What Does it Mean?

Brooklyn woman stabs
husband caught watching
pornographic movies.

I see quite a lot of bumper stickers now that say “Let’s Take Our Country Back,” sometimes, but not always, associated with Ron Paul. If you are unfortunate enough to stumble across videos of Tea Party rallies you will also see a number of such signs, often associated with virtually anything. I have been trying to decide what it means to say Let’s Take Our Country Back. Of course these signs can and do mean different things to different people if, in fact, they have any real meaning at all (I’m pretty much convinced that most of the people carrying these signs have no idea what they mean).

These signs can’t mean let’s take our country back from the British. We already did that a long time ago. And they can’t mean let’s take it back from the Indians because we actually just took it away from them. I have little doubt that for some this sign means let’s take it back from this Black, Kenyan-born interloper who should not have it in the first place (he’s Black, you know, but as they can’t just come out and say that they have to pretend he’s from Kenya or even another planet). Similarly, it can mean, let ‘s take it back from the Muslims (Obama being assumed to be a Muslim). No doubt for some it means let’s take it back from the terrible socialists, you know, the socialistic unions who forced management to give us the apparently now unappreciated 40 hour work week, the 8 hour day, and at least a few benefits. It might be the liberals who should give it back, you know, those guys that gave us Social Security and Medicare. Maybe it goes back even further to those obviously misguided fools who thought we should have a Postal Service, Police and Firemen, and other social services. There is little doubt that it also has to do with those that established the awful Income Tax, you know, that money they collect so they can keep participating in unnecessary “wars,” thus enabling them to transfer huge sums of money from ordinary working people to the military/industrial/political complex that now comprises most of our economy. Think how complicated and inconvenient this is when they could just keep all their money in the first place (of course it wouldn’t grow quite so fast but, you know, money breeds money once you have it, no matter how you came by it).

Currently it seems to be mostly Republicans who want their country back, back from those terrible Democrats who actually expect the filthy rich to pay their fair share of taxes and the corporations to give up their totally unnecessary tax breaks and subsidies, and who also think we should have such luxuries as health care and decent schools. A strange lot, Democrats, they seem to believe that taking a huge surplus and turning it almost overnight into a huge deficit was a bad thing, when we all know that Cheney the Great (quoting Saint Ronnie)said deficits don’t matter (and Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and torture was good). Some Republicans seem to think that civil rights legislation was improper and that private businesses should have the right to discriminate if they wish, and still others think we should go back to the gold standard (I wonder if there now is enough gold in all the world to cover all the paper money that now exists around the world). I guess some of these types want to take our country back from those stupid and misguided people who think we ought to have rules and regulations of various kinds. These often stand in the way of looting and robbing and stealing and cheating and make accumulating wealth more difficult than it ought to be.

It is obvious by now that most of those who want their country back want it back so they can continue doing what they were doing that brought about the mess we are in now. In brief, they want back their license to cheat and steal. Why don’t any of these signs say We Want Our Country Back to return it to the Greed, Thieving, Short-Sighted Warmongering Bastards that had it during the Nightmare Years of the early 21st century? At least the message would be closer to the truth and more precise than the abstract version currently making the rounds. I want my country back, too, and I want it back NOW!

LKBIQ:
When there is an income tax, the just man will pay more and the unjust less on the same amount of income.
Plato

TILT:
The black seeds of papaya can be ground up and used as a substitute for pepper.

Culture and Reason

Ukrainian man pesters wife for sex
while she is vacuuming,
she strangles him with cord.

A judge has just ruled that the policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is unconstitutional and “defies logic.” In her 64 page ruling she apparently just about destroys any arguments to the contrary. She is also going to issue an order forbidding the military from employing DADT. I don’t know if her decision will stand up to scrutiny or not, but there is every reason to suppose that it very likely will.

This follows a similar ruling not long ago by another judge that virtually destroyed any rationale against Gay marriage. This ruling was also said to be do definitive it is doubtful that it will even be appealed or challenged. It is clear that both of these rulings are pretty definitive and indicate that there is no basis in either reason or logic for a ban on Gay marriage or the policy of DODT.

What I find most interesting about this is that neither reason nor logic has changed in the past few years. So the question arises, if neither reason nor logic has changed, why were these rules against Gay marriage or Gays in the military established in the first place? They must have been just as unreasonable and illogical then as they are now.

These cases illustrate a basic truth about culture, cultural practices are not established on the basis of reason or logic, cultural prescriptions and proscription just are. If you ask people in the New Guinea Highlands, for example, why they do certain things (that seemingly make no sense at all) they predictably reply, “em fasin b’long tumbuna” (that’s what our ancestors did). More often than not they do not have any explanation for what they do, and what they do often defies logic. For example, they will not eat chickens, because they say chickens eat feces, but if you point out to them that pigs also eat feces, and they eagerly eat pigs, the just shrug. This does not mean they are just a bunch of simple “savages” who don’t really understand what they are doing. All cultures operate in much the same way. There are seldom any logical reasons why members of any given culture do the things they do, and often it is impossible to ascertain any reasons, either explicit or implicit why they do them. Thus we find sacred cattle in India, a taboo on pork in the Middle East, a failure to eat dog or horse meat in the United States, and so on and so forth. We also find extremely painful initiation rites, the excision of teeth, subincision, circumcision, cliterodectomy, and similar rites that make no sense whatsoever other than being perhaps religious in nature.

What this means is that human beings live lives of unreason and illogic, even though we are supposedly uniquely endowed with the ability to reason and apply logic to our lives. Surely it defies all reason and logic for the inhabitants of Easter Island to have cut down all the trees that once grew there, and for parts of Italy to have done the same thing. It is not logical or reasonable that we here in the United States have destroyed some of our salmon runs, the Passenger Pigeons, and almost the buffalo. You might say it also violates reason and logic to continue deep-water offshore drilling or building more nuclear energy plants. And it certainly defies reason and logic to ignore the dangerous threat of global warming.

So why do we do such stupid things? In many cases it is fairly obvious, greed, short-term profits come readily to mind. In other cases it has to do with completely irrational religious or other beliefs. Beliefs that completely defy logic or reason are the backbone of religions. They must be taken on faith alone. And most of them are completely bizarre, even far-fetched, but still believed. Even though humans are presumably endowed with reason they more often than not do not follow the dictates of reason. Currently, for example, it is absurd to be upset because Muslims want to build a community center near ground zero, just as it is absurd to believe that Muslims in general are our enemies. It is equally absurd to believe that Obama was born in Kenya or is a Muslim or a socialist. But large numbers of U.S. citizens seem to believe this nonsense.

Sometimes it is possible to understand irrational beliefs if you understand the underlying premises (which themselves don’t have to make much sense). For example, one day my interpreter in New Guinea announced that white women don’t menstruate. I said, of course, why do you think that? He replied, “No man would sleep with a menstruating woman, white men sleep with their wives, they must no menstruate.” Now that is a perfectly logical explanation, if you accept the premise. But where did that premise come from? Who knows, somewhere lost in antiquity. Such is life among human beings, we live lives of unreason while at the same time deluding ourselves that we know what we are doing. When I was younger and studying anthropology, psychology, psychiatry, and such, I believed that it might be possible to understand human behavior. Now I know better. We will no doubt continue struggling on for a time, but as our behavior seems to be increasingly divorced from reality as well as unreasonable and illogical, the future of our species seems doubtful.

LKBIQ:
The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be.
Paul Valery

TILT:
The feral horse of Australia is called a brumby.

Ignorance is not Bliss

Sixty-four year-old Kansas City
woman drags naked intruder
out of her house by his beard.

According to a Pew Research Center survey some 61 percent of Americans believe Obama’s either a Muslim or that he may not be a Christian. Forty three percent don’t know what his religion is, and 18 percent believe he is a Muslim. According to Time magazine 61% of Americans are opposed to the construction of the New York Muslim Community Center. One third of Americans do not believe Muslims should be allowed to run for President and some twenty-eight percent don’t believe Muslims should be allowed to sit on the Supreme Court. I have taken this information from an article today that appears in Truthout, entitled “Mediated Racism: Orientalism, Birtherism, and the Muslim Community Center.” You should read it as it shows pretty clearly that when it comes to Muslims things are even worse than the above.

I am not surprised by these findings. I am surprised they are not even worse than they appear. I am not interested here in the precise findings but, rather, by the deeper problem they reveal. Namely, that large numbers of Americans are uneducated, uninformed, lazy, and indifferent louts. Information about Muslims and the Muslim faith, Obama’s birth, racism, and related topics is not hard to come by if one merely takes the time to look. This requires at least a minimum amount of time and involves using the internet and, more importantly, reading, activities many Americans cannot be bothered with. Many seem to prefer getting their information (if they have any at all) from the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, or perhaps from their fundamentalist preacher, information they pass back and forth between themselves and their friends who are equally as ignorant as they are. This is a sad commentary on American democracy and culture. It is in large part a result of the failure of our failed educational system that is, in turn, related to the American ethos.

There is a strong anti-intellectual current that runs through American life. Education, both scientific and humanistic, are simply not highly valued by most Americans. Educated people, whether considered intellectuals or not, are in general regarded with suspicion if not contempt. This can be seen clearly in such commonplace sayings as “those that can’t do, teach,” or “pointy-headed intellectuals,” or “ivory tower dreamers,” and so on. There is also the sense that educated people probably lack common sense, or must be unable to understand the lives of those who are not well educated because they have themselves not graduated from “the school of hard knocks.” I have often heard it said that just because someone is educated that doesn’t make his opinion any better than mine, or there are lots of “educated fools,” or “absent minded (or even nutty) professors.” And there is also sometimes resentment against highly educated people because they “think they are better than we are.” Even science is regarded with suspicion here where I currently live. Because scientists sometimes do not always agree about something is taken as evidence they do not know what they are doing. More importantly, there are people here who seem to believe that the function of scientists is to keep them from doing the things they want to do, or in some cases, have, up until now, always done (overfishing, overhunting, unsustainable logging, using harmful pesticides, etc.). It is easy to understand how individuals believe their job is more important than, say, a spotted owl, or regulations about oil drilling and such, but this overlooks situations like Garrett Hardin’s well-known “Tragedy of the Commons.”

This anti-intellectual, even anti-schooling, anti-knowledge attitude that has become characteristic of American culture did not always exist. Not so long ago going to college was the dream of many Americans (for at least some it still is). Generations of Americans wanted their children to become educated, at least more educated than they themselves were. Professors, as they still are in Germany, were highly regarded individuals whose knowledge was actively sought. They were honored for their contributions. Teachers were respected members of their communities. This belief system has slowly changed over time.

Perhaps this would not matter so much if it was not a direct threat to our democracy. While the attitudes and beliefs about education and learning have changed, one of the most important underpinnings of a viable democracy has not. A democracy can only survive, thrive, and function adequately with a well-educated, well-informed citizenry. But this is precisely what has eroded over time. There is no doubt that the invention of radio, and more importantly, television, has played a role in this change. Mass marketing and mass entertainment caters to the lowest common denominator and not only creates a demand for crap but then satisfies the demands it created for short-term profits. The lack of long-term planning, so characteristic of the U.S., is also no doubt related. We used to make fun of the Russian five-year plans and there are at least some at the moment who will deride Obama’s recent six-year plan, but the lack of planning has contributed to our current demise, and those who warn against long-term planning and the possible perhaps undesirable consequences are more often than not shouted down in favor of the short term. Christianity too, at least many of the brands of it as currently practiced in the U.S., has also contributed to our abysmal ignorance. That anyone in the 21st century, for example, cannot believe in the theory of evolution and in favor of creationism is absolutely appalling. That anyone could still believe the earth is a mere 6000 years old is even worse. European nations do not have this problem, having moved into the 21st century, at least when it comes to having abandoned ultra-conservative religious beliefs. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that average citizens of European countries are far better informed about current events than average American citizens. This is partly because they lack the luxury of the relative isolation we in the U.S. have enjoyed, which has influenced our relative lack of interest in other languages and cultures, as well as a necessity to know about them. Our attitudes have been and are being influenced by a few corporate powers that control our communication system and allow us to hear and learn only what they want us to hear and learn. It is in their interest to keep us dumb and they have been successful. Nowhere has this neglect of education been more apparent than in our consistently underfunded and deteriorating schools, underpaid teachers, and lack of adequate supplies. Business, the basic institution of U.S. society, has permeated the schools where it influences curriculums and peddles its unhealthy foods. There is a growing trend toward “For Profit Schools,” (as well as for profit prisons), a trend that not only is an excuses for governments not to fund education, but is fundamentally disgraceful, a complete abandonment of responsibility for citizens and their welfare. It does not take much in the way of thought to realize that schools run for profit are not in the business of providing quality education. On the contrary, they make money by providing the least amount of education for the most amount of money. Our neglect here is beyond shameful and must be rectified. Obama is right to insist we have to become better educated and better informed. I hope it is not too late.

LKBIQ:
Next in importance to freedom and justice is popular education, without which neither freedom nor justice can be permanently maintained.
James A. Garfield

TILT:
According to Nielsen, the average American spends 4 hours a day, or 28 hours a week, two months a year, or nine years of an average lifetime watching TV.





:

Change We Can Believe In?

Ninety year-old man sentenced
for beating wife of 68 years to death
with hammer in domestic dispute.

Are we now witnessing change we can believe in? I am not talking about changing our country here, but, rather what appears to be the recent change in President Obama. It is no secret that Progressives and the more liberal among us have been disappointed in Obama. His bailouts for big business and Wall Street have not been received well by the left. There has been some doubt as to just which side Obama is on. If we can believe what he is now saying, especially after his rousing speech of today, it would seem he has now come out clearly on the side of labor and the middle class. He has finally given up on his futile attempts at bipartisanship and apparently has learned his lessons; Republicans are not going to cooperate with him no matter what he does. The six year plan he has outlined clearly favors small business and the middle class and makes it clear he is not interested in keeping the tax breaks for the obscenely wealthy. And he has now singled out Boehner (dreaming of becoming the next Speaker of the House) as representative of the Republican Party agenda in general. Obama is now stating clearly what he believes to be the real differences between Republicans and Democrats and also seems prepared to fight vigorously for his position. What a change from a year ago when he was still extending his hand to the opposition even though they continued to spit in his face. If he sticks to his position and does not continue the ridiculous tax cuts for the wealthy, and if he also appoints Elizabeth Warren, we will know that he is serious about fighting for what is right. If he continues along this path and can convince his Progressive base to once again get on board and vote there is no reason to suspect a major Republican victory in November (or in 2012, for that matter). I still hate his completely unnecessary and foolish “war” in Afghanistan, as well as his failure to hold Bush/Cheney accountable for their terrible and unforgivable war crimes, but at the same time I cannot bear to think of our wonderful country back in the hands of the criminal conspiracy that got us into this horrible mess. If the changes I see in Obama are real they will eventually lead to the changes he promised during his campaign for the Presidency. Go Obama!

Do we really have to be told about every insignificant act of insanity? If the MSM had just responsibly ignored this nitwit preacher who wants to burn the Koran who would have been the wiser? This guy is a nobody preacher with a nothing church in an obscure location and yet he has now achieved international attention by threatening to commit a childishly stupid act, all because some news organization decided it was of monumental importance, so important we have heard all about it every day for several days now. There seems to be no sense of responsibility anymore in any part of American society. Surely there must have been some news somewhere that should have had priority over this ridiculously simple-minded act. In fact there seems to be no concept of (serious or important) news at all anymore. Oh, by the way, don’t forget that the skinny, sort of so-so blond, who apparently tried to crash a White House event is going to pose nude for Playboy. This vital information has flashed across the screen of my TV for the past two or three days. Now it turns out this is probably just a rumor anyway. Should reporters and newspapers and TV not have to be held accountable for irresponsible stupidity? The fact is the Fourth Estate has long since abdicated any responsibility for providing news that is of importance in favor of what is now termed infotainment. I do not believe this is accidental. I think it has been done on purpose by the very few corporations that control our media. It is in their interest to keep us as uninformed as possible for a variety of reasons. No doubt one of them has to do with their fear that if we really understood what they were up to we might revolt. Related to that is the fact that it is easier for them to skew the vote through propaganda and dumbing us down. The media is no longer responsible for holding our leaders accountable, they now just openly control the news for their own purposes. This is a fact of tremendous importance and has much to do with the intensifying demise of our democracy. We are allowed to be told only what they wish us to be told. We get very little international news and what we do get is carefully selected to favor the special interests. About the only place one can find any genuine news is either in articles or books, but as hardly anyone reads anymore this is relatively inconsequential (and may itself be more and more in the hands of a very few). There may well be economies of scale but it has become clear that bigger is not better and in fact can be undesirable in the extreme.

LKBIQ:
It is difficult to produce a television documentary that is both incisive and probing when every twelve minutes one is interrupted by twelve dancing rabbits singing about toilet paper.
Rod Serling

TILT:
All male mules and most female mules are infertile.

It's Over

Divorce of English Gay couple
stymied over who gets cheese grater
and communal paint pots.

“It ain’t over ‘til its over.” I take no pleasure in this, but I have to say I believe it’s over. It’s true the fat lady hasn’t sung yet, but she is rehearsing. There is still some withdrawing and cleaning up to do but the American Empire and the American Dream are about to disintegrate. There may be different ways to look at this but the indications are there and are becoming more and more obvious. It has been said for some time now that Colonialism is dead, but that is not, strictly speaking, true. The last two colonial powers, the United States and Israel, have been hanging on for some time, but that is changing right now before our eyes. Remember when there was a Belgian Congo, a French Equatorial Africa, a British India, a Dutch East Indies, a Kaiser Wilhelmsland, German East Africa, or a French Guinea, and so on? These colonial empires are all gone. While it is true there has not been a United States of the Congo, or a United States of Bolivia or Peru, or a United States of Brazil or Argentina, we have shamelessly exploited all countries around the globe in the basic colonial pattern for years, either through economic pressures or military threats or both. With some 04% of the earth’s population we have exploited at least 20% of the earth’s resources to enable us to live “The American Dream.” This is coming painfully to an end. I believe there is considerable evidence for this.

The American public, however ill-informed and ignored, are often ahead of their government when it comes to such things. Some 27% of Americans now report they do not believe their children will be able to live better than they do. I believe this is a significant admission that economically things are going downhill. Most economists now predict that unemployment is not going to come down for many years, certainly not in the foreseeable future. This is another indication. Some even believe that.0 9 or 10% unemployment may be with us from now on. Well-paying jobs have been, and continue to be, exported to other countries where labor is much cheaper, thus inevitably bringing down wages in the U.S. for companies that manage to survive. People who have been unemployed and later find jobs are forced to work for less than they did before. Labor unions have suffered significant losses and influence over the last couple of generations, leaving American workers more and more vulnerable to the demands of employers. Home ownership is declining at an accelerated rate, the idea that everyone in American should own their own home, is becoming a thing of the past, never mind “a chicken in every pot,” or two cars in every garage. Food has become increasingly expensive, a reduction in food stamps and permanent unemployment are becoming more commonplace. It is becoming obvious the government has no very workable solutions to these problems. Claiming that things are going to turn around next year or even the year after are probably meaningless. Structurally, there is no reason to believe this, China, India, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, and other countries are not going to allow us to recklessly exploit everyone else as we have done for so many years. “The American Century” is coming to an end.

We have lost the ability to govern ourselves. Congress is unable to do much of anything, bipartisanship is a thing of the past, when our elected officials were interested in the good of the country and its citizens rather than what their corporate masters dictated. We are becoming a third world nation where the most of the wealth is in the hands of a few and the majority are little more than wage slaves or peasants. This has no more to do with Obama than it has to do with any other administration, it is simply a matter of fact, the inevitable result of free market capitalism destroying itself. Things are not going to come back the way they were, not in the next quarter or the next year, or ever. As we are virtually bankrupt our empire will slowly wither away, our control over and exploitation of the rest of the world likewise. At best we will eventually continue living, but with much reduced circumstances, and probably with millions either on some sort of modest government assistance (like some European countries) or simply abandoned. The problem posed by having hundreds of thousands out of work and having exhausted their unemployment benefits is confronting us right now. Every day I see people who literally cannot afford the food in the supermarket. Our national debt is beginning to reach its upper limits. We cannot continue on as we have in the past. I do not believe this is just another bump in the road from which we will eventually recover as we previously have managed to do. Our standard of living is going to decline and no political party is going to save us from this inevitability. I have not even mentioned global warming and environmental degradation. To expect Obama or anyone else to rescue us is simply wishful thinking, although Obama might do better for a time than Republicans would. Be prepared for an increasingly declining share of the world’s limited resources and hope for the best.

LKBIQ:
Many people would sooner die than think; In fact, they do so.
Bertrand Russell

TILT:
Raccoons can both pant and sweat to regulate their body temperature.

The Silence and the Scorpion - book

The Silence and the Scorpion The Coup Against Chavez and the Making of Modern Venezuela, Brian A. Nelson (Nation Books, New York, 2009)

This is a somewhat unusual book in that it deals in virtually minute-by-minute accounts by a number of different people, representing both sides of the conflict, over the three day period of the attempted coup to oust Hugo Chavez. It not only informs one about the actual people involved, their motivations and ambitions, but also tells a great deal about the nature of modern Venezuela and Venezuelan politics and culture.

Hugo Chavez rose from very humble beginnings to become President of Venezuela, the post he currently holds. His political career began when he was a Lieutenant-Colonel in the Venezuelan army and participated in a failed coup against the then President, Carlos Perez. He was jailed for a time but became a hero to many because of his attempt to overthrow what was widely believed to be a corrupt government. In spite of its great oil wealth the vast majority of Venezuelans lived in abject poverty while the country was managed by an elite minority. When the Presidency changed and Rafael Caldera became President, he pardoned Chavez, who immediately began building a political machine.

As the country fell farther and farther into poverty for the masses and rampant inflation eroded the currency, the situation had became so bad it led to the socialist Chavez’s election in 1998. During the first 18 months of his Presidency Chavez managed to alienate members of the former ruling elite, the church, the media, and many others by his actions in gaining complete control of the country. This led to a massive, million person march on the Presidential Palace to display citizen displeasure. With this as an excuse and an opportunity the former ruling elite attempted to oust Chavez and return the country to its former condition. When violence broke out and people were killed it was blamed on Chavez who had, in fact, ordered his Generals to unconstitutionally fire on the demonstrators, but they refused. Even so, Chavez was nevertheless thought to have been mainly responsible for the killings, a belief that made most of the country turn against him. It was widely believed that the coup was engineered by the Generals and it was an attempted military takeover that, as it quickly turned out, it was not. Chavez was being forced to resign which, following advice from Fidel Castro, he refused to do (had he resigned it would not have been considered a coup). Once Chavez realized that it was not a military coup against him, and once it was learned that the killings had been engineered mostly by opposition snipers, he managed to hold onto his Presidency. The coup was apparently not well organized or well planned, having been merely a kind of last minute attempt to take advantage of the huge march that had really nothing in particular to do with it. Once the facts became known Chavez was forgiven by the masses that once again rose up to support him, which they continue to do.

This was an exceedingly chaotic situation, far more complex than can be described here. In the end, however, it was the Venezuelan poor who stood to gain from Chavez and his policies. With their support he has managed to remain in power and has, in fact, improved the lives of ordinary Venezuelan citizens. The oil wealth of the country is now used for useful social purposes, education, health care, land reform, and so on, rather than being controlled by the wealthy for the wealthy.

The author seems to have had almost unlimited access to participants on both sides. His portrait of Chavez is by no means all positive, but his portrait of the other side is equally fairly objective as near as I can tell. Another interesting thing about this work is that there is little or no mention of any American involvement, even though the CIA was immediately suspected of involvement. You may recall that at the time it was pretty much assumed that the U.S. was behind the coup. But while it is obvious that the U.S. did approve of the illegal takeover, that did not result in its success. It is impossible to tell from this account just how much the U.S. might have been involved (and I suspect more than the author reports), but that does not detract from the main, unusually detailed account of this incident in Venezuela. It appears that Hugo Chavez, like probably most leaders of most countries, is neither all-good nor all-bad, but I believe he has been very good for Venezuela and South America in general. As a socialist, however, he will not find much sympathy for his new “Bolivarian” moment coming from the U.S. or the Oil interests.

How Nutty are We?

Loser robs bank, drops loot,
finds his car keys locked in car,
shoots himself in leg trying to escape.

How nutty are we, really? I think we are about to find out in less than two months. According to the polls and the conventional wisdom (if there is any) Republicans are now believed to take over the House and also perhaps the Senate. I cannot bring myself to believe this is going to happen (but, of course, I am more often wrong than right when it comes to predicting American voters). If it does happen what does it mean? It means that we have decided to turn the country over to the very same criminal conspiracy (that once was the Republican Party) that caused our current mess in the first place. This seems entirely nutty to me. Either voters have no memory to speak of, or they believe in the tooth fairy and Santa Claus. But this is only part of the problem.

Thanks to the rise of the Tea Party, there are going to be a few candidates who are so extreme in their views, and in some cases I think so downright loony, it is going to be truly interesting to see if any of them can get elected. I think this Rubio guy in Florida is an example of an extreme right-winger. But he is, I guess, at least partially sane. There is Sharon Angle in Nevada, an example of a candidate so far out as to be perhaps crazy. The Miller guy who defeated Murkowsky is another case in point. There are a few others of this ilk as well. And of course Michelle Backmann is up for re-election. I suggest that if any or all of these candidates can successfully get elected or re-elected it will be proof positive that a majority American voters are as nutty as can be (this will not entirely surprise me). I think this situation is so fascinating I can barely wait until November.

It is undeniable that things are not going well with our country, especially when it comes to the economy. It is equally true that Democrats have demonstrated a lack of spine and have failed to act as the majority party. But to blame Democrats for everything, especially President Obama, when the Republicans have stubbornly blocked every attempt to improve things for Main Street, is also pretty nutty. We find ourselves in a strange kind of double-bind. On the one hand the Democrats do not deserve our vote, but the Republicans are worse, and there is virtually no other alternative, other than not voting at all. This is a classic example a frustration-aggressive complex. As there is no satisfactory choice, there is frustration, and the natural result of frustration is aggression. Fortunately, to date this has resulted in only a few acts of violence, but there is a possibility for more to come (“we came unarmed this time,” and we may have to consider “2nd amendment solutions,” and etc.). While I don’t believe we are, as yet, teetering on the brink of revolution, I think we may be tottering in that direction.

I spent an hour today with a dear, but rather eccentric friend, who is about as apolitical as it is possible to be. I doubt he has ever voted and he is no political junkie. But he believes we are witnessing the end of the “American Dream,” that is, the idea that everyone will own a home and one or more cars, and a swimming pool, and so on. He thinks the current recession is probably permanent and there is not going to be a turnaround in the next quarter, or next year, or the year after. In spite of being withdrawn and apolitical he is a very shrewd observer of the current state of events. I believe he is basically correct, and we can see this happening: rampant unemployment, even of well-trained and talented people, many of whom will probably never find a position to make up for what they have lost, thousands of people who have lost their homes, or are about to lose them, who will probably never recover completely, the price of food climbing year after year which will no doubt be exacerbated by global warming and the cost of transporting food such long distances, social security and medicate being threatened again by those desperate to regain power at any cost, our empire probably about to collapse because we can no longer afford it, the rise of China, India, and other powers competing for increasingly scarce resources, and so on. I believe the future for the American Dream is indeed bleak. As my philosophical, if eccentric friend says, “It won’t be too hard to get used to relative poverty once we have no choice.” One possible bright spot, as the Dream fades it will probably take unregulated free-market capitalism with it, a victim of its own excesses.

LKBQ:

To predict the behavior of ordinary people in advance, you only have to assume that they will always try to escape a disagreeable situation with the smallest possible expenditure of intelligence.

Friedrich Nietzsche

TILT:

Fishers are one of the few predators that can successfully hung porcupine.

Excuse me...

President Obama wins award for
being “most balsy” at Seventh Annual
Serbian Testicle Cooking Championship.

Excuse me, I must have missed something. I saw the results of a poll today that claimed that 49% of voters believe Republicans would handle the economy better than Democrats. I believe Democrats received 36%. I don’t know what poll this was, nor do I know what the questions were, or who was actually polled, nor do I know if it was at all credible. But, for the sake of the argument, let’s assume it was a more or less credible poll. If it was credible, how can it possibly be? Either Americans have an incredibly short memory or they are just a bit “dotty.” That is, have they already forgotten that Bush/Cheney took an enormous surplus from the Clinton years and almost overnight converted it into a huge deficit? Have they forgotten that Bush/Cheney, as a result of Republican actions, produced the worst recession/depression since the 1930’s? Have they forgotten the Bush/Cheney tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy that neither needed them nor asked for them, that importantly contributed to the deficit? Similarly, have we forgotten Bush/Cheney blatantly lied to lead us into a “war” with Iraq, apparently to insure our access to their oil and control of the Middle East, a “war” that by now is threatening to bankrupt our country? While I would be hard-pressed to defend the Democratic stewardship of our economy, how on earth could anyone believe Republicans could, or would, do better? The cliché, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” must have been coined with something like this in mind.

Related to this is what the conventional wisdom is trying to tell us at the moment, Republicans are going to take back the House and possibly even the Senate. As I have said before, I can understand why people are dissatisfied with the Democrats, a spineless bunch if ever there was one, but why on earth would they turn to Republicans who have done nothing whatsoever to deserve support? Republicans have prided themselves on being the party of “no,” have blocked virtually everything Obama has attempted to do to right our topsy-turvy economy, have absolutely no plans for our country beyond such great ideas as doing away with Social Security, rescinding health care, continuing the absurd tax cuts for the wealthy, blocking any reform of Wall Street, and who knows what other destructive acts they can conceive of. So we should elect them to take over our country once again? Granted we are in big trouble, and the Democrats are not doing well, but returning Republicans to power seems to me to be actually suicidal.

There was apparently an article in Vanity Fair about Sarah Palin that was, shall we say, unflattering (or worse). I have not seen this piece as I do not read Vanity Fair. Actually, I picked up a copy in the library once, paged through a number of ads and photos of people dressed so outrageously I thought they must be from outer space, and put it down, thinking I must have wandered into the waiting room of a lunatic asylum. But I digress. According to the accounts of this article I have seen, Silly Sarah has become a genuine Prima Donna, screaming at people, especially her husband, throwing tin cans at him, spending money recklessly, demanding first-class service everywhere, and so on. Todd, the “First Dude,” reportedly does not sleep with his temperamental wife and has said he doesn’t know how she get s pregnant. My problem with this is not that it exists, or not even that it might not be fair and balanced, or not whether it is merely a hatchet job, or whatever, but, rather, that I want to believe it. I despise this surly, know-nothing, shrill housewife pretending to be a hunter and other things she is not with such intensity I have to force myself to consider she might not be as bad as I think she is. In any case, it appears that 59% of Americans think she is not fit to be President, she is, happily, not likely to be President, and hopefully will eventually just disappear into the gutter of oblivion where she belongs. Damn you, John McCain, for releasing this awful woman on an unsuspecting and gullible public! I would eagerly urge a Palin/Beck Republican ticket for 2012, indeed, I salivate at the thought. Could Republicans really be that stupid? All indications at the moment seem to suggest they might.

LKBIQ:
More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.
Woody Allen
TILT:
Male muskoxen reach sexual maturity at five years of age.

Terrifying, Horrifying...

Oregon man arrested in
hot tub after calling 911
for a towel and a hug.

Terrifying, horrifying, or just mystifying, I find myself, in the aftermath of Glenn Beck’s performance last Saturday pondering these descriptions. First, I am terrified to learn there are so many morons in the United States that would turn out for such a ridiculous performance. Second, I am horrified to think these people are all most probably going to vote. Third, I am absolutely mystified that there is anyone, anywhere, that would place any credence in anything this weeping, know-nothing wimp would say. I do not understand his appeal, not at all. Most everything he says is nonsense, and if it has to do with history it is almost, if not always, wrong. He seems to have a capacity for taking even the simplest historical fact and getting it wrong, and his explanations for everything are so garbled and unintelligible as to defy comprehension. It’s as if he speaks in tongues and only the faithful can understand him. This is, to me, frightening. Even more frightening, terrifying, or horrifying is that today I saw at least one article that suggested he might even ride his popularity into the White House, or there could be a Beck/Palin ticket, or perhaps a Palin/Beck ticket. I assume these people are not serious. Indeed, I find it impossible to believe they are serious. I thought Republicans must have reached the absolute bottom of the barrel when they settled on McCain/Palin, but apparently the pit they have fallen into is bottomless.

There is some doubt as to how many people actually appeared at this Beck rally. The best estimate seems to be somewhere in the vicinity of 87,000. I hope this is true because it would not be too hard to find that many people wandering around in Washington, D.C. almost anytime. And when you consider that at least part of the crowd was anti-Beck, perhaps things are not as bad as they seem. Some seem to believe that Beck’s rally was more religious than political, others think the opposite. I don’t think the Beck crowd separates religion from politics so the argument is probably moot. I can’t see what the purpose of this event was other than perhaps the glorification of Beck himself, Beck as the wise leader being led by God to save the world from Obama (and other black people).

I think much of this Beck phenomena is little more than fanning the flames of racism, appealing to those who truly do not want a Black President. In fact, I believe much of the opposition and hatred of Obama on the part of conservatives is little more than a form of rather primitive denial. They cannot accept a Black person as President, so they deny he is President, claiming he was born in Kenya, is a Muslim, and etc. I see no other explanation for these claims that have no foundation whatsoever in fact. They are a fantasy that allows them to avoid a kind of painful cognitive dissonance. They will never accept a Black President no matter what he does and in an attempt to prove his inferiority they refuse to cooperate with him in any way. In their minds it is inconceivable that a Black person could possibly be President or act intelligently in any way. It is all racism, pure and simple, and it does not matter in the least what the truth may or may not be about his Presidency, he’s Black, that’s enough to discredit him from any positive virtues, everyone knows Black are inferior, Asians not quite so inferior, and Whites superior to all, even the pathetic Glenn Becks of the world, as long as they are White. This has been the foundation of American racism from the beginning and it still exists, mostly in the Republican Party and their fellow travelers. Obama cannot be allowed to succeed as that would destroy their most fundamental beliefs about race and intelligence, about White superiority. I said from the moment he was elected the Paradigm that had dominated our culture for hundreds of years was being demolished and would result in far more problems than anyone wanted to admit, and I believe I was right.

So, according to Obama the “war” in Iraq is now over (but not really, of course). I guess it is in his best interest to pretend it’s over while maintaining 50,000 troops there and also adding thousands of mercenaries. This is just more BS about Iraq and our behavior there in the past few years. I don’t approve of it but I at least sort of understand it. But what I will never understand (nor forgive) is Obama’s attempt to whitewash the Bush/Cheney war crimes. They lied us into this “war” for oil and control of the Middle East, in the process were responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, engaged in torture and other war crimes, and are apparently going to be not only forgiven but thanked for their role in this disastrous episode, almost surely the most terrible mistake in Foreign Policy ever. I guess you might say we “won” in Iraq as it appears we are going to get away with much of their oil, but there is no doubt that oil has been paid for in the blood of innocent people as well as some of our finest young people. Good job, Bushie! This has been so disgusting I can barely hang on to whatever sanity I might still possess.

LKBIQ:
Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, happens again. It doesn't necessarily do it in chronological order, though.
Douglas Adams

TILT:
Werewolves are also known as lycanthropes.

Responsibility

California beer belly pageant
cancelled because of
lack of proper permit.

I have never been a student of the constitution, the bill of rights, or any of our other important founding documents, merely, like most Americans, I think, just accepting they exist and are vitally important to the functioning of our government. Lately, however, I have been forced to reflect on them. I have come to the conclusion there is a serious absence of one important concept. It seems to me that in our overwhelming desire, even eagerness, to become free and independent, we may have gone too far in one direction and not far enough in another. I am speaking here of responsibility. That is, nowhere do I see any mention of responsibility. Whereas concepts like liberty, freedom, justice, equality, free speech, and others abound, the concepts of responsibility and accountability are remarkably absent. I find this to be problematic when it comes to trying to truly understand what our democracy is all about. For example, take a phrase like “liberty and justice for all,” found in our oath of allegiance. It seems to me that should be liberty, justice, and responsibility for all. You can’t just have liberty to do anything you want, and, indeed, we implicitly acknowledge that by passing laws and having culturally understood rules that restrict liberty. You cannot simply murder someone who stands in your way, or burn down your neighbor’s house, or steal his possessions. Liberty is not absolute, there have to be restraints.

Perhaps a better example has to do with free speech. Although we pride ourselves on having free speech we do recognize at least one responsibility that goes along with it. That is, you cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theater or crowded building when no fire exists. Unfortunately, this seems to be about the only restriction we have on freedom of speech, at least the way it seems to be widely used currently. We have, I believe, a whole host of people who in fact are making themselves rich by being totally irresponsible with their speech. Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Hannity, Coulter, O’Reilly, and others come easily to mind. When they say or repeat things that are demonstrably untrue is that not irresponsible in the extreme? When they say repeatedly that Obama is a Muslim (not true), or that he was born in Kenya (not true), or he is a socialist (not true), should that not be treated in the same way as unnecessarily yelling “fire?” These statements do nothing but spread hatred and false information and tend to divide the country. We allow them to continue their irresponsible, sometimes even borderline treasonous statements because we allow freedom of speech, but is not this carrying the right of free speech to an extreme? If these people occupy positions of power and influence, and can reach audiences of millions, should they not have to be responsible for what they are saying? I do not believe in censorship, generally speaking, but should there not be some way to curb the obvious excesses of these ranting lunatics who are in fact damaging our democracy rather than promoting it? Occasionally something happens that is viewed as so outrageous it gets fined or someone gets fired. Sometimes this is in itself somewhat outrageous or downright silly, like the terrible outcry over Janet Jackson’s little bitty titty exposure during the Super Bowl. Sometimes, when a newscaster makes a particularly egregious racial slur they get fired or at least reprimanded. To me, these occasional reprimands have to do with situations or violations that are nowhere near as important or as bad as what passes for commentary on right-wing radio and TV on a daily basis. It is true that recently some talking heads are beginning to hold some of the right-wingers more accountable, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, and others come to mind. But the outpourings of hate and misinformation are so overwhelmingly dominant it is impossible to keep up with on a daily basis. I do not think one should be allowed to become obscenely wealthy by spinning lies and hatred as an everyday profession. This is especially true, it seems to me, when they are obviously saying things they have to know are completely false. For example, they have to be aware that what they are saying about the Muslim Mosque in New York is utter nonsense, but they say it anyway, thus creating suspicion and hatred of Muslims. Why should they be allowed to do this when it is obviously not in our best interest to cultivate animosity between ourselves and the Muslims of the world? I also am not certain I think curbing such individuals should necessarily be the responsibility of the private sector, as it is the private sector that seems to be chiefly responsible for these violations of responsibility. Holding these violators responsible should be an ongoing process. I am not suggesting some rigid, all-powerful censoring organization such as the late Hays Office, but a way to insure there actually is truth and fairness in broadcasting. The public does have a right to know, to be sure, but should that not be the right to know the truth, something we are definitely not getting at the moment from the MSM?

In our quest for freedom it seems we have created a system that encourages, or at least allows, excess at the expense of restraint. For a culture to survive and remain viable the citizens have to be encouraged to want to do what they have to do. Our citizens, for the most part, do not want to do what they have to do, and even refuse to do what they have to do, there is little responsibility and not much accountability, precisely why the survival of our nation is seriously at risk.

LKBIQ:
To cherish what remains of the Earth and to foster its renewal is our only legitimate hope of survival.
Wendell Berry

TILT:
During the first 250 years of the Russian occupation of Siberia it is believed more than 45,000 mammoths were found and their ivory sold to Europe and China.

Consensus, Compromise, and Democracy

Someone once said that “Politics is the art of Compromise.” I wish it was so simple. Consensus, a type of compromise, was fairly common among American Indian tribes and also in other small-scale societies around the world. This was not necessarily consensus among absolutely everyone but was, rather, consensus reached by the tribal elders, chiefs, or those in charge of such things. Consensus is fairly easy to obtain when you have societies that consist of only one ethnicity, one tribe, or clan or lineage, and everyone pretty much shares in the same beliefs and values. Consensus is virtually out of the question when it comes to large and complex societies that consist of different ethnic groups, different religious groups, different interest groups, and members who do not always share the same beliefs and values. It would be absurd to expect consensus in our large and complex culture and we rarely, if ever, either expect or achieve it.

We do commonly expect compromises, however, and our leaders spend much of their time trying to achieve some kind of compromise on virtually all issues of importance. Basically this is what attempts at bipartisanship are all about. The problem of compromise and bipartisanship, it might well be argued, are fundamentally opposed to good government, or at least in achieving satisfactory results, in spite of the fact we tend to think otherwise. Perhaps the best current example of this is the recent health care bill. What should have been a system of single-payer universal health care (as all other major industrialized societies have) turned out, as a result of compromises, to be something entirely different and, in fact, not very good, although it did have some new and useful features. It is not universal, not independent of insurance companies that continue to profit needlessly from health care, and so on. The same thing was true of the stimulus bill that, because of compromises, was not as strong as it should have been. If there is a compromise on the repeal of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, who do not even need them, we will, once again, have an undesirable outcome because of the presumed necessity for bipartisanship and compromise.

There is an even more important problem with compromise as the cornerstone of a democratic society, the fact that some things simply cannot be compromised. If the outcomes of legislation are often watered down and emasculated by compromise, what happens when there are issues that cannot be compromised? Abortion is probably the best example. In its most basic form abortion cannot be compromised, either one is for it or against it, it is like the impossibility of being a little big pregnant. Of course there have been some compromises. In some cases, for example, people have been willing to allow abortion for the health of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. These compromises do not really get at the heart of the issue, however. In the case of abortion there are true believers who will not, and actually cannot, give up their beliefs because of their religions. There are other instances where people could in principle compromise, but refuse to because of their principles. I, personally, for example, would probably never agree to compromise on nuclear energy, because I believe it is dangerous, stupid, and short-sighted and would definitely not be in the best interest of humanity or even life in general if pursued. There are apparently Republicans who are so dedicated to tax breaks for the wealthy they refuse to compromise, although in cases like this, compromise would be easily possible and not too difficult to achieve. Most issues of economics and budgets are amenable to compromise if the parties are serious about wanting something done. Religious matters, however, are not very amenable to compromise.

What can one do in the face of situations of no compromise? In the case of Stalin, and some other dictatorships, it is easy, you just eliminate those who refuse to compromise. In general this is not a solution we have employed here in the U.S. It is our democracy that is supposed to settle these situations of no compromise. Basically that is what democracy is designed for. In theory, at least, this is what majority rule is supposed to solve. You have disagreements, you vote, and the majority wins, thus settling the problem. But this assumes that everyone in the democracy agrees to abide by the rules, and sometimes, as in the case of abortion, they do not. Another possible solution is violence in the form of revolution or acts of terrorism meant to force change. The Civil War was a case in point and nowadays we have the occasional Timothy McVays or those who shoot abortionists. So far we have avoided another all out revolutionary war, although the Tea Partiers seemingly threaten one. “We came unarmed, this time,” they say, or talk about “2nd amendments solutions.”

There is another method that sometimes works, at least temporarily. We had a recent local example of this having to do with consensus, but it applies to compromise as well (although consensus and compromise are not one and the same thing). We had a large committee set up to attempt consensus on an important matter having to do with a fish that was going extinct. All interested factions were to be members of this committee, including environmentalists (who are very unwelcome here to begin with). After many months of meetings all the factions agreed to a solution that was environmentally unsatisfactory. The environmentalist refused to sign on, so the committee simply changed the rules (improperly) of membership in such a way as to get rid of the environmentalists as irrelevant. They then announced consensus. You see how simply this is? Unlike Stalin, you don’t have to banish people to an American Siberia or assassinate them, you just change the rules. This doesn’t really solve the problem (in fact, even Stalin didn’t really solve his problems), but it puts it off for a time so they can proceed with their intentions anyway.

So, what is President Obama to do? The Republicans announced very quickly they wanted him to fail and would say “no” to everything. That is, they were not only not going to compromise, they were not even going to try. They have not stuck religiously to this pledge but pretty consistently have honored it (they did insist on changes to the health care bill and stimulus, for example). But they have prevented any actions that would allow us to overcome our serious and urgent problems by their failure to cooperate and try to achieve a compromise. If Obama was truly a Fascist they would all be in jail by now, or at least banished somewhere. For obvious reasons (our laws and constitution), Obama cannot take such action even if he wished to do so. It seems the two greatest problems for a democracy as we (at least pretend to) practice it is that (1) it is far too slow in decision making, and (2) it operates too importantly on compromise that produces rather half-assed results, and (3) it cannot, or at least does not, deal effectively with those who refuse to follow the rules.

Two Cultures

Colorado man banned
from Safeway for one year
for preferring large breasts.

Perhaps you remember the famous work by C.S. Snow, The Two Cultures, in which he discussed the lack of communication between the scientific community and the humanities. I have come to believe we have two distinct cultures in the U.S. at this time. For want of better terms I will call them the Know-nothings and the Know-at-least-some things. This involves in part a distinction between those who believe in science and those who do not. But it is much broader than that, as it also involves those who are much better informed than others who are not. It is probably more complicated than that, as it also involves an element of being informed by those who issue totally false and absurd, what I guess could best be considered pseudo-information. Perhaps it is too simple to say these individuals are not informed, as I guess they are informed, but by those who have reason to falsely inform them of things that are patently ridiculous (but they can come to believe anyway). On the other hand are those who at least make some attempt to find out the best information available. On the one hand this involves the difference between those who believe in evolution and those who do not, or the difference between Evangelistic Christians and more sophisticated versions of Christianity, or even atheists, or perhaps even the difference between those who get their (non)news from Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity, and Beck, and those who get their more obviously serious news from MSNBC or from the actual reading of serious books and articles on various subjects of current interest.

Consider, if you will, that a relatively large percentage of Americans apparently believe that President Obama is a Muslim. This is clearly untrue but they believe it anyway, being encouraged to do so by Limbaugh and others who have ulterior motives in promoting this total falsehood. These are people who get their “information” solely from Limbaugh or others of that ilk, do not read, and repeat these lies to each other routinely. Related to this, of course, is the claim that Obama was not born in the U.S., also completely false. Then there is the anti-Muslim sentiment going around now that assumes Muslims are enemies of the U.S. and were responsible for 9/11, completely ignoring the fact that it was a small group of extremists rather than Muslims in general that were responsible. Creationists are another example. It is completely absurd to argue that the earth is merely some 6,000 years old, or that humans were contemporaneous with dinosaurs, or the earth was created in six days, and so on. This is particularly troubling in that the relative age of the earth was settled in the scientific community in the mid 1850’s and the evidence is overwhelming. To continue to believe such nonsense reveals a total lack of serious interest in the problem and labels one immediately as a Know-nothing. Homophobia is another case in point. There is more than enough evidence by now that homosexuals are born, not made, and that there is no conceivable “cure” for it. This evidence is available for anyone with the willingness to spend a little energy to learn, but the Know-nothings are not interested in facts, only in opinions passed on through misinformation and in-group repetition. The common claim that the U.S. was established by the founding fathers as a Christian nation is likewise false and easily disproven, but facts are routinely ignored by the Know-nothings, as is the fact that the U.S. is not innocently promoting democracy around the world and murdering innocent people in large numbers.

It is tempting (for me, at least) to say that Know-nothingism is a characteristic entirely of Republicans, but that is not, strictly speaking, true. There are Know-nothing Democrats as well, but perhaps fewer of them. And there must be some Republicans (of the old-fashioned type) that know better than what the Tea party is promoting, but they are pretty much silent these days, thus the Know-nothings are threatening to take over the Republican Party and hoping even to take over the country. What was once a respectable political party (however misguided) has changed over the years, starting with Reagan but greatly accelerated under Bush/Cheney, into becoming little more than a criminal conspiracy designed to steal from the public and give to the rich. Al Capone never ever dreamed of such corruption.

I guess you might say there is a third group involved in contemporary politics and culture that might, for the sake of the argument, be termed the “Know-every-things.” That is, those in power, the filthy rich elite and the corporate masters of the world. They are not even concerned with either Know-nothings or Know-some things, simply staying mostly out of sight in the background of contemporary world affairs while they manage them for their own benefit. They encourage, finance, and support the Know-nothings because it is in their interest to do so, guaranteeing them the votes they need to stay in control. They have no interest in simple things like Gay marriage, abortion, prayer in schools, guns in churches, homophobia, racism, or the age of the earth, their sole and compulsive interest is merely in profit, the more the better, and at whatever cost in environmental degradation and human misery. It is good to be in the camp of the Know-every things, and most unpleasant to be a Know-somethinger. The Know-nothings are much happier, of course, for we know that “ignorance is bliss.” This is not a conflict between science and the humanities as the Know-nothings know nothing of either science or humanities.

LKBIQ:

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.

Unknown (sometimes attributed to Abraham Lincoln)

TILT:

The earliest known cave paintings in Europe are said to be 32,000 years old.

Living in the Past?

Drunken Florida man arrested
for having a loud obscene
argument with his bicycle.

One of the “problems,” if they can be called that, is a tendency to live in the past. I have come to the conclusion that I suffer from this “malady,” if it can be called that. That is, for example, I have had a great deal of trouble understanding how it is my son and other young people I know can spend so much money on food, especially junk food. They think nothing of spending three dollars or more for an ice cream cone, five dollars for ten cents worth of processed corn in a too large box, twenty five dollars for a haircut, really big bucks for a gallon of gas or a movie or whatever. I finally realized, after being concerned with their profligate ways for so long, I was living in the past. That is, I realized they simply did not know the difference because they had no background against which to measure these things. How would they know, for example, that an ice cream cone once cost five cents, or a hamburger cost a dime, or a gallon of gas twenty some cents? They simply buy things at the cost they have always known, and are not compelled to compare it with past prices of which they know nothing. As far as my personal case goes it obviously makes little difference to anyone (except, perhaps, those I have been criticizing for spending so much money).

Unfortunately, you can see this same problem when it comes to matter of much more importance. Take the case of marihuana and its possible legalization for example. I saw today that Clinton, Obama, and all the past drug czars are opposed to the California attempt to legalize the weed. They are clearly out of step with public opinion on this, as I understand that a majority of the public is in favor. The most basic part of their opposition must be a carryover from the “Reefer Madness” days, as it has become quite clear over the years that all of the claims against the dangers of marihuana have been greatly exaggerated. I believe it is fair to say they are in some sense “living in the past.” The same thing seems to be true of several of the current issues facing our country, Gay Marriage is another case in point. Arguments against Gay Marriage are so unconvincing in the light of what we now know about Gays, marriage, and child rearing, they can no longer be taken seriously. Similarly, a majority of citizens are in favor of letting the ridiculous tax breaks for the filthy rich expire, but there are those who still argue in favor of them, with arguments that make no logical sense whatever. They too, I suggest, are living in the past, the time of robber barons and the landed gentry. I am somewhat surprised that no one has so far suggested that only the wealthy should be entitled to vote.

More importantly, I believe that many of those in positions of power and authority have never accepted the idea that Colonialism is dead. All of the great Colonial powers have long since given up their empires, Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, as well as Spain and Portugal. Only the U.S. (and to a lesser extent Israel) continue to try to maintain empires (that are about to fail). Those who believe in empire are clearly living the past. Having now added Iraq to our empire (or at least we think we have), we have our sights set on Afghanistan (where we will surely fail) and Iran (that, like Afghanistan, will never succumb). It should be clear by now, after Korea and Vietnam, that it is no longer possible to conquer other nations by force and coerce them into our empire. Even the nations of South and Central America, long duped and maneuvered into becoming “Banana Republics” as a result of our economic and military aggression, have now broken free and no longer merely do our bidding as they have in the past. Of course countries like Russia, China, India, and even Brazil and Turkey are no longer even considered targets of our dreams of empire. We are, it seems to me, living in the past, and it is long past time to realize it and turn to new and more cooperative methods to deal with the world. As long as we maintain our unconditional support of Israeli colonialism, and as long as we continue the “war” in Afghanistan, and as long as we maintain our hundred or more bases all around the world, we will remain unregenerate colonials.

LKBIQ:
He who loves the world as his body may be entrusted with the empire.
Lao-tzu

TILT:
Historically, pancakes were made on Shrove Tuesday.

A Question of Disbelief?

Florida man, angry over losing
arm-wrestling contest, attempts
to run over four people.

Remember when John Kerry was running for the Presidency and was attacked by the Swift-boaters? And remember how he was criticized for not responding to them quickly enough? President Obama has been similarly criticized because of his repeated attempts to enlist Republican support for his various proposals. And remember how it took so very long to get any legislation passed having to do with health care? The Obama attempt to bail out the auto industry was similarly held up for a long time because of Republican opposition, the stimulus bill as well, and now there is this problem with the Bush tax cuts that are about to expire. There have been many other instances where things have had to be delayed or postponed or dropped altogether because of Republican opposition. Democrats have been soundly chastised for not moving faster or more confidently on many issues. Why is this so?

I believe I have figured out part or even most of the problem of why Democrats have often been so slow to act without trying for bipartisan support. I think it is a question of disbelief. I think much of the problem is the inability of Democrats to even believe Republicans can be serious about various things, and not being able to believe what was happening simply believed (wrongly) that if they worked at it they could get common sense or common decency to prevail. Take the health care issue, for example, I think Democrats found it impossible to believe that Republicans (at least all of them) would be opposed to universal health care. How on earth could any decent citizens of the only “civilized” nation on earth without universal health care be opposed to it? I confess that even now I find this hard to believe. As Democrats must have thought at first Republicans were just holding out for some kind of negotiations they didn’t take this irrational, even almost insane opposition to health care seriously enough. Similarly, on all the attempts to extend unemployment benefits I think Democrats did not believe anyone could or would seriously oppose such legislation. The same thing has been true of virtually everything Obama has tried to do to get us out of recession and back to work, Republicans have been opposed to everything. Who would have thought such a thing was possible? It seems that Democrats still have at least some concern with the middle class, getting us out of the recession, and improving the lives of ordinary citizens, and they have been slow to understand that Republicans simply do not share these goals. I know, it is hard to understand, but it seems to be true. Republicans truly want Obama (and by implication the nation) to fail. Basically this is nothing but politics, but they sometimes want to claim it is “ideological,” apparently believing that makes their inhuman opposition to basic human rights more palatable, more philosophically respectable, as it were. I, too, have had much trouble believing Republicans could possibly be as stupid, ignorant, short-sighted, stubborn, and greedy as they apparently are.

We are now witnessing this disbelief being played out with the issue of the Bush tax cuts. These tax cuts were designed purely for the obscenely wealthy in the first place, and knowing they could not get them through Congress without putting a time limit on them (they had to do it through reconciliation), they designed them to end at the end of ten years. These absurd tax cuts should not have been allowed in the first place and they are supposed to expire next year. Unless some specific action is taken to extend them they will expire as planned. If they are to continue it is estimated they will add more than 2 trillion dollars to the deficit. Republicans are violently opposed to the deficit but insist on renewing the tax cuts anyway, claiming they do not have to be paid for in any way. This is an argument so patently absurd, so illogical, so fantastically bizarre, so insane, it should be dismissed without any further comment. But the Republicans still insist on it. I suspect that it is so obviously absurd most Democrats cannot even believe it, but for some strange reason I cannot fathom they seem to take the argument for the tax cuts as having some kind of merit and worthy of consideration. Democrats have been far too slow to learn that you cannot deal with the insane, and far too slow to understand their right to disbelief, to dismiss crazy ideas for what they are, crazy. Their disbelief that Republicans could be so insane has cost them much valuable time, they need to get over it soon and stop Republican insanity before it does irreparable damage to our nation. They have certainly done more than enough damage already.

LKBIQ:

They were so strong in their beliefs that there came a time when it hardly mattered what exactly those beliefs were; they all fused into a single stubbornness.
Louise Erdrich

TILT:
A group of baboons is called a troop or a congress.

Peace, Really?

Montana pig wrestling event
canceled when wild boars
cleverly avoid captivity.

What are they smoking or otherwise ingesting at the White House these days? Peace in the Middle East? By the end of the year? Israel and the Palestinians agreeing on a two state solution? Don’t make me laugh. I hate to sound so cynical (actually, by now I am very used to it) but I don’t believe it. It appears to me that after a great deal of arm twisting and other pressure the Obama administration has made Israel and the Palestinians agree to resume face-to-face negotiations. They have not, however, agreed to agree to anything. After all this time I am pretty thoroughly convinced that Netanyahu does not want peace with the Palestinians, nor does he want a Palestinian state. He will almost certainly doom any solution, probably before anything serious even happens. Why should he want a solution, he likes things just the way they are, Israel sitting on stolen Palestinian land, using precious Palestinian water, Palestinians in Gaza slowly wasting away, overwhelming military superiority, and a terribly misguided United States willing to support even the most odious practices against the helpless Palestinians. Israel stands to gain nothing, only to lose some of the territory they have already filched. And why do they need security, they already have it, in the form of their own far superior military supported and backed up, no less, by the U.S. Government. I guess Obama and Hillary Clinton deserve some credit for actually getting the two sides to pretend they want to settle their differences, but don’t realistically expect any solution. Israel won’t even stop building in Jerusalem and the West Bank long enough to think about peace and they have already claimed Jerusalem is exclusively theirs forever, not exactly a foundation for a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem. Peace between Israel and the Palestinians after all this time would be wonderful, but as for me, I doubt it.

Of course there is the problem with Iran as well, at least a big problem in the eyes of the Israelis and the U.S. Israeli paranoia over Iran is virtually pathological in its intensity and duration. They now insist that the new Iranian nuclear energy plant, with aid from Russia is “unacceptable.” I’m sure the U.S. thinks so also. So what are we going to do about it, start another “war” that would be so horrible as to be virtually unimaginable, a war motivated by the unproven belief that Iran is going to produce a nuclear bomb, and not only produce it, but presumably use it on Israel. What nonsense, Iranians are not stupid people, nor are they vicious warmongers. The danger to Israel and the U.S. is not because they will be attacked with the Iranians new bomb (if, indeed, they ever have one), it’s because the control of the Middle East will no longer be exclusively in the hands of the West. The Iranians might actually sell their oil to China or India unless, like Iraq, they can be made to obey the dictates of the U.S. and Israel. It is not Iran who is constantly threatening to bomb someone with their “all options are on the table” threats. If Israel and/or the U.S. attacks Iran there may not be enough left of the Middle East to bother about.

The apparently growing chorus of the “we hate Muslims” crowd is certainly not helping matters. What’s with these people anyway, they seem to hate most everything: Muslims, immigrants, gays, choice, Blacks, Hispanics, the poor, anything that might possibly help the middle class, health care, regulating banks, asking the filthy rich to actually pay their share of taxes (out of the piles of money they cannot possibly ever spend), taxes in general, government, and also, with unabashed pride, workers and unions. In fact, they seem to hate anyone or anything that is not precisely like them, stupid and greedy.

LKBIQ:
The chief value of money lies in the fact that one lives in a world in which it is overestimated.
H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

TILT:
Apparently at some time in the past, someone manufactured .25 caliber revolvers.

Private vs Public

After twenty years of aggressively
attacking canoes, English swan
known as “Hissing Sid,” relocated.

Bubblehead: So nice to have you surface now and again with another snide comment. I had almost forgotten the Gannon/Guckert thing, I’m glad you reminded me. I still find it fascinating and I still wonder who it was that was so powerful they could keep it completely under wraps for all this time. I have always thought that all other news should be discontinued until we get to the bottom of it. It should certainly be worth as much attention as Michelle Obama’s trip to Spain, or President Obama’s birth certificate, or even his despicable golfing. I wonder why the MSM haven’t pursued it, perhaps, you think, too close to home?

Whatever happened to the concept of the “public good,” or the “public interest,” or “public well-being,” or whatever you want to call it? It seems to me that historically speaking this must have been merely some kind of myth. When, seriously, did anyone in the U.S. truly pay any attention to the public good? Consider, for example, the fate of the Passenger Pigeon. There were an estimated billion or more Passenger Pigeons at one time. They disappeared fairly rapidly, being hunted to extinction. People harvested them by the thousands, partly I guess to feed the slaves. Passenger Pigeons did not become extinct because of any government control designed to protect the public interest in this resource. Of course there were also the buffalo, estimated at 50 million at the time of contact, soon reduced to a mere few hundred, shot for their tongues and hides by anyone who chose to do so. Was this in the public interest? How about the salmon, many runs extinct now and others threatened by private interests who demanded power and dams? Here in the Kootenai River there were burbot (ling cod) so thick you could apparently almost walk on them at times, now extinct, or so close to it to be probably inevitable. People harvested them by the wheelbarrow load to feed to their pigs. The Kootenai River sturgeon basically the same, on the verge of extinction because of lack of control over private interests.

I bring this up now because of the controversy over continuing deep offshore drilling. Apparently there are some 4000 people dependent upon this industry for their employment so they, rightly I think, at least from their point of view, want it to continue. But is it in the public interest? Is it somehow in the public interest that the Gulf should continue to risk serious contamination that will threaten the well-being of not only the environment, but also all the others people who depend upon its resources? This is similar to the fishing industry in various places, the fishermen desperately needing employment but at the risk of overfishing to the point of the destruction of the very species they were dependent upon. The timber industry the same, loggers needing employment but at the risk of decimating the very trees they needed to continue, trees, that unlike some vegetation, but similar to the fish, are not annually renewable. I remember one old man here who said to me, “if it’s a choice between an owl and jobs I’ll go for jobs every time.” He did not seem to understand it was not about the owls, but about the forests that supported them, forests that if depleted would mean no jobs at all. But, of course, he had a point.

There are different ways of looking at this, at least in historical perspective. For example, it would seem to indicate a tragic failure of leadership throughout all of human history. I mean, what was/is the function of any form of “government” if not to look after the public interest? Even in the most “primitive” of societies, when the game became scarce they chose to move on until the hunting grounds could regenerate. Or when the soil was exhausted they were convinced to move by their leaders, or when the fishing became difficult they moved elsewhere at least for a time. The leaders, chiefs or “big men,” or clan elders or whomever were responsible for the public interest, that was their major function besides keeping order and performing the proper rituals. On the other hand you can see this as a failure of the species itself, a species so greedy and short-sighted they simply paid no attention to their behavior or where it might eventually and inevitably lead them. You can argue cynically, I suppose, that the only reason American Indians didn’t themselves exterminate the buffalo or the Passenger Pigeons or other species was because there weren’t enough of them and they didn’t have the proper technology. There might even be some truth to that. But they didn’t and we (supposedly “superior,” more “rational,” and more “civilized” people) did. And we seem intent on continuing this ultimately suicidal behavior. So there may be well be more offshore drilling (not in the long-term public interest), more nuclear energy (also probably not in the long-term public interest), more “wars” for natural resources ( not in the long-term public interest), and more “privatization,” (the very antithesis of the public interest). It appears we have decided that anything in the public interest is “socialism,” and “bad,” while anything that is “privatized” (by definition opposed to the public interest) is “good.” We are, I believe, truly a strange species, perhaps in evolutionary time, “short-timers.”

You can describe this situation in any terms you like: rich versus poor, capitalism versus socialism, class versus class, management versus labor, “haves” versus have-nots, bourgeoisie versus proletariat, royalty versus peasants, lords versus serfs, “Insiders” versus others, Government versus the people, or whatever, but it has existed for a very long time and threatens to keep us from every living in peace and harmony. Perhaps peace and harmony are themselves merely stupid myths designed to keep the Gods (if there are such things) amused for a time.

LKBIQ:
We have among us a class of mammon worshippers, whose one test of conservatism or radicalism is the attitude one takes with respect to accumulated wealth. Whatever tends to preserve the wealth of the wealthy is called conservatism, and whatever favors anything else, no matter what is called socialism.
Richard T. Ely

TILT:
Lenten dinners of muskrat are traditional in parts of Michigan.

Worthy of Discussion?

Virginia woman cited for
animal cruelty for driving
with bound goat in car trunk.

One problem with our (so-called) democracy is that it’s democratic. That is, citizens have the right to do and say all kinds of things that are basically not even worthy of discussion or consideration. Take the Orly Tate matter, for example. The Supreme Court let stand her $20,000 fine for filing frivolous lawsuits. So what does she do, she appeals the decision! This is not worthy of even 30 seconds of time. More importantly, take the Mosque at Ground Zero controversy that has occupied the news for days now. Again, it is really not worthy of consideration, it is a non-problem made into one by Republican terrorists who make an issue of anything and everything that might be used against President Obama. Muslims have the legal right to build a mosque on private property wherever they are able, period. Muslims are not enemies of the United States, they have complete freedom of religion just like the rest of us, or at least legally and morally they do. This whole business is a non-issue.

Similarly, consider the absurd tax cuts for the wealthy that Bush managed to con us into. They are about to expire as they were planned to and ought to. There is no cogent reason for tax cuts for the wealthy to continue, especially at a time of virtual national emergency over the economy. There should be no discussion of this, none, the argument in favor of continuing the tax cuts is basically absurd. This, again, is really a non-issue that should not require more than a passing thought.

More importantly still, the argument about socialism. Republicans and some others are carping incessantly about Obama being a socialist and trying to turn our country into a socialist state. It is obvious that most of these people, and most of their arguments, are basically too stupid to warrant any consideration whatsoever. In many ways the U.S. already is a socialist country: we have public schools, public libraries, public swimming pools, the Post Office, Medicare and Medicaid, Police Departments, Fire Departments, a Forest Service, highway maintenance, social security, farm subsidies, food stamps, a huge military establishment, and so on, all funded by public monies. People who should know better apparently do not. A woman who has worked as a public school teacher all her life rails against socialism, an old man wants to retire, partly on social security, hates and fears socialism, farmers who gladly accept farm subsidies with one hand shake the other hand hatefully at socialism, those with no medical insurance get treated with public money, and on and on and on. I live in a “right-to-work” (non-union) state. People here are free to work without belonging to a union and tend to despise unions. They work a 40 hour week instead of a 60 or 80 hour week, they earn at least a minimum wage, they work 8 hours a day, they usually get at least some benefits in terms of medical leave, vacations, and such. Where do they think these rules came from, the benevolence of businesses and corporations? They came from the unions, often socialist unions, the very unions they profess to despise. So what is with these people? Are they merely ignorant or also stupid? How long do you think our society would exist without government action? This “issue” that appears to be so vitally important to many, is not really much of an issue, to be on Medicare and complain about socialism, as many do, is either stupid or ignorant, to say nothing of completely ungrateful.

I do not understand these people and I have learned from experience that trying to reason with them is much like having a conversation with the chronically mentally ill. I would venture to say there is not a single family in all of our county that is not benefitting in one way or another from the government “dole,” and this can even extend to the Future Farmers of America who sometimes received funds for merely raising their livestock for show. Our love affair with privatization and free market capitalism has led us very close to complete disaster as a nation, some things are far too important to be left to private industry interested merely in short term profits at any cost, we will have to change or pay the rather severe consequences. But “socialism,” never! Let’s call it something else, like Reasonabalism, or even Commonsenseabilism, or Cooperatism, perhaps even American Beaveratism, but at least try to live as human beings once again rather than the corporate savages we are becoming.

LKBIQ:
Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen.
Leon Trotsky

TILT:
The North American Beaver population was once more than 60 million.

The Empire Lives!

Man gets stiff citation for
telling woman in express lane
she is fat and ugly.

The Empire lives, at least for a while longer. MSNBC seems to believe that our last combat brigade leaving is akin to the end of WWII, breathlessly following their caravan as it slowly leaves Iraq for Kuwait. I cannot get excited about this. I guess it is technically true that our last (specifically labeled) combat troops have left, and I guess that should be cause for celebration, but what about the 50,000 troops left behind (that are apparently trained for combat should the need arise), to say nothing of the unknown numbers of private contractors fulfilling other previously military jobs? What this means to me is that Iraq will now join our other satellites with 50,000 troops to go with the 50,000 in Germany, X thousand in South Korea, X thousand in Japan, X thousand in Columbia, and who knows how many spread around the world in our other approximately 100 bases? So far we have not yet established ourselves in Afghanistan or Iran but that may only be a matter of time (if we have our way about it). In a strange way this means that our Iraq “war” did have a successful outcome, we did in fact replace an unfriendly (but almost pathetically toothless) dictator with a new regime more favorable to our interests (or at least it appears that way at the moment), and all this at the” reasonable” cost of perhaps a trillion dollars, millions of deaths, and misery so widespread as to be unimaginable. Good job Bushie, but don’t try to travel too far from the U.S. where war criminals are uniquely protected.

It appears that the campaigning for the November elections is now fully underway. Obama has more or less gone on the attack and Republicans are going to find themselves increasingly exposed for what they have been doing, which, of course, is saying “no” to everything and inhibiting progress at every turn. Will they have to pay for this recalcitrance? I sincerely hope so because it is true, and it remains true no matter how Democrats may have failed. It is also true that if you look objectively at the record Obama has actually accomplished a good deal and has not been given credit for it. Everyone seems more interested in what he has not accomplished than what he has accomplished. I suspect that if Democrats stop giving in to Republican demands and actually stand up and fight they may survive much better than anticipated. Tell me one useful or positive thing Republicans have done in the past couple of years (indeed, over the past ten years). Their all out and unrelenting attempt to bring down Obama rather than cooperate and try to help us recover should cost them dearly, but, hey, this is the U.S., the land of ignorance and bliss, so don’t count on reason or truth having anything to do with it. Sarah, Michelle, Angle, Rush and Beck will fill you in on the facts.

Does it occur to anyone that the trial of Milorad R. “Rod” Blagojevich (you know, the ex Governor of Illinois with all the hair and the big mouth) may be setting a truly undesirable precedent. That is, as I understand it, much of his defense is based on the argument that he can’t be held accountable for corruption because all politics is conducted that way, and/or he was also simply incompetent. This implies to me that no politician can ever again be prosecuted for corruption because corruption and incompetence are the normal conditions of American politics. Neat, huh?

General Petraeus is going to convince us that the “war” in Afghanistan is “winnable” and all he needs is more time. How many times do you think he has sold the Brooklyn Bridge to some yokel or another? It is widely conceded by most everyone, including those in the “know,” that we cannot “win” in Afghanistan, that it is a lost cause and it continues mainly because it continues, and continues, and continues. No one seems to know what “winning” would actually mean in the case of Afghanistan. Perhaps they believe that we can “win” as we have just “won” in Iraq, that is, we can establish a friendly central government that will concede to our interests and thus expand our empire further. Sorry, that’s not going to happen in Afghanistan. There is not going to be a strong central government that has the power and authority to rule the entire country (in fact it is not really a viable country in the first place, being an artificial British creation of disparate peoples and territories). Personally, I don’t see why it even needs to be a country in the first place. The various tribes and clans have managed their own affairs for a very long time, some joining together at times for a common purpose, some withdrawing from alliances when necessary, but always joining together to repulse invaders from the outside. It has always been so and quite likely will continue to be so for the foreseeable future. We seem to lack the imagination (or even the knowledge) to understand that people can exist without strong central governments presided over by one single all-powerful authority. Many times in the past the demand “take me to your leader” was met with blank expressions, and unable to believe there were no “chiefs,” the colonials arbitrarily appointed them, a situation that most often led to much unnecessary trouble.

LKBIQ:
Criminal: A person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.
Howard Scott

TILT:
Perth is geographically closer to Singapore and Jakarta than it is to Sydney.