morialekafa

Oops!

2012-02-17T22:47:00.000-08:00

Well, Republicans finally put their foot into it now. Their “war on women” has gotten completely out of hand. Darrell Issa’s handling of the contraception issue was so ham-handed and stupid, so arrogant and medieval, so demeaning to women, so politically suicidal, it is going to haunt them all the way to the 2012 election. I believe this blunder was inevitable, given the control of the Republican Party in the hands of the least competent, most ideological, and most ignorant among them. This was a mistake of monumental proportions that will not be forgiven.

While this birth control issue is without doubt their worst mistake to date it is by no means their only one. Although they are trying desperately to change the basic idea of one person, one vote, it remains to be seen if this is going to fly, so to speak. Their political Supreme Court has done their part, deciding that corporations are persons and entitled to spend unlimited amounts of money (free speech) on the elections, and they are everywhere trying to deny people their right to vote by questionable means, this may not work out as well as they would like. It still remains the case that our political system operates on the principle of one person, one vote. And here, as in the case of contraception, Republican efforts to circumvent this basic principle may well fail, due, again, to their transparent and ham-handed means of going about it. Voters are angry, and if their anger turns them out in large enough numbers the Republican schemes may fail. While it is true that much of the anger is directed at Obama (he’s Black, you know), it is also true that the economy does in fact seem to be improving, and however bad Obama may be he will certainly provide a remarkable contrast to his apparently idiotic opponents. Barring some miraculous and unexpected development Obama should be easily re-elected. Notice I said “should” be, given the huge numbers of voters who will have no idea of what is involved, and will vote for whoever strikes their fancy on Election Day, anything might happen.

One of the most interesting aspects of this current election season will be a test of just how important money will prove to be. So far it seems to be of considerable importance, witness Romney’s backers outspending his opponents by huge margins in most of the races. It is said that he is outspending Santorum 29 to 1 in Michigan but Santorum is still leading in the polls (the spending may well prove to work before it is over). Similarly, both Gingrich and Paul are still in the race even though they cannot compete financially with Romney. Will it prove to be the case that he with the most money wins? We are about to find out.

Republicans, I think, will prove to be on the wrong side of history in general, especially if the 1% vs the 99% theme continues. There is no reasonable case to be made for further tax breaks for the wealthy when the discrepancy between the haves and have-nots is so great. For someone like Romney who makes $57,000 a day, to argue for further tax breaks is simply ludicrous. And Romney is by no means the most wealthy of those few individuals who are trying to buy the election. Given the reality of life for the middle class and the poor they will have trouble trying to do away with Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, and so on, the safety nets the majority now has to depend on for survival. Granted the electorate is not too well informed, what with Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, I suspect (and certainly hope) they are not as ignorant as Republican assume they are.

Even in the realm of foreign policy I think the Republican efforts to bring about a war with Iran will fail (at least I sincerely hope so). They are certainly continuing to promote their Iran hysteria, now even to the point of claiming Iran is planning an attack on the U.S., and idea so ridiculous as to be dismissed as some kind of mental disorder. Republicans, with their major stake in the military/industrial/political complex want a situation of permanent war, for how else can they keep transferring money so easily from taxpayers to wealthy corporations and billionaires. Even here, at long last, I detect a significant change. President Obama so far seems to have resisted the Israeli Siren song tempting him to fight their paranoid battles for them. I think our country is so sick of wars, and so broke from investing in them, we might actually have to decide to be sensible rather than constantly belligerent. There are hints of bringing troops back from some of our far-flung bases, reducing the Pentagon budget, getting out of Afghanistan, and so on, and even hints we may pay more attention to our needs here at home. It would be wonderful if we could actually believe “happy days are here again.”

For myself I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use being anything else.

Sir Winston Churchill

Back to the Dark Ages

2012-02-16T22:35:00.001-08:00

Okay, maybe the Dark Ages is too much of an exaggeration, but I don’t believe the 1800’s is. You are no doubt aware of the House Oversight and Government Reform Hearing, chaired by Darrell Issa, that consisted of mostly, almost exclusively, White males. This was a hearing about contraception and religious freedom, no women were allowed. Indeed, one woman who was there and waiting to testify was denied her right to do so on the grounds that it was a meeting about religious freedom and therefore she was irrelevant. Now you have to think carefully about this. It was supposedly a meeting about religious freedom, having to do with contraception. You might think a woman would have something to say about contraception, but not according to Darrell Issa. Apparently women have no interest in the question of religious freedom either. This farcical meeting I think is perfectly symbolic of the broader question of male/female relations that continues on now into the 21st century even though it should have been settled long ago.

You will notice, first of all, that the objection to contraception is coming from the Catholic Bishops. The Catholic Bishops organization consists of a number of mostly White old men who dress in medieval robes, funny hats, and carry elaborate staffs, who, while presumably celibate themselves, preside over an organization importantly guilty of pedophilia and its protection. Women are not allowed into this Church hierarchy. The fact that Issa would convene a committee of old men and no women to discuss the problem of contraception and religious freedom is itself a throwback to some previous social condition, indicating an arrogance and outdated view of the position of women in the modern world, laughable, pathetic, stupid, thoughtless, an ultimately politically suicidal. That older White males should presume to decide what women should do with their bodies and their lives in the 21st century is revealing. It reveals that hundreds, even thousands of years of experience have yet to penetrate the brains of men.

But this travesty is only a small part of the apparent Republican desire to return us to the 18th century. Rick Santorum, the current leader of the Republican candidates, believes contraception should be illegal, or at least should be left up to the states to decide. Santorum apparently believes that contraception leads to runaway sexual activity that is intrinsically “bad.” His multi-million dollar supporter has suggested that all women have to do to avoid unwanted pregnancies is to hold an aspirin between their knees (as I guess he thinks they used to do). He is concerned with our seeming obsession with sex and I gather thinks this is because of the availability of contraception. Never mind the overwhelming concern with sex on the news, television programs, print media, and elsewhere, directly related to the capitalistic exploitation of sex for purely commercial, purely profit-oriented, goals. Sex sells, as is perfectly obvious. As fully 99% of American women use contraception at one time or another, and for health reasons over and above the fear of pregnancy, their desire to do away with it would appear to be foolish even beyond belief. Santorum would have some kind of sex police in our bedrooms. I suspect that in a Santorum Presidency chastity belts would make a strong comeback (a potentially profit making enterprise in the right hands).

It is not only in the realm of sexuality that Republicans, especially Santorum, would have us retreat to the 18th century. He now says he wants to do away with government sponsored education, even state government sponsored education, leaving it up to local parents. This is an idea so transparently insane as to guarantee his flavor of the month status will quickly dissipate, as it should. But it is an idea perfectly consistent with other Republican gems that would do away with government altogether. Like, who needs government, when the private sector has proven to be so successful? Ron Paul is perhaps the most important purveyor of this non-government nonsense. He would like us to return to the gold standard, and the joys of the frontier when men were men and women were nothing, there were no homosexuals, Black people were “in their place,” and business was free to pollute and destroy the environment as they saw fit.

Actually, all of this is basically trivial, the underlying problems of female sexuality and male dominance are not much different now than they were during the Dark Ages. There is a universal fear of female sexuality on the part of males. This can be seen in every culture in the world, from our own problems with female suffrage, contraception, laws about loss of consortium, and the legal position of women, to the Middle East with their insistence on the burkha, to cultures in New Guinea where women are considered polluting, to foot binding in China, chastity belts in the middle ages, clitoridectomies in Africa, harems, polygamy, and universal male dominance (at least publicly) everywhere. Even in matrilineal societies women must defer to their brothers, in polyandrous societies they are simply brood mares with no other status, and so on and on. Women are universally considered dangerous, capable of coming between brothers and even fathers and sons, to say nothing of potentially disruptive of social life in general. This was true long before there was effective contraception, and doing away with it will not even touch the basic problem. W. Somerset Maugham’s marvelous short story, “Rain,” is, I believe, testimony to this remarkable power.

I listen to feminists and all these radical gals - most of them are failures. They've blown it. Some of them have been married, but they married some Casper Milquetoast who asked permission to go to the bathroom. These women just need a man in the house. That's all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they're mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They're sexist. They hate men - that's their problem.

Jerry Falwell

The Blunt Instrument

2012-02-14T22:19:00.000-08:00

The patient is now not quite dead but in the intensive care unit, the Republican Party, that is. And although not completely dead we know what the cause of the problem is. It’s called the Blunt Amendment #1520, Respect for Rights of Conscience Act. As I understand it, this not only provides an exception for the Catholic Church to refuse to provide contraception for employees of the Church, whether they are Catholics or not, but goes so far as to claim that any employer of any kind could refuse to provide any particular medical care whatsoever if they believed it was against their moral or religious conscience. I believe it is fair to describe this as a blunt instrument. I also believe it will contribute to the eventual demise of the Republican Party.

The Republicans in the past few years have demonstrated an uncanny ability to place themselves on the wrong side of virtually every issue of importance to ordinary citizens. They have displayed an ignorance of human social and cultural life, and the requirements for successful community life that is truly mind boggling, being opposed as they are to even the most basic amenities and necessities of life for the 99%. I need not recount all of these here, they are well known: unions, minimum wages, health care, unemployment insurance, food stamps, education, and etc.

This amendment by Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri reveals their incredible ignorance of even the most basic requirements for human social life. It is all at once the most mindless, stupid, destructive, impractical, unworkable, short-sighted, idiotic, poorly conceived, and completely ridiculous piece of legislation I have ever even imagined, let alone seen. In effect it does away with any and all forms of health care except those left up to the whims of employers. Thus if your employer, for example, does not believe in modern medicine, but, rather, in prayer, it doesn’t matter what you believe, the decision will be made for you. If your employer doesn’t believe in contraception you’re out of luck on that score as well. If he or she believes all illness is caused by sorcery or witchcraft watch out for your relatives and friends. In fact your employer can plead any absurd belief they want to deny you health care. This idea, if it were ever to pass, would lead to complete chaos as far as health care goes. It was apparently spawned by Obama’s insistence that Catholic businesses, like Hospitals and Universities (not Churches) should be required to provide contraception for their non-Catholic employees. The Catholic Bishops, a bunch of old mostly White men, who dress up in medieval robes and silly hats, objected on the grounds that Obama’s decision infringed upon religious liberties, and maintained their objection to contraception (even though some 98% of Catholic women use contraception). So Obama, not wanting to lose the Catholic vote modified his plan so the Church itself would not have to provide contraception, the insurance companies would pick up the tab. Although many important Catholic organizations thought this was a fine compromise, the Bishops claimed not to be satisfied. Republicans, of course, seized on the issue to make it into a grave political issue and Blunt conceived of his blunt instrument to turn a rather minor problem into an attack on the very nature of health care, part of their broader attack on women, women’s rights, abortion, and contraception.

What is so troubling about this is not the amendment itself, but, rather, what it reveals of the Republican Party and their approach to the most basic fundamentals of human social life. It is so extreme, so stupid and thoughtless, you have to wonder if they have enough intelligence to even dress themselves. Lest you believe this is merely the idiocy of Roy Blunt himself, consider that he has twenty co-sponsors, including the major players in the Republican Party. That such an absurd amendment could be seriously put forward, with twenty Republican co-sponsors, should be proof enough of just how intellectually bankrupt the Republican Party of today really is. By doing this they have betrayed a basic contempt for society itself, perfectly consistent with their idiotic and discredited social Darwinism. Putting power in their hands is the equivalent of giving children nitro-glycerin as a plaything.

Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise.

Cato the Elder

Heart of Ignorance

2012-02-13T22:40:00.000-08:00

You may remember in Joseph Conrad’s famous novella, Heart of Darkness, when Kurtz, the ivory trader, on his death bed, suddenly perceives what he has seen and done for what it was, and cries out, “the horror! The horror!

That is what I perceive when I look into the heart of ignorance that now constitutes the current Republican Party, and what I fear if by some grotesque failure of the electorate we were to mistakenly elect any of these absolute pea brains, horror! This is not mere ordinary everyday ignorance I am speaking about, it is ignorance on a truly grand scale. Take for example their latest attempt to do away with contraception. Contraception has been with us for quite some time now, probably 99% of American women have used it, including even Catholic women. Thus trying to do away with it, just on political grounds alone, is a demonstration of almost unbelievable ignorance. Their opposition to Gay marriage, insofar as they insist marriage has always been between a man and a woman, reveals their ignorance of human marital patterns around the world, as well as the fact that a majority of Americans, especially younger Americans have no problem whatsoever with Gay marriage. Here their ignorance is twofold, their lack of knowledge about human marriage patterns and their apparent ignorance that a majority are now in favor of Gay marriage. We should also not overlook their current “war” on women. They wish to do away with Planned Parenthood entirely, an institution that primarily has to do with the health care of poor women, their rationale for this unbelievably ignorant idea is that Planned Parenthood offers abortions. Only some 3% of Planned Parenthood has to do with abortions, and, by the way, abortions are perfectly legal in the United States. If they truly believe something might be gained by failing to look after the basic health of poor women they are truly ignorant of the facts of life in the country they live in.

The Republican opposition to birth control and Gay marriage is trivial when it comes to their profound ignorance on the subject of global warming. Santorum and others want us to believe that global warming is some kind of hoax, a belief so ignorant (and so dangerous) as to be laughable if it were not so serious. Then there is their erroneous belief and insistence that our Nation was founded on Christian principles, simply not historically true and apparently founded upon their ignorance of the facts. What is far worse is their insistence that creationism should be taught in the public schools as an alternative to the theory of evolution, a position so incredibly ignorant as to be dismissed out of hand. What is even more ignorant and frightening about this is the rejection of science in favor of mythology. No country in the 21st century can deny science and scientific facts in favor of fairy tales, to do so reveals an ignorance so profound as to be truly frightening and also points the way to the eventual demise of our country.

I have yet to mention the mostly Republican belief in Armageddon that lies behind their uncritical support for the criminal state of Israel, the unbelievable claims that Palestinians do not exist, the idea of American exceptionalism, the belief we can export democracy by military means alone, that the entire world aspires to our brand of “democracy,” and that our constant meddling all around the world is to promote peace and democracy (and not our blatant interest in their oil and other commodities). Need I even mention our incredible ignorance of geography and the cultures of other people.

Of course it is also true that Republicans are opposed to funding education, environmental protection, regulations in general, and most anything that has to do with our future if it interferes with short term profits. How they could possibly be so short-sighted is just another example of ignorance. No nation or group of any kind can possibly continue to exist if they fail to educate their children, protect their environment and plan for the future. The Republican failure to grasp these basic facts is just another example of their mindless ignorance. Similarly, their apparent belief that our nation will survive over time with a tiny majority of billionaires controlling most of the wealth while the 99% are living like peasants is terribly ignorant.

I have not bothered so far to discuss their ignorance when it comes to reality and President Obama. Obama, they claim, is not really a citizen and therefore should not be President. He needs to present his birth certificate (that he has already done). He is, they claim, a socialist, a belief so unspeakably ignorant it should disqualify them from further discussion. He’s a communist, a fascist, the anti-Christ, a Muslim, an “Other” or some kind. He’s destroying America, leading a “war” on religion, and on and on, claims so ignorant it is difficult to believe anyone would possibly hold them. This is not to forget their support for people like Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Donald Trump, and others so patently unqualified for the Presidency as to be ridiculously ignorant.

I would not argue, of course, there are no ignorant Democrats or Independents, but there is no doubt in my mind that the true locus of ignorance resides now in the Republican Party as presently constituted. We are no longer involved in a contest between Republicans and Democrats, between Conservatives and Liberals, between red states and blue states, we are involved in a potential death struggle between reality and fantasy, truth and falsehood, success and failure, ignorance and intelligence, survival or oblivion. Time is running out, the earth is warming, our resources are disappearing, the environment is suffering, our people are suffering, our children living in poverty, millions without health care, our homes disappearing, our hopes disintegrating, we simply can no longer afford ignorance. What, ultimately, is even worse and more basic, Republicans do not even believe in the social contract, preferring instead a primitive idea of social Darwinism where everyone is completely on their own.

“The American Left hates Christendom. They hate Western civilization.”

Rick Santorum

Vultures' Picnic - book

2012-02-12T22:44:00.000-08:00

Vultures’ Picnic In Pursuit of Petroleum Pigs, Power Pirates, and High-Finance Carnivores, Greg Palast (Dutton, 2011)

On one of the first pages of this book it says “Everything that happened here, happened.” I suspect in general this is true. Greg Palast is almost certainly the finest investigative reporter working today. In this book he reports on basically four major types of crimes: (1) voter suppression, (2) those of oil companies in the gulf of Mexico and around the world, (3) the rather fantastic scams and crimes of the nuclear industry, and (4) the vulture capitalists that prey on failing countries for unbelievable profits.

Palast, who studied economics at the University of Chicago under the (I hope now discredited but famous Milton Friedman), where I believe he took a degree in Finance and did very credible academic work. Friedman’s free market economic theory did not appeal to Palast who spent some twenty years seriously investigating corporate fraud and then became an investigative reporter for the BBC (as news companies in the United States did not want to recognize his work). You might say he first “made his bones” as an investigative reporter when he exposed Jeb Bushs’s fraudulent manipulation of the Florida voter rolls to insure his brother’s (very questionable) 2000 win/loss in Florida. In any case, with his background and experience he can speak with authority on the complicated details of international finance.

In Vulture’s Picnic he recounts his work in exposing the failure of the BP drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, following a lead from a similar and identical failure in the Caspian Sea that had occurred two years previously and was covered up by BP that blatantly lied about it. It is an interesting tale of his trip to Azerbaijan to investigate the tip that led to exposing BP’s attempt to cover up their obvious wrongdoing. This also takes him to Alaska and the facts surrounding the Exxon Valdez disaster, also distorted and covered up by BP. I found his account of these disasters both fascinating and entirely convincing.

Palast is unrelenting in his criticism of the nuclear energy crowd. He demonstrates, quite convincingly to me, at least, how it is mostly a scam to bleed the Federal and State Governments of taxpayer dollars with constant delays, overruns, excuses, and false promises, while pocketing the funds and lying about the safety of projects that will ultimately fail to produce the promised profits. He goes beyond just the financial problems involved to explain why the diesel engines failed to perform, how the basic designs were fudged, the basic safety standards compromised, and so on. I admit to being totally opposed to nuclear energy in any form, and I cannot understand why anyone or any country with even a smidgen of intelligence would promote such a dangerous threat to not only themselves but even the planet itself. The U.S., of course, is not noted for smidgens of intelligence when profits are involved.

When it comes to the “vultures” of the Vultures’ Picnic, I think the author is at his best. Like vulture capitalists in the U.S. who prey on failing companies, there are vultures that prey on small countries in trouble. In its simplest form this involves buying the bonds of such countries at ridiculously low prices, holding them until the country manages to get some form of international aid for health care or development, and then suing for the face value of the bonds. If the vultures win they of course make millions of dollars in profits, the country and its citizens benefit not at all, and basically the aid money ends up in the pockets of the vultures. It’s clever, unscrupulous, immoral, unethical, disgusting, merciless, unconscionable, and, alas, technically legal.

I do not doubt the basic truth of what Palast offers in the Vultures’ Picnic. I believe that in general this is the way international companies, including all energy companies, operate. They have by now so much money and so much power they can basically do whatever they wish and get away with it, however immoral and criminal. I also do not doubt Palast’s abilities as an investigative reporter. Further, I can also understand how many can be enthusiastic about this book and praise it highly. I like it. But there are what I believe to be some interesting questions having to do with the style of the reportage and how well it represents the subject matter.

As far as the style goes, it is a curious melange of Dashiel Hammet, Damon Runyan, Mickey Spillane, Max Schulman, and John LeCarre, with a bit of H. L. Mencken cynicism thrown in for good measure. While this makes it readable and entertaining I’m not sure I think it is entirely appropriate for the seriousness of the subject matter. I have the impression that Palast has become so enamored of his work he has come to see himself as a kind of Sam Spade, with his faithful female companion the sexy Ms. Badpenny and others of his jolly band of investigators. Why he has chosen this style I do not know. It is obvious, if you look at his various web sites, he is trying to get on the best seller list. This is not necessarily bad. It is also quite possible that when you know what he does, and have seen what he has seen, you become so cynical as to find it difficult to present yourself in any other way. He might also believe writing in this rather sensational, sort of non-stop manner, will be beneficial for his not-for-profit Palast Investigative Fund (see www.PalastInvesigive Fund.com). As he offers no references or citations you must accept his claims on faith. He does, however, name specific individuals, specific occasions, and specific information, details it would be difficult to dismiss as false.

In any case, Vultures’ Picnic is a most worthwhile book and well worth reading. If you ever had any doubts about the ruthlessness and predatory behavior of international corporations, especially energy corporations, and why they might well be described as “vulture capitalists,” your doubts should be dispelled.

Just Say Anything

2012-02-11T22:30:00.001-08:00

Just say anything that pops into your head seems to be the standard operating procedure for the current Republican candidates. How else would you describe Romney’s claims that corporations are people, he’s unemployed, and worries at time about getting pink slips? Or when he asserts with some kind of confidence that if Obama is re-elected Iran will have a nuclear bomb, whereas if he, Romney is elected, they will not? Or how about when he announced at the recent meeting of conservatives, the CPAC, that he has always been a “severe” conservative? It is by now common knowledge that Romney will say anything at all if he thinks it might help him win the Presidency. Does anyone take any of this seriously?

Of course Romney’s ridiculous claims pale when compared with Santorum’s. Santorum, who seems to be the latest flavor of the month for Republicans, had said, for example, Obama is helping Iran obtain nuclear weapons. He has also announced that global warming is a hoax, and that the Crusades were not an example of our aggression towards Islam. Add to this his warning that Mormonism is not only a cult, but a “dangerous” cult. He has also asserted that everyone on the West Bank is an Israeli, there are no Palestinians. And don’t forget his claim that contraceptives provide, “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” He has not, as far as I know, provided us with an account of “how things are supposed to be,” but I assume he does not have in mind homosexuality, beastiality, oral and anal sex, and other sexual activities usually considered “perversions,” that have nothing whatever to do with contraception. I think he is unaware this is the 21st century, 99% of American women have used birth control at one time or another, and there has been a sexual revolution.

Then there is Newt the Odious who has said that Obama will wage war against the Catholic Church if he is re-elected, that by the end of his second term as President (he has not yet even the nomination) we will have an American colony on the moon, or “I have enormous personal ambition. I want to shift the entire planet. And I’m doing it. I am now a famous person. I represent real power.” Or how about, “The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument.” If those are not enough, try, “If the Soviet empire still existed, I'd be terrified. The fact is, we can afford a fairly ignorant presidency now.”

How about a few Ron Paul quotes: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they 'came out of the closet,' and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?" He has also claimed: The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. And again, "The freer the market is and the more respect you have for private property, the better the environment is protected.”

It seems that the license to say anything you want as a candidate, no matter how stupid or outrageous, is given by the fact that reporters and others seldom, if ever, challenge these statements. As most of these claims are either completely false, or just plain stupid, they are allowed to find their way into the public discourse. Many claims are even worse, such as Obama is a socialist or communist, he was not born in the U.S., he is going to take away your guns, he is a secret Muslim, and on and on, should never be allowed to go unchallenged, but they are, and no matter how far-fetched seem to find a receptive audience somewhere. With no checks and balances this irresponsible prevaricating will no doubt get worse between now and November.

Of course the above is merely political child’s play, taking our attention away from far more important matters and even bigger and far more important lies and exaggerations. I have in mind the absolutely idiotic licensing of two new nuclear reactors in Georgia. I guess here in the U.S. we simply are unable to learn from experience, common sense, or others. It is as if Chernobyl, Three Mile, and Fukushima never happened or were not massive disasters that will last for many years. The Japanese, Germans, Swiss, and others have already sworn off nuclear energy and will dismantle (however slowly) their existing nuclear plants. But here in the U.S., where we already know many of our existing plants are potential dangers, we are now going to build more. There is no accounting for absolute stupidity. But stupidity is not allowed to interfere with the profits of energy companies. These plants will cost far more than estimated (I am quite certain those who are promoting them actually know this), will take longer to construct while the billions of federal funds are slowly sucked away by the energy giants, the State of Georgia taxpayers will quite likely suffer greatly, and the billions of dollars involved that could have been used for clean and renewable energy will simply be wasted. I cannot believe that President Obama supports this travesty, but he does. I hope those with more intelligence will do everything possible to prevent these two reactors from ever being built. Indeed, the entire American public should rise up in arms against this terrible decision.

Either the United States will destroy ignorance or ignorance will destroy the United States.

W.E.B. Du Bois

What Can He Be Thinking?

2012-02-09T22:27:00.001-08:00

Rick Santorum, that is. There is a video of Santorum talking about contraception in which he says clearly some think it is okay, but it’s not okay, as it leads to…Well, it’s not clear what it leads to as he doesn’t finish his statement, or if he does I can’t find it anywhere. But it is clearly not okay as far as Santorum is concerned because, I assume, it leads to promiscuity or perhaps worse. I am forced to merely speculate on what it is he has in mind, or even if he has anything much in mind. Given that 98%, perhaps even 99% of American women have used contraception at some time in their life and Santorum and other Republicans want to make it illegal, it might be wise to just leave the issue there, concluding it is just too ridiculous to pursue. But I can’t.

Pardon my blunt language here but I find his position on this matter somewhat confusing, to say the least. He seems to be inordinately concerned about homosexuality, Gay marriage and DADT, believing that Gay marriages already consummated should be overturned and DADT should be returned to what it was. The issue of contraception obviously does not apply here. Homosexual sex obviously is not in need of contraception. But what of other forms of sexual behavior, sometimes practiced not only by homnosexuals? Oral sex, for example, or Anal sex? Or the rather remarkable perversions that apparently exist in the real world of sex, none of which have anything to do with contraception? Then there is also his concern with “man on dog” possibilities or other forms of bestiality. These would seem to have little or nothing to do with the presence or absence of contraception. Thus his concern with doing away with it must not have anything to do with sex in general, but, rather, certain forms of sex in particular. I conclude from this (1) he has little knowledge of the range of human sexuality, and (2) he must have in mind something in the order of more or less common heterosexual behavior between consenting partners. He must have in mind something on the order of promiscuity, sexual orgies, adolescent sex, sex between unmarried people, adultery, and so on. In other words, the kind of sex normal people engage in without necessarily the intention of having a child and, in fact, free from the possibility of accidentally having one. I guess Santorum must believe that without contraception people would refrain from sex unless they wanted to produce another member for the Catholic Church, and/or engage in sex as a form of Russian roulette. I think Santorum has no idea what he is talking about and is taking a position so far from the mainstream of ordinary human behavior as to be laughable. Ignorance is bliss.

Contraception is not the only subject about which Santorum and other Republicans remain blissfully ignorant. They commonly insist that Gay marriages are wrong because traditionally marriage has always been between a man and a woman. While it is true that monogamy is the most common form of marriage (out of practical necessity I think), polygamy is actually the preferred form of marriage around the world and is fairly widespread. Even marriage between homosexuals occurred in some cases. Some American Indians, for example, had an institution called the “berdache” that involved a man taking on the female role and becoming a wife, or a woman taking on a male role and marrying another woman. Although relatively rare there were also polyandrous marriages where two or three men (usually brothers) would share a single wife. The children of these marriages were allocated to the fathers, not on the basic of actual biological parenthood, but more or less equally. That is, after the first one or two children were legally recognized as those of the eldest brother, the next children would be considered legally those of the next brother. In at least one African society a woman could marry a ghost, bring in a man to cohabit with her, and the children were legally recognized as those of the ghost. Similarly, if a name was about to disappear from a lineage a woman could marry another woman and the child would be considered a descendant of the man who had died childless. Similarly, in matrilineal societies the child belonged to the mother as the actual father was irrelevant and the significant father figure was the mother’s brother. I confess my ethnographic knowledge has dimmed a bit and there are no doubt even other variations in family configurations. It is clear, however, that those who speak with authority about marriage always having been between one man and one woman simply have no knowledge of marriage customs around the world, the typical ethnocentrism to be expected of people who know only their own customs. Actually, I’m pretty certain that even historically in America marriages were not always what they seemed, some were common law, some temporary, some polygamous, and so on. Anyway, what does it matter, those who don’t do what we do can just be dismissed as “savages,” “barbarians,” “towel heads,” “gooks,” or whatever. In America you don’t have to know anything to speak with authority on most everything. George W. Bush, for example, took us to “war” in Iraq unaware there were both Sunnis and Shiities and that that might be important. Hey, it’s the American way.

Yet ah! why should they know their fate,
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies?
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.

Thomas Gray

Shame, Guilt, or Satisfaction?

2012-02-08T22:31:00.001-08:00

You will recall the Supreme Court decision that declared corporations were persons, and that money represents speech. You may also recall that President Obama in his State of the Union address a year ago pointed out this would open the floodgates of private money overwhelming the democratic process, and Justice Alito shaking his head no. This decision, almost certainly the worst and most harmful since the horrible Dred Scott decision of 1857, has proven to be every bit as bad as Obama predicted it would be. You could easily argue it spelled the end even of the pretense we had of democracy up to that time. How demonstrably bad this decision is/was can be seen at the moment with unidentified corporate and private money pouring in to the election process and having a profound effect on it. It is not out of line to point out that a very few billionaires are having an unprecedented influence in the election process. The Superpacs behind Romney, for example, have effectively blown Gingrich out of the race and will no doubt do the same to Santorum. This threat to our democracy is so great that Obama, who was opposed to it, has now had to appeal for Superpacs of his own to counter the Rove/corporate fortunes they have pledged against him. Now, as Robert Reich has said, we will have billionaires on the right opposing billionaires on the left to determine the outcome of the election. Reich believes Obama should have resisted asking for Superpac support on the grounds he could have done just as well by refusing to participate in this development and would therefore have garnered even more small donation support. I agree with this in theory but I also believe it would be thoroughly impractical in reality. I think Obama has no other choice. I wonder, however, if there are enough billionaires on the left to counter all those on the right. However this plays out during this current electoral process, if allowed to continue over time, it will surely spell the end of even any pretense of democracy here in the United States. I believe it is fundamentally absurd to argue that corporations are persons and that money represents speech.

What I really wonder about is that now the extremely deleterious effects of this awful decision are becoming apparent, now that it is demonstrably corrupting our electoral process, what do the Supreme Court Justices truly feel about it. It is obvious they made a terrible mistake, and equally obvious (I think) it was a political decision that should never have been made by what is supposed to be a nonpolitical entity. Now that it has become visible in all its absurdity, and exposed for what it is, do they feel any shame in having been exposed? Shame, of course, is not something experienced in a vacuum, it has to be public, external. If they do not feel shame for what they have done, perhaps they feel guilty. Guilt is something you can experience privately, you can feel guilt over something even if no one else is aware of what you have done. Guilt, unlike shame, is internal, private, unless perhaps confessed at some point. I wonder if any of our current Justices will ever admit to either shame or guilt. If they can ignore public shame over their disgraceful decision, and if they do not feel guilt over it, perhaps they are satisfied. After all, it would appear their decision to aid the development of fascism in America, is working. As I do not believe they are stupid I can only believe this was their intention. Unless something is done quickly to reverse this shameful decision it will do irreparable damage to our nation.

Here again I think one of the major shortcomings of our (presumed) democracy is apparent. It is often just too slow a process to effectively compete against more dictatorial regimes (I am not suggesting we should aspire to a more dictatorial regime). In this case the deed has been done, the Court has spoken, what has been done cannot be undone without a Constitutional amendment, an amendment that can take years to accomplish, while in the meantime the corporate fingers around our throats will just get stronger. It also reveals, at least to me, the problems with the Supreme Court itself, not the least of which is that they have too much power. Being lifetime appointments it is virtually impossible to replace one of the Justices no matter how egregiously they abuse their powers (how often has a Justice ever been impeached). There is no retirement age for members of the Court, they can continue on no matter how out of touch with recent developments or how senile they become. They should not be allowed to decide themselves whether or not they should have to be recused from cases in which they have obvious conflicts of interest. The Supreme Court is supreme only in the sense there is no other court above them. To have faith and confidence in the Court it has to be assumed they are honorable men and women, scrupulously objective, dedicated to justice and fairness to all. I don’t know if the Court historically has ever been completely what it should have been, but it is clear to me the current one is certainly open to question. After all, they have made some terrible decisions that would appear to have been purely political in intent, when they intervened in Florida, for example, and proclaimed Bush the winner, a decision so bad even they said at the time it could not serve as a precedent in the future. And now their ridiculous decision about corporate personhood that seems to me to be also purely political. The Roberts Court has disgraced itself and undermined their credibility, instead of being fair and balanced they have become unconstitutionally and illegally partisan. Imagine how much worse it could become if a Republican were now elected to the Presidency.

What power has law where only money rules.

Gaius Petronius

Does it Matter?

2012-02-07T22:18:00.000-08:00

It appears that Rick Santorum is having a truly big night and is on his way to probably winning in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado. Assuming he does win all three races, does it matter? Does anyone believe that Santorum is going to be the official Republican candidate for the Presidency and run against President Obama? I don’t believe it. Is Santorum just going to be the last flavor of the month before everyone settles on Mitt Romney? Is it inevitable, as many have been saying for a long time, that Romney, because of his money and organization will win in the long run? It is pretty obvious that Gingrich is finished, just as it is common knowledge that Ron Paul will never be the candidate. What does this all mean?

Being one who despises Republicans even worse than stink bugs and cockroaches I find this rather amusing. I cannot help but wonder where all this indecision is going. What seems obvious is that Republicans in large measure simply do not want Mitt Romney as their candidate. They could not have made this more obvious. Romney, being the little rich boy, just doesn’t seem to get it. He apparently just can’t take a hint. He either just doesn’t perceive how much he is not wanted or he wants to be President so badly he just ignores it and believes he will be able to buy the candidacy and perhaps (in his dreams) the Presidency. He shares this thick skin with Gingrich who also refuses to accept the fact that he, too, is just not wanted. This must boil down in both cases to the basic issue of ego, with both of them so oversized as to render them incapable of believing no one wants them.

With Gingrich basically out of contention, and Paul not considered a possibility, it looks like a two man race, Romney versus Santorum. But I think this is little more than a fantasy. It is true that Santorum might not have the baggage of Gingrich, but his positions are so extreme that baggage is irrelevant. He believes, for example, that global warming is a hoax, abortions should be illegal, along with contraception, DADT should be reinstated, Gay marriages should be reversed where they occur and no longer permitted, we should go to war against Iran, and who knows what all. It’s true he may be the most genuinely conservative candidate, and that might play well in the Midwest, but it won’t play in the general election. I don’t believe he will be allowed to represent the Republican Party in a contest against President Obama. That would seem to leave Romney (as usual) who is obviously not wanted and, more importantly, is increasingly disliked the more people get to know him. What a dilemma! I love it. Romney will be the weakest Republican candidate to run for President in history with his own party barely lukewarm and Democrats drooling to attack him. Unless, of course, there is some miraculous and completely unpredictable event in the offing. Personally, I think in order to avoid some extreme embarrassment, Republicans should simply concede the 2012 election and try to re-group for 2016. But of course this is the United States of America, where what passes for reality makes Alice in Wonderland read like a scientific tome. Strangely, I find myself missing Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Sharron Angle, and that entertaining What’s-her-face, O’Donnell woman, the four Republican “Spice Girls.”

Yes, I saw the Clint Eastwood ad during the Superbowl, but I did not hear it. I was at a party where there were 25 to 30 guests, none of whom were apparently interested in the football game. Thus the din from their various conversations was so great you could only watch. Now, having seen it replayed several times I cannot understand what all the fuss is about. Eastwood is a Republican, the ad was about success in America and hopes for the future. Karl Rove says he was offended, ha ha, imagine Karl Rove being offended by anything. I find Karl Rove’s actual “being,” offensive. I guess Republicans might have found the ad offensive because it reminded them of Obama’s success with turning the auto industry around, but maybe they were offended by the idea that things might get better before the election and their plan to deep six Obama might fail. They should follow their leader, that fat sack of crap, Rush Limbaugh, who has now said he doesn’t care what any facts and figures show, he just won’t believe them. Good on ya, Rush, that’s the way to go, just refuse to believe anything you don’t want to believe. That’s not only “fair and balanced,” it’s also convenient, efficient, and utterly pathetic.

It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

The Ultimate Real

2012-02-06T22:34:00.000-08:00

When I was still enrolled in the University (many years ago now) I had a roommate for a time named, shall I say, John. John was very bright. One Autumn day John was raking leaves from the sidewalk in front of the large house where we shared a room, maple leaves, they were very thick and difficult to rake. John’s Philosophy Professor passed by and asked, “John, what are you doing?” John was very quick witted, certainly enough to know not to insult his Philosophy Professor by pointing out the basic idiocy of his question, so he replied, “Well Sir, I’m searching for the ultimate real,” an answer sufficiently philosophical to avoid the obvious and also indicate the depths of his commitment to the profundity of the subject matter of the course which he was currently taking, which I believe was Aesthetics.

I feel that is precisely what I have been searching for these past two or three years when it comes to the Republicans. What, if anything, is “real?” I do not wish to get involved in a definition of the term “real,” or the “really real,” or even the “really, really real.” Suffice it to say I will use the term to mean whatever I wish it to mean at the moment, consistent with the use of the English language when it comes to politics.

So, for example, are the Republicans for real when they say the solution to our economic dilemma is lower taxes and fewer regulations. They must certainly know by now that is a program that has already failed…miserably. How about when they claim President Obama is a “failed President?” Is that real? Has he really failed or is that just a meaningless Republican claim? What about “Social Security is a Ponzi scheme? Is that real? Mitt Romney is said to make $57,000 a day but still wants tax reductions for people like himself. Is that real or merely a talking point to amuse his peers who make as much or more? How about Ron Paul who insists we should return to the gold standard and people who don’t pay their health insurance premiums should die? The first doesn’t seem very real, the latter seems really real (I think). Then there is Newt the Odious, not yet even the Republican candidate, let alone the President, who is talking about a colony on the moon by the end of his second term. I must say that seems to me much more unreal than real, actually more surreal than unreal. Rick Santorum, seemingly obsessed with other people’s sexual behavior, wants to annul all Gay marriages, undo DODT, and incarcerate doctors who perform abortions. Is that real (perhaps I should say realistic)? All the Republican candidates are all for doing away with “Obamacare,” that they somehow believe is government mandated health care or, even more awful, socialism. Is that real? Do they really want only the wealthiest to have health care? They are against Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, minimum wages, unions, and so forth, how real is that?

Where is the locus of reality (the real) when, having announced their most important goal is to get rid of President Obama, and also having announced they would be the party of “no,” and blocked every attempt he has made to create jobs, and then ask everyday “Where are the jobs?” I guess you could say they really did that, but is it really real? Sometimes they say things or make claims that are so divorced from the real you have to wonder if they even believe their listeners are real. For example, Romney announced with absolute conviction that if Obama was re-elected Iran would have a nuclear bomb, whereas if he, Romney were elected, they would not. How could he know they would have a bomb if Obama was elected, or would not if he was elected? Of course he couldn’t know that, but real has no meaning for Republicans. Nothing they say has to be real, realistic, or even within the range of human knowledge. Apparently a majority of Republicans do not believe Romney is for real and have done everything to find an alternative. None of their proposed alternatives have been real, not Pawlenty, Trump, Palin, Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Paul, Santorum, or Gingrich. I don’t believe it is at all far-fetched to say their entire campaign to date has been basically unreal with little or no chance of unseating Obama. They have put forward no real platform (other than lower taxes, fewer regulations), have passed no legislation to create jobs, have not been able to agree on a suitable candidate, and seem to believe that being virulently anti-Obama for reasons that are not very clear (but smell of racial prejudice), will be enough to usher them back into the Executive office. Try as I might I have not been able to find any ultimate real in their strategy, or even any real, but it appears to me that unreality and even surreality is a more apt description of their rather pathetic performance to date. If they cannot get real before November I cannot see how they can possibly defeat Obama. As Romney is so obviously divorced from anything real about American life and culture, and also even devoid of either empathy or insight, he should be about as helpful as all other wooden soldiers.

Some people think only intellect counts: knowing how to solve problems, knowing how to get by, knowing how to identify an advantage and seize it. But the functions of intellect are insufficient without courage, love, friendship, compassion and empathy.

Dean Koontz

It's Over

2012-02-04T22:24:00.001-08:00

It’s over, the Republican competition for who will run against President Obama, that is. Or so it seems to me. Romney, as predicted, won in Nevada very convincingly. Gingrich may have come in a distant second if that honor does not turn out to be for Ron Paul. Santorum was a definite fourth. I cannot see any scenario for any of Romney’s competitors to overtake him now (barring some strange act of god or nature). Looking at the results that we have seen so far it is clear that Romney won pretty much across the board. He won significantly even among Evangelicals, hard-core conservatives, and others that to him were supposed to be anathema. This indicates to me Republicans have now made their peace with Romney and have already decided he will be their candidate (whether they like it or not).

Gingrich is clearly finished, whether he tries to continue or not. Whatever his past has finally cost him the Romney financial blitzkrieg has finished. It couldn’t happen to a bigger phony, an attention grabbing, loudmouthed blowhard, unashamed to pontificate on any subject at any time, serial adulterer, hypocrite extraordinary, and all-around con artist with no interest in anything but himself, willing to take any position provided the money was right, a kind of caricature of the famous “General Bullmoose” of Lil’ Abner fame. Unfortunately he probably won’t disappear from public view, probably sitting up in his casket pontificating until the very end. Happily we do not have to even consider him as Vice-Presidential material.

Not so the obsessional Rick Santorum. Why MSNBC thought inserting a speech of Santorum’s from Colorado during their report on the Nevada contest I will never understand. I had never listened to Santorum before, other than a few words here and there. I must say his remarks were the most absurd garble of lies, half-truths, unfinished sentences, and complete nonsense I have ever heard. He just tosses out statements like “The failed policies of Obama” (unspecified), “Obamacare is already damaging the economy” (unspecified), “Our country was founded on…” (unspecified), and on and on. It is said he is now running for the Vice-Presidential slot, and given this kind of performance he might well attain it.

Ron Paul, who I cannot separate from the character of Pa Kettle no matter how hard I try, may well end up in second place in Nevada, edging out Gingrich. He does well in the rural areas of Nevada (and Idaho) with folk that like to pretend they are still living in the 18th century, while at the same time collecting their Social Security, farm subsidies, food stamps, aid to dependent children, free elementary education, veterans benefits, and often living on state, county, or city money…rugged individualists all. He will quite likely stick it out to the eventual Republican convention although it is not entirely clear to me why. I have heard it said he may be angling for something for his son Rand (an even bigger loony tunes than himself). In any case, like Gingrich, we don’t have to worry about a Paul Vice-Presidency.

I thought for a while there might be a brokered convention if no clear Republican candidate emerged and if Romney simply would not do. I don’t believe that will happen now that more and more Republicans seem to believe that Romney has the best chance of defeating Obama. This is a belief I do not share as I think he’s probably the worst candidate they could find to attempt such a task. He is the veritable epitome of the One Per Cent, the candidate of wealth, corporation, endless war, and unconcern with anyone but the wealthy, a candidate who makes $57,000 dollars a day and believes he should get a greater tax break.

Not only will Romney be terribly vulnerable as a candidate, Republicans are going to be hard-pressed to specify just where it is Obama has failed. They apparently believe the voting public is unaware of how it is Republicans have blocked everything Obama has attempted to do to improve things, unaware of their stated plan to defeat Obama as their number one objective, unaware of the fact that by most historical standards Obama has actually been a fairly successful President (in spite of their opposition), and oblivious to the fact the economy is improving, however slowly. I cannot see how their claim “they can do better” has any validity whatsoever given their past performance. Most of the things I hold against Obama, his failure to pursue Bush/Cheney and their gang of criminals, his presumed protection of the bankers, his continued “war” in Afghanistan, and his blind support of Israel, are not things that Republicans should object to as they are in line with their own perspectives. Of course Obama does have one distinct handicap, he’s Black. Maybe they can parlay that into a victory. I sincerely hope not.

I believe I have no prejudices whatsoever. All I need to know is that a man is a member of the human race. That's bad enough for me.

Mark Twain

No in Thunder!

2012-02-03T22:28:00.000-08:00

I’m sure Leslie Fiedler will forgive me using one of his titles for a good cause. Now is a good time for that famous line, “Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country.” I sincerely hope President Obama is listening, I’m sure that out of the apparent 156 million blogs in the world he follows this one religiously. Israel, once again, is threatening to illegally attack Iran to prevent them from developing a nuclear bomb they are most probably not developing. At least there is no solid evidence they are, they deny they are, but they continue stubbornly to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes which they are legally entitled to do. They may be enriching uranium in such a way as to make it possible for them to make a bomb in the future, something they will almost surely do if they are attacked by Israel. Even if they did develop a bomb they are not going to use it against Israel or the United States. Israel knows this, of course, but they claim Iran is an existential threat to them anyway. This is little more than Israeli paranoia based, I believe, on their self-understanding they fully deserve it as a result of their years of blatantly criminal acts against the Palestinians. Be that as it may, now is the time for President Obama to tell them emphatically, NO, NO, NO, the United States will not aid them in any way whatsoever if they commit this crime. It is not in the best interest of the United States to be embroiled in another Middle East war, certainly not with Iran, and it will be the United States that will suffer the most if the Israelis pursue this unbelievably stupid act. Obama should make it completely clear that if Israel attacks Iran they, and they alone will suffer the consequences. For years the Israelis have attempted to link their national interests to those of the United States, but our interests are not, in fact, the same, nor should they be. Of course there are those fundamentalist religious loons waiting for Armageddon who no doubt think an attack on Iran would be a good thing. But interestingly enough, it seems a majority of American Jews are opposed to an Israeli attack. Thus there would be some all in favor of another crime against humanity, the remaining Neocons and the religious right, but a clear majority will be opposed to it. This situation will continue to be the case, as it has for years, until someone with sufficient authority acts to change the situation. President Obama has the unique ability to finally bring an end to this festering problem by making it clear the United States will no longer blindly follow Israeli dictates, will not engage in military action against Iran, will, to the contrary, engage Iran diplomatically and fairly, and settle this dispute amicably. This would, of course, also signal an end to American and European attempts at hegemony in that area of the world, but, it seems to me, about time the last vestiges of colonialism finally died once and for all. Naturally I don’t expect this to happen, the lure of the black gold is too great, the continued “wars” are far too profitable for the military/industrial/political complex, and humans seem to have an unquenchable and permanent desire to steal from and kill each other. Even so I raise my tiny voice in protest! I do not believe an Israeli attack on Iran is in anyone’s best interest, including even Israel itself.

It appears the amazing stranger from the planet Opulence is going to win big time in the Nevada caucus tomorrow, thus almost insuring he will eventually become the Republican nominee. I find this truly remarkable. Here is a candidate the vast majority of the party has indicated they do not want, and have tried desperately to find a satisfactory alternative for, whose only real competition at the moment is another candidate that virtually no one wants. But barring some kind of last minute miracle this will be their choice. I interpret this to mean the Republican Party this year is not serious about the election and has chosen to wait until 2016 when, presumably, more important and more serious candidates may become available. They seem to have done this even while they claim Obama is vulnerable, so either they do not believe he’s vulnerable or for some unfathomable reason they are just not interested this year. The way things are going at the moment leads me to believe this year’s election is apt to be a repeat of the terrible Goldwater fiasco, or at least it should be. However flawed a candidate Obama may be he will surely standout against Mr. One Percent, the very epitome of what it is the American electorate is not going to want. But perhaps the Supreme Court will get their wishes fulfilled and corporations will, in fact, be able to buy the election however they choose. Obama might well be better for the middle class and the poor, Romney might be better for the 1%, but the actual difference between the two will be inconsequential, life at the top will continue on as usual, the rich will get richer, the poor, poorer, but perhaps just not as fast.

It is hard to believe that a man is telling the truth when you know that you would lie if you were in his place.

H. L. Mencken

SuperMitt

2012-02-01T22:30:00.000-08:00

It appears that SuperMitt from the Planet of Opulence has now arrived and will lead the Republican Party to heights of success never before attained by mortals. After hearing his speech upon winning in Florida it seems there is nothing Mitt will not be able to do. He will create jobs for all, do away with “Obamacare,” veto the Dream Act, replace America to its former dominance, force the rest of the world to acknowledge American superiority, increase the military, and blah, blah, blah. When he reached the point of leaping tall buildings at a single bound I stopped listening. Does he really believe all this nonsense? I rather doubt it. It just goes along with his willingness to say anything at all to get the nomination. If, strangely, he does believe what he is saying, he will certainly get a rude comeuppance if he ever does get elected to the Presidency. His claims are so outrageously impossible he will make Obama look like the most honest candidate ever.

Romney, in my opinion, suffers from the most appalling ignorance. He’s not a stupid man, and he was a successful businessman, he just is ignorant of what American life is like for anyone other than the unusually wealthy. This might not be quite so bad if he would not pretend otherwise, if he would stop pretending to be someone he is demonstrably not. This can be seen repeatedly in his various statements having to do with our current problems, statements that are so out of touch with reality they display his ignorance. For example, his claim at one point that he, too, is unemployed. Also in his statement that the $375,000 he received in speaking fees in one year was “not much.” Then his infamous claim that corporations are people, he once feared getting pink slips, he likes firing people, and he is familiar with “the streets.” He obviously tries very hard to be “one of us,” a “regular guy,” but is so obviously not it is actually painful to hear. There are also his famous remarks about letting Detroit go bankrupt, letting the foreclosures go forward until the end, and so on. He seems to have no idea of how anyone lives, or even how the country operates, independent of his beliefs about naked capitalism and cutthroat business. He thinks because he was a private capitalist, a successful businessman, he is eminently qualified to run the United States. I suspect the contrary is true, a nation is not a business, is not subject to the same rules, does not exist merely to make a profit, cannot always have a balanced budget, and cannot treat its citizens and public lands as merely commodities. It is true that Romney was also a Governor, but State Governments have very different budgetary systems than the Federal Government, especially when it comes to balanced budgets.

The latest indication of his ignorance came just now when he announced that he was not concerned about the poor, because they have a safety net, and he was not concerned with the wealthy, because they are doing just fine, but, rather, was concerned about the middle class. Aside from the fact that his claims are nothing but obvious lies, as he is proposing things that would take away the safety net (which isn’t much to begin with), and wants to decrease taxes on the already filthy wealthy, I doubt he is even much aware of the middle class and their problems. I think he has heard Obama and others speak about the middle class and that something needs to be done for them, so has concluded that would be a good thing to mention. He is no more concerned with the middle class than he is with the poor, and he is certainly concerned about the wealthy. In any case, Romney changes his positions whenever he feels it is advantageous to do so and, like all Republicans, cannot be trusted.

Grover Norquist, that paragon of treasonous fiscal insanity, has now claimed that if Obama does not allow the ridiculous Bush tax breaks for the wealthy to continue he will be impeached. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he may be saying this merely as an idle threat that he knows has no substance. Certainly it would be the first time in history a President was impeached for disagreeing with a private subject or members of Congress. It appears to me the Republicans are becoming more and more desperate and are now willing to go even further in their disrespect for the President. There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that racism is playing a very important part in our politics at the moment. Obama, objectively viewed, has done nothing to bring on the hatred Republicans are now feeling towards him. He has in many ways been a successful first term President, has a string of positive accomplishments, is not even remotely any of the things he is accused of being: socialist, communist, Kenyan, non citizen, weak, incompetent, or whatever. If a White President had accomplished exactly what Obama has do you think he would be so hated? Of course not, but Obama is Black and making a mockery of everything they believe about Black people, and as such is a prime target for their racial hatred.

The hatred you're carrying is a live coal in your heart - far more damaging to yourself than to them.

Lawana Blackwell

Fascism!

2012-01-30T22:30:00.000-08:00

Bubblehead: Of course you are right as usual. It is comforting to know that Big Brother is still around correcting my excesses and mistakes. I am not being sarcastic.

Fascism, according to Mussolini, one of its greatest proponents, is a marriage of government and corporations. According to other definitions there is a strong dictatorial leader and the state takes precedence over the individual. Since our (criminal) Supreme Court, throwing all precedent and pretences away, proclaimed that corporations were persons and could substitute money for speech, a decision rivaled in idiocy only by the famous Dred Scott decision of l857, we are now well on our way to a full-blown Fascist nation.

It is true we do not as yet have a fully established dictatorship, but it is clear that more and more power has been taken over by the Executive Branch, even to the point of taking us to war without the consent of Congress and even worse, the power to arrest and detain individual citizens indefinitely at the whim of the President. In our evolving Fascism the dictator will be chosen by corporations in collusion with each other and will serve as their representative. While we still pretend to have a democratic system whereby the President is elected by the people, the people are only allowed to vote for one of the two candidates chosen by the corporations. As both political parties are part of this same procedure the differences between them have gradually disappeared and does not matter very much.

This new fascist arrangement is working as planned. Those most in control have obviously decided that Willard Mitt Romney is going to be the Republican candidate to run against President Obama. Exercising their right to spend as much money as possible they have outspent Gingrich in South Carolina and now Florida by as much as four or five to one, denying him the nomination. Romney has received more money for his campaign from the powerful banks that all of the rest of the candidates combined, and Obama is not without their support as well. What we are witnessing is truly the buying of an election.

The issues that characterize the campaigns, whatever they are, are not truly issues that matter much. Corporations don’t care who marries who, who has an abortion, what religion is involved, or even what the unemployment rate is, provided it stays within reasonable limits so as not to impair their enormous profits, and high enough to guarantee the cheapest labor possible. Of course they are opposed to higher taxes (on themselves), Social Security, Medicare, and such because those are issues that bear directly on their potential profits in one way or another. They tolerate food stamps and other such poverty programs only because they have not yet figured out what else to do with the growing surplus populations.

Obviously I could be terribly wrong about this, perhaps they do in some sense feel some responsibility for the poor and the unemployed, maybe they would like ordinary citizens to have more to say about their lives, but this seems to me extremely unlikely. If they did feel that way would they fight anything that even faintly resembles socialism? Would they not be in favor of unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, health care for all, Social Security, food stamps, and other things that would make the lives of ordinary people more pleasant? Would they not recognize there is more to life than profit? They would, but they clearly don’t.

It takes only a moment of reflection to realize that our obscenely bloated and misnamed National Defense Budget is only marginally for national defense and far more importantly to generate unending profits for our Industrial/Military/Political Complex. Similarly, it is pretty obvious that our troops located in bases all around the world are not primarily for national defense, but rather, to protect international corporations that are exploiting resources wherever found, especially at the moment, oil, but many other kinds of businesses as well.

There was no doubt that the Bush/Cheney administration, along with Karl Rove, planned to create a one party nation that would endure forever, and it would have consolidated ultimate power in the Executive Branch of our government. This was to me a truly frightening proposition, but what I believe was even more frightening is that they basically would have used America’s superpower status to impose Fascism all over the world, hence the build-up of our military establishment, the addition of more and more private contractors, and the spreading of bases everywhere. They nearly succeeded in establishing Fascism here in the U.S., I fear the prospect still exists here, but it is doubtful that our once superpower status will ever exist again although some seem to think it still exists. They are going to have a rude awakening.

I will not allow yesterday's success to lull me into today's complacency, for this is the great foundation of failure.

Og Mandino

The Land of Naked People - book

2012-01-29T22:23:00.000-08:00

The Land of Naked People, Encounters with Stone Age Islanders, Madhusree Mukerjee (Houghton Mifflin Co., 2003)

This is one of the strangest books I have ever read. I picked it up recently in our wonderful local bookstore, thought it looked interesting, and have only now finished it. Just interpreting from the book itself it is difficult, if not virtually impossible, to know what kind of book it is. It might be merely a travel book written by an Indian woman who traveled to the Andaman Islands, and because of her father’s influence was allowed to travel more than the usual tourist. But it is more than that because it also deals with the history of the Andaman Islanders. However, it is not a history book either. It is certainly not an anthropological work, although it contains some ethnographic information and cites quite a number of anthropologists. There are occasional flowery prose passages here and there throughout the text but it is clearly not literature as we usually think of literature, nor is it a purely journalistic account as it includes far more detail and lacks the precision of a journalistic book. It is certainly not a scientific work. I am left to wonder what she had in mind other than writing a kind of travel/adventure book for a broad audience, certainly the unfortunately titillating title suggests this. In spite of all, I did find it quite interesting, if somewhat depressing, as it does relate how the Andaman Islanders and their culture have, like so many other such peoples, been debased and virtually destroyed by their contact with the “outside world.”

Similarly, from the book itself, you have no idea just who the author is or what her credentials are. The dust jacket merely reports she once served on the board of editors of the Scientific American and that she received a Guggenheim grant to write this book. She must have had a project in mind but you cannot tell what it was (other than perhaps taking a trip and writing a book). By dint of careful reading you also are informed that she once studied physics and had a thesis advisor (for what thesis you cannot know). She also reports having been taught to be a journalist. From Google I finally learned she is considered a scientific journalist and has more recently written a second book, Churchill’s Secret War: The British Empire and the Ravaging of Indian During World War II. I trust her experience with her first book will help focus her efforts on the latter.

The book itself is mostly an account of her travels in different areas of the Andaman Islands, the different tribal people she observed, and the incredible bureaucratic difficulties she experienced in trying to do what she wished. Some of the areas were/are off limits to visitors and it was only through the influence of her father that she managed as well as she did. When India became independent they also became responsible for the Andaman Islands, which by then had already been badly decimated, a condition that has continued under the Indian administration so there are now apparently only about 500 of the original inhabitants left. As in other areas of the world exploited shamelessly there are timber poachers and others illegally removing whatever of value they can find. The aboriginal population, one of the few groups of pygmies in the world, who once lived, literally, in a land of plenty, have been reduced to living off government handouts and are slowly dying out. There are a few, even now, the Jarawa, that have not been completely pacified, especially a small group on Northern Sentinel Island, but they, too, are doomed. The natives that were not shot or otherwise killed by the British and the Indians have succumbed to various diseases they did not previously have and of course their aboriginal culture has largely disappeared. Where they unashamedly went naked except for a few decorations and paint, proud of their fine bodies, strong and capable, so fierce ships did not want to stop there, accused (falsely) of being cannibals, they now dress mostly in rags and can no longer live as they previously did. It is much the same story that has repeated itself all around the world and, unfortunately, continues to the present day in some areas. If you have an interest in native people, the Andaman Islands, the deleterious effects of culture contact, and now even the possible effects of global warming, you will find this book of interest.

The Fall Guy

2012-01-27T22:26:00.000-08:00

It appears the latest Republican “Flavor of the Month,” Newt the Odious, is most probably going sour about as fast as I am typing this. I mean, really, when you are so despicable even members of your own party don’t want you as a candidate, you should gracefully withdraw. It is unlikely Newt will withdraw, of course, as he has his Sugar Daddy billionaire in Las Vegas supporting him. Sheldon Addelson and his wife have together so far donated 10 million to Newt’s campaign. This seems to me to be betting on a long shot, the possibility that if Newt could become President he will look out for Addelson’s financial problems and also move the Israeli capital from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (the worst possible thing that could happen in that troubled part of the world). Of course with a billion or more at your disposal betting on long shots is not really much of a risk.

Gingrich has had his moments of glory, three different times he has claimed he will be the Republican candidate, and has also now claimed that at the end of his second term (as President) we will have a permanent space station of the moon and, I guess, have claimed outer space for our own. If people have not figured out by now that Newt is nothing more than a bloated pontificating blowhard I think we should start to worry. Romney seems to have recaptured the polls in Florida and I suspect will win there. I cannot see how Gingrich can possibly resurrect himself once more even with the help of the Addelsons. Billionaires trying to buy elections are not too popular these days.

But Romney, unfortunately, is almost as flawed a candidate as Gingrich, although for different reasons. As a result of the attacks by the other candidates Romney has been damaged even more than he was to begin with. As a Mormon he has already forfeited probably 20% of the vote as Evangelicals will apparently not vote for him under any circumstances, believing Mormonism is a “cult.” But worse than that for Mr. Romney now, is the fact he has been identified as the personification of the 1%, this, at a time when inequality has become perhaps the single most important theme of the campaign. His handling of his taxes has certainly not helped him. What will prove to be even worse, however, is the fact that although he makes $57,000 a day he still wants more of a tax break for himself and his peers. Poor little rich boy, he just doesn’t get it.

All of this leads me to the conclusion that Romney will end up being the “Fall Guy” for the dismal performance of the Republican Party in the past few years, the sacrificial candidate allowing them to mark time for the 2016 election. There is talk of a brokered convention and another candidate such as Pawlenty, Christie, Daniels, or even Jeb Bush, but I cannot see this happening, and even if it did Obama would already have an almost insurmountable head start. Most everyone seems to think it will be a very close election with Obama winning by a slim margin. I’m not convinced. I suspect Romney will be the candidate and Obama will win by a substantial margin. This is because I cannot see a Republican getting the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Women’s vote, the elderly vote, the youth vote, the Evangelical vote, or the Muslim vote, leaving at best perhaps the Jewish vote and that of the extreme far rightists. This is what I think should happen, but I confess to being the worst predictor of Presidential elections ever. I think out of the last ten elections I can remember I probably have a batting average of no more than .200. If Newt the Odious should somehow pull off a victory in Florida I would like to say I’d eat my hat, but given my past failures that is too risky even for me.

When compared with Gingrich, Willard Mitt is as pure as the first snowfall of winter. He just happens to be the poster boy for the worst kind of capitalism the world has ever seen. He can’t help being rich, he was born that way, but being oblivious to the realities of life for the not rich, lacking empathy, seeing himself as merely an object of envy, and pretending to be someone he is not is unforgiveable. We have had many wealthy Presidents but none as divorced from reality as Romney would be. He is not only divorced from the 99%, he is also divorced from the rest of the world when it comes to foreign policy and the place of the United States in world affairs. I’m pretty sure we will bite the bullet once again and vote for our current President, as they say, “warts and all.” Think how great he might have been given even a tiny bit of cooperation from Republicans who, having stymied him repeatedly, now want to blame him for the mess they have created.

The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided.

Casey Stengel

Envy, Disgust, Outrage, Hatred

2012-01-25T22:27:00.000-08:00

Envy, one of the seven deadly sins, I guess Willard Mitt believes we are all sinners because we envy him his wealth. Somehow I think I can hear echoes of his parents telling him as a child, “If the other kids don’t like you it’s because they are just envious,” a belief that he seems to have internalized and carried forward into adulthood. I wonder if Mr. One Percent has any idea of the lives that most people live. Looking back on my own life, and the hundreds, probably thousands of other people I have known, I cannot think of a single example of anyone who aspired to be wealthy at the level Romney is wealthy. Most ordinary people aspire to become engineers, physicists, chemists, doctors, lawyers, nurses, teachers, firemen, policemen, historians, geologists, botanists, psychologists, sociologists, and whatever. Others, not fortunate enough to attend a University settle for becoming plumbers, electricians, clerks, and so on. Virtually no one I have ever known aspired to become multimillionaires or billionaires. It is possible this is because they knew that would never happen to them so they did not think about it in the first place, but in any case they tried to make the best of their lives doing something they thought possible for them and managed to live reasonably happy and productive lives. In my own case I can assure you I did not wish to become an anthropologist because I believed I would ever become wealthy. I don’t believe Romney has any appreciation of these facts of life. I also believe his candidacy for President is now dead. I do not see how the Republicans could possibly run a candidate labeled Mr. One Percent, who has now proven to be even more wealthy than that, at a moment in history when inequality has become the leading issue in the race.

I think his insistence that anyone who dares to bring up the subject of his wealth or inequality is merely envious is simply disgusting and betrays an enormous ignorance of life in the world of ordinary people. He, and the others in his tax bracket, unless perhaps they have actually personally earned their wealth through invention and hard work, simply live in another world entirely from ordinary people. They live in different neighborhoods, eat in different restaurants, live in more elegant housing, drive better automobiles, go to better schools, and for the most part do not fraternize with lesser souls or peasants. This is precisely why Romney comes across as totally inauthentic when he pretends to be someone he is not.

Having now been informed of the true size of his fortune and the fact that he apparently makes $57,000 a day, more than most people earn in a year, and does nothing to earn it other than possess a fortune, I am outraged. And if he believes he is entitled to accumulate so much money so easily I am even more outraged. The fact that he also is allowed to pay less in taxes than ordinary working people outrages me even more than that. Quite frankly, I believe that anyone who makes more than, say, a million or two a year should be taxed 100 per cent. And no one, under any circumstances, should be allowed to have a billion or more in personal wealth. I don’t know exactly what the limit should be, but once that generous limit is met they should be taxed at 100 per cent. If the limit is established high enough this would not hurt anyone and would greatly benefit everyone. I do not believe anyone should be allowed to make millions year after year simply because they inherited or otherwise accumulated large fortunes which then have no further purpose other than allowing them to make even more money by doing nothing. Let them have plenty to live the high life up to a reasonable extent but no more.

I am not personally much of a hater. I have trouble staying mad at anyone for more than five minutes no matter how they might have offended me. But I can easily understand how envy (if it exists as Romney thinks it does), disgust, and outrage can lead eventually into outright hatred. When a few have so much, and so many have so little, and there is such an enormous disparity, it is not difficult to see potential trouble ahead. This situation can be made much worse when those who have so much resist even giving up a little. Some of them, like Warren Buffet seem to understand this and are willing to at least consider parity in their percentage of taxes. But even here we are talking about a mere five to ten percent increase in the taxes of the absolutely incredibly wealthy. I find this absurd, outrageous, and hateful. A person with billions of dollars could easily pay hundreds of millions in taxes and still not even notice the difference, a five or ten percent increase is little more than a tip for the shoeshine boy. I find it incredible that the American public accepts what is happening with our tax code, and now that it is becoming more public I doubt they will for much longer. In the case of people like Romney this is not a case of rewarding the successful, it is simply rewarding the accident of birth. If for some reason you have money you can easily make more money. If you are poor you are doomed to stay that way. The situation is getting worse. It is not as things should be.

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth.

Rex Stout

Will It Fly?

2012-01-24T22:23:00.000-08:00

The “It” here being perhaps one of the greatest political hoaxes of all time, the question of jobs and the creation and responsibility for them. Republicans, especially Boehner, Cantor, and others keep asking where are the jobs, inferring that President Obama has failed to provide them. Thus they hope to make people believe that Obama is at fault when it comes to jobs. However, the Republicans have advanced no bills to create jobs and have, in fact, opposed every attempt Obama has made to create jobs. This is somewhat analogous to the situation when children kill their parents and then plead forgiveness on the grounds of being orphans. I have no doubt whatsoever that this has been the Republican plan all along, keep Obama from creating jobs or moving the country forward in any way and then blame it on him. As the Democrats rarely if ever seem to counter this with the truth it appears the Republicans may well pull it off, one of the greatest con jobs in political history that might actually fly.

Yes, I watched the State of the Union speech. There was nothing new. President Obama held forth with all kinds of ideas to move the country forward, reduce the debt, create jobs, and preserve our freedoms and so forth. Ever the optimist, he still clings to the idea that Republicans are eventually going to cooperate with him. I think he may be constitutionally unable to understand that any Americans, Republicans or not, would knowingly resist doing the right things by the country. He underestimates their hatred for him and refuses to believe they would sink the Republic rather than see him succeed. What Obama says is basically true, if we all come together there is nothing we can’t accomplish, but we are not going to come together to accomplish anything as long as Mitch McConnell’s single goal is to bring down Obama. Of course the President cannot moan and groan and talk doom and gloom, he has to paint a positive picture no matter what.

If anyone thought otherwise about bipartisanship, Mitch Daniels in his rebuttal speech made it quite clear there is simply no agreement on the part of Republicans for anything Obama suggested. Daniels predictably concentrated on the deficit with the usual doomsday scenario of national bankruptcy. He also spent time talking about jobs, implying that Republicans were going to create jobs, but as they have shown no interest in doing such a thing, it was, I thought, quite a stretch. It was mostly the usual Republican nonsense about too many regulations, too much government, too many taxes, and blah, blah, blah. Some people seem to think he was chosen to give the rebuttal as a kind of tryout for the Presidency. You may recall that he once talked of running but then did not do so. I believe there is a plan on the part of the remaining adults in the Republican Party to somehow install him as the Republican candidate at the last minute. It is obvious that Romney is fading badly and the only alternative to him is Newt Gingrich whom they despise (along with most everyone else in the United States). Santorum and Paul are not considered viable, the former because he is too radical mostly on a single issue, the latter because he is regarded as a “nut case.” Daniels did a credible job with his rebuttal but it was simply the usual Republican line, lower taxes, fewer regulations, smaller government. Republicans don’t seem to get the idea that we’ve tried that and it didn’t work, won’t work, and they should try to come up with a more sensible plan (I don’t think they can as they have now memorized this plan and play it over and over like a broken record).

I can’t really decide what I think Republicans are trying to do. It makes sense to me that they would not be at all happy with either Romney or Gingrich. This means the more responsible Republicans (if there still are any) might well want to put their foot down at the last minute and insist on another candidate, such as Daniels, Christie, or even Jeb Bush. But it is also the case they may believe they cannot beat Obama this year. That may well be the reason they do not already have a better candidate. In this case they might well just allow either Romney or Gingrich to sacrifice themselves for no purpose and wait until 2016. But that risks the possibility of disgracing the party at least in the near future. Of course the past few months of their circus has already done that so perhaps it doesn’t matter.

I cannot fathom why Republicans decided to have so many “debates.” As far as I can see all this has done is emphasize their appalling ignorance and their absurd proposals for running the country over and over again. Now they have degenerated into a personal battle between Romney and Gingrich that can only have the effect of damaging either one or them as a national candidate. You have to give them credit for having lots of money, too bad there is no correlation between money and brains.

I came from a disadvantaged home. They were Republicans.

Paul Tsongas

First Contact - book

2012-01-22T22:26:00.000-08:00

First Contact New Guinea’s Highlanders Encounter the Outside World, Bob Connolly and Robin Anderson (Penguin Books, 1987)

When I first acquired this book in 1987 I was working on a project so that I only read the first few chapters that had to do with that specific topic. I have only just now returned to it and found it even more fascinating than before. It is quite an unusual book in several ways.

Although Europeans and others had been in New Guinea from quite an early time, Germans, English, Dutch, Indonesians, and probably others, it was commonly believed until 1930 that the rugged mountain interior was uninhabited. In 1930 an Australian prospector, Michael Leahy, led a party into the Easternmost part of the Highlands and found, much to everyone’s surprise, that not only was there a series of fertile valleys, they were heavily populated, nearly a million people gardening and living where there were supposed to be none. Although Leahy was a prospector and lusted for gold, he also regarded himself as an explorer. He took thousands of photographs of the first contact with the various Highland peoples he encountered, and he also kept detailed diaries of his movements and experiences, thus providing a wealth of information about the incredible adventure of first contact with, as it was reported, “People living in the Stone Age,” and sometimes “The Land that Time Forgot.” The Highlanders were using stone axes and stone, bone, and wooden tools, but they were not truly living in the stone age; had they been they would have been able to protect themselves more adequately against the steel weapons, guns and axes, they suddenly encountered. What is all the more fascinating is that the authors were able to locate and interview many of the Highlanders who had experienced these shocking first encounters, providing a unique perspective virtually unprecedented in such histories, as well as incredible interpretations of just who these White people were, where they must have come from, and why they were there.

Although they were shamelessly exploited in many ways for years (and even now in some ways), they were extremely fortunate to have escaped the real horrors of colonialism that had occurred so widely in the rest of the world. By the 1930’s Australia was mandated to care for them and try to help them eventually become more “civilized.” This did not prevent them from exploiting their cheap labor, indenturing them for work on the coastal plantations and other areas. Although there was talk of maintaining the Highlands, with the fertile soil and marvelous climate as another Kenya, to be reserved for Whites, this movement was quickly stopped after only a relatively small amount of land had been alienated for coffee plantations. As Australia itself had a small population to develop their continent they were slow in providing aid to the New Guineans, but eventually government schools were constructed (there had been a few mission schools that mostly sought to make converts), some of the Highlanders began to learn trades and read and write, and finally in 1975 New Guinea achieved independence (although they were not really ready for it).

First Contact, in addition to being such an unusual account of an incredible discovery, follows Michael Leahy, his brothers, and others as they moved across the high valleys in search of gold, which they found, but not in the large quantities they had dreamed about. As you might surmise, they did not always find peaceful natives and they were sometimes forced to resort to killing. In his diaries Leahy confesses to some 31 or more, but it is obvious there were many more (one estimate put the number of native deaths before pacification at probably one thousand). All of these killings were technically against the law, but as there was only one Patrol Officer for the entire area, he supported Leahy on the grounds of self-defense. And although the administration attempted to keep prospectors and others from entering the as yet unpacified highlands, the lure of gold was too strong and the government was too weak to prevent them from doing so.

The Highlanders certainly benefitted from their late discovery by Europeans, but the tale is still one of the typical colonial pattern, the natives regarded as totally inferior, the arrogance of Europeans who felt no qualms whatsoever about invading their territory and removing their gold and, basically whatever else they wanted, having casual sexual relations with their women when it pleased them to do so. Although Michael Leahy took thousands of photographs of their rituals, and hired hundreds of native workers, he had no interest in their culture or beliefs, and always maintained the proper distance between “mastas” and “boys.” His brother Dan eventually settled in the Highlands, had two native wives and several children, but Michael, true to the colonial spirit to the end, opposed their independence and refused even to acknowledge the half caste sons he had fathered, even when face to face with them, afraid of what his Australian wife and others might think of him.

The book is about a dynamic personality (who was a true man of his time), a fantastic discovery, a marvelous adventure, one of the last examples of (a rather benign) colonialism, and the discovery by isolated, ignorant, but intelligent people, of the outside world. It is well worth reading.

The Circus Continues

2012-01-21T22:25:00.000-08:00

Newton Leroy Gingrich, one of the greatest entertainers since W. C. Fields, has won the South Carolina primary. That is quite an accomplishment for an ethically disgraced ex-Speaker of the House, serial adulterer, master hypocrite, consummate liar, loudmouthed pontificator, and all-around phony, that makes other politicians look like honest practicing Christians. Not only did he win and defeat the Romney that few people want as candidate, and have desperately been trying to avoid for months, by looking for someone, even anyone else, he apparently did so by a fairly large margin. But, after all, we are speaking of South Carolina.

The only reason I can offer for even watching this ring of the three ring circus is that I was bored and had nothing else to do. I particularly enjoyed what appeared to be Romney’s victory speech, even though he had just lost when he had been predicted to win. During his performance I searched carefully for a single honest statement but could not find one. Romney either actually believes the utter garbage that emanates from his mouth or is the world’s greatest prevaricator. Reduced to its fundamentals, he told us we were all on our own, sink or swim, live or die, succeed or fail, and never mind any problems. It was as if he lives in an entirely different world from most of us, which, I guess, he does. He didn’t mention jobs, poverty, Social Security, Medicare, or even Obamacare, as he extolled the virtues of the free market and the American empire. He obviously lives in a gated community of the mind.

Romney’s ode to capitalism was followed by Ron Paul’s overly long tirade against government, foreign aid, printing money, welfare, the importance of “liberty,” the tyranny of regulations, and the necessity to return to the Constitution. The longer he spoke the more apparent it became to me that he does not realize we are now living in the 21st century. He did not deplore the rise of civil rights, nor did he mention how fast Black teenagers could run after robbing someone, his previous racist newsletters, or his anti-abortion views (you know, the ones where the government tells you what you can do with your life and your body). He promotes the same kind of simple minded Social Darwinism of Romney and that characterizes the Republicans idea of non-government. Somehow they don’t seem to grasp the idea that you cannot manage a national population of billions without a government (or even, I guess, that you should).

I confess I was so exhausted from cheering these two extraordinary speeches that by the time Santorum spoke my eyes had crossed, my attention span was overtaxed, my patience was exhausted, my wits were scrambled. I felt I was trapped in never-never land. I have no idea what Santorum said but I’m sure whatever it was it was more Republican nonsense. He did say, I recall, that he would continue on, against all odds, logic, purpose, and use. I think he has nothing else to do. Republicans, I gather, are supposed to have another one of their “debates” on Monday night. I truly regret I will not be able to watch it. My wife does not allow me to watch them when she is not here to supervise and she teaches on Monday nights (she is concerned over my health, especially my heart, during these spirited Republican discussions).

And so, as we continue on towards the Republican promised land, shrouded in mist and mystery, that land at the edge of the earth where their Great Guru Saint Ronnie now resides, I am comforted to know that, god-willing, we will soon be in the good hands of somebody-or-other who will do something-or-other to save us from the Black villain who has stolen our country and is desperate to prevent us from raping and pillaging it even further than we already have, shutting down our profits and even trying to make us pay taxes. Lordy, Lordy, these Black folk don’t understand how things are supposed to work in the “civilized” world. Whatever happened to those wonderful days when they was singin’ happily in the cotton fields, eatin’ watermelon and fried chicken, and the sun was predictably revolving around the earth? Not to worry, the good ol’ times will return once we get a Republican in the White House, just ask ‘em.

The object of government in peace and in war is not the glory of rulers or of races, but the happiness of the common man.

Lord William Beveridge

Tidbits

2012-01-20T22:24:00.000-08:00

I was crushed, absolutely crushed, to learn the other night that I will never be able to vote for Jennifer Granholm for President, as having been born in Canada she is a foreigner. Granholm, the ex Governor of Michigan, would be a terrific candidate for virtually any important office, she is about to become a television host on the rapidly improving Current Television channel. There is an organization (I forget what it is called) dedicated to seeing many more women elected to office. I’m all for it as the traditional male dominated Congress has proven itself to be so absolutely hopeless. I could vote for Hillary for President if she weren’t such a hawk. But most of all I’d like to see a contest between the Democratic women and Republican women. Give me Hillary, Granholm, Pelosi, Maddow, Wasserman-Schultz, and Melissa Harris-Perry and I would challenge any fifty, nay, even hundred, of the blond bimbos from Fox News and the Republican Party. I know there are other strong Democratic women but with just these six it would be no contest. I’d even give them Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Sharron Angle, Michelle Malkin, Christine O’Donnell, and Ann Coulter and a fifteen minute headstart.

It appears that President Obama may be able to sing as well as play basketball, but I have to say his musical talent pales into insignificance when compared to Vladimir Putin’s rendition of Blueberry Hill, one of the most marvelous performances I have been privileged to see. But not to worry, Obama’s smile itself is probably worth a couple of million votes.

I am suggesting Newton Leroy Gingrich for an Academy Award for the best dramatic performance of 2012. His response to John King’s question about his infidelity was marvelous, if not the phoniest claim to being victimized ever. I did think that King’s question, coming as it did at the very beginning of the debate, was ill-timed, but Gingrich’s response was a masterpiece of false outrage over a question he must have known would come up. Ah, the truth hurts.

Willard Mitt may well lose in South Carolina and if so it will clearly be deserved. He is so transparently phony it shines through everything he says and does. Pretending to be an ordinary Middle Class guy when you are so obviously not is just not going to cut it, and hiding your millions in the Cayman Islands will certainly not help. It’s true, he is so inauthentic, and apparently so unaware of it, he is doomed even if he does somehow get the nomination. He probably will, given that his main opposition is ex-Speaker Foghorn with delusions of grandeur.

I admire Steven Colbert for his expose of the absolute imbecility that is corporate personhood, but I wonder if it will make any difference when it comes to getting the ridiculous Supreme Court decision overturned. Some say a Constitutional Amendment is not even necessary as there are other avenues that would be easier and quicker. Let’s hope so.

I cannot help but wonder what the Republican Party will offer Ron Paul to not run as a third party candidate. If he does it will surely spell the end of any Republican chance to defeat President Obama. But what could they possibly offer Paul, short of the keys to the asylum? I fear there is no place for Pa Kettle in the 21st century.

Santorum, ah Santorum, perhaps he can withdraw gracefully from the race, pleading to need more time to design a tasteful, colorful, and relatively inexpensive burkha for American women, one that will make contraception unnecessary as desire can be minimized and the rhythm method abolished.

I truly wonder how much farther the Republicans can sink into the miasma of ignorance, greed, and surreality that surrounds them and drags them closer and closer to oblivion. To think they were once a legitimate political party that participated in governing. Pity.

It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry.

H. L. Mencken

The Four Worsemen of the Abomination

2012-01-19T22:20:00.000-08:00

It is hardly possible to believe that the Republican Party could have ended up with four worse candidates for the Republican nomination after the abomination that has been their ongoing selection process.

Let me begin with Willard Mitt Romney, a Mormon who lies about something virtually every time he opens his mouth. Leave aside for the moment whether or not he belongs to a religious cult, I can’t imagine Mormonism is much more absurd than any other of our religious traditions, what with angels and demons, virgin births, swallowing whales, walking on water, speaking in tongues, handling snakes, visions of eternal damnation, fish on Friday, born again, and whatever. No, the real problem with Romney is that having been born into wealth and being enormously wealthy he is completely unable to relate to ordinary people no matter how hard he tries. He is so out of touch he is apparently unaware he is completely out of touch, telling us he is unemployed, corporations are persons, he has worried about being pink slipped, and changing his position on any topic mentioned according to the moment, a man with the courage of no convictions whatsoever, other than wanting to become President. He is a caricature, a cardboard figure, emotionless, apparently lacking even the basic human trait of empathy. As the classic flip-flopper he has already flip-flopped himself out of the Presidency even if he does get the nomination.

Of course Romney is a veritable Saint when compared to Newt Gingrich, quite possibly the greatest phony ever to become a serious candidate for the Presidency, a con man extraordinary who has managed to convince others he is an intellectual, an idea man, a conservative, and a repentant sinner, now a (professed) Catholic, having tried at least two previous religions. Gingrich is a thrice married, twice divorced fellow who has given speeches on family values on more than one occasion, even once the day following asking his then wife for a divorce. He also must have had polygamous desires as he reportedly asked his wife for an open marriage (that is, to allow him to carry on an affair with another women while married to her), perhaps a more noble procedure than his previous adulterous behavior. Newt also holds the record for blatant hypocrisy for criticizing President Clinton for having an affair while he himself was doing precisely the same thing at precisely the same time. The fact of the matter is, Gingrich is a loudmouthed, boastful, hypocritical blowhard who will immediately pontificate on any subject that arises with all the authority of a snake oil salesman who has studied under W. C. Fields.

Then there is the sex-obsessed Richard John “Rick” Santorum, obsessively anti-gay, anti-abortion, and even anti-contraception, because this latter encourages people to do things they should not do (like have sex at all, I guess, unless for procreation). He apparently is convinced that homosexuality is the gateway to beastiality, incest, and polygamy. Santorum also has tried to get Intelligent Design taught in classrooms, claiming it is a legitimate scientific theory worthy of the same status as the theory of evolution. He is an unabashed hawk on foreign policy, believing we should not even consider negotiating with “radical Islam,” as it would be a waste of time. He is an implacable enemy of Iran and seems to have first introduced the term “Islamic Fascism,” is a big fan of the war on terror, apparently thinks we should stay in Iraq and Afghanistan forever, and has also suggested that John McCain does not understand “enhanced interrogation.” As near as I can tell Mr. Santorum knows virtually nothing about human sexuality or Islam, positions from which he believes he can speak with authority on both issues. If by some strange aberration of human behavior he were to become President I think he would probably legislate the Missionary position for sex, sex only on days when there is a cold wind from the north, invalidate all same sex marriages, undo DADT, install cameras in every bedroom, and promote public stocks for suspected offenders.

The fourth of the Worsemen is often neglected as no one believes he will ever become President. A kindly 76 year-old doctor who has delivered 2000 babies, he, too is opposed to abortion, is basically opposed to civil rights, published for years newsletters containing inflammatory racial remarks (that he claims he didn’t either write or read), and would like to have us return to the gold standard. He thinks people who cannot afford health insurance should be allowed to die because it is because of their own negligence. As a Libertarian he is opposed to government, would do away completely with most governmental organizations, and would, I guess, have us return to the Frontier days of the 18th century. His only positive virtue that I can see is that he is virulently anti-war, anti-empire, anti-nation building, and even anti-Israel (at least when it comes to giving them money year after year). If Gingrich is a reincarnation of W.C. Fields, Paul is a reincarnation of Pa Kettle (Percy Kilbride).

So you see, Republicans do offer us a choice, four of the worst candidates ever promoted as possible Presidential hopefuls. They are all anti-abortion, want to privatize Social Security, do away with Medicare as we know it, deregulate everything possible, increase tax breaks for the wealthy, and abolish unions. Whichever one of these completely unworthy candidates wins the nomination look for them to suddenly become a White Knight on a White Horse, saving us from the democratic (black) barbarian that has the audacity to actually try to govern rather than merely steal. However bad President Obama may be, even on his worst days he towers over all of these pretenders like a skyscraper over a cottage, a luxury liner over a dinghy, an elephant over a mouse, a dog over a flea. Take your choice as usual in the coming election, bad or badder.

Nations have recently been led to borrow billions for war; no nation has ever borrowed largely for education. Probably, no nation is rich enough to pay for both war and civilization. We must make our choice; we cannot have both.

Abraham Flexner

BLACKOUT

2012-01-18T21:43:00.000-08:00

BLACKOUT

NO PIPA!

NO SOPA!

NO CENSORSHIP!

How, Indeed?

2012-01-17T22:29:00.000-08:00

Jon Huntsman dropped out of the Republican circus, otherwise known as the quest to find the Republican candidate for President. He also announced he would support Willard Mitt Romney, thus prompting many to ask, how can he do that after having been attacking Romney for the last few months, saying Romney was a flip-flopper who would not be electable and so on. That is, after bashing Romney rather seriously he suddenly turns around and supports him, seemingly hypocrisy in motion. I suggest there is a perfectly good reason for this - no one pays any attention to such strange reversals because no one believes anything politicians say in the first place. When Huntsman was knocking Romney everyone knew he was basically lying, and now that he supports him it just doesn’t matter. It just doesn’t matter what he says about anything because to the public it is just more noise. How can this be?

I think it is because the American public no longer even expects anyone to tell the truth about anything. Any American alive today has been exposed all of their life to advertising of one form or another, in print, radio, and television. After years of saturation with lies about products no one, with the possible exception of some mentally handicapped individuals, believes there is any truth in advertising. Similarly, over the years the advertising industry has grown and gotten worse than ever. Politics enjoys the same reputation for truth telling. No one believes politicians tell the truth, they know they will make all kinds of promises to get elected with little or no expectation their promises will ever materialize after they are elected. This is not a secret, it is a standard belief on the part of the public. Politicians and used car salesman occupy the same rung on the believability scale. And, as in the case of advertising, this practice of standardized lying in politics has become increasingly worse over time, the level of dishonesty culminating, I believe, during the Bush/Cheney administration. You would be hard pressed indeed to find a single honest statement by anyone during the nightmare years of Bush/Cheney, especially either one of them. Any semblance of truth has also disappeared from our MSM, and in particular, Fox “News.” It has been well established by now that those citizens who know the least about anything are the very same ones that get their “news” from Fox. In fact, it is no longer even a secret that Fox is simply the propaganda arm of the Republican Party. The other major networks have become little more than stenographers, simply repeating the lies they are fed by politicians.

This unfortunate situation is compounded by the fact that the majority of voters don’t really pay attention to begin with, and those that do pay attention know they are not being told the truth, and in either case their attention span is so short they cannot remember what they heard. Thus it is the entire political process has been reduced to just extraneous noise, endless noise, noise that has no other meaning. Candidates can and do say anything they want with no fear it will eventually make any difference, or that they will even be challenged about their lies no matter how obvious and egregious they are. How else, for example, can you explain that Willard Mitt, who has been on two or three sides of every conceivable issue, is now the frontrunner and almost surely the Republican candidate of choice? People are certainly aware of his monumental flip-flopping, they just don’t care, because what he says does not really matter. If he fails to become President it will not be because of his different positions on the same issues, it will be because he doesn’t pay enough in taxes, is too wooden and unreal as a person, doesn’t drink beer, belongs to a cult, or has too perfect hair. People know that flip-flopping is just a matter of telling lies when required to do so by the demands of the moment.

Thanks mainly to our recent experience with Bush/Cheney, truth is no longer something that is considered relevant to politics and is certainly not expected. No one expects to hear the truth, and in the rare instances when someone attempts to tell it, they are ostracized and often lose their jobs. People can no longer even distinguish truth from fiction, they neither believe what they hear or necessarily disbelieve it. They hear it as noise and decide who to vote for on the basis of who makes the most soothing sounds or appears to be the most like themselves. Ironically, probably the one person who is the most constrained from telling the truth is the President. If he told the truth no one would believe it, and he, too, would be ostracized by the Congress, and denied the cooperation he needs to accomplish anything. Truth has disappeared from politics, and it has virtually disappeared from American culture in general. At the rate it is disappearing it may eventually disappear even as a concept, becoming merely an historic curiosity.

The public will believe anything, so long as it is not founded on truth.

Edith Sitwell

Seize the Moment

2012-01-16T22:20:00.000-08:00

I believe President Obama has a rare opportunity to “seize the moment” and take his place in history as one of the greatest United States Presidents ever. It might well cost him his Presidency, but that would be a small price to pay for the undying fame and gratitude he would reap for furthering the cause of peace in the Middle East.

There is no doubt Obama is under enormous pressure from the Israelis and our well-known neocon hawks to foolishly either attack Iran militarily or at least aid the Israelis in doing so. If this were to happen it would be a terrible disaster that would quite likely tear the Middle East apart, result in hundreds of thousands of more deaths, untold misery for millions, the waste of trillions of more dollars, and would no doubt be an even more stupid and illegal “war” than the one Bush lied us into in Iraq. It seems to me the stage is being set once again for just such an attack, relations between the U.S. and Iran are deteriorating by the day, what with threats to bomb their nuclear facilities, their threats to close the Straits of Hormuz, execute an American spy, and so on. And of course we have been fed nothing but lies for years about how Iran is a threat to Israel, the U.S., and indeed, the world, all nonsense of course. Most of this propaganda revolves around the belief, or assertion, that Iran is attempting to build a nuclear bomb, even if there is no concrete evidence they are, they deny it, and have every legal right to produce nuclear fuel for their reactors. Of course no one actually believes a nuclear bomb is really the problem, even the Israelis know that if Iran had a bomb they would no more use it than anyone else would. The threat is not from Iran’s nuclear ambitions, no matter what they might be, the threat is to European and U.S. hegemony in the Middle East, a situation that would be altered if Iran were to be allowed parity with other nations, especially Israel and the U.S.

President Obama, much to his credit, as near as I can tell from whatever news one can scrape together these days, has so far resisted Israeli demands that he attack Iran or help Israel do so. The Israelis threaten to attack on their own, something I doubt they would actually do, but the threat itself creates a terrible situation, as if they did attack the assumption would certainly be the U.S. would be inevitably dragged into it in spite of any reservations to the contrary. Israeli interests are not linked to those of the U.S., in spite of what they would like you to believe.

Obama could gain everlasting fame and the respect of virtually the entire world if at this moment in time he continues to refuse Hawkish and Israeli demands, and would make it absolutely clear that under no circumstances will the U.S. support an attack or a war with Iran, and, rather than rejecting Iranian attempts at diplomacy as we have repeatedly done in the past, would engage directly in diplomacy with them, recognizing they have legitimate national interests in their own neighborhood and that we do also, interests than must be solved diplomatically rather than militarily. This would not only curb Israel (a greedy, racist nation that needs desperately to be curbed), but would also dramatically change the situation in the Middle East by demonstrating our willingness to give up the use of force in the region to force our will upon all nations that do not happen to share our interests. It would signal an end to the American “empire,” allow us to escape the rogue state reputation we now share with Israel, and once again take up a position of respect in world affairs. Not only that, it would return us to fiscal responsibility, allow us to pay down the horrendous national debt, and save the lives of thousands, maybe even millions of innocent people. Finally, and more importantly, it would signal at last the final dying gasp of Western-European colonialism.

Of course the hawks would be outraged (the military/industrial/political complex panics at the thought someone might take away their candy), the Evangelicals waiting for Armageddon would no doubt flagellate themselves and go through various fits of religious hysteria at the threat of any delay in their mythical event. The Republicans would cry out: Muslim, traitor, coward, socialist, communist, fascist, Kenyan, stranger from outer space, and whatever else they could think of (they could no longer fatten their purses on the deaths of the innocent), but the deed would be done, something that should have rightfully been done long ago, and virtually the entire world would rejoice.

Do I believe something like this will happen? No, not really. But I believe it could and should happen, would be a resounding success, and would dramatically change international relations for the better forever.

But the greatest menace to our civilization today is the conflict between giant organized systems of self-righteousness-each system only too delighted to find that the other is wicked-each only too glad that the sins give it the pretext for still deeper hatred and animosity.

Herbert Butterfield

Balzac's Omelette - book

2012-01-15T22:38:00.001-08:00

Balzac’s Omellete, Anka Muhlstein (translated from the French by Adriana Hunter, Other Press, N.Y., 2010)

If you ignore the title of this book (which you might as well do as it has very little to do with omelletes) and consider only the content, you might imagine this was a PhD dissertation in French literature entitled something like “Balzac’s Use of Food in the Writing of La Comedie Humaine,” or perhaps, “Balzac’s Dietary Habits While Writing,” or maybe even “The First Restaurants of Paris in Historical Perspective,” thesis topics of interest primarily or only to Balzac aficionados, lovers of Paris, or “foodies.” In fact under the somewhat odd title, Balzac’s Omellete, Anka Muhlsteing has tied these topics together and written a delightful and informative book about them all.

Balzac did have strange eating habits; while writing feverishly, sometimes for fourteen hours straight, and sometimes for days at a time, he subsisted mainly on strong coffee (lots of it) and fruit. He was, of course, an unusually prolific author, but even so he seemed to stay only one step away from bankruptcy throughout his life. Upon completion of a manuscript he would send it to his publisher, go out and order prodigious amounts of food, sometimes beginning his meal with dozens of oysters, and then send the bill to his publisher. Strangely, even while in jail in Paris, Balzac could and did order enormous feasts that he would enjoy with friends while in custody (this was apparently a common practice at the time).

Balzac was also the first novelist to use food as an important prop in his writing, inspiring Flaubert, Zola, Maupassant and Proust to do likewise, although none of them used food as importantly as Balzac himself. To appreciate this you would have to read Balzac again (if you have previously read him), but happily Muhlstein gives example after example if you do not wish to return yourself to The Human Comedy.

When we nowadays think of Paris, or France, we usually think of fine restaurants and marvelous cuisine. It was not always so. In fact, until the late 18th century there were no restaurants (funny, I never thought of a time when there were no restaurants). Wealthy people ate well enough, but always at home, poor people ate not so well, but also at home. Travelers, without introductions to particular people, were at the mercy of whatever they could find, usually an inn of some kind where they could purchase the right to sit and eat at a communal table, to eat whatever unpalatable food was available. The first real restaurant with individual tables emerged in about 1780. It served poached poultry with sea salt, fresh eggs, and a rich stock. Before 1789 there were only four or five restaurants in Paris. Fairly quickly restaurants became more common and dining out in style, or putting on lavish catered feasts became the rage.

Interestingly enough, the gourmet dishes we now think of as the best of French cooking, were not terribly important at first, entertaining was primarily a social event featuring a huge abundance of food, and even more important, the ostentatious presentation of the food and drink. People who wanted to advance in society would often spend fortunes on one of these events, the eating and drinking would sometimes go on for hours, the guests would often become drunk on large quantities of different wines, including sometimes hundreds of bottle of champagne, and the party would resemble a riot. The ostentation was so pronounced and commonplace there were dealers who specialized in buying the leftovers. The great French food that we now treasure actually began in the provinces rather than in Paris itself. Eating there was more of a family affair, did not have the same social climbing implications, and the food was taken more seriously for itself. Of course this ultimately resulted in the famous French cuisine we find in Paris as well now in all the rest of France and all over the world.

I gave this book to my wife at Christmas as she is a truly wonderful cook with a consuming interest in food. I had not intended to read it and did so only “because it was there,” and I had nothing else to read at the time. I must confess I found it truly enjoyable, informative, and worthwhile. If you have any interest in Balzac, Paris, or food, you will also.

How Many Angels...

2012-01-14T22:33:00.000-08:00

There is a new book out by a distinguished Harvard University Psychology Professor, Steven Pinker, entitled, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. This book has received an enormous amount of attention and will no doubt continue to do so for some time to come. I have not read this book. I haven’t even seen a copy of it. Obviously I cannot pretend to review it. In fact, I almost certainly will never read it or review it. I have read several reviews of it and I understand the central thesis, which is the claim that violence among humans has been decreasing over thousands of years and that in spite of claims to the contrary we are now living in the most violent free period in human history. I don’t want to say I don’t believe it. What I would suggest is that such a claim is basically impossible to prove, and is rather like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Pinker argues, as I understand it, that humans have in their psyches both Demons and Angels and that over the millennia the Angels have won out so that we, and our lives, are no longer as violent as they once were. To demonstrate this he has reportedly done an enormous amount of research in many different areas, archaeology, history, sociology, political science and so forth, and thus claims evidence for his thesis. It is said to be a truly astounding amount of research and most everyone is impressed. Most of the reviews I have seen are positive with others being skeptical. Count me among the latter, especially when it comes to Angels and Demons.

First, although I don’t know much about everything or anything, I do know that claiming from archaeological evidence that some 15% of human bones show evidence of possible homicide is not a statistic I would be willing to accept as definitive of anything. Similarly, his claim that violence among tribal groups indicates they were 9 times as violent as we are today, is more than merely questionable. He also claims on the basis of the historical record that whereas an estimated 40 million were killed during the reigns of the Khans, when the total population was much less than during the 20th century, this indicates a level of violence much higher than the estimated 55 million killed during the second world war. I find claims of this kind impossible to accept as meaningful enough to be uncritically accepted.

Pinker argues that the levels of homicide in general have decreased over time, that genocide, torture, child abuse, slavery, war, and violence in general have decreased. He attributes this to various developments in the history of culture, the rise of state societies that better control violence, the lessening of religious dogmas, and also the influence of reason on human affairs, calling into question the morality of violence and so forth. There is much more to his interpretation than this, of course, but as I have not read it all carefully I cannot legitimately describe or criticize it.

Even so, there are things I believe I can fairly say about this work. As he seems to think the decrease in violence is due to various cultural influences, the rise of state societies, and such, it is impossible to generalize to humans in general as people in different cultures would necessarily differ in their levels of violence, and in fact we know this to be true. Although he does cite evidence from other cultures, such as the Bushmen and a few others, it is obvious that he is really speaking about Western Europeans rather than humans in general. He cites evidence from Bushman studies that seem to indicate that although they are believed to be non-violent their homicide rate is roughly equal to the homicide rate in Detroit. I am aware of this work on the Bushman and other hunter-gatherers and while it may be true the evidence and interpretations are certainly questionable. There are known to be many small scale groups of people where violence was extremely rare. Similarly, from my own ethnographic work and the anthropological literature on the subject, I’m reasonably certain the level of violence in tribal societies has been exaggerated. I know this to be true in the case of the New Guinea Highlands and also for American Indians. And there were almost always controls over the level of violence long before states emerged, even in tribal societies. This was certainly true of American Indian societies and also Melanesian groups as well.

As this book does not really deal with societies world-wide, but mostly with Western-European ones, the only real claim he could make would be that in only those societies violence has been reduced. I am quite certain there were many societies in which child abuse as we know it did not exist and, in fact, was virtually unthinkable. What about violence in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East? If we are truly living in a time of the least violence ever these other countries must also have something to do with it. I have seen reports that claim that slavery now is greater than it has ever been, especially sexual slavery, completely unknown in most cultures. I may be wrong, possibly unfair, but my fear is this is just another Eurocentric study that keeps us on top of the evolutionary scale from savagery to civilization, more reasonable and more highly developed than anyone else.

I am also left to wonder if violence is truly just one thing wherever found, whether it can be adequately measured at all, how you can compare face-to-face slaughters with mass bombings and gas chambers, collateral damage to terrorism, physical to mental violence, self-defense to humanicide, and so on. It is no doubt true that we no longer have as much head-hunting, cannibalism, and torture as we once did, but we can hardly be said to have eschewed violence even now in the 21st century. Are humans genetically programmed for violence or is it mainly cultural? How does it vary from place to place, group to group? Please read this book so you can tell me about it, as I doubt I will ever read it unless provoked.

The only thing that's been a worse flop than the organization of non-violence has been the organization of violence.

Joan Baez

Reflections on Our Town

2012-01-13T22:29:00.001-08:00

No, this is not reflections on the famous Wilder Play, these are reflections on our little town, here and now. Our town is the county seat of county with approximately 10,000 citizens, maybe a few more, so although the population of the town is only about 2500 it actually serves as the main urban center for the larger population. It’s a nice little town. I like it. But like many other such small towns it has seen better days and although it “hangs on” it doesn’t exactly thrive. I don’t personally have much to do with local politics or the town itself as I live a few miles out of town, but I do from time to time reflect on the local situation. There are a few things that puzzle me about our little town.

There is, for example, still a recognizable downtown, with several stores that appear to be doing okay. But there are also some vacant storefronts that seem to cling to their vacancies for reasons I do not completely understand. I mean, it ‘s not as if the downtown is actually dying, it’s more like it’s wounded. More importantly, however, are the buildings, almost all older two story brick affairs, virtually all of which have their upper story vacant. On the few occasions when I have asked someone why they don’t locate their office or business in one of these essentially vacant spaces the answer is always the same, “My customers wouldn’t walk upstairs.” As most of these buildings originally housed apartments on their upper stories it is obvious people don’t want to live there either. All together these vacant stories represent quite a lot of space that ought to be usable (or at least I think so). But year after year they remain vacant. Why, I wonder, could this space not be renovated and used for businesses that do not depend upon customers having to walk upstairs, billing agencies, for example, or call services, even artist studios, or some such thing?

Also in our little town we have a number of stores that seem to do a reasonable business: hardware stores, a fine used bookstore, a Radio Shack, a few restaurants, stationary, clothing, and etc. But strangely (at least it seems strange to me) if you want an ordinary necessity like a toaster or frying pan, or other ordinary kitchenware, you must drive 30 miles and back to the nearest Wal Mart. The same thing is true if you want anything as mundane as sheets or pillowcases, silverware, or other common household necessities. I think you could do an inventory of what you can procure locally and open a store that would provide the things you cannot procure locally. I would think it would be in the best interest of the community, to open a community store that would ensure such products would be locally available. As we hear often that we should “buy locally,” and as many of try to do so, buying locally is not always feasible, so we drive the 60 mile roundtrip often. So far the price of gasoline seems not to have affected this much. Along these lines you might also have expected some sort of bus service, not only to the next city 30 miles away, but even to larger urban areas up to 100 miles away. There is no such service. The U.S. is not noted for public transportation.

There is also, in our community, a thriving Casino and Motel, the majority owners being the local Indian tribe. I never go there because it is full of foolish people smoking and throwing their money away into machines made for that purpose, and also because their restaurant is not very good. But immediately adjacent to this successful business are a number of older, relatively inexpensive, and mostly run-down single family dwellings, built, like the Casino, along the banks of a lovely river. Now if I were in charge of things (happily I am not), I would buy all these older houses, demolish them, and build a number of medium priced condominiums, all with a view of the river with parking underneath. I would also construct a long walkway along the river. There are people who love to spend their summers here but go south for the winters, I would think they would be happy with a condominium. But what do I know?

Our local economy is based on agriculture and timber, but the timber industry has been declining. As far as I know there have been few attempts to attract other businesses to locate here, especially any kind of what you might consider “clean” businesses. There have been attempts to build a pulp mill and a waste to energy plant, but happily these environmentally destructive enterprises have been so far successfully resisted (anywhere you find Tribal lands that can be exploited you find these kinds of environmentally poisonous attempts as Tribal lands are exempt from many regulations). There are other small towns around here that are far worse off than we are, deteriorating badly, trying to survive on tourists and tourist junk, and having a very hard time. I think it is not too late for our lovely little town to not only survive but do well, but it would require lots of money, effort, and creativity, commodities not on the horizon as far as I know. There were in the past few years some nice touches to the downtown that have made a significant difference. I hope it will keep up. I live here and love it, and want it to survive and flourish.

Never forget that you're a member of your own community. Don't do something that you wouldn't like to see done.

Keith Richman

Firing Insurance Companies, Choosing Leaders, and Stuff

2012-01-12T22:21:00.000-08:00

Willard Mitt certainly did commit a rather nasty gaffe the other day when he made the rather thoughtless claim that he “Liked to fire people.” He was, it is true, referring to Insurance companies, but many focused on his use of “liked to” rather than on the particular context. He did say he “liked to” fire people when they didn’t give good service, and whether he was referring specifically to Insurance companies or not, doesn’t really matter. What crossed my mind about this, however, is wondering if he has ever had any personal experience with Insurance companies. It is not clear to me just how easy it might be to fire your Insurance provider. I suppose if you are speaking of car insurance or house insurance, and they didn’t treat you well, like charging you too much, or being slow to respond to claims, or something like that, you could probably fire them and find another company. You would have to be remarkably optimistic to believe you could find another company that would be any better, any cheaper, or any more efficient. When it comes to health insurance, however, you are confronted with a more serious problem. I suppose if you were in excellent health, had no claims or anything, and you wanted to fire one company and find another you might easily be able to do so. But if that were the case why would you necessarily want to change in the first place? But let’s say, you do have a health problem, especially a relatively serious health problem, and your company doesn’t want to honor your claim, on whatever grounds they could find, what makes you think you could fire them and find another company that would do better? I suggest this would probably be impossible, so for all intents and purposes, you really couldn’t realistically fire them expecting to do any better. You might “like to” fire them, but grim reality would be staring you in the face. I suspect that Romney has never in his life ever had to deal directly with an Insurance company.

There is an article today on The Huffington Post by Ann Lee, “Meritocracy in Democracy,” that I found of great interest. She suggests that the United States might learn from the Chinese system when it comes to choosing leaders. In China, leaders progress up the chain of command on merit, that is, they have to prove themselves as competent and qualified to move up the leadership ladder by demonstrating repeatedly over time they have the interest of the citizens and the nation at heart and the ability to lead. But what a stupid idea! No, not the Chinese merit based system, the idea that the United States would learn anything from them. This is the United States, after all, the greatest nation on earth, the finest democracy ever, the shining beacon on the hill, the nation everyone envies, the one that goes around the world telling everyone else how to behave. There is no chance we would learn anything from China (previously “the heathen Chinee,” nowadays Communists). We like our own system much better, where any moron can run for any office, especially if they have or have access to money. Where you can be appointed to high position simply by being loyal to who is in charge. Where people like Herman Cain, Donald Trump, Sarah Palin, and others of that ilk can seriously be considered candidates, at least for a time. We are not about to learn anything from the European socialists with their welfare states either. How disgusting that in some of those countries health care is free, a University education is basically free, and people are known to be much happier and more content than we are. No, no, no one is going to tell us how to do things, we know we are far superior, exceptional, great, wonderful, the highest standard ever for social, political, and cultural life. We are not even supposed to consider anything that comes from a foreign legal system as our system is the absolute best when it comes to jurisprudence. Ethnocentrism, false pride, and delusion… the American way.

Being currently involved with two different Insurance companies I am reminded of something I have said before but I believe deserves repeating. This has to do with what I believe is the myth of government incompetence. We hear repeatedly that government just can’t do anything right, that we can’t allow government to control things like health care because government is basically inferior to the private sector. I guess I must be a remarkable exception to this belief because in my relatively long life I have found the exact opposite to be true. I have had almost unbelievable trouble with all kinds of private enterprise: different insurance companies, banks, telephone companies, University administrations, and so on. I have NEVER had any serious trouble with any governmental agency: the Post Office, Social Security, Medicare, the IRS, Passports, Public Schools, whatever. In my opinion, in any comparison I can think of, the government has treated me consistently much more efficiently, fairly, and promptly than any private company ever has. Either I am either a remarkably exceptional case or the incompetence of government is simply a myth that somehow never seems to go away, another urban legend or fairy tale that gets passed on from generation to generation like the alligators in the New York sewer system.

In our civilization, and under our republican form of government, intelligence is so highly honored that it is rewarded by exemption from the cares of office.

Ambrose Bierce

The First Trillionaire?

2012-01-11T22:27:00.000-08:00

Yes, I know there is no trillionaire, at least not yet. Perhaps there will never be. A trillion is a thousand billion. That’s really a lot of money. But as there seems to be no limit to the amount of money Americans believe it is proper to have (earn, possess, accumulate), it is certainly theoretically possible for someone to become a trillonaire, so is it only a matter of time before our first trillionaire emerges?

When I was a lad, in fact long after I was merely a lad, there was no such thing as a billionaire, millionaires, yes, billionaires no. In fact no one ever even spoke about billionaires. Billionaires are a recent phenomena, like computers, the internet or cell phones. And, as there are now not only billionaires, but also quite a few multi-billionaires (up to at least 50 billion), it seems that now this is somehow considered right and proper, capitalism, you know.

Like so many other things about contemporary American culture, I do not understand this tolerance for allowing individuals to amass such huge fortunes. First of all, it seems to me to be entirely pointless as no one could possible need that much money. As money can only be accumulated through profit, and as profit can only be made by exploiting labor or the environment, or both, the accumulation of so much wealth obviously has had deleterious effects upon someone or somewhere. Those who accumulate even more profit simply by using money to make more money are only exploiting labor and the environment at a slightly more abstract level.

A more important reason than the basic absurdity of any one person having a billion or more dollars, is the fact that such an unequal distribution of wealth in a population (nation, country, community, society) is terribly dysfunctional. Over time, in a society when unlimited wealth can accumulate in the hands of one or few individuals, it is inevitable that the rich will grow richer and the poor will become poorer. We are seeing the effects of this right here in the U.S. at the moment. The number of poor people increases, more and more people are forced to live in poverty, the situation becomes more and more intolerable, and this leads often to (sometimes terrible) revolutions, or at the very least to widespread misery and unpleasantness for the vast majority, a most difficult situation for a society to succeed and continue to thrive over time. We are seeing at the moment how the flow of unregulated huge sums of money are influencing our politics, think of the Koch brothers and the billionaire who just donated 5 million to Gingrich to try to bring down Romney. Just image what a Trillionaire would do! Trillionaires or not, this is not a system that can be allowed to continue.

What truly amazes me is the apparent tolerance for this situation on the part of so many. Aside from monarchies or dictatorships this extreme inequality is not usually allowed to exist. In smaller, more traditional societies the possibility does not even exist. If a leader, headman or chief, attempted to accumulate wealth just for himself, he would quickly lose his position if not actually be killed. Inequality on the scale we now experience it is a result of industrialization, the loss of tradition, capitalism, and the institutionalism of money as a medium of exchange, coupled with the idea of interest. When the possession of money leads in and of itself to the creation of more money it is inevitable that those with money will accumulate more of it and those without it will remain poor. One obvious solution to this situation is to tax heavily what we now know of as capital gains. We, however, tax capital gains at a lower rate than we tax labor, a situation so pathetically stupid as to stagger the mind. Similarly, to control inequality it is necessary to tax the wealthy more heavily than others. Remember, for example, that during the Eisenhower administration the tax rate for the truly wealthy was 90%. Now, with taxes at their lowest in decades, the wealthy are resisting even a 3% increase in their taxes.

Willard Mitt Romney, almost surely to become the Republican candidate for the Presidency, is the poster child for the form of unregulated capitalism we have now adopted, the system that is slowly destroying our country. He believes that corporations are persons, that unlimited fortunes are fine, that labor is just another commodity that can be disregarded entirely when it comes to making a profit, and that essentially the poor are irrelevant. He denigrates European societies for their “socialism” with little or no understanding of social democracy. He insists that these socialist countries take money from those who have and spread it out equally to everyone, apparently unaware there are extremely wealthy people even in social democracies. He also has now said that if you criticize the wealthy it is because you are envious or jealous of their wealth. I am not envious or jealous of their wealth, I am outraged about it. I can assure you that had I wished to become wealthy I would never have become an anthropologist or an academic, and I am certain that the millions of people who become teachers, plumbers, firemen, policemen, scholars, mechanics, and whatever did not pursue those activities out of a desire to become wealthy. Romney, born to wealth, jokes about being unemployed or having worried about getting a pink slip, demonstrating that he has no understanding of the lives of ordinary people, and is completely out of touch with ordinary Americans. He has been accused of being a “Vulture Capitalist,” a description I believe to be true. With a fortune estimated at a measly quarter of a billion dollars, he probably regards himself as poor. People with large fortunes do not create jobs, they create profits, profits that come from exploiting labor and the environment, they are basically parasites, sucking the blood of labor and resources out of the environment. Hungry and out of work, Eat a Republican!

The chief value of money lies in the fact that one lives in a world in which it is overestimated.

H. L. Mencken

The Right Way?

2012-01-10T22:30:00.000-08:00

I don’t really like to belabor the same points over and over again, but I still confess to be completely bewildered by what is going on in our country. No, I am not bewildered about the outcome of the New Hampshire Primary, Romney was expected to win and did. The only thing of interest was that Ron Paul finished second and Jon Huntsman third. I guess if much of Paul’s vote was from Independent voters who are anti war and might go eventually to Huntsman, he might be in a stronger position than we realize (Huntsman is not anti war but has a much more realistic grasp of the problem than any of the other candidates, who seem eager to rush into war with Iran without pausing even to think about it). Even so, it looks like Romney will, as predicted, be the Republican candidate.

What has me bewildered is what seems to be the rather constant claim that the 2012 election is going to be very close. I have heard Democrats say this often and Republicans believe they really have a chance to win. Allen West , Republican “bizarro” from Florida has announced that Obama will lose after a “Bloodbath.” More importantly, along these lines, I have also heard Republicans repeatedly claim that “Anyone of these (Republican) candidates can beat Barack Obama.” One recent poll has Romney beating Obama 47% to 45%. I cannot help but wonder who it is they are polling. As I have said previously, I cannot see any Republican candidate getting much in the way of the Black vote. Nor can I see them getting much of the Hispanic vote. As all the Republican candidates want to do away with Social Security I can’t see them getting the older vote. Similarly, as they have mounted an all-out attack on Planned Parenthood and women’s health and right to choose, I can’t see them getting the women’s vote. As they are also anti-Gay and anti-Muslim they should not garner many votes there. As Republicans have also demonstrated repeatedly they are opposed to unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, and even food stamps, and as so many citizens are now living in poverty or close to it, I should think the entire 99% would be opposed t them. So why would anyone assume the coming election would be close? I would predict an Obama landslide, except for the fact that all of my predictions turn out wrong. Is the youth vote, supposedly turning against Obama, going to elect a Republican? I don’t think so, especially as the youth vote is supposedly mostly anti-war and Republicans are far more interested in permanent war than even Obama. As I say, I am completely bewildered.

Even the things I personally hold against President Obama are not things I would think would bother Republicans. I think, for example, Obama is too much of a “hawk” for my taste, but why would that bother Republicans who are far more hawkish than I am? I have been very critical of Obama for not prosecuting the Bush/Cheney administration for their blatant war crimes, but why would that bother Republicans? Obama is criticized by the left for protecting the banks, but isn’t that precisely what Republicans would wish for? They rail against “Obamacare,” but that left private Insurance companies fully involved in health care (about the most ridiculous involvement one could ever conceive of) which should not have displeased them (except, I guess, for the fact they are so stupid they somehow think Obamacare is some kind of socialist enterprise). Anyway, nothing that is going on in our current political climate makes any sense whatsoever to me. Perhaps I am just too stupid to understand it, or maybe too liberal to even conceive of it, or maybe even too senile, but I just plain “don’t get it.”

The more I think about it, and try to understand it, the more I return to the same conclusion – they just don’t like Obama, he’s Black. I cannot think of any other explanation for their (to me) truly strange behavior. Even when Obama wants to do something they themselves have originated and wanted, they don’t want it. They say “We want our country back,” but I ask myself, back from who or what? I conclude the only thing they could possibly want it back from is Obama, not because his policies have been particularly bad, but because he’s Black. Apparently a majority of the electorate says we are going in the wrong direction. But they don’t offer any explanation as to what the right direction may be, other than lower taxes, fewer regulations, the very conditions that brought about this mess in the first place. Is that really what they think might be the “right” direction? If not, just what is the right direction?

If we did not know the Republicans have made it their number one goal to make Obama a one term President, their behavior over the past three years would have to be seen as just plain insane, as without this particular goal it makes no sense whatsoever. It seems to me a truly sad state of affairs when the only thing that keeps them from being seen as insane is their hatred of Obama. They have done enormous damage to our country, materially, ideologically, and in the eyes of the rest of the world. However much you may dislike it, President Obama is “the only game in town,” the alternative is too horrible even to contemplate.

“Corporations are people, my friend.”

Willard Mitt Romney

Destiny of the Republic - book

2012-01-08T22:36:00.000-08:00

It is not often you pick up a book and almost immediately realize you are in for a genuine treat. I was given this book for Christmas and it turned out to be such a book. As it is a book about President James Garfield, someone I knew next to nothing about, and as it was also a book about older presidential politics, a subject that has never been of much interest to me, I was initially skeptical. The subtitle did, however, titillate my interest: A Tale of Madness, Medicine, and the Murder of a President. The minute I started reading it I knew I was hooked and did not want to put it down.

President Garfield it turns out was a truly unusual man, born into genuine poverty he managed, through janitorial work and carpentry to acquire an education. He worked for a time on a canal boat, tried his hand at preaching for a short time, was a teacher for a while, eventually became a lawyer, served eight terms in the House of Representatives, was a successful General during the Civil War, was elected to the Senate, but almost immediately, through no effort on his own part, received the nomination for President, won the election, served for only a few short months before being assassinated by an insane office seeker who was hung even though known to be insane.

Garfield was a large, jovial, cheerful man who enjoyed people and was dedicated to his country. He was also a skilled orator. Although in office as President for a mere 200 days he managed civil rights and Post Office reforms and began to change the spoils system that up until then appointed relatives, friends, and supporters that were not usually well qualified. He believed that incompetents should be removed from their positions, I guess a somewhat novel idea at the time that met with some resistance. He had been opposed to slavery and, serving during the immediate post civil-war period, was a champion of civil rights and insisted that Blacks be treated with civility and respect. He appointed a number of Blacks to high positions in government. He was also opposed to greenbacks and thought we should have a bimetal based economy.

On July 2, 1881 President Garfield was shot in a train station as he was on his way home to visit his wife and children. Although badly wounded he clung to life for some 80 days before he finally died. It is this period of time that is perhaps of the most interest in this meticulously researched book. At that time the President had no bodyguards of any kind and traveled in the same manner as everyone else. This made him easy prey for Charles J. Guiteau, a deranged individual who thought he would become a hero by assassinating the President. Guiteau had for years believed he should have a high office in government, even the Presidency, and had become well known by hanging out around the White House and demanding an appointment. Guiteau had borrowed $15 to buy a .44 caliber revolver and, as he had never before owned or even fired a gun, practiced with it before shooting the President. Guiteau was immediately captured and placed in jail. There were calls for a lynching, on at least two occasions he was shot at, and troops had to be called out to protect him. Soon after Garfield’s death he was given a jury trial, pleaded insanity, and even though everyone knew he was insane, he was found guilty and hanged.

The medical attention he was given is largely the focus of Millard’s book. The President did not have a doctor, nor had any provision ever been made for something of this nature. Although Joseph Lister had discovered and was promoting antisepsis (preventing infection by destroying germs) there was much resistance to this on the part of the medical profession that did not at the time necessarily believe there even were germs and rather arrogantly (as was their professional wont) believed their traditional practices were perfectly sufficient. Thus as Garfield lay on the dirty floor of the train depot, and more than one doctor looked at him, following their usual procedure one or more of them stuck their finger in the gunshot wound, and later used probes to poke around in the wound to find the bullet. The wounded man was carried out on a dirty mattress and taken to the White House that was itself little more than a rotting structure at that time. One doctor appointed himself to be in full charge of caring for the President and did, apparently, gave him what was considered the best treatment he could while relegating other doctors to positions of relative insignificance. It looked for a time that Garfield would survive, and although he was in acute pain most of the time, he apparently remained cheerful until the end. The doctor poked an probed but could not locate the bullet which he believed was lodged in the President’s right side. Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor, worked feverishly day and night to produce a metal detector that might help. On the first try Bell made a mistake in hooking up his new invention, he then perfected it so that he knew it would work, but on his second try the doctor insisted he look for the bullet only on the President’s right side where he was convinced it would be found. Bell never had another chance as the President died before he had another opportunity. The invention was a success and was used for years in such cases.

The autopsy confirmed that in fact the bullet was lodged on the left side. By that time it didn’t matter as infection had spread throughout the President’s body and ultimately took his life. Unhappily, it was his medical attention that killed him, rather than the gunshot wounds. Some doctors pointed out that had he received no medical attention at all he might well have recovered (there were hundreds if not thousands of civil war veterans walking around with bullets lodged in their bodies). Had the doctors not arrogantly rejected Lister’s discovery the President would also have lived.

This book is what is now described as narrative non-fiction, a genre that has actually been around for quite a while but only fairly recently named. Truman Capote’s In Cold Blood, which he described as a non-fiction novel, is perhaps the best example of this type of writing. Basically it is telling a true story but in a more literary form than, say, newspaper reportage. Destiny of the Republic is what I would regard as one of the finest examples of this genre I can imagine. I highly recommend it.

"There is no horizontal Stratification of society in this country like the rocks in the earth, that hold one class down below forevermore, and let another come to the surface and stay there forever. Our Stratification is like the ocean, where every individual drop is free to move, and where from the sternest depths of the mighty deep any drop may come up to glitter on the highest wave that rolls."

James A. Garfield

Really?

2012-01-07T22:27:00.000-08:00

Once, in the middle of winter, when he was bored, my friend Paul bought a putter in Wal Mart. He took it home, used it on his rug for a few days, and then, bored again, returned it. He told the clerk, a lovely buxom young blond who was probably a loser from some Beauty Contest, “This thing doesn’t work.” “Really,” She said, quite concerned, and allowed him to return it. That is the way I feel at the moment about a lot of things. I mean, how else would you react to such improbables, as when someone like Michele Bachmann says, for example, President Obama is going on a trip to India that is going to cost the taxpayers 200 million dollars a day. Really? Or when she says global warming is all “voodoo, nonsense, hokum, a hoax?” Really?

Or what about when Leon Panetta, our Secretary of Defense, announces that if the Industrial/Military/Political Complex budget is cut it will spell “doomsday” for America? Really? Or how about when Rick Santorum, candidate for the Presidency, says the recession in American was caused by Gay marriage? Or if Romney becomes the candidate for President it will “destroy the country?” Really? Of course there is also Rick Perry who has asserted that defeating President Obama is the equivalent of fighting D-Day on Omaha Beach during the Second World War?” Really? Then there is Romney, insisting that President Obama is a “job killer.” Really? Gingrich wants us to believe that Obama is “The greatest food stamp President ever,” and “Blacks should insist on paychecks rather than food stamps.” Really?

I find it impossible to either to comprehend such claims or take them seriously. They seem to me completely absurd, bogus, ridiculous. They have no substance to them whatsoever, and are apparently being made for no reason other than drawing attention to the nitwits that make them. In the case of Newton Leroy (The Asinine) Gingrich one might well ask, if you want Blacks to draw paychecks you might do something about providing jobs for them. Santorum’s position is even worse, he claims, for example, he does not want to take money from some (Whites, of course) in order to provide better conditions for others (Blacks), but to make it possible for them to help themselves through working (I gather in jobs that are nonexistent, having been opposed by his party consistently). It is interesting that the racism that infects the Republican Party is no longer even pretended to be hidden. When we hear “poor people on food stamps” we know it is Blacks we are talking about, even though there are more Whites on food stamps than Blacks. Similarly, when we hear of those lacking a work ethic, or male role models, we know who it is they have in mind.

Make no mistake, one of the most obvious reasons Republicans hate Obama is because he is Black, and being so, has also moved into their territory, the White power structure that has always ruled our country. A Black person is not supposed to be there, it’s an unprecedented attack on what Republicans believe is the natural order of things. They are terrified he might even move in next door to them, as their fear of such a terrible thing drove them in a panic in the not too distant past into a complicated and much despised program of “Bussing,” rather than pass an Open Housing Ordinance that would have allowed Blacks to live next door to them (and would have made bussing unnecessary). The only thing I find surprising about their racism is that it has more and more come out in the open. This can be seen not only in the comments of the Republican candidates, but also in the emergence of bumper stickers that read “Don’t Re-Nig,” and descriptions of Michele Obama as “yo mama,” and so on. Perhaps it is better these things become public, at least it makes it easier to recognize the bigots and racists that infest Republican circles. One can only imagine what terrible remarks they must circulate in private.

I doubt that anyone believed racism died the day we elected a Black President. But would you have believed in a hatred so intense that Republicans have failed to honor the Office of the President itself? Or what is worse, to allow the nation to stagnate and deteriorate in their single-minded attempt to make him a one term President? Would you have believed they could hate and denigrate him so much they would be willing to stand by and do nothing with millions unemployed and children going hungry, simply watch as half the nation falls into poverty, allow people to die rather than offer them health care, boo an American soldier because he is Gay? I would not have anticipated such cowardly behavior even on the part of Republicans.

Now it surfaces that Ron Paul, one of the Republican candidates for President, has himself published a newsletter filled with hateful racist comments. One of his supporters believes homosexuals should be executed, others produced an absolutely despicable ad about Jon Huntsman’s adopted Chinese daughter. The kindly old doctor disavows it all, claims he didn’t write the newsletter and didn’t even read it. Really, Dr. Paul? Really?

I have no pretensions whatever to that kind of elegance which consists in tormenting a respectable man.

Jane Austen

How Can It Be?

2012-01-05T23:05:00.000-08:00

Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,
Over many a quaint and curious volume of forgotten lore, I began to wonder, how can it be most everyone seems to think the 2012 election is going to be very close, probably won by only a scant one or two percent of the vote?

Is my grasp on reality so tenuous that I am missing something entirely? I grant you that President Obama can be seen as vulnerable on the economy, and perhaps on a few other things as well. However, it seems to me fairly clear that (l) he is going to have the vast majority of the Black vote, (2) he is going to have a comfortable majority of the Hispanic vote, (3) after the Republican onslaught on Planned Parenthood and women’s health, as well as a woman’s right to choose, I cannot believe he will not be the recipient of a majority of the women’s vote, (4) with the Republican threat to do away with or privatize social security, as well as Medicare, I can only assume he will get a majority of the elderly vote, (5) somewhere I saw something to the effect that he is now doing better with White male voters, and (6) it appears that his “base” is still with him. If all this is so, and it seems to me from everything I read and hear, just who is it that is going to vote Republican? It might well be the case that young people have turned off to Obama and may waste their votes on Ron Paul, but surely the younger vote is not enough to elect anyone.

When it comes to issues and the record I can’t see where Republicans are going to have much to claim either. They can’t really denigrate Obama when it comes to national security or defense, he did get Osama bin Laden, Ghadafi, and etc. And he also did get us out of Iraq on (Bush’s) schedule. While he did not succeed in closing Guantanamo that was mainly because of Republican opposition. When it comes to jobs and why Obama has not created them, it is very clear that it has been Republican obstructionism that has stood in the way of every attempt to create jobs. While Republicans rail against “Obamacare” it is indisputable that he did bring about some much needed reforms with a program so far from socialism as to render that criticism pretty harmless. He also ended DADT, passed (I believe) and equal pay bill, and has a number of other accomplishment s to his credit, all in the face of overwhelming opposition from Republicans. Obama has not walked on water or moved mountains or single-handedly solved our many serious problems, but all in all he has done pretty well. The Republican criticism seem to have little basis in fact and represent mainly their personal dislike of Obama (a Black President), and, it seems to me an element of wishful thinking.

I believe Obama can be rightly criticized when it comes to civil rights, and his failure to prosecute the Bush/Cheney war crimes, his hawkish foreign policy, and also his questionable support of the Banking industry, but these are criticisisms far more likely to come from the left than the right. He has not been a completely uncritical supporter of Israel, much to the dismay of the believers in Armageddon, but he has continued to insist on our support of that (criminal) nation.

I should think Obama’s greatest asset going into the 2012 election is the dismal level of opposition he will face. If any of the current Republican candidates manages to win the nomination he/she will be a relative lightweight, a second or third rater with baggage hard to lose. I cannot see any of them mounting a serious challenge, not even Romney, whom they seem to believe has the best chance. Romney will probably eventually emerge as the Republican candidate but he will have suffered such withering criticism from his own party he will be seriously crippled, and he is already crippled enough in that some 20% of Republicans have apparently already said they would never vote for him (because they believe Mormonism is a cult).

Anyway, as I think all of the above is more or less the case, I cannot imagine why the 2012 election should be as close as everyone seems to predict. In spite of my beliefs about this, in spite of my belief that most or all of the above is true, in spite of what seems to me to be the obvious, in spite of what I might personally believe should be a landslide victory for Obama, somehow, mysteriously, even magically it seems to me, the election will still manage to be very close, and my beliefs about the reality of the facts and situation will simply vanish in a whiff of apathy, disinterest, and ignorance. It’s the American way!

Do I believe Obama should be re-elected? Yes and no. Will I vote for him (in the absence of a viable third party candidate), of course. I cannot fathom why anyone who is not a member of the 1% would vote for a Republican under any circumstances. But, alas, they will. One bright spot perhaps, I don’t think anyone will vote because they want to drink a beer with Willard.

If voters don't have a stomach for me, they can get one of those blow-dried guys.

Ross Perot

The Catholic Candidate

2012-01-04T22:31:00.000-08:00

So much for the separation of Church and State, we now seem to have reached an unprecedented situation in which we now have an actual Catholic candidate running for President. I don’t mean to suggest the Catholic Church itself is running a candidate, only that a candidate is running on a platform that represents the Church’s position on most things. I don’t know what else you could describe what Rick Santorum is doing other than that.

Religion is supposed to be irrelevant when it comes to running for public office in the United States, and generally speaking, it has been. You may recall when the Catholic John Kennedy ran for office he made it clear he was not running as a Catholic but, rather, as an American, and he would not take direction from the Church. We believed him and by and large he did what he said he would do. He did not run on an anti-abortion platform, or against Gay marriage, or even against contraception. Willard Romney, a Mormon, is not suggesting we should all engage in polygamy or wear sacred underwear. Religious beliefs are not supposed to influence public policy (the degree to which they may have is basically unknown). It is also true that so far we have not had a Jewish or a Muslim President although technically that would be entirely feasible. Technically, someone’s religious beliefs should be considered completely irrelevant, although interestingly enough, it is highly doubtful an avowed Atheist could be elected President in the foreseeable future. To be a serious candidate for President you must at least pretend to be a “believer” of some kind and at least occasionally attend a church.

In the case of Rick Santorum we have a truly unprecedented case, a candidate who has apparently thrown “all caution to the wind” and is running on a obvious platform of Catholic beliefs. You are aware, I am sure, that Santorum is absolutely opposed to abortion, even to the point of suggesting that doctors who perform abortions should be criminally prosecuted. He is also completely opposed to Gay marriage, and believes existing Gay marriages should not be recognized. He would repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell decision that allows Gays to serve openly in the military. Although he hasn’t said it (as far as I know) he must also be opposed to the repeal of anti-sodomy laws. If these obviously Catholic strictures are not enough, he is also opposed to contraception, to birth control itself! He believes, as does his Church, that marriage should be only between a man and a woman and should involve having children, presumably as many as possible. He has not tried to hide these beliefs but, indeed, promotes them as part of his quest for the Presidency. Given this as true, how can you claim that a candidate’s religious beliefs are not relevant to his politics? Santorum wishes to impose Catholic morality on all the rest of us, no matter what our beliefs and practices may be, and makes no pretense of anything else. He seems to be truly obsessed with the regulation of other people’s sexual behavior, arguing that contraception, for example, is merely license for apparently unbridled sex (or something like that). He seems to have no knowledge of the full range of human sexual behavior, nor does he seem to have any idea of marriage customs around the world and in history. Although I don’t think he has said so, I suspect he believes the “missionary position” is the only acceptable position for sex. I wonder if he believes anti-sodomy laws ought to be relaxed for Church members, if he believes adultery is a mortal sin for which one should be put in the “stocks” and branded for life with a big “A,” and oral sex is an abomination, invented by Hugh Hefner as part of a socialistic takeover of the United States. These are, of course, embarrassing questions he is not likely to be asked (at least in public), one can only wonder just how far his Catholic Puritanism goes (no beastiality, by the way). Santorum does not claim to represent the Church, nor does the Church claim him as their candidate (they are not supposed to have candidates, of course), but there is little doubt that he represents exclusively the views of the Catholic Church when it comes to marriage, abortion, and birth control, and thus he is basically running on a Catholic platform.

Santorum has not as yet been thoroughly vetted, but now that he has been raised to a higher echelon in the campaign he no doubt will be. I don’t know what this will reveal but it is known that he was an eager “Earmarker,” and that he even voted for the famous Bridge to Nowhere. I doubt the Church is as eager to bomb Iran as he is, and he has some kind of baggage relating to the John Ensign scandal. Who knows what else will turn up, but don’t expect to ever see him as President.

I said, when asked, that I thought Santorum would win the Iowa caucus (because he was the only one nutty enough to mesh with Iowa voters). I thought until this morning it would be the only correct political prediction I had made in some fifty years of predictions. Curses! Thwarted again! But I won’t give up.

The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish.

Robert Jackson

Busy Work

2012-01-02T22:40:00.000-08:00

Finally, tomorrow will bring an end to the much ballyhooed Iowa caucuses. Hooray. But does anyone really care what happens in Iowa tomorrow, and if so, why? We have heard virtually nothing else on television and radio for weeks, different poll results day after day, different leaders from day to day, different predictions from day to day, all of which are basically meaningless. It just doesn’t matter who is picked in Iowa. Iowa is so far out of the mainstream of American politics what happens in Iowa basically stays in Iowa. I have predicted a win by Rick Santorum on the grounds that he is the only one nutty enough to fit in well with Iowa caucus-goers. But it doesn’t matter who wins as the winner in Iowa will prove nothing. If the candidate who wins in Iowa actually goes on to win the Presidency it will be little more than a fluke, an accident, an event so rare as to be completely unpredictable. All this attention to Iowa for the past few weeks has been nothing but busywork. Thank heavens it will at least be over. Of course all the attention to this Iowa nonsense has helped to keep us from hearing other things that might actually be important, like the pending war with Iran, the objections to the pipeline, the Occupy movement, Israeli war crimes, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, etc., etc., etc. To describe what we get from our MSM as “news” is simply laughable, something between fairy tales and speaking in tongues.

I notice in an add from The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, you know, the one that shows pictures of sad looking dogs and cats, usually in cages, sometimes obviously abused, and so on, they ask for an $18 a month donation to save them from their misery. The ad is a real tearjerkers and quite effective, and does call attention to a serious problem, especially for pet lovers. When I saw this ad the other day it was followed a short time later by a similar ad showing hungry and neglected children, again with pictures that make you want to cry and reach out to help. Curiously, however, it only takes $15 a month to help children. I don’t suppose this truly represents our priorities but it does seem to me rather strange. Of course for only $8 a month you can help save the tigers. I’m certain that from time to time there are similar ads to save the gorillas, polar bears, chimpanzees, orangutans, wild horses, elephants, rhinos, hippos, and on and on. I am sympathetic to the plight of all creatures but these ads represent to me the abject failure of the human species to manage the world we are supposed to have dominion over. We seem to have interpreted our gift of dominion as a license to kill and destroy all other creatures as fast as possible (about the only thing we seem to have more or less succeeded in doing).

On the subject of animals, I see that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) have requested a memorial in Illinois for some cattle that were accidentally killed on the highway. What a marvelous idea! I think we should also create memorials for the hundreds of thousands of deer, elk, moose, coyotes, squirrels, and other animals destroyed by our automobiles every year. Creating and erecting such memorials would certainly create a lot of jobs and might even remind us of our mindless attention to the needs of other creatures. This is a problem I find of particular interest as my daughter-in-law, driving my Honda Element, hit and killed a Moose on New Year’s Eve, a fine way to ring in the New Year! Of course it wasn’t her fault as the huge creature unexpectedly jumped right out in front of her. Happily neither she nor my son were injured. Anyway, to continue, I find it strange that you never hear PETA complaining much about rodeos. Perhaps they do but I never see it mentioned and certainly there is enough mistreatment involved in those revered western events. While I am sympathetic to the plight of animals (and human children) I confess I find PETA a bit extreme. I think vegetarianism is so contrary to the normal human diet as to be unthinkable, but at the same time I believe we should honor all the marvelous animals we consume and treat them as well as possible (under the circumstances). I note that people who live as hunter-gatherers often have elaborate rituals to thank the species they depend on and insure their continued fertility and well-being. Somehow I don’t think supermarket aisles would be suitable venues for such rituals. I’m also not at all certain that many of the younger generation realize that the steaks, chops, and roasts they buy packaged at the market actually came from animals, preferring to perhaps believe the “Butcher Fairy” made and brought them. I personally find it difficult to believe that calamari steaks come from squid, suspecting they may have some association with truck tire patches. Anyway, as they say in Melanesian Pidgin, “b’long ol.”

I will not eat oysters. I want my food dead- not sick, not wounded - dead.

Woody Allen

Pipeline Capitalism

2012-01-01T22:39:00.000-08:00

I know very little about the proposed Keystone Pipeline project, and perhaps even less about political economy. But of course this does not prevent me from commenting on it as I do understand it. It seems to me a perfect illustration my understanding of the operation of capitalism.

First, as I think I understand things, there are basically only two ways to generate profit (capital in the form of money): the exploitation of labor (human behavior) and the exploitation of land (the environment).

As far as the pipeline itself goes, there are huge corporations who, having discovered resources in Alberta than can be exploited, wish to build a gigantic pipeline to bring those resources eventually all the way from Alberta, through Montana, Nebraska, and other states, to ports in the Southern United States, where they can be sold to consumers both in the United States and Overseas. If this gigantic project is approved, Corporations that deal primarily in oil will get bids from various contractors to build this pipeline. They, in turn, will hire laborers of various kinds to perform the actual work (labor), careful to hire the least amount of labor necessary and pay the least amount they can in order to assure their profits, thus exploiting labor to increase their profits (capital in the form of money). When the pipeline is completed most of this labor will be dismissed as no longer necessary and a relatively small number of workers will be required to maintain and repair the line.

Similarly, the project depends upon using methods and techniques that must, in the nature of the case, be environmentally destructive, at least in two different ways: the “fracking” (or other methods) involved in actually procuring the commodity, and the inevitable damage resulting from the building of the pipeline itself over environmentally sensitive areas. Thus the earth and its resources will be permanently damaged by the pursuit of this particular commodity (oil). This can be, and no doubt will be, described and promoted as providing a commodity the public both needs and wants. But in fact the primary motivation will be to convert land and labor into profit (capital) for the corporations involved by providing a product to a public too stupid to realize they will have lost forever some of the resources of the earth and wasted much of the labor of our citizens. That is, rather than convert to a system of renewable resources that does not involve such irreparable destruction, and attempting to provide more permanent and favorable positions for labor, we will continue along the same disastrous course of waste and destruction we always have, unable to break our addiction to oil, a dirty and not renewable resource.

Now, speaking more abstractly, and following the insights of Karl Marx, probably our most brilliant and insightful political and economic philosopher, “capital” most fundamentally represents dead labor. That is to say, one of the main ways to make a profit (in the form of money capital) is by the exploitation of labor, and once that labor has been expended and used, it is, for all intents and purposes, used, finished, dead. I don’t know if Marx said the same thing about land or not, but the same thing is true of the exploitation of land, once the land and its various resources are used and converted into profit, that land is essentially dead, at least in respect to that particular resource. And so, upon the completion of a project like this proposed pipeline, profit has been achieved by the exploitation of labor and land, now both dead. Capitalism has now achieved another “success” at the cost of both labor and land (environment).

But wait, don’t turn that dial, there is more. Not content to sit idly on the capital they have acquired through dead labor and land, that very same capital will be turned over to what might well be called “Priests of Finance” who know how to manipulate it in ways that will produce even more capital. Thus using dead labor and land, it is possible to acquire more capital (also originally produced by dead labor and land), by the simple fact of moving it around in ways that produce absolutely nothing but more profit for those who manipulate it. This is, I suppose the veritable apex of exploitation, that no doubt explains why these “Priests,” with the help of suitably bribed Congresspersons, can themselves acquire more capital in a single season than anyone else in a lifetime, and without actually having engaged in what might rightly be described as “productive work.” Similarly, those who possess capital can increase it by essentially doing nothing but investing it and sitting back to clip coupons and bank dividends. Thus we have developed over time a political/economic system that makes Alice in Wonderland look reasonably sane by comparison.

Marx was, I believe, a genius, but even he was not infallible. He failed to realize that Communism was doomed to fail because it was incompatible with human nature, but he did apparently realize that Capitalism, without adequate regulations and restrictions, would eventually fail for precisely the opposite reason. Unregulated capitalism is nothing more than a license for greed, and that seems to have emerged as our most important product.

It is probably true that business corrupts everything it touches. It corrupts politics, sports, literature, art, labor unions and so on. but business also corrupts and undermines monolithic totalitarianism. Capitalism is at its liberating best in a noncapitalist environment.

Eric Hoffer

Gallimaufry

2011-12-30T22:39:00.000-08:00

Note: As tomorrow night is New Year’s Eve there will be no blog until next year. So Happy New Year!

Well, first there is the rumor, claim, or belief, or whatever it is, that for the coming election President Obama will pick Hillary Clinton for Vice President and make Joe Biden Secretary of State. Robert Reich, who I have a lot of respect for has recently suggested this, but claims to have no inside information. Actually this rumor has been around for some time and is not an original idea of Reich’s. From the standpoint of the Democratic Party this makes a lot of sense. Obama and Clinton are apparently now considered the two most popular people in the country so this would be a dream ticket. If all goes well it would also make Clinton a sure candidate for President in 2016 with a great chance to become the first Woman President of the United States. As Biden has supposedly long dreamed of being Secretary of State, presumably he would be amenable to such an arrangement. Of course there is no evidence at the moment this is anything but wishful thinking on the part of a few who might like to see such a development. Hillary has already said she would not run again for President (but would the lure of becoming the first female President be too much of a temptation). As far as I know Obama has never mentioned this as a possibility, and it could be the case that Biden would not really like to be switched. I believe an Obama/Clinton administration would be far better for the Middle Class and the Poor than any conceivable Republican administration, but both Obama and Clinton are far too hawkish for me and also highly questionable on civil liberties (of course one can’t have everything). What we really need is Ron Paul’s foreign and drug policies (only, and without Paul himself), coupled with Bernie Sanders’ domestic policies. Sanders/Kucinich would be an ideal combination with Russ Feingold and Alan Grayson as high level cabinet members (fat chance anything like that would happen in our developing neo-fascist nation). Obviously I don’t know for sure what Obama will do. I was pretty sure on the Republican side it was going to be the Rich Guy and New Jersey “Fats,” but now I have some doubts. If Romney is forced to pick an Evangelical as a running mate, Fats would be out. On the other hand I can’t really imagine a Mormon/Evangelical ticket as I think that would be a too obvious warning of bad things to come. So I confess I have no idea what Romney will do after he is picked as the candidate that almost no one wants.

Then there is Leon (the Pathetic) Panetta, our current Secretary of Defense, a position I am beginning to believe for which he may not be well suited. First, he blurted out the unfortunate truth that a war with Iran would be disastrous, which has infuriated the Israelis and no doubt our neo-con hawks that seem to be obsessed with illegally and unconstitutionally attacking that country as we did Iraq. Although he spoke what has to be the truth, he should have known better. But a much more amusing gaffe (if such things can be considered amusing) was his recent claim that any cut in the Defense Budget would spell “doomsday” for the United States. This is an even more shocking claim than Herman Cain’s statement to Barbara Walters that he would like to be Secretary of Defense, that drew from the normally unshakable interviewer, her completely disbelieving, “WHAT!” Panetta would have us believe that a country that spends more on “defense” than all the rest of the world combined, that has a Pentagon and Military that can literally lose billions of dollars without even knowing what happened to them, that spends huge sums on military hardware that is known to be obsolete or unnecessary, and that siphons off a truly enormous percentage of our annual budget for an obscene military/industrial/political scam that converts taxpayer dollars into profits for corporations and the wealthy, cannot have its budget cut without spelling doomsday? This is such a transparently ridiculous claim I doubt even the hawks can believe it without actually laughing out loud. “Good ol’ Leon, he’s lookin’ out for us right fine.”

Let us not forget the astute Rick Santorum who actually said you could avoid unemployment (and poverty too, I guess) by doing just two simple things: complete High School and get married. I’m certain the millions of unemployed High School graduates and the millions of unemployed married men must be pondering this sage advice. I guess this is the kind of thinking that helps you surge in the Iowa polls. Not to be outdone for absurdity, Willard Mitt Romney has asserted that President Obama, raised by a single mother and his grandparents, doesn’t understand the plight of the Middle Class, whereas, by implication at least, he, Romney, born into wealth and sitting on a quarter of a billion dollar fortune, does. He has also assured us that he prays every day and goes to church every Sunday. The kindly old doctor Paul doesn’t understand why his awful racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic newsletters should be important to anyone, after all, he says, he didn’t write them (and claims apparently to have not even read them). I haven’t heard if he disavows the support of one of his supporters who believes Gays should be executed. Michele Bachmann is once again touting what a fine gun the AR 15 is, and what a fine shot she is (doesn’t seem to be helping her much). Newton Leroy Gingrich said if he won the nomination he might pick Sarah Palin as his running mate or for a cabinet position. He also said he can’t do “modern politics.”He seems to have that right. Rick Perry, the Texas embarrassment, according to Santorum, has flunked Anti-sodomy 101. When asked about Gay marriage he replied, “I love the sinner, hate the sin,” not very helpful.

You gotta admit, they’re an interesting bunch, each and every one, but not very Presidential.

A state is not a mere society, having a common place, established for the prevention of mutual crime and for the sake of exchange...Political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship.

Aristotle

What's Wrong with Us?

2011-12-28T22:32:00.000-08:00

What I mean by “us” at the moment is the human species. After writing about the massacre at Mountain Meadows last night I began to think about a question that has occupied me for some time. There seems to be a fatal flaw in our makeup that I simply cannot really understand. It has to do with our propensity for intra-species violence, a type of behavior that seems to be lacking in any other species.

It is true, of course, that other species occasionally kill one another, usually in fights over territory or for survival, but there is nothing in the animal kingdom that comes anywhere close to our seemingly endless violence against other members of our own species. I find this rather mysterious. There is little doubt that biologically we are animals, mammals, primates, and hominids. Being mammals we share certain characteristics with all other mammals, being primates we also share many traits, as we do also with other hominids. Generally speaking there is nothing that sets us apart from other creatures. However much it may have damaged our egos, Darwin made it clear we are animals and as such part of a much larger biological universe. Some have attempted to set us (humans) apart from all other animals in certain ways, the use of tools, the control of fire, the possession of language, the ability to reason and so on. But research over the years, particularly in the last fifty or hundred years, has indicated these attributes do not truly set us aside completely from other animals. One of the most important claims for our uniqueness has been the claim of the possession of “souls,” but even this is somewhat doubtful as perhaps animals have souls as well. Besides, if you do not believe in the existence souls in the first place, this is not helpful. Biologically we remain at base, animals.

Strangely, at least it seems very strange to me, the one thing that seems to separate us from other animals has to do with our behavior. We often describe human acts as being “animal-like” or “beastly,” “wolfish,” or the like, and sometimes perhaps these are apt descriptions, but behaviorally we far transcend such comparisons. Nowhere, as far as I know, do we find animals committing genocide, for example, nowhere do animals attack and kill members of their own species in large numbers and only rarely kill each other at all. Certainly they do not torture and humiliate each other as we are wont to do. Animals kill each other for food, but they rarely cannibalize each other (although rarely in certain circumstances they do). They do not hunt heads, burn each other at the stake, cut off hands and feet and allow other creatures to bleed to death, hang them by their feet or thumbs, waterboard them, or keep them in solitary confinement. Nor do they kill hundreds and pile their skulls up as a warning to others, pillage their possessions, rape, burn their dwellings, destroy their crops, whip, brand, or otherwise disfigure them. Nor do they capture and employ slaves. Obviously there is nothing like this in the animal kingdom. But if you read the literature on colonialism you will find these kinds of behaviors commonplace. Such horrible things were done by every colonial power at some time, in Asia, Africa, Australia, Central and South America, Siberia, North America, in short, everywhere Western-Europeans expanded and captured lands and resources. It is a history so terrible we try to ignore it as much as possible. Such terrible deeds were not performed only by Western-Europeans, it is obvious that others were just as bad or worse, think of Ghengis Khan, Ivan the Terrible, some African kingdoms, Attila the Hun, and others. This intra-species violence is by no means just something that happened in ancient history. Think of the Holocaust, the Armenians, American Indians, Tasmanians, and others. And such violence still occurs daily in the form of wars and revolutions. Man’s inhumanity to man is something I find impossible to explain, especially as it has been and continues to be true apparently from the very beginning until the present. Humans seem to be little better at controlling their violent impulses now than before, evolution seems to have had little impact on our flawed human nature.

In most animal species there appear to be instinctive mechanisms that either prevent violence or at least stop it before it becomes fatal. Animals fight over mates and territory but the victors usually stop when their opponent bares his throat, assumes a subordinate position, or runs away. If a challenger is defeated he simply withdraws without being humiliated or otherwise punished. Perhaps that is where our problem lies, being without instincts we have no such built-in controls. Instead of instincts we have cultures, learned ways of behaving transmitted to us extra-genetically, but our cultural controls not only sometimes fail, they often even encourage our hateful behavior towards others. Animals are programmed to do as they must, humans are culturally programmed to do as they choose, and for whatever reason they often choose to do evil things. There is no evil in nature; evil is, I believe, entirely a human phenomena. We seem completely unable to prevent or overcome it. It’s as if the Great Mystery crafted a smoothly functioning ecological system where there was no waste, no environmental degradation, and no evil, and then, as some kind of cosmic joke added humans. Some joke.

“Huamani’s skepticism was substantial. He knew that men are a joke of the gods, sent to mortify the animals.”

Abel Posse (in The Dogs of Paradise)

Massacre - book

2011-12-27T22:21:00.000-08:00

Massacre at Mountain Meadows, Ronald W. Walker, Richard E. Turley, Jr., Glen M. Leonard (Oxford University Press, 2008)

This is a book written by three Mormons in an attempt to explain the circumstances that led up to and allowed the terrible wagon train massacre of September 11, 1857 to occur. They do not attempt to justify it, but to try to explain how it happened. They acknowledge the many other attempts that have been made to explain this remarkably aberrant incident in Mormon history, some trying to justify it and others condemning it, and strive to remain as objective as possible. Ronald W. Walker is a retired Professor of History who has specialized in LDS history. Richard E. Turley, Jr. is Assistant Church Historian of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Glen M. Leonard is the former Director of the LDS Museum of Church History and Art. Together they have done what I believe is quite a remarkable job of researching this tragic event, including providing lists of those believed to have perished, as well as those who were presumably involved in the massacre. This is information primarily intended for those with a more serious interest in the subject than non-Mormons. I believe they have tried to remain as objective as possible, but at the same time there is a built-in kind of bias in that they are all Mormons, by far the most useful information available inevitably comes from Mormon accounts of what happened rather than accounts of non-Mormons or outsiders. There is some information that was apparently gleaned from the accounts of the Indians who were involved, and little else.

I had heard of this massacre, of course, but I knew nothing about it. I also knew very little of the history of the Mormons. After reading this detailed account I have concluded this was perhaps the single most cowardly, deceitful, premeditated, unnecessary, and violent atrocity ever perpetrated on a small group of perfectly innocent people.

The attack was conceived and planned by a small number of Mormon leaders who were in charge of various militias that had been organized and trained for what Brigham Young believed was an inevitable war that was coming with the government of the United States. The original plan was to stage a surprise attack on this particular wagon train, to be carried out early in the morning, and to kill all of the approximately 150 emigrants, two-thirds of which were women and children (can you believe this). They recruited a number of the nearby Indians to participate and planned to blame the incident exclusively on them. No Mormons were supposed to be known to be involved. Indians were apparently offered some of the cattle, horses, and other loot that was anticipated. They were also told that when the Government troops arrived they would kill the Indians as well as the Mormons.

The initial ambush did not succeed as planned, apparently because someone fired prematurely. Although a few emigrants were killed, the others managed to arrange their wagons in a circle and dig themselves in for protection, a fierce resistance the attackers had not anticipated. As Mormons had been involved and had been seen they now feared that news would manage to leak out and they would potentially be punished for the attack. They decided, in a private meeting, it would be necessary to kill all the survivors, except for the youngest children who would not be able to testify as to what happened. They stationed the Indians hidden in the surrounding brush, approached the survivors with a false flag of truce (can you believe this), and convinced them they would try to save them from further harm. Although there was some suspicion on the part of the survivors they had little choice but to accept the offer. They agreed to put their guns and whatever other items they wanted to save in two wagons, along with the smallest children, that would lead the procession. Following the wagons on foot were the men and behind them the women. When they reached a certain spot they were attacked and killed, all but seventeen of the smallest children. Many were shot, others had their throats cut, and it was a terrible scene of blood and gore. The Mormons attempted to bury the victims in shallow graves but wolves and coyotes unearthed some and consumed them. In fact, different parties passing by that way were burying bones for months afterwards.

So how is it possible that Mormons could have done such a terrible thing? What led up to this horror? The authors suggest a number of factors were at play. First, there was the resentment about what had been done to the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois. There was also the fear they had of the impending arrival of Government troops they had vowed to resist. And there were the harsh words and threats they had endured by members of the wagon train when they attempted to buy much needed supplies and were refused. It was rumored that one or more of the emigrants had boasted of killing Joseph Smith previously, and threatened to return from California and kill Mormons. Somehow, according to the authors, all of this combined and grew out of proportion to the point where the emigrants associated these particular emigrants with the coming Government troops, became more and more enraged at the threats, and decided they needed to kill the emigrants before they could return and attack them. The authors suggest there may also have been an economic motive involved as this particular wagon train was believed to be wealthier than most, in cattle, horses, and even money. And finally they point to the general turbulence of the times when violence was commonplace and people often took the law into their own hands. They also very briefly mention studies of mob psychology.

This may well prove to be the best explanation possible for this tragic event as by now the various accounts have been garbled, interpreted and re-interpreted, until it is impossible to know the truth. For what it is worth, I do not personally find their explanations entirely convincing. First, it seems to me if they were truly fearful of the imminent arrival of Government troops, murdering a wagon-train filled with innocent people would have been the last thing they should have done. As far as the threats from the emigrants go, the Mormons had already heard many such threats before, and it is highly unlikely they could have believed that emigrants wanting to go to California in search of new lives would have felt strongly enough about being refused supplies they would have returned to kill them. The boast of having been involved in the killing of Joseph Smith they had also heard before from others. Trying to blame what happened exclusively on the Indians, when they had enlisted them to do it, also seems like a foolish thing to have done. The Mormons were on friendly terms with the local Indians and wanted them to fight with them against the Government, so blaming them for a massacre would have brought about a massive Government reaction against them and would probably have not endeared them to those who urged them to kill. What had happened to the Mormons in Missouri and Illinois was past history, there may well have been resentment, by why would this take the form of murdering innocents? My innate cynicism leads me to believe the economic motive may have been much more important than anything else. The Mormons, especially those living in the area, were not doing well, they were relatively impoverished even compared to Mormons in other parts of Utah. The perpetrators certainly looted everything they could get their hands on, including even the bloodstained bullet-riddled clothing. But remember, I know nothing of the episode other than what I read in this book and mine is a very questionable opinion.

Massacre at Mountain Meadows basically ends at the end of the massacre and then skips to a final chapter where John D. Lee, probably the most important of the perpetrators, twenty years later, is returned to Mountain Meadows and executed by a firing squad. There is no account of what happened during that past twenty years. This is because a second volume is intended to deal with the subsequent investigation and punishment.

So what does this tell us about Mormons, especially contemporary Mormons. Well, it tells us exactly what the genocide of the American Indians tells us about contemporary Americans, what the Stalin purges tell us about contemporary Russians, what the Holocaust tells us about modern day Germans, what the Armenian genocide tell us about modern day Turks, in short, nothing, other than the fact that the history of the human species is fraught with such atrocities. As Aleksandra Solzhenitsyn has said, “The battleline between good and evil runs through the head of every man,” which seems to be an unfortunate truth now as it has always been.

Black Cloud over Christmas

2011-12-26T22:14:00.001-08:00

Well, I had what I can only describe as a marvelous Christmas. A fine tree we cut ourselves, decorations, presents under the tree, my son and his wife here on Christmas Day for the opening of presents, nice gifts to all, the complete American traditional holiday. Christmas Eve my wife cooked a wonderful Italian-inspired Duck Ragout with a locally organically raised Duck, on Christmas Day we feasted on a huge locally organically grown chicken (we waited too long to get a suitable turkey), with dressing, our own mashed potatoes and parsnips, beans and carrots, and, of course, cranberry sauce. It was all quite fine and of course I enjoyed it…except for the black cloud that hung over my head the entire time.

I simply could not get out of my head thoughts about the thousands of homeless children and the millions of people either unemployed or balanced precariously on the poverty line, thoughts that seemed to just hang there in the air refusing to go away, thoughts that led to further thoughts about my helplessness and the unfairness of it all. I wondered if all those with their millions and billions were having similar thoughts but quickly realized probably not. I personally find this rather infuriating. I find it equally infuriating that people are sleeping on the streets, in their cars, and going hungry in my country, a country I used to be so proud of which to be a member, people without health insurance, dumpster diving for food, without little hope for a better future. And it makes me angry to be asked to contribute to the Salvation Army, the Red Cross, the Firemen, the Policemen, to medical research, and so on. This angers me not because I am cheap or uncaring, but because I do not believe it should be up to me to help take care of problems that should not exist in the first place. What, after all, is government for, if not to look after its citizens? And why do we pay taxes if it is not to care for our needs? Where is it either written or decreed, for example, that we need roads, bridges, and dams, but we do not need food, housing, or health? Of course our tax dollars now are siphoned off for unnecessary “wars,” made artificially necessary to feed the military/industrial/political scam that converts taxpayer dollars into profits for corporations and the wealthy.

This is where I seriously part company with Republicans who seem to believe taking care of our fellow citizens is not the business of government, who seem to believe that national defense is basically all that matters (but then use national defense as an excuse to line the pockets of those involved in the military/industrial/political system at the expense of everyone else). In most human societies of the past, and some even now, one of the main purposes of “government,” no matter how “primitive,” is to see to it that its members are protected from hunger and famine as well as attacks from others. Even in New Guinea where I worked, about as “primitive” a society as you can find, no one went hungry, there were no orphans, old people were cared for, and people were concerned about their friends and relatives. During periods of drought they called on their trading partners to help them and received such help, something they in turn helped with when the circumstances were reversed. In so-called Peasant Societies much the same thing was/is true, there is a sense of community, the idea that they live together in society for the purpose of their common welfare. The idea that some few would cling to the available wealth was repugnant to them, and if someone were too greedy they were ostracized, if not actually killed. Sharing was one of the most important virtues.

Here in the so-called “modern world” things are quite different. The sense of community has vanished, people no longer live on intimate face-to-face terms with relatives and friends, often they do not even know their neighbors. These former bonds have been replaced with what are essentially legal contracts to buy and sell with no other obligations involved. If you believe, as some do, that government has no business replacing these bonds that were lost by acting in the best interests of their citizens it means people are now left completely on their own. If they cannot find a job they should, according to Bachmann, not eat (presumably be left to starve). If they cannot afford health insurance they should just die, according to Ron Paul. If they are poor they are fair game for the moneylenders. If they have no funds they should go without an education. No decent human society devalues their citizens like this, indeed, it is in the best interest of society to feed, clothe, educate, and provide adequate housing and health care for their citizens if they wish to continue as a viable group. From a cultural point of view it is suicidal to abandon children to poverty and despair. Who, after all, is going to provide for you when necessary in the future, when the last few billionaires shrivel up and die?

I find it laughable when I hear people say, “Why should the successful be punished, if they worked hard and managed to get ahead?” The fact is, in a capitalistic society like this one being successful is not a matter of hard work, it’s a matter of having money in the first place. If you have money you can be completely brain dead and still be successful. To equate success with having lots of money is little more than believing there is no limit on greed, and alas, that seems to be what we have come to.

Why do I think like this? It’s my mother’s fault (bless her) for always reminding me of the starving Chinese and the starving Armenians. Even as a small child I knew what a Chinaman was, but I didn’t have any idea what an Armenian was. I’m not sure my mother knew what an Armenian was, but she knew they were starving and that bothered her terribly. Also, by now, having lived in a variety of human societies, from “savages” to “folk,” rural and urban, and also being somewhat familiar with the extensive literature on sick societies, I believe I know what a “sick society” looks like. This one I live in now is truly sick and there seems to be nothing I can do about it.

It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.

Krishnamurti

Happy Holidays

2011-12-23T21:45:00.000-08:00

This is the true silly season, what with everyone out buying their annual supply of Chinese junk, the dreary music crowding your ears everywhere you go, and millions living in poverty and misery.I sincerely hope things will get better for those who desperately need it to get better. In the meanwhile please try to survive and continue to do the best you can. I love you all (well, most of you anyway).

Happy Holidays! Do not panic. Never give up.

Morialekafa

Unpleasant Truths

2011-12-21T22:22:00.000-08:00

Do I know what is true and what is not? Of course not. Are there things I believe are true, or at least probably true? Yes. You may not agree. For example, it seems to be accepted as true that Governor Perry is a reasonable candidate to become President of the United States, but is just not adept at debating and is unfortunately subject to gaffes. I do not believe it is true he is a reasonable candidate for President, it is true he is not good at debating and he does make gaffes, but the real truth is, I think, he’s basically stupid. I often take care to distinguish between ignorance and stupidity, in Perry’s case I believe the unfortunate truth is, he is both ignorant and stupid. This is, of course, merely my opinion, based on my observations of him to date. Stupid is as stupid does, and he does a lot of stupid.

Then there is the case of Newton Leroy Gingrich, self-proclaimed intellectual, idea man, egomaniacal savior of the world, and quite possibly one of the greatest con men in all history. The truth is, I believe, Newt Gingrich is simply a pompous windbag, a pretentious fake intellectual, and at best a kind of half-assed historian, who has somehow managed to get people to believe he is something he is not. I suppose you could count this as an achievement in its own right, but I don’t believe it makes him a credible candidate for President. He perhaps cannot be said to be actually stupid, but his false presentation of self is catching up with him. His defense seems to be to say, “If you can’t say something nice about me, don’t say anything at all.”

Rick Santorum is a somewhat more difficult case. I’m not certain whether he is really stupid or not. He is, first of all, apparently obsessed with other people’s sex lives, is terribly homophobic, that leads me to believe he is it at least pretty ignorant about human sexual behavior. What makes me suspect he may be stupid is his latest tirade about income inequality. He says he is all for income inequality, because some people work harder than others, have more ideas, and therefore deserve more than others. He also accuses President Obama of wanting everyone to have the same income. Now it is true that some people work harder than others, and if income was actually related only to hard work he might have a point. But as this is not the case his argument is simply beside the point. If he doesn’t realize this he is stupid. If he believes Obama is a socialist who wants everyone to have the same income he is either ignorant or stupid or both. The unpleasant truth is that people who make lots of money are those who already have lots of money and basically don’t have to work at all. Strange as it may be, money breeds. Is Santorum too stupid to know this?

The case of Michele Bachmann is almost too complicated to deal with, at least on an outpatient basis. It is difficult to fathom if she is really as stupid as she appears to be or is just blurting out whatever pops into her head at the moment without giving it any thought. She has said so many stupid things it is hard to keep track of them all. The one thing she has recently said leads me to believe she really is just plain stupid. She announced that Iran is building a nuclear bomb (for which there is no proof), something that many people seem to believe, but she then goes on to say they are going to use it to destroy Israel and also use it against the United States. If she just made this up to please the Tea Party, okay, but if she really believes this, she is truly stupid (or perhaps delusional).

I don’t believe Ron Paul is stupid, but some of his ideas are stupid. The idea that we could return to the gold standard, for example, is really a pretty stupid idea. On the other hand, his ideas about Foreign Aid and intervention are, I think, not stupid at all, just plain unrealistic. But what is truly stupid are his ideas about trying to live and exist in the modern world with essentially no government, or at least a very minimal government. While it may be true we managed to survive back in the days of minimal government, what with shooting and killing each other basically at will, being fiercely independent and jumping claims, stealing horses and cattle, and hanging those who angered our particular mob, I doubt such a system would work very well these days. I bet we couldn’t even find a corral in which to stage a decent gunfight.

As far as Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, and Herman Cain are concerned, their very idea they could be President is stupid. As most of the Republican candidates also appear to not believe in evolution, global warming, environmental protections, and apparently science in general, they are, in my opinion, too stupid and therefore unfit for high office. Furthermore, the thought of any of them with their finger on the nuclear trigger, waiting to hear from god, is more than I can bear.

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.

Henry David Thoreau

Subversives

2011-12-20T22:45:00.000-08:00

Definition of subversion:

the act of subverting : the state of being subverted; especially : a systematic attempt to overthrow or undermine a government or political system by persons working secretly from within.

I would like very much to label the Tea Party members of the House of Representatives in particular, and Republicans in general, as subversives, which I believe they are. They have been clearly out to subvert the government of the United States, represented by our President Barack Obama, at apparently any cost to the nation or its citizens. But according to the above definition I guess I cannot so label them because they have not been working “secretly from within.” In fact, they have blatantly been working publicly ever since Obama was elected President and Rush Limbaugh, unacknowledged leader of the Republican Party, announced he wanted him to fail. This was followed by Mitch McConnell, leader of the Senate Republicans, announcing that their (the Republicans) number one priority would be to see to it that Obama would be a one term President. Not only did they make these claims, they have faithfully done everything within their power to make it come true, opposing virtually everything Obama has attempted to do, even in cases where they themselves had first suggested it should be done. It is clear they have resisted all of the attempts by Obama to create jobs and improve conditions for our citizens for no reason other than the fact that Obama has wanted them. If this is not subversive I don’t know what is. I suppose that technically, because they have not done it secretly from within, you might say it is not subversive, but it seems to me that is basically mincing words.

There are other definitions of subversion as well. But they almost invariably define the act as having to involve physical or violent means, planning to overthrow the government by force. So here again, what the Republicans have done over the past three years is, strictly speaking, not subversion (although there have been random threats against the President, suggestions that he should be assassinated and so on). As these do not seem to be organized or necessarily involve the Republican Party as such, they, too, don’t count as subversion by the party. I’m pretty sure there must be laws against subversives, but they would never be applied to this situation. This Department of Justice (and Administration) has proven to be useless when it comes to prosecuting war criminals or fraudulent bankers. In any case they would no doubt say they haven’t done anything illegal. I guess subversion in the pursuit of politics is no vice.

There is clearly a bit of a problem here when it comes to behavior and language. Mitch McConnell, leader of the Senate Republicans, once said of their plans to bring down Obama, “Isn’t that always the case, the party out of power always tries to defeat the incumbent,” or words to that effect. As there is a bit of truth to this it might seem reasonable. However, I think you would have to suggest that while it is true, it has never before implied the party out of power would, in effect, simply stop governing for three years. There is no precedent for such a move on the part of a political party. The idea, at least as I would understand it, is that both parties have to be involved in conducting the nation’s business, looking after the welfare of the citizens as well as the welfare of the nation. You don’t just refuse to participate in government while trying to unseat the incumbent, at least as far as I know or can remember. This is genuinely subversive and makes a mockery of government.

There seems to be an example of this kind of subversion going on at the moment. The House of Representatives is apparently reneging on an understanding they had with the Senate, by refusing to agree to the compromise worked out in the Senate between Democrats and Republicans having to do with extending the payroll tax cuts. Someone pointed out that the Senate would not have gone home if they had known the House was not going to approve their bill. This makes sense to me. It makes me believe that Boehner had assured them the House would go along, but then when he was confronted by the Tea Party wing he had to renege. Knowing that if he brought it up for a House vote it would pass, and knowing the Tea Party did not want it to pass, he came up with the rather preposterous claim that he had not known it was only for two months, and that was not satisfactory for the House. This of course is utter nonsense and is nothing but an attempt to force the Senate to return to Washington to consider further the matter they had already settled on a bipartisan basis. It is a bluff to try to force President Obama into ordering the Senate back in session for a completely unnecessary reconciliation session. Reid and Obama have refused to do so, leaving the House Republicans in an extremely awkward situation. If they don’t back down and pass the bill, as of January first 160,000,000 million ordinary working Americans will see their taxes increase substantially. As Republicans are always opposed to any increase in taxes they will have egg all over their faces (or blueberry juice, according to the Reverend Al Sharpton). Boehner was apparently in favor of passing this bill and is being prevented by the Tea Party members of the House. You almost have to feel sorry for him. But Rachel Maddow suggested very early that Boehner may not be up to the job, and it seems to me that might well be the case. So what is likely to happen? Will the more traditional Republicans allow the Tea Party to lead them all to almost certain defeat in the coming elections? Will they cave in and finally pass the bill, however embarrassing it may be? Will they succeed in once more blaming Obama? Will Obama cave once more? Isn’t politics fun? Watch our country dissolve into a failed helpless giant begging in the streets while international corporations continue to slop their obscenely wealthy hogs.

Mighty hard to tell the people you love you’re a failure.

Laura Moncur

The Bear - book

2011-12-18T22:11:00.000-08:00

The Bear History of a Fallen King, Michel Pastoureau (The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London, 2011) translated from the French by George Holoch.

I found this an interesting book for several reasons. It is only marginally about real flesh and blood bears. It is a subject historians do not ordinarily spend much time pursuing (the history of animals), and it deals with periods of time about which I know very little. Similarly, it might as well have been sub-titled Bears versus the Catholic Church, something I would never have thought of at all until I read this book. The author is a cultural historian specializing, I believe, in the Middle Ages.

I knew, of course, there was a long history of the association of bears with humans. I had read A. Irving Hallowell’s work on Bear Ceremonialism in the Americas, and I was also aware of the importance of the bear among the Ainu, the ancient people of Japan. This work deals primarily with bears as they appear in European folklore, myths, ceremonies, the iconography and hagiography of the Middle Ages and somewhat before. It is obviously exceedingly well researched, the author clearly has command of the relevant materials, and it is a fine job.

Reduced to the bare essentials, bears, prior to about the year 1000, were thought of as closely related to humans, and were considered to be the king of the animals, as such they featured in rituals that more often than not had a religious connotation. They were the largest and fiercest animals on the European continent. They were also quite humanlike in their behavior as they could stand on their hind legs, use their paws much like hands, be taught to dance and do other tricks, they were omnivores, and in general resembled humans more than any other creatures. More importantly, in the folklore and myths of the time they were (erroneously) believed to engage in ventral/ventral copulation like humans and to lust after young women. There were many stories about bears capturing young women, taking them off to their dens and raping them, thus producing offspring that were part human, part animal. It was also believed that women were sexually attracted to them, partly because hair was believed to be sexually attractive to women. Bears, in short, had a mythical god-like aura and were venerated in different ways.

With the rise of Christianity, Catholicism, this came to pose a serious problem for the Church which could not tolerate animals, especially bears, to be compared with humans and worshipped. Thus the Church began a movement to not only eliminate bears by encouraging them to be deliberately killed, but also to insure they could not have a place in any way equal to humans. Bears that had been for centuries considered kings were now portrayed as inferior to humans. There were many stories of how bears had been dominated by Saints and had come to serve them in different capacities, as companions, beasts of burden, and helpers of various kinds, always because of the superiority of Saints that made it possible for them to overcome and make bears do their bidding. At the same time the Church was working constantly to get people to abandon their various forms of bear worship and trying to destroy any idea that bears were like humans. Bears were common in the menageries kept by Kings and came to lose their mystique and reputation.

After many years of this, and beginning about the year 1000, the lion slowly became considered the king of beasts. Where the bear had been featured on family crests, flags, banners, seals, and so on, they were slowly replaced with images of lions. Where formerly a man was ideally to prove his manhood by besting a clever and vicious bear in hand-to-hand combat, this theme disappeared and bears came to be seen as rather slow, dumb, obese, awkward creatures, that were no match for humans at all. Bears were demeaned, turned into entertainers, dancing, and doing tricks for people, greedily consuming sweets given to them, and acting as all around entertainers. Their position in the animal kingdom fell below that of stags, boars, eagles, and most other creatures.

And so it was that after hundreds of years the Church managed to replace the bear as king with the lion (that did not have the same human features as bears and were foreign to Europe as well). The destruction of the bear as quasi-human was very successful and bears even to this day are thought of as clowns rather than as kings. The bear mystique was always much stronger in Northern Europe than in the South, apparently because there were more bears in the North and they were much larger than those in the South (apparently these smaller bears were found as far south as Tunisia).

Pastoureau suggests the bear may have achieved a measure of revenge with the creation of the Teddy Bear, now beloved by children everywhere. As you may know this creation came about after an incident in which Teddy Roosevelt, an avid hunter, refused to shoot a tethered bear, saying that had he done so he would not have been able to look his children in the eyes. A family that had as their business making stuffed animals made a bear, asked the White House if they could call it a Teddy Bear, received permission, and the result, as you know, has been a monumental success.

There is, of course, much more to The Bear than I have been able to cover here. If you are interested in folk tales, hagiography, iconography, and the literature of the Middle Ages, you will find this book of more than merely passing interest.

Obsolescence

2011-12-17T22:23:00.001-08:00

I think we can pretty much agree our political system is dysfunctional to the extreme at this moment in time. Many people seem to agree that one of the worst problems is the amount of money being poured into the elections, particularly after the absurd politicized Supreme Court decision that corporations are people and should be allowed to contribute as much money as possible. This means, among other things, the system is now corrupted beyond belief, and the fate of our elections rests in the hands of the corporations that can either buy them outright or inhibit anyone from dissenting by threatening to spend big money to defeat them. I grant this is an extremely important problem and needs desperately to be corrected. But as correcting it involves a constitutional amendment it cannot be corrected for a long time, if ever. This is, in my opinion, only one of the problems of obsolescence that seems to be in play.

Even if the money was taken out of the system, and even if it worked as a democratic system (which it doesn’t), it would still be dysfunctional because it is obsolete. Our democratic society, or Republic, if you will, was designed for a time that has long passed. It was all well and good at the time to pick leaders who seemed to be the best choices possible (mostly wealthy landowners). In those halcyon days most of the leaders were of about the same socio-economic level, and more importantly, knew much the same about the condition of the country both internally and internationally. You could vote for a Jefferson or a Madison knowing they knew as much or more about what was happening as anyone available. Not only that, things moved very slowly, there was always time to make necessary corrections, communication was primitive, and in the worst cases things had often sorted themselves out by the time anything could be done about it. Both domestic and international problems were well known by those “in the know,” and politics was much simpler then. But if the goal of “government” is to insure the well-being of the citizenry, and also to deal with international relations, things are very different in the modern world, fantastically more complicated, and thousands of times more difficult. The idea that one White landowner was much the same as another simply does not apply any longer. The requirements of office are much more demanding. That, I think, is where much of the problem lies. One candidate is no longer much the same as another, and none of the candidates are truly knowledgeable or suitable enough for the important offices they aspire to. We elect candidates who almost universally are not truly qualified. We do not have a large cadre of individuals with sufficient knowledge of either domestic or international affairs from which to select our leaders.

This can be seen clearly in the current crop of Republican candidates, but it is true of all candidates in general. I do not mean to be unkind but individuals like Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Donald Trump are quite plain and simply not qualified for the Presidency. In fact, I would argue none of the candidates are qualified. Romney thinks he is qualified because he was a successful businessman, but is that really enough to be President? Running a large and complex nation is not the same as running a business. George W. Bush was certainly not qualified, even though he was a Governor of Texas, nor is Rick Perry qualified. This is because Governors, like Presidents, are not elected on the basis of their qualifications but, rather, on political grounds, who has the most money or at least access to the most money, and so on. In fact Governors as well as many others, can be just plain ignorant if not basically stupid.

Interestingly enough, in the United States there are no prerequisites for holding important offices, none. This is why you can have candidates like Herman Cain who basically don’t believe you have to know anything at all to be President, just be a “leader.” But a leader who knows virtually nothing cannot truly lead, at least not successfully. George W. Bush is a recent case in point. Nor do I believe being a lawyer is in and of itself a sufficient qualification for the Presidency, although knowledge of Constitutional law should help. This lack of expertise runs throughout the system. Presidents need to have the best advice available, but those in positions to advise are often no more knowledgeable than the President himself, such advisors can be chosen for very questionable reasons. Our Senators and House members are similarly elected for strange reasons and often know virtually nothing about what they should know in order to successfully decide on vital national and public issues. Many of them are lawyers, others are wealthy enough to get elected no matter how little they know, some are businessmen, and others are even exterminators or comedians. They may well be decent people, and even well-intentioned, but they simply do not command the knowledge they need to make reasonable and thoughtful decisions; witness, for example, those who oppose action on global warming or other environmental problems, or those who blindly follow their religious beliefs when it comes to Israel, or those who oppose stem cell research, and so on. This is not always merely just a difference of opinion, it is often a difference of opinion based on ignorance.

We do not take “governing” seriously. If we did we would not cling to this obsolete practice of electing people on the basis of whether or not we might like to have a beer with them, nor would we be so cavalier when it comes to examining their qualifications. You have to be examined to have a driver’s license, to own a gun, to become a plumber or an electrician, even a hairdresser, but you do not have to have any qualifications whatsoever to be the most powerful person in the world, with a nuclear arsenal and the most powerful military on earth at your disposal. I submit this is a ridiculous way to run a country. If we want to have a decent, intelligent, and smoothly functioning government, one that will look after our national interests in the best possible way, we should have a large cadre of people well trained for that purpose, perhaps a National University for those who aspire to enter government service at any level. They should be well versed in history, political economy, geography, management, science (at least to some minimal level), as well as ethics and government. They should know where to look for advice and be confident their advisors actually know their business. In the advanced years of their training they should be given internships and become familiar with the ongoing problems of the moment, international relations, domestic problems, and so on. Those who distinguish themselves should be able to move up in the system, run for office, and ultimately be able to make thoughtful, conscientious decisions about public welfare and international problems.

Yeah, I know, pie in the sky. This can never happen until: (1) money becomes unimportant in elections, and (2) we must get serious about the governance of our country. If we wish to continue as a nation and compete on an international scale we must get our house in order, educate our children, and speed up the decision-making process. This is not the 18th century anymore.

However much we talk of the inexorable laws governing the life of individuals and of societies, we remain at the bottom convinced that in human affairs everything is more or less fortuitous. We do not even believe in the inevitability of our own death. Hence the difficulty of deciphering the present, of detecting the seeds of things to come as they germinate before our eyes. We are not attuned to seeing the inevitable.

Eric Hoffer

Morally Reprehensible

2011-12-16T22:21:00.000-08:00

I hate to say it, and I am not at all pleased about it, but I am finally forced to admit that I believe it is true, our country, the United States of America, is a morally reprehensible nation. I do not mean that only certain elements in it are morally reprehensible (although some are probably more so than others), I mean it is morally reprehensible from top to bottom, from corner to corner, from state to state, county to city, town to hamlet. Not only that, I believe our moral status in the world is not only reprehensible, it is irresponsible and indefensible as well.

We proudly claim to be the wealthiest, most powerful nation on earth, the wonderful “Beacon on the hill,” the land of opportunity, the model of democracy, the land of the free and the home of the brave. How do you reconcile such claims with the facts that one of every five of our children is living in poverty, one in every forty-five are homeless, and roughly one half of our population is living either in poverty or on the edge of poverty? We have children testifying they have been homeless all or most of their lives, do not have enough to eat, cannot see a doctor or a dentist, live in their cars or on the street, and have no hope for the future. Many of them realize their parents are doing the best they can, they work, but the best they can is not good enough because their wages are too low to provide an adequate living. This is true now, right now, right here in this country we profess to be so great. This is shameful, disgusting, reprehensible, immoral, and virtually unprecedented among the more industrialized, supposedly “civilized” nations on earth. And while we have the power to do something about it, we don’t, and haven’t for a long time.

I do not believe Republicans are uniquely responsible for the condition we currently find ourselves in, but at the moment they do constitute the single most important reason nothing is being done to alleviate the poverty and misery that now infects our country, taken over by a plague of greedy locusts consuming everything in sight. A small group of Republicans in the House of Representatives has managed to block every effort to improve the conditions of our lives. They have not themselves offered a single jobs bill, and they have opposed every effort on the part of President Obama and the democrats to create jobs. They are opposed to unemployment insurance, universal health care, a minimum wage, Social Security, and even a reduction in taxes for the Middle class where it is desperately needed. They oppose any effort to improve the lot of the Middle class and the poor while at the same time insisting that taxes cannot be raised even minimally on the wealthiest people in the country. And they repeatedly use blackmail to get their way, threatening to shut down the country if they cannot have their pounds of flesh. They are unmoved by the testimony of homeless children, impervious to the facts of poverty, and oblivious to the obligations of the offices they hold. They are beyond any doubt beyond shame, beyond guilt, beyond reason, and past all dishonor. They are morally reprehensible, human parasites feeding on the public trust, betraying their oaths of office, trashing the ideals upon which our nation was founded, and promoting completely unnecessary misery for millions.

Some of them profess ideological reasons for their sadistic behavior, but it is an ideology of greed, of the jungle, a primitive form of social Darwinism that decent people abandoned long ago. It is an ideology that basically denies the social foundations of human societies in favor of a “dog eat dog” system that pits individuals against each other in mad attempts to get more, more, more, always more. It is a belief in a form of unregulated capitalism that inevitably results in most of the collective wealth ending up in the hands of a few and the enslavement of the many. The basic idea of sharing, common to virtually all previously known human groups (that we refer to as “primitive”), has no place in such a system, morality becomes a foreign concept fit only for “socialists,” “communists,” and “suckers.”

Our country is not only morally reprehensible when it comes to domestic affairs, it is equally reprehensible when it comes to international affairs. Would you believe a candidate for the Presidency of the United States was roundly condemned for suggesting we should not bomb a sovereign country simply because we believe they might someday be a threat to us? Would you believe that one candidate actually said Iran was not only building a nuclear bomb (for which there is no evidence), but as soon as they had one they would use it to attack Israel and the United States, claims so idiotic they should have been uttered by someone already in a straightjacket. With one exception every Republican candidate has indicated they are not only willing but actually eager to start a war with Iran, ideas not only morally reprehensible but also completely irresponsible, totally thoughtless, and unworthy of anyone professing to seek the Presidency.

Congress consists of one third, more or less, scoundrels; two thirds, more or less, idiots; and three thirds, more or less, poltroons.

H. L. Mencken

Interesting, at Least

2011-12-15T22:42:00.000-08:00

However ridiculous the United States political process has become, and it does seem to me to have become ridiculous beyond belief, you have to admit it is interesting, in a kind of sick, nauseating kind of way. Consider the current situation: On the one hand you have Willard “Mitt” Romney, the candidate the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party can’t stand and refuses to support; on the other hand you have Newton Leroy Gingrich, the other leading candidate that the more conservative wing of the Republican Party (as it sort of still exists) cannot stand. The only other candidate in the lead at the moment is now exposed as a racist kind of Pa Kettle who would turn the clock back to the 19th century (maybe even the 18th). No one believes he has even a ghost of a chance of ever becoming President and the other two leading candidates are described merely as “average.”

This would seem to virtually guarantee that President Obama would be re-elected for a second term as even Republicans are dissatisfied with the slate of candidates they have. But once again, attempting to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Obama’s recent boneheaded decisions may well give these Republican dolts a chance. Obama, for whatever reason, decided to block women’s desires to have easy access to the so-called abortion pill. This has enraged women throughout the country and they are bitter about it. More importantly, he has now decided not to veto the Military Authorization Bill (or whatever it is called), which will give him and the military unprecedented powers to arrest, incarcerate, and presumably keep forever (or until the end of the terrorist threat, whichever comes first) even American citizens considered to either be or aid terrorists. They will be able to do this in the U.S. (for the first time) and merely on the grounds of suspicion, with no requirement for a trial. In other words, you could be arrested and locked up forever with no right to Habeas Corpus merely on the whim of whoever is President. Fascism has now arrived just in time for Christmas. Needless to say neither of these Presidential acts is pleasing to the Progressive base, nor should they be pleasing to anyone with a brain larger than a walnut.

President Obama seems to have an enormous amount of luck when it comes to his political career. He was elected to the Senate easily because he was running against one of the looniest of candidates for office ever, Alan Keyes, who did not even live in the state at the time. As I recall this was because his original opponent had to drop out of the race at the last minute. Now Obama’s luck may hold, not because he might not deserve defeat, but because his opponent, if he or she is one of the current Republican candidates, will be so dreadful Obama will be seen as the only conceivable choice. Romney probably would have the best chance, but he’s a Mormon (which shouldn’t matter but will), an almost pathological flip-flopper, and has neither personality, charisma, or connection to the ordinary voting public. Gingrich is regarded by those who know him as basically hopeless as a leader, egomaniacal, and a “walking hand grenade,” not exactly qualities likely to help him get either the nomination or elected to the office. And both Romney and Gingrich, along with the others still in the campaign, are apparently eager to start another war (with Iran) as soon as possible. Their appreciation of international relations seems to be on a par with Herman Cain’s statement to Barbara Walters that he would like to be Secretary of Defense.

It is interesting that they seem to have no understanding whatsoever about the Iranians. They keep repeating how it is that Iran is a “danger” to the U.S. and, indeed, the entire world. Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear bomb (that presumably they would immediately drop on either Israel or the United States), and we must at all costs follow the dictates of Israel whatever the consequences. This is beyond even bizarre. First, there is no evidence Iran is developing a bomb; second, they would clearly not use it if they did have one; third, Iran has not attacked anyone for more than 200 years; fourth, these accusations are the most nonsensical since those against Iraq; fifth, the Iranians have offered to negotiate with the U.S. on numerous occasions only to be consistently rebuffed. This warmongering over Iran is absolute hogwash. The only threat is that Iran obviously might like to have some influence in their own neighborhood which would be a threat to U.S. and European hegemony in the region. But imagine that, a country might want to have some influence with what goes on with their neighbors and don’t see why a nation 8000 miles away should take precedence. Some are saying war with Iran is inevitable. We had certainly better hope not and those who are promoting one should be considered as likely candidates for the men in the white suits with nets, looking for crazies.

Being in politics is like being a football coach. You have to be smart enough to understand the game, and dumb enough to think it's important.

Eugene McCarthy

Consuming the Children

2011-12-13T22:30:00.000-08:00

You will recall Jonathan Swift’s modest proposal that the Irish could solve the problem of child poverty by eating their children, a proposal I revisited not long ago (Morialekafa 8-27-11). With one child in every 5 currently living in poverty, and one in every 45 homeless, we obviously did not follow Swift’s sarcastic suggestion. But there are other ways of consuming the children other than literally eating their flesh. Here in the United States we have been pioneering these methods for years.

Let me begin with what (hopefully) may be the beginning of the end of this rather absurd pioneering, the trillion dollars our young people currently owe as a result of having to borrow money to attend Colleges and Universities. You see, instead of GIVING our young people an education, or at least making it affordable, as most decent advanced countries do, we hit upon the scheme of charging them large tuition fees, making it necessary for them to borrow substantially from banks and others, or not be able to attend or graduate. Then, having squeezed every bit of money we could from them (and their parents) we release them into a situation where there are no jobs, thus relegating them to the scrap yards of the unemployed (and quite probably to the scrap yards of history as well). A decent education is not only good for our young people as individuals, it is even more important for the continuation and success of our culture, but not, of course, if it interferes with profits.

Consuming our children in this way did not begin with the relatively recent phenomenon of large student loans, it actually began many years ago with our educational system in general. It has been true since the beginning of our country that a successful democracy demands a well informed (and by implication, at least) a well educated citizenry. But a well informed, well educated citizenry is basically a threat to the powers that be, those in control of government, if they wish to remain in control. Thus it is in the best interest of the governing class (if their desire is merely to stay in power) to minimize education and information. This is unfortunately what has happened here in the U.S. of A., where serving in the public interest has been all but forgotten in the desire to serve the corporate masters and thus stay in office. To this end (unstated, unconfessed, even in some cases perhaps unintentionally) our educational system at all levels has been grossly underfunded and neglected for years. Teachers have been terribly underpaid, classes have been enlarged to accommodate more students for less money, school buildings and equipment have been allowed to deteriorate, and education in general has been underappreciated. In the lower grades many children come so hungry they can’t learn (and have to be fed). Our schools, especially our Middle and High Schools have been converted into little more than holding pens for our children, keeping them off the streets and labor market, infantilizing them, and providing them with little in the way of genuine educational opportunities. Many High schools are so bad large numbers of students drop out and never graduate (as many as 50% in some places) thus dooming them to wasted lives of poverty and hopelessness. Most of them who do somehow manage to graduate do not go on to school either because they cannot afford it or are so disenchanted with education they do not wish to, and many who do go on never finish. The ones that do finish, if they are fortunate, may find jobs, but often far below their abilities. The slogan, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste,” doesn’t resonate in a culture that routinely wastes millions of minds year after year.

Not only is this true, the educational institutions at all levels have consistently declined in recent years. Our Colleges and Universities have been converted mostly into professional schools where one goes to presumably become able to get a job (or find a husband). There is no love of learning as such, no “intellectual osmosis with ‘great-souled’ minds,” and even fewer and fewer direct contacts between Professors and students. It is cheaper to use teaching assistants and part-time teachers than pay for the best. This terrible situation has even been exacerbated in recent years by the rise of more and more private universities, their goal being to make a profit rather than providing the best educations. Grades have been inflated (what difference does it make), requirements have been reduced, courses have been cheapened, those who do make it through have learned less and less. The money goes to the administration and the athletic programs while the Colleges of Arts and Sciences suffer.

This situation is virtually suicidal for any nation that wants to continue to exist and flourish. But now that nations are becoming more and more irrelevant while huge international corporations become dominant, some of them with economies larger than most countries, consuming our children becomes less and less of a problem. They can hire the talent they need from other countries that have not yet abandoned education, talent they did not even have to pay the educational costs for, and talent that is willing and eager to work for less money. If the nation and the children suffer, so what, profits are assured, the masses of unemployed workers will either starve or, in more enlightened places, be given some form of welfare to barely and begrudgingly keep them alive, but with no medical insurance and no hope for the future. People are becoming resigned to the realization their children’s lives and opportunities will be less than those they themselves enjoyed. Thus it is that we don’t eat our children, we merely chew them up and spit them out, without even realizing the nutritional value we might have gained from actually eating them.

America believes in education: the average professor earns more money in a year than a professional athlete earns in a whole week.

Evan Esar

Christmas

2011-12-11T22:32:00.000-08:00

Yes, I fear it is that time of year, the annual celebration of excess and little restraint. I’m not crazy about Christmas, it’s okay, but very confused. I’m not a Scrooge, just a kind of semi-Scrooge. I don’t object to giving presents, provided I can order them on the Internet and never have to engage in ordinary shopping, a procedure I regard as close to a season in hell. After many years of marriage we have a system worked out that takes most of the problems out of shopping. My wife gives me a list of what she wants, I order it, and that’s that. At my age I only get two kinds of presents, socks and underwear and an occasional book. That is as it should be. Of course this takes away some of the mystery and all of the anticipation, but it’s worth it.

Of course there remains the problem of the Christmas tree. Buying a tree destroys my wife’s romantic view of how Christmas is supposed to be. Thus we have to find a cut a tree out in the “wild.” This is a bit easier said than done as really nice Christmas-type trees don’t exist in the wild except rarely. So every year at about this time we scour our six acres for a suitable tree, she in her knee length boots, me carrying the trusty “Swede saw” (it’s just not worth it to bother with the chain saw). Luckily this year there is almost no snow on the ground so the going was relatively easy. Unfortunately, most of the trees that grow on Sandhill are Ponderosa pines, not at all suitable for the purpose. But there are a few other evergreens and we usually find a tree that is satisfactory if far from perfect. But then the tree has to be put up in a stand of some sort that will keep it erect. This requires one person to hold the tree upright while the other crawls on their belly to tighten the screws. Although my wife insists on a wild tree she also has the strange idea that it ought to be perfectly symmetrical and stand perfectly upright. As this is an impossibility, it requires a long time and considerable effort to make it look exactly right (which it never really does). Eventually we reach a compromise and then the decorations have to go on the tree. Of course by now we have so many decorations this is very time-consuming, especially with the five cats who insist on “helping.” I saw a cartoon the other day that I wish I could reproduce for you, but I’ll just have to describe it as it is relevant to this problem: Two cats are sitting in a bar drinking. One explains to the other, “Every year they do this. They bring in a tree and they hang all sorts of bright dangling ornaments on it. But they freak out if I even go near it. That’s why I drink.” Anyway, you see the problem, especially if you have cats.

Then there is the problem of theology. Christmas, we are told, celebrates the birth of Christ, but for the vast majority of Americans I am quite certain this is not what they are celebrating. First of all, Christmas trees are a carryover from some more Pagan ceremony of the past. Second, I have never known anyone who seriously considered the birth of Christ while participating in this excess of commercialism without restraint. It is true that some people put out a plastic creche, but many more just string lights and decorations. These have little or no meaning to most people other than just another form of conspicuous consumption (he who has the most decorations and lights wins). Furthermore, I suspect many younger people have no idea what a manger is, and how many people know what frankincense and myrrh are, or even care? Given the performance of our Government in recent years I doubt they know even what a Wise Man is. It is true that as an Atheist I obviously do not celebrate the birth of Christ, but frankly, none of the religious people I have ever known pretended they were actually celebrating the birth of Christ. Christmas has obviously become a basically secular holiday, promoted by merchants who make a large percentage of their sales during this holiday season. The whole thing has become a farce.

For me, one of the worst features of Christmas is the dreadful music, Christmas carols. It is bad enough one has to hear them over and over for weeks but the lyrics are mostly either insipid or bizarre. “Round yon virgin, mother and child,” “Angels bending near the earth,” “And heaven and nature sing,” and so on. Actually, the lyrics to the original Christmas carols, although religious in nature and sometimes a bit strange, are far better than what passes for Christmas carols nowadays: “Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer,” “I saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus,” ”All I want for Christmas is my 2 Front Teeth,” “Rocking Around the Christmas Tree,” “Santa Baby,” and others even more dreadful. These newer “carols” seem to outnumber the traditional ones by far, but how on earth can they be reconciled with a celebration of the birth of Christ?” We have made a mockery of what was supposed to be a serious and meaningful celebration. We no longer praise the Lord, we praise the sales, the layaways, the bargains, while we buy junk imported from China for our children and items we don’t need or want for each other. Christmas has become an orgy of nonsense, a massive fraud, a time of gluttony, a period that represents our daily lives, only blown up by a thousandfold. And yet, paradoxically, there is still that little something about Christmas, a little spark that causes us to embrace it year after year in spite of everything else.

Even as an Atheist I regret what has happened to this holiday. I wish it was more serious and less nonsensical. As it no longer truly focuses on the birth of Christ, perhaps it could be renamed and broadened into a holiday that could be celebrated by all people simultaneously, people with true visions of the sugarplums of peace and good will to all, a period of reflection and thoughts of brotherhood and liberty and happiness and of a small world on a small planet where everyone works together for the benefit of all the wonderful creatures and plants that exist on it. Sigh!

In any case, Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, be of good cheer!

Death, Slavery, and Maximizing Unhappiness

2011-12-10T22:28:00.000-08:00

• Death, Slavery, and the Maximization of Unhappiness: I take this to be the current Republican Party’s Credo, their Bill of Non-rights, superseding the original statement in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. While I am sure they will deny this, it seems obvious to me that both their words and acts of the last few years indicate it is a perfectly adequate description of what seems to be their agenda.

They have been and still are opposed to universal health care (unless you are wealthy enough to afford it). This means that many, many people will die sooner than necessary and inevitably in unnecessary pain as they lack proper health care. They support the Health Care Insurance business that basically makes their profits on the misery and death of their clients. You will no doubt recall some of their famous statements on this question. Ron Paul, for example, explaining that if you don’t have health care it’s your own fault and you should just be left to die. There was applause. Then there was that Nevada Republican Bimbo who suggested if you were sick you should see if your Doctor would take a chicken for his fee (lots of people have chickens these days). When it comes to death more broadly conceived, remember how they cheered when it was announced how many people had been executed by Rick Perry as Governor of Texas. And don’t forget they are opposed to regulations having to do with clean air and water, pharmaceuticals, workplace safety, and virtually anything that might protect people from environmental dangers, including global warming. And, of course, they are generally in favor of permanent war, sending our young people around the world to die for oil and other industries. The death of others, especially non-Westerners, seems not to bother them in the least. I remind you of Alan Grayson’s terse description of the Republican health care plan: “If you get sick, die quickly.”

As far as slavery goes, it now exists in a somewhat different form than it did in days of yore. Nowadays we have “wage slavery” and other forms of slavery as well. Republicans are opposed to a minimum wage, insisting the market should determine wages, and thus laying the foundation for wages so low as to keep people virtually enslaved to the low-paying job they are lucky to have, as there are masses of people with no jobs to replace them if they leave or get so uppity as to suggest anything as terrible as forming a union. If you don’t have a job they do not want you to have unemployment insurance. One of them famously said, “If you don’t work you shouldn’t eat.”They want you to have to accept the most demeaning jobs ever for the lowest wages ever. Most ordinary working people are also slaves to the banks because of usurious credit card rates. These high rates are basically the functional equivalent of slavery as once you fall into their debt they make it as difficult as possible to get out of it. Credit cards exist for the purpose of making profits for the “Masters,” just as slaves on the Plantations did. The only difference is they are not allowed to beat or rape you whenever they feel like it. When you are forced to work for what are basically slave wages it is difficult to stay out of debt, and once you’re in debt you’re in their clutches and have to struggle mightily to ever prosper. I am speaking here of ordinary credit card debt, they also have so-called “Payday Lenders” who at times manage to get as much as 300% interest. Republicans resist changing the laws to prevent this, just as they resist changes to the Credit Card industry in general and Bank regulations as well.

It should be obvious that all of the above contributes to the maximization of unhappiness. But there is more. They are opposed to Gay marriages, thus making probably as much as 10% of the population unhappy. They are opposed to women having a choice when it comes to their own bodies, thus forcing them to have children they cannot afford and possibly do not want to care for. This means that not only the mothers are made unhappy but their unwanted children are doomed probably to a lifetime of unhappiness as well. They don’t support subsidized child care thus making it as difficult as possible for poor women to work and buy food for themselves and their children. Similarly, when it comes to immigrants, they oppose citizenship for children born here and see no problem with splitting up families in order to enforce the law, the same laws their benefactors break to attract cheap labor in the first place. They are also attempting to create onerous laws making it more difficult to vote, especially for older and younger voters, and minorities as well. I cannot imagine this makes their lives any happier. They also oppose any restrictions on gun ownership, apparently believing it makes everyone happy to be able to carry their guns to school, church, and even into bars. I doubt this makes most people happy. They seem to seek out ways to make people unhappy, it’s like they fear that some Middle Class or Poor person, somewhere, somehow, someway, might actually have a moment of happiness. They even want people to abstain from sex, trying to ban contraception, birth control and even Planned Parenthood, and demanding “abstinence only “advice to teenagers (which seems to make them have even more sex). They insist that drugs be criminalized, filling up our jails with non-violent pot smokers (and lots of minorities), making anyone happy? You can be certain if there is anything designed to make the Middle Class and the Poor more unhappy than they already are, Republicans will be in favor of it. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness be damned. Their solution to all our problems: more of the same.

The object of government in peace and in war is not the glory of rulers or of races, but the happiness of the common man.

Lord William Beveridge

The Rich Kid

2011-12-09T22:37:00.000-08:00

Why is it so many people just do not seem to like Willard “Mitt” Romney? My belief is, it’s because he is a perfect example of the Rich Kid trying to be “one of the guys” without knowing the culture well enough to become one of them. By trying to become something he isn’t he attempts to ingratiate himself with them. For example, he claims falsely to be a hunter when he has perhaps hunted only twice in his entire life, pretends to be a member of NRA when he’s not, and so on. Similarly, in his ambition to be President he uses the same technique of ingratiation, changing his position whenever he thinks it might help him. He seems not to understand that by doing this he is accomplishing the exact opposite of what he intends. By flip-flopping on every issue he makes himself even more of the Rich Kid trying to belong. When, for example, he claims that he, too, is unemployed he comes across as totally inauthentic, phony, and this is quite apparent to everyone. He doesn’t know how to talk with ordinary people, working people, and always appear either stiff or condescending or both. You don’t, for example, walk into a restaurant full of customers and say “what’s going on here.” He is, in short, the equivalent of a political “Nerd.” He neither talks the talk nor walks the walk. He doesn’t know how. He cannot possibly know how ordinary working people live.

In his obsession with becoming President he is willing to say anything, take any position, if he thinks it will help. In his latest embrace of the absurd Ryan budget, he seems to be pursuing it only because it is the opposite of the Gingrich position, a wonderful case in point. Paradoxically, and as unfortunate as it may be, even his emphasis on his stable 42 year marriage, and his belonging to the same church all his life, makes him suspect as that is not the typical life career of most Americans, it is in fact relatively unreal. If he were to proudly claim he was an Eagle Scout it would not work to his advantage (I am not saying he did claim this distinction). Most American boys do not become Boy Scouts, and few that do achieve Eagle Scout status, however desirable this may be. Having lived such an exemplary life is more likely to get you accused of being a “Goody, goody, two shoes,” than a “regular guy.” The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, Willard “Mitt” Romney is every bit as much the “Other,” as Republicans have tried to make Obama. Even his using “Mitt” rather than Willard is evidence of his trying desperately to be “just a regular guy.” I am not suggesting that Romney is a bad person, or that he has not lived an exemplary life, or that he suffers from a bad character, or is living a lie. He is, unfortunately, for himself, and perhaps even for the rest of us, too far out of the main stream of American culture to be a very convincing candidate for the Presidency.

I attribute Romney’s inability to connect with ordinary Americans (including other politicians) to his life history. Born into wealth and a Mormon family, sheltered, attending a prestigious Prep school for the very wealthy (he was not athletic), spending time as a missionary in France (where he was not very successful with the wine-loving Catholics not amenable to Mormonism, admitting what he was doing was rejected), later a year at Stanford (where he was opposed to the opposers), BYU, and eventually a special Harvard program in Business and Law (he was an excellent student whose classmates considered him “guilelessly optimistic). All in all he seems to have been the epitome of the “button down” conservative. While this experience no doubt fitted him splendidly for a career in business, it also kept him well apart from the mainstream of American culture. Thus it is true that from the standpoint of most ordinary Americans he lacks authenticity, he is not “one of them.” He is too perfect, too straight, too privileged, and too unable to “relate.” Strangely perhaps, Newt Gingrich with all his warts and baggage, is someone ordinary people can relate to, however sleazy he may actually be. Even more interesting when it comes to Gingrich is the fact that people do not seem to consider him what he actually is, or at least claims to be. That is, while he considers himself Professorial, a Historian and an Intellectual (and Professors and intellectuals do not usually fare well in American politics), people either overlook this or forgive him, seemingly thinking of him as basically a politician, or even a kind of “hustler,” someone who is more like themselves only smarter (he has successfully conned people into believing this over his many years of promoting himself). In any case, he is certainly not the “Other” that Romney is. Obviously you would not even consider having a beer with Romney, a non-drinking Mormon, but Gingrich might be entertaining.

Thus we have this bizarre situation where someone who has the background, experience, and means to become President, probably won’t, because he simply doesn’t relate well to others, whereas someone who is demonstrably unethical, only marginally moral, pompously egomaniacal, and disturbingly unpredictable, may have a better chance. Who says life isn’t stranger than fiction?

When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained.

Mark Twain

Sleazy

2011-12-08T22:44:00.000-08:00

Sleazy - definition
a : lacking firmness of texture : FLIMSY b : carelessly made of inferior materials : SHODDY
2
a : marked by low character or quality b : SQUALID, DILAPIDATED

What a fine word, "sleazy." I haven’t heard it much lately. I find this a bit strange as it is by far the finest one word description of Newt Gingrich you will ever find. In fact, I find it hard to believe it was not first coined with him in mind. I was also surprised to learn his picture did not appear with the definition.

I don’t say he is sleazy because he has been married three times, lots of people have been married more than once, but when you confront your first wife with your demands for a divorce while she is lying in a hospital bed suffering from cancer, that’s sleazy. And then when you announce she was not pretty or young enough to be the First Lady, that’s pretty sleazy. Similarly, when having finally ditched your first wife, you marry your second, that’s not necessarily sleazy, but when you admit to having had an ongoing affair with her while still married to your first wife, that’s sleazy. And then again, while married to your second wife you are having an affair with who is to become your third wife, that’s sleazy. And what is super sleazy is leading a charge to impeach President Clinton for an extramarital sexual affair while you are engaged in exactly the same thing at exactly the same time, hard to beat that for pure sleaze. One might wonder how many other fine “adventures” one might have with a half million dollar line of credit from Tiffany’s.

Then, when you have made millions of dollars peddling influence, you claim not to have been a lobbyist, that is sleazy. If you are collecting money from clients you represent to members of Congress, claiming your influence there, and attempting to influence decision making on Capitol Hill, you are in fact working as a lobbyist. Trying to claim you were really acting as a historian while collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars for your “advice” is sleaze, pure and simple, to say nothing of a lie so transparent as to leave you gasping.

Then, when Speaker of the House, you are charged with ethics violations (a mere 84 of them), fined $300,000, and forced out of your position in disgrace, that, too, is pretty sleazy, especially when you are the only person in the history of the country to be so disgraced and thrown out of office by your own party. Threatening to shut the country down unless you get your way is even more sleazy. You tried, and lost, but that doesn’t make it any the less sleazy. Of course making up a list of bad words to provide to your party for use against the opposition party is not exactly a procedure lacking sleaze, and dividing the country for political gain is equally if not even more sleazy.

Denigrating poor children as lacking a work ethic, having parents who likewise don’t work, unless in criminal enterprises, is almost below sleaze. It might help if you had any idea what the hell you were talking about, but that never seems to keep you from blurting out your spur of the moment idea that is going to solve our problems. It would, I suppose, seem obvious (at least to Republicans) that poor children should clean toilets and scrub floors, a truly brilliant idea to combat unemployment and the deficit. And claiming to be the only person to keep us safe from the fantasy of a “secular fascist takeover” is egotistical sleaze run wild, besides being utter bullshit. Constantly telling us how wonderful you are, how intellectual, how brilliant, how only you have the know-how to save the world, is in itself sleazy. Lying is also sleazy, although we all recognize politicians regularly lie. But your lying goes beyond the ordinary, being so fanciful and exaggerated that even a small child recognizes them for hogwash. President Obama is a socialist, for example, or he hates capitalism. Your description of your contribution to the defeat of communism and contribution to the Contract for America would make us believe you were one of the Founding Fathers. I’m surprised You haven’t claimed to have been with Hannibal when he crossed the Alps.

In short, there could not possibly be a better adjective than sleazy to describe Newt. He is a walking, talking, living manifestation of sleaze, the personification of sleaze, the Poster Boy of sleaze. It oozes it from his pores, it surrounds and envelopes him, it slides from his tongue so readily it can be mistaken for erudition by the morons he has convinced of his remarkable brilliance, he is Newton Leroy Gingrich, the King of Sleaze! It is remarkably fitting and symbolic, perhaps even inevitable, he be chosen to represent the Republican Party in the coming election. Rest assured, he will not hesitate to tell President Obama what’s what. I can hardly wait.

I was not lying. I said things that later on seemed to be untrue.

Richard Nixon

Why Do They Hate Us?

2011-12-07T23:03:00.000-08:00

For the purposes of this blog when I say “they” I am referring to Republicans and the very wealthy people and corporations they represent. I realize, of course, there may be some rare exceptions to the generalized “they.” When I refer to “us” I mean ordinary working people, the Middle Class and the poor, what might well be described at the moment as the 99%.

Why do I believe they “hate” us? Because when following what they say and do I think that best describes the situation, and I have no other better explanation. For example, they do not want us to have a living wage. In fact they want us to have the least amount of wages possible, even if that means living either in poverty or on the margin of poverty. They do not want us to have universal health care. They do not want us to have Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, or unemployment insurance, nor do they want us to have even food stamps. They do not want us to have an Environmental Protection Agency or even a Consumer Protection Agency, and they also do not want us to have clean air and water if that in any way interferes with their profits. They do not want women to have a choice when it comes to their own bodies and lives, even to the point of wanting to deny basic contraception, and they do not want poor women to even have basic health care. Basically they do not even want us to own homes and be able to feed our families. They do not want us to have a tax break by allowing an extension of the Payroll Tax deduction, in effect raising taxes on us rather than on those making more than a million dollars a year. In this case they have previously argued that tax breaks for the wealthy do not have to be paid for whereas tax breaks for us do have to be paid for. The promise they made to the illegitimate Clown Prince of taxes, Grover Norquist, never to raise taxes under any circumstances suddenly doesn’t apply when it comes to raising our taxes (either they do not understand hypocrisy or they just don’t care). They apparently do not really want us to have jobs, beyond a basic labor force working for minimum wages, as they have consistently blocked any attempt on the part of President Obama to create jobs (while criticizing him for not creating jobs). They also do not want any regulations that might interfere with profits no matter how egregious the results may be. In short, they do not want us to have anything whatsoever that might possibly make our lives easier or more pleasant. As I believe this is demonstrably true (just look at their behavior for the past few years) I conclude they must just basically hate us.

Well, upon reflection, perhaps hate is not the most precise description of their feelings toward us. It is probably more precise to say they “despise” us. In order to hate someone you at least have to be aware of them, know them at least minimally, and actively hate them. It is easier and probably more correct in this case to say they despise us, as that way it doesn’t matter if they know us or not, they can just despise us in general as a group. The obvious question that arises, whether it is actual hatred or merely a matter of despising us, is why? This is not a very easy question to answer, and certainly cannot be answered here. The most basic answer probably has to do with the change from living in small scale societies where relations are mainly between kin and friends, face-to-face, and tradition-based, to more formal large scale more dehumanized societies based more exclusively upon legal contracts between anonymous individuals. But I think it also has to do with the change from bartering to a society based upon monetary exchange, and ultimately, in our contemporary case, a form of unregulated capitalism whose only goal is profit. In such a system, as Polanyi so brilliantly pointed out, everything has to be perceived as a commodity, so land, labor, and capital all become commodities. But as labor is just another word for behavior, in this case work, it is itself dehumanized. Workers have no existence outside of the market place, they, like other commodities, are for sale and are easily replaced, just part of the larger system like nuts and bolts. As such it is easy to denigrate and dehumanize them, forgetting they are also human beings. Their only value is as labor, something convertible to capital.

Marx, of course, perceived this clearly, and pointed out, rightly I believe, that capital is essentially dead labor. Even Abraham Lincoln, surely not a communist sympathizer, perceived this situation clearly:

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.
Abraham Lincoln

This is precisely the very opposite of the situation facing labor at the moment, and, indeed, throughout the history of capitalism. The history of violence between management and labor is well known, as is the difficult history of the 40 hour work week, the 8 hour day, paid vacations, retirement benefits, and so on. All of these hard-won concessions are even now subject to the ravages of management, as in Wisconsin and other states. Workers and their families are occupying the streets of our cities protesting the loss of their wages, homes, retirement benefits, and lack of health care, still despised by those with capital, a strange non-commodity with the ability to reproduce itself. It seems to me that once someone has accumulated enough capital they become creatures on another level of society. It doesn’t matter how they came by their capital, in some cases it is inherited, in years gone by some acquired it through crime and prostitution, in more recent years some acquired it through illegal drug sales, but once acquired it allows one to live a different life:

“Tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambitions ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round,
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend.”

Julius Caesar
Act II Scene I

Trump Trumped?

2011-12-06T22:37:00.000-08:00

I think the Republican circus has now gone completely bankrupt. I can’t see how things can get any worse. If the previous dozen or so Republican “debates” have not been enough theatre of the absurd, the supposedly scheduled December 27th “debate,” to be moderated by of all people, Donald Trump, has now reached the lowest level of political silliness ever. Hopefully, to spare them any further humility, it may not even occur. It seems that Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman have already declined to participate, and as of today it appears Mitt Romney has also declined (unless he flip-flops again). So will this “debate” actually occur? Perhaps it will turn out to be a real hit, something like “Springtime for Hitler.” I suppose it could go on, with Bachmann and Santorum versus “Idea Man” Newt Gingrich, but somehow that does not seem promising. The MSM have now carried the concept of “Infotainment” to a level not previously even imagined. But not to worry, Trump has already announced that if the “right” candidate is not chosen he will sacrifice himself for the good of the world and re-enter the competition. This is, dear reader, the end of the line for Republicans, proof positive they have given up any serious attempt to defeat Obama. Not only should they call off this proposed “debate,” they should probably just withdraw from the 2012 election, concede defeat, admit they are too stupid even to compete. On the other hand, perhaps their base will take it seriously, I mean, after all, they did elect George W. Bush, probably one of the most comical choices ever.

I cannot believe that even the current Republican leadership is stupid enough to refuse to pass the Payroll Tax Extension and continuing unemployment benefits. President Obama has cleverly maneuvered them into a corner (with perhaps some help from the Occupy Wall Streeters) where it seems to me they will have little choice but to agree. But with the ideologically insane it is hard to predict.

I can’t explain it, even to myself, but I find myself strangely optimistic for the first time in years. The stock market is up, unemployment is (at least statistically) down, Europe may be getting its Euro in order, the battle lines are now clearly drawn between the haves and the have-nots. If Obama keeps up the current pace and doesn’t agree to some stupid and unnecessary compromise, things may actually pick up for a time. There can never be a long-term solution to our problems of unemployment and the deficit without a complete makeover of our current economic system, the ridiculous myths of trickle- down economics, free market capitalism, free of regulations and hence “government,” the ridiculous ideas that brought us to our current problems. But maybe if we can get our house in somewhat better order we might eventually manage to govern ourselves more intelligently.

Maybe (and a really big maybe it is) we will also give up our militarism and attempt to rule the world and realize that diplomacy rather than constant “war” is more appropriate for the 21st century. We could slash our absurd “national defense” budget by half, withdraw our troops from the hundreds of bases we maintain around the world, use that money to rebuild our infrastructure, work on global warming, begin to truly educate our children, give everyone the health care they need, reduce our deficit, and perhaps even regain our international stature that was destroyed during the Bush/Cheney nightmare years. You see, even I, cynical as I have become, never abandon hope entirely (no matter how silly it may be). After all, what is the alternative?

There is only one optimist. He has been here since man has been on this earth, and that is "man" himself. If we hadn't had such a magnificent optimism to carry us through all these things, we wouldn't be here. We have survived it on our optimism.

Edward Steichen

River of Darkness -- book

2011-12-04T22:56:00.000-08:00

River of Darkness Francisco Orellana’s Legendary Voyage of Death and Discovery Down the Amazon, Buddy Levy (Bantam Books, New York, 2011)

In 1541 Gonzalo Pizzaro and Francisco Orellana, cousins, both at the time important landowners of huge blocks of Peruvian land, embarked on an expedition over the Andes and into the unknown in search of further gold and treasures, the fabulous but mythical El Dorado where it was said their leader was coated each day in gold dust that he deposited on the lake bottom after his daily bath. They also sought cinnamon that was also worth fortunes in those days. Thus began an adventure of exploration unique in the annals of such explorations.

The plan was for Gonzalo Pizzaro to leave Quito first with an army that consisted of 220 soldiers, 200 horses, ammunition and powder, a herd of more than 2000 swine, llamas as pack animals, 2000 war dogs trained for battle, and 4,000 Indian porters shackled to prevent escape. Franciso Orellana was to follow soon later with his own smaller army. They were to meet at the confluence of two rivers on the eastern side of the Andes. They soon learned that horses were virtually useless in the Amazonian jungle, that conditions were much more difficult than they could ever have imagined, food was difficult to come by, and were forced to split into two parties. Orellana was to proceed down the river to find food and then return with it to save Pizzaro and his starving army. This proved to be impossible as the river flowed so swiftly Orellan knew he could never make it back, so he decided to continue downriver as his only alternative, even though this made him vulnerable to accusations of desertion and treason. Pizzaro eventually made it back to Quito, having eaten his horses and dogs, virtually crawling back in rags with the remnants of his army, not knowing what happened to Orellana but convinced he had deserted him. Orellana, after the most incredible hardships, managed to make it all the way to the Atlantic and eventually back to Spain.

This is, as the sub-title suggests, an account of Francisco Orellana’s incredible journey down the Amazon River, the first (and quite likely still) the only person to have ever completed such a journey. That he managed to complete this journey at all is quite miraculous, a combination of luck, unusual ability, determination, and yes, more luck. In 1541 Gonzalo Pizzaro and Francisco Orellana, cousins, both at the time important landowners of huge blocks of Peruvian land, embarked on an expedition over the Andes and into the unknown in search of further gold and treasures, the fabulous but mythical El Dorado where it was said their leader was coated each day in gold dust that he deposited on the lake bottom after his daily bath. They also sought cinnamon that was also worth fortunes in those days. Thus began an adventure of exploration unique in the annals of such explorations.

There were left written accounts of this fantastic journey, by Orellana and one of the Priests that was with him, and a few others as well. There are also records of interviews he gave after returning, and there is also an extensive literature on this period and voyage as well. Levy has used the available materials to reconstruct Orellana’s journey in an interesting and enjoyable book, interesting and enjoyable if you find some 250 pages of almost unremitting misery to be such (in all fairness that is basically what it was). There is no doubt such a journey was made, and no doubt that it was unbelievably difficult, and also no doubt that Levy’s research among the available materials was thorough and scholarly. He also obviously did his research on the area in question, including a trip to the Amazon to see for himself what it was like.

Buddy Levy is a journalist rather than historian. He wrote this book to entertain as well as to tell the story of this incredible adventure. I believe he did a truly wonderful job, the book is well written, a delight to read, and also informative. But of course in order to make it so Levy had to fill in details that he could not actually know were true. This is completely understandable but in a book of this kind, also risky. Consider something like the introduction to the prologue: “Conquistador Francisco Orellana stood on the sodden riverbank and regarded the ceaseless roil of the river, uncertain where the dark waters were heading. In the dying light the water appeared black as it slithered downstream, moving like the skin of some gargantuan dark snake disappearing into an endless jungle. Orellana turned and beheld his bedraggled troops…” There is a danger here in this type of reconstruction because if not done well you risk losing verisimilitude and thus the reader, you cannot write passages with no credibility, they have to lend authenticity to the account. I believe Levy has managed this exceedingly well and at no point did I have the sense he was damaging the account. This is no mean achievement.

The author also uses quotations taken directly from the written accounts that validate the authenticity of his own account although sometimes most unpleasant:

“…Pizarro determined to torture a better response from the Indians. Soldier Cieza de Leon recalled the dark and brutal process: ‘So he (Pizzaro) ordered some canes to be fixed across poles, like rather thin hurdles, about three feet wide and seven in length, and the Indians to be put on them and tortured until they told the truth. The innocent natives were promptly stretched on these frames or barbecues…and some of them were burnt.’ Of course even after having been tortured with flames, the unfortunates could offer nothing but their cries of agony. Disgusted, Pizzaro then threw the victims—some from the racks and others, including a few women, torn from their pleading families -- to the dogs, ‘who tore them to pieces with their teeth, and devoured them.’”

Gonzalo Pizzaro had a reputation for unusual brutality. Orellana, according to Levy’s account, was a very different sort who tended to treat the natives much more gently (although at one point he hung a number of them for no reason as a warning to others). He was also apparently a rather skilled linguist and managed to learn some of the native languages which helped make it possible for him to bring what was left of his command home. But even Orellana, with his interest in the natives, had no idea how to exist in the jungle, what foods were fit to eat, which not, how to hunt game, and so on. It never occurred to the arrogant Spaniards to even try to learn such things, one of the reasons they endured the hardships they did. Mostly they were given food by friendly tribes and when that failed they simply stormed the villages along the way and took it. The accounts of this almost unbelievable achievement I believe were dismissed as true for a time because among other things they reported the existence of Amazonian women warriors and a land where only women lived, bringing in men when necessary. I believe that Orellana and others did believe this. But in all fairness, I think Orellana only reported encountering a few women fighters and “stories” of such a land. I do not see why, for the Spaniards, this was any more fantastic or far-fetched than the belief in El Dorado. Anyway, it seems clear that as recent scholars have argued, and as Orellana’s account indicates, there were millions more Indians living along the Amazon that previously imagined.

There is of course much more to this book than I can mention here, including Orellana’s acquittal from treason and his doomed attempt to return to the Amazon and seek the riches he believed were there. I found this work interesting, informative, and convincing. I believe I learned quite a lot about an area I had previously little knowledge about. I would certainly recommend it to those with such interests.

Themes of Culture - Greed

2011-12-03T22:23:00.001-08:00

There were (and perhaps continue to be) a variety of attempts to characterize cultures as being distinguished by patterns or themes of behavior. Ruth Benedict comes to mind when she spoke of “Apollonian” as compared with “Dionesian” cultures. She also discussed “Shame” as opposed to “Guilt” cultures. Roughly similar notions were suggested as “Cultural Configurations” by Clyde Klukhohn, and “Value Attitudes” by Talcott Parsons. Many others have toyed with similar ideas, some much better defined or delineated than others. Margaret Halsey, whom I mentioned previously spoke of “Dominant Institutions,” declaring that Business was such an institution in the United States. For my purposes here I have decided to use the following definition:

“The term “theme” is used here in a technical sense to denote a postulate or position, declared or implied, and usually controlling behavior or stimulating activity, which is tacitly approved or openly promoted in a society.” (Morris Edward Opler, 1941).

With such a definition you could, for example (and if you wished) say that “Order” is a defining theme of German culture. There has been such a claim, Ordnung ist das Erste Gebot,” (Order is the First Commandment {ofGod}), (Linda Langness, PhD dissertation, 1992). In any case, having lived through the past few decades, I have come to the conclusion that the dominant theme of 21st century America is almost beyond question: “Greed.” I do not say this happily or lightly about my own culture, but I believe it is true, and it pervades almost all aspects of our lives.

Consider, first of all, the current controversy over the 1% versus the 99%. This is a claim with a factual basis. We have many millionaires and even billionaires who, for the most part, resist having to pay increased taxes or even taxes at all, if possible. As they cannot possibly use all of their money their dogged insistence on having even more is difficult to classify if it is not greed. The same thing is true of many, perhaps most of our celebrities and professional athletes. Even when already having accumulated huge fortunes they cannot possibly exhaust they continue to make commercials, collect huge speaking fees, and etc., again difficult to describe as other than greed. It seems for those that have so much, there can never be enough.

As another example, consider the banking and especially the credit card industry. Most people with credit cards, almost everyone nowadays, pay over 9% and often as much as 30% for the privilege. By most standards this is usury, pure and simple. And not only do they charge exorbitant interest rates, they tack on other fees and use devious means to get more of your money, like offering to reduce your rate, but not telling you there is a fee for doing so, and so on. Banks, too, are absolutely shameless about ripping off their customers, using hidden fees, illegal foreclosures, and other techniques. They are never content to just earn a reasonable profit year after year for providing a service, they constantly create new ways to make more and more. I believe this is actually institutionalized greed. Insurance companies are just as bad and in fact get most of their money through unmitigated greed. If you have ever had to deal with an insurance company over an automobile accident, or even health insurance, you must be aware of what I mean. They will try most anything to get out of paying a claim, no matter how legitimate it is. No one is surprised when confronted with these problems, we have been so accustomed to them we now (however regretfully) consider them just “business as usual.”

Pharmaceutical companies are even more shameless, advertising drugs that are not always even approved, keeping drugs on the market as long as possible even when they know they are harmful, advertising shamelessly for ailments that sometimes are created out of thin air. They also typically overcharge for their products here in the U.S., the same products they sell elsewhere for less. As this is protected by the U.S. Congress one can only conclude it is “tacitly approved or openly promoted,” just as is all of the above.

Even our ordinary day to day lives are permeated by this theme of greed. We live in a consumer society where we actually have sayings like “shop until you drop,” “he who has the most toys wins,” “keeping up with the Jones’s,” and so forth. A few years ago a man won a huge lottery, many millions of dollars, when asked what he would do with his money, he replied his ambition was to become a billionaire! In fact our entire system, predicated as it is upon competition, is a constant attempt to get more for yourself, a more lucrative contract, another raise, the highest salary yet paid for something, and so on. Professional athletes are in some ways the worst offenders. They argued they deserved more money because their playing careers lasted only a short time, but now they make money so far in excess of what they need to live comfortably for the remainder of their lives, this is an argument that makes no sense at all. They, like most everyone else, want to be paid more than anyone else, apparently just for the sake of it, the prestige and recognition of being the highest paid. It is true there are a few exceptions to the dominance of greed as a value, a few companies, for example, are employee owned and the workers share in the proceeds. In such companies you can be sure the CEO’s are not receiving 400 times the salaries of the other employees. But in companies where the CEO’s are receiving such outrageous rewards you are facing nothing less than greed gone wild. Similarly, when a single trader or manager on Wall Street is raking in millions, or even billions a year, you are seeing naked greed in its most obscene form.

Yes, we live in a capitalistic society. But “American Exceptionalism” is such that we are the only advanced, industrialized, Western-European capitalistic society where a virtually unregulated capitalism exists. Where other countries at least try to make provisions for the poor and the unemployed, we apparently would prefer them to starve or otherwise disappear. Greed has come to permeate our culture to the point where it is even more American than apple pie. If Margaret Halsey were alive I believe she would be horrified to see just where the “Business Ethic” has finally taken us. Greed is the very antithesis of a harmonious and decent society and culture. But greed in America is not only “good,” it is tacitly approved and openly promoted, its “The American Way.”

One of the weaknesses of our age is our apparent inability to distinguish our need from our greed.

Author Unknown

Failing Politics

2011-12-02T22:27:00.001-08:00

I am somewhat loathe to admit it but I think I am failing politics, the reason being simply a lack of interest. The current political situation in the United States has now become so completely ludicrous as to no longer be worthy of interest. It’s just the same old stuff over and over, day after day, week after week. Part of the trouble is that Republicans have consistently taken positions that are not only false but basically immoral. They are completely nonsensical, and for reasons not entirely easy to understand no one seems to do anything about it. It is, for example, patently absurd to keep defending millionaires and billionaires from even modest tax increases when the nation is so obviously suffering and desperately needs an increase in revenue. They base their opposition on the grounds that these are “job creators,” a claim that is itself absurd. They also claim taxes are too high when, in fact, they are at historic lows. They say we can’t have tax increases during a recession but have no problems raising taxes on the Middle Class and the working poor. They claim the lack of jobs is President Obama’s fault when in fact they have blocked every attempt he has made to improve the situation. They claim he has not provided leadership, a claim so ridiculous given their refusal at every step to cooperate it is basically laughable.

As far as their list of candidates for the Republican nomination goes, comparing them to clowns is a terrible disservice to that profession. They have had several so-called “debates that are not debates at all and make them without exception look stupid. One doesn’t seem to know the voting age or even the date of the next Presidential election, another doesn’t know China has had a nuclear bomb for forty years or so, still another claims she would not allow an Embassy in Iran when we already lack such an Embassy. With one or two exceptions they all want war with Iran, believe the criminal Israelis deserve all out unquestioned support no matter what war crimes they are committing. Still another thinks our children should be made to clean toilets and mop floors after the unionized janitors are fired, and still another believes we should be teaching Creationism in our schools (he is apparently unaware we are now in the 21st century). Another one has assured us that corporations are persons and seems to be blissfully unaware there are other countries on earth we must deal with, with something less than war. Most of them also seem perfectly willing to have us engaged in permanent wars wherever we choose. I could go on but I can no longer bear to think anymore about it, the collective ignorance of these egomaniacal jerks is absolutely stunning. You might think they were running for President of the eighth grade rather than the United States. Now to add insult to the injuries they have already inflicted on ordinary political discourse their next “debate” is going to be moderated by the one person capable of turning it into nothing but the epitome of cheap entertainment, Donald Trump, the King of Greed. Trump that for idiocy if you can.

On top of everything else the positions they espouse for the most part would have us return to the conditions that existed at the turn of the 20th century, or in at least one case, conditions that existed in the 18th century. They are all basically opposed to “government” and apparently think a form of primitive Social Darwinism would be the best way for us to live, not one for all and all for one, but each only for him or herself and the hell with the rest, “I’ve got mine, you get yours” would seem to be the mantra. They want to do away with virtually everything that serves to make the lives of ordinary citizens more livable: Social Security, unemployment insurance, health care, Planned Parenthood, the EPA, regulations in general, and preach such a thoughtless bunch or utter nonsense as to make you think perhaps they really don’t have any brains at all. They certainly have no understand of appreciation of the basic concept of “governing.” I confess I have now reached the point where I can no longer stand to listen any longer to their mindless prattle that seems to represent the rote memorization of a few simple minded principles, mostly “lower taxes, less government” over and over as if somehow they think that is really a solution to all our problems. It’s disgusting. It has become so bad that I have almost completely stopped watching the news and when a Republican appears I turn it off. I’m sure I won’t but I feel that I should just go into hibernation at least until about a year from now when the worst of it is over. Perhaps a prayer to the Great Mystery for mercy might help, or maybe just for a serious Republican candidate?

You are not here merely to make a living. You are here to enable the world to live more amply, with greater vision, and with a finer spirit of hope and achievement. You are here to enrich the world. You impoverish yourself if you forget this errand.

Woodrow Wilson

Great Republican Ideas

2011-11-30T22:39:00.000-08:00

Whaddya mean Republicans have no ideas? They have all kinds of great ideas. In fact I will be sad when the election is over as I would like to see how some of their ideas might come to fruition. One idea I am particularly interested in is Herman Cain’s idea that in order to be President of the United States you don’t have to know anything. This great idea seems to rest on the assumption that if you don’t know everything about everywhere you don’t need to know anything about anything (you just listen to your advisors and presumably do whatever they say). This is an idea that has had at least some confirmation in the person of Rick Perry who has demonstrated pretty clearly that you don’t have to know anything to be Governor of Texas. He’s having a bit of trouble transferring his know-nothingness to the national stage, but he’s still in the running. He has the idea that if you are 21 years of age you should vote on November 12th (three years after you are eligible and six days after the election is over). Great idea!

Rick Santorum’s great idea, I’m not sure he has more than one or two at most, is that we should be teaching creationism in our schools (and trying to prevent Gay marriages). Surely these are ideas whose time has come. It’s true that the 19th and 20th centuries have come and gone, but there’s no reason we shouldn’t use the 21st century to make up for lost time by just turning the clock back on whatever progress science and culture have to offer. I guess Michele Bachmann might be considered here as well, she seems to have no connection with facts or reality. She has the idea she has never said anything inaccurate during the campaign, and also that God has instructed her to run (I wonder where she has been all this time).

Ron Paul is a more difficult case. He does have one truly super idea, no more “wars.” But when you consider his more basic ideas you have to imagine what life would be like living back in the 18th century (or before). For example, his claim there is no natural right for health care and that people are entirely responsible for their own health care, employment, and everything else. He is right, of course, on health care, but he seems oblivious to the human need for health care. There are, as far as I know, no natural or god-given rights of any kind. The various rights humans possess, like health care in particular, are rights they are granted by their governments, they possess them by being members of civilized societies that have as their responsibility the health and well-being of their citizens. Paul seems to envision a group of people living basically without government, a situation that has never prevailed in human society. Indeed, it is generally the purpose of human society (government) to organize and provide for the citizens. As far as returning to the gold standard goes, another Paul idea, that is not even as realistic as teaching pigs to fly and breed with creatures from outer space. No human society has ever existed without “government” no matter how “primitive.”

Of course the really great idea man of the Republican Party (if you don’t believe it just ask him) is Newt Gingrich, self-proclaimed intellectual, number one egomaniacal hypocrite, con man extraordinary, and flip-flopping hired gun. You pay for it, he delivers. Among his more recent great ideas is firing union janitors from the schools and making children do the work. He also has an idea for treating Mexican drug dealers, simply execute them (I don’t know if he has cleared this with the Mexican government). He also thinks Singapore has the proper approach to the drug problem, just execute anyone found with a tad too many drugs. This is a great idea, especially if you have no knowledge or understanding of the problem, treat all drug users the same, deny that it is basically a medical rather than a political problem, and etc. Gingrich also has the idea that if he, personally, is not elected President, it will only be a short time until a Gay and Secular Fascism will take control of our country. He has other ideas, too numerous to mention, all of which are predicated on the assumption that only he possesses wisdom in any form and that whatever he says must be taken as gospel. I can’t wait to see him as President.

We must not forget Mitt Romney. I’m not sure he actually has any ideas of his own, other than getting rich and becoming President. He seems to select whatever ideas seem to fit his needs of the moment. I will not comment on his religious ideas as he has assured us they have nothing to do with politics. A glance at Romney’s ideas (I gather taken from others) on Foreign Policy are enough to make you want to run and hide. John Huntsman may or may not have ideas, decent or otherwise, but he is not allowed to participate as he thinks science is meaningful and at least some knowledge of Foreign Affairs is helpful.

The latest great Republican idea has to do with paying for the extension of the payroll tax exemption. Democrats, and Obama, have the crazy idea it might be paid for with a 2% increase in taxes paid by those making more than one million dollars a year, money they would almost surely never miss, and money that many of them think they should pay. Republicans have a better idea. While they begrudgingly will agree to the payroll tax extension, they insist it should be paid for by freezing the wages of Federal employees and taking more from ordinary working people. See, I told you, they have all kinds of great ideas. The Divine Right of Kings was child’s play compared to the new Divine Right of the Obscenely Wealthy.

At least two-thirds of our miseries spring from human stupidity, human malice and those great motivators and justifiers of malice and stupidity: idealism, dogmatism and proselytizing zeal on behalf of religous or political ideas.

Aldous Huxley

What Am I Missing?

2011-11-29T22:32:00.000-08:00

What am I missing: a few brain cells? Perhaps a few synapses? Maybe some grey matter? Spark plugs? Maybe an oil change? I confess I absolutely cannot understand what is going on, with respect to the Republican plans for the 2012 election, that is. What on earth can they be thinking? Or are they even thinking? It is a complete and total mystery to me.

The Republicans announced long ago they would vote “no” for anything Obama wanted to do. They have been faithful to that pledge even though it has been extremely harmful to the country. They have alienated Black voters to the point where Obama is assured of the vast majority of their votes. They have alienated Hispanic voters with their stand on immigration. They have attacked the unions. More importantly, I should think, they have engaged in a war on women, on abortion, and even on contraception. They have consistently voted in favor of the 1% and against the Middle and Lower Classes. They have opposed universal health care, unemployment insurance, a minimum wage, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the EPA, education, infrastructure, the arts, humanities, and anything that would in any way help ordinary people live more fruitful and happy lives. As I recall, we supposedly live in a democracy (even though perhaps merely a sham democracy) where one person equals one vote. The 99% represents just that, 99% of the voters. So just who do Republicans think are going to vote for them? Granted there are quite a lot of millionaires these days, and even some billionaires, but do they collectively have enough votes to elect the next President? Somehow they seem to think they do. I cannot understand this. I cannot understand how Republicans could possibly believe they are going to defeat Obama. I agree he is vulnerable, especially because of the unemployment problem. But really: Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, or Rick Santorum? Please, how about even a modicum of reality. But what is truly frightening is that large numbers of voters actually will probably vote Republican in spite of their absolutely abysmal behavior of the past few years. I find this every bit as mysterious as how the world was formed.

This current bunch of Republican clowns, and I mean that quite literally, have stretched my credibility to levels never heretofore even approximated. Romney a flip-flopper so extraordinary it almost amounts to a bad joke; Gingrich, every bit as much of a flip-flopper and almost surely the world’s greatest hypocrite; Herman Cain, a cartoon character mocking the system; Rick Perry, who doesn’t know when the election is scheduled or how old you have to be to vote; Michele Bachmann, only borderline sane, if that; Rick Santorum obsessed with sex and homophobic. You could shuffle all of these candidates together and still fail to have a full deck. The more mainstream Republicans (remember them) just stand by idly and let these nitwits represent them and their party, apparently just helpless and afraid.

President Obama seems to have finally outwitted them on at least one issue, the Payroll tax. If Republicans had not caved on this and apparently agreed to continue it they would have in effect raised taxes for some 160 million working class Americans. I guess that would have been too outrageous and too obvious even for those who would otherwise just as soon bury us as not. It seems to me that much of the American public has (finally) caught on the criminal conspiracy that has been ripping them off for so long and may well be preparing to make some much needed changes in the way things work, (up to now almost exclusively for the wealthy and the corporations). This is going to prove extremely difficult and will no doubt take quite a while, but I believe the worst may be behind us. True justice will probably never be attained, full accountability will evade us, but I am beginning to actually once again have hope for the future. In the meanwhile let’s get this charade of a democratic election over with, get rid of the morons that managed to get elected in 2010, and begin again with what will hopefully be a Congress of at least the moderately sane and a President in his second term, free of the Tea Party, more able to govern. Perhaps with a bit of luck we might be able to get Arizona and Texas to secede.

When it comes to elections I am usually wrong. With my record of predictions (Nixon, Reagan, George W. Bush, Schwartzeneger could never be elected) I wouldn’t be too surprised if we end up with a Gingrich/Cain ticket and a platform of adultery for everyone (but no Gay marriage, abortion, birth control, gender equality), and “a chicken in every pot,” two cars in every garage, and unsupervised erotic play on Sunday.

I think we agree, the past is over.

George W. Bush

Gingrich the Humane?

2011-11-28T22:36:00.000-08:00

I do not believe even for one minute that Newt Gingrich is any the less inhumane that the rest of the Republican capitalistic cutthroats he represents. When he says we should treat immigrants humanely he is really saying to Hispanics, vote for me. While the Republicans have universally condemned any attempt whatsoever to deal humanely with the immigrant problem, Gingrich is at least smart enough to know that Republicans cannot win without a substantial Hispanic vote. Thus he took a calculated risk by saying what he did, and he can probably convince Republicans that it was a wise thing to say, whether he meant it or not. He can now argue that one reason he should get the nomination is because he can get Hispanic votes. Of course it probably isn’t going to matter much as Gingrich has little chance of getting the nomination and no chance of ever becoming President. Gingrich as the Republican candidate would be virtually suicidal for Republicans as he has all the baggage of Romney plus several additional freight cars more. In fact it is virtually incomprehensible that he is the current leading candidate. He is a known hypocrite (actually a hypocrite’s hypocrite), an admitted adulterer (virtually an adulterer’s adulterer), a big time lobbyist (a lobbyist’s lobbyist, even though he denies actually being a lobbyist), a failed and disgraced Leader of the House, and, like all other Republicans, a chronic (but consummate) liar, a self-proclaimed intellectual (in the land of mental midgets anyone with even one idea is an intellectual). If I were Obama I’d say “Bring him on.” I doubt he will stay on top long enough for that to happen. But, then, strange things are done in the midnight sun (and in the dark secrecy of corporate boardrooms). Why would anyone name their son after a semi-aquatic salamander in the first place?

Ho hum, just another sexual problem for Herman Cain. If several accusations of sexual harassment are not enough, now he is charged with a 13 year adulterous relationship. She says she has proof. His lawyer says it is no one’s business what his private sex life has been or is. Someone should remind them the Republicans started this insidious business of invading someone’s private sex life when they introduced it as a totally unprecedented attempt to bring down Bill Clinton. What goes around, comes around. It doesn ‘t matter anyway, as Cain is finished as a candidate even though he somehow hangs on, as do Bachmann, Santorum, Huntsman, Paul, and Gingrich.

Try as they might Republicans cannot find a suitable non-Romney candidate. It seems the only way they can avoid his candidacy is if their convention deadlocks and someone as yet unknown and undeclared can emerge triumphant. Some say it might be Jeb Bush. Who knows what goes on in the minds of baboons? You almost have to feel sorry for them, stumbling around like Keystone Cops in an old comedy. I don’t feel sorry for them, I believe they deserve all “their bad” and more. By all that is right and just and sensible and honest and true, Republicans should be voted out of office en masse, perhaps even deported to regions so “nether” as to never be seen again. Of course that won’t happen, the American electorate, at least substantial portions of it, are apparently too dense to even vote in their own best interests. Don’t forget all them Gay marriages, abortions, birth controllers, Obama socialists, communists, fascists, immigrant loving, gun hating liberal atheists trying to take away our right-to-work laws and make us eat more healthily. We can’t have them in charge of the country, they might destroy the free enterprise culture that has reduced us all to poverty and despair.

That motley drama- oh, be sure
It shall not be forgot!
With its Phantom chased for evermore,
By a crowd that seize it not,
Through a circle that ever returneth in
To the self-same spot,
And much of Madness, and more of Sin,
And Horror the soul of the plot.

Edgar Allen Poe, from ”The Conqueror Worm”

Coeur d'Alene Diary - book

2011-11-27T23:16:00.000-08:00

Coeur d’Alene Diary, Richard G. Magnuson (Metropolitan Press, Portland, Oregon, 1968)

I have been aware of this book virtually since its publication in 1968. I have only just now read it, as someone gave me a first edition of it, knowing it was about my home turf and that I like first editions. I didn’t read it previously because of my sometimes foolishly preconceived ideas and biases. I don’t generally think much about reading diaries, and besides, it was written by a former High School classmate of mine that I knew was not really a writer, and was also about a place I thought I already knew something about. More importantly, although many of my friends and classmates worked in the mines, I had no interest in the mines. I’m pretty sure my parents would rather have died that see their only son swallowed up in the bowels of the earth living the dirty, dangerous, unhealthy life of a hardrock miner. But as usual my preconceived ideas and biases were exposed for the foolishness they represented. This may not be a great book but it is a most unusual and rewarding one in many ways, some of which were perhaps not necessarily intended. The book claims to be a month by month diary of the first ten years of hardrock mining in North Idaho, and it is that, but somewhat more.

There is nothing pretentious about Coeur d’Alene Diary. It is plainly written, descriptive, with no soaring prose or unusual style, no author interpretations or re-interpretations, and very few authorial comments. It portrays what happened during the first tumultuous years as things were presented at the time by the local newspapers and other sources. This is most unusual because as it is, it represents almost the purest form of history, or even historical ethnography you are likely to find. It is not presented through the eyes or biases of the author, just what was reported about events of the time at the time. It not only offers detailed information about hardrock mining, but also insights into how it was people actually lived at the time. And how they did live!

One of the first things that I found somewhat surprising is that it is possible the first discovery of gold in the Coeur d’Alene district was made by a Black man, whose name is unfortunately unknown. A Montana paper reported that in 1884 a Black man arrived in Missoula with a large amount of gold that he spent recklessly, reporting that he knew where there was a lot more. He and a Flathead Indian left together and were known to be living in a small cabin just inside the Idaho/Montana line. He was subsequently found shot to death, the Indian was believed to have been the culprit, but nothing was done about it. Because of this the area around what is now Mullan, Idaho, was known for a time as “Nigger Prairie.” This surprised me, I guess, because when I was a boy living in Wallace, Idaho, the townspeople took pride in the saying, “The sun will never set on a (Black man) in Wallace.” I knew this was due to the fact that early in the 20th century a battalion of Black soldiers had been brought in as strikebreakers. I also knew there had been Blacks on certain early expeditions to the Northwest and also Black Frontiersmen. What surprised me was the mention elsewhere in this book of the presence of Black people, with no obvious indication of any particular prejudice. Indeed, it would appear that early Italian miners may have been subjected to more discrimination than anyone else, aside, of course, from the Chinese who were truly regarded as the lowest of the low, and were eventually prohibited from even mining for gold. “The newspapers, when writing stories involving a Negro, usually included his name, but it was a rarity when the name of an Italian or Slav was used in an article. The Chinese received the roughest treatment of all.”

As minerals, gold, silver, lead, and zinc were discovered, small named communities were formed at those points, often merely tent communities, most of which soon disappeared either entirely or from prominence. Murray, Idaho is a good case in point, although it still exists, barely, it was a major community at one time. Burke, Gem, Osburn, and others, also prominent at the time barely survive, or lost out in the competition for recognition. Even the survivors, Wallace, Kellogg, and Mullan, are mere shadows of what they once were. As the activity during this time was similar to a gold rush, and as the mines paid relatively high wages, men were attracted from many different places, most were poorly educated or immigrants who did not speak English. “This problem was overcome by district merchants and craftsmen by placing some sign or standard in front of their place of business…Druggists advertised by placing and mortar and pestle, Shoemakers hung a sign in the shape of a boot, the jeweler set up a clock…the barber a striped pole, and the livery would show the picture of a horse.” A major problem was solved when finally a sign in the shape of a bathtub was raised indicating for the first time the availability of public baths. As there was no agriculture in the narrow valleys and gulches, food had to be brought in, mostly by ships and barges from Lake Coeur d’Alene and then overland from the landing near the present Cataldo Mission. Of course stores and restaurants quickly appeared, along with hotels. Included on the menu in one of the better restaurants: Porterhouse steak, 65 cents, Half a pheasant, 65 cents, Russian caviar, 20 cents, 3-star Hennessey cognac, $2.50 a quart, booming times for those who were making $3.50 a day in the underground mines.

Nothing boomed more than the saloon business. “In February, 1891, Wallace had thirty places licensed for the sale of liquor and two gambling licenses were issued…Wardner had 19 saloons, Murray, 5; Mullan, 15; Burke, 6; Gem, 5; Osburn, 3; McAuley, 4; Kellogg, 2; Eagle, 2; Delta, 1; and four more scheduled elsewhere.” The entire population of the district was probably little more than four thousand. Although the papers seldom mentioned it there was, of course, prostitution. “On the 32rd of October, 1891, Lulu Dumont drove a stiletto into Frankie Dunbar seven times. Frankie was a girl of eighteen years. Both women were of the ‘fallen sisterhood’ located on Pine Street and they had been fighting over money.” I knew there had been quite a lot of violence at the time but I had no idea how commonplace it actually was. It seems that on every other page of Magnuson’s account someone is getting shot, stabbed, or beaten. Not only that, miners were often killed in the mines, by falling down mine shafts or victims of other accidents. Justice was a kind of hit or miss affair, depending on who was involved, the circumstances and apparently the condition of the juries:

“At a later date Reed was convicted of the crime (of murder) and appealed the decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. One of the grounds for his appeal concerned the fact that the jury which heard his case was furnished liquor during the trial by the bailiff. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the mere fact that the jury was furnished with a quart of whiskey each morning, under the direction of the District Judge, and that beer was served them, did not in itself constitute grounds for a new trial, unless there was some reason to suppose that the liquor was drunk in such quantity as to ‘unfit the jurors for duty.’”

It was apparently a common practice for jurors to be furnished or allowed liquor during their deliberations. Many cases, even of murder, did not even reach a jury. In one case a man shot and killed another during a dispute over a poker game. He was not charged as it was reported, “The dead man had shot first.”

I found this book a fascinating account of how communities developed and people lived during such tumultuous times. But here I have gone on far too long and have not even mentioned the two main themes of the book. First, the development of the mines themselves, the amounts of ore delivered from them, the methods and techniques employed, the innovations that made the work easier, the problems that arose over the costs of shipping, the fortunes that were made, the melting pot of humanity that was created; and second, the creation and growth of unions and the monumental struggles between unions and the mine owners. Thus I have revealed my biases and interests while avoiding what I should, more objectively reported. It is possible, of course, that author Richard Magnuson might have had his own biases, and could have selected what he wanted to present so as to slant the picture he wished us to see, to emphasize the sensational, for example. I see no reason to believe he did this, had he wished to sensationalize for perhaps a wider readership I’m sure he could have found much more sensational accounts. As it is, I believe he did a wonderfully objective job of presenting accurately what transpired at the time, the growth and development of mining in the Silver Valley, the (still ongoing) problems of unions versus management, and indirectly perhaps, a picture of a genuine frontier culture. Anyone interested further in the turbulent history of life and mining in North Idaho should consider Big Trouble (J. Anthony Lucas, 1997), and The Big Burn (Timothy Egan, 2009).

The Starving Chinese

2011-11-25T22:30:00.000-08:00

When I was a little boy and refused to eat egg yolks, broccoli, spinach, oatmeal, or whatever other things she served me I didn’t like, my mother (bless her) would usually say, “Remember the starving Chinese.” Occasionally, if I remember correctly, it was the starving Armenians. The point, of course, was that I was lucky to have food to eat, unlike unfortunate others around the world. I believe I would be perfectly safe in saying now, if my mother were still with us, she would not be worrying about the Chinese or the Armenians. She would be more than merely worried about the starving Americans. I doubt my mother would even believe the depths to which American culture has sunk. We no longer hear about the starving Chinese or Armenians. There may be some, but if so they have faded away as our own poor and starving have come to the forefront. Generally speaking I would think it is true to say the Chinese have been slowly improving their lot while we in America have been slowly deteriorating.

I do not have actual figures available at the moment but I don’t think they would be hard to come by. We apparently have more children living in poverty than ever before in history, more people on food stamps, millions without health insurance, thousands having lost their homes, living in their cars or on the streets, and unusually high unemployment rates. We also have, at the moment, thousands taking to the streets protesting the obscene wealth inequality in our country, greater than most any other country on earth (with perhaps a very few exceptions). There seems to be no end in sight. I find this shameful, so shameful I no longer like to claim to be an American. Indeed, as I understand it, many Americans already pretend to be Canadians when they travel overseas.

I believe our current situation is basically unprecedented among so-called industrial civilizations. However bad things may be elsewhere in the “civilized” world, nothing compares to the shockingly terrible situation that exists here in our country at the moment. Rather than trying to provide some form of safety net for the poor and less fortunate we seem to be trying as hard as we can to make things even worse for them. If culture (with a small “c”) is supposedly a human development in response to the lack of basic instincts for social life, and if cultures are supposed to meet human needs for basic human necessities such as housing, food, social and psychological well-being, in our particular jargon, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” I think it might be fair to say American culture at the present time fails miserably. If the measure of culture is the well-being of its citizens it might well be argued that we are on the road to developing a non-culture, a reversion to a more primitive state of nature where it is literally “dog eat dog,” only the strong (read wealthy) shall survive, the most primitive form of Darwinism that is, I believe, basically a non-human condition, as all other human societies recognize the necessity for social solidarity and the obligations of the strong to look after and help the less strong. Even in what we claim to be the most “primitive” cultures on earth, the Bushmen of the Kalahari, for example, or Australian Aborigines, or tribal peoples everywhere, food is generally shared fairly equitably, there are no orphans, the elderly are cared for, and so on. Apparently there are those who believe that now that we have attained the very “apex of civilization” these basic human values no longer need apply. When people in positions of power and influence actually say those who do not work should not eat, or people are out of work because they are just lazy, or those who protest should just “take a bath and get a job,” or people are entirely responsible for their own welfare and health care, you know you are dealing with a new and different kind of human, one devoid of the basic human attributes of empathy, understanding, sharing, altruism, sociality, and community. You are also dealing with people who have little or no understanding of how it is human societies and cultures have evolved into the enormously complex and difficult conditions they currently present. To suggest that someone should “take a bath and get a job” under existing conditions betrays an arrogant ignorance quite probably below that of the average earthworm. As this was said by a man currently the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President I think it is symbolic of what we are in danger of losing.

Of all the economic systems that have existed: communism, socialism, monarchies, dictatorships, tribal and clan-based, even primitive bands, none has ever been as blatantly, antithetical, and diametrically opposed to basic successful socio-cultural human life as unregulated capitalism. As such, it sows the seeds of its own inevitable destruction. We are witnessing the beginnings of this at the moment.

On the level plain, simple mounds look like hills; and the imbecile flatness of the present bourgeoisie is to be measured by the altitude of its great intellects..
Karl Marx

Whatever Happened to Government?

2011-11-23T22:28:00.000-08:00

Either I am terribly old-fashioned and completely out-of-date or the idea of government or governing has essentially disappeared. I thought that we, the voters, selected representatives to become leaders who would effectively (or maybe not entirely effectively) manage the country, decide on issues of importance, plan for the future and the defense of the country, and in general act in the public interest with respect to budgetary matters, health care, education, environmental protection, super structure, foreign affairs, and what-have-you. I thought this was true of both of our political parties. This does not seem to me what our elected representatives have been doing for the past few years. So what have they been doing?

Certainly they have not been governing, effectively or not, during the entire administration of President Obama. They have not been governing at all. They have divided roughly into two camps, representing the respective political parties, one of which has devoted its entire attention to attacking Obama and trying to ensure he will not regain a second term. I would like to say the other one has spent their time trying to defend Obama, but unfortunately it is somewhat more complicated than that. But even if they have not been always directly defending Obama they have for the most part attempted to defend many of his policies, most of which have always been standards of the Democrats: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, food stamps, public education, and so on, the very programs the Republicans have consistently opposed (conveniently now as they think this will help them destroy Obama). The Republicans announced early on in the Obama Presidency their number one goal was to prevent Obama from having a second term. They said they would vote “no” to anything and everything, and have done so. I do not believe there can by any doubt about what they have been doing and this raises the basic question, is this “governing?” The answer clearly is “no,” whatever it is, it is not governing.

I cannot believe the Founding Fathers ever conceived of a system in which two political parties would spend the bulk of their time trying to wrest power back and forth from each other. I think Mitch McConnell, when asked about Republican strategy, said something to the effect of “Isn’t that what has always been the case?, “ implying that the party out of power has always tried to unseat the incumbent. The answer, unfortunately, is “yes and no.” It is obviously true that with elections for President every four years there is always a contest to see which candidate will win, but this does not mean, nor has it ever meant, that governing the country would cease in order for one candidate to win. Important affairs of state were not ignored, actions were not suspended, government did not cease while one party concentrated exclusively on destroying the other. The obsessive, single-minded destruction of a President has never before led to the abandonment of government for years at a time.

Why has this change come about? I’m sure it has to do with the fact that influence has come to be a commodity, just like pork bellies, sugar and corn. Our representatives not longer represent their traditional constituents but, rather, the corporations that fund them and in return expect to get their way when it comes to legislation and the rules of the game. This has become so obviously true it has now been accepted as “just the way it works.” If there was ever any doubt about it the Supreme Court put it to rest when they declared that Corporations were Persons, the most absurd and devastating to democracy decision ever made (by a court itself part of the ongoing corruption).

We no longer have a functioning government, if by government is meant a system for managing public affairs in the best interest of its constituents. What we have is a kind of Mafia-like criminal conspiracy that does what the various Corporate Godfathers decree. In its simplest form it is a scheme to take money from taxpayers and give it to the already wealthy and powerful, essentially laundering the money through various defense and other industries. It has echoes of a protection racket, too, in that Representatives do what they are told or face the threat of not being re-elected. It is a system where money is not only considered speech, it actually talks.

I basically despise Newt Gingrich, whom I consider a completely dishonest, hypocritical, arrogant, pompous windbag with a fantastically self-exaggerated reputation as an intellectual. But in the spirit of “Even a blind dog finds a bone sometimes,” I think he did actually stumble on a potentially good thing, and truly kind of mysterious win-win situation. He said that when it comes to immigration policy we should strive for a “humane” solution. Some think this will doom his chances for the nomination because the Tea Party will not tolerate anything humane when it comes to immigration (or much of anything else). But from my standpoint, if it does doom his nomination, that would be a good thing, a win. On the other hand if he did (he won’t, but if he did) win the Presidency we would have a more humane immigration policy, another win. Good on ya, Newt!

In dwelling, live close to the ground.
In thinking, keep to the simple.
In conflict, be fair and generous.
In governing, don't try to control.
In work, do what you enjoy.
In family life, be completely present.

Tao Te Ching

Scromelets and Other Aberrations

2011-11-22T22:21:00.000-08:00

I am so weary of having to think about the idiocy of Republicans I have decided to take a break and consider something closer to home and more meaningful to me, my stomach. As near as I can tell the entire Republican philosophy (if it can be described in such a grandiose term) comes down to about six basic beliefs: Lie and Steal, Snatch and Grab, Hoard and Gloat. Anyway, on to my stomach:

I have been blessed in my life by having had two wives who were wonderful and serious cooks. My current wife of 27 years is a Gourmet-class chef who has fed me so unbelievably well over the years it is remarkable that I still remain merely somewhat overweight but not obese. I once had a wife for a time whose culinary skills were restricted to two things: bananas wrapped in bacon for breakfast and tongue. How she had mastered merely these two dishes has always been a mystery to me. As she also claimed not to know how to use a broom I did not pursue the issue as I might have. But I digress.

The problem with my current wife is not that she is quite likely the greatest cook in Idaho, but, rather, because of her teaching duties, she is not always home to feed me. This means, of course, that I must sometimes cook. The title of this blog should probably be: Scromlettes and Other Aberrations: Cooking By and For Little Old Men. I have already discussed food a couple of times, my adventures with pig’s feet, for example (Morialekafa 8-14-05), and also my fondness for sardines (Morialekafa 6-07-06), but there is more in the way of food that challenges me.

When I was a child my father (and thus also myself) were strictly meat and potato eaters. If every meal did not include meat we did not consider it food. Vegetables, blah, pasta, never, rice, foreign, and so on. It was so bad my poor mother tried to serve us steaks on beds of lettuce in the vain hope we might actually consume some, if only by accident. Until I left home, traveled, and eventually married, I stuck pretty much to the regimen of meat and potatoes. Gradually, over the years, I began to appreciate a much broader menu. I can cook, of course, and if I stick to the basics, pretty well. Ham and eggs and scrambled eggs I do fine, steaks too, although I seldom eat one anymore, partly because of the exorbitant price but mostly for health reasons. Fish and shell fish I have no trouble with. I have come to enjoy vegetables and can cook them passably well. The basic techniques of frying, roasting, baking, barbecuing and steaming I can handle. My problem is, that having been exposed to somewhat more complicated things, I generally fail. Omelettes are perhaps the best example. I consistently fail at them. I love Spanish omelets, but when I try to make one at the very last moment I fail. That is why I refer to them as “scromelets,” Spanish omelets in the style of scrambled eggs. This is a constant source of frustration for me (as well as embarrassment). Baked oysters have also given me trouble, although I cannot understand why, the basic recipe is so simple even a child should be able to do it. I found a recipe for “Baked Oysters Italiano,” seemingly simple, but when I made them they did not turn out as expected. I did not enjoy them. I stubbornly kept at it until after many attempts I managed to make baked oysters that I could enjoy. But by this time they deviated so markedly from Baked Oysters Italiano I now refer to those I make as Baked Oysters Morialekafa, but at least I enjoy them. I have mastered at least one form of apple pie but pumpkin pies still rather eludes me. I did not understand that when you assemble a pumpkin pie to go into the oven the pumpkin is still a liquid. By the time I get one to the oven there are little splotches of pumpkin all over the kitchen floor, a real nuisance to clean up.

It is, as you are probably aware, difficult to cook just for one person, and recipes do not always do well when arbitrarily reduced. For this reason I sometimes disdain the recipe and just “wing it.” I sometimes do a pretty good version of Shrimp Vera Cruz but it is probably more like Shrimp a la Kitchen Sink. Once when my wife was gone for a week I made a terrific Paella, but as it lasted for the entire week I was pretty tired of it by the time she returned. By now I have developed a repertoire and stick to it fairly well: Pork Schnitzel, Breaded Rockfish, Oyster stew, Baked and Fried Oysters, Shrimp a la Kitchen Sink, Steamed Cod, Hangtown Fry, Beef stew, Liver and onions, Ham and eggs, Scromelets, and Sausages and Beans, as well as an occasional roast chicken. When I can I also try Salmon, Whitefish, Mussels, and even Octopus (some of these we can only find in Canada). Sometimes I dream of Cassoulet, Choucrute, Ossobuco, Lapin au Saupiquet, and even Pied de Cochon, but, alas, they are not for Little Old Men cooking for themselves (happily I have my wife).

A couple of years ago my wife came home with a book on Charcuterie (Michael Ruhlman and Brian Polcyn). Naturally, being an unrepentant carnivore, I plunged into it, quickly making bacon, corned beef, and Guanchiale, all of which I thought were very successful (my wife complained that I over-smoked the bacon). Now, for the past year, she has been involved in an international contest, Charcutapalooza, that has required her to make a different kind of cured meat each month that she has done very successfully (see her blog, In Linda’s Kitchen). As this is entirely her show I do not help her, but I have been inspired by her efforts. I am now thinking of attempting an air-dried ham (ham being one of my favorite things in all the world). But as someone who now has to pause before even buying green bananas, and as the ham has to hang for at least six months or a year, this may be a bit overoptimistic. But what the hell, if worst comes to worst it can be part of my Estate.

If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.

J. R. R. Tolkien

Anything to Please

2011-11-21T22:23:00.000-08:00

These Republicans, they certainly know what to say to please…the Greedy Ghouls that are eager to feast on the slowly desiccating carcasses of what used to be the American Middle Class. A brief review of some of the latest Republican comments is most interesting. Newt Gingrich, who mysteriously finds himself at or near the top of the polls is a good place to start. Never one to mince words when any outrageous statement might do, Gingrich announced in his usual pompous, arrogant style that the Occupy Wall Street participants should “Take a bath and get a job.” He neglected to mention where they should apply. Maybe he should hire some to help peddle his ridiculous snake oil to more predatory corporations. Appealing even more shamelessly to corporate desires he also announced that child labor laws are “stupid,” and children should be put to work as janitors in their schools, but only after all the unionized janitors have been fired. Vintage Newt, what a guy!

Let us not overlook Representative Joe Walsh, you know the guy who refuses to pay his back child support that now totals somewhere in the vicinity of $120,000, and might well be the Poster Boy for the only marginally sane in Congress. Joe believes that the (very few, according to him) Veterans who are taking part in Occupy Wall Street just don’t understand our country. He seems to think they are in the vanguard of a great socialist movement threatening our very well-being. Hey, no doubt Joe knows best.

Good ol’ Rush has not been silent on recent developments (is he ever). He has announced to his dittoheads that Michelle Obama is guilty of “uppityism.” It seems that the crowd at Nascar booed when she appeared there as they apparently don’t approve of her attempts to tell people to eat more healthily. I guess they don’t like her working to improve the lives of Veterans either. Somehow I don’t think booing the First Lady will get them many points with the public at large.

Alaskan Congressman Don Young, whose major claim to fame up to now was waving a Walrus penis bone at the Female head of U.S. Fish and Game, has now told a Professor from Rice University that his testimony on the environment was “garbage.” Young, of course, is an avowed anti-environmentalist as well as an outspoken homophobe. And you wonder why Congress rates below Attila the Hun?

But wait! Don’t change that dial, there’s more astute Republican comments. Rick Santorum, still obsessed with the sexual behavior of homo sapiens (and other species as well, I guess), has now made it clear that Gay Marriage is going to cause the U.S. to “fall.” I’m not sure where it is he thinks we will fall to, and I’m not too sure we haven’t already fallen about as far as possible, but who knows what he thinks about other than about sex? He also has now explained that suffering is good and Americans need to suffer. If suffering is good many Americans must be piling up a lot of “good” because they are certainly suffering at the moment. Perhaps we should begin flagellating ourselves more often to accumulate even more good. I say Santorum for President, we’d certainly suffer then.

But the prize for the most idiotic comment of all, one that even dwarfs Madeleine Albright’s absurd, sadistic claim that sanctions against Iraq that caused the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was “worth it,” came from conservative writer David Frum. Apparently speaking for millions of Iraqi citizens, Frum assured us that “No price was too high for the Iraqis to be free of Saddam Hussein.” I don’t know if he checked this out with the millions of Iraqis who either were killed or maimed, lost their homes, their families, and everything they owned, and suffered miseries beyond description to the point that some wished for the return of Saddam. Perhaps he could join with Santorum and explain to them that suffering is good.

The so-called Super Committee has failed. I wonder if anyone is really surprised. Why would a committee of six Democrats and six Republicans be expected not to fail? Now, unless Congress takes some serious action to cut at least 1.2 trillion over ten years (a ridiculously small amount when amortized over ten years) the automatic cuts agreed to will eventually go into effect. This will mean large budget cuts to the National Defense Budget, already so bloated it wastes billions without even batting an eye. But McCain and his sidekick Graham are already trying to welsh on the deal, no amount of money can ever be enough for the defense budget, according to Republicans. Cuts there would make it more difficult to rip off the taxpayers without revealing the underlying absurdity of the military/industrial/political system that really isn’t much different from an ordinary protection racket, except for its fantastic size and complexity.

A country which proposes to make use of modern war as an instrument of policy must possess a highly centralized, all-powerful executive, hence the absurdity of talking about the defense of democracy by force of arms. A democracy which makes or effectively prepares for modern scientific war must necessarily cease to be democratic.

Aldous Huxley

Reality and the Unthinkable

2011-11-20T22:36:00.000-08:00

Bubblehead: If you made comments that did not appear on Morialekafa I’m sorry, but I assure you it was not because I refused them . For the past couple of months, perhaps a bit longer, I simply have not seen any comments so that I could either refuse them or not. I don’t know how this happened. My computer skills are so primitive I could not have arranged this change, unless I somehow did it accidentally and was totally unaware of it. One possibility is that someone else did it. Other people occasionally use my computer, especially my wife and my son (although they do have their own computers). Another possibility was a visit at about that time of a somewhat shiftless brother-in-law. But I can’t really blame anyone as I have no idea what happened. I did not want to inhibit any comments other than spam or those too obscene even for me . For anyone else whose comments did not appear I also apologize. Anyway, I hope it has gone back to the way it was. I truly enjoy the comments even if I sometimes do not agree with them.

Somehow our political system has strayed farther and farther from reality in recent years. The current Republican slate of candidates for President would have been unthinkable not too many years ago, except perhaps for one or two of them. This is, I suppose, at least partly due to the fact that there are no formal prerequisites for the position. But I think there is more to it than that although I can’t exactly point out why. It seems to me that most usually throughout our history candidates for President were chosen by the Political Parties from the ranks of known and seasoned politicians, those who had served in Congress or were well-known Governors, Generals, or the like. It was not the case that just anyone or everyone who wanted to run was allowed to do so (or at least were not taken seriously). This has changed and there are now candidates who are clearly not viable (or perhaps even serious) candidates.

The reality is, the United States is still the largest economy on earth and indisputably the most awesomely powerful militarily, with weapons and responsibilities almost beyond imagination. There is an unbelievably complicated web of relationships with virtually every other country on earth, as well as a population of citizens numbering in the billions that must be protected and nourished. As a result of this the President of the United States is the most powerful person in the world, responsible at the moment for virtually all the people on the planet, as well as their well-being. Not, then, a job for just any man or woman. I submit for one reason or another none of the present Republican candidates is truly suitable for, or up to, the job.

Does anyone (reasonably sentient) seriously believe that Sarah Palin, for example, could be President? It seems obvious to me she cannot be accepted as a candidate for the most powerful position on earth. It is true she was a Governor (at least for part of a term), but she also revealed herself to be virtually dimwitted when it comes to world affairs and is also a religious nutcase. Much the same can be said for Michele Bachmann. It’s true she has served in Congress but, like Palin, is a religious extremist, and, in fact is considered even only borderline sane by some. Donald Trump as a candidate for President is beneath contempt. Herman Cain, too, cannot, in my opinion at least, be considered a serious or viable candidacy for the Presidency. He has revealed an awesome ignorance of world affairs as well as even local political realities, and being a successful businessman is not of itself a qualification for the job. Ron Paul, another senior Congressperson, has a small following that seems very loyal to him, but his ideas appear to come out of the dark ages and very few even now take him seriously. Rick Santorum is a somewhat sad case of essentially a one issue candidate, the issue being Gay marriage, certainly at the moment not a winner for anyone. Then there is Newt Gingrich, thrice divorced, known hypocrite, pompous blowhard, disgraced former Speaker of the House, chronic liar, and self-proclaimed savant. I believe it is entirely fair to say that even 30 or 40 years ago none of these candidates would have even been considered seriously for the Presidency, certainly not Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, or Gingrich.

This leaves us with three former Governors that at least have the apparent credentials for candidacy. But two of them are Mormons who even now face considerable opposition just on religious grounds alone (however unfair that may be). The third, Rick Perry of Texas, ought, by all means, to be considered a viable candidate, but has shown himself to be not only an ignoramus and a religious nutcase, but also a flop as a debator and a student of world affairs, not, as they say, suitable for the “big time.” Huntsman, the only candidate with any significant Foreign Affairs experience, has failed to connect with the Republican base as he is apparently too honest for them, and Romney has proven himself over several years to be a man with no permanent principles. I do not believe that even fifty years ago any of these current candidates would have been considered acceptable, nor would they have received the media attention they have.

I would attribute this rather strange development to several factors. One of them I think is just plain ignorance on the part of the electorate. When you have relatively large numbers of voters who think the President should be just like themselves, someone you would like to have a beer with, this indicates to me ignorance of reality on a truly grand scale. Another factor has to do with the control of the media by a few corporations who apparently don’t care who the President is, as long as he or she does what they desire. Third seems to be the fact that if someone can generate enough funds to run, or have enough funds of their own to run, it doesn’t matter if they are truly worthy candidates or not, the very fact they can raise money seems to indicate they are desirable candidates. Fourth, the Party regulars, partly because of the media, no longer seem to be in control of the selection of candidates, having ceded their previous authority to the fringes of the Party and the media.

What this seems to indicate is that although previous experience, such as being a Governor or Congressperson, or even a celebrity, may be a necessary condition for becoming a candidate, it is by no means a sufficient condition. A candidate cannot be regarded as either dishonest, wishy-washy, an extremist of some kind, or a religious nutcase, and must have that elusive appearance of appearing Presidential. I do not believe any of the current Republican candidates meet the test. It doesn’t seem to matter as one of them will no doubt get the nomination anyway (and will probably face an ignominious defeat). Although I do not agree with or approve of some of President Obama’s decisions I believe he has demonstrated Presidential qualities. Charges that he has not been a leader I think are totally bogus, you cannot be a leader when large numbers of people have announced arbitrarily they will not cooperate, no matter what. I think Obama SHOULD win in a landslide in 2012 (but I am more often wrong than not).

Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.

Groucho Marx

Comments

2011-11-18T20:10:00.000-08:00

Morialekafa has never received many comments but there have always been a few. Recently, however, there have been none. I do not know why this happened. There was a time when I was receiving almost daily comments in Asian languages I could not possibly understand. I suspected these of carrying viruses and had them blocked. There was also a time when I was fairly commonly receiving anonymous comments. I do not approve of anonymous comments so I had them blocked. For a long time I was receiving comments on my email that I could either agree to have published or refuse them. I do not recall ever refusing one. I would like to say that I welcome comments, provided they are not some form of spam or contain language I regard as unfit for decent communication. I believe this problem has been cleared up. If you have a comment please do not hesitate to send it.

I confess I am finding it harder and harder to blog as often as I once did. The political situation at the moment is so absurd I find it difficult to take it seriously. It seems to me the Republican criminal conspiracy (that once was a legitimate political party) is inevitably going to crash and burn (or at least it certainly ought to) and then perhaps it will be possible for someone to actually govern our country in a manner at least approximating some form of quasi-democratic Republic where all citizens share somewhat more equally in opportunity, health, and happiness.

The Shocking Stupidity of the Stubbornly Short-Sighted

2011-11-17T22:35:00.000-08:00

Apparently 72 Republican members of the House of Representatives have signed a letter (or some other document) saying they will never agree to any increase in taxes. I gather they mean what they say, no increase in taxes no matter what. It seems from the reports I have seen that the Republican members of the so-called Super Committee have also refused to give in to any new taxes. I gather they are also opposed to closing corporate loopholes and are holding out passionately to keep on making the rich and the corporations even richer than they are. With hundreds of American citizens now taking to the streets in our major cities demanding action on jobs, something that will require some increased revenues to produce, just where do these Republicans ideologues think the Occupy movement will go?

As I understand it, some 68% of Americans want to see the rich and the corporations pay more in taxes (or at least “their fair share”). I also saw today that even 68% of millionaires have requested they be taxed more heavily. Warren Buffet and other billionaires have also suggested they should pay more. It is also obvious that those with millions and billions could easily pay more and not even miss it. Some 40 or more Republicans have announced they will not honor the no taxes pledge they signed for Grover Norquist. Even so, the Republican leadership (if it can be called that) seems to be determined not to budge on their position. I find this virtually impossible to understand, and I cannot help but wonder if they have any ideas of the potential consequences of their complete unwillingness to help our country out when it desperately needs help. Similarly, I cannot understand their apparent total lack of either understanding or compassion for the lives of those out of work that have in many cases also lost their pensions and their homes.

These Republican holdouts apparently believe that “It can’t happen here.” That is, there cannot be a genuine revolution in the United States. I guess they believe this because there has not been a violent revolution since the original Tea Party, and because they believe the current rebellion will either exhaust itself and go away or the police will destroy it for the 1%. I suspect they do not know how dangerous the times may become. I also suspect that at least some of the billionaires and millionaires might well understand the dangers and hope that by giving in a bit this eventuality might be avoided. So far, even after more than 60 days of protests, the protests have remained non-violent. One can only hope they will remain so, but I’m not so certain the protestors cannot be prone to more violent acts if they see no activity on behalf of Congress and the Administration to seriously attend their grievances. Frustration, if prolonged, does almost inevitably lead to violence. In the present case the majority of the population is being frustrated by a relatively small minority that seems to believe they can get their way (and get rid of Obama) by just standing pat.

Paradoxically, the position of this stubborn minority is being undermined by the only true thing they have ever said – they are dedicated to making President Obama a one term President. As they announced this with some pride, and have religiously stuck to it, it has become obvious that anything else they say about Obama will almost certainly not be true (and hasn’t been). Try to remember if you have ever heard them claim anything about Obama that is actually true. They have tried everything: he wasn’t born in America, he’s a socialist/communist/fascist/racist/Muslim/Dictator/visitor from outer space/weak on national defense/dumb on Foreign Policy/economics/etc., all claims with no substance whatsoever. The latest as of today, a la Rick Perry, is that he is “a child of privilege,” a claim so outrageously false as to inevitably make Perry look like more of a fool than he has already revealed himself to be.

It appears there will be no Great White Dope to unseat Obama, and as Herman Cain is basically little more than a practical joker he, too, will be of no consequence. Romney will probably get the nomination by default, but even he is now under fire for destroying the records of his Governorship. This, however, will probably make little difference as Romney is already known to be completely wishy-washy on virtual any subject you can name, "inauthentic" is the most flattering thing you can say for him.

If I had anything to say to the Occupy people it would be: Don’t waste your bodies or health trying to make it through the winter in tents and sleeping bags. Withdraw temporarily for the winter, make it clear you are using the time to organize a nationwide Spring offensive that will make what you have accomplished so far look like child’s play. Continue to pressure Congress to act before it becomes too late, see if they take the obviously not subtle hints and actually begin to act responsibly. If not, Spring and Summer will make the point both inescapable and inevitable.

Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.

John F. Kennedy

Is it Possible?

2011-11-16T22:37:00.000-08:00

Is it, I cannot help but wonder, even possible for the Republican attempt to find a candidate to run against President Obama any more ridiculous than it has become? I mean, really, can this be any more than just a bad joke? Mitt Romney still manages to be considered as the most probable candidate to run against Obama, even though no more than about 25% of Republican voters support him, and even though they have desperately sought someone else in a sort of “Anyone but Romney” frenzy. By now they have pretty much exhausted the possibilities and at the moment, if you can possibly believe it, Newt Gingrich is leading in the polls. This will not last more than a week. First there was Bachmann, leading in Iowa, where you have to be certifiably loony to even be considered, and once she left Iowa she flunked out miserably. Then there was the Great White Dope from Texas, who was to immediately become the leader of the pack, who then flunked out on Brains 101, to say nothing of basic memory. Then it was the turn of Herman Cain, possible sex offender, admitted know-nothing when it comes to foreign policy or much of anything else. Still going so far but with virtually no hope are Ron Paul, with his marvelous imitation of Pa Kettle, Rick Santorum obsessed with sex and the single parent, and Huntsman with the temerity to suggest that science might be important. Santorum and Huntsman have not yet had their turn in the barrel and probably won’t. With the possible exception of Romney, who has been a candidate for President for a long time, the rest of this dismal field has little or nothing to offer. Even more ridiculous possibilities like Donald Trump and Sarah Palin have (understandably) gone the way of Dodo birds, and more serious Republican candidates have declined to run.

So, at the moment it is Gingrich, a truly marvelous candidate, almost certainly one of the world’s greatest hypocrites, a serial adulterer, lost the Speakership of the House and was fined for illegal activities therein, self-proclaimed intellectual, Pontificator extraordinaire, Dumpy chronic prevaricator, egomaniacal self-promoter basically out merely to sell books, and transparently fake candidate. He has managed somehow (after years of self-promotion) to convince at least some members of his party to believe he is the most intellectual of them all, no small feat given the reality of his intellect (tells you something about the intellectual abilities of Republicans in general). Gingrich’s hypocrisy is so pronounced he cannot possibly survive as the leading candidate for long. His latest hypocrisy has to do with his loud and obnoxious claims that anyone who had anything to do with Freddy Mac or Fannie Mae should be put in jail, while neglecting to mention that he, himself, had received 1.6 million from them for “Historical advice.” Actually, while I think about it, he probably is an ideal candidate for the gang of greedy thieves that currently makes up the Republican Party, he has, as they say “what it takes.” But really, seriously, is this not an absurdity to about the nth level of absurdity?

And so, after one after another of these prospective candidates bites the dust, we inevitably come back to Romney. Even though few seem to want him he probably will get the nomination. Why someone who must know his peers have tried desperately to find someone else, and thus obviously do not want him, continues to run I find somewhat mysterious. But it is indicative of his apparently unbelievable lust for the Presidency. He has demonstrated consistently he is willing to say anything to achieve this goal, to the point where it is impossible to believe he has any basic values or principles at all. He says things that are at time so preposterous and transparently absurd one can only marvel at his willingness to even say them. One of my recent favorites is “If Obama is re-elected Iran will have a nuclear bomb, if you elect me, they won’t.” You have to reflect on this for a moment before the full impact of the stupidity hits you. First, there is no basis in fact whatsoever for such a claim. Iran may not even be working on a bomb, and even if they were/are what makes him believe Obama will be any less effective about stopping it than he would be, and even if he were President he could not necessarily stop it anyway. Such a statement is simply ridiculous and designed to please an audience of numbskulls. It also betrays Romney’s assumption that the U.S. is going to unilaterally determine what goes on in the Middle East and the world at large. Romney, were he to actually become President, I’m convinced, would be a disaster even beyond the scale of Bush/Cheney (something I might have thought impossible until listening to Romney’s plans for the Middle East).

And so there you have it, Willard and the six useless mental midgets, all determined to overthrow the Obama administration and lead us inevitably to further humiliation and defeat in the eyes of the (real) world. I would never have thought it possible for (what used to be) a legitimate political party to be so self-destructive. Republicans seems to have inverted the old tattoo, “Death before Dishonor,” into “Death before Honor.” What goes on in the mind of baboons?

When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.

P. J. O'Rourke

Right and Wrong

2011-11-13T22:34:00.000-08:00

Matters of right and wrong can hardly be settled in a brief essay, but developments in recent years, and even days, have made me consider the problem, however superficially. Let us concede first of all that the doctrine of cultural relativism is true: values, matters of right and wrong, very considerably from one culture to another. As this is so it means that what is considered right or wrong is culturally determined just as all values are. Put aside for the moment the deeper, more profound question of whether or not there might be rights and wrongs universal to all members of the human species. This is, of course, an interesting philosophical and even scientific question, but for practical matters of everyday life is largely irrelevant. The culture in which you are born and raised determines what your values and ideas about right and wrong are going to be. But as this is true, it is also true that values can change over time so that something that was once considered right or wrong can vary over time. We have certainly seen such changes in American culture over the years, especially (but certainly not only) with matters having to do with human sexuality.

Who, for example, even fifty years ago, would have considered Gay marriages as right? And certainly no one would have expected to see explicit sex acts in movies, and words that were once absolutely taboo are now used every day on television and even in everyday speech. Even so, at any given moment in time people generally know what is and is not permissible in their own culture, what things are prescribed and proscribed (even though there can be some variation and all people might not agree all the time, as in the case of abortion, for example). It is difficult to speak for all Americans as there are so many different ethnic and religious groups and sub-cultures. I doubt, however, there are many Americans who believe sex between a man and a boy is right (permissible). Speaking to the case of Penn State, the assistant coach that actually witnessed the boy being raped knew it was wrong, even though he did nothing about it at the time. He did, however, report it to his father and then subsequently to other officials at the University. In ancient Greece, and currently in at least one Middle Eastern country, such sex acts are rather common and apparently considered right (or appropriate). I’m not sure about rape, but I suppose even rape might be permissible during wartime and even expected. The fact that the witness did nothing to intervene is separate from his knowledge that the act was clearly wrong and needs to be dealt with at another time.

If we can take it as given that values vary from culture to culture, and also that values can change over time, I believe this behooves us to consider the changing values in the United States, that, I am sure, are vastly more important to our lives than sexual aberrations. You may be familiar with Max Weber’s famous work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, where he argues the rise of capitalism would not have been possible without the rise of the Protestant Ethic (that valued secular work in ways that had previously not been so valued). But it seems to me that Capitalism itself, has its own ethic, that has been influencing and changing our culture and our notions of right and wrong for some time now.

When I was a boy, living in a small Northwestern town, that I believe was not out of the mainstream of American culture, I learned that certain things were right and others were wrong. In the spirit of Protestant/capitalism I learned that one valued hard, honest work and education, that bullying was wrong, hitting or kicking people when they were down was wrong, lying was wrong, women wearing pants was wrong (or at least very questionable), speaking publicly about sex was taboo, certainly homosexual sex, married women should stay at home and take care of their families as that was right, violence was permissible only in self-defense, killing was wrong (except during wars), human dignity and fair-play were important, and I suspect most of the same values my peers were learning, some subliminally, some intentionally, and all being transmitted to us extra-genetically. We also learned that we should help the needy if at all possible, and that greed (one of the seven deadly sins) was wrong.

I believe that the ethics (or lack of them) in our version of capitalism, acting over time, have had an insidious influence over at least some relatively large segments of the American population. Many of our citizens have become obsessed with “profits” and the related greed that seems to accompany that obsession. This can be seen in those who in recent years have reinvigorated the spirit of Ayn Rand, and also in slogans such as “Shop until you drop,” and “He who has the most toys wins,” or even the more blatant “Greed is good.” Perhaps more significant of the acceptance of the Capitalist ethic can be seen in those on Wall Street putting signs in their windows boasting of being part of the 1%, or drinking champaigne and mocking the demonstrators. Capitalism is basically cannibalistic, consuming those who cannot adequately compete. This can be seen in modern day Republican culture that wants to write off the poor as useless parasites, refuse them unemployment insurance, minimum wages, health care, food stamps, and claims they are not poor because they have (empty) refrigerators. Everything they do is designed to destroy the poor and the middle class, while at the same time giving more and more to the obscenely wealthy and the corporations already bloated with profits. I find it virtually impossible to believe that one of the Republican candidates recently actually said that those who don’t work, shouldn’t eat! I believe these attitudes are directly attributable to the ideas promoted by those who have seduced us into the misnamed but disastrous “free-market capitalism,” and convinced us that “socialism” is such an evil as to be unthinkable. Many seem to believe that capitalism is not only right, but is the only good economic model, and there is nothing wrong with more and more capital handed to the “haves” while taking more and more from the poor and the middle class. They insist we should have more of it. These were not the values I was taught as a child. I sincerely hope they are not now the values of the majority of American citizens. I cannot help but wonder if all Republicans have come to believe what they are doing is right. I suspect that at least some of them must realize that what they are doing is actually wrong, but do it anyway, either because of greed or because of pressure from the Tea Party and the corporations they represent.

"The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of material production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production, so that thereby, generally speaking, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to it. The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas."

― Karl Marx

Nonsense and Insanity

2011-11-12T22:32:00.000-08:00

Herman Cain has now announced that God told him to run for President. Of course God had already apparently chosen Michele Bachmann. Can God really be of two minds about this or is he changing his tune depending upon what the odds look like from time to time? I’m not certain but I wouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that God also had something to do with the Rick Perry campaign. Does anyone take these nonsensical claims seriously, and if so, why?

Republican accusations of socialism are so commonplace these days they, too, can hardly be taken seriously. Now they are accusing Elizabeth Warren of being a socialist. I guess that is the most derogatory term they can muster for anyone who dares to suggest anything that might favor the poor and the middle class. If you fight for the rights of anyone other than millionaires, billionaires, and corporations you become automatically tarred with this incredibly horrible (in their minds) label. Bernie Sanders, by far one of our very best Congresspersons, isn’t accused of socialism because he is one and admits it freely while trying to do something other than make more profit for the rich and the corporations. If all our Congresspersons were like Sanders, and all the Republicans in the Party of “No”were in hell where they clearly deserve to be, think how much better the world would be.

Moving on from the primarily nonsensical to the more seriously insane behavior of the U.S., consider our attempt to undo the ban on cluster bombs. Every country in the world with the exception of the U.S. (and maybe Israel and the U.K.) have signed a pledge to ban cluster bombs, and not satisfied with merely refusing to sign it we are now apparently trying to undermine it. It is common knowledge that cluster bombs kill far more innocent people, primarily children, than anyone else. So isn’t it a good feeling to know you’re on the side of using an basically unnecessary and especially horrible type of bomb to kill and maim children all around the world? How much you want to bet the military/industrial/political complex wants to continue producing these awful weapons? Profits can be made anywhere if you’re deranged enough.

If the above isn’t crazy enough for you, consider that we are now going to station American troops in Australia. I guess Australia, like Germany, France, South Korea, England, and who knows all else, is incapable of looking after their interests without American aid. Maybe, like Germany, they just can’t afford to maintain a military of their own. And just what is the threat to Australia that requires our presence? It doesn’t seem to be very clear although there are some mumblings here and there about China. We are seriously considering a war with China, an even more insane idea than attacking Iran? I suppose there is some rationale for stationing troops in Australia, perhaps some vital secret reason I cannot comprehend or shouldn’t know about? I still think it’s another really crazy and unnecessary way to waste more money on the military.

Speaking of Iran leads me immediately to Israel and the Palestinians, the real hotbed of insanity that just keeps on giving and giving (more misery and trouble for all concerned). Our official policy is our stated desire for a two state solution, the creation of a Palestinian state living in relative peace with a neighboring Israel. The Palestinians are asking the United Nations to award them statehood, something that might actually happen, if the U.S. wasn’t actively working against it and using our veto to prevent it. Why are we doing this? Ostensibly, because we claim (along with Israel, of course) the solution to the problem can only be achieved by negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel. There might be some credibility to this claim if it were not already known that negotiations will never be settled between the two parties because Israel does not want a solution to the problem, favoring the status quo of racism and apartheid. The real reason we (the U.S.) are preventing the Palestinians from gaining statehood (or much of anything else) is because we are afraid Netanyahu (the apparent ruler of the Middle East) might spank us for being naughty and not doing precisely what we are told to do. It is hardly a secret that the (Israeli) tail has been wagging the (U.S.) dog for years and, given our nitwit-filled Congress with their delusions of Armageddon, will probably continue to do so into eternity (if Armageddon doesn’t come first).

Not to be outdone on the insanity frontier, Newt Gingrich, apparently the new Republican flavor of the month, has announced that if he were elected President he would offer a cabinet appointment to, of all people (I think he might be a people) John Bolton! I suggest he just dynamite the U.N. instead, it would be quicker and less painful.

As if there were safety in stupidity alone.

Henry David Thoreau

Student Loans

2011-11-11T22:27:00.001-08:00

As it turns out students apparently owe somewhere in the vicinity of a trillion dollars for their student loans. This has led to an outburst of criticism of the student loan program. Ron Paul says student loans have been a “total failure.” Newt Gingrich says they are a “complete absurdity.” Rick Perry says the government shouldn’t be in the business of giving loans to students. There seems to be pretty much agreement on the part of Republicans that student loans are a bad thing. I agree, student loans are not only a bad thing, absurd, and best avoided, but this is so for reasons that soar above these petty Republican objections. Students should not have to have loans to go to Colleges and Universities, attendance at such institutions should be free and subsidized by the government.

Margaret Halsey, a witty but also very insightful writer, among other works, wrote a book called the Pseudo-Ethic. Wikopedia describes this as a defense of Alger Hiss. As I recall Halsey was persecuted as being a communist or at least communist sympathizer, probably because of this and her other works on social problems at the time (she also wrote a book titled “Color Blind…” that had to do with integrating the USO). I remember reading these books quite a long time ago and do not think of them as being so problematical, but as they were written about the time of McCarthyism, anything written was suspect. What I remember about The Pseudo-Ethic has nothing whatsoever to do with Alger Hiss, but, rather, what Halsey had to say about Business (the pseudo-ethic). She argued that societies that were dependent upon one single institution were basically somewhat “primitive,” and the U.S. was such a society because of its dependence upon the single institution of business. She discussed how it was that business was inserting itself into all aspects of American life, including the Universities (my memory of this might be a bit faulty but I don’t think it is wide of the mark). In any case, I remember being impressed by her insights on this matter and have admired her ever since. But even Halsey had no idea just how insidious this business ethic was to become.
In fact, she must be rolling over and over in her grave.
It would seem obvious that for any nation to flourish and survive it is necessary to have an educated citizenry. In some successful countries, as Scandinavia, Finland, the Netherlands, University education is basically free, paid for by the taxpayers, but clearly this in the best interest of the country. To fail to provide educational opportunities for the young over time will quite likely spell big trouble for the future of that nation. We are actually seeing this begin to occur in the U.S., where, in spite of massive unemployment, we also lack enough sufficiently trained people to fill the jobs that are available. This is a suicidal course if allowed to continue. Why has this happened? Because we have allowed business to in effect turn our Colleges and Universities into “cash cows,” forcing our young people, the future of our country, to have to take out loans in order to attend, thus having to pay interest on their loans to the banking industry. In other words our schools have become just another form of business where the goal is not in the national interest, or even in the best interest of education, but, rather, just another source of profit. The Universities have been complicit in this massive business enterprise, perhaps not willingly but out of necessity. As they receive so little funding from the States or the Federal Government, in order to keep functioning they have to raise tuition and other charges, thus demanding more and more money from students who are forced to go into debt to pay off their loans, and thus provide more and more profit to the lenders. The move to more and more privatization of education has exacerbated this situation and made it worse. Universities, and education in general, should not exist to make profits for business. Indeed, they should be completely independent of business interests, and this is true for research as well as education in general. But business has now insinuated itself so insidiously into our educational system as to convert it into just another part of the business economy. Education for its own sake has long since ceased to be a value in the U.S., at best our schools have been converted into little more than trade schools, training people at the moment for jobs that do not even exist. They do, however, among other things, keep large numbers off the unemployment line while at the same time lining the pockets of increasingly greedy capitalists. When schools are run for profit they cease to offer genuine educational opportunities to individuals and at the same time sacrifice the well-being of the nation itself. Republicans are right, student loans are absurd, but for far more important reasons than they seem to be aware. Not only are they absurd, they are an absolute abomination and fatally harmful for the future of our country. Our young people are the future, they should be given every opportunity to have a first-rate education, not treated as sharecroppers in debt to “the company store” at the end of their studies. It is absurd, it is crazy, it is disgusting, it is national suicide, but when you are forced to depend so exclusively on a single institution, and that institution is business, and business is in business solely to make profit, what else might you expect?

Never regard study as a duty, but as the enviable opportunity to learn to know the liberating influence of beauty in the realm of the spirit for your own personal joy and to the profit of the community to which your later work belongs.

Albert Einstein