One of the most delightful myths of American music is that the great jazz trumpet player and gravelly-voiced singer Louis Armstrong was born on July 4th, 1900. Actually, he was born on August 4th, 1901 but that fact wasn't uncovered until after he died, when biographers started raking over his life. The July 4th story, fostered by Armstrong himself, was based on the birth date on a phony draft card he used as a teenager in order to play music in New Orleans clubs.

Myths call attention to essential truths. The story of George Washington chopping down his father's cherry tree is a biographer's invention. So is his admission, "I cannot tell a lie." It never happened. But the myth tells us something about George Washington's character. Historians agree: it was sterling.

Similarly, no matter what the fact of Louis Armstrong's date of birth, he was our country's twentieth century, July 4th baby, a musical genius who brought joy to the world and changed the course of American music and entertainment.

Armstrong's importance rests on three propositions. As a young trumpet player in the 1920s he expanded jazz from an harmonically and rhythmically-circumscribed music into a creative performers art. As a singer, he was the inspiration for Bing Crosby, Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Frank Sinatra, and every other great pop singer. Finally, he was the world's most beloved entertainer, an ambassador of American culture to the world.

Armstrong's jazz reputation rests on a series of records he made between 1925 and 1928: his Hot Five and Hot Seven sessions. On these records, Armstrong's extended solo improvisations took center stage, expanding jazz's emotional and musical language. Discovering space in syncopation, he made the music swing. Scholars have analyzed Armstrong's solos on these records, but it's enough to listen to them. Potato Head Blues, Cornet Chop Suey, Struttin' With Some Barbecue, Heebie Jeebies and the magnificent West End Blues are all available on CD reissues, as are his later albums, Louis Armstrong "Plays W.C. Handy" and "Plays Fats Waller," which are works of genius.

Jazz would have gone in the creative direction that Armstrong took it even without him. Generation after generation of brilliant jazz improvisers have pushed against its creative borders. But it was Armstrong who first and most brilliantly uncovered the possibilities of the music. As Miles Davis once said, "You can't play anything on the horn that Louis hasn't played -- I mean even modern."

Before Armstrong started singing, there were great black blues singers (Louis Armstrong accompanied the greatest of them, Bessie Smith, on some of her records), and white belters (like Al Jolson) who tried to imitate them. But pop crooners, like the sweet, lame-voiced Rudy Valley, stuck to the written music as in the European classical tradition. Armstrong brought his jazz innovations to popular singing, allowing the vocalist to personalize the music, to interpret a song as he or she wished. He was not the first singer to scat (that is, sing nonsense syllables for words), but he was the first jazz or pop singer to explore the full emotional range of the voice. He used it as if it was a horn, going deep within himself to capture the essence of a song.

Armstrong's musical ear and lyric sensibility were unerring. When songs were trite, as they so often were, he enhanced them with gentle mockery and then made them his own with brilliant musicianship. With good material -- tunes by Hoagy Carmichael, Irving Berlin, Cole Porter, the Gershwins, and Handy and Waller - - he was definitive. His collaboration with Ella Fitzgerald rank with the best of Sinatra as the authoritative interpretations of the great pop standards. Queen Ella, with her crystalline voice, swooped and soared. Armstrong responded in gruff staccato. Ella had the "chops," as Louis might have described her voice, but Armstrong's singing and trumpet playing was pure joy and musical genius.

Louis Armstrong saw himself as an entertainer as well as a jazz musician and singer. We picture him handkerchief in hand, wiping sweat off his brow, jiving and mugging. He was often criticized for not taking his music seriously and degrading his art. Detractors accused him of playing an "Uncle Tom," acting like a buffoon to please white audiences. There is an element of historic truth in that charge. All minorities learn to clown (think of Jewish comedians) in order to protect themselves from the majority's hostility, and Armstrong, living in a Jim Crow world, had something to fear.

But Armstrong's humor was as authentic as it was universal. Like his music, it welled up from in him. There was no shame in his jive, no dishonor to his mugging. Armstrong was always observant. He always carried a typewriter when touring, and his writings (see Louis Armstrong In His Own Words; Oxford, 1999), make apparent the self-awareness that informed his life as an entertainer. Growing up in an impoverished Southern apartheid environment where, as he put it, violence "danced" all around him, he understood the importance of his artistic vision, knew whom to emulate and whom to hold as role-models. He believed in himself and his ability to bring people together. The man people called "Dippermouth," "Satchmo," "Louis," or "Pops" was perfectly self-actualized, conscious of his prowess, true to his talent.

So happy birthday "Pops" even if July 4th is not your real one. On Independence Day, let's play some Louis Armstrong along with the National Anthem. Louis Armstrong was a true native son, the great liberator of American music.

Marty Jezer is a freelance writer from Brattleboro, Vermont. He welcomes comments at mjez@sover.net

Thanks to support of House Republicans, President Clinton won passage of the House bill giving China most favored nation trading status. Unfettered, market-driven, corporate dominated free trade is what Clinton has wanted most from his presidency. He passed the North American Free Trade Agreement with the support of 39 percent of the House Democrats. For China, his support dwindled to 35 percent. When it comes to economic policy, Clintonian Democrats -- a minority in the Democratic Party -- seem more and more akin to mainstream Republicans. But it's money, not ideology, that binds them. Both sides worship at the alter of corporate campaign contributions.

Corporate America spent big for this bill. So did labor, but, as always, it lacked the financial resources to have real clout. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the 200 corporate members of the Business Roundtable spent about $10 million in advertising to promote the Clinton initiative. This expenditure came on top of the $58 million members of the Roundtable contributed to the Republican and Democratic parties this year. Citibank, for example, gave both parties $231,000 in soft money; $100,000 of which went to the fundraising arm of House Democrats to encourage support for the bill.

In actual purchasing power the value of a campaign contribution is double the investment. Implicit in any contribution is the threat that money given to one candidate can be withdrawn in the next election and given to the candidate's opponent. In other words, Citibank gave the House Democrats $100,000 for the China bill. If that money goes to House Republicans in the next election cycle, the differential in campaign resources between what the Democrats lost and the Republicans gained is $200,000. That's why money has become the currency of American politics. As Representative Gene Taylor, a Democrat from Mississippi who voted against the China bill, asked in the New York Times, "Have you ever seen big money lose?"

The China vote was determined by money, not merit. Proponents argued that unregulated free trade with China would help bind the U.S. and China together in the realm of economics and politics. The lure of exports and financial investment may temper some aspects of Chinese policy, but don't expect Chinese leaders to simply give up on their own "great power" ambitions. The Clintonians may believe the Eisenhower-era hokum that what's good for corporate America is good for America, but the Chinese leaders have interests of their own. Trade with the United States is not going to inspire China to let Tibet go.

Clinton and his Republican allies also argued that the bill agreement will open China to American markets. And that's really hokum. The American trade deficit with China is already larger than it is with any other trading partner. We import more than we sell for the simple reason that the Chinese don't make enough money to buy American products.

What free trade is about, in the current economy, is the export of American capital and jobs, not the export of American products. American corporations want to invest in China -- and other third world countries -- because labor is cheap and there are no environmental regulations. American corporations, including financial institutions like Citibank, will prosper from the "Open Door" to China. But American workers -- and the communities in which they live -- will suffer as corporations export manufacturing jobs to China. The evidence is all around us. Go to Wal-mart and check out the number of products, often made by American companies, that are manufactured in China.

The battle over trade will continue even if the Senate approves the House-passed legislation. Proponents will attempt to marginalize the opposition. But opponents include not just environmentalists and the AFL-CIO. They include the Catholic Church, the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, Jesse Helms and Pat Buchanan. Who has a popular majority? We'll never know. Big money owns presidential candidates Bush and Gore who both favor the Clintonian position of corporate dominated international trade.

I admit to being uncomfortable with some of my political bedfellows. Helms and Buchanan oppose free trade with China because they don't like foreigners. Their idea of an isolationist America -- our shores shut to foreign trade, foreign culture, and foreign ideas -- is anathema to our roots as a nation.

With Jesse Helms and Pat Buchanan opposing the China initiative, one needs to be clear about why he or she objects to Clinton's globalization strategy. Globalization is here to stay and trade between nations ought to be encouraged when conditions are right. But corporate boards, and politicians who get their money, should not be allowed to dictate the form of the debate. It's not trade that we're against; it's who makes the rules of trade -- and who benefits by its international flow. Labor unions, farm organizations, human rights and environmental groups, as well as representatives from communities who stand to gain or lose from international trade, all ought to have a place at the table where trade agreements are made.

Yes, such negotiations will be inefficient. Democracy is unwieldy but there is more to human endeavor than getting the trains to run on time. The China trade bill, like the agenda of the World Trade organization, puts corporate profits in command and subjugates the complexities of human existence to the demands of the marketplace. Fair trade needn't mean isolationism or protectionism. There are ways of facilitating international commerce that minimize harm to people and communities. Economic justice, sustainable development, and environmental awareness, should be a principle trading demand.

Marty Jezer is a free-lance writer who lives in Brattleboro, Vermont. He welcomes comments at mjez@sover.net.

The American proponents of globalization and free trade have good arguments to make in behalf of granting China permanent normal trade relation status (what used to be called "most-favored" nation status). At least they sound good until you look at the historical record.

Free trade, as the globalizers hype it, would bring countries like China into the free world's marketing orbit. Free markets, they say, create free political institutions. Capitalism, their argument goes, is a prerequisite for democracy. Giving China most-favored nation status would advance the human rights of the Chinese people. Human rights: that's what free trade is about. Hah!

The evidence tells us that capitalist free markets exist quite well under totalitarian conditions where human rights are routinely violated. When the U.S. helped overthrow the elected socialist government of Chile, free markets triumphed. So did torture chambers and death squads. Throughout Latin America and in Iran, Indonesia, the Philippines and elsewhere, military dictatorships -- installed and maintained by American military might -- imposed free market "jack-boot capitalism."

There have always been two aspects to international trade. One is the flow of goods, the second is the flow of money, financial capital. In the past these flows were restrained by national considerations. Corporations were nation-based, not multinational; and trade primarily meant the flow of goods, not the flow of capital. After the second world war, this country dominated. Our planes, textiles, TV sets, shoes, sporting goods, cars and tires flooded the world. But within our country, industry tended to locate where wages were lowest.

Over time, American corporations abandoned America's productive capacity. If it was cheaper to make shirts in low- wage, non-unionized factories in South Carolina than it was to make them in fair-wage unionized shops in Brattleboro, Vermont than industry abandoned its factory in Brattleboro and relocated in South Carolina. And if it's cheaper to make shirts in China than it is in South Carolina that hello Shanghai, bye bye Carolina.

The U.S. waged the Cold War because communist countries banned American investment. Now, in the post-Cold War era, countries welcome American (and other foreign) investment. Even supposedly communist countries like the People's Republic of China, foreign investment is welcomed, usually in joint partnership with government entities.

It is easier to move financial capital than it is to move workers. Under the free market laws of the global economy, financial capital will flow to areas of low-cost production. That is why American multinational corporations are so intent on opening China to American investment. There are profits to be made by building factories in China. The destruction of America's manufacturing base is not a concern to them. When you go into Wal-Mart and buy products made in China, chances are the company that sold the Chinese product to Wal-mart is an American-based multinational corporation.

Globalizers frame their arguments in terms of human rights in order to avoid discussing their indefensibly selfish and self- interested economic ambitions. Human rights are not a factor on the globalization, free market, free trade agenda though it should be. The CEOs investing in China are wheeling-and dealing with government officials. What they all want is a free market to make money, not a free society or a real democracy. With political freedom comes free speech, a demand for labor unions, worker rights, and environmental protection. Most CEOs oppose these demands at home. Why should we think they'd promote them in China?

The so-called debate about free trade and globalization is a shuck. The large TV networks are owned by multinational corporations that have a vested interest in unfettered globalization. The media describes the opposition as tree- hugging, luddite, granola-heads plus the AFL-CIO, which is described as being concerned with maintaining its membership base. (As if the corporations promoting globalization are not concerned with their bottom-line, but have only the good of humanity in mind). What the media doesn't tell us is that most European countries oppose giving China favored-nation trading status. Europe also favors strong international environmental and labor regulations, something that proponents of free trade in the United States (rhetoric aside) determinedly oppose.

The AFL-CIO does not oppose free trade, as pundits tell us. "We all recognize that globalization is here," AFL-CIO President John Sweeney has said (See www.aflcio.org). The question he raises is who is going to set the international rules for globalization. "We want to have workers at the table when trade deals are negotiated," Sweeney has said. "You're not going to see these deals being done behind closed doors." The rules of international trade should safeguard environmental protection, the right of workers to join unions, and basic human rights, he has said.

The China issue is symbolic of a much larger issue that, along with ethnic, racial, religious and tribal hatreds, will define the politics of the current century. The issue is not globalization which, like computer technology, is here to stay. Rather it's about joining economics with political democracy: who sets the rules of the international economy. Both here and abroad the majority of people have no say in the new economy. The Globalizers in America -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- want to turn power over to a few huge multinational corporations. These corporations are quite content dealing with foreign governments that are corrupt and nondemocratic.

Fair trade is an issue that trade unionists, environmentalists, human rights activists, consumers, and ordinary citizens who care about their hometowns should rally around. Globalization is a big concept, but it affects local communities. I have only the vaguest notion of what a global economy based on principles of fair trade would look like, but I know that what the jack-boot globalizers are pushing for is destructive to people and community.

Marty Jezer is a free-lance writer from Brattleboro, Vermont and author of the biography, Abbie Hoffman: American Rebel. He welcomes comments at mjez@sover.net.