won a medal or something, the way he carried on. I just listened. Maybe I should’ve said something. But it was done now.

I walked back into the cabin and carried the toolbox out into the front room and set it on the table. I opened the lid. The envelope was very white against the guns. I thought about putting the note on his bed or some such, but that seemed like too much of a fuss. Joey’d see it here. He’d find it.

I took out the .44.

* 

I found my father upslope of the cabin, lying on his back in the grass past a clump of oaks. The dogs ran up to him, nosed against his head. It lolled away from them, red showing through the brown grass.



“Get out! Get out!” I shouted. I went down on my knees, hitting at the dogs. 

They scrabbled away with little yelps.

Small dark circle up under his chin, at the top of his throat, next to my probing fingers. The gun in his open hand beside him, rain beading and running cross the oily dark metal. The rain had washed the blood away. Just pale clammy bluish skin, rain drops in his beard, dark circles under his eyes, open to the patter of the rain, looking at me. I tried to close them with my fingers but they wouldn’t stay shut. I wanted to vomit, the saliva thick and ropy in my mouth.

People leave notes, so here it is. But this ain’t an explanation. Just so you know, I did it on purpose.

He’d done it right, he was too much of a hunter not to, the shot angled up to the brainstem. I didn’t want to turn him over to see. The dogs circled at a distance, sniffing downslope at the ground where the blood had run. I picked up the gun and rotated the cylinder open. Only one spent cartridge, the other cylinders empty. 

“What are you doing?” I said. “What is this?”

You’re the one that might understand. I’ve seen you’re strong enough. That’s why I did it here. Your mother couldn’t take it.

“Understand what? I don’t even know you! How could I understand?” I stared at him, but there was nothing else to see. My knees hurt, the cold and wet soaking through my jeans. “Oh my God,” I said. 

The reason doesn’t matter much. So don’t make any big fuss thinking about it. It’s my deal. Nobody else’s. So just get on with things. Tell your mother that.

I stood and looked down at him and the dogs came to me. The wind was rising and they leaned against my legs like they always did. Jenga licked at the rag on my hand. The air moaned a little in the short oaks, the leaves rustling and scratching against each other with the drip of the rain.

You should keep the guns and the Jeep and the dogs. They always liked you better anyways. That’s it.

That was it. I just stood on the hillside over him and waited. I don’t know what for. The dogs whined and the rain kept falling and my mind tried to go ten different ways and went nowhere at all. He just lay there.

*

I stopped up near the oaks and looked out to the valley, the way Joey’d went. It was darker now. The clouds were dropping in and I couldn’t see him anymore. Goddamn rain. A last day hunting would’ve been nice. The rain trickled down my face and the back of my neck. I remembered Joey looking at me, angry.

I took the .44 out from under my coat. It hung from my hand, the rain slicking off it. It felt comfortable to me, something I still knew.

I could see their faces. Watching, waiting for me to join them.

Maybe I could talk to them. Or maybe we’d all just be quiet together.

I looked out to the valley again.

“You’ll be alright,” I said.

*

I remember the first time I caught a fish with my father. I was just a kid and I caught a largemouth bass, my heart running, the pole shaking in my hands as the fish surged under the murky golden glaze of the warm slough water, the line cutting close past the hull of the canoe.

The bass flopped in the bottom of boat, beating heavy and wet in hollow thumps against the aluminum of the deck. My father picked it up by the jaw and hit it over the head with his billy club and it shivered into hanging stillness. He scaled it quickly and held it and the knife out to me.

“Gut it,” he said. I hesitated. I’d only seen him do it before.

“Your fish,” he said. “Your deal.”

The tang of the knife slick with fish slime in my hands, the blade sliding sharp through the white underbelly, catching on stray scales. The guts and yellow eggs all warm with body heat through my fingers.

I coughed and turned aside for a moment.

“Gut it,” he said. I did. And when I was done he said nothing more, only took the carcass from me, rinsing it in the water, and laying it in the cooler on the crushed ice.

I sat in the bow seat as we headed home, with the presence of my father behind me, silent as we moved over the water. The trolling motor hummed low, and the water slapped lightly against the hull. We crossed into the main channel, the cold of the river water running in a line across the deck beneath my bare feet. My father shipped the motor and we paddled downstream together in slow rhythm, each stroke gurgling in slow fading vortexes on the water, the hull hissing with each forward surge, the water dripping in light speckles from the rising paddle blades. Behind me my father didn’t speak, but I knew he was there.

*

I left him lying in the rain and walked down the hill to the cabin. My hands shook from the cold as I built up the fire and the heat flushed my face and my shirt clung hot and wet to my chest. I lay down on the hearthstones and put my head on the floor and hugged my knees against me and let the heat wash over me and stared at the splinters in the cabin wall.

The dogs settled in around me and Mandy laid her chin out across my neck, her whiskers moving against my skin every time she breathed. I lay there and the fire burned down and then I thought about driving home, about telling the police, and what my mom would say, about how I had to work on Monday, about everything. I thought about my father lying on that hill, open-eyed in the rain, with his secrets still inside him.

The rain had started to ease off when I finally got up and walked back outside. My father always laid out an old blue tarp plastic under the supplies in the back of the Jeep. I stripped the tarp off the flooring and trudged up the hill to where he lay.

I wrapped my father in that old blue tarp and carried him down to the Jeep and put him in the front passenger seat. I went back in the cabin. I threw water on the coals in the fireplace. I gathered all our things, packed up the Jeep and called the dogs to me.

“Load up,” I said, and they scrabbled in atop the gear in the back. I slammed the doors behind them.

I drove slow, easing the old Jeep over the rocks and potholes while the dogs tried to sleep, occasionally rising and turning, snarling low at each other in the small space and bumping against the back of my seat as they lay down again.

It was dusk. Quiet, late. Lonely.

You’re the one that might understand.

“I don’t,” I said. “I don’t understand.”

In the seat beside me, my father was silent.





Be sure to visit the Empirical website to subscribe!

If you are a writer and are interested in writing for Empirical, check out this link to find out how to submit.


Wednesday, May 22, 2013

From the Empirical Archives: Three Kinds of Soldiers by Randall Auxier

Three Kinds of Soldiers
Randall Auxier
Originally published in the November 2012 issue of Empirical



We all collect experiences. They pile up like garage sale fare, and even if one man’s treasure is probably another’s trash, still we love to rummage. One thing always arrests me when I’m pawing through other people’s discards. It’s the pictures of soldiers. Somehow soldiers finally become the pictures they leave behind, whether or not they die young. To have been a soldier in time of war is always to be a soldier of that time, of that conflict. No other image has this kind of presence. Being an Olympian comes close, perhaps, but Olympians compete and fade. Astronauts are set apart, like the legendary explorers. These sorts of people also do something “ultimate,” but you don’t find them on every block. Soldiers dress, pose, and leave their souls inside the pictures. 

And then they kill and die on command. 

Their officers give those orders. Officers are interesting creatures, and pictures of officers don’t seem to end up in the garage sales and antique stores. In one corner of my mental garage is an untidy pile of past conversations with military officers. My first was a retired intelligence officer, fresh from the war in Vietnam who became a teacher in the Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps at my high school. The JROTC course had been required in the city school system shortly before my time, but by 1977 it was an ever less popular substitute for PE. That officer did not care for my attitude, and I now see how reasonable his opinion was. Thinking back, I don’t care for it either. But even if he wasn’t interested in being kind, he wasn’t unfair. Age nearly always tolerates youth. It’s a token of contrition we lay at the feet of our former selves.

The rest of that heap holds images and sound clips of other officers, including those who came through the graduate school I attended. There was a professor in our department who specialized in military ethics. Unfortunately, that’s an uncommon niche, so the US military (along with some other allied nations) often sent their promising young officers to our school for graduate education. I knew one Korean and two American officers during my four years there, all of whom went on to distinguished careers as professors and soldiers, and that is also a pretty scarce sort of person, the officer-professor.

One of these officers did not survive the war in Iraq. I had not seen or heard from Ted Westhusing for many years, but I followed his career. I never knew a more determined, even fierce, individual. I reach for comparisons and find none. One of his former professors compared Ted to the infamous Colonel Kurtz of Apocalypse Now, but that seems extreme to me. Yet, he was utterly uncompromising and inflexible, closed minded but very smart and not judgmental. Ted was also an intellectual and he was gentle where gentleness was appropriate. He was a captain when I knew him, having come from an assignment as a company commander in the fabled 82nd Airborne Division. He was fluent in Russian, but the Cold War was coming to an end and West Point needed an ethics professor.

In time, Ted became that professor, writing a dissertation on honor and becoming a specialist in ancient Greek philosophy. Like every West Point professor, at least those who aren’t civilians, Ted volunteered for a turn in the second Gulf War. I suppose it is difficult to sit at home in safety while others risk their lives, at least if the military is your life. In June of 2005, with one month left in Iraq, (now) Colonel Theodore Westhusing, professor of ethics at the United States Military Academy at West Point, either killed himself or was murdered. The news was shocking, and he was, at that time, the highest-ranking officer to die in the conflict.

Historians will judge the second war in Iraq to have been unjust, unnecessary, unwise, and financially disastrous for the United States. Andrew Bacevich’s expert assessment in The Limits of Power will carry the interpretive day, if one can judge at this point. If the loyal military lifers and Republican faithful, like Bacevich, are convinced of the foolishness and injustice of that war, the rest of us will follow without much dissent. 

As documents gradually appear, widespread corruption (beyond the typical profiteering that comes with every war) will come to light. Some of the guilty will probably be punished. But as memories weaken and witnesses pass, as the world becomes absorbed in taking and making money, Ted Westhusing will become his picture. He must. Otherwise, for what purpose did he die? Many thousands of grieving families have no choice but to cling to those pictures. Can they share a historian’s judgment about the war? Can we? Gaze at the picture and say it was unjust, a waste?

The infamous manifesto of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) says that “we need to accept responsibility for America’s unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.” That is the reason, if there is one, for Ted’s sacrifice. After all, these signatories are the ones who sent him to Iraq, although he found something other than a friendly situation when he arrived. Theirs is the language of American empire and perhaps empire is not wholly to be despised. Niccolo Machiavelli knew as much about empires as anyone in Western history, and with a thousand years of historical distance from the fall of Rome, he understood some things that world leaders in the present might still appreciate–and of course, he wrote the handbook for the PNAC cabal.

Machiavelli says there are three kinds of soldiers. There are those who serve their own nations for security, for peace, for advancement, and for glory. Call these “Soldiers of Honor.” We all know and admire them. Then there are “auxiliaries” who serve for reasons of overlapping interests, and we could call them “Soldiers of Circumstance.” And then there are mercenaries, who serve the power that can pay, and do so for reasons of their own. Obviously we call them “Soldiers of Fortune.” War has surely changed since the 14th century, but not in every respect. I look at the PNAC verbiage and I look at the picture of Ted. What sort of soldier was he?

The answer to that question explains his death, I believe, even if it does not tell us who pulled the trigger. There is no doubt how Ted saw himself. He was a Soldier of Honor, freely dedicating his life to the demands of his country. He believed he was a born warrior. Before he went to Iraq, he believed (and he argued) that the war was a “just war,” in the formal sense taught by his Roman Catholic Church and as historically defined by world consensus. When Ted’s former professor of ancient Greek suggested in an e-mail that he knew some soldiers who disagreed with the administration about the war, Ted demanded their names and units–I presume he planned to report them. His former teacher and friend declined to provide the information, and that ended all communication between them. 

That was Colonel Westhusing. Duty. Honor. Country.

I have come to believe that the work of soldiery requires what William James called “a certain blindness” in those who carry it out. To serve an unjust cause for the sake of duty, honor, or glory is a contradiction, an all too common one. Yet to presume to judge for oneself the justness of a cause when military order demands obedience, well, that cuts to the very heart of military ethics, does it not? When must the call of conscience interrupt the presumption of obedience? Officers, in particular, must know how to think without thinking, and to act on what they have thought about as if they hadn’t thought at all. That is part of what makes them so interesting.

Ted Westhusing trained officers, elite ones. Every cadet in his classroom was there for the sake of the country, and for the sake of honor. He taught them not tactics, not strategy, not logistics, and certainly not weapons. Professor Westhusing taught our future general officers (and that is what they were) the difference between right and wrong, from a military viewpoint. Perhaps no American soldier, indeed, no American citizen, knew more about that subject than Dr. Westhusing. For me, and for many others who know his story, when Ted died, the difference between right and wrong in that war died with him.

At a personal level, being surrounded by the most patriotic among America’s brightest and best, commanding their highest esteem and intellectual respect, as was Ted’s daily context, would surely have crystallized what was already inflexible in his mind. Honor was a matter of remaining on the side of right, and his country was honorable. Therefore his country was right.

There could be no dilemma of conscience once the decisions were made. It didn’t matter which commander in-chief made them. Dilemmas of conscience affect the Soldiers of Honor most deeply. Those soldiers have been easier to find in American military in the past than they are now. These days we draw citizens into military service by appealing to their aspirations for a better material future for themselves, individually.

Historically there have always been those who joined up to escape poverty, or the law, or even a bad love life. It’s nothing new. These Soldiers of Circumstance, however sincere their patriotism may be, don’t aim to sacrifice their lives. Valuing their future prospects brought them to sign the induction papers. These soldiers cannot be the backbone of any nation’s military force. They are, in Machiavelli’s words, auxiliary to those who serve for the higher reasons.

Yet, Ted believed that “in the minds of friend and foe alike, our army is, without a doubt, the best-trained, best-equipped, best-led, and most intelligent of any in our nation’s history. Our soldiers are recognized as the world’s finest.” I defer to his superior understanding of these matters.

Unfortunately, this is the same army that, in the judgment of Ted’s colleague, Colonel Andrew Bacevich (West Point, ’69, PhD Princeton), would be destroyed by Bush’s “immoral, illicit, and imprudent” preventive war, the same war Ted defended. No one ever promised that Soldiers of Honor would always agree. Two years after Ted’s death, Bacevich sacrificed a son to the same war, a young and idealistic first lieutenant who carried his father’s and grandfather’s honorable name. I wonder whether Ted would think Bacevich disloyal. He would not say so if he did, but if I could see only one debate in my adult life, I would like to see Westhusing and Bacevich make their cases for and against Operation Iraqi Freedom, but not until after Ted came home. But I don’t know if it was possible for Ted to come home after the mess he uncovered while attempting to serve his beloved nation.

Part of Bacevich’s objection to the war regarded the use of military power as an alternative to being fiscally responsible at home. His case is complex, but he did not believe it was a genuine war of liberation. The administration tipped its hand, calling it “Operation Iraqi Liberation” (or OIL) in the early days of the war. They might have called it any number of other things, but protecting the “vital interests” of American corporations was certainly on the list of reasons for the invasion. Even if it was a true war of “liberation,” our national troops became “auxiliaries,” one and all, to the national will of the Iraqi people and to the formation of the (initially non-existent) Iraqi Defense Force (IDF).

Ironically, Ted Westhusing was assigned to oversee the private military contractors USIS who were hired by the US government, and paid by you, the American taxpayer, to train the Iraqi Defense Force. The US military, along with its “coalition of the willing,” became uninvited auxiliaries to a non-existent national army. I wonder what Machiavelli would say about the wisdom of that. Further, the Bush administration hired mercenaries to raise and train that force, and then placed its leading expert on ethics and honor “in charge” of the mercenaries.

In a way, it makes sense. Put the ethicist, the guy you can really trust, where the violations might most likely occur. Admittedly, it would not be a comfortable role for a soldier who sees himself as dedicated wholly to the protection of the Homeland and to its people–not necessarily to its economic interests. But no one ever said the mission of such a soldier would be easy. So Ted arrived in Iraq in a dual consciousness that was soon to become a double bind, and finally a triple bind. Here was a soldier of honor asked to do the work of an auxiliary in-country, tasked with managing mercenaries.

Machiavelli notes that “auxilliaries may be excellent and useful soldiers for themselves, but are always hurtful to him who calls them in; for if they are defeated, he is undone, if victorious, he becomes their prisoner.” This was the dilemma of the IDF and the provisional government in Iraq. If the auxiliary forces are not invited by a legitimate power, and yet they also have no intention of annexing the territory to their own, the credulity of every thinking person becomes strained: if these are not simple invaders, what is their mission?

Thinking people can tolerate ambiguity.

“Flexible” people, those who are willing to see duty as something to be balanced with other interests, have an easier time with this sort of vagueness than those who place the value of honor ahead of their own lives. Professors are usually flexible, but not professors who are Soldiers of Honor, like Bacevich and Westhusing. For them, the war had to be either right or wrong. Interestingly, mercenaries are flexible in about the same way professors are. Ted found corruption, “money grubbers,” and he tried to report them. Such was his nature. He found a command chain that didn’t want to know about the abuses of his mercenaries. 

Mercenaries have a viewpoint too, but they are a little harder to locate in my sheltered world than Soldiers of Honor and Circumstance. I wanted to ask a mercenary about Ted’s story, so I found one. I will call him “Jack.” He is a thirty-six-year-old son of the heartland, a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan) and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and other actions, and a contractor for a private military company (other than USIS).

Jack did two tours in Iraq, including Fallujah and the Surge, and also serving under Ted’s immediate superior, an obscure Lieutenant General and former West Point professor who was then in command of operations in northern Iraq. His name was David Petraeus. Jack holds Petraeus in very high regard, and Jack knew of Ted Westhusing, but did not know him personally. As Jack said, “they would beam in the big brains for seminars and sessions. I’m sure I saw Westhusing there.”

I wanted to know whether Jack thought Ted was murdered. Jack warned me not to make assertions about it. “The current [Obama] administration doesn’t want these things to be known. They’ll come after you. You’ll be investigated. Your taxes will be audited. It’s better to stick with questions and speculations.” All right then; general questions about mercenaries for the mercenary (he doesn’t mind being called a mercenary). So I say, “Jack, don’t mercenaries pose a threat to civilians as well as to the Soldiers of Honor and Circumstance? They only care about money, not about people.”

“Not at all. You should look at the research of Ian Murphy. Private military companies are far less likely than UN troops to commit human rights violations. We are task-oriented and we are cheaper than doing things in house. We like well-defined missions with clear parameters. The few certainties we can get our hands on, we value that above everything else. What’s my target? Where, when, and how much collateral damage can be tolerated? We go in, we do the job, we get the fuck out. We do what we have to do to get what we know we need. It is diametrically opposed to the accepted mentality, but it is true. We get stigmatized as dirt-bags, but you won’t find anyone more idealistic than me.”

Like Ted, Jack feels he was simply born to be a warrior. “I tried to be an artist, I’ve tried other things. I am not good at those things. I have been a soldier since I was a child. It’s what I’ll always be. The volunteers who were in the Second Gulf War, they all wanted to be me–better pay, greater freedom. I eat what I want when I want. I do the job I agreed to do. They get those kids when they are young, when they don’t understand the world. I was seventeen when I joined and I didn’t understand what it was about. You get through it. The vast majority of mercenaries are vets; you should go through the interview. ‘Where have you been? What unit were you attached to? What are your thoughts about this or that weapon or tactic?’ If you haven’t been there, you’re not in. But one mistake as a mercenary and your career is over. You’ll never work again. But I do it for the sake of being here, with my kids. This is heaven.” He indicates a peaceful, sunny Midwestern day. “No one shoots at me here.” He smiles.

Jack has a very quick mind, great powers of recall, but for me, a conversation with him is like entering a parallel universe. But then, I haven’t worn the uniform. “You can’t stand on the laurels of your grandparents until you’ve put on the uniform yourself. You can’t claim their honor. If you haven’t taken fire for your ideas, you don’t know what your ideas are. People who haven’t been in the military think it’s complex. But it’s simple. Beans, bullets, and band-aids. You’ve got to have bread, you’ve got to have lead, and you’ve got to have meds. These are bad guys we go and get. I wish the world was different, but it’s not. You have to have people like me. Get me there, let me put steel on the target and get me out.” I wonder what Ted would say about Jack’s ideas about honor, and his ideas about ideas.

Jack says that the Soldiers of Circumstance and the Soldiers of Fortune work together surprisingly well. “But you can’t create the cohesion until the tension comes to a certain point. You won’t really have faith until you have nothing else left.” Jack’s picture is one in which the mercenaries have specialized skills, experience, and motivation, and they show the Soldiers of Circumstance what it means to be professionals.

Unlike the friction I imagined, Jack says there is mutual respect.

On the other hand, Jack holds the service contractors beneath contempt. Halliburton and other corporations who feed the military, who supply it with toilet seats and thumb-screws. “That’s where the waste is. That’s money for Dick Cheney.” Jack has no respect for either political party and identifies himself as a Libertarian and a supporter of Ron Paul. He’s one kind of soldier, an ancient kind of soldier. Ted Westhusing was given the task of managing people like Jack as they created a professional army from those who signed up for the job. I have no doubt that many of those Iraqi citizens were Soldiers of Honor, some were Soldiers of Circumstance, and some were Soldiers of Fortune. And when one considers the situation, could uninvited auxiliaries really teach honor to those whose homeland they were occupying? Would it not be more honest to have Soldiers of Fortune teach the Iraqi volunteers to be professionals?

This was not a matter of honor, after all, it was about survival, and the Soldier of Fortune is flexible about everything but that. If you were such a volunteer, would you want Jack or Ted to teach you the ropes? This viewpoint was unacceptable to Ted Westhusing, but David Petraeus seems to have understood it a little better. Ted felt unsupported. The one thing redacted from the suicide note Ted allegedly wrote was a name, with the following sentence reading “You are only interested in your career and provide no support to your staff.” Ted was on David Petraeus’s staff.

The Army ruled Ted’s death a suicide. Many people did not believe it. Before researching this, I did not. But I don’t see how he could come home. His own code would have obliged him to take what he had learned about corruption and waste all the way to the top. He would have had to testify against his superiors, and I think he would have had to admit that the war was unjust and dishonorable.

The suicide note that he either did or did not write said “death before dishonor.” That was the triple bind: Ted could not stay in Iraq and be dishonored, he could not come home and be dishonored, and he could not commit suicide and be dishonored. Maybe he didn’t take any of those courses. Maybe he did. But he was surely depressed. As his beloved wife said, “I’ll know what happened to Ted when I see him in heaven.”

Heaven. That’s the Midwestern United States on a sunny day, with your kids, isn’t it? Apparently the hierarchy at West Point disagreed with the Army’s findings too, since I think it is not the usual practice to bury such suicides on campus, where Colonel Theodore Westhusing rests among the honored dead, laid there with full military honors. David Petraeus left Iraq to attend the service. Michelle Westhusing says she wishes he hadn’t attended.

I know nothing about these matters, but it does seem to me that Petraeus has gotten the glory, and I know that Jack respects him. I don’t know what kind of soldier he was, but I do know he directs the CIA these days, and I feel that Niccolo would advise me that a wise man speaks carefully on such subjects.

Jack says that the US government made a Faustian bargain when it invaded Iraq. Machiavelli says that “he who holds his State by means of mercenary troops can never be solidly or securely seated. For such troops are disunited, ambitious, insubordinate, treacherous, insolent among friends, cowardly before foes, and without fear of God or faith with man; so that in peace you are plundered by them, in war by your enemies.” 

I think Ted would agree. When Jack saw this quote he said that there is a very real difference between the mercenaries of Machiavelli’s day and our own. And those who made the deal with the Devil, those who designed the Project for the New American Century, those who put Ted in the triple bind, those men certainly read The Prince. There was no way out of Iraq without putting officers in Ted’s position. Ted, and everything he stood for, was the price America paid for that dishonorable war. As his widow said, “Iraq killed Ted.” For me he has become his picture. It wasn’t worth it. I wish I could argue that point with him. Maybe in heaven.




Be sure to visit the Empirical website to subscribe!

If you are a writer and are interested in writing for Empirical, check out this link to find out how to submit.



Monday, May 20, 2013

From the Empirical Archives: Cycling by Travis Laurence Naught

Cycling
Travis Laurence Naught
Originally published in the November 2012 issue of Empirical



Rotating circles
                   Earth revolves around the sun
                                                Forever spinning

Earth revolves around the sun
                             Forever spinning
                                                Rotating circles

Forever spinning
                   Rotating circles
                                      Earth revolves around the sun


Be sure to visit the Empirical website to subscribe!

If you are a writer and are interested in writing for Empirical, check out this link to find out how to submit.

Friday, May 17, 2013

From the Empirical Archives: Nationalize Money, Not Banks by Herman Daly


Nationalize Money, Not Banks
Herman Daly
Originally published in the November 2012 issue of Empirical


If our present banking system, in addition to fraudulent and corrupt, also seems “screwy” to you, it should. Why should money, a public utility (serving the public as medium of exchange, store of value, and unit of account), be largely the by-product of private lending and borrowing? Is that really an improvement over being a by-product of private gold mining, as it was under the gold standard? The best way to sabotage a system is hobble it by tying together two of its separate parts, creating an unnecessary and obstructive connection. Why should the public pay interest to the private banking sector to provide a medium of exchange that the government can provide at little or no cost? Why should seigniorage (profit to the issuer of fiat money) go largely to the private sector rather than entirely to the government (the commonwealth)?

Is there not a better away? Yes, there is. We need not go back to the gold standard. Keep fiat money, but move from fractional reserve banking to a system of 100% reserve requirements. The change need not be abrupt–we could gradually raise the reserve requirement to 100%. Already the Fed has the authority to change reserve requirements but seldom uses it. This would put control of the money supply and seigniorage entirely with the government rather than largely with private banks. Banks would no longer be able to live the alchemist’s dream by creating money out of nothing and lending it at interest. All quasi-bank financial institutions should be brought under this rule, regulated as commercial banks subject to 100% reserve requirements.

Banks cannot create money under 100% reserves (the reserve deposit multiplier would be unity), and banks would earn their profit by financial intermediation only, lending savers’ money for them (charging a loan rate higher than the rate paid to savings or “time-account” depositors) and charging for checking, safekeeping, and other services. With 100% reserves every dollar loaned to a borrower would be a dollar previously saved by a depositor (and not available to the depositor during the period of the loan), thereby re establishing the classical balance between abstinence and investment.

With credit limited by saving (abstinence from consumption) there will be less lending and borrowing and it will be done more carefully–no more easy credit to finance the leveraged purchase of “assets” that are nothing but bets on dodgy debts. To make up for the decline and eventual elimination of bank-created, interest-bearing money, the government can pay some of its expenses by issuing more non-interestbearing fiat money. However, it can only do this up to a strict limit imposed by inflation. If the government issues more money than the public voluntarily wants to hold, the public will trade soon as the price index begins to rise, the government must print less and tax more.

Thus a policy of maintaining a constant price index would govern the internal value of the dollar. The external value of the dollar could be left to freely fluctuating exchange rates.

Alternatively, if we instituted Keynes’ international clearing union, the external value of the dollar, along with that of all other currencies, could be set relative to the bancor, a common denominator accounting unit used by the payments union. The bancor would serve as an international reserve currency for settling trade imbalances–a kind of “gold substitute.” The United States opposed Keynes’ plan at Bretton Woods precisely because under it the dollar would not function as the world’s reserve currency, and the US would lose the enormous international subsidy that results from all countries having to hold large transaction balances in dollars. The payments union would settle trade balances multilaterally. Each country would have a net trade balance with the rest of the world (with the payments union) in bancor units. Any country running a persistent deficit would be charged a penalty, and if continued would have its currency devalued relative to the bancor.

But persistent surplus countries would also be charged a penalty, and if the surplus persisted their currency would suffer an appreciation relative to the bancor. The goal was balanced trade, and both surplus and deficit nations would be expected to take measures to bring their trade into balance. With trade in near balance there would be little need for a world reserve currency, and what need there was could be met by the bancor.

Freely fluctuating exchange rates would also in theory keep trade balanced and reduce or eliminate the need for a world reserve currency. Which system would be better is a complicated issue not pursued here. In either case the IMF could be abolished since there would be little need for financing trade imbalances (the IMF’s main purpose) in a regime whose goal is to eliminate trade imbalances.

Returning to domestic institutions, the Treasury would replace the Fed (which is owned by and operated in the interests of the commercial banks). The interest rate would no longer be a target policy variable, but rather left to market forces. The target variables of the Treasury would be the money supply and the price index. The treasury would print and spend into circulation for public purposes as much money as the public voluntarily wants to hold. When the price index begins to rise it must cease printing money and finance any additional public expenditures by taxing or borrowing from the public (not from itself ). The policy of maintaining a constant price index effectively gives the fiat currency the “backing” of the basket of commodities in the price index.

In the 1920s the leading academic economists, Frank Knight of Chicago and Irving Fisher of Yale, along with others including underground economist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, Frederick Soddy, strongly advocated a policy of 100% reserves for commercial banks. Why did this suggestion for financial reform disappear from discussion?

The best answer I have received is that the Great Depression and subsequent Keynesian emphasis on growth swept it aside because limiting bank lending to actual savings was too restrictive on growth, which became the big panacea. Also there is the obvious vested interest of commercial banks in retaining the privilege of creating money and lending it at interest.

Now suppose for a moment that aggregate growth has begun to increase environmental and social costs faster than production benefits, thus becoming uneconomic growth. There is much evidence that this is the case. Then a financial constraint on growth (balancing investment with abstinence) would be much needed, and 100% reserves would be a good way to accomplish it. If, however, growth remains the summum bonum of the economy, then we will inevitably borrow against our hoped-for larger future income to finance the investments needed to produce it. Financing investment by saving would require reduced present consumption, and that will be deemed an unacceptable drag on growth. But real growth has encountered the biophysical and social limits of a full world. Financial growth is being stimulated ever more in the hope that it will pull real growth behind it, but it is in fact pushing uneconomic growth–growth of illth. Since illth is negative wealth it can hardly redeem the growing debt that is financing it.

The original 100% reserve proponents mentioned above were in favor of aggregate growth, but wanted it to be steady growth in wealth, not speculative boom and bust cycles. Soddy was especially cautious about uncontrolled physical growth, but his main concern was with the symbolic financial system and its disconnect from the real system that it was supposed to symbolize. The result was confusion between wealth and debt. One need not advocate a steady-state economy to favor 100% reserves, but if one does favor a steady state the attractions of 100% reserves are increased.

How would the 100% reserve system serve the steady-state economy?

First, as just mentioned it would restrict borrowing for new investment to existing savings, greatly reducing speculative growth ventures–for example, the leveraging of stock purchases with huge amounts of borrowed money (created by banks ex nihilo rather than saved out of past earnings) would be severely limited. Down payment on houses would be much higher, and consumer credit would be greatly diminished. Credit cards would become debit cards. Long-term lending would have to be financed by long-term time deposits, or by carefully sequenced rolling over of shorter-term deposits. Growth economists will scream, but a steady-state economy does not aim to grow, for the very good reason that growth has become uneconomic.

Second, the money supply no longer has to grow in order for people to pay back the principal plus the interest required by the loan responsible for the money’s very existence in the first place. The repayment of old loans with interest continually threatens to diminish the money supply unless new loans compensate. With 100% reserves, money becomes neutral with respect to growth rather than biasing the system toward growth by requiring more loans just to keep the money supply from shrinking.

Third, the financial sector will no longer be able to capture such a large share of the nation’s profits (around 40%!), freeing some smart people for more productive, less parasitic, activity. 

Fourth, the money supply would no longer expand during a boom, when banks like to loan lots of money, and contract during a recession, when banks try to collect outstanding debts, thereby reinforcing the cyclical tendency of the economy.

Fifth, with 100% reserves there is no danger of a run on a bank leading to a cascading collapse of the credit pyramid, and the FDIC could be abolished, along with its consequent moral hazard. The danger of collapse of the whole payment system due to the failure of one or two “too big to fail” banks would be eliminated. Congress then could not be frightened into giving huge bailouts to some banks to avoid the “contagion” of failure because the money supply is no longer controlled by the private banks. Any given bank could fail by making imprudent loans, but its failure, even if a large bank, would not disrupt the public utility function of money. The club that the banks used to beat Congress into giving bailouts would have been taken away.


Sixth, the explicit policy of a constant price index would reduce fears of inflation and the resultant quest to accumulate more as a protection against inflation. Also, it in effect provides a multi-commodity backing to our fiat money.

Seventh, a regime of fluctuating exchange rates automatically balances international trade accounts, eliminating big surpluses and deficits. US consumption growth would be reduced without its deficit; Chinese production growth would be reduced without its surplus. By making balance-of-payments lending unnecessary, fluctuating exchange rates (or Keynes’ international clearing union) would greatly shrink the role of the IMF and its “conditionalities.”

To dismiss such sound policies as “extreme” in the face of the repeatedly demonstrated colossal fraudulence of our current financial system is quite absurd. The idea is not to nationalize banks, but to nationalize money, which is a natural public utility in the first place. The fact that this idea is hardly discussed today, in spite of its distinguished intellectual ancestry and common sense, is testimony to the power of vested interests over good ideas. It is also testimony to the veto power that our growth fetish exercises over the thinking of economists today.



Be sure to visit the Empirical website to subscribe!

If you are a writer and are interested in writing for Empirical, check out this link to find out how to submit.


Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Letter from the Editors: May 2013 -- The Beginning, Again

PHOTO: Olav Bryant Smith

THE BEGINNING, AGAIN

This issue begins our second year of publication and a new era for Empirical. As Dylan said, “the times they are a-changin’.” An amazing amount of work went into bringing you a new magazine that looks, feels, and reads the way we, and the growing Empirical community, want a magazine to look, feel, and read. We started in October 2011 with this daring idea that we could produce a magazine that fills a niche no one else is filling. Actually, to go back even further, we were talking about the ‘dream’ of starting a magazine in April 2005 when Tara and I first met in Portland. I had done some research on this myself before we’d met, but put it on the back-burner while I focused on keeping my teaching career going in these lean times of budget cuts. Little did I know when I first brought it up that Tara would eventually start editing for a lifestyle magazine and that she would start seriously thinking about carrying out our dream.

When we first started on this path, it seemed so natural for us in a way. Tara and I had both had years of editing experience. We are both writers. We’d both worked for publications. I had some design experience. Tara had worked at printers and knew about ink, papers, and other printing issues. I’ve only dabbled at fiction and poetry, but this was Tara’s love, and she has an MA in creative writing. My forte was the nonfiction side. I have an MA in Philosophy and a PhD in Philosophy of Religion. I’ve been reading, writing, and blogging about social and political issues for years. Our talents and interests both intersected and complemented one another’s.

THE NAME “EMPIRICAL”: THE RISK OF MISUNDERSTANDING

William James

The name ‘Empirical’ came to Tara in a flash. I could tell this flash of inspiration had really hooked her, and she was convinced this was the name. For my part, an entire philosophical controversy came flooding into my thoughts and feelings all at once with the name ‘Empirical.’ On the philosophical side of things, I knew that many would misinterpret the name. ‘Empiricism’ and ‘science’ are almost synonymous for many people. After what Alfred North Whitehead called the “unbridled rationalism” of the medieval period in Europe, with the pendulum swinging more toward theory than fact, thinkers of both the Reformation and the Renaissance urged a return to gathering and re-examining the evidence. With the rise of modern science, the emphasis was on limiting acceptable evidence to what one can observe with the five physical senses. This proved spectacularly helpful in weeding out highly speculative theories that didn’t really match the evidence empiricists began to present. This approach has its limits even within science. But many people are completely and unabashedly behind this spirit of scientific advance; they are all in favor of shoving other avenues to knowledge aside. In fact, there are many of this persuasion who would say there is no other path to knowledge. So what, I thought, would these people make of our more poetic and spiritual approach to things? They might not find what they were looking for in our pages on the basis of the title alone. The other side of the same issue is that those who would most appreciate our approach might shy away from our magazine because of the name, assuming it is narrowly empirical when they desire the more holistic approach that we offer.

RADICALLY EMPIRICAL

Alfred North Whitehead
It was a risk, but I saw an opportunity in this name–an opportunity to create a discussion about what it really means to be ‘empirical.’ As a philosopher in the process and classical-American traditions, I’d long been persuaded–by Willetter from the editors William James and Alfred North Whitehead in particular–that we should embrace what James called a ‘radical empiricism’ that examines all of the evidence of experience and not just the narrow band of experience acceptable to what we now call ‘science.’ James, Whitehead, and others pointed out (as Berkeley, Hume, and others had before them) how the narrow brand of empiricism leads to skepticism about our own existence, the world’s existence, causality, and thus  undermines science itself. Most scientists ignore this because they’re busy doing science and don’t care about Hume’s arguments.

Many scientists are even religious themselves and compartmentalize their scientific and religious lives because of basis intuitions that transcend their discipline. But others ignore this because they’re motivated by anti-religious reasons. James, however, embarked on studies of religious experience and parapsychology.

Whitehead explained how our fundamental, felt, preconscious experience of an interconnected world at the
very least explains things like memory and knowledge of the actual world – unexplainable by narrow empiricism. So, it is important to grasp that our understanding of ‘empirical’ is different than the standard conception. Empirical’s mission statement of purpose thus reads:

An international literary and current affairs magazine with the openness and pioneering spirit of its home in the Pacific Northwest, Empirical aspires for truth by boldly introducing thought-provoking points of view and new paradigms. A forum for discourse on contemporary issues, the magazine is “radically empirical” in considering the broad range of human experience.

Being ‘radically empirical’ is progressive; it is tolerant of new ideas and experiments in living. It is not fear-based. It is hope-based. It embraces different expressions of spiritual experience–in art and elsewhere–and stands against the dogmatic suppression of this variety of spiritual experience by both those who embrace more mainstream religious practices and those who pride themselves on participating in the goal of the
destruction of religions and the banishment of all reports of meaningful human experience as “subjective.” And in the end, the ideal is to bring science and spirituality together in a unified view.

PACIFIC NORTHWEST

San Francisco
PHOTO by Curtis Fry
Thus, it also made sense for Tara and me–because we met while we were both living in Portland and now live in Northern California–to connect our project with the Pacific Northwest. My year’s sojourn into what most people consider to be the Pacific Northwest, including mainly Oregon and Washington State, convince me that there is much that connects Northern California with the Pacific Northwest. In many ways, Northern California – particularly including the San Francisco Bay Area – has more in common with Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver BC than it has with the cities of Southern California. So, in addition stretching the common understanding of ‘empirical,’ we are also–intentionally and purposefully trying to stretch the common notion of the community of the ‘Pacific Northwest.’ There is a community that stretches from San Francisco to Vancouver BC that is highly technological, innovative, tolerant, inclusive, progressive, and broadly spiritual. We strive to achieve new paradigms and welcome experiments in lifestyle–not for just for the sake of experiment or to be ‘different,’ but because we live in the spirit of hope for a better tomorrow. We are a part of that community and so much of our vision has to do with sharing our perspective of the world with everyone else.

At the same time, it should be understood that we are not a regional magazine. Our focus is on the world. But one of the things that Tara and I realized when we started out on this project was that most magazines of this type have a New York or Northeast perspective. Empirical contributes to our ongoing effort to understand ourselves and the world we live in from a particular point of view: a Pacific Northwest  perspective. We recognize that, are proud of that, and very openly acknowledge that we’re expressing a vision from a community that is bigger than the two of us. But it’s about the world and its varieties of experience, written and illustrated by authors and artists from around the world.

GOING DIGITAL


Our desire was to be in print, and to compliment that with the new wave of digital access. But to be in print for long, we would have to win over a distributor and then attract an investor or investors. Moreover, we’d have to attract customers quickly. We succeeded in the first two, which is no small thing. By February 2012, we’d produced a prototype that attracted the attention of Rider Circulation Service in Los Angeles. When we saw them face-to-face and showed them on a laptop what we were up to, they were excited about the possibilities and told us enthusiastically that they wanted to distribute Empirical. That prototype issue was dated May 2012, and we have been in bookstores throughout the US and around the world since our first actual monthly issue of June 2012. And we have recently been honored by the Library Journal as one of the top ten new magazines of 2012–an honor indeed.

An award like that helps spread the word about the good things we’re doing, but it didn’t come quickly enough to help us stay in print. Our circulation is growing, but not enough people heard about us quickly and frequently enough to keep up with the enormous costs of printing and shipping. That’s just reality.

We’d been seeing others turn toward digital publication at an accelerating pace. Holding a magazine in one’s hands has practical and aesthetic value. We appreciate that fully. But the fact is that our economy is shifting toward the spread of information through electronic means. The true cost of getting a printed quality
publication, which we competitively estimated at seven dollars per issue, or fifty-five dollars per year, is beyond what many people are able or willing to spend right now.

So, facing these realities, we are looking at the positive side of this transition. It’s time to look forward and not back. We are going to continue bringing you more of the best writing in the world, exploring human experience from new points of view, and growing the Empirical community. We’ll be able to do that with even more brilliant color than ever.

I’ve been hard at work redesigning the magazine in a shorter, wider format with larger fonts so that it’s easier to see and use on our screens. And, the bottom line, we can do all of this for the much more affordable price of one dollar per issue, or ten dollars per year. Times are tough. But now nearly everyone who wants to join and support our Empirical community of readers can afford that. 

THIS ISSUE: MAY 2013

We lead off our second year of publication with another article by Dorion Sagan, son of the astronomer Carl Sagan and biologist Lynn Margulis. Dorion wrote for us the first time in September (see “Lynn Margulis and the Pursuit of Knowledge”). This time, Dorion explores–in “The Problem of Intelligence”– the idea that human beings may be overestimating their intelligence, asking, “Is not an ecosystem–whose different species, with different skills and specialties, combine to make sustainable biological systems–arguably more intelligent, smarter, than a single species which overruns its environment, risking extinction?” Building on themes related to Huxley’s Brave New World, and pointing to the danger of social Darwinist theories, Sagan shows us how it may be time to look to the wisdom of nature for true clues about survival. 

Dave Lewit, writing for Empirical for the first time, discusses the central importance of economics in history and the control over the money supply in the US. Noting the Fed’s enormous bailouts of banks, Lewit makes positive suggestions about a way forward through similar investments in workers and the creation of public banks that are overseen by more publicly-minded virtues than the Fed and private banks value.

Frequent contributor Hugh Mercer Curtler writes this month “On Being Judgmental.” Hannah Arendt’s coverage of the war-crimes trial of Adolph Eichmann led to her shock at being considered too judgmental in her coverage of Holocaust atrocities. Curtler builds on this, and comments on our descent toward amoralism through the phenomenon of eschewing judgment. But Curtler points out that to think is to judge. And thinking people, he argues, do not need to pit one culture against another to uphold core values that are widely embraced around the world.

The March and April issues of Empirical saw the beginning of a three-part series on Cuba by Andrea St. Amand. That series is concluded in this issue with “Cuban Life Without Bribery: Lessons From Estonia, Part III.” The Estonian connection is Andrea’s husband. On their trip to Cuba, and based on her husband’s first-hand experience of the transition to democracy and capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union, Andrea speculates about how life might be with more economic freedom in Cuba’s near future.

This month’s fiction includes “Sun Boxes” by Phyllis Green and “Children of the Tides” by Frank Scozzari.
May’s poetry includes “Mink” by Wally Swist; “Out to Win The World For God: Howard Finster” by Patrick Milian; “among the families of the earth,” Richard Thompson; “Plaint For Rattus norvegicus” by Elisavietta Ritchie; and “Contender” by Monique Roussell. Our featured photographer section is “A Moment
With Wonderlane.” I discovered her work while searching for Buddhist photography, and have since found her work extremely helpful for illustrations of many of our articles. We finally got a chance to interview her and hear her interesting story. As always, our pages conclude with recipes from Tara and Rafaela.

Empirical is committed to continuing to bringing you the best, and we also wish you the best. As we make this transition to exclusive digital publication, please let us know what we can do to improve our service to you; and please spread the word about the quality you find here. We can’t do it without you.