Ho Hum, the Israelis...

It seems those who keep track of such things claim that Israel’s recent attacks on Gaza violated International Law. What is interesting or newsworthy about that? Israel has flouted and violated International Law so often it is merely commonplace and makes one wonder if there even is such a thing as International Law. Of course there is somewhere something called International Law, codified and written down, but as it is so rarely enforced it might as well not exist at all. Most everyone violates it at will. If you are a small and not very important country, and the violations are so abominable as to truly shock everyone, you might, just might, find yourself being tried for violating it. If you are a large and more powerful country you can apparently violate International Law whenever you wish, secure in the knowledge that you will never have to face justice.

The most obvious example of this discriminatory malfeasance is, of course, the United States. There is absolutely no doubt that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and others violated International Law with respect to our unfortunate “war” against Iraq. Bush and Cheney have even publicly boasted about it. Have they been tried or otherwise held accountable? Of course they have not. It appears that the British, too, have been guilty of violations of International Law in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they, too, have not been held accountable. I have little doubt that many of the most powerful countries have violations that might have been prosecuted, but they never are. Does this not make you wonder if there really is such thing as International Law? If you have laws that are codified and recognized, but are rarely if ever enforced, are they really laws?

There are, I have been told, two kinds of recognized law, the “Written law” and the “Living law.” These concepts exist because of the realization that often written laws, if not enforced, are more properly conceived of, and commonly understood, as living laws. You know, the kind of laws that are more or less just winked at, that everyone understands will not be enforced. This would certainly seem to be the case when it comes to so-called International Law. How long, I wonder, will the international community continue to merely wink at the egregious Israeli and U.S. violations? Here we have an apparent example of that unfortunate reality , “might makes right .”

 I didn’t think much of Rubio’s rebuttal last night, he seemed to just reiterate the usual Republican nonsense about government and taxes, but I cannot understand all the fuss about  the fact that he had to have a drink of water. This is just another example of the media focusing on trivia rather than substance. What is unusual about a speaker taking a drink of water? In fact, more usually than not speakers are furnished with water and openly use it. Those who are so vitally interested in his water break seem to be basically uninterested in his speech, probably a good defense against having to comment on what was a pretty dismal performance, in fact, all performance and no substance. Anyway I cannot see him as the Republican “savior,” at least not until he grows up. He is certainly no Saint Ronnie.

 The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.

H. L. Mencken

Republicans Can't Help It...

Republicans can’t help being the Party of Stupid, for the simple reason that so many of them are genuinely stupid. I don’t want to mention names but I’m certain I could name many, especially in the House, who are (at least it seems to me), basically stupid. I base this on things they have either said or done. “Birthers” are a good example. Climate change deniers are another, as are those who believe “Government is the problem,” or evolution is an idea “out of the pit of hell.” And when you add those outside the party because they couldn’t get elected in the first place, you know, those who had to deny being witches, promoted the idea of paying your doctor with chickens, said truly stupid things about abortion, and etc., there are many, many more, those Karl Rove has now announced he will try to eliminate from consideration, only to find outraged opposition from those on the side of stupid.

In the past few years the Republican Party has engaged in a kind of reverse Darwinism. Where you might think they would have purged the stupid they have, in fact, done the opposite, purged those who were not stupid and promoted those who are. This process continues, consider for example the case of the Texas Representative who not only has suggested impeaching Obama over gun control but invited Ted Nuget to the State of the Union address. Personally, I think he should be held in contempt of Congress. But, alas, he is hardly alone in his stupidity. Even the one who has announced Republicans should not be the Party of Stupid has authorized the teaching of creationism in the schools, pretty damn stupid. It seems that any Republican in recent years who has not promoted the stupid is challenged by someone who will guarantee to promote it. Apparently they are too stupid to realize how stupid they are. As there is no cure for stupid I cannot see how they are going to change.

Even Marco Rubio, picked by the Republicans to give the rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union speech, and I guess regarded as the greatest Republican since Saint Ronnie invented fire, betrayed himself by giving the most sophomoric babble I have ever heard. Some seem to believe he is a Presidential candidate. Bring him on, I say, he’s no more qualified to be President than the Divine Sarah from Alaska who I hope has now gone back to her fishing, cooking Moose noses, and protecting us from the Russians, or whatever she does up there in the great beyond. I sincerely hope we never hear from her again (fat chance).

All State of the Union Speeches contain a great deal of “Pie in the sky” talk, pies that never seem to get baked. Obama’s speech tonight was little different in that regard, but oh how wonderful it will be if he manages to achieve even half of what he wants. I am not one for post-mortems, but I cannot help but wonder how different things would be if Al Gore had not been cheated out of the Presidency. But more pertinent to the moment, I will always wonder how much more Obama might have achieved, or perhaps still might achieve, if the racist House of Representatives stopped opposing him at every opportunity. In any case Obama has already secured a positive place in history, while the current House of Representatives “will live forever in infamy.”

He is not dead who departs from life with a high and noble fame; but he is dead, even while living, whose brow is branded with infamy.

Ludwig Tieck

The Luck of the Draw

It is strange, I have concluded, that while you are on your journey to the west you do not recognize it for the wonderful and exciting adventure it is.  And it is perhaps the greatest adventure of all, leading, of course, to the inevitable end. Along the way you experience true challenges and perils that may not be as romantic or dramatic as those of Indiana Jones or James Bond, but are equally and potentially as dangerous. I was forced to think about this by the most recent loss of another of my oldest and closest friends. I made a list of ten of the people who were the closest to me during my lifetime. I do not want to mention names but here is the account in chronological order of what has happened to them within the past roughly ten years:

Cancer

Stroke

Heart

Parkinson’s

Stroke

Suicide

Stroke

Alzheimer’s

Dementia

One still alive but suffering from MS

There is an eleventh still alive and healthy as far as I know

There have been many others as well, but not as close to me as these ten, but very few of them are still alive and well.  Of course these are merely the ways they concluded their personal journeys to the west, along the way they endured all sorts of other perils: childhood diseases, mastoids, appendicitis, broken bones, gall bladders, kidney stones, ruptures, cancers, heart problems, stents, bypasses, drinking problems, and drugs, to say nothing of marriages, divorces, children, the loss of loved ones, including parents, siblings, children, and wives and husbands.  We do not, of course, think of these experiences as adventures, merely as “life.” To be sure there have also undoubtedly been moments of pleasure and happiness, made all the more blissful and memorable by the temporary absence of the abovementioned problems. Upon reflection I believe a person’s life is the greatest adventure he or she will ever experience whether it is recognized as such or not. I guess it can only be seen as a glorious adventure in retrospect when you begin to experience the twilight of your own journey to the west.

Reflection also raises, for me at least, a serious but unanswerable question, why me? Why is it I have been fortunate enough to outlast most, virtually all of my peers, my best friends? I can see no reason whatsoever why this should be so, it just is. I did nothing to bring it on, I surely cannot claim to deserve it, I have experienced many of the abovementioned ailments, problems, and experiences, in fact probably more than my fair share. But here I still am and they are not. As an atheist I cannot claim divine intervention. I’m sure that in the eyes of many I have sinned and I cannot claim to have been particularly virtuous. I do claim to have consistently followed the golden rule and never deliberately harmed anyone, I abhor violence and fervently wish (foolishly, I fear) for peace on earth (a goal I now believe unobtainable for our particular species). In any case, I know my own journey to the west is coming to a close although exactly when I have no idea. I find I do not fear death itself and, paradoxically, even look forward to it, but I confess to anxiety about the means. All in all, I guess it just is, as the saying goes, “the luck of the draw.”

How appropriate,

when the Great Mystery calls,

to leave in autumn.

Morialekafa

  

The Iranian Hysteria

I wonder why we just don’t admit we have no intention of negotiating with Iran and stop pretending. Khomeini has apparently turned down the offer of bilateral negotiations with the U.S., saying very clearly Iran cannot negotiate as long as they are being constantly threatened by the U.S. So what does our new Secretary of State, John Kerry, do? He begins by threatening Iran, making demands in advance, and, of course, making it impossible for anything positive to happen. This pattern seems to have repeated itself several times in the past few years. The U.S. threatens and makes demands, Iran resists, and, as I believe happened in at least one case, when Iran did not resist the U.S. withdrew the offer. This makes no sense to me unless you assume we do not truly wish to negotiate.

The U.S., and apparently at least some other countries, keep insisting Iran is attempting to build a nuclear bomb even though there is no evidence whatsoever this is true. Khomeini has said more than once they have no intention of building a bomb, evidence indicates this is so, but no one wants to believe it. Now it turns out there is some concern in Europe that their missile defense system may be flawed and might not protect them from Iranian missiles. What Iranian missiles? There is no reason whatsoever to believe Iran is about to attack Europe with missiles, none at all. And remember the excuse we were giving for building a missile shield system in Poland to protect Russia from Iranian missiles. There was, again, no reason to believe Iran was going to attack Russia. Nor is there any rational reason to believe Iran is about to attack Israel and certainly not the U.S., so why all the hysteria?

Personally, I believe there is a genuine element of racism involved in this peculiar situation. It seems predicated on the notion that Iranians are stupid, that if they had a bomb they would immediately begin to attack everyone, especially Israel and the U.S., apparently too stupid to understand they would immediately cease to exist. They are certainly not stupid enough to believe they could win against the overwhelming might of the U.S., Israel, and most of Europe. Iran has not attacked anyone for over 200 years, can we say the same? The IAEA has been monitoring the Iran program for years and have said they are complying with international rules, thus verifying they are apparently not trying to cheat and build a bomb. But still no one seems to believe them, seeming to believe instead that they are liars. As it is impossible for the IAEA to prove absolutely, beyond any doubt whatsoever, they “might” not be telling the truth, they cannot be believed. We demand in advance they do as we want and if they refuse they are the problem, they must be liars, cheats, and stupid. Now that’s the way to negotiate, especially if you have no desire to actually achieve anything.

And of course all the while the Israelis, along with the Neocons, are demanding we start bombing immediately, “before it is too late.” Too late to keep them from doing something they are apparently not doing. When you have someone like John McCain singing “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” and comparing their leaders to monkeys, while his woosie sidekick, Lindsey Graham, apparently just as bloodthirsty, echoing the same sentiments and bowing to Netanyahu’s demands that we attack Iran on Israel’s behalf,  can you wonder the Iranians might have reason to be concerned? Don’t forget the sanctions, now killing innocent Iranian women and children, another attempt to make them comply with our demands. Why should they have to negotiate over whether or not we kill their children, especially when we are not even at “war” with them? Killing Iranian children because of some paranoid Israeli fantasy is, at least in my opinion, even beyond immoral (it that is possible).  

It seems to me there is some kind of strange culture-bound “hysterical psychosis” affecting Western-Europeans, a form of temporary madness preventing us from acting rationally towards Iran. I also suspect part of the problem is the tendency on the part of many to confuse Iranians with Arabs, or lump them together. Thus Iranians, who are not Arabs, are unfortunately subjected to the same negative (and totally unfair) stereotype Westerners have long imposed on Arabs. I suggest this particular affliction is characteristic primarily of Western-European males who are middle-aged or older who have never overcome their stereotypical racist beliefs about citizens of the Middle East, especially Arabs (and especially including Palestinians).

Of course this whole pretense of negotiation has little or nothing to do with whether or not Iran is trying to produce a bomb. It has to do primarily with the Iranian threat to Western-European hegemony in the Middle East. Unless the Iranians are willing to concede that hegemony beforehand there can be no true negotiations. And of course if they did concede that in advance there would not really be negotiations because negotiations by their very nature imply a process taking place between equals. Khomeini understands this, the U.S. either does not or does not want to acknowledge it. Thus there will be no meaningful negotiations with Iran, the hysteria will continue, and unless President Obama can keep his head on straight in the midst of the crazies (including Netanyahu) there could even be another stupid, unnecessary and immoral “war” in the Middle East.

War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.

Thomas Mann  

Living in Wonderland

It has not been uncommon for many years now to see articles about how it is that people nowadays have lost contact with the earth, especially those who live in urban areas. You know, the children have no idea where milk comes from, they have never seen a vegetable grown,  never consumed an egg that had not been in cold storage, never tasted a ripe tomato, and have no personal connection to the food they eat, and so on. This is, alas, true, at least for some. But there is another dimension to this problem that I think has not had as much attention, or if it has I am not aware of it. It has more to do with the psychology of growing up in a kind of wonderland than with the material aspects of the problem. And while the personal experiences of everyone are in some respects unique there is a kind of pattern that probably repeats itself with many, especially those growing up in highly urbanized areas. Think what life is like for Americans as they grow up and mature.

As children many of the most pleasurable moments and activities center around Disney movies and Disneyland, where there are animal characters dressed more or less like humans, talking and behaving often in strange ways. Mickey and Minnie Mouse,  Donald Duck, and so on. Then there are characters like Snow White and the Dwarves, Cinderella, Wicked Witches, and more. Apart from the regular Disney fare, are the many other cartoon characters to grow up with: Elmer Fudd, Wiley Coyote, Woody Woodpecker, and so many more. Granted these experiences are not the sum total of young experiences they certainly play a role in growing up. We should not forget such other strange things children are told: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and such. These are all completely wonderland phenomenon having nothing to do with reality, just make-believe.

As one grows older one can still enjoy such childish fantasies but they lose much of their salience. Motion pictures and television become more important as we watch our many heroes take on the problems of the world. We now have characters like Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and others that portray good winning over evil while doing daredevil feats of superhuman effort. Even the apparently real characters are entirely fictional as they battle for good: The Lone Ranger and Tonto, Roy Rogers, John Wayne, Bruce Willis, Errol Flynn as Robin Hood, Perry Mason, Humphrey Bogart, Jimmy Stewart, and so on. But again these are basically all fictional stories even though they are passed off as perhaps true, at best they have the virtue of verisimilitude. They, too, are just make-believe.

There are also, of course, video games. I know nothing about them other than they, too, are completely fictional, fantastic creations that allow the players to kill and destroy, fight and win, and indulge in wonderlands even more divorced from reality than any of the above. You can also engage in fantasy football and other sports, just more make-believe. I should also mention such internet activities like Facebook and such where you can, if you wish, indulge in fictional romances or other adventures, or so I am t told.  

And all the while we are buffeted constantly with television and other advertising, every bit as fantastic as Disney. We see talking cars, talking cookies, talking insects, talking dogs and cats, talking vegetables, precocious children, silly adults, and any number of celebrities dripping false sincerity and mouthing obvious untruths and exaggerations. We are told if we use such-and-such a deodorant women will desire us, if we imbibe such a such medicine we will be free of ailments of all kinds, if we drive the right automobile women will adore us, the right hair product will have similar magical effects, if we do “X” we will lose weight, and if we do “Y” we will have a winning smile, and so on and on and on in a never ending barrage of clever falsehoods designed to get us to buy, buy, buy. The degree to which people are exposed to all this fantastic wonderland varies, of course, but if you grow up in America you are doubtless exposed to this kind of stuff just as part of everyday life. Virtually from birth to death you exist in what is little more than a wonderland of unreality, fantasy, make-believe, and depending on your personal circumstances, you may or may not have much of a connection with the “real world.” You might well grow up never seeing the stars, a wild animal, knowing where butter comes from (or even if there is such a thing as butter), expecting doors to open automatically, make and interact with “friends” thousands of miles away that you never ever meet, and live a life totally unlike any previous human experience. I wonder, what is the effect of living in such a wonderland on the human psyche? Are people changing psychologically or otherwise from this new and developing human experience? How might it be affecting us, if at all? Might it be for better or worse? I do not know. When someone asked me today if I thought things were better now than before I said yes,

We don’t have as many flat tires as we used to.

      

The Party of Nuts and Dolts

After years of effort it appears the Republican Party has managed to strip away frivolity and unnecessary baggage so as to have reduced itself to a more serious party of basic nuts and dolts. This can be seen in the purity of their convictions, the depth of their passion, their willingness to share their wisdom with all. They do not hold back in expressing their beliefs. Think of Akins, for example, with his views on “legitimate rape,” or Richard Mourdock’s insightful claim that even a fetus produced by a rape must have been something God intended.

Of course there is James Inhofe, always good for something stupid, like global warming is the greatest  hoax ever perpetrated on the American public, LaPierre trying to justify the disgusting ad targeting Obama’s children as if they do not require special protection, Steve King wanting to revive the House Internal Security Committee to “study the ugly spread of Marxism in America, “ particularly in the Obama administration, and we should never forget the wisdom of Republican candidates like Sharron Angles who suggested if Republicans didn’t get their way they could always turn to the 2^nd amendment strategy. Then there was Christine O’Donnell of “I am not a Witch fame,” and that other potential Republican candidate who suggested we pay our doctor bills with chickens.

The nuts and dolts just never let up. Recently we have Louie Gohmert (perhaps the greatest dolt of all) saying he will not play the game of assault weapons because “that could be any weapon. It’s a hammer … massive numbers are killed with hammers.” We have Gayle Trotter speaking for assault rifles and claiming American housewives need such weapons to defend themselves and their children from the 4 or 5 violent attackers that might invade their homes and attack them. There is also the brilliant woman in Arizona who says women who are raped and carrying a fetus should not be allowed to abort because it would be destroying evidence. Not to be outdone there is also Kevin Swanson of Generation Radio who claims recent research has demonstrated that women who have been on birth control for a time are found to be carrying “dead babies, tiny little fetuses.”  And we mustn’t forget Paul Broun who thinks he should stay on the House Science Committee even after announcing that evolution, the big bang theory, and embryology are lies “straight from the pit of hell.”

We also have John McCain referring to Ahmadinejad as a monkey, then claiming it was a joke. I guess a joke like his singing “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.” I have no doubt this will help immeasurably in our relations with that country. McCain is the posture child for why we need mandatory retirements in Congress and the Supreme Court.

These are but a few examples of the nuts and dolts that constitute the contemporary Republican Party. I’m sure there are many more examples of complete lunacy and doltishness. Just thinking back on the recent Republican candidates is evidence of how nuts and dolts have come to take over the Party: Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, Trump, and Cain, surely fit into the categories of nuts and dolts. Gingrich too, but perhaps for different reasons. 

Now we still have the Tea Party to contend with, a collection of nuts and dolts unprecedented in the history of our Republic, willing to go to any lengths to get their way even if it might mean the destruction of our country. Their influence may be waning but it still wanes, driven by a large group of freshmen Congresspersons with little or no experience, little or no knowledge of how to govern, spouting ideas and beliefs some of which come right out of the Middle Ages, and completely unwilling to compromise no matter what.

What is worse is their apparent unwillingness to accept the fact we have a Black President. The Presidency of Barack Obama has to be one of the miracles of our time, the fact that he has been a relatively successful President is even more miraculous as they have opposed him at every turn. It also even makes me wish I could be around a hundred years from now to see what history will have to say about this incredible event.  

If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each man's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.

Henry Wadsworth Longfellow

How Bad...

Really, seriously, honestly, actually, how bad does a country have to be before someone (anyone) makes an effort to stop them from any further criminal, immoral, and unconscionable activities? Yes, I am once again concerned with Israel and their treatment of the Palestinians.

There seems to be little doubt that Israel has for years been slowly and insidiously moving onto land that rightfully belongs to the Palestinians, building settlements that have repeatedly been considered illegal by the United Nations. They have been told over and over again what they are doing is illegal. They pay no attention. Now the UN has said they must give up all illegal settlements on the West Bank in order to make it possible for a two state solution (It is clear their illegal settlements are, among other things, designed to make a Palestinian state a virtual impossibility). Does anyone seriously believe they are going to comply? I doubt it.

There is also no doubt the Israelis regard Palestinians as at best second class citizens and at worst less than human. Their racism has been exposed for the world to see. They have assassinated Palestinian leaders at will, bombed Gaza unmercifully, even killed Palestinian children, and effectively made life as miserable as possible for the more than one million Palestinians they have kept herded into Gaza. It is no secret they would like the Palestinians to leave, going to wherever they might, especially Egypt. They have harassed and humiliated Palestinians for years, making them wait for hours to pass by check stands, have made some roads off limits to them, and allowed settlers to attack them, destroy their orchards and fields, homes, and so on. It has become clear that Netanyahu and his colleagues do not want a two state solution, a one state solution, or any solution at all, preferring the status quo and their ability to control the situation to the detriment of even basic Palestinian rights. While I do not know if it is true or not, there have been claims they have also tortured Palestinians held in their jails. I personally believe it may well be true as they seem to stop at nothing to get what they want.

If all this is not bad enough they have now admitted they have been sterilizing Ethiopian women without their knowledge or consent. This is naked racism in the extreme. Tell me how this is any different from similar things the Nazis did in Germany. It is absolutely disgusting, unconscionable, despicable, outrageous, blatant racism, imposed on some by others who apparently regard themselves as a “master race.”

And so I ask, how despicable, criminal, racist, greedy, and immoral does a country have to become before something can be done to stop it. The UN routinely condemns Israel for its outrageous violations but they are blissfully ignored year after year. The one power that could actually do something to stop what Israel is doing is the United States, but we prefer to aid and abet and protect them, thus making us equally immoral and disgusting. Oh, I forgot, one is not supposed to say a single thing against Israel, no matter how mild, apparently to be against murder, arson, and theft is anti-Semitic.

The difference of race is one of the reasons why I fear war may always exist; because race implies difference, difference implies superiority, and superiority leads to predominance.

Benjamin Disraeli

Past all Dishonor

I think I may have used this title for a blog before, but as it is so descriptive of some human behavior I believe it is still useful. Unhappily, I think it applies to the behavior of one of our best known Senators who was once a war hero but has in recent years dishonored himself several times over. I am speaking of Senator John McCain of Arizona. I must say I thought his questioning of Chuck Hegel today was disgraceful. He and Hegel were friends, McCain had previously said he thought Hegel would be a great Secretary of Defense, and today he turned on him like a jackal. His treatment of his former friend and colleague was mean, unnecessary, petty and spiteful. I think it was mainly personal as well as political. I guess it had to do with McCain’s obsession with being right about Iraq when in fact he was completely wrong and does not want to admit it. And it also, I think, was a continuation of his constant revengeful attacks on President Obama for having defeated him in an election. When you demand a yes or no answer to a complicated question like “was the surge a success, yes or no,” you know the questioner is being completely unreasonable. Such a question could only be posed by someone simple minded enough to believe there are actually yes or no answers to everything. If you asked McCain, for example, if the Iraq war was really necessary he would no doubt answer “yes.” If you asked him if the sacrifice of 500,000 Iraq children was worth the sanctions on that country he would also probably, without doubt answer the same. So, Senator McCain, has our multi-billion dollar “war on drugs” been a success, yes or no? Is the Republican party engaged in a “war on women,” yes or no. Was “Custer’s last stand” necessary, yes or no?  Did we lose the war in Vietnam, yes or no?  Was the Civil War just about slavery, yes or no? Remember we are talking about a man who was willing to risk the possible fate of our nation to a virtually unknown basically mindless woman whose claim to foreign policy experience was that she could see Russia from her front porch and read all the newspapers and magazines put  in front of her, none of which she could name. Also, as I recall, she thought Africa was a country. McCain was at one time a war hero, also a sometimes reasonable “maverick.” How the mighty have fallen. He is a perfect example of why we should have a mandatory retirement age.

Of course it is only to be expected that where McCain goes his wimpy little Sancho Panza, Lindsey Graham, will follow. Graham’s concern, as near as I could tell, is to make certain that the world’s number one war criminal will be protected at all costs. Indeed, most of the criticism of Hegel has to do with statements he made in the past indicating that Israel might actually have undue influence over our Congresspersons. Heaven forbid that anyone could say anything in any way, even a teensy bit critical of Israel, a racist, colonial, criminal, murderous enterprise that has violated virtually every UN and international standard ever imposed, and that is knowingly engaged in a form of slow genocide of Palestinians.

As near as I can tell the attacks on Hegel are of two kinds, personal and political. Apparently McCain has some personal grudge, maybe a few others do as well, but the political part of it is more of an attack on President Obama than Hegel. It is also obvious for some of the critics the hearing is mainly being used as a place to get some air time and perhaps a “name.” Much of the questioning and posturing had nothing much to do with being Secretary of Defense, merely the usual Congressional obfuscation.

It seems there are at least some who believe that housewives should be armed with assault rifles to protect themselves from potential assaults by four or five (brown or black?) intruders intent on rape and pillage. Why stop there? I think they should also have anti-aircraft guns for the potential flying pigs. Really, are there no even imaginary limits too ridiculous or far-fetched for the NRA and the gun manufacturers?

 By their own follies they perished, the fools.

Homer  

The Stupid Party

Governor Jindal certainly has it right when he suggests the Republican Party has been the Stupid Party, whether he is the person to make it less stupid is questionable as he signed a controversial law permitting the teaching of creationism in Louisiana schools. But it seems clear to me that the Republican Party has been pretty stupid of late.

Consider a Republican attempt in Arizona to forbid a rape victim from having an abortion because that would be “tampering with evidence.” Or how about the Tennessee Republican who wants to cut family welfare benefits by 30% if their child does not do well in school? And of course there are “nullification” efforts going on in several states that would make enforcement of Federal laws a felony (I guess they never heard of the Civil War). And don’t forget the claim that silencers for guns are useful because they protect children’s hearing, and perhaps the greatest and most stupid comment ever, “If slaves had been given guns from the beginning perhaps there would have been no slavery.” Nor should we forget to mention the claim that in “legitimate rapes” the female body had mechanism to prevent pregnancy, or that if a baby is the result of a rape it must have been “God’s will.”

These are only a few of the most recent stupid comments coming out of the mouths of Republicans. I think they are merely in the best tradition of the Republican tradition of stupid comments. The Republican Party has not always been the Stupid Party. I’m sure history would give us many examples of Republican stupidity, but I doubt there has been any extended period of time for Republican stupidity that would rival the past roughly forty years. I think it is convenient to begin with Ronald Reagan when reviewing the question of Republican stupidity. Surely his absurd claim that “Government is the problem” should be seen as one of the most stupid claims (as well as the most damaging) of all time. And of course Reagan was known for other stupid remarks as well, “If you’ve seen one Redwood you’ve seen ‘em all,” and etc.

President George W. Bush was certainly known for stupid remarks, far too many to quote here, but a couple of the best:

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace." --Washington, D.C. June 18

Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." --Washington, D.C., Aug. 5,

Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" --Florence, South Carolina, Jan. 11, 2000

You might argue these are all merely slips of the tongue but I think if you take all of the Bushisms together they are revealing of an underlying at least mild form of retardation.

Of course many of the well known Republicans in recent years have said things every bit as stupid as Bush. Sarah Palin, for example:

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

Mitt Romney:

I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love.

Rick Perry:

It is time to change our policy of appeasement toward the Palestinians, to strengthen our ties with the nation of Israel.

Newt Gingrich:

“The idea that a congressman would be tainted by accepting money from private industry or private sources is essentially a socialist argument.”

Rick Santorum:

“There are no Palestinians. All the people who live in the West Bank are Israelis. There are no Palestinians. This is Israeli land.”

I could, of course, go on, but I think these few examples show that, as Jindal said, some Republicans have said really stupid things and that should change. But I don’t believe the current Republican Party can change, stupidity has become an integral part of who and what they are. Making completely stupid remarks is a daily routine for the likes of Republican spokespersons like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and others, and apparently there is a large audience of true believers for their stupidity. Many of them continue to believe President Obama was not born in the U.S., that he is a socialist, he will take away their guns, and so on. They continue to try to outlaw abortion and contraception, protect assault weapons, try to do away with Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps, steal elections, insult minorities and Gays, and so on even though it is clear the American public is opposed to such attempts. I think this indicates a vein of genuine stupidity in the Republican ranks. Now they claim Obama wants to destroy their party, apparently too stupid to realize they are destroying themselves.

Ninety-nine percent of all failures come from people who have the habit of making excuses.

George Washington Carver

Ah, Yes, 2016

President Obama was inaugurated for his second term only about a week ago and here we are already discussing the 2016 election. I suspect that only in the United States would anything so completely nonsensical happen, other countries are much more serious when it comes go governing. Of course we have to recognize that if 2016 was not going to be the focus for the next four years our news media might have to actually invest money in trying to discover if anything of note was actually happening anywhere else around the world. I feel foolish indeed for falling into the trap of talking about 2016, but as that is the main topic of conversation these days I decided to comment.

The primary concern, it seems, is whether or not Hillary Clinton is going to run for President in 2016. I would think this a pretty stupid question to ask about a woman who has apparently wanted to be President since she was in elementary school, who already attempted it once, only to be defeated by a nation so sexist they preferred a Black man to a more qualified woman, the ultimate and impenetrable glass ceiling. Now, however, I believe things will be different when she runs. Besides being an ex First Lady, a successful and popular Senator, she has also “made her bones” as a very successful Secretary of State, probably one of the best ever, and enjoys enormous popularity virtually everywhere. It is widely believed that if she runs she will be unbeatable. I believe this is true. However, there are a lot of “ifs.”

It is four years (a long time) before the 2016 election. As she is no longer Secretary of State she will have to do something if she wants to remain in the public eye, something that will help her to continue to maintain her unusual popularity and possibly even add to it. She will also run if she avoids any health problems (she will be 69 in 2016), if she and Bill do not become involved in some kind of scandal, if someone on the kooky extreme right doesn’t assassinate her, if there is not some unpredictable occurrence that might interfere with her plans, if Joe Biden gets the blessing of President Obama rather than her, if the Republicans somehow find a candidate so sane and charismatic he might actually challenge her, if the earth is not burned to a crisp by then, and if, for some unknown, unpredictable, and unfathomable reason she decides not to run, if the earth is not invaded and conquered by visitors from outer space or destroyed by a series of nuclear accidents, if it is not hit by a stray comet, or if women are defeated in the “war on women” and so disgraced they are back to being barefoot and pregnant wearing flour sack dresses in the kitchen as the Republicans would have it. She might decide she simply does not want to put up with the horribly unpleasant roviation they will no doubt have in store for her. Obviously most of these things are unlikely, but four years is a long time, anything might happen, which is why we should not even be thinking about this at least for two or three more years. But, as I say, this is the United States, being run by a conglomerate of huge corporations that might just decide to sell it to China rather than be troubled by it any longer.

I do not believe that any woman, especially Hillary Clinton, could possibly resist the temptation of becoming the first female President of the United States. We managed somehow to elect a Black man as President, the next step has to be a woman. It is pretty obvious that Obama is setting her up to run in 2016 to continue his democratic legacy, equally obvious that is why Bill Clinton has gone all out in support of Obama. It is also obvious that Obama and Hillary share the same values and goals for the country. Who could possibly be a better candidate to follow Obama? This is, as they say, “a marriage made in heaven.” If Hillary runs of course I would support her although she is far too “hawkish” for my taste. I am also not sure where she (or even Obama for that matter) truly stands on the Israeli/Palestinian problem. In any case who would represent the Republican opposition, Sarah Palin, Paul Ryan, Bobby Jindal, the moron Governor of Texas, maybe New Jersey Fats? I cannot see any Republican candidate that could realistically beat Hillary.

But don’t forget, many people thought she would be the inevitable winner against Obama, and we know how that turned out.  

   “roviate v. to smear, slime, malign, denigrate, and attempt to destroy an opponent through the use of innuendo, rumor, slander, outright lies and any other despicable means available. Roviation works more effectively when done in collusion with major media.”

The "War on Women"

I am somewhat reluctant to comment on this issue as it is so controversial and also ultimately far too complicated to be dealt with in less than a book length attempt. And I am sure that whatever I say will be widely disputed by many, perhaps everyone. But throwing caution to the wind I will proceed.

I don’t believe the “problem” is basically about abortion or birth control. It is more fundamental than either of those two issues and has to do with the attempts by men in all societies to control women. The problem with women, through no fault of their own, is that they are women, and women, by virtue of their very being, are, I suspect, however unconsciously (or consciously)  perceived by men as threatening the social solidarity of human societies. It is not the existence of female sexuality itself, widely enjoyed by males everywhere, but, rather, the fact that women, both sexually and in other nurturant and loving ways, can and do come between men. There are few things that have the potential to come between brothers, clansmen, and even fathers and sons, more than females. In many if not most so-called “primitive” societies fights over women are fairly commonplace, and it is clear that even in our more “advanced” industrial societies men continue to sometimes fight over women. It is not only the threat women pose to the relations between men that is disruptive, but also the fact that women often also destroy marriages. Think of all the men who run off with their secretaries or divorce their loyal wives of many years for the “trophy wife” or the “younger woman” and so on. This is not the fault of women but simply the facts of life when there are two distinct genders or sexes, and especially when there are expectations of “masculinity” and “femininity.”

I doubt, for example, that most men are particularly troubled by Lesbians, except perhaps because they are not available to them. I’m pretty sure that if a man’s wife leaves him for a woman it does not affect him as much as if she leaves him for another man. I even doubt that most men are particularly offended by the love-making of two women, indeed, I know they will often pay for the privilege of observing such sexual activity. Aside from perhaps homosexual men, I doubt most men would pay for the privilege of watching two men engaged in sexual activity. I suspect that women  kissing each other does not bother most people, both men and women, as much as two men kissing each other (something becoming more and more common these days).   

Obviously sexuality plays an important role in the overall relations between the sexes, but there is much more involved in relationships between men and women. Both men and women, for example, often are attracted to members of the opposite sex that cannot be perceived as merely sexual attraction, people do not fall in love and stay married primarily because of sex. Often it is not at all obvious why two people “find each other,”  hence we often hear that “opposites attract,” or I don’t see what he or she sees in her or him, and so on. The fact is, men and women are attracted to each other for many reasons and unfortunately often in ways that disrupt the social order, cause trouble and even in some severe cases lead to jealously, unhappiness, murders and suicides. The basic biological and psychological differences between men and women, while delightful in their ways, can also be disruptive of the social order.

It is obvious that historically and even now to a different extent in different cultures the behavior of women has been controlled to a greater or lesser extent by men. Most societies have been primarily patriarchal, women have had a lesser voice in political and other important matters, and even in societies where descent is reckoned through females the effective control of those societies is in the hands of males (mother’s brothers, for example). It is interesting to contrast extreme examples of societies in which women are dressed from head to toe in burkas with those in which they go virtually naked in tiny bikinis and such. I suspect the presence of women as threats to society are not as different as we might suppose and the bikinis do not represent female freedom from male dominance as much as one might suppose. One could well argue that the wearing of bikinis only reinforces the image of women as sex objects in basically the same way the wearing of burkas does. It might be true that in some ways women have “come a long way, baby,” but in some very basic ways “things change but stay the same.”

Women are the only oppressed group in our society that lives in intimate association with their opressors.

Evelyn Cunningham
 

Blogger's Block

I think I am suffering from Blogger’s Block and I don’t know why. I thought I might attribute it to “stress,” stress being a convenient explanation these days for not being able to do things, think things, perform things, manage your affairs, and even sometimes pay your bills and stuff. But then I started thinking about the concept of stress. First, stress is not a very precisely defined term, second, I think it is often merely used as an excuse, third, it is widely overused, and fourth, I find it difficult to separate stress from the natural course of events accompanying someone’s “Journey to the West “ Let me explain.

When I worked in a large Department of Psychiatry (my first academic position) there was a Psychiatrist (who will remain unnamed) who was doing (what I thought was somewhat questionable) research on stress.  He and his assistant had developed a scale of stress they believed would allow them to predict who might be the most prone to illness, accidents, or even death. Their scale dealt with assigning (arbitrary) scores to different events people might or might not experience. Things like being ill, getting married or divorced, having a child, losing a loved one like a spouse or a parent,  financial troubles, accidents,  and I don’t remember what all. What I do remember is that in 1965 I calculated that if I took seriously this scale I would have by then have probably died at least twice. You can only imagine where I ought to be by now, almost fifty years later.

Certainly there has been almost unending stress in my life in the past few months. My wife of thirty years died a completely unexpected death from a stroke four months ago, also I became a grandfather for the first time about four months ago, I inherited bills I didn’t know I had (plus bills I already knew I had), I now live alone in a large home stuffed with things I am having trouble coping with, and so on. On top of that, today I had to have my oldest (wife’s) cat euthanized. Besides, it snowed last night making my driveway difficult to maneuver. Thus, I should be suffering from plenty of stress that is keeping me from wanting to write this blog.

But in spite of my situation I somehow do not feel terribly stressed out. I do not really understand this but I doubt it is the reason I am finding it difficult to blog. Personally, I think American politics and government  have become so idiotic I just can’t be bothered to concern myself any longer. When one of the most important matters that concerns us is whether or not Beyonce lip-synched the national anthem during the inauguration I confess to losing interest in the matter. More importantly, when Republican Senators, supposedly grilling our Secretary of State on important matters, ask stupid questions and try to score cheap political points and bask in the spotlight rather than being serious about an issue already settled, I also lose interest. These Senators, among the most powerful leaders we have, merely exposed themselves as the basic partisan hacks they really are, making themselves look even more foolish than they already are.

And so, thinking back on my life, the deaths of my parents, the divorces, the children, my adventures in New Guinea and elsewhere, being in college and in the army, having surgeries, cancer, heart attacks losing most of my classmates and friends, I do not understand why I should still be here trying to write this blog. I have concluded that stress is perhaps merely a euphemism for “life” itself. That is, living is in most respects being constantly stressed by events and experiences beyond our control. Life is by nature stressful. Once you grasp this basic fact of existence it is not easy to claim stress as something so unusual as to cause your inadequacies or incapacitate you. Life merely goes on from one stress to another until your own personal Journey to the West comes to a merciful end. Concepts like “eternal peace,”  “eternal  rest” and “eternal  bliss” take on much more salience than “passed away,” “meeting your maker,”  “entering heaven,” reincarnation, or any notions of an afterlife. I am pretty much convinced the purpose of death is to allow one to escape any such further stress. I can think of virtually no fate worse than having to do it all over again in a different life or context. The thought of having to deal with forty virgins I find singularly horrifying. I like to believe that when you are dead, you are dead and thus not plagued by any further stresses.

Death is a friend of ours; and he that is not ready to entertain him is not at home.

Sir Francis Bacon  

  

Nostalgia

Anyone who has followed this blog for very long must have noticed it appears less often and more unpredictably than it did in the past.  I find it more difficult to write, I guess, for a variety of reasons: my wife’s unexpected death, the holidays, my increasing age and lack of creativity, the banality of what passes for “news,” and a general lack of motivation and inspiration. I also have been seized by a bout of genuine nostalgia.

I don’t know if things were better in the good ol’ days, but in many ways it seems to me they were. Looking back over my life I think probably the best period was during WWII when I was a teenager. I don’t know if this is because I was younger and not as well informed about the world as I am now, or if it  was, in fact, a better and more satisfying time. I don’t enjoy the image of myself as a cranky old man complaining about changes I don’t understand, and I don’t know how one would ever really know what period of time was better than others. It does seem to me things were different and simpler back in those days. Life was much less frantic than it seems to be now. The music was softer, gentler, more romantic, and you could even understand the lyrics. While it is true we jitterbugged and there was be-bop and boogie woogie, it was in general far more dominated by the big band era and sentimental music for dancing. To me much of what passes for music today is little more than noise and the pace is frantic, the lyrics unintelligible, and the dancing painfully unchoreographed.

Motion pictures, too, were very different. It is true we enjoyed mostly westerns and detective and gangster movies, and there was a bit of shooting and violence, but the good guys always won and when compared to what passes for movies nowadays they were genuinely benign. Violence and sex, especially the latter, were not the dominant themes and, like music, movies were more romantic, featuring musicals and romantic comedies rather than the ubiquitous sex and violence that dominates what we are offered nowadays. In general the pace of life was slower without computers and the internet. We wrote our schoolwork out by hand or at best on the typewriter, copying things was more difficult, and things, in general, required more thought and effort.

With no television we received our news from the radio or from brief news programs that usually accompanied movies. With no television and computer games we played outside and had to entertain ourselves through activity rather than simply sitting and watching. We were much more physical. Obesity was not a national problem. Medicine was more primitive, I do not recall anyone having health insurance. If you were sick and could afford it you saw a doctor, people died younger and no doubt suffered more but they did not tithe money to insurance companies as we do now. Health care has always been a problem and while it is better now than it was it is still a problem. A single payer system would obviously be the best solution but at the moment this would appear to be out of the question.

I wasn’t much interested in politics as a teenager, but I was certainly aware of the war effort and followed Roosevelt and Churchill as they eventually prevailed against the Nazis. There was none of the bitter partisanship that characterizes contemporary politics. While there were differences between Republican and Democrats both parties had the best interest of the nation in the forefront of their behavior, no one would have placed party ahead of national interest. We had no “empire” to defend, no troops stationed all around the world, all of that began slowly after the war years and has grown like a sort of cancer on our foreign policy.

I find it impossible to say that things are either better or worse today than they were in the 1940’s and 50’s. Some things are obviously better, cars are better, tires are better, refrigerators are better, people live longer on the average, Black people and women are better off than previously, and so on. But there is still racism and sexism, poverty may even be worse, our politics are a mess, global warming is a terrible threat, the national debt is a threat, our infrastructure has deteriorated badly, our educational system is a disaster, we are killing each other at an unprecedented rate, and our government is dysfunctional. Are we better off than we were? As an old man I don’t think so. I think I was much happier back in the 40’s and 50’s. Sadly, it doesn’t matter.

 Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on too long.

Ogden Nash  

Untrue, Far-fetched, and Stupid

I guess Armageddon is going to be child’s play after what is happening now because of President Obama’s recent common sense proposals to help curb gun violence in the U.S. What an uproar, what a reaction, what hysteria, what overreaction, what consummate nonsense. Everything the NRA and many Republicans are now saying about Obama’s attempt to do something about gun violence is either blatantly untrue, entirely far-fetched, or unbelievably stupid. Their mouths are apparently no longer connected to their brains, if they ever were.

Obama is trying to do away with the second amendment is untrue as is Rubio’s claim that Obama doesn’t really believe in the second amendment but is unwilling to say so. The idea that the second amendment was created to protect citizens from their government, a common belief for many of these nutcases is completely false. The claim that Obama’s actions are a prelude to some kind of world government, or this represents a form of government oppression, or even an excuse to impose martial law, are all nonsense. Accusations to the effect that Obama is a Tyrant or a dictator in the form of Hitler or Stalin are so far-fetched as to be unworthy of attention. Calls for his impeachment betray a pathetic misunderstanding of the reality of Executive privileges. Nothing Obama has done offers even a remote possibility for impeachment.

The more extreme reactions, such as those suggesting the opponents just start killing, or begin a civil war, or just refuse to follow federal laws about guns, hopefully are just thoughtless loose talk made in anger, at least we should certainly hope so. If some states try to make enforcing a federal law some kind of felony, or try to refuse to enforce federal laws, it could presumably lead to some kind of civil war. One the one hand it is hard to take such threats seriously, but on the other hand it is possible that at least  some of the nutcases are crazy enough to actually start shooting. Virtually all of the claims that are being made about Obama’s suggestions are either untrue or far-fetched, and in a sense I guess you could argue they are also sort of stupid.

But stupidity reaches its zenith when you consider some of the other things that are being said about the situation. For example, the claim that Obama’s use of children during his presentation constitutes a form of child abuse, a claim that could only come out of the mouths of those looking for anything at all to hold against Obama. But even that claim pales in to insignificance compared to whoever it was that suggested that if slaves had been allowed to have guns perhaps there might not have been slavery in the first  place (I rather doubt that on a scale of stupidity this can ever be outdone). Of course whoever it was that argued for the use of silencers because “it helps to preserve children’s hearing,” isn’t far behind. And of course there is the famous ad featuring Obama’s children that accuses Obama of being an elite hypocrite because his children are being guarded while he is opposed to the guarding of other children (which, in fact, he is not, but this ad also reveals an apparent disregard of the reality of being children of a President). The NRA and its supporters obviously have no shame and have made it clear they are willing to do and say anything to increase the profits of gun manufacturers (they have been enormously successful in recent years).

One thing that surprises me, although it probably shouldn’t, is the tenacity with which they cling to their assault rifles. They seem completely unwilling to give up these military weapons even though it is perfectly obvious they have no function other than killing lots of people as quickly as possible. As they were for a time banned, which seems to have not been terribly onerous, and as they obviously have no hunting or sporting uses, it is difficult to see such complete resistance. I guess this is due to the paranoid and absurd belief they will protect us from our government, one of the more egregious lies we have been fed over time by the NRA in their attempt to increase profits for the manufacturers. I know people who actually believe,  I guess following Saint Ronnie, that government is the problem and etc. Once someone has this false belief it is virtually impossible to change them. They not only believe the government is out to harm them they also believe their puny little assault rifles will actually protect them from the full force of the military, police, and the massive weapons at the disposal of government, strange, these apparently mindless fools. All in all, having been following things fairly closely for the past four or five years, I have come to the conclusion it can be pretty much summed up with two words – He’s Black.

 “Achievement has no color”
― Abraham Lincoln

  

Will Paranoia Win?

I have both seen and heard it said that Congress will not pass any ban on assault weapons. I find this interesting if for no other reason than why this might be so. I see no reason, logical or otherwise why private citizens should own assault weapons. The explanation they are for target practice is feeble in the extreme. The only explanation for the ownership of such weapons has to do with the belief it might be necessary to defend ourselves from our own government, a belief no more than a fantasy in the minds of the truly paranoid. These individuals argue that the Founding Fathers created the 2^nd amendment so that citizens could protect themselves from their government, a belief actually quite the opposite of the truth. It is also a belief so transparent in its naivete as to be laughable. The idea that citizens armed with small caliber rifles, even grenades and rocket launchers, could defeat the federal government should that be necessary is simply ridiculous.

If it is true that Congress will not pass a ban on assault weapons it would seem to me there are only two possible reasons. First, there are enough Congresspersons who subscribe to the paranoid belief the government is their enemy (I guess we can thank Saint Ronnie for this stupid idea), or second, they are all being bribed by the gun industry to promote this idea in order to make more profits. In either case it  is paranoia that drives the market. Thus we are either at the mercy of the demonstrably insane or an industry that encourages such beliefs for the sole purpose of short term profits. If Congress refuses to pass a ban on assault rifles paranoia wins and sanity loses. At the moment I think I would bet on paranoia as the idea that President Obama is after their guns seems to have been well established among the not so gently mad.

Republican arguments against the reasonable, logical, and practical proposals of the Obama administration have now become so untenable they have had to turn to more personal attacks. They have resurrected an earlier claim that Obama is too antisocial and does not do enough socializing with Congresspersons, an argument so pathetic as to be simply ignored. Not only that, they have now decided their strategy to oppose Hagel should consist of a discussion of his “overall temperament.”  That is, does he have the proper temperament to run a large organization and etc., an argument not only pathetic in the extreme but entirely absurd. When you have no real arguments just bluff and obfuscate and create suspicion and confusion.

It is now being said that the Republican Party is going to have to change if it is to survive as a viable political party, change to keep up with the changing demography of our nation. I do not see how this is going to be possible given their inherent racism, homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia, and completely dysfunctional economic theories.  These are deep-seated beliefs that are not going to be easily changed, certainly not in time for the 2016 elections and quite likely for a long time even after that, perhaps never (happy day).

It appears Republicans have finally realized the debt limit racket is not going to work for them this time. They are now focusing on other means of shutting down the government, causing Obama even more trouble, plotting to keep any progress from being made. It seems to me that Obama, as President, has been more than merely reasonable with his opponents and has, in spite of them, been in general pretty successful. The things that bother me about Obama, the hawkishness, drones, civil rights, and such, are not things that should bother Republicans. Thus I have to conclude their obvious, even growing hatred of President Obama is primarily racial in origin. They have not been able to overcome the basic paradigm of Western-European culture that featured the Great Chain of Being and the evolution of culture that placed white males at the very top of the scale and other races and genders below them. I suspect it will take at least two or three more generations before this insidious colonial carryover disappears.

      

 The most important scientific revolutions all include, as their only common feature, the dethronement of human arrogance from one pedestal after another of previous convictions about our centrality in the cosmos.

Stephen Jay Gould

The National Death Wish

It is very difficult if you have been following developments in the United States for the past thirty plus years not to conclude that we have developed what appears to be(however unconsciously) a national death wish. I doubt that most U.S. citizens would acknowledge this and I suspect most are probably not even aware of it, but it is, alas, true, or so it seems to me. I do not know precisely when this began but I suspect it began in earnest during the Reagan administration. There is no indication I am aware of that either Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter, whatever their shortcomings might have been, were anti-government or did not have the national interest at heart. It was Reagan, the “Great Communicator,” who first told us that “Government is the problem,” and things seem to have gone downhill ever since. It is obvious there are those in government today that still cling to this rather ridiculous belief, the result of which has been extremely unhealthy for our well-being. As a nation and a culture we are slowly dying while doing little or nothing to prevent our demise. Consider where we are with respect to the most important problems we face:

Global warming, for example, is almost certainly the greatest potential threat to our continued existence on planet earth. What actions have we taken to attempt to deal with this terrible threat? The answer, I fear, is virtually none in any truly meaningful way.

What have we done to combat the serious problem we have with unemployment? Again, virtually nothing of substance, the rate appears to have stabilized at roughly eight percent.

Our infrastructure is widely known to be badly neglected and getting worse year after year. We have done nothing to deal with this trillion dollar problem.

Our environment, too, has been damaged and continues to suffer increasing damage as a result of unregulated or illegal business practices, especially from resource extraction and the demands of energy.

Our educational system, from the primary grades to the highest levels, is little more than a shambles, and, from a national interest standpoint is dysfunctional almost beyond belief. Our universities and colleges that should be geared to turning out intelligent well-rounded individuals, have become little more than trade schools, so expensive as to actually punish, with massive debt, those wishing to improve their lives and contribute to our betterment.

Our health care is a disgrace when compared to the rest of the developed world, far more expensive than health care in other industrialized nations, and demonstrably not always any better in spite of the greater expense.

 The U.S. political/economic situation has become so dysfunctional as to be almost useless when it comes to dealing with the abovementioned problems. Public service has been replaced with naked greed and the distribution of wealth, if not curtailed, will lead to even further disaster.

It seems obvious to me that all of these problems, if continued to be neglected and unsolved, are going to lead to the end of our nation as a viable socio-cultural entity. The most unfortunate part of this is that all of these problems could be solved, perhaps not easily, but almost certainly. If we fail to deal with global warming, unemployment , infrastructure, environmental degradation, education and health care how can we possibly survive for long in the modern world?

One final problem, perhaps the most serious of all, and inextricably related to all of them, is what seems to be the growing distrust of science. When 98% of the world’s scientists agree on the problem of global warming, and a few individuals in positions of power and influence can override them, you should know you are on the road to national suicide. Some of these individuals are known bible-thumpers and might actually believe in biblical nonsense, but others are in the pockets of greedy corporations who simply do not want regulations on their destructive behavior no matter what the long-term effects may be, short-term profits take precedence over the human condition.

I have no idea where Saint Ronnie came by his absurd belief that “Government is the Problem,” perhaps from Nancy’s Astrologer. In any case, insofar as this belief has informed our “Leaders,” and encouraged them to refuse to fund vital governmental programs such as education, health care, environmental protection, and so forth, it has done irreparable damage to our lives and threatens our very existence as a nation. It’s too bad science will not be allowed to clone dinosaurs so we could all ride them happily off to the West and ultimate oblivion.    

In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Stephen Jay Gould  

The Petty and the Pusillanimous

I don’t remember for sure but I believe it must have been LBJ who said, “If I could walk on water the headlines would read, ‘President can’t swim.’” This attitude would seem to be far more relevant for President Obama than any previous President. It seems there is nothing he can do, literally nothing, that Republicans will not criticize and oppose. I submit this is petty in the extreme. You might think Republicans would be interested in the serious problems that confront us: global warming, unemployment, infrastructure, health care, the deficit, whatever, but they are not, being consumed with opposing Obama’s choices for his cabinet (whoever they are) and vowing to oppose everything he wishes to accomplish. As none of his appointments are unqualified, and as Presidents usually are entitled to name their own cabinet members, this can only be seen as petty. John McCain has to be seen as the most petty opponent of all as his objections to Obama’s wishes are clearly driven by revenge for his defeat by Obama in previous election. Similarly, their criticism of Obama’s choice of four white male cabinet members because of the lack of diversity is, coming from those consistently “warring on women,” is simply laughable. There appears to be nothing Obama is for that Republicans will not be against, even things Republicans themselves previously approved. If this is not petty in the extreme I do not know what would be.

Their pettiness is overshadowed by their pusillanimous voting records. They are far too timid (or cowardly) to vote for anything that might upset the NRA, Israel, or the corporate interests that contribute to keeping them in office. They seem to be incapable of connecting their votes to the everyday lives of real, live human beings or what used to be considered the public good. Seemingly ideologically, rather than reality driven, they timidly vote as they are told, thoughtlessly and apparently without either shame or guilt. In fact it is not ideology that motivates them, as they claim, but rather, obvious bribes in the form of financial contributions, golfing trips, devious financial benefits, and so on. There is no longer any connection between public service and the public. The concept of public service has given way to the private enrichment that comes from serving your lord and master and remaining in office as long as possible.

You can take it as a given that wherever capitalism thrives the public and the environment will suffer. Marx may have been wrong about communism but he was right about capitalism.

Oh, yes, guns. It may be that assault rifles and high capacity magazines will become illegal. It may even be that a national register for guns materializes along with universal background checks. I am all for such restrictions on guns and gun ownership. I’m not sure I think it will make much difference as there are already far too many guns in the U.S. and they will quite likely go underground into a thriving black market. But any restrictions are better than no restrictions and perhaps over time (a long time I fear) if they are faithfully pursued it may ultimately make a difference. It is true, however, that we live in a culture of violence that will also have to change to make a real difference, a change that may prove to be far more difficult that improving our gun laws. If we obsessed as much with our culture of violence as we do with our obsessions with diet and erections perhaps something positive might be achieved. Don’t  bet the farm on it.

 Obsessions and fixations are not really my field. All I know, when the mind really grabs hold of something, look out.

Martin Sage and Sybil Adelman,

        

What the Hell's the Matter...

What in the hell is the matter with most everyone… when it comes to Iran? I absolutely do not understand the obsession we seem to have with Iran and the claim that Iran is somehow a mortal threat, not only to the U.S. but, indeed, to the world.  I believe this is not only ridiculous but also stupid almost beyond belief.

Today, while perusing the news on the internet, I saw some Congressman, maybe even a Senator (I cannot remember) claim, without even the mention of a disclaimer, that we have to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. He said this as if it were a known fact that everyone knew for certain that Iran was in the process of actually developing such a weapon. I am obviously not privy to secret intelligence information about what Iran is or is not doing when it comes to such matters, but  the little I do know from the information I do have is that there is no evidence Iran is in fact even trying to develop such a weapon. They deny it, our own intelligence people seem to agree, and it seems to me there is more reason to believe they are not than to believe they are, and yet this assumption (accusation) seems to persist no matter what.

Chris Matthews, who talks incessantly when he should be listening, said something  to the effect, “I’m ready to go to war with Iran” (presumably if it is necessary). What conceivable reason would we go to war with Iran if it were not for the assumption they are trying to develop a nuclear bomb, which as far as I know they are not? This Iranian obsession seems to have taken over the country even though there seems to be no solid evidence that Iran is doing anything other than what they are legally entitled to do when it comes to enriching uranium. Furthermore, they have repeatedly tried to discuss this problem with the U.S. only to be rudely rebuffed by the Bush/Cheney administration and now by the Obama administration. It seems they are not be to allowed to do anything unless they agree to our conditions even before talks begin.

Now they are subjected to crippling sanctions designed to make them do the bidding of the West. The sanctions work terrible hardships on the Iranian people, especially women and children, but do little to bring about the changes we seem to be constantly demanding. It is perfect y obvious such sanctions do not work very well, witness our sanctions on Cuba and formerly on Iraq (where, according to one previous Secretary of State, the death of 500,000 Iraqi children was “worth it”). At first I thought the sanctions were put in place to placate the Israelis and keep us from an all-out war, but I gather they have some other reason making them, too, “worth it.” I think they are disgusting, disgraceful, and ultimately will have made the situation much worse than it ever needed to be.

I hear this constant refrain that Iran is a terrorist state, supporting terrorists and meddling in Iraq and so on. Yet every time I see them accused of providing arms or something in Iraq, two or three days later there is a retraction that denies there is any such evidence. And while it is doubtless true that Iran helps Hezbollah and Hamas, those organizations are terrorist organizations only in the eyes of the West that supports the criminal state of Israel. It appears that Iran, a large and heavily populated country in the Middle East, is not supposed to have any national interests there (at  least those that conflict with the interests of the U.S. and others far outside the region).

Recently I saw a headline claiming that Iran is a danger to the U.S. because they have been developing ties with South American countries. Apparently they are not only to be forbidden to have any interests in the Middle East, they are also to be denied interests anywhere else in the world. Iran is a proud country with a very long history of civilization (long before we gave up dressing in the skins of animals). We insist on treating them as just another inferior nation that should of course do our bidding without question. This has not, and will not work. It is a short-sighted and stupid policy that has alienated Iran further and further from the U.S. They have tried to use diplomacy in their relations with us and we have rebuffed them repeatedly. It is obvious the issue is not really over Iran having a nuclear weapon (which they are probably not developing and that would be of no use to them whatsoever), but, rather, over who is to retain hegemony in the Middle East. I guess this absurd obsession with Iran keeps attention away from the real source of trouble in the area – Israel.

The hare-brained chatter of irresponsible frivolity.

Benjamin Disraeli