Clueless in Phoenix

Jan Brewer, Governor of Arizona finally vetoed the bill that would have allowed discrimination against Gays and Lesbians for religious beliefs. Did she do this because such a bill was blatantly discriminatory? No. Did she do so because such a bill would pretty obviously Unconstitutional? No. Did she veto it because, as Jon Stewart insisted, it was morally repugnant? No. Did she do it because it was a really stupid idea? No. Perhaps she insightfully realized it was mixing religion with politics? No. Maybe because she realized it was inherently unworkable? I don’t think so. Did she do it because she bowed to pressure from her two State Senators and others? Well, yes and no.

In the best tradition of American capitalism she did it simply because it was bad for business. Business leaders pointed out to her that would stigmatize the State and thus might affect tourism and business in general, might result in people boycotting the state, and, perhaps more important of all, it might make them risk losing the Super Bowl (I think I recall they previously lost a Super Bowl because they opposed a Martin Luther King holiday).

In any case, after milking it for a certain amount of media time, she vetoed it.  I’m not certain that anyone involved in this failed endeavor considered the basic fact that such legislation violates a basic principle of modern, large-scale, industrial, capitalistic, urban life. In small communities of the past, and to a certain extent in remaining rural small communities, social transactions, including business ones, take place on a personal, face-to-face basis. Most everyone knows everyone else, your word is your bond, and any potential personal problems are easily avoided.

In large-scale societies, where most everyone lives these days, personal factors are rarely involved in any business transactions. The overwhelming majority of our transactions are fundamentally based on legal contracts. While you don’t necessarily have to actually sign a contract to purchase something (although often you do), all transactions are basically legal agreements. That is, a merchant agrees to sell you something at a fixed or an ageed-upon price, and you agree to buy it at that price. You are both obligated to that contract. Both the buyer’s and seller’s personal beliefs have nothing whatsoever to do with it (other than their respective beliefs about the quality or usefulness of the object being purchased).

Obviously if personal beliefs, like religious ones, or others such as gun rights, are introduced into such a system, potential chaos would occur. You could never be certain that you could purchase something if the potential seller imposed his or her personal religious or other beliefs onto the transaction. Christians could discriminate against Muslims, or even women wearing headscarves, Muslims could discriminate against Christians, especially if they smoked or drank, and so on.

It is true that you often see signs like “No shoes, no shirt, no service,” or “We reserve the right to refuse service,” but such reservations have mostly to do with cleanliness and health or rowdy behaviors, irrespective of the individual’s religious or other beliefs, and they minimize misunderstandings and potential problems.

In short, our system for the vast majority of our transactions allows no place for personal beliefs, religious or otherwise. Trying to introduce personal beliefs into such a system would be totally unworkable. In this Phoenix case you would often have to guess if individuals were Gay or Lesbian, you would have to be suspicious of any same sex pair, and so on. And, of course, if it became legal to discriminate against Gays and Lesbians, why not Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Indians, Muslims, Buddhists, Catholics, Jews, atheists, short people, tall people, redheads, midgets, anyone who did not share your own personal beliefs, and how would you ever know. As there are hundreds of different religions, with all kinds of strange and bizarre beliefs, the very idea of discriminating on religious grounds is absurd. I don’t think we need random discrimination to potentially enter our lives because some Christians do not approve of others on the basis of their presumed sex lives. And what’s with this obsession over Gay sex anyway? We don’t ordinarily worry or wonder much about heterosexual sexual behavior, even though it involves in some (unknown and uncounted) cases similar sexual practices, and who knows what kinds of other “kinky” sex. Do most people ask their friends and relatives what kind of sex they engage in? Do most people even care? We should stop wasting time with clueless, harebrained, and ridiculous ideas that will never float and will surely fail.

If you believe in equality, if you believe in standing up for the rights of all, especially for people most affected by bigotry and discrimination, then you have no choice but to be present and accounted for when it comes to standing up for gays and lesbians in our society.

Michael Moore

Who are "They?"

“East is east and West is West…” and whether the “Twain” shall ever meet seems unlikely given the apparent determination of the U.S. and the E. U. to divide the Ukraine from Russia, meddling, as usual, in far-flung places probably not their business.

John McCain, perhaps the most malicious and reliable meddler of all, has recently announced that “They” want to be part of the West. By “they” he obviously has in mind Ukranians in general, rather than merely those Ukrainians living in the western part of the country. This I would think is true because he is obviously opposed to partitioning the country and, in his usual simplistic black and white approach to all political issues, is unable to deal with anything more complex than “shoot first, ask questions later.” If he has in mind only those Ukrainians living in the western part of that nation his claim they want to be part of the West may be true. But if he is really speaking for all Ukrainians it is not at all true. Ukrainians living in the East, who mostly speak Russian, and have long ties to Russia, do not want to be part of the West, preferring to stay more closely tied to Russia. In McCain’s view, or lack of view, these people are simply not important, not part of the problem, not even relevant.  McCain, and others like him, cold war warriors extraordinaire, will do anything to oppose Russia, no matter how unrealistic or irresponsible. There is a long history of Russian/Ukrainian ties, many, perhaps even most Ukrainians speak Russian, Ukraine is clearly within Russia’s sphere of influence, their neighbor, unlike the U.S. thousands of miles away. Of course Putin wants to continue his influence there, and treating him as if he has no business “meddling” there is simply absurd. The U.S. approach to foreign policy, which consists of meddling all over the world, demands that everyone do what it is we want them to do, and if they do not, sanctions, or worse. There is good reason people everywhere believe the U.S. is the greatest danger to peace. How many Russian drones are flying over other countries killing civilians? Other countries are not supposed to have national interests that are not in sync with ours. Susan Rice has also made this simplistic claim, that “They” want to be part of the West.

This use of the generic “They” has become commonplace in American politics. Politicians on both sides of the aisle (a completely artificial arrangement as there are so few differences between them) commonly speak of what it is the “American people” (they) want or believe. Of course there are no generic “American people,” so the American people they are referring to are simply those they think or pretend are those who they fantasize think the same way they do even, though as often than not they probably don’t. The English language as used in politics, is a far cry from the English language we think ordinarily think of, as George Orwell pointed out some time ago in his famous essay, “Politics and the English Language.”

Someone has said that “You campaign in poetry but have to govern in prose.” There is, I think, a grain of truth in that, but nowadays I think it is more true that you campaign in gobblegook and then govern with simplification, obfuscation, fabrication, and falsification. Hey, it’s the American way.

The American approach to the world is simple: we are good, they are bad, except for the Israelis who are, of course, as we are, always good.

 Right and wrong are determined by the people who hold positions of authority, that's the way it has always been so how then can anyone know this truth you speak of? Don't you see that truth long ago became a shadow of itself, it's a mere echo of the past now... The world is one big moral gray area, it just makes you feel safer that it can be categorized into good and bad that's not actually how it works.” 

 Atsushi Ōkub

Common Sense and Decency

What passes for common sense in one era changes in another, and common sense is often not sensible. When I was a teen it apparently was regarded as common sense that a baby’s bottle had to be warmed before feeding him or her. That is no longer the case. Similarly, it was common sense that girls/women could not go swimming when they were menstruating. And some of us even believed it was common sense that eating watermelon seeds would bring on appendicitis. I’m sure we had all kinds of other common sense notions that we no longer hold. It is not difficult to understand why common sense changes over time.

It is not so easy for me to understand why common human decency has also changed over time, or at least so it seems. Perhaps a good first example of this is the recent report that teachers (or someone) took school lunches out of the hands of some children, put them in the garbage, because their parents had not paid some kind of fee on time, or perhaps at all, thus shaming and humiliating the children in front of their peers. I might be wrong about this but I do not believe this would have ever happened to a child when I was in school. No teacher or person I can imagine in our town would have done such a thing to a child, had the same situation prevailed, which happily it did not. I’m pretty certain such a thing would have been unthinkable. There are undoubtedly reasons for this which I will not bother to mention, but the bottom line is that basic human decency would have prevailed. Not so today, apparently.

But the current lack of common decency goes much further than this one simple example. Throughout most of my life there has always been respect for the Office of the President, if not necessarily for the individual occupying it. Of course there were occasional times when someone might have disrespected the President and perhaps violated the proper respect for the office, but such occasions were rare. This seems to be no longer the case, especially since President Obama has held the Office . You might well say that indecency towards Obama and the Presidency has virtually reached fever proportions at the moment what with the vitriol and unconcealed hatred directed at him on a now daily basis, primarily by Republicans. When someone like Ted Nugent calls Obama a “subhuman mongrel” and still has influence with major Republican politicians that even ask him to campaign with them, you realize just how far indecency has crept into our lives. Similarly, when a woman during a Republican meeting says Obama should be hanged and no one objects there is no longer even a pretense of decency. There are many more instances of this kind so there is no doubt indecency is now common in our politics. In the particular case of Obama there is obviously a racial bias at play, a bias that was at first covered up initially at least with code words, but more recently it is not even hidden any longer.

I do not believe this trend towards indecency began with Obama. I think it began at first with President Clinton. When Republicans could not defeat him with ballots, under the tutelage of Rove and others, what was once a legitimate political party began to morph into little more than a criminal enterprise, willing to use anything and everything to bring him down. Outright lying became commonplace (did Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others ever tell the truth about anything), the technique of “roviation” was created, human decency disappeared, and what I termed the “Brafia” was born.

At this moment human decency has disappeared from Republican ranks almost entirely. This can be seen clearly in their attitude towards their fellow citizens. They are entirely unmoved by the plight of the poor and the unemployed. They are opposed to unemployment insurance, minimum wages, Medicare, Medicaid, universal health care, unions, legal abortions, fair pay for all, taxes on the obscenely wealthy, public education, infrastructure improvements, and apparently anything that might make life better for ordinary citizens. Find, if you will, or can, any shred of human decency here, any empathy, any understanding, any desire to help others, even any interest in so-called “Christian charity.” What was once a legitimate political party has now become a hateful, racist, indecent, uncooperative, semi-criminal organization, primarily devoted to the destruction of the Obama Presidency and taking from the poor to give to the rich. Having alienated women, Blacks, Hispanics, Gays and Lesbians, Muslims, and other minorities, virtually everyone except White Trash like Ted Nugent, they think they may have a chance to take over control of the Senate. They might. Welcome to the reality of a culture without either common sense or common decency.

I surround myself with positive, productive people of good will and decency.

Ted Nugent

No-Brainers

One reason I find it so difficult to blog anymore is that many things that seem to me to be complete “no-brainers” are apparently accepted by the MSM and others as perfectly respectable subjects for discussion. I applaud John Kerry’s recent statement that climate change is no longer a subject for debate. Of course this won’t matter to those who know nothing but continue to debate it anyway. As far as I am concerned those who deny climate change and its implications are basically trying to kill us all. Climate change denial is a true no-brainer.

Stand-your-ground laws are another perfect example of a no-brainer. If young black males are commonly regarded as intrinsically “threatening,” and if your perceived fear of that threat is all you need to “stand-your-ground” and shoot them, why should we not just shoot them on sight? Oh, I guess that is pretty much what is happening. When four black teen-agers, sitting in their car listening to loud music, can be shot, one to death, and the others shot at, apparently to try to kill them also, it  seems to me the laws have become themselves no-brainers. In this recent case it appears that murdering someone is irrelevant, whereas failing to kill the others is being punished. To me this case is a true no-brainer. I guess I need to change my attitude about loud music, get a gun, keep it loaded in my glove compartment, so that when I next hear loud country/western music, which I absolutely detest, I can shoot at will, claiming that I was being threatened by a bunch of cowboys (but only if they were Black cowboys). Stand your ground laws are absurd. People have always had the right to defend themselves. The stand your ground laws as they currently exist are little more than a license to kill young Black males on sight.

To me much of everything we do seems to be a no-brainer. Our seemingly endless, obviously failing “War on Drugs,” is most certainly a no-brainer. Our approach to Iran is a complete no-brainer, our uncritical support of Israeli war crimes is a no-brainer, our meddling in the Ukraine is a no-brainer, ditto Syria, and the many other countries we somehow think we should be able to control. Our attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan were no-brainers to being with, and trying to maintain the American “Empire” will be an ultimate no-brainer, just as Osama bin Laden planned.

Of course domestically we see the no-brainership approach to our lives and culture in a truly  pure form. Our children, whom we will depend on for our future, are being saddled with debts they cannot pay, and jobs they cannot find, so they are being economically (and probably psychologically) crippled for life. Where we should be happy to educate them for free, the banks and others have turned them into cash cows. This development is probably the most egregious no-brainer of all. Our infrastructure is obsolete, trillions of dollars behind in maintenance, and virtually antique compared to Asian and European developments, at least with respect to transportation, our schools are crumbling, our Health Care is a disgrace even with Obamacare, when compared to other advanced nations.

When it comes to politics we have completely failed what our Founding Fathers envisioned, indeed what any sentient being might envision. Our acclaimed two party system has degenerated into basically a one party system, and even that is dysfunctional as half of the one party system refuses to participate in governing, preferring instead to simply oppose whatever the other half proposes. With no plans of their own they simply refuse to cooperate thus making it virtually impossible to deal with the real problems that confront us. As long as the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer, the status quo continues. But wait! We may be about to raise the starvation minimum wage to the almost starvation level, perhaps even a “bipartisan” effort that will do virtually nothing to change the obscene inequalities that currently exist. But let’s not think about that, thinking in our culture has apparently become itself a no-brainer.

 Fascism is capitalism in decay.

Vladimir Lenin

Me and Kati (13)

Kati, you are the only one I can talk with. I am concerned that I am completely losing interest in most everything. I don’t know if this is simply a result of age or if it has something to do with what is actually happening (or not happening, as the case may be). When you live in a small town there are no psychiatrists, at best maybe a social worker or two, but in any case you know them personally and anonymity is not guaranteed. Similarly, when you live in a small town in which 90% or more are essentially right-wing zealots you really can’t discuss politics, unless, of course, you begin with the assumption that President Obama is a foreigner who does not belong in office, is a socialist, communist, homosexual, fascist, dictator, liar, anti-Christ, and all-around terrible guy who is having an affair with Beyonce.

Not only that, you are virtually at the mercy of the Main Stream Media, a conglomeration dedicated to making sure you will never, ever, get any real news other than what happens to be their most recent obsession. In this case it happens to be Governor Chris Christy of New Jersey. I confess I really don’t want to hear any more about the problems of New Jersey Fats, at least until he goes on trial, goes to jail, or in the most unlikely outcome happens to be exonerated. Personally, I have no doubt that whether he is linked to the bridge closure or not he has almost certainly used state and federal funds inappropriately, probably illegally, is a first-class bully, and represents the worst example of a state Governor. But I do not want a daily account of how many subpoenas have been served, what they are looking for, what their names are, and what this may or not mean for the ongoing investigation. Just let me know when and if this giant bag of protoplasm is found either non-guilty or guilty. While I admire and respect Rachel Maddow I think she has gone totally overboard on this particular subject. I refuse to believe there are not other news stories, both domestically and foreign that are not more important than the details of the fat man’s scandal. Don’t be surprised, however, if he ends up being the Republican candidate for President as the other possibilities are so appallingly awful there may be no other choice. You can’t set the bar much lower than George W. Bush, the worst President ever except, perhaps, for Saint Ronnie the Moron.

I guess if it weren’t for the problems of New Jersey Fats we might have to actually hear about the predictably failing Israel/Palestinian talks, maybe our meddling in the Ukraine (none of our business), meddling in Syria (none of our business), meddling in Afghanistan (none of our business) meddling in Iran (none of our business), meddling with China (none of our business), meddling in fact all over the world (none of our business). But such are the problems of empire (whether you can afford them or not).

And what’s with our badmouthing the Sochi Olympics? It’s as if we really want them to fail. “Sochi was a terrible choice,” “there won’t be any snow,” there are bound to be terrorist attacks, Gays will be discriminated against, the hotel rooms are terrible, you can’t drink the water, the games were far too expensive, and so on. While I cannot claim to “be in the know,” it seems to me the games are going fine. I suppose there are problems but athletes are still competing, winning medals, engaging in precisely the competitions they are supposed to be competing in, and the show goes on. Of course we can’t resist making fun of President Putin, bare-chested and all, spending foolishly on the Olympics, applauding the winners, Russian or not, and in general apparently making a success of the games. Why should we not appreciate the success of the games rather than wishing for their failure? Because, I guess, we are Americans, exceptional, and the Russians are Russians. Kati, does any of this make any sense to you? It doesn’t to me. Communism failed some time ago, Capitalism is failing now, it’s only a matter of time. Maybe we should try harder to get along?

 “He was born with a gift of laughter and a sense that the world was mad.”

Rafael Sabatini

     

Where ARE the jobs, Boehner?

John Boehner is so well known for closing his remarks with “Where are the jobs?” I’m beginning to think that might actually be his middle name. It is an interesting gambit because it reveals a genuine con man engaged in one of the biggest cons ever. Boehner is not stupid, at least I don’t think he is. He must know that the question “where are the jobs” should be directed at him rather than at President Obama. This would seem to be a classic case of the Rovian strategy of accusing someone of doing precisely what it is you yourself are doing. Boehner has to know, of course, that under his leadership the House has produced no legislation whatsoever that would have led to the creation of jobs. And he also has to know that he and his cronies in the House have deliberately refused to cooperate with any attempt President Obama and the Democrats have proposed to create jobs. If Republicans get away with blaming Obama for the failure to create jobs they will have pulled off probably the greatest con job of all time. This is not to say Obama is completely without fault, he could have pressed much harder than he has. But to blame him for the failure of job creation is the height of Republican hypocrisy.

As Republicans have apparently surrendered to the Tea Party wing it is becoming increasingly impossible to take them seriously. I mean, really, they expect us to assassinate, hang, impeach, or deport President Obama, and no one in their party stands up to tell them they are completely and totally batshit crazy?  (I have no idea where this strange phrase originated but it seems to carry meaning of some kind). It is understandable that some may not agree with what Obama has done, or wishes to do, but he has done nothing that would lead anyone to believe he should be impeached (assassinated or hung). It has become quite clear, at least to me, that the Obama haters are motivated by almost exclusively by racism. There is no other explanation for the venom and hatred directed at him. I would even venture to say that those who hate him the most are those who know the least about what it is they are talking about.

Obamacare is a good case in point. This is so far from socialized medicine it is simply absurd to claim otherwise. In fact, Obamacare would be much better characterized as "Insurancecare" as it basically gives the insurance industry some potentially 30 or 40 million more customers and does very little to control the outrageous costs they claim for doing actually nothing for health care except shuffle a lot of papers around and collect a percentage. There is no logical reason for insurance companies to have anything whatsoever to do with health care.

I receive now, every day in my email, requests for money, donations to the campaigns of many different so-and-sos, the Democratic Party itself, and so on. These are now usually couched in terms that imply that if I do not donate to them the Koch brothers and their billionaire friends will win. This seems to imply that whoever spends the most money will win, and perhaps that is true, although I do not like to think so. In any case, it seems to me a more or less lost cause to try to outspend them. I doubt small donations will accomplish that. The only way to defeat them will be at the ballot box, not competing monetarily. They are literally attempting to buy the Senate and House with their obscene wealth, and they might succeed if voters do not go to the polls and defeat them. Money is an issue, of course, but cannot be the most important issue in spite of the corrupt Supreme Court’s attempt to make it so.

I confess I do not understand what is going on. Congress now has a popularity rating somewhere immediately below a snake’s belly or cancer, and for the most part Republicans lead the list of incompetent, dishonest, obstructionistic, do-nothings, but at the same time seem to believe they have a chance to capture the Senate and also keep control of the House. Where does this optimism come from? Having alienated Blacks, Hispanics, other minorities, immigrants, women, Gays and Lesbians, and virtually everyone except relatively uneducated White men, how can they possibly believe they can win anything? But don’t write them off, this is the United States after all, an electorate that obviously has no idea what they are doing or saying. But when your opponent is a Socialist, Communist, Fascist, Foreign born, dictatorial, impeachable, lynchable, anti-Christ from outer space, anything goes. It’s America the Beautiful, but only in English.

    “The governor of Texas, who, when asked if the Bible should also be taught in Spanish, replied that 'if English was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me.” 

 Christopher Hitchens  

In the Dark

I confess I am in the dark about what is going on in the Middle East. Of course you could argue that being a nobody, and living in an area as close to nowhere as possible, and having virtually no news except the no news we get from the Main Media through television and radio. I would inevitably be in the dark about most everything, except, of course, the trials and tribulations of New Jersey Fats.  I have no idea what is going on anywhere else, especially in the Middle East,  so I just guess about it.

I am inclined to believe that John Kerry is perhaps the worst, most inept Secretary of State we have ever had. Apparently the Israelis hate him, as do the Palestinians, and they all seem to agree that his suggestions for an agreement between them are ridiculous, and perhaps they are. Similarly, at the same time he is trying to deal with a solution to the Iranian problem he continues to threaten them with war if they fail to live up to his (our) expectations, not a position that could possibly please them or help. So, on the one hand he seems to want a solution to these rather intractable problems, and on the other he keeps alienating the various players on this complicated chessboard.

But what if, and a big if it is, he is actually not the “bull in the china shop” he appears to be. What if he and President Obama actually have a plan to bring about actual solutions to these long-festering problems? What if they are actually maneuvering to force a solution to these problems? It is pretty obvious that Israel is never going to agree to a Palestinian state unless they are forced to do so. It is equally obvious that Iran is not going to accept a solution imposed by the United States with respect to their behavior, nuclear or otherwise.

How, then, could it be possible to bring about solutions to these problems? On the one hand you must convince Israel that you are not going to risk their security, or their racist plans to claim the West Bank, and on the other hand you must convince them you will not allow Iran to challenge Western hegemony in the Middle East. This is no small task. It requires the most sensitive diplomacy coupled with the threat of absolutely dire consequences should it fail. You must convince Israel that it is in their long term interest to give up their dreams of expansion and genocide (and some captured territory), as well as give in to a viable Palestinian state, and you must also convince the Arabs and Israel that Iran, having made peace with the U.S., will not unilaterally or importantly upset the balance of power in the Middle East.

Could it be this is precisely what Obama and Kerry are trying to diplomatically accomplish, however surreptitiously? It would, of course, dramatically change the situation in the Middle East. American and European hegemony would suffer if not disappear. But as that is happening already, and there is nothing much we can do about it, would it not be better to be a partner in the new Middle East than a has been in the old?

Obviously Obama and Kerry could not admit this was what they are trying to accomplish. The mindless Congressional support for Israeli racism and (war) crimes would never agree to such a solution, and the even more mindless demand for war against Iran by the military/industrial/political complex (there is big money in war) would likewise  violently resist such a sensible solution. I don’t know if this is what Obama and Kerry have in mind. I hope it is. If they could succeed in solving the Israeli/Palestinian problem, along with the Iranian situation, it would be one of the greatest diplomatic triumphs of all time. Are Obama’s and Kerry’s threats of military action against Iran, and threats of boycotts against Israel, just idle threats for show, or for real? I know nothing. I am completely in the dark. I’m pretty confident, however, that ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu and his supporters are liars and warmongers.

 He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

Albert Einstein 

Me and Kati (12(

Kati, my darling cat with the beautiful face, we need to have another conversation. Kati, I fear you are developing an eating disorder. You seem to be constantly hungry. Every time I enter the kitchen you seem to believe you should be fed. You are obviously getting fatter. That grieves me no end as I like you as you were before, sleek and elegant, almost blue in the sunshine, energetic and gorgeous. I try not to give in to your piteous whining. I know you cannot possibly be that hungry, but you always win.

But our personal problems aside, there are apparently those who are worse off than we are, billionaires and multi-millionaires who feel they are being unfairly attacked because they are rich. One of them, a particularly obnoxious billionaire, even went so far as to claim he fears a Kristallnacht targeting them. You don’t remember Kristallnacht, of course, as that was at least half a century before you were born, maybe more. It was a terrible night when the Nazis attacked Jewish stores and property, breaking windows, thieving, brutalizing, and so on. He thinks the progressives are in the process of doing the same thing to the rich. He later apologized for using the term Kristallnacht but it’s obvious he fears something like that may happen to the rich. Personally, I think his fear may be a result of his guilt although you would never know it because of his arrogance and disregard for reality.

It is pretty obvious there is unlikely ever to be a real Kristallnacht here. But it is not unlikely, I think, there may eventually be a dramatic change in the tax code when the filthy rich are finally made to pay their taxes. Not just their “fair share” but real substantial taxes, perhaps even up to the ninety percent they paid under the Eisenhower administration. The fact is that even if they paid that much in taxes their life styles would probably not change much. I mean, after all, they would still have their millions and billions, private airplanes, yachts, gold faucets, Rolexes, and they would still be able to feast on unborn lamb and thousand dollar truffles. They might have to reduce the number of their mansions but it is unlikely they would truly suffer like the single moms that can’t feed their children, or the children themselves who are ashamed to go to school because of their rags. So pity the rich, they have it pretty hard these days.

Not that anything like that might happen to them. You might notice that neither Obama or anyone else is seriously suggesting they might actually have to pay more taxes. The idea is not to increase taxes on the wealthy but, rather, to throw a few more sardines to the poor, to increase the pathetic minimum wage from $7.25 to the outrageous $10.10 per hour. Wow, that’s really going to solve the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor. It is absurd, on the face of it, that any individual person in any society, should have a fortune of a billion or more dollars while the majority lack even enough food to eat. I don’t believe everyone should have the same amount of money but the current imbalance is so great, so unnecessary, so unrealistic, so damaging it simply should not be permitted. I don’t know how much is too much but there should be some kind of formula that allows us to keep things on a much more even keel, so to speak.

The argument that those with money are the job creators is utter nonsense. The idea of trickle- down economics will work is even more nonsensical. I don’t know where this strange economic theory originated but it was certainly put into play by Saint Ronnie the Moron and we are suffering from it still. In spite of President Obama’s speeches and promises it doesn’t appear to me any substantial changes are on the way, the Banks and Wall Street are still in charge, the Insurance companies and pharmaceuticals continue to rip us off as if there is no tomorrow, the military/industrial/political complex still claims most of the national budget, the poor continue to be poor although perhaps with a bit more oatmeal. Capitalism, the greatest boon since the Black Plague continues. But not to worry, Superbowl Sunday is imminent.  

Capitalism has destroyed our belief in any effective power but that of self interest backed by force.

George Bernard Shaw

Defending the "Big Dog"

I never thought I would be defending Bill Clinton, the ex-President, “Big Dog,” Come Back Kid,” or however you want him called. But as predatory (and opportunistic) politician Rand Paul just labeled him a (sexual) predator I thought I must defend him, at least in the Monica Lewinsky case.

Paul would have us believe, as lots of people apparently do, that a sophisticated, powerful, and predatory President took advantage of an innocent young lady intern in the White House. It is true that he took advantage of an opportunity that was presented to him and that was deplorable. But an innocent young intern, hardly. I have neither the time nor inclination to go back and review the millions of words that were written about this, but as I recall, Monica Lewinsky could hardly be described as an innocent in this affair. First of all she was an adult (20) at the time so it was a consenting affair between two adults. She was clearly not innocent of sex, including oral sex, as she apparently told her friend (or friends) she was “taking her knee pads with her,” when going to Washington, a remark the meaning of which would have been quite obvious to them. There is also no doubt that she flirtatiously, provocatively, and deliberately invited the President’s interest, at least exposing her thong panties (and who knows what else).  

If Rand Paul believes that 20 year-old young women from Southern California are innocents in the matter of sex he must be very poorly informed. It was reported, for example, that High School students were engaging in oral sex. In some cases, at least, a girl could perform oral sex on several boys or men and still claim (reasonably?) to be a virgin! I guess we might thank Hugh Hefner from converting what used to be called by a very derogatory term into the more respectable “oral sex.” No less an authority than Newt Gingrich himself is reported to have said he preferred oral sex because it was not really “cheating,” and Arnold, the Gropenfuhrer, is rumored to have said something very similar. In any case one would have to be naïve indeed to believe that Clinton was the only politician in Washington to have had sex in his office or with an intern. But in the Clinton/Lewinsky case describing Clinton as a predator would seem to be far from the truth, no matter what he might have been in other cases.

Lewinsky reportedly was disappointed that Clinton did not have “real sex” (intercourse) with her. This raises an interesting question. When Clinton said “it depends what the meaning of “is, is,” he might well have said it depends upon what the meaning of “sex” is. That is, if one interprets sex to be an act of intercourse between a male and a female, Clinton told the truth when he said “I did not have sex with that woman.” On the other hand if sex includes oral, anal, and even more esoteric practices then he did have sex with Monica (or she with him).

Can it be the case that when an older man, especially one in a position of power and authority, has sex with a woman, especially a younger women, he is invariably a “predator?” Was John Kennedy, for example, a known and dedicated womanizer, a predator? Remember it was only when the Clinton/Lewinsky matter became known through the unprecedented actions of the Republicans that the private lives of politicians became a subject of such scrutiny, a situation that should have probably been left as it was (the Starr report was an absolute obscenity).  As Somerset Maugham once opined, “My own belief is that there is hardly anyone whose sexual life, if it were broadcast, would not fill the world at large with surprise and horror.”

Maugham was, of course, a homosexual, but while on this awkward and unpleasant topic let me pose a further question: if the concern is with oral, anal, and other esoteric sexual practices, rather than the more traditional heterosexual form, does it matter if the partners are of the same sex or not? Similarly, if the motive for apparently sexual behavior is not really sexual gratification, is it really sex? For example, there are seemingly homosexual behaviors in parts of New Guinea because it is believed that in order to properly mature and become an adult it is necessary to ingest semen. The young men and boys who are required to participate in these activities do not become homosexuals (except perhaps in very rare instances).

In any case, whatever President Clinton’s behavior might have been in general, describing him as a predator in the Lewinsky case is far from reality. Furthermore, although it seems to be rarely mentioned, females can be, and often are, just as predatory as males, and they possess powers that transcend those of mere males.

“It’s Only Kinky the First Time”

Bumper sticker  

How the Mighty are Falling

What do I know? Nothing much, I fear. But as it has become clear that many of our elected officials apparently know perhaps even less I have decided to continue blogging, at least for the present.

Let me begin with some comments on our foreign policy (if, indeed, we can be said to have any coherent foreign policy). Let’s begin with Syria. There is an international meeting to discuss the future of Syria. Iran, the primary ally of Syria, was not invited to this meeting. Well, actually, they were invited by the head of the UN, but the U.S. (all powerful and god like) intervened and had them disinvited. Does this make any sense at all? Of course not, the future of Syria is not going to be decided unilaterally by the U.S., in spite of Secretary of State Kerry’s declaration that it must be so. Kerry, announced before the meeting began that President Assad had to go and could have no role in a future government of Syria. In order for Iran to participate in this meeting (in which they have a vital national interest) they would have to agree with this outcome in advance. In other words, agree to our already decided upon outcome or you cannot participate, no matter what you like or what your national interest might be. Is this not stupid, imperialistic, unreasonable, arrogant, and unacceptable to not only Iran but the rest of the participants? Of course it is. And the U.S., in effect, is being told, rightly so, to go “piss up a rope.” Our attempt to continue our hegemony in the Middle East is failing, just as it has already failed in Latin America. The American empire is beginning to implode. Our vaunted military superiority has repeatedly failed, in Korea, Viet Nam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere as we cannot defeat even peasants armed with small caliber rifles. Our estimated 5000 nuclear warheads are as useless as the proverbial “tits on a boar.” Is it any wonder that Iran doesn’t even want such useless and expensive weapons? I hesitate to say it, but the Iranians are much smarter than we are.    

Speaking of Iran, we seem to be doing everything in our power to avoid a diplomatic solution  to their non-problem of nuclear bombs. Even while the negotiations are going on we have Kerry still threatening military action against them should the negotiations fail, and, more importantly, many Congresspersons insisting on devising more sanctions against them should they fail to live up to their agreements, thus risking the failure of the attempt before it can proceed.  This assumes, of course, that Iranians are untrustworthy, cannot be believed, do not want a diplomatic solution, and are not acting in good faith, all false assumptions based upon apparent racist beliefs about Arabs even though Iranians are not Arabs, and Arabs are themselves, of course, not without honor and decency in spite of American stereotypes.

There is another strange situation having to do with our attempt to negotiate a peaceful solution to the Iran question. President Obama, the elected leader of our nation, along with much of the military and others, wants to attempt a diplomatic solution to the question of Iranian nuclear activity. But many member of Congress insist upon trying to impose more sanctions on Iran, sanctions that might well kill the diplomacy prematurely and, in fact, lead to war. The primary opponent of a diplomatic solution is, of course, Israel, who not only opposes the attempt but has lobbied for war against Iran for years. It is not beyond imagination to see a situation where Congress could impose crippling sanctions against Iran, thus ending the diplomacy, and eventually leading to unimaginable hostilities in the Middle East. But if U.S. policy, represented by the President desires diplomacy, and the Congress, representing Israel, does not, where does Congressional loyalty lie, with Israel or the U.S.? And if their loyalties favor Israel over the U.S. is that not potentially treasonous? This begs the question for the moment of why so many Congresspersons in the U.S. continue to uncritically support a nation known to be internationally criminal, racist, genocidal, apartheid, and imperialistic. What is even more unbelievable is that some want to pass legislation requiring the U.S. to support Israel should that country unilaterally attack Iran, essentially putting U.S. foreign policy in the hands of another country! If this is not insanity I do not know what you might call it.

Paradoxically, as the U.S. Empire slowly collapses around the world, as it surely will, the U.S. itself will grow increasingly better. When all that money comes home, the phony “defense budget” shrinks, and we begin to actually rebuild our infrastructure, tackle global warming, education, unemployment, poverty, and yes, even health care, there could be an amazing, even unprecedented  American renaissance.  This certainly will not happen if Israel is allowed to dictate our policy in the Middle East and the mindless Congressional hawks get their way.

  “There is some good in this world, and it's worth fighting for.” 
J.R.R. Tolkien

  

Jim Dandy to the Rescue

Where is Jim Dandy when we need him? New Jersey Fats is desperately in need. The Palestinians are desperately in need. John Boehner is desperately in need. In fact, and much more importantly, the human species is desperately in need, but our hero, Jim Dandy, is nowhere to be found. Unfortunately, if he ever shows up, he will be, I fear, too late.

Jim Dandy is certainly too late to rescue me from my penultimate funk. I have been unable to blog for quite some time as there seems to me no point to it. Nothing much happens, the world drags on day to day to the fast approaching “last syllable of recorded time,” as soon there will be no one to record the final and well deserved passing of the human species. If we have not drowned in our own filth, or expired from nuclear radiation, or succumbed to global warming, or starved to death for the benefit or entertainment of the one percent, perhaps something really bad may happen.  

The human species, presumably on top of the food chain, the great chain of being, the apex of civilization, the heights of evolution, the darling of God’s eye, is an absolute dismal failure, unable or unwilling to manage their affairs, incapable of even the most basic of social tasks, oblivious to their own stupidity, morally bankrupt, and on an accelerating path to oblivion. Try as I might I cannot see it differently. I am on the very brink of hopelessness.

I have been aware, of course, that things were not going well for humans, that greed has become the most basic human value, that profit has become more important than human life, that inequality no matter how outrageous was now regarded as acceptable, that untold millions were doomed to poverty while the one percent were deserving while others were not, why poverty was the fault of the poor, why capital was more important than labor, and why, by some bizarre quirk of thought, not working has become more desirable than working at all levels of society. That is, the rich do not work as they do not have to, while the poor prefer not to work because of the untold riches they receive from the government.  

I had become accustomed to this state of affairs however obscene and disgusting it is. I knew that the five or six Walmart heirs together possessed more money than forty or fifty percent of all other Americans, that there were, in fact, not only billionaires but multi-billionaires, and that inequality was just a fact of life. When I was younger we marveled at millionaires, the word billionaire was never even mentioned (an ice cream cone was a nickel, a movie or hamburger was a dime, a hundred dollars a month was a living wage).

When I learned today that 85 people together possess more wealth than three billion plus others on planet earth (I have no reason to believe this is not true) I realized it is all over for us (humans, that is). To me this is demonstrable proof that the human species is bereft of intelligence, oblivious to immorality, unconcerned with human life, and even unconcerned with the tiny planet that sustains them. Having now abused and raped the earth there is talk of colonizing Mars. Good luck with that, mindless, parasitical, bloodsuckers.

   Humanity I love you because when you're hard up you pawn your intelligence to buy a drink.

e. e. cummings 

Money vs Morality

It appears that more and more Senators are joining the bandwagon for more sanctions on Iran even though the White House is opposed and President Obama has threatened to veto any such legislation. It is not all Republicans calling for more sanctions, both Chuck Schumer and Cory Booker, and some other Democrats as well are in favor of sanctions, even though the President has said more sanctions at this time would be both inopportune and possibly deadly to the diplomacy.

One would certainly have to wonder at the motives involved in this attempt to sabotage the negotiations (if not, indeed, the sanity of the proponents). Why would anyone in Congress apparently favor potentially starting another illegal, unconstitutional, and unnecessary war in the Middle East when there is a very good chance for a diplomatic solution? It is, of course, Israel that is the most adamant about sabotaging the negotiations, having repeatedly failed to force the United States to attack Iran for them. They claim they are afraid of Iran’s nuclear program, afraid Iran will produce a bomb, afraid Iran will attack them with it, and so on. But that is just an excuse as Israel, the U.S., and the entire world knows that could never happen because of the already existing possibly 400 such bombs in Israeli hands and the thousands more in the U.S. The real problem is who is to have hegemony in the Middle East.

In any case, consider what is involved here. Israel has committed numerous war crimes against the Palestinians and continues to do so. The International Community has repeatedly criticized Israel for illegal settlements, stealing Palestinian land and water, herding a million or more into the tiny Gaza strip, withholding supplies, even regulating what can have to eat, assassinating Palestinian leaders, killing Palestinian children, destroying Palestinian orchards, bulldozing their homes, and reportedly torturing Palestinian captives. These things are known, they are not myths and lies. The U.S. has shamefully gone along with what is little more than the slow genocide or, at least, attempted ethnic cleansing Israel has been attempting for years. There is no doubt the Israeli government is a racist, apartheid state. It is also no secret that Israel does not want a Palestinian state of any kind, preferring the status quo that allows them to continue slowly encroaching and building settlements on land that should be part of a Palestinian state. It is clear this is a strategy to make it impossible for a viable Palestinian state to ever be created.  There is no doubt the Palestinians have suffered dreadfully at the hands of the Israelis and continue to do so.

The Senators that now want to sabotage the negotiations by passing even more onerous sanctions on Iran, on behalf of Israel, must be aware of the criminality and immorality of all this. And yet they all want to do what Israel wants them to do. That is, continue the immorality and criminality of the state of Israel, and apparently to hell with the Palestinian and Iranian people. Why are they doing this? They say, of course, that sanctions are needed to put further pressure on Iran even though the President and others fear further sanctions at this time will potentially kill the diplomacy, reveal the bad faith of the U.S., and quite possibly lead to war. The answer, my friend, is “blowing in the wind,” it’s money, and lots of it. Certainly Schumer and Booker are getting money from Israeli supporters, and there is no doubt that many more, certainly Menendez, are as well. In other words, they are apparently unconcerned about Israeli war crimes and mendacity, unconcerned about the fate of the Palestinians and Iranians, but vitally concerned with the size of their war chests. They are selling their honesty and morality, even their souls for money, they are basically high-level, hypocritical prostitutes. Unless, that is, they don’t believe the truth about Israel which at this point in time is well known to all the rest of the world and seems highly unlikely. Whatever else you think about President Obama, if he can stand up to the Israeli warmongers and prevent a war with Iran, he should be given great credit for it.

“Prostitutes operate more responsible than governments; because when you pay them, they do everything to keep you satisfied.” 

 M.F. Moonzajer

There must be Gods

For a very long time I have thought of myself as an atheist, an ardent believer in evolution, and a true foe of the idea of “creative design.” Of late I have begun having second (third, fourth, fifth, and sixth) thoughts on the subject. The main reason for my possible change of heart has to do with the nagging doubt that the natural process of evolution could have produced anything as utterly ridiculous and awful as the human species.

Nowhere in nature, as far as I know, is there another species so arrogant, short-sighted, mean spirited, greedy, violent, self-destructive and irrational. The human species is unique in these respects. While it is true that some animal species sometimes fight over territory, and often fight over mating, they do not completely destroy each other, and they certainly do not invent horrendous ways to torture, humiliate, and massively kill each other. Nor do they deliberately foul their own nests or ordinarily exhaust the resources they depend on for their very survival. Although human and near-human groups have existed for many thousands of years they still have not been able to live in peace with one another and their continuous history of violence, stupidity, theft, torture, and brutality is unrivaled by anything else we can even imagine. The history of European colonialism by itself is enough to make you doubt the sanity of the species, let alone what happened prior to that terrible period of time. It is as if the species were put on earth for no purpose other than stealing, brutalizing, and killing each other. It is a history so shocking we basically avoid ever telling the truth about it. And it is not that things have changed much over time, the greed, theft, torture, and killing, continue to the present day.

As there is nothing else like this in history, or in the natural order of nature, it makes one wonder how and why this completely unique species could have come about. Einstein said that “God does not play dice with the universe.” As he was a known atheist he did not really believe in God, but he did believe the universe was orderly, playing dice with it would have been out of the question for him. But it seems to me the only place in the universe that might well be out of order has to do with the behavior of the human species. Where one might suspect that reason would prevail among humans it clearly does not. Where it is perfectly obvious that certain activities are clearly not in the best interest of human survival they continue nonetheless. When humans praise peace and goodwill to all they clearly do not mean it. When they say “do not kill” they are apparently joking. Virtually the only thing about the world that is neither predictable nor orderly is human behavior, which is predictable only in the sense that it will be unpredictable in any given circumstance, especially when it has to do with humans and the environment. So it is that humans completely decimated the billions of passenger pigeons in a relatively short time, almost did the same to the untold millions of buffalo, destroyed many of the salmon runs, polluted and overfished the rivers, lakes, and oceans, and continue to destroy one species after another. In addition they have either destroyed or pillaged virtually all of the natural resources, many of which are non-renewable.

Einstein I fear was not much of a crapshooter. God does not place dice with the universe as god  does not play dice by himself. If there are multiple gods, however, that might be a different matter entirely. The existence of the human species might be little more than a fantastic cosmic dice game played by the gods for their entertainment. They might have looked around for a relatively stable ecosystem and placed bets on what would happen if they introduced a species with no instincts but the ability to make their own choices. Earth, being a tiny, inconsequential globe spinning around a lesser sun was a perfect setting for such an experiment (game), just part of their playground. It appears at the moment those who bet humans would destroy the system and themselves are winning. The game is not entirely over but the end is drawing near. I bet it’s at least 8 to five for those betting against the species. Will they win? Roll the dice, man, “Baby needs a new pair of shoes.”

It is entirely possible of course the gods are not merely playing a game. They could have a perfectly legitimate scientific interest in what happens when idiocy is introduced into an otherwise smoothly functioning world. After all, they must be responsible for hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of other inhabited planets. Maybe earth is merely a test case. Who knows, it is beyond my crumbling brainpower.

There is no gambling like politics.

Benjamin Disraeli 

Freedom and Capitalism

What do freedom and capitalism have in common? In the most fundamental way possible they are both antithetical to human social life, in the case of freedom relatively so, in the case of capitalism, absolutely so.

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks himself the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they are."

Roussea thought this was so because of the corrupting influence of society and, in a sense, it is. He felt it was necessary for humans to revert to a more natural way of life if they were to live more peacefully and achieve freedom.

While it might well be so that living closer to nature allows one more freedom than living in a more complicated society, there is no known society that allows its citizens unlimited freedom. Even in the most “primitive” societies, such as Australian aborigines or Bushmen/Hottentots, there are cultural proscriptions as well as prescriptions people must abide and live by if their members are going to survive and live in relative peace. Obviously some societies allow their citizens more freedom than others but nowhere is one allowed absolute freedom. Thus you are relatively “in chains” simply by virtue of being born into a social group and living as a human being.  

But nowhere in small, face-to-face communities, in which humans traditionally lived for thousands of years, was there anything comparable to capitalism. The New Guinea “Big Man,” who became “big” because of his organization of huge feasts and gifts of pork, or his skill as a warrior, did not result in his material well being becoming much greater than others, he acquired reputation rather than wealth. Similarly, the Northwest Coast chief who organized huge potlatches and distributed gifts of blankets and other things did not benefit himself materially. In such exchanges there was no “profit” or “profit motive” involved. Indeed, in such societies if an individual attempted to gain at the expense of others he or she would be ostracized and, in extreme case, even murdered. Shameful greed simply was not allowed to exist. There was no capitalism.

As societies grew in size and complexity, some individuals managed to convince the masses they were more powerful and entitled to more, often much, much more, than others. Beliefs in the divine right of kings were enshrined allowing royalty to help themselves to whatever was available. More often than not royalty was bestowed upon those who were, in fact, more powerful than others, wars were the order of the day, might established right, and right meant that everyone had their fixed place in the order of things, peasants and serfs were just that, and nobles likewise held more or less fixed positions in society. Still there was no real profit motive or capitalism as we now have.

When you have a well established profit motive and excessive freedom as in “free market capitalism” you have reached the epitome of an essentially antisocial society, a true oxymoron. You have, in fact, repudiated your human status and reverted back to “the law of the jungle,” a form of primitive Darwinism in which greedy humans cannibalize each other for profit and the losers are cast aside as “collateral damage.” The most basic elements of humanity: empathy, caring for others, community, the basic social contract itself, are simply abandoned as everyone now competes for profit and power, two linked passions that will slowly and inevitably destroy  whatever is left of our humanity and, indeed, our lives.   

Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate.

Bertrand Russell 

Me and Kati (11)

Well, Kati, what with Christmas, New Year’s Eve and all, we have scarcely had time for even a quiet chat. Happily all of that is over, at least for another year. Reflecting back now it certainly was a difficult year for us and the country also.

We managed to get through a whole year without Linda, our strong “house post” for so many years. I wasn’t sure just how we would manage without her, but we did. I now know how to do many things I could never do before: manage the washer/dryer, scrub the floors, use the dishwasher, pay the bills, vacuum floors, even make the bed (my least favorite task). Even worse, are the problems with having to deal with the computer, printer, and phone without Linda’s help. I know, Kati, this doesn’t sound like much, but when you are 80 years of age and unfamiliar with such domestic tasks it’s not as easy as you might think. I can now appreciate how it is that Linda could do in an hour what it takes me a day to do. Better, however, my cooking has improved immeasurably and I have resisted the temptation to take the easy way out, frozen dinners, pizza, and all that. There is, I have learned, an inordinate amount of waste involved when cooking for one person, but it is still worth it. As an aside, Kati, and I don’t want to upset you, but I notice you are getting heavier and losing your beautiful, lithe, shapely cat figure (like me). Perhaps this is an inevitable part of the aging process.

I guess it is fair to say that we had a pretty good year. But you can’t say the same thing for the nation, what with the government shutdown, the constant squabbling over everything, the dysfunctional Congress, the basically racially based opposition to anything President Obama has tried to do to ease unemployment, create jobs, deal with guns and immigration, infrastructure, and avoid a completely wrongheaded war with Iran. While I don’t approve of his drone warfare, his support of Wall Street and Israel, and his failure to prosecute our known war criminals, if he can manage to keep Israel and the Saudis from leading us into another war in the Middle East, he will have accomplished a basically Herculean task. If he could manage to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem he would have accomplished the impossible, but, of course, this is not going to happen as long as Israel is In charge of our Middle East policy and our Congresspersons seem to think the slow Israeli genocide of the Palestinians is somehow “God’s will.”

There are signs that things may be about to change. The shameful inequalities of wealth seems to have only recently been noted, there are increasing numbers of strikes, the minimum wage is now seriously on the agenda, more and more people will have health insurance (not the best but better than before), the economy seems to be picking up, the deficit is going down, the filibuster is not so easy to abuse as it has been, and maybe, just maybe, some progress might be made on gun control and immigration. But Kati, you know you cannot count on anything happening for sure. Some say, for example, the Republicans may capture control of the Senate, keep control of the House, the full catastrophe. Personally, I fail to understand why anyone, except for a few racist rednecks, would ever vote Republican after their shameful performances of the last five or more years. But, Kati, no one ever accused the electorate of sagacity and they do have a record of voting against their own best interests. Sometimes, my little grey bundle of joy, mischief, and appetite, I wish I was a cat.

The French, God Bless ‘em, may be a nation of romantics, but they are also very practical minded. They are going to tax people who make too much money at 75%. We should do the same, but make it 90%.

If it looks like a Joe McCarthy, talks like a Joe McCarthy, and acts like a Joe McCarthy, is it a real Joe McCarthy, or just a fake?

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

George Orwell 

Journey to the West: Death and Dying

Many of you, perhaps even most of you, will not remember George Sanders, English actor, songwriter, author and bon vivant, several marriages, one to Zsa Zsa Gabor. I remember him best from the movie The Portrait of Dorian Gray,” although it was not his greatest part during his forty year career. At age 65 he reportedly said, “Life isn’t fun anymore,” imbibed several bottles of the barbiturate Nembutal, and left a brief, signed suicide note:

“Dear World, I am leaving because I am bored. I feel I have lived long enough. I am leaving you with your worries in this sweet cesspool. Good luck.”

I believe Sanders was a bit of a cynic, perhaps an attitude he developed from so often playing villains, perhaps from his several marriages and divorces, perhaps just from life in general. As he grew older his health began to slip away, perhaps even his mental health, and he was concerned because he did not want anyone to have to care for him. I confess that now that I am twenty-five years older than he was at the time of his death I sometimes think of death and dying. I certainly do not think of this on a daily basis. Indeed, sometimes I wonder why it does not occupy my mind much more than it does. But I would be lying if I said I never think of it.

As near as I can tell I seem not to fear death itself. I may, in a perverse way, even look forward to it. Once, in the middle of the night, in a Sydney, Australia Hospital, where I was suffering a kidney stone, I was given a shot of morphine. It was the most marvelous experience of my life, a relaxation so complete and satisfying, so blissful and pleasant, I assumed that must be what death would be like (I hope I am right).

But to say you do not fear death is not to say you do not fear dying. If I knew I would die peacefully in my sleep at a ripe old age I guess I would not fear dying. Unfortunately, that is not the way most people die.

As I do not know how I might die I am concerned about it. Having seen friends slowly die, sometimes over months of suffering, sometimes from cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and such, I’m sure a heart attack would be preferable, but certainly not a stroke, strokes can be fairly quick, but most often they are not and the aftermath is not at all pleasant. These are grim thoughts to be sure, but unavoidable.

During the course of my life I have lost five friends to suicide, two by self inflicted gunshots, one by carbon monoxide, one by hanging, and one (uncle) by slitting his wrists. I believe alcohol played a part in two of these cases but in no case do I really or truly understand why they decided to end their lives as they did. I do know that in every case their survivors suffered dreadfully even though they may well have had nothing to do with it. Survivors always, however erroneously, believe it was somehow partly their fault: they should have known, they should have done something, they just weren’t paying enough attention to the person, and so on. Knowing this, and having witnessed such suffering, makes one who loves others an unlikely candidate for such a deed. At the same time, strange as it may seem, I think I can understand how one might fear both life or dying strongly enough to actually commit suicide in order to avoid either of those experiences. Not death with dignity, of course, more like death from despair.

Although in a way it may be playing with words, I don’t think depression is a sufficient cause or explanation for suicide. One can overcome depression, one still can have hope. It is hopelessness, I believe, that leads to suicide, hopelessness that I suppose can follow depression, but is probably the necessary condition for suicide. I suspect this may even be true even cross-culturally.

 I do not worry about this on a daily basis. In fact I rarely worry about it at all, especially during winter, spring, and summer, as I believe when I die it will be in autumn. Autumn is the proper time to die, along with the flowers and leaves and accompanying sadness. And when it happens my journey to the west will be complete, the sun will set for the last time, and all will be well. Dying is not described as Eternal Rest or Resting in Peace for no reason. No one really knows this, of course, but it makes far more sense than believing in some continual, even eternal, struggle in another “sweet cesspool.” Anyway, as dying is so commonplace and happens so frequently I don’t understand what all the fuss is about.

So Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Peace and Goodwill for all.

“ Nothing, they say is more certain than death, and nothing more uncertain than the time of dying” 
Thomas Paine

Aljazeera America

Aljazeera America is a fine, serious, and first-rate news station. It deals with real news, in depth, with fewer commercials, and competes directly with the rest of our MSM. Launched in August of this year it has so far failed to capture a substantial share of the market for news. As it is well financed by Qatar this is not at the moment considered a problem, although it is hoped that eventually it will be successful on its merits. I like it and find that I watch it more and more. I hope it will succeed, but I wonder about it.

Aljazeera is based on the idea that there exists in the U.S. a desire for a more serious and in-depth news station, one that will be able to present news not otherwise available to U.S. viewers, including more world news. I believe there is such a demand. However, I fear this demand will be only on the part of a relatively small number of U.S. viewers, probably not enough to compete effectively with the other outlets. That is, the demand exists, but only on the part of a few.

I suspect Aljazeera overestimates the demand for serious news and underestimates the U.S. demand for infotainment. I am skeptical of how much interest most U.S. viewers have in serious news, especially serious foreign news. I doubt they are really much concerned with what happens in the Sudan, Yemen, Somalia, and other nations they know nothing about and most probably cannot find on a map. I suspect this is true even if what happens there involves the U.S. directly. Most viewers, I believe, have lost interest even in Iraq and Afghanistan and do not want us involved in places like Syria or even Iran. I could be wrong, of course, but I doubt it.

Will a serious news story about someplace like the Amazon, for example, lure readers away from the Huffington Post’s obsessive fascination with “nip slips,” wardrobe malfunctions, dresses that show “lots of skin,” and Kate Hudson “Rocking in Bright Orange Pants?” How about Miley Cyrus wearing a sheer white top with a black bra? Obviously this is not all one finds on the Huffpost and elsewhere on the news. How about “Six year-old boy suspended from school for kissing a girl,” or Donald Trump’s latest birther nonsense?

The fact is, our major news sources do not give us serious, in-depth news about much of anything. Fox is no doubt the worst as it scarcely deals in news at all, mostly propaganda, fairy tales, and the latest inane babblings of Sarah Palin, Bill O’Reilly, Hannity, and others. It seems to me that not only do the current news outlets insist on dealing with infotainment rather than news, they basically have no interest in the news at all, seeking only something that will allow them to feature more commercials. With the exception of Rachel Maddow I have stopped watching MSNBC almost entirely because there are so many commercials. Aside from Aljazeera all the other stations suffer from overcommercialization.

In a sense Aljazeera has no competition, partly because it has so few commercials, but more importantly because it deals in real news rather than infotainment. It has a worldwide network of reporters who actually exist to collect news rather than simply using the same major source all the others use, like AP, for example. Unfortunately it has no competition because it is playing a game no one else is playing, and for a small universe of viewers.

Of course we do get some news from the MSM, but it is almost always domestic, is always featured on every channel, sometimes for days, and usually has to do with murder or rape. “Texas cop shoots a schizophrenic double amputee in his wheelchair,” for example, or “Teen, handcuffed with hands behind his back shoots himself in the head,” or “Teen killer of four escapes jail because he suffers from ‘Afluenza.’” When a shooting occurs the reporting begins immediately, whether anything is known about it or not, and each detail is worked over and repeated endlessly, every interpretation is made with or without foundation, every last person they can find is interviewed, often including such authorities as someone whose brother once attended the school where the shooting occurred, or someone who once knew someone who knew the shooter, and on and on. If and when the ultimate truth comes out it most probably has nothing much to do with all the previous speculation and hullabaloo. As there is no useful definition of “news” we accept whatever we are told as news.

As it is so important to them Eskimos have many words for snow, depending on its quality, usefulness, and so on. We need a similar vocabulary for news, “real news” as opposed to “fake news” doesn’t do justice to the problem.

 To a philosopher all news, as it is called, is gossip, and they who edit and read it are old women over their tea.

Henry David Thoreau