The One percent seems to be fond of whining they are not being given credit for success, often saying that here in America we usually reward success, so why should they be punished or castigated for their success. It seems to me this argument clearly equates success with making money, usually lots of it. This indicates to me their preoccupation with money as well as their apparent ignorance of any other form of success.
Romney in particular, but I am sure this is true of many others, seems to have so little understanding of how ordinary people live he has no other measure for success, to get rich is to him, success, but what about the other 99%? Do they never achieve success? How does one measure success if not in the amount of money accumulated (ignore for the moment the obvious questions that might arise about how these fortunes are actually accumulated). Clearly there are all kinds of successful people, and most of these people were not interested in making lots of money. What about successful doctors, lawyers, nurses, dentists, carpenters, plumbers, teachers, mechanics, and any of the other occupations that people choose. Some, if they are good at what they do, become successful, and their success is not measured by their incomes, but by their abilities to do better than what their peers do. What about a nun who is about to be canonized for her lifetime of work with lepers? Is she not considered successful? If the standard of success is merely accumulating money the vast majority of ordinary citizens would and could never become successful. It is true that we do reward success in America, people receive awards, trophies, letters of appreciation, blue and other ribbons, medals, and so on, all indications of success. And it is most usually the case these people deserve their rewards for being successful.
The standards of ordinary success do not really apply to those whose sole interest lies in accumulating as much money as possible and even more. This is because most people realize there is much more to life than making as much money as possible, often by questionable means. Depending upon how you look at it, it is perhaps not possible to make fortunes except through socially undesirable means. As near as I can tell the most common ways of making money are through exploiting the labor of others, or exploiting the environment, neither of which is, in my opinion, very satisfactory. As Marx insightfully observed, capital essentially represents dead labor, and we all know what results in the unregulated exploitation of the environment. The notion that capitalists should be praised as successful for exploiting the world and others seems rather outrageous when you stop to think about it, especially as in most cases they produce nothing and basically just move money around. But I suppose when you live in a capitalistic society, where the main and virtually only goal is making as much profit as possible, such a standard is perhaps inevitable.
And speaking of such things, there is a strange contradiction involved when people complain about losing their jobs overseas. That is, if these same people are proud to live in a capitalistic society, claimed to be the best economic system in the world, they should not complain when the profits are to found overseas, where labor is cheaper and the regulations are fewer. It is basically the American way for aren’t we all better off for living under capitalism than (horrors) any form of socialism? Under some form of socialism we might actually have much less expensive and more efficient universal health care, free public education, sound infrastructure, and so on, just a thought.
And finally, appropros of nothing, I note that some court has decided it is perfectly legal to forcibly shave a man’s beard prior to his court appearance. I confess I do not understand this. What has having a beard or not have to do with whether he might or might not get a fair trial? I am not familiar with this case but I do not think it far-fetched to believe that having a beard may be a religious belief held by the victim. If this is so, it raises interesting questions about such things. If this is a precedent of some kind could we not insist that a Muslim or a Jew eat pork prior to their appearance, or force a Hindu to eat beef? Why could we not insist that appropriate candidates be circumcised? And why should Sikhs be allowed to wear turbans? And of course Muslim females should be forced to dress in the latest American fashion before they appear in court. I don’t know, maybe there is some good reason for forcibly removing the man’s beard, but I can’t imagine what it is and I don’t think someone’s religious beliefs should be violated before their trials.
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg
Friday, October 19, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Hidden Emotion
Perhaps what I have in mind is not so well hidden. I think I detect under the surface of the current contest for the Presidency a genuine loathing on the part of some for their opponents. I notice, for example, there is a not very well disguised animosity on the part of some, Chris Matthews, for example, towards the Republicans. Matthews and some others do not come right out and say what they feel but their contempt for what is going on is pretty obvious and seems to me has been growing over time. Maybe this is my imagination because this is precisely the growing animosity I have myself developed towards Republicans I have increasingly come to perceive as totally dishonest, unprincipled, and even somewhat criminal in their behavior. Not only do I feel this way, I believe there is good reason for this attitude. I think is undisputedly true their entire campaign has been nothing but a remarkable collection of lies, distortions, half-truths and extremely devious and hypocritical attacks on President Obama. Not the least of these has been their continuous insistence that he has failed to create jobs when in fact the failure to create jobs is a result of their own intransigence and lack of cooperation. As I have said previously, more than once, I think this began during the Clinton administration and has become increasingly worse over time.
During the last debate between Romney and President Obama I think it must be true that Obama was actually seething under the surface when he finally told Romney his behavior was offensive. It was offensive and the rebuke was perfectly deserved. And I also must say I think Obama has been remarkably tolerant of the disrespect he and his office have experienced over time. Being called a liar during his speech, having the disgusting governor of Arizona wagging her finger at him, having Sununu suggesting he was not an American, having to listen to Trump’s absolutely inane accusations about his birth, and the thousands of other slights he has endured by the likes of mental midgets like Palin and others, must have affected him seriously even though he seems to have kept his emotions remarkably in check. Most of these critics are simply too dishonest to just come out and admit they don’t want a Black man in the White House and resort to all kinds of code words, innuendoes and fantastic lies rather than admit their quite obvious prejudice.
When their behavior becomes so egregious that even Matthews, Maddow, Bashir, and others can barely conceal their contempt you begin to realize just how truly terrible it has become. These are supposed to be more or less objective reporters who obviously have lost their supposed objectivity and cannot any longer conceal their feelings. To me this seems to have culminated this evening when Lawrence O’Donnell, an obvious partisan but usually well controlled, I think went too far when he attacked the Romney’s for their failure to serve in the military even though they have supported all the wars. It might well have been okay to point this out but to imply they are cowardly and even challenge one of them to a fight went well beyond what I think was appropriate. It seems to me this could only have happened because O’Donnell, like others, has become so completely fed up with their devious, dishonest, disgusting, divisive, disreputable, and even despicable attacks, culminating in one of the sons saying he wanted to punch Obama, apparently caused him to temporarily snap. As much as I sympathize with his disgust and frustration I think he went too far.
I think it is quite remarkable that politicians, especially those at the higher echelons of politics, can manage to keep their emotions under control as well as they do. I believe Obama must have nothing but contempt for Romney but he seems to conceal it well, and I also suspect his feeling about Netanyahu must be even more difficult to control. I guess if it were otherwise we would probably be far worse off than we are. It must be the same for leaders of other countries, forced to be respectful to more powerful leaders they know are trying to dominate and even undermine them. I confess I do not think I could do this.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Will Rogers
During the last debate between Romney and President Obama I think it must be true that Obama was actually seething under the surface when he finally told Romney his behavior was offensive. It was offensive and the rebuke was perfectly deserved. And I also must say I think Obama has been remarkably tolerant of the disrespect he and his office have experienced over time. Being called a liar during his speech, having the disgusting governor of Arizona wagging her finger at him, having Sununu suggesting he was not an American, having to listen to Trump’s absolutely inane accusations about his birth, and the thousands of other slights he has endured by the likes of mental midgets like Palin and others, must have affected him seriously even though he seems to have kept his emotions remarkably in check. Most of these critics are simply too dishonest to just come out and admit they don’t want a Black man in the White House and resort to all kinds of code words, innuendoes and fantastic lies rather than admit their quite obvious prejudice.
When their behavior becomes so egregious that even Matthews, Maddow, Bashir, and others can barely conceal their contempt you begin to realize just how truly terrible it has become. These are supposed to be more or less objective reporters who obviously have lost their supposed objectivity and cannot any longer conceal their feelings. To me this seems to have culminated this evening when Lawrence O’Donnell, an obvious partisan but usually well controlled, I think went too far when he attacked the Romney’s for their failure to serve in the military even though they have supported all the wars. It might well have been okay to point this out but to imply they are cowardly and even challenge one of them to a fight went well beyond what I think was appropriate. It seems to me this could only have happened because O’Donnell, like others, has become so completely fed up with their devious, dishonest, disgusting, divisive, disreputable, and even despicable attacks, culminating in one of the sons saying he wanted to punch Obama, apparently caused him to temporarily snap. As much as I sympathize with his disgust and frustration I think he went too far.
I think it is quite remarkable that politicians, especially those at the higher echelons of politics, can manage to keep their emotions under control as well as they do. I believe Obama must have nothing but contempt for Romney but he seems to conceal it well, and I also suspect his feeling about Netanyahu must be even more difficult to control. I guess if it were otherwise we would probably be far worse off than we are. It must be the same for leaders of other countries, forced to be respectful to more powerful leaders they know are trying to dominate and even undermine them. I confess I do not think I could do this.
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Will Rogers
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
No "News"
I don’t know anything about the etymology of the word “news,” but I would think it must having something to do with information that is “new.” If that is the case can we conclude that after something is announced once it is no longer news? Apparently it does matter to anyone involved in what we consider to be news as presented in radio and television. It is true that eventually every news item eventually plays itself out and disappears, but why does it take so long? How much longer do you think we will have to hear about the latest debate where it seems to be agreed by most “newspersons” (outside of Fox which does not really deal with news) that President Obama won the debate. Some say he won it overwhelmingly, others that he won but only marginally. I side with the overwhelmingly crowd as I think he made Romney look like the spoiled bully he seems to be and left him with egg on his face.
Anyway, I am certain this bit of news has been reported over and over again at least all day long and as far as I am concerned is no longer news at all.
Related to this mindless repetition of the same story on all major channels is the apparent belief there is no news anywhere worthy of reporting. This cannot be because it is not necessarily new, it doesn’t seem to exist whether it is new or not. I guess that nowhere in the world did anything happen that might be considered as worthy of being treated as news as long as the non-news of the debate rages on. This is really pretty stupid. I guess it is related to the fact the news organizations no longer spend money on reporters when they can all get the news from AP. There are rare exceptions to this, and there are some fine foreign correspondents, but they do not seem to compete with all the non-news that we are given to believe is actually news. I think it is fair to say that our present news is for the most part not news and is basically pathetic.
I swear the current Republican Party seems to inhabit a fantasyland all their own, a land where reality hs no place. Where Obama clearly won the debate, for them, he didn’t really win at all, or Romney would have won if it had not been for the evil Candy Crowley. When the polls don’t go their way it’s because the polls are fixed. Obama is not really President because he is some kind of “other.” Obama is trying to turn America into a socialist country, he is going to take our guns away, he is a rabid abortionist, and on and on, one ridiculous conspiracy or absolute falsehood after another. They seem to live in a kind of childhood of make-believe, as if they have never grown up.
This is, I guess, reflected in the polls that still claim the race for the Presidency is essentially a dead heat between Romney and Obama. I find this literally impossible to believe but perhaps it is true. If it is true I conclude that half of the voting population of the United States would like to elect a known, chronic liar as their President, or a man who represents the one percent of the most greedy and selfish individuals that have managed to monopolize power and refuse to give it up no matter what, people who believe their own interests far outweigh those of their country, or do not believe a Black man should occupy the White House. I do not like this image of so many of my countrymen but to me that is what the polls must represent.
Based on what I take to be the facts of the matter, about the Black and Latino votes, the Women’s vote, the votes of the young and the elderly, and so on, I conclude that Obama should win in a landslide. But of course this is what I thought about the chances of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush and was so wrong. Either the facts are wrong, or I am misreading them, or I am so far out of step with my fellow Americans as to be living in my own fantasyland. Perhaps I need a good psychiatrist, but, alas, that is just another oxymoron.
No wonder Americans hate politics when, year in and year out, they hear politicians make promises that won't come true because they don't even mean them - campaign fantasies that win elections but don't get nations moving again.
Bill Clinton
Anyway, I am certain this bit of news has been reported over and over again at least all day long and as far as I am concerned is no longer news at all.
Related to this mindless repetition of the same story on all major channels is the apparent belief there is no news anywhere worthy of reporting. This cannot be because it is not necessarily new, it doesn’t seem to exist whether it is new or not. I guess that nowhere in the world did anything happen that might be considered as worthy of being treated as news as long as the non-news of the debate rages on. This is really pretty stupid. I guess it is related to the fact the news organizations no longer spend money on reporters when they can all get the news from AP. There are rare exceptions to this, and there are some fine foreign correspondents, but they do not seem to compete with all the non-news that we are given to believe is actually news. I think it is fair to say that our present news is for the most part not news and is basically pathetic.
I swear the current Republican Party seems to inhabit a fantasyland all their own, a land where reality hs no place. Where Obama clearly won the debate, for them, he didn’t really win at all, or Romney would have won if it had not been for the evil Candy Crowley. When the polls don’t go their way it’s because the polls are fixed. Obama is not really President because he is some kind of “other.” Obama is trying to turn America into a socialist country, he is going to take our guns away, he is a rabid abortionist, and on and on, one ridiculous conspiracy or absolute falsehood after another. They seem to live in a kind of childhood of make-believe, as if they have never grown up.
This is, I guess, reflected in the polls that still claim the race for the Presidency is essentially a dead heat between Romney and Obama. I find this literally impossible to believe but perhaps it is true. If it is true I conclude that half of the voting population of the United States would like to elect a known, chronic liar as their President, or a man who represents the one percent of the most greedy and selfish individuals that have managed to monopolize power and refuse to give it up no matter what, people who believe their own interests far outweigh those of their country, or do not believe a Black man should occupy the White House. I do not like this image of so many of my countrymen but to me that is what the polls must represent.
Based on what I take to be the facts of the matter, about the Black and Latino votes, the Women’s vote, the votes of the young and the elderly, and so on, I conclude that Obama should win in a landslide. But of course this is what I thought about the chances of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush and was so wrong. Either the facts are wrong, or I am misreading them, or I am so far out of step with my fellow Americans as to be living in my own fantasyland. Perhaps I need a good psychiatrist, but, alas, that is just another oxymoron.
No wonder Americans hate politics when, year in and year out, they hear politicians make promises that won't come true because they don't even mean them - campaign fantasies that win elections but don't get nations moving again.
Bill Clinton
Monday, October 15, 2012
Perusing the News
I confess to watching a bit more news than usual since losing my wonderful wife. I thought I might share with you the remarkable things I learned today after ignoring the nonsense about the coming debate.
Early this morning I learned what the soup of the day was going to be for Congress. I thought that was a particularly interesting thing to know. Then I learned there have been six Presidents whose last names ended in a vowel (I think six was the right number), but only Obama’s ended in an “o.” that was kind of cool. Then I saw a report that in a poll that asked which Presidential candidate would be most likely to engage in bungee jumping, President Obama “won,” 60 percent to 30 percent (roughly). I filed that away as important information to remember when I entered the voting booth.
But in addition to these important news stories I really learned a lot about what is apparently called “Celebrity skin” and “nip slip,” concepts with which I was not familiar. Kim Kardashian, for example, went to lunch (maybe it was dinner) with someone while wearing a revealing bra and, more importantly, a see-through skirt. It really was a see-through outfit when viewed from behind. I learned that she apparently does not wear “undies” and that she has a quite handsome butt. Then there was a video of Jennifer Lopez at a concert in Italy during which she suffered a “nip slip,” revealing the edge of one of her nipples. That was quite exciting. Not to be outdone someone named Jenny Dewan was featured in a dress that exposed her side as completely bare, thus accenting what was said to be her incredible figure (that appears to be real). Miley Cyrus, apparently a teen age upcoming “star” was reported to be risking her own nip slip by wearing a revealing low-cut dress on the Jay Leno show (I think it was the Leno show). Kate Hudson was a “knockout” in a low-cut red dress, Katy Perry “turned heads in a sexy plunging dress, Jennifer Aniston was featured in a series of bikini photos, and someone named Taylor Momsen was shown completely nude in a movie called The Pretty Reckless. Pretty reckless indeed! Finally, if that was not enough for lascivious aged viewers there was a record of 61 celebrities “showing off their cleavage.” Wow! I haven’t had such thrills since I thumbed the Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward catalogues for the lingerie ads when I was a mere lad.
All of this coming after the recent scandal involving pictures of Kate Middleton topless (and maybe even bottomless) made me pause to wonder, what in the hell is going on with this obsession with lady body parts? I mean, like, has no one ever seen naked women before? Is there something really special about Kate Middleton’s breasts that make them worth the price of admission? What is there about celebrity skin that is so different from other women’s skin? Are there really significant differences in the female anatomy from one woman to another? Do those skimpy bikinis hide something that no one knows anything about? Having spent a good deal of time in cultures where women (and men) go topless (and almost bottomless, too) I confess I do not understand the concern we have here in the U.S. for ordinary human anatomy. It is, I believe, downright weird. But, then, I think most of American culture is downright weird, a culture of the absurd.
Nowhere does this seem more true than when it comes to our elections that have now reached the point of ridiculous non-stop speculation and entertainment rather than serious governing. I, like everyone else, will watch the spectacle tomorrow evening because, as is said, “it’s the only game in town.” Will Obama redeem himself? Will Romney continue to lie? Will form reign over substance? Will anyone get a bounce? Does anyone’s performance really matter? How many days of review will we have to endure? Who are you going to believe, your own eyes and ears, or the pundits? Is this really going to be the most important event in the history of our country? Will they even mention the truly important issues of the day like global warming, environmental degradation, universal health care, the Supreme Court? The charade continues, sit back, relax, enjoy the show, pretend it really matters, root for your champion, the Black Kenyan Socialist or the Great White Dope, but vote, voting is important (if they will let you or if the machine doesn’t mysteriously change it). Your vote cannot be bought , that privilege is reserved for Congresspersons. Whatever happens, prepare yourself for the 2016 campaign that is already starting.
Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Early this morning I learned what the soup of the day was going to be for Congress. I thought that was a particularly interesting thing to know. Then I learned there have been six Presidents whose last names ended in a vowel (I think six was the right number), but only Obama’s ended in an “o.” that was kind of cool. Then I saw a report that in a poll that asked which Presidential candidate would be most likely to engage in bungee jumping, President Obama “won,” 60 percent to 30 percent (roughly). I filed that away as important information to remember when I entered the voting booth.
But in addition to these important news stories I really learned a lot about what is apparently called “Celebrity skin” and “nip slip,” concepts with which I was not familiar. Kim Kardashian, for example, went to lunch (maybe it was dinner) with someone while wearing a revealing bra and, more importantly, a see-through skirt. It really was a see-through outfit when viewed from behind. I learned that she apparently does not wear “undies” and that she has a quite handsome butt. Then there was a video of Jennifer Lopez at a concert in Italy during which she suffered a “nip slip,” revealing the edge of one of her nipples. That was quite exciting. Not to be outdone someone named Jenny Dewan was featured in a dress that exposed her side as completely bare, thus accenting what was said to be her incredible figure (that appears to be real). Miley Cyrus, apparently a teen age upcoming “star” was reported to be risking her own nip slip by wearing a revealing low-cut dress on the Jay Leno show (I think it was the Leno show). Kate Hudson was a “knockout” in a low-cut red dress, Katy Perry “turned heads in a sexy plunging dress, Jennifer Aniston was featured in a series of bikini photos, and someone named Taylor Momsen was shown completely nude in a movie called The Pretty Reckless. Pretty reckless indeed! Finally, if that was not enough for lascivious aged viewers there was a record of 61 celebrities “showing off their cleavage.” Wow! I haven’t had such thrills since I thumbed the Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Ward catalogues for the lingerie ads when I was a mere lad.
All of this coming after the recent scandal involving pictures of Kate Middleton topless (and maybe even bottomless) made me pause to wonder, what in the hell is going on with this obsession with lady body parts? I mean, like, has no one ever seen naked women before? Is there something really special about Kate Middleton’s breasts that make them worth the price of admission? What is there about celebrity skin that is so different from other women’s skin? Are there really significant differences in the female anatomy from one woman to another? Do those skimpy bikinis hide something that no one knows anything about? Having spent a good deal of time in cultures where women (and men) go topless (and almost bottomless, too) I confess I do not understand the concern we have here in the U.S. for ordinary human anatomy. It is, I believe, downright weird. But, then, I think most of American culture is downright weird, a culture of the absurd.
Nowhere does this seem more true than when it comes to our elections that have now reached the point of ridiculous non-stop speculation and entertainment rather than serious governing. I, like everyone else, will watch the spectacle tomorrow evening because, as is said, “it’s the only game in town.” Will Obama redeem himself? Will Romney continue to lie? Will form reign over substance? Will anyone get a bounce? Does anyone’s performance really matter? How many days of review will we have to endure? Who are you going to believe, your own eyes and ears, or the pundits? Is this really going to be the most important event in the history of our country? Will they even mention the truly important issues of the day like global warming, environmental degradation, universal health care, the Supreme Court? The charade continues, sit back, relax, enjoy the show, pretend it really matters, root for your champion, the Black Kenyan Socialist or the Great White Dope, but vote, voting is important (if they will let you or if the machine doesn’t mysteriously change it). Your vote cannot be bought , that privilege is reserved for Congresspersons. Whatever happens, prepare yourself for the 2016 campaign that is already starting.
Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Toads and other Mysteries
I’m sure this is of little interest to anyone but me but I have this problem with toads, little toads that appear mysteriously every week or ten days. I assume they are toads rather than frogs because the nearest viable water for frogs is several miles away. These creatures are all the same size. I do not believe the cats bring them in as they are never damaged in any way, unlike the birds, mice, bats, squirrels, lizards, and other creatures they drag in with some regularity. I am beginning to believe that hidden somewhere in my house there may be a mother toad who is producing these miniature replicas of herself. I am so convinced that may be so I am afraid to even look. Just another facet of rural life I guess.
I cannot maintain any interest in the seemingly endlessly ongoing farce that pretends to be the Presidential campaign. I cannot wait until it is over, not that it will ever be over as it has now become the longest running soap opera and guaranteed money maker for the media. As it has been ongoing for years now it is hard to believe there is anyone who does not know what is what, except for the fact that the American public does not seem to know what is what no matter what. I am absolutely convinced that we here in the United States have abandoned any serious attempt to govern ourselves and regard our politics as little more than burlesque. “Come in, see our show, and you’ll go out happy, happy, happy.” It remains a mystery to me how Romney/Ryan could possibly be tied with Obama/Biden. If it is true (which I tend to doubt) I can only attribute it to the appalling ignorance and inattention of the electorate. And yes, by the way, I do think the Electoral College should be eliminated. Maybe if it were eliminated my vote here in Idaho might actually count.
Now that my wife is gone and I am here alone my life has become so uneventful as to reach the point of absurdity. I find the most important thing at the moment is the imminently expected birth of my first grandson who is, as yet, unnamed. My son’s idea of a boy’s name is so ridiculous his wife and her mother refuse to take him seriously, along with most everyone else who has heard about it. The problem is how is to refer to this coming being, should we refer to it as “It,” “Him,”, “No-name,” just “Baby,” or what? When this is the most important issue you face you realize just how inconsequential your life has become.
Of course there is also the problem of firewood. I don’t burn a lot of firewood since we were lulled into believing natural gas would be less expensive. But I do burn some and, having now cut and split (along with a friend) what I thought would be sufficient we have now concluded it is too green to burn this year and we will have to do it all again. Oh, well, it helps keep my mind off the election, toads, and the name of an as yet unknown person.
Yes, there is to be another debate on Tuesday evening, as I am sure you must know (unless you are deaf, blind, and being held in solitary confinement somewhere in the Himalayas. And yes, I believe Obama will be more awake and aggressive, Romney will continue to lie and distort, Democrats will come to one conclusion, Republicans an opposite one, and so on. And yes, we will be told from now until the event what it is that Obama and Romney will probably say, and yes, we will hear them say it, and yes, we will then be told what it is they said, probably for several days. It is all part of the mysterious obsession the media has with making sure nothing newsworthy will actually be reported (other than perhaps a car chase somewhere or a house fire or maybe a cat up a tree).
Too bad about Arlen Spector, he was an okay guy, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but certainly a cut above most of the Senate survivors. And by the way, he did not “Pass on,” “Go to meet his maker,” or be “Called to heaven,” he died.
I think we agree, the past is over.
George W. Bush
I cannot maintain any interest in the seemingly endlessly ongoing farce that pretends to be the Presidential campaign. I cannot wait until it is over, not that it will ever be over as it has now become the longest running soap opera and guaranteed money maker for the media. As it has been ongoing for years now it is hard to believe there is anyone who does not know what is what, except for the fact that the American public does not seem to know what is what no matter what. I am absolutely convinced that we here in the United States have abandoned any serious attempt to govern ourselves and regard our politics as little more than burlesque. “Come in, see our show, and you’ll go out happy, happy, happy.” It remains a mystery to me how Romney/Ryan could possibly be tied with Obama/Biden. If it is true (which I tend to doubt) I can only attribute it to the appalling ignorance and inattention of the electorate. And yes, by the way, I do think the Electoral College should be eliminated. Maybe if it were eliminated my vote here in Idaho might actually count.
Now that my wife is gone and I am here alone my life has become so uneventful as to reach the point of absurdity. I find the most important thing at the moment is the imminently expected birth of my first grandson who is, as yet, unnamed. My son’s idea of a boy’s name is so ridiculous his wife and her mother refuse to take him seriously, along with most everyone else who has heard about it. The problem is how is to refer to this coming being, should we refer to it as “It,” “Him,”, “No-name,” just “Baby,” or what? When this is the most important issue you face you realize just how inconsequential your life has become.
Of course there is also the problem of firewood. I don’t burn a lot of firewood since we were lulled into believing natural gas would be less expensive. But I do burn some and, having now cut and split (along with a friend) what I thought would be sufficient we have now concluded it is too green to burn this year and we will have to do it all again. Oh, well, it helps keep my mind off the election, toads, and the name of an as yet unknown person.
Yes, there is to be another debate on Tuesday evening, as I am sure you must know (unless you are deaf, blind, and being held in solitary confinement somewhere in the Himalayas. And yes, I believe Obama will be more awake and aggressive, Romney will continue to lie and distort, Democrats will come to one conclusion, Republicans an opposite one, and so on. And yes, we will be told from now until the event what it is that Obama and Romney will probably say, and yes, we will hear them say it, and yes, we will then be told what it is they said, probably for several days. It is all part of the mysterious obsession the media has with making sure nothing newsworthy will actually be reported (other than perhaps a car chase somewhere or a house fire or maybe a cat up a tree).
Too bad about Arlen Spector, he was an okay guy, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, but certainly a cut above most of the Senate survivors. And by the way, he did not “Pass on,” “Go to meet his maker,” or be “Called to heaven,” he died.
I think we agree, the past is over.
George W. Bush
Friday, October 12, 2012
Body Language and Such
Much has been made of the facts that President Obama appeared quiet and uninterested in his first debate and that Joe Biden smiled and laughed during his debate. I don’t believe this has anything much to do with their relative preparations for their debates or necessarily even with their deliberate plans. I would suggest these are two different means of coping with the same problem, namely, trying to have conversations with individuals who present virtually insurmountable problems with ordinary communications.
Having had years of experience trying to communicate with those who do not speak my language, nor I theirs, or with mentally retarded individuals, or people known to be schizophrenic or otherwise mentally ill, I recognize what is involved in such situations. I believe this holds true for conversations with those known to be chronic, even pathological liars, whether it be in ordinary daily conversation or in debates. When trying to engage in conversation with such people there are basically only two things you can do, other than avoiding such situations entirely. You can do as President Obama did in his first debate with Romney, simply remain mostly silent, avoiding argumentation you know is doomed to be unproductive and may prove to be disastrous. Obama himself recognized this when he said something to the effect that you cannot just accuse someone of lying after everything they say without creating an even worse situation.
In Biden’s case he employed a different strategy for the same problem. When he smiled or laughed, or rolled his eyes, or whatever, he basically signaled that he knew the person was lying but was humoring him rather than being deliberately and rudely insulting. Rather like humoring the crazy uncle who gets his news only from Rush Limbaugh and threatens the dinner conversation with his utter nonsense. You cannot completely ignore such people as they will not tolerate being ignored no matter how offensive they are.
It must have become apparent to Obama and the Democrats during the past few years there is no point in trying to have meaningful exchanges with Republicans. After all, when they have announced they are determined to do everything in their power to destroy you and your Presidency, what is the point of trying to reason with them, or even trying to communicate with them at all. I think Obama’s greatest mistake has been his insistence, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that it would be possible to work in a bipartisan manner with such people, a kind of perennial and optimistic assumption that has proven to be wrong. I think I understand this because I, too, would have thought the same thing, although I realized it was not true apparently before Obama gave up trying. It simply never occurred to me, or Obama, or I suspect to most other people, there were individuals in the United States that would put Party before the national interest. I’m not at all sure the Founding Fathers believed this either. It could not have occurred to them that one of two political parties would simply refuse to participate in governing, that the “loyal opposition” would become the “disloyal opposition.” But that is what has come to pass. It began in earnest, I think, when they found they could not defeat Clinton by ordinary political means and turned to more unprecedented and criminal-like behavior to do so, when Karl Rove and his not very jolly and destructive band of near gangsters came into prominence, when it was apparently decided by Republicans that the ends justified the means, when greed became good and “community” an anachronism. This has been an absolutely shameful period in our history in more ways than one.
It appears to be shaping up to a brutal contest between global warming and human inactivity, a seemingly insignificant matter when compared with the titanic struggle between two would-be leaders over who will come away with the most loot.
Yet ah! why should they know their fate,
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies?
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.
Thomas Gray
Having had years of experience trying to communicate with those who do not speak my language, nor I theirs, or with mentally retarded individuals, or people known to be schizophrenic or otherwise mentally ill, I recognize what is involved in such situations. I believe this holds true for conversations with those known to be chronic, even pathological liars, whether it be in ordinary daily conversation or in debates. When trying to engage in conversation with such people there are basically only two things you can do, other than avoiding such situations entirely. You can do as President Obama did in his first debate with Romney, simply remain mostly silent, avoiding argumentation you know is doomed to be unproductive and may prove to be disastrous. Obama himself recognized this when he said something to the effect that you cannot just accuse someone of lying after everything they say without creating an even worse situation.
In Biden’s case he employed a different strategy for the same problem. When he smiled or laughed, or rolled his eyes, or whatever, he basically signaled that he knew the person was lying but was humoring him rather than being deliberately and rudely insulting. Rather like humoring the crazy uncle who gets his news only from Rush Limbaugh and threatens the dinner conversation with his utter nonsense. You cannot completely ignore such people as they will not tolerate being ignored no matter how offensive they are.
It must have become apparent to Obama and the Democrats during the past few years there is no point in trying to have meaningful exchanges with Republicans. After all, when they have announced they are determined to do everything in their power to destroy you and your Presidency, what is the point of trying to reason with them, or even trying to communicate with them at all. I think Obama’s greatest mistake has been his insistence, in spite of evidence to the contrary, that it would be possible to work in a bipartisan manner with such people, a kind of perennial and optimistic assumption that has proven to be wrong. I think I understand this because I, too, would have thought the same thing, although I realized it was not true apparently before Obama gave up trying. It simply never occurred to me, or Obama, or I suspect to most other people, there were individuals in the United States that would put Party before the national interest. I’m not at all sure the Founding Fathers believed this either. It could not have occurred to them that one of two political parties would simply refuse to participate in governing, that the “loyal opposition” would become the “disloyal opposition.” But that is what has come to pass. It began in earnest, I think, when they found they could not defeat Clinton by ordinary political means and turned to more unprecedented and criminal-like behavior to do so, when Karl Rove and his not very jolly and destructive band of near gangsters came into prominence, when it was apparently decided by Republicans that the ends justified the means, when greed became good and “community” an anachronism. This has been an absolutely shameful period in our history in more ways than one.
It appears to be shaping up to a brutal contest between global warming and human inactivity, a seemingly insignificant matter when compared with the titanic struggle between two would-be leaders over who will come away with the most loot.
Yet ah! why should they know their fate,
Since sorrow never comes too late,
And happiness too swiftly flies?
Thought would destroy their paradise.
No more; where ignorance is bliss,
'Tis folly to be wise.
Thomas Gray
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Calling a Spade a Spade
No, I am not referring here to using “Spade” as a euphemism for Black people, although that would be an interesting topic for a future blog. That is, an analysis of all the code words, innuendos, and racial slurs being employed by Republicans and other racists for President Obama, would be, I am certain, quite revealing. No, here I am referring to what is euphemistically referred to as the “Defense Budget.”
When you realize the Defense Budget of the United States exceeds that of all other major nations combined it makes you wonder how that can truly be merely for defense. Indeed, even for a know-nothing like me, that would seem a really enormous amount merely for defense. And when you also learn that the Pentagon rather routinely loses a billion here and a billion there with no apparent accountability it makes you wonder even further. Similarly, when you begin to question just who we are preparing to defend against, as there seem to be no serious or major threats to our country anymore, it becomes even more difficult to justify this enormous budget. The major threat to our country seems pretty clearly to be terrorists. No amount of tanks, submarines, aircraft carriers, howitzers, nuclear bombs, and such military hardware will do anything to protect us from terrorists, so who needs all this massively expensive stuff? Then, finally, when you learn that much of this equipment is not actually requested by the military, and not even wanted, the truth begins to dawn on you. This defense budget actually has little or nothing to do with defense.
You might note also that Mitt Romney has indicated he wants to increase the military budget by two trillion dollars over the next ten years. This apparently is to include three new submarines that have not been requested and apparently not even wanted, to say nothing of who-knows-how-much new military hardware pretty obviously not needed for the actual defense of our country. This kind of behavior is all too characteristic of Republicans who have long prided themselves on being really strong on defense. Even my ignorance of foreign affairs, of serious threats to our country, of the basics of military hardware, possible invasions from outer space, communists in Congress, the appalling ignorance of our legislators, the albatross of Israel making our nation a rogue state, our dysfunctional political system, even the continued advice of John McCain and John Bolton, does not keep me from proclaiming that in my opinion we could cut the Defense Budget in half and it would make no difference whatsoever in our ability to defend ourselves. It might render our far-flung “empire” less far-flung, less plush, less grandiose, but I doubt it would affect our defenses even one iota.
And so it is I am suggesting we stop using the term “Defense Budget” to describe our obscene waste of money on the pretense of defense. I think we should consider an acronym instead, perhaps something like IMPOBB (the Industrial/Military/Political Ongoing Budget Boondoggle). It seems perfectly clear to me the Defense Budget has much less to do with defense that it does with keeping the corporations that manufacture all this basically useless junk (increasingly sold for scrap in Army Surplus Stores) in business. Of course every state that has companies that participate in this scam will resist giving up their cannonball- making jobs and profits no matter what, which seems to be near the heart of this absurd farce.
If you have an enormous military budget and a military machine said to be the best in the world you must, of course, find something to do with it. Nowhere is it more true, I guess, that “Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop.” I mean, we have all these young men and women trained to kill and capture, with all this state-of-the-art technology, they can’t just sit around with nothing to do. Let’s find some little more or less defenseless country to conquer, especially if they have oil or other resources we covet, let’s show them who’s the boss, the shining beacon on the hill, the home of the brave and the used-to-be land of the free.
By all means let us not cut the vital Defense Budget. Instead let’s cut Medicare and Medicaid, Pell Grants, Public Broadcasting, Planned Parenthood, Food Stamps, Aid to dependent children, school lunches, teachers, firemen, policemen, education, all that unimportant stuff. As Madeleine Albright warned us, the black helicopters are coming to steal our lawn chairs! And as I learned in the Army, “There’s fungus among us,” and “Malaria in the area.”
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
Albert Einstein (attributed)
When you realize the Defense Budget of the United States exceeds that of all other major nations combined it makes you wonder how that can truly be merely for defense. Indeed, even for a know-nothing like me, that would seem a really enormous amount merely for defense. And when you also learn that the Pentagon rather routinely loses a billion here and a billion there with no apparent accountability it makes you wonder even further. Similarly, when you begin to question just who we are preparing to defend against, as there seem to be no serious or major threats to our country anymore, it becomes even more difficult to justify this enormous budget. The major threat to our country seems pretty clearly to be terrorists. No amount of tanks, submarines, aircraft carriers, howitzers, nuclear bombs, and such military hardware will do anything to protect us from terrorists, so who needs all this massively expensive stuff? Then, finally, when you learn that much of this equipment is not actually requested by the military, and not even wanted, the truth begins to dawn on you. This defense budget actually has little or nothing to do with defense.
You might note also that Mitt Romney has indicated he wants to increase the military budget by two trillion dollars over the next ten years. This apparently is to include three new submarines that have not been requested and apparently not even wanted, to say nothing of who-knows-how-much new military hardware pretty obviously not needed for the actual defense of our country. This kind of behavior is all too characteristic of Republicans who have long prided themselves on being really strong on defense. Even my ignorance of foreign affairs, of serious threats to our country, of the basics of military hardware, possible invasions from outer space, communists in Congress, the appalling ignorance of our legislators, the albatross of Israel making our nation a rogue state, our dysfunctional political system, even the continued advice of John McCain and John Bolton, does not keep me from proclaiming that in my opinion we could cut the Defense Budget in half and it would make no difference whatsoever in our ability to defend ourselves. It might render our far-flung “empire” less far-flung, less plush, less grandiose, but I doubt it would affect our defenses even one iota.
And so it is I am suggesting we stop using the term “Defense Budget” to describe our obscene waste of money on the pretense of defense. I think we should consider an acronym instead, perhaps something like IMPOBB (the Industrial/Military/Political Ongoing Budget Boondoggle). It seems perfectly clear to me the Defense Budget has much less to do with defense that it does with keeping the corporations that manufacture all this basically useless junk (increasingly sold for scrap in Army Surplus Stores) in business. Of course every state that has companies that participate in this scam will resist giving up their cannonball- making jobs and profits no matter what, which seems to be near the heart of this absurd farce.
If you have an enormous military budget and a military machine said to be the best in the world you must, of course, find something to do with it. Nowhere is it more true, I guess, that “Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop.” I mean, we have all these young men and women trained to kill and capture, with all this state-of-the-art technology, they can’t just sit around with nothing to do. Let’s find some little more or less defenseless country to conquer, especially if they have oil or other resources we covet, let’s show them who’s the boss, the shining beacon on the hill, the home of the brave and the used-to-be land of the free.
By all means let us not cut the vital Defense Budget. Instead let’s cut Medicare and Medicaid, Pell Grants, Public Broadcasting, Planned Parenthood, Food Stamps, Aid to dependent children, school lunches, teachers, firemen, policemen, education, all that unimportant stuff. As Madeleine Albright warned us, the black helicopters are coming to steal our lawn chairs! And as I learned in the Army, “There’s fungus among us,” and “Malaria in the area.”
You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.
Albert Einstein (attributed)
Tuesday, October 09, 2012
American Values
President Obama is fond of speaking of “American values.” In fact this seems to be one of the main ideas he uses repeatedly in his speeches, saying things like “There are no Republican values or Democratic values, there are only American values.” I understand why he does this, or at least I think I do, but it seems to be to be demonstrably wrong. I suspect this claim or assumption of his is one of the reasons he has not been more successful than he might have been. Because he tends to believe this claim, or at least seems desperately to want to, he mistakenly assumed he would be able to work with both Republicans and members of his own party. He has obviously been disappointed but still seems to optimistically believe there are widely shared important values common to all Americans.
It does seem to me that throughout all of his Presidency so far It has become clear that Republicans do not share the same values as Democrats. Indeed, is this not the main theme of the current campaign? Obama insists that as Americans “we are all in this together,” whereas the Republicans believe in every person for him or herself, a kind of primitive social Darwinism not even shared by the great apes. I guess this is why Republicans keep insisting that Obama is a socialist even though he is so far from being one as to be laughable. The question seems to be not whether Americans share the same values, but do enough of them share the same values to re-elect Obama? Will enough Americans believe in sharing and helping each other as members of a genuine community or will they abandon such values in pursuit of even more individual profits?
It is not only in the matter of rampant individualism versus community that we do not seem to share the same values. Most Americans it seems to me are not at all in favor of more “wars” or even in empire building, but there are those who appear to not be able to get enough of war and the killing and misery that goes with it. Here again there is a fairly stark contrast between Romney’s idea of foreign policy and Obama’s. Romney, along with John McCain and others seems, to believe it is America’s right, even obligation, to manage the affairs of the world through the use of American power alone. Diplomacy they seem to believe is a sign of weakness. Whereas I believe Obama has been much too warlike in general he does seem to at least want to use diplomacy and negotiation rather than immediate aggression to further American goals. I think he deserves much credit for avoiding a war with Iran but I think it is shameful he has imposed such severe sanctions to achieve that aim. The sanctions of course impact innocent Iranian civilians, women and children, far more than anyone else. At least Netanyahu has had to back down on his demands we start a war on his behalf.
I still cannot come to terms with the claim that Romney and Obama are running neck-and-neck in the polls. Can it possibly be the case that at least half of the American public hates Obama enough to vote for the Great White Dope who speaks constantly with such an obviously “forked tongue?” Can a basically “Empty Suit,” running with a smart aleck “Mr. Know-it-all” turn out to be a winning combination? I cannot believe it, but the polls claim it might be possible. After all, American did vote twice for both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, almost certainly the worst two American Presidents ever. Please tell me it can’t happen again.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
H. L. Mencken
It does seem to me that throughout all of his Presidency so far It has become clear that Republicans do not share the same values as Democrats. Indeed, is this not the main theme of the current campaign? Obama insists that as Americans “we are all in this together,” whereas the Republicans believe in every person for him or herself, a kind of primitive social Darwinism not even shared by the great apes. I guess this is why Republicans keep insisting that Obama is a socialist even though he is so far from being one as to be laughable. The question seems to be not whether Americans share the same values, but do enough of them share the same values to re-elect Obama? Will enough Americans believe in sharing and helping each other as members of a genuine community or will they abandon such values in pursuit of even more individual profits?
It is not only in the matter of rampant individualism versus community that we do not seem to share the same values. Most Americans it seems to me are not at all in favor of more “wars” or even in empire building, but there are those who appear to not be able to get enough of war and the killing and misery that goes with it. Here again there is a fairly stark contrast between Romney’s idea of foreign policy and Obama’s. Romney, along with John McCain and others seems, to believe it is America’s right, even obligation, to manage the affairs of the world through the use of American power alone. Diplomacy they seem to believe is a sign of weakness. Whereas I believe Obama has been much too warlike in general he does seem to at least want to use diplomacy and negotiation rather than immediate aggression to further American goals. I think he deserves much credit for avoiding a war with Iran but I think it is shameful he has imposed such severe sanctions to achieve that aim. The sanctions of course impact innocent Iranian civilians, women and children, far more than anyone else. At least Netanyahu has had to back down on his demands we start a war on his behalf.
I still cannot come to terms with the claim that Romney and Obama are running neck-and-neck in the polls. Can it possibly be the case that at least half of the American public hates Obama enough to vote for the Great White Dope who speaks constantly with such an obviously “forked tongue?” Can a basically “Empty Suit,” running with a smart aleck “Mr. Know-it-all” turn out to be a winning combination? I cannot believe it, but the polls claim it might be possible. After all, American did vote twice for both Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, almost certainly the worst two American Presidents ever. Please tell me it can’t happen again.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.
H. L. Mencken
Monday, October 08, 2012
How?
I confess to being reduced to merely asking this simple childish question as I think I no longer have any idea of what is going on.
How, for example, can anyone take seriously what is going on in our current Presidential race? How can you deal with a candidate who changes his positions every time he opens his mouth? How can you take seriously a candidate who obviously knows nothing of foreign policy but gives a major speech on the subject during which he manages to say virtually nothing? How can you cope with a campaign in which a candidate lies repeatedly, even admits he lies, and then just goes on lying? How is it that chronic lying is now consider both right and proper because during a campaign “everyone does it?” How can you take politics seriously in a country where half the population doesn’t bother to vote, most who do vote are so misinformed as to be more or less useless in terms of making informed, intelligent choices? And how can the contest between Obama and Romney be too close to call when Romney has managed to alienate virtually every voting block there is other than his racist “base?”
As I can see no conceivable reason for voting for Romney, given his apparent lack of any consistent program or values, his unbelievable lying and flip-flopping, his lack of likeability and rather dismal record as a governor and businessman, I have concluded this is an election basically devoted to racial hatred. As there seems to be such a lack of enthusiasm for Romney on the part of both Republicans and Democrats, it appears to me people will really be voting against Obama, and as Obama’s record is pretty much middle-of-the road (in spite of the mythical figure of him they have created) , the vote against him must be more because he is black rather than anything else. It is not hard to find people, especially around here, who firmly believe a Black man does not belong in the White House, a situation that violates everything they have been brought up to believe about racial differences and inequality, sad but true.
Having virtually lost interest in this ongoing farce I now wait impatiently for it to be over. Everything considered, I believe voting for Obama is the better choice, but of course I would prefer someone less warlike, less committed to empire, less in bed with the big banks, less interested in overlooking civil rights, and, indeed, more socialistic in intent. But better to have a real person than an empty suit.
In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying.
Bertrand Russell
How, for example, can anyone take seriously what is going on in our current Presidential race? How can you deal with a candidate who changes his positions every time he opens his mouth? How can you take seriously a candidate who obviously knows nothing of foreign policy but gives a major speech on the subject during which he manages to say virtually nothing? How can you cope with a campaign in which a candidate lies repeatedly, even admits he lies, and then just goes on lying? How is it that chronic lying is now consider both right and proper because during a campaign “everyone does it?” How can you take politics seriously in a country where half the population doesn’t bother to vote, most who do vote are so misinformed as to be more or less useless in terms of making informed, intelligent choices? And how can the contest between Obama and Romney be too close to call when Romney has managed to alienate virtually every voting block there is other than his racist “base?”
As I can see no conceivable reason for voting for Romney, given his apparent lack of any consistent program or values, his unbelievable lying and flip-flopping, his lack of likeability and rather dismal record as a governor and businessman, I have concluded this is an election basically devoted to racial hatred. As there seems to be such a lack of enthusiasm for Romney on the part of both Republicans and Democrats, it appears to me people will really be voting against Obama, and as Obama’s record is pretty much middle-of-the road (in spite of the mythical figure of him they have created) , the vote against him must be more because he is black rather than anything else. It is not hard to find people, especially around here, who firmly believe a Black man does not belong in the White House, a situation that violates everything they have been brought up to believe about racial differences and inequality, sad but true.
Having virtually lost interest in this ongoing farce I now wait impatiently for it to be over. Everything considered, I believe voting for Obama is the better choice, but of course I would prefer someone less warlike, less committed to empire, less in bed with the big banks, less interested in overlooking civil rights, and, indeed, more socialistic in intent. But better to have a real person than an empty suit.
In the part of this universe that we know there is great injustice, and often the good suffer, and often the wicked prosper, and one hardly knows which of those is the more annoying.
Bertrand Russell
Sunday, October 07, 2012
Beware of Helplessness
As I have concluded the Presidential election is little more than a farce organized and engineered by the banks and corporations I have found it increasingly difficult to even bother to blog about it. My attitude has not been helped by the recent death of my wife which I have found to be increasingly depressing as the days go by.
I do not want anyone to think my remarks here are intended to be complaints, they merely reflect what I am finding to be the realities of unexpected calamities. I do not think the word calamity is too strong to describe the unexpected and basically unfair demise of a perfectly healthy, strong, and gifted woman who was much younger than her surviving spouse. This was not the way it was supposed to be.
My main problem as a survivor of this terrible injustice is that I am so helpless. Throughout virtually all of my adult life I have been surrounded by secretaries, administrative assistants, research associates, graduate students, and much more importantly, wives. These wonderful assets have been immeasurably valuable and much appreciated, but they have also helped to render me virtually helpless. I find I do not know how to do almost anything, and I am having to learn even the most basic survival skills. I find driving anywhere beyond the the mile and a half to the city dump or the three miles to town uncomfortable, as my wife has always driven everywhere else, especially any long distances. I did not know how to use the washer/dryer and had to be schooled by my daughter-in-law. I even have trouble using the microwave that I basically despise, my wife’s stove, with gas burners but an electric oven , plus a convection, self-cleaning feature I find overly complicated. Making the bed I can more or less handle as I was once in the army, but I did not know where she kept the sheets and pillow cases. Similarly, I don’t know even yet where she keeps tablecloths and such. We have a fine new barbecue and a Bradley smoker, neither of which I have ever used and will have to learn. I know, I know, these things are not that complicated, but when someone else has always used them and you have not they are foreign machines that threaten your basic competence. Fortunately I do know how to cook passably well, but certainly not up to the level of my wife. I am finding ingredients and foodstuffs in the pantry and freezer that I never heard of before.
Even so these basic day-to-day physical matters of living are relatively easy to learn or re-learn as the case may be. But I am even more helpless when it comes to other matters, such as computers, for example. Other than being able to write a blog I know nothing about these infernal machines. If something goes wrong with one, my wife always managed to take care of the problem. I’m not even confident I can change the ink cartridge in the printer. I’m pretty sure I can manage to learn that but there is no way I will ever be able to do anything else when it comes to the computers. Similarly, I know nothing whatsoever about our medical insurance, our time shares, Airline miles, her online book business, even our family histories, and so on.
I was, of course, always well-intentioned, I really meant to learn all these things, but procrastination really is the thief of time and I never did. I never asked anyone to do something I would not do myself, but not ever having to do things is not the same as actually doing them. In certain respects my wife was not much better. She said for years she would have to learn about our domestic expenses, how much we spent, for what, and so on, including what she would need to know then something happened to me, but she never did. Of course it is all moot now. It wasn’ t supposed to be this way. My wife was a great deal younger than me, I always expected to go first, even by several years, but it was not to be. It was all terribly unfair, unexpected, and unprepared for. We lived quite happily together for almost thirty years, blissfully ignoring the possibilities that might befall us, unprepared for disaster, well-intentioned but in a form of (I guess lazy) perennial denial.
I repeat, this is not meant to be complaining about what happened or the current situation, and I know this is by no means a unique experience as similar things have happened to my friends. It is clearly my own fault, I should have paid more attention to my life and the possibilities in store for me. I sincerely hope that others may do better.
I do not want anyone to think my remarks here are intended to be complaints, they merely reflect what I am finding to be the realities of unexpected calamities. I do not think the word calamity is too strong to describe the unexpected and basically unfair demise of a perfectly healthy, strong, and gifted woman who was much younger than her surviving spouse. This was not the way it was supposed to be.
My main problem as a survivor of this terrible injustice is that I am so helpless. Throughout virtually all of my adult life I have been surrounded by secretaries, administrative assistants, research associates, graduate students, and much more importantly, wives. These wonderful assets have been immeasurably valuable and much appreciated, but they have also helped to render me virtually helpless. I find I do not know how to do almost anything, and I am having to learn even the most basic survival skills. I find driving anywhere beyond the the mile and a half to the city dump or the three miles to town uncomfortable, as my wife has always driven everywhere else, especially any long distances. I did not know how to use the washer/dryer and had to be schooled by my daughter-in-law. I even have trouble using the microwave that I basically despise, my wife’s stove, with gas burners but an electric oven , plus a convection, self-cleaning feature I find overly complicated. Making the bed I can more or less handle as I was once in the army, but I did not know where she kept the sheets and pillow cases. Similarly, I don’t know even yet where she keeps tablecloths and such. We have a fine new barbecue and a Bradley smoker, neither of which I have ever used and will have to learn. I know, I know, these things are not that complicated, but when someone else has always used them and you have not they are foreign machines that threaten your basic competence. Fortunately I do know how to cook passably well, but certainly not up to the level of my wife. I am finding ingredients and foodstuffs in the pantry and freezer that I never heard of before.
Even so these basic day-to-day physical matters of living are relatively easy to learn or re-learn as the case may be. But I am even more helpless when it comes to other matters, such as computers, for example. Other than being able to write a blog I know nothing about these infernal machines. If something goes wrong with one, my wife always managed to take care of the problem. I’m not even confident I can change the ink cartridge in the printer. I’m pretty sure I can manage to learn that but there is no way I will ever be able to do anything else when it comes to the computers. Similarly, I know nothing whatsoever about our medical insurance, our time shares, Airline miles, her online book business, even our family histories, and so on.
I was, of course, always well-intentioned, I really meant to learn all these things, but procrastination really is the thief of time and I never did. I never asked anyone to do something I would not do myself, but not ever having to do things is not the same as actually doing them. In certain respects my wife was not much better. She said for years she would have to learn about our domestic expenses, how much we spent, for what, and so on, including what she would need to know then something happened to me, but she never did. Of course it is all moot now. It wasn’ t supposed to be this way. My wife was a great deal younger than me, I always expected to go first, even by several years, but it was not to be. It was all terribly unfair, unexpected, and unprepared for. We lived quite happily together for almost thirty years, blissfully ignoring the possibilities that might befall us, unprepared for disaster, well-intentioned but in a form of (I guess lazy) perennial denial.
I repeat, this is not meant to be complaining about what happened or the current situation, and I know this is by no means a unique experience as similar things have happened to my friends. It is clearly my own fault, I should have paid more attention to my life and the possibilities in store for me. I sincerely hope that others may do better.
Thursday, October 04, 2012
Meaninglessness
I am not even certain there is such a word as meaninglessness but it will do for the moment. Yes, I am thinking of last night’s debate that, it is widely agreed, was lost by President Obama to a new and aggressive Willard M. Romney. There seems to be general agreement that Romney “won.” I am not certain what that means. What exactly did he “win?” He did not win a trophy, nor did he win a cash prize, and I do not believe he won the election. Perhaps he won a few votes. That is possible. But then perhaps he lost a few votes also. So what does it mean to say he won? In fact I don’t believe it even matters who won or lost the debate last night as It is all part of the meaninglessness of the ongoing Soap Opera designated as the campaign for the Presidency of the widely touted most powerful nation on earth now repeatedly defeated by a bunch of local citizens armed with a few small arms. Being a loyal American now for more than 80 years I do not like to admit it, but I think it is true, the “American Century” is coming to a close. Central and South America, as well as the Middle East, are making it pretty clear they are no longer going to put up with America’s meddling and trying to control their countries, and as we will quite likely be bankrupt soon we will no doubt be unable to continue to dominate the world. Osama bin Laden will have won, just as they won over the Russians. Failing a “war” on Iran that we cannot afford and will surely lose it seems clear that American hegemony is everywhere slipping away. Of course we could go on following the advice of John McCain and the other warmongers “dying with our boots on,” but that would seem even too foolish even for us. I guess if Romney should somehow manage to win the election that may well be our fate.
What was wrong with President Obama last night? Why did he let Romney ride roughshod over the truth without much in the way of defense? I have no idea. Maybe he was struck by the absurdity of it all and was preoccupied with the demands of office, realizing that Romney has little or no idea of what the Presidency is all about, maybe he was tired, maybe he realized that arguing with apparently schizophrenic politicians is a hopeless cause. I don’t believe the real Mitt Romney will ever stand up because I don’t believe there even is a real Mitt Romney. And even assuming there might be I don’t think I would like to know him.
If there was ever any doubt that John Sununu was a racist scumbag (I doubt there was for many of us) he made it clear that he was with his recent claims that President Obama is lazy and disengaged and does not want to work. These insulting and degrading remarks, along with others he has made in the past, make it quite clear he is an out-and-out racist and as such is a perfect spokesman for the current Republican Party. I wonder how he managed to omit “shiftless” from his description of the “Darky” who is presently illegally and unfortunately occupying the White House and “doesn’t even understand his own policies.” Some may want us to believe that Sununu is just the “cranky old uncle in the family” but I think he is in fact the spokesman for the Party itself. Now that the election is drawing near and Obama seems to be leading in the polls the desperation of the Republicans is leading them to throw all caution to the winds and express their racist beliefs much more openly. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that their disrespectful treatment of Obama, and even the office of the President itself, has to do with the fact that our President is Black. Our previous President, George W. Bush, even though most probably borderline retarded, was not treated with such disrespect, nor was the office of the Presidency. As much as they try they have been unable to goad Obama into their image of an angry Black man, thus becoming more frustrated and angry themselves.
I am not at all certain that Obama isn’t just playing “rope a dope,” allowing Romney the freedom to continue his unabashed lying that will inevitably be exposed by the fact checkers, much to the ultimate dismay of independent voters. I could be wrong, of course, as I often am. But the media has certainly been treating this debate as a contest between “Muhammad Obama” and the” Great White Dope,” as if it represents the battle of the century rather than an ordinary debate between two Presidential hopefuls. Even if most of the pundits seem to agree that Obama “lost” the contest last night it is not really the end of the election, and certainly not the end of the world.
The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.
Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
What was wrong with President Obama last night? Why did he let Romney ride roughshod over the truth without much in the way of defense? I have no idea. Maybe he was struck by the absurdity of it all and was preoccupied with the demands of office, realizing that Romney has little or no idea of what the Presidency is all about, maybe he was tired, maybe he realized that arguing with apparently schizophrenic politicians is a hopeless cause. I don’t believe the real Mitt Romney will ever stand up because I don’t believe there even is a real Mitt Romney. And even assuming there might be I don’t think I would like to know him.
If there was ever any doubt that John Sununu was a racist scumbag (I doubt there was for many of us) he made it clear that he was with his recent claims that President Obama is lazy and disengaged and does not want to work. These insulting and degrading remarks, along with others he has made in the past, make it quite clear he is an out-and-out racist and as such is a perfect spokesman for the current Republican Party. I wonder how he managed to omit “shiftless” from his description of the “Darky” who is presently illegally and unfortunately occupying the White House and “doesn’t even understand his own policies.” Some may want us to believe that Sununu is just the “cranky old uncle in the family” but I think he is in fact the spokesman for the Party itself. Now that the election is drawing near and Obama seems to be leading in the polls the desperation of the Republicans is leading them to throw all caution to the winds and express their racist beliefs much more openly. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that their disrespectful treatment of Obama, and even the office of the President itself, has to do with the fact that our President is Black. Our previous President, George W. Bush, even though most probably borderline retarded, was not treated with such disrespect, nor was the office of the Presidency. As much as they try they have been unable to goad Obama into their image of an angry Black man, thus becoming more frustrated and angry themselves.
I am not at all certain that Obama isn’t just playing “rope a dope,” allowing Romney the freedom to continue his unabashed lying that will inevitably be exposed by the fact checkers, much to the ultimate dismay of independent voters. I could be wrong, of course, as I often am. But the media has certainly been treating this debate as a contest between “Muhammad Obama” and the” Great White Dope,” as if it represents the battle of the century rather than an ordinary debate between two Presidential hopefuls. Even if most of the pundits seem to agree that Obama “lost” the contest last night it is not really the end of the election, and certainly not the end of the world.
The hardest thing about any political campaign is how to win without proving that you are unworthy of winning.
Adlai E. Stevenson Jr.
Tuesday, October 02, 2012
The Big Lie Continues
The Republicans may actually get away with the greatest falsehood of all time, President Obama has failed to create jobs. I realize that when things go wrong the President, being the one at the top, is usually blamed. It is true that unemployment remains above 8%, but blaming this on the President is ridiculous, especially given the facts of the matter. The idea that the President is uniquely responsible for creating jobs is, at best, a gross oversimplification, but in this particular case hypocrisy is carried to heretofore unknown heights. Republicans have refused to cooperate with Obama at every turn, have opposed every attempt he has made to improve the employment situation, and now have the continued audacity to blame him for the problem. The employment situation can easily be remedied if Republicans would make any effort to help, if instead of opposing every jobs bill, for no other reason that they want to see Obama fail, they would seriously cooperate to solve the problem. The fact that they are far more responsible than Obama for the high unemployment rate is bad enough, but their continued hypocrisy on the subject I find infuriating, especially as it is so obvious but no one seems to zero in on the truth of the matter. In effect Republicans have conspired to destroy the economy and are now boasting of their success by attempting to use the situation for their advantage. I personally find this absolutely disgusting.
The first debate is not until tomorrow evening. I am already sick of hearing about it. Both sides have been rehearsing for days as if this is to be the opening night of the greatest play ever written when, in fact, it is unlikely to have much of an effect on anyone, especially the outcome of the coming election. It is just another part of the great charade we have been witnessing for the past three years. Indeed, it is so “last year” we are now already discussing who will run in 2016. Will it be Hillary, perhaps Christie, maybe Santorum again, Ryan, that weird Governor of Texas, maybe even Bachmann, who, who, who? Who cares as long as it keeps us all entertained for the next few years. Ultimately it will be whoever the powers that be decide who will best serve their interests, another fake contest in our pretend democracy. Whoever the “Chosen” turns out to be, don’t expect any but a few cosmetic changes. As Americans we have basically abandoned any serious attempt to maintain our system of government, half the people don’t even bother to vote, most that do vote have little or no real information about what is going on, citizens are so increasingly “out of the loop” they might as well not even exist, and the true fascist state is more and more imminent. All three branches of our government are virtually out of democratic control and merely perform the tasks they are given by those who pay them. The “best government you can buy” is no longer merely sarcasm.
So here we are in 2012 faced with the same choice of two undesirable candidates for the most powerful figurehead position in the world, the usual lesser of two evils, not exactly the choice of a lifetime. It appears that Obama will probably win, perhaps he will improve the situation of the middle class a bit, all the while sending his immoral drones around the world killing innocents and creating more hatred of our colonial government, incarcerating people at will, ignoring our suicidal capitalistic behavior, blissfully creating more hatred and ill will everywhere we go, waiting for Armageddon.
I am sick of hearing Romney, Ryan, and other Republicans complaining about “entitlements,” expecting to have health insurance, minimum wages, unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, and other such social programs. People should be entitled to such things, that is the whole point of living in a decent, caring, moral, and responsible community, it should be the major function of government to provide such things for their citizens. Wealthy capitalists, sitting on the loot they have gathered from the blood, sweat and tears of those they have exploited, do not exist in the same jungle as others, do not understand it, have ceased to respect it, and think they are the “entitled.”
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
John Kenneth Galbraith
The first debate is not until tomorrow evening. I am already sick of hearing about it. Both sides have been rehearsing for days as if this is to be the opening night of the greatest play ever written when, in fact, it is unlikely to have much of an effect on anyone, especially the outcome of the coming election. It is just another part of the great charade we have been witnessing for the past three years. Indeed, it is so “last year” we are now already discussing who will run in 2016. Will it be Hillary, perhaps Christie, maybe Santorum again, Ryan, that weird Governor of Texas, maybe even Bachmann, who, who, who? Who cares as long as it keeps us all entertained for the next few years. Ultimately it will be whoever the powers that be decide who will best serve their interests, another fake contest in our pretend democracy. Whoever the “Chosen” turns out to be, don’t expect any but a few cosmetic changes. As Americans we have basically abandoned any serious attempt to maintain our system of government, half the people don’t even bother to vote, most that do vote have little or no real information about what is going on, citizens are so increasingly “out of the loop” they might as well not even exist, and the true fascist state is more and more imminent. All three branches of our government are virtually out of democratic control and merely perform the tasks they are given by those who pay them. The “best government you can buy” is no longer merely sarcasm.
So here we are in 2012 faced with the same choice of two undesirable candidates for the most powerful figurehead position in the world, the usual lesser of two evils, not exactly the choice of a lifetime. It appears that Obama will probably win, perhaps he will improve the situation of the middle class a bit, all the while sending his immoral drones around the world killing innocents and creating more hatred of our colonial government, incarcerating people at will, ignoring our suicidal capitalistic behavior, blissfully creating more hatred and ill will everywhere we go, waiting for Armageddon.
I am sick of hearing Romney, Ryan, and other Republicans complaining about “entitlements,” expecting to have health insurance, minimum wages, unemployment insurance, social security, medicare, and other such social programs. People should be entitled to such things, that is the whole point of living in a decent, caring, moral, and responsible community, it should be the major function of government to provide such things for their citizens. Wealthy capitalists, sitting on the loot they have gathered from the blood, sweat and tears of those they have exploited, do not exist in the same jungle as others, do not understand it, have ceased to respect it, and think they are the “entitled.”
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
John Kenneth Galbraith
Sunday, September 30, 2012
The Iranian "Madness"
First, let me thank those of you who have offered kind words about the death of our beloved wife and mother, taken unfairly before her time, a terrible blow to all kind and decent people everywhere. Your comments have been noted and deeply appreciated.
But life does go on and the journey to the west is both mostly predictable and certainly inevitable. While one is tempted to concentrate on his or her personal problems there are larger problems that are more important and sometimes less understandable. One of these problems for me has to do with Iran. I simply do not fully understand the obsession we and the Israelis have with Iran, nor do I understand why at least some other countries have been convinced to play along with our obsessions.
In spite of all the propaganda and negative news coverage I simply do not believe Iran is a threat to either the U.S. or even Israel. I do not believe they are about to make a nuclear bomb, I do not believe that even if they had such a bomb it would pose a threat to the U.S., Israel, or the entire world as some (mostly Bibi Netanyahu) would have us believe. Even more fundamentally, I do not believe that anyone in Israel or the U.S. believes in this utter nonsense. It seems crystal clear to me that the threat has nothing whatsoever to do with the bomb or the actual behavior of Iranians. It has to do with the threat to Western-European hegemony in the Middle East. The U.S. and Israel are the last two colonial powers that do not want to give up their control of Middle East oil production. This is in my opinion not only stupid but eventually hopeless, just as it is proving to be in Middle and South America.
First of all, the age of oil is going to come to an end eventually. Second, has anyone seriously reflected on how much oil we could have purchased with the apparent three trillion dollars we have wasted trying to control it instead of just buying it? If we had bought it fairly it would have no only benefitted us, it would also have greatly benefitted those who wanted to sell it, rather than being devastated and destroyed as they have been they could have thrived happily selling their most important product. The Western-European presence in the Middle East has always from the very beginning been driven by colonial greed rather than hogwash about spreading democracy and/or Christianity to the heathens. We are now witnessing the last vestiges of former colonial power being eroded by people who have had quite enough of it, and Iran is a perfect example as our history of interfering with their country is well known. Furthermore they have tried repeatedly for a negotiated solution only to have been summarily rejected. I would like to believe that Obama’s crippling sanctions are motivated by his sincere desire to avoid another illegal “war” in the Middle East and placate the Israelis but I could be wrong. The sanctions are themselves basically stupid as other countries violate them and they only serve to harm mostly innocent children. Our behavior towards Iran, along with that of Israel, is nothing short of barbaric, a classic example of the worst kind of colonialism. How it will end I do not know, but if Obama successfully prevents a “war” he should receive credit for it although the price the Iranians are being made to pay is exorbitant beyond belief.
I firmly believe that at this moment in time the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East, and indeed the world, is not Iran, it is Israel and the United States of America, the last colonials.
I do not generally indulge in post mortems, but I am haunted by how different the situation would be if our criminal Supreme Court had not anointed George W. Bush as President of the U.S. instead of Al Gore,
God said this is our land, land in which we flourish as people... we want our cattle to get fat on our land so that our children grow up in prosperity; and we do not want the fat removed to feed others."
Jomo Kenyatta
But life does go on and the journey to the west is both mostly predictable and certainly inevitable. While one is tempted to concentrate on his or her personal problems there are larger problems that are more important and sometimes less understandable. One of these problems for me has to do with Iran. I simply do not fully understand the obsession we and the Israelis have with Iran, nor do I understand why at least some other countries have been convinced to play along with our obsessions.
In spite of all the propaganda and negative news coverage I simply do not believe Iran is a threat to either the U.S. or even Israel. I do not believe they are about to make a nuclear bomb, I do not believe that even if they had such a bomb it would pose a threat to the U.S., Israel, or the entire world as some (mostly Bibi Netanyahu) would have us believe. Even more fundamentally, I do not believe that anyone in Israel or the U.S. believes in this utter nonsense. It seems crystal clear to me that the threat has nothing whatsoever to do with the bomb or the actual behavior of Iranians. It has to do with the threat to Western-European hegemony in the Middle East. The U.S. and Israel are the last two colonial powers that do not want to give up their control of Middle East oil production. This is in my opinion not only stupid but eventually hopeless, just as it is proving to be in Middle and South America.
First of all, the age of oil is going to come to an end eventually. Second, has anyone seriously reflected on how much oil we could have purchased with the apparent three trillion dollars we have wasted trying to control it instead of just buying it? If we had bought it fairly it would have no only benefitted us, it would also have greatly benefitted those who wanted to sell it, rather than being devastated and destroyed as they have been they could have thrived happily selling their most important product. The Western-European presence in the Middle East has always from the very beginning been driven by colonial greed rather than hogwash about spreading democracy and/or Christianity to the heathens. We are now witnessing the last vestiges of former colonial power being eroded by people who have had quite enough of it, and Iran is a perfect example as our history of interfering with their country is well known. Furthermore they have tried repeatedly for a negotiated solution only to have been summarily rejected. I would like to believe that Obama’s crippling sanctions are motivated by his sincere desire to avoid another illegal “war” in the Middle East and placate the Israelis but I could be wrong. The sanctions are themselves basically stupid as other countries violate them and they only serve to harm mostly innocent children. Our behavior towards Iran, along with that of Israel, is nothing short of barbaric, a classic example of the worst kind of colonialism. How it will end I do not know, but if Obama successfully prevents a “war” he should receive credit for it although the price the Iranians are being made to pay is exorbitant beyond belief.
I firmly believe that at this moment in time the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East, and indeed the world, is not Iran, it is Israel and the United States of America, the last colonials.
I do not generally indulge in post mortems, but I am haunted by how different the situation would be if our criminal Supreme Court had not anointed George W. Bush as President of the U.S. instead of Al Gore,
God said this is our land, land in which we flourish as people... we want our cattle to get fat on our land so that our children grow up in prosperity; and we do not want the fat removed to feed others."
Jomo Kenyatta
Friday, September 28, 2012
It Ain't Over 'til it's Over
It ain’t over ‘til it’s over, and I think it’s over, this ridiculous four year campaign for the Presidency of the United States, that is. Can you imagine any other country on earth exhausting so much money and time trying to select a leader for the next four years? We have managed to take an event that should take maybe a month or two at most into a non-stop four-year enterprise. Who benefits from this farce? What is the point? Why do we put up with this? As near as I can tell most of the benefits must have to do with the media, especially television, who reap enormous profits from the advertising that is now so much of the process. And who owns the media that profits the most? Why, surprise, the very corporations that manage the whole show. I guess you might have noticed that we are already talking about the 2016 elections, will Hillary run for President or not, and so on. U. S. elections are now an ongoing soap opera rather than a serious attempt to manage a country. It’s the nonsensical entertaining the nonsensical.
I mean, really, how can anyone take this seriously? Billions of dollars have been spent over months now promoting one or another candidate (probably already chosen), even though by the admission of most observers no one has paid any attention until now, and some acknowledge there are even still undecided voters. What was the point of all this expenditure? This is, to put it mildly, madness. Government and governing is no longer serious business in the U.S., it is simply entertainment, sound and fury signifying nothing. Whichever candidate wins they will still be beholden to the powers that be, Wall Street and the massive corporations that control the world. It’s true that Obama may be given license to make some basically cosmetic changes, improve the middle class, build some bridges, offer a bit more health care, continue to allow contraception and abortion, maybe even increase taxes a smidgen on the filthy rich, but they won’t even notice it and it won’t make any significant difference as long as the powers that be continue to rake in their profits. They don’t care about all these minuscule changes that will, even if generous, do nothing to seriously affect the status quo. American capitalism will survive, the rich will continue to get richer, the poor may stop getting poorer, but the basic swindle will continue. Marx failed to realize that the poor could be placated by “a six-pack of beer and a long-legged whore on Saturday night” (not an original observation by Morialekafa).
President Obama is not a socialist, far from it, in spite of what the lunatic right seems to believe. The basic system will remain intact with just a few adjustments here and there. We will no doubt continue with our heads buried in the sand, ignoring global warming, increasing poverty, environmental devastation, everything that truly matters, while fussing over a Black President, who said what to whom, what did he/she really mean by that, is cleavage in fashion this year, and what will Lindsay Lohan do next. And oh, yes, should we unilaterally, illegally, unconstitutionally, and immorally attack Iran to please Bibi. It’s the American way.
Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy.
George Bernard Shaw
I mean, really, how can anyone take this seriously? Billions of dollars have been spent over months now promoting one or another candidate (probably already chosen), even though by the admission of most observers no one has paid any attention until now, and some acknowledge there are even still undecided voters. What was the point of all this expenditure? This is, to put it mildly, madness. Government and governing is no longer serious business in the U.S., it is simply entertainment, sound and fury signifying nothing. Whichever candidate wins they will still be beholden to the powers that be, Wall Street and the massive corporations that control the world. It’s true that Obama may be given license to make some basically cosmetic changes, improve the middle class, build some bridges, offer a bit more health care, continue to allow contraception and abortion, maybe even increase taxes a smidgen on the filthy rich, but they won’t even notice it and it won’t make any significant difference as long as the powers that be continue to rake in their profits. They don’t care about all these minuscule changes that will, even if generous, do nothing to seriously affect the status quo. American capitalism will survive, the rich will continue to get richer, the poor may stop getting poorer, but the basic swindle will continue. Marx failed to realize that the poor could be placated by “a six-pack of beer and a long-legged whore on Saturday night” (not an original observation by Morialekafa).
President Obama is not a socialist, far from it, in spite of what the lunatic right seems to believe. The basic system will remain intact with just a few adjustments here and there. We will no doubt continue with our heads buried in the sand, ignoring global warming, increasing poverty, environmental devastation, everything that truly matters, while fussing over a Black President, who said what to whom, what did he/she really mean by that, is cleavage in fashion this year, and what will Lindsay Lohan do next. And oh, yes, should we unilaterally, illegally, unconstitutionally, and immorally attack Iran to please Bibi. It’s the American way.
Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy.
George Bernard Shaw
Thursday, September 27, 2012
The Less They Know...
It appears to me that the less one knows the more authoritatively they speak. Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, for example, has now said that preventing Gay marriage is a human universal. This is just not so. Among American Indians there was a custom known as the berdache that involved such marriages. I am pretty certain that such marriages also occurred in at least some other cultures. Similarly, opponents of Gay marriages often argue that a marriage between a single man and a single woman are the most natural form of marriage, also not true. First, the preferred marriage choice on a worldwide basis is polygamy although it is true that most marriages involve only one man and one wife which seems to be the most practical form as most men cannot afford more than one wife. But the number of wives one is allowed to have varies from one to more, including in rare cases even hundreds of wives and concubines.
There is also found in some cases polyandry, the marriage of one woman to two or more husbands. This was very common among the Toda of India, the two or more husbands usually being brothers. The first child or two of such a marriage was claimed by the eldest brother, subsequent children were believed to be the children of other brothers irrespective of who the actual biological father was.
As I have not followed my anthropological career for many years my memory may be a bit faulty on these matters, but I remember enough to know that marriages can involve many things that do not follow the one man one woman claim. Among the Nuer in Africa, for example, if a woman’s husband dies without leaving a child she can marry again, or even bring in some other man to give her a child that will legally belong to the deceased husband. Similarly, she can even marry the ghost of a brother and have a child in his name. As I dimly recall she can even marry another woman if the woman has sufficient cattle to be considered a man, and produce children in her name. Anyway, those who make claims about universal monogamy being the only preferred or “natural” marriage pattern simply don’t know what they are talking about, but of course, that doesn’t keep them from being authorities on the subject.
Speaking out of ignorance seems to be quite typical in the United States. Take the case for the claim of socialism against Obama. Those who argue that Obama is a socialist appear to have little or no knowledge of socialism. Obamacare, that might be considered by some to be a form of socialism, is quite definitely not socialism for the simple reason that it still involves private insurance companies. It is not a program run by the government as, in fact, it ought to be. It is quite clear the only efficient and affordable form of health care would be a single payer system as most other industrialized nations have, but Obama did not even try to push such a system. A single payer system will ultimately prevail because it is the only really affordable option, other than providing no care at all as Republicans seem to favor, the “I’ve got mine the hell with you system.” Similarly, when Obama rescued the auto companies he did not nationalize them, the government did not take them over and run them as any socialist would have done. The claim that Obama is a socialist is poppycock pure and simple, made by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
Along these lines we hear Romney and others babbling on about how the 47% or others think they are entitled to health care, food stamps, and government support of all kinds and so on. Others babble about “God-given” or “Natural rights.” As I have said previously, probably more than once, there are no God-given or Natural rights. If you receive health care or unemployment insurance or some such benefits you do so by virtue of living and participating in a decent, caring, responsible group of people who have decided to look after and help each other deal with the exigencies of human life. That is the basic purpose of government in spite of what that nitwit Saint Romney wanted us to believe. The differences in attitude towards government could not be more stark than they are at the moment in the coming election. Obama believes we are all in this together, Romney and his other vulture capitalists promote the most primitive form of social Darwinism in which each individual is on his or her own, a way of life that is obviously incompatible with any form of government other than naked capitalistic greed in which people basically cannibalize each other with only the wealthiest surviving until the inevitable collapse. In all known cultures that have survived over time the members are not only obliged to help each other in difficult times but do, in fact, generously do so. Only vulture capitalists who prey on those who stand in the way of their holy profits seem to depart from this universal pattern of human life. Take away their millions and billions and put them on their own and see how far they get in life. It would be a noble experiment.
The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.
Karl Marx
There is also found in some cases polyandry, the marriage of one woman to two or more husbands. This was very common among the Toda of India, the two or more husbands usually being brothers. The first child or two of such a marriage was claimed by the eldest brother, subsequent children were believed to be the children of other brothers irrespective of who the actual biological father was.
As I have not followed my anthropological career for many years my memory may be a bit faulty on these matters, but I remember enough to know that marriages can involve many things that do not follow the one man one woman claim. Among the Nuer in Africa, for example, if a woman’s husband dies without leaving a child she can marry again, or even bring in some other man to give her a child that will legally belong to the deceased husband. Similarly, she can even marry the ghost of a brother and have a child in his name. As I dimly recall she can even marry another woman if the woman has sufficient cattle to be considered a man, and produce children in her name. Anyway, those who make claims about universal monogamy being the only preferred or “natural” marriage pattern simply don’t know what they are talking about, but of course, that doesn’t keep them from being authorities on the subject.
Speaking out of ignorance seems to be quite typical in the United States. Take the case for the claim of socialism against Obama. Those who argue that Obama is a socialist appear to have little or no knowledge of socialism. Obamacare, that might be considered by some to be a form of socialism, is quite definitely not socialism for the simple reason that it still involves private insurance companies. It is not a program run by the government as, in fact, it ought to be. It is quite clear the only efficient and affordable form of health care would be a single payer system as most other industrialized nations have, but Obama did not even try to push such a system. A single payer system will ultimately prevail because it is the only really affordable option, other than providing no care at all as Republicans seem to favor, the “I’ve got mine the hell with you system.” Similarly, when Obama rescued the auto companies he did not nationalize them, the government did not take them over and run them as any socialist would have done. The claim that Obama is a socialist is poppycock pure and simple, made by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
Along these lines we hear Romney and others babbling on about how the 47% or others think they are entitled to health care, food stamps, and government support of all kinds and so on. Others babble about “God-given” or “Natural rights.” As I have said previously, probably more than once, there are no God-given or Natural rights. If you receive health care or unemployment insurance or some such benefits you do so by virtue of living and participating in a decent, caring, responsible group of people who have decided to look after and help each other deal with the exigencies of human life. That is the basic purpose of government in spite of what that nitwit Saint Romney wanted us to believe. The differences in attitude towards government could not be more stark than they are at the moment in the coming election. Obama believes we are all in this together, Romney and his other vulture capitalists promote the most primitive form of social Darwinism in which each individual is on his or her own, a way of life that is obviously incompatible with any form of government other than naked capitalistic greed in which people basically cannibalize each other with only the wealthiest surviving until the inevitable collapse. In all known cultures that have survived over time the members are not only obliged to help each other in difficult times but do, in fact, generously do so. Only vulture capitalists who prey on those who stand in the way of their holy profits seem to depart from this universal pattern of human life. Take away their millions and billions and put them on their own and see how far they get in life. It would be a noble experiment.
The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope.
Karl Marx
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
I'm Back, I Think
I thought I had completely gone through the various stages of life one experiences on the journey to the west: infant, child, mister, sir, grandpa, pops, old Mr. L... However, now that my wonderful wife has departed, ending her journey to the west, I have achieved still another title, "Poor Old Mr. L..." From the time she died on the 15th until just today it has been a nightmare experience. There is so much to do and I am so helpless. I know how to do virtually nothing and having to learn even the basics of everyday existence, all those things my wife did for almost 30 years. I find that it takes me a week to do what she could accomplish in a single morning. I believe I will survive, at least for a time, but I know from observing my father and a few friends that husbands do not last very long after they lose their wives.
Having been oblivious to anything for the past ten days I am not really surprised to learn that Romney/Ryan are tanking and that Obama is completely outclassing them. Both of them strike me as spoiled brats that have no idea how ordinary people live and cope, and they seem to lack even the most basic qualities of empathy and understanding. They seem unable to understand they cannot gain the White House simply by badmouthing Obama and offering no specific solutions of their own, of course they have nothing besides the usual "smaller government, lower taxes mantra" that has already failed miserably. I think, at least I hope the public is on to the absurdity of this position. If not perhaps they will deserve what they get if these two "unprepared for prime time" candidates somehow manage to get elected.
I do not see how they can possibly be elected as they have managed to alienate virtually every voting block there is except for the hard core racists and uneducated Whites (they may even be losing some of them). One of these nitwits in Montana has suggested there will be a revolution of Obama is re-elected. Actually, I think a revoultion is much more likely if he does not get re-elected. The only way he will not be re-elected is if the Republicans somehow manage to actually steal the election. And given the fact that Obama is now far ahead in most polls, and the Republicans only have thier base (if that), if Obama is defeated it will only have been possible because of outright fraud, thus disenfranchising the electorate and destroying the democratic process (such as it is).
It is being said by some that Romney's last chance will be the coming debate on October 3rd. I cannot imagine Romney can best Obama in a debate and I hope he leaves with his tail between his legs. Of course if he loses the Tea Party clowns will say he wasn't really their candidate anyway and will probably continue their insane behavior. The only real solution to this problem is if the Democrats manage to control both the Senate and the House, as well as the Presidency, in a victory so massive it will virtually destroy them and perhaps even the Republican Party itself (at least for several years).
What goes around, comes around.
Having been oblivious to anything for the past ten days I am not really surprised to learn that Romney/Ryan are tanking and that Obama is completely outclassing them. Both of them strike me as spoiled brats that have no idea how ordinary people live and cope, and they seem to lack even the most basic qualities of empathy and understanding. They seem unable to understand they cannot gain the White House simply by badmouthing Obama and offering no specific solutions of their own, of course they have nothing besides the usual "smaller government, lower taxes mantra" that has already failed miserably. I think, at least I hope the public is on to the absurdity of this position. If not perhaps they will deserve what they get if these two "unprepared for prime time" candidates somehow manage to get elected.
I do not see how they can possibly be elected as they have managed to alienate virtually every voting block there is except for the hard core racists and uneducated Whites (they may even be losing some of them). One of these nitwits in Montana has suggested there will be a revolution of Obama is re-elected. Actually, I think a revoultion is much more likely if he does not get re-elected. The only way he will not be re-elected is if the Republicans somehow manage to actually steal the election. And given the fact that Obama is now far ahead in most polls, and the Republicans only have thier base (if that), if Obama is defeated it will only have been possible because of outright fraud, thus disenfranchising the electorate and destroying the democratic process (such as it is).
It is being said by some that Romney's last chance will be the coming debate on October 3rd. I cannot imagine Romney can best Obama in a debate and I hope he leaves with his tail between his legs. Of course if he loses the Tea Party clowns will say he wasn't really their candidate anyway and will probably continue their insane behavior. The only real solution to this problem is if the Democrats manage to control both the Senate and the House, as well as the Presidency, in a victory so massive it will virtually destroy them and perhaps even the Republican Party itself (at least for several years).
What goes around, comes around.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
The Journey to the West is Hard, Indeed
My lovely, talented, and most wonderful wife of almost 30 years, sixty years of age, in perfect health, who took care of herself religiously, suddenly and completely unexpectedly suffered a massive stroke on a Thursday afternoon and died on Saturday morning at 11.33 a.m. It was a shock unbelievable in its intensity for me and also for her many friends in the community. It was so unbelievable that many refused to believe it without further confirmation. Even now I find it impossible to believe. It was so unfair, so unjust, so completely senseless, and obviously should have happened to me rather than to her.
Linda was during her lifetime a daughter, sister, wife, mother, and the anchor of our life together. She was also at times a dancer, sailor, waitress, bookstore manager, researcher, anthropologist, linguist, scholar, teacher, chef, political activist, environmentalist, blogger, and a gifted poet. In the words of Walt Whitman’s, “Song of Myself,” she was, in fact, a “multitude.”
In New Guinea, where houses are constructed around a central post that supports all the rest of the structure, the leader of the group is often described as the “House Post.” There is no doubt whatsoever that Linda was our House Post, and now that she is gone that house will begin to crumble, fall into disrepair, and eventually disappear.
As a girl, Linda attended a Lutheran school and was steeped in bible studies, and later, in college, she also studied the bible. As a mature woman and anthropologist she came to realize and appreciate the superficiality of organized religions and the unbelievable diversity of religious beliefs around the world. Even so, she maintained her own spirituality. She fought for what she believed in, championed the downtrodden, neglected, and handicapped, and was, as she herself admitted, a true, “Bleeding heart Liberal.” She was one of the very best of humanity, a joy to know, a rare credit to the human species. There are no words to describe the void her untimely departure has left, nor are there enough tears to express our sorrow. She was to have become a grandmother in one month’s time. It is true, of course, life is indeed cruel and unjust. Now we are left with only memories of better times. The journey to the west is bitter and difficult but continues relentlessly.
Linda was during her lifetime a daughter, sister, wife, mother, and the anchor of our life together. She was also at times a dancer, sailor, waitress, bookstore manager, researcher, anthropologist, linguist, scholar, teacher, chef, political activist, environmentalist, blogger, and a gifted poet. In the words of Walt Whitman’s, “Song of Myself,” she was, in fact, a “multitude.”
In New Guinea, where houses are constructed around a central post that supports all the rest of the structure, the leader of the group is often described as the “House Post.” There is no doubt whatsoever that Linda was our House Post, and now that she is gone that house will begin to crumble, fall into disrepair, and eventually disappear.
As a girl, Linda attended a Lutheran school and was steeped in bible studies, and later, in college, she also studied the bible. As a mature woman and anthropologist she came to realize and appreciate the superficiality of organized religions and the unbelievable diversity of religious beliefs around the world. Even so, she maintained her own spirituality. She fought for what she believed in, championed the downtrodden, neglected, and handicapped, and was, as she herself admitted, a true, “Bleeding heart Liberal.” She was one of the very best of humanity, a joy to know, a rare credit to the human species. There are no words to describe the void her untimely departure has left, nor are there enough tears to express our sorrow. She was to have become a grandmother in one month’s time. It is true, of course, life is indeed cruel and unjust. Now we are left with only memories of better times. The journey to the west is bitter and difficult but continues relentlessly.
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Romney's "Cheap Shot"
You are no doubt aware by now of the complete ass Romney made of himself over the tragedy in Libya where our Ambassador and 3 other Americans were killed. Not only did he blurt out his idiotic comments before he had the facts about what happened, he made it obvious he was motivated by purely political motives, thus trying to score political points on the death of our representatives in Libya. He went on to babble about American values and how we should stick up for our values, apparently believing that mocking and slandering other religions is an American value. Most everyone is outraged by his statements, except for good ol’ Reince Priebus, the head of the RNC, who seems to be behaving as he must have when he was still the fourth grade. Romney has proven once again that he has little or no sense of what is appropriate behavior, either in general or politically.
Romney said, among other things, that the Obama administration (and therefore Obama) showed more sympathy for the attackers than the attacked. This is an absolutely outrageous charge to be made against the President of the United States. Indeed, outrageous is not a strong enough word. Why would Romney even think of saying such a terrible thing? I do not believe this is something that anyone would have said about a White President, no matter who he or she was. It is possible that Romney just spoke without thinking (not unusual for Mitt), but it is also possible (and I think perhaps even probable) that it was a calculated slander. The reason it could be made against President Obama as opposed to any other President is because it fits perfectly with the Republican campaign to label Obama as a Muslim, or at least a Muslim sympathizer. Romney and his advisors may have thought this would play really well with the Republican Tea Party base, and maybe it does. But if this was what was behind it, it labels Romney not only as a cheap political creep but also as a genuine racist slimeball.
I assume Romney, when he spoke of upholding American values, may have been thinking of our value of free speech, or at least that is what he would like us to believe. And yes, free speech is an American value, but merely saying that is a terrible oversimplification of what freedom of speech entails, or at least what it should entail. Like many things citizens of the U.S. enjoy, free speech has to have some constraints. You cannot, for example, falsely yell “fire” in a movie theater, nor as a property owner can you do absolutely everything you might want to do with your property if it is going to cause grievous injury to your neighbors. All freedoms come with responsibilities as well. In my opinion if some fundamentalist minister announces publically he is going to burn copies of the Koran, or if some anti-Muslim bigot in California makes a slanderous movie insulting Islam, they are seriously overstepping the bounds of responsibility in their exercise of free speech. And when their behavior results in the deaths of their fellow citizens because they have outraged at least some Muslims they should have to pay the consequences, just as should a person who falsely yells fire during a movie. There are more than a billion Muslims in the world, and probably about the same number of Christians. It simply will not do to try to provoke a religious war between them.
Republicans have tried to make much of their false claim that Obama is “weak,” and goes around the world apologizing for America, bowing to foreign leaders, and so on. Like all of their criticisms of Obama there is no truth to this. But interestingly enough Obama gets no credit for standing up to Netanyahu and trying as hard as possible to keep us from being involved in still another illegal, unconstitutional, and completely unnecessary war in the Middle East. Obama, almost uniquely for American Presidents, has refused to kiss the hem of Netanyahu’s trousers and give in to his every criminal wish. Obama is in a very difficult, almost impossible position, caught between doing what is right and proper and a U.S. Congress so in love with Netanyahu they are prepared to give him every green light to slaughter Arabs at will, indeed, they virtually urge him to do so in their apparently insane desire to keep us involved in perennial wars (have to keep the military/industrial/political complex in big bucks, you know). Romney has been slowly sinking in the polls. If this latest blunder is the last straw in his failing campaign for the Presidency so be it. And if, as some Republicans are saying, a Romney defeat will spell the end of the Republican Party, I say hooray! They certainly deserve oblivion after the last 20 years of their basically criminal enterprise. It couldn’t happen to a more disgusting bunch,
It is the nature of ambition to make men liars and cheats, to hide the truth in their breasts, and show, like jugglers, another thing in their mouths, to cut all friendships and enmities to the measure of their own interest, and to make a good countenance without the help of good will.
Sallust
Romney said, among other things, that the Obama administration (and therefore Obama) showed more sympathy for the attackers than the attacked. This is an absolutely outrageous charge to be made against the President of the United States. Indeed, outrageous is not a strong enough word. Why would Romney even think of saying such a terrible thing? I do not believe this is something that anyone would have said about a White President, no matter who he or she was. It is possible that Romney just spoke without thinking (not unusual for Mitt), but it is also possible (and I think perhaps even probable) that it was a calculated slander. The reason it could be made against President Obama as opposed to any other President is because it fits perfectly with the Republican campaign to label Obama as a Muslim, or at least a Muslim sympathizer. Romney and his advisors may have thought this would play really well with the Republican Tea Party base, and maybe it does. But if this was what was behind it, it labels Romney not only as a cheap political creep but also as a genuine racist slimeball.
I assume Romney, when he spoke of upholding American values, may have been thinking of our value of free speech, or at least that is what he would like us to believe. And yes, free speech is an American value, but merely saying that is a terrible oversimplification of what freedom of speech entails, or at least what it should entail. Like many things citizens of the U.S. enjoy, free speech has to have some constraints. You cannot, for example, falsely yell “fire” in a movie theater, nor as a property owner can you do absolutely everything you might want to do with your property if it is going to cause grievous injury to your neighbors. All freedoms come with responsibilities as well. In my opinion if some fundamentalist minister announces publically he is going to burn copies of the Koran, or if some anti-Muslim bigot in California makes a slanderous movie insulting Islam, they are seriously overstepping the bounds of responsibility in their exercise of free speech. And when their behavior results in the deaths of their fellow citizens because they have outraged at least some Muslims they should have to pay the consequences, just as should a person who falsely yells fire during a movie. There are more than a billion Muslims in the world, and probably about the same number of Christians. It simply will not do to try to provoke a religious war between them.
Republicans have tried to make much of their false claim that Obama is “weak,” and goes around the world apologizing for America, bowing to foreign leaders, and so on. Like all of their criticisms of Obama there is no truth to this. But interestingly enough Obama gets no credit for standing up to Netanyahu and trying as hard as possible to keep us from being involved in still another illegal, unconstitutional, and completely unnecessary war in the Middle East. Obama, almost uniquely for American Presidents, has refused to kiss the hem of Netanyahu’s trousers and give in to his every criminal wish. Obama is in a very difficult, almost impossible position, caught between doing what is right and proper and a U.S. Congress so in love with Netanyahu they are prepared to give him every green light to slaughter Arabs at will, indeed, they virtually urge him to do so in their apparently insane desire to keep us involved in perennial wars (have to keep the military/industrial/political complex in big bucks, you know). Romney has been slowly sinking in the polls. If this latest blunder is the last straw in his failing campaign for the Presidency so be it. And if, as some Republicans are saying, a Romney defeat will spell the end of the Republican Party, I say hooray! They certainly deserve oblivion after the last 20 years of their basically criminal enterprise. It couldn’t happen to a more disgusting bunch,
It is the nature of ambition to make men liars and cheats, to hide the truth in their breasts, and show, like jugglers, another thing in their mouths, to cut all friendships and enmities to the measure of their own interest, and to make a good countenance without the help of good will.
Sallust
Monday, September 10, 2012
Supersized, Privatized, and Polarized
I believe the United States of America, as a nation, is about to go the way of all empires. You might argue that we are not an empire but that would be mere quibbling over terms, obviously we are the closest thing to an empire that currently exists on this tiny planet we all must call home. I believe the reasons for this demise can probably be pretty well summed up by the verbs supersized, privatized and polarized. Granted this is a subject that cries out for a book length, if not encyclopedia length treatment, I cannot help but pose the situation as I see it.
The reasons for this demise are manifold, but there is little doubt we are a culture of the supersized. Obesity is a national problem for the first time in history, what with meals, soft drinks, popcorn, automobiles, housing, airplanes, and virtually everything we use having become far larger than ever before. Even our possessions are supersized with every wide spot in the road now having rows of storage facilities for the apparent millions upon millions of tons of stuff we thought we had to have but now have to somehow dispose of without actually taking it to the dump, dumps being also supersized to take care of the stuff we already take there, being unable, as yet, to simply dispose of it in outer space (we have already begun filling outer space up with our stuff). An economy based upon built in obsolescence, as ours has been for so many years is itself a form of supersizing. We have even supersized violence and sex, using any excuse for overemphasizing both themes whenever possible. And, of course, we have supersized our importance in the world with out unceasing claim of being exceptional.
Supersizing, while of great importance, is made possible by privatization, probably the most anti-national program ever conceived. Consider, for example, the importance of educating the young, who represent the future of the nation. Rather than providing our youths with affordable opportunities for education we have mired them in debt by forcing them to borrow money to even try to attain an education. This is, to put it mildly, completely absurd and came about because students were a prime target to sacrifice on the altar of profit. Consider our national elections that have become an ongoing process from the moment one President is sworn in to campaigning for the next election four years in the future. Who benefits from this ongoing process, why corporations, of course, who own the media that rake in billions. No one else benefits, not the electorate who just remain confused and misinformed and actually don’t even pay attention until to the last moment when they are then allowed to choose between two already chosen candidates. I see no reason whatsoever why the elections should take more than, say, a month. But where’s the profit in that? Similarly, the idea that you can privatize necessary human needs such as health care, energy, education, prisons, and even such basic necessities as water, is absurd on the face of it. Even the privatization of land is fraught with potential problems as land is just another word for the environment.
The problems we face as a nation are no longer being met by those who are presumably elected to serve the public interest. Polarization has become the reality of the moment. This is, I think, a kind of variation of the Morialekafa 20-60-20 rule, except it may be more correct ot think of it as the 10-80-10 rule. Even those proportions may be slightly too generous. What we seem to have is a situation where 10 percent of the population that already controls 80 percent of the wealth is trying to maintain and even improve their position, while another 10 percent understands what they are doing, and the 80 percent, having been poorly educated and fed so much propaganda are seemingly lost in a world of consumer goods, sporting events, and ignorance. When you have a population where so many believe angels are real, Obama is a Muslim, a majority don’t even know for certain who was responsible for the death of bin Laden, and so forth, you should know you are primed real trouble. Such is the condition the U.S. has fallen into in recent years. I fear if we continue down this path of certain failure we will, indeed, eventually fail.
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone
John Maynard Keynes
The reasons for this demise are manifold, but there is little doubt we are a culture of the supersized. Obesity is a national problem for the first time in history, what with meals, soft drinks, popcorn, automobiles, housing, airplanes, and virtually everything we use having become far larger than ever before. Even our possessions are supersized with every wide spot in the road now having rows of storage facilities for the apparent millions upon millions of tons of stuff we thought we had to have but now have to somehow dispose of without actually taking it to the dump, dumps being also supersized to take care of the stuff we already take there, being unable, as yet, to simply dispose of it in outer space (we have already begun filling outer space up with our stuff). An economy based upon built in obsolescence, as ours has been for so many years is itself a form of supersizing. We have even supersized violence and sex, using any excuse for overemphasizing both themes whenever possible. And, of course, we have supersized our importance in the world with out unceasing claim of being exceptional.
Supersizing, while of great importance, is made possible by privatization, probably the most anti-national program ever conceived. Consider, for example, the importance of educating the young, who represent the future of the nation. Rather than providing our youths with affordable opportunities for education we have mired them in debt by forcing them to borrow money to even try to attain an education. This is, to put it mildly, completely absurd and came about because students were a prime target to sacrifice on the altar of profit. Consider our national elections that have become an ongoing process from the moment one President is sworn in to campaigning for the next election four years in the future. Who benefits from this ongoing process, why corporations, of course, who own the media that rake in billions. No one else benefits, not the electorate who just remain confused and misinformed and actually don’t even pay attention until to the last moment when they are then allowed to choose between two already chosen candidates. I see no reason whatsoever why the elections should take more than, say, a month. But where’s the profit in that? Similarly, the idea that you can privatize necessary human needs such as health care, energy, education, prisons, and even such basic necessities as water, is absurd on the face of it. Even the privatization of land is fraught with potential problems as land is just another word for the environment.
The problems we face as a nation are no longer being met by those who are presumably elected to serve the public interest. Polarization has become the reality of the moment. This is, I think, a kind of variation of the Morialekafa 20-60-20 rule, except it may be more correct ot think of it as the 10-80-10 rule. Even those proportions may be slightly too generous. What we seem to have is a situation where 10 percent of the population that already controls 80 percent of the wealth is trying to maintain and even improve their position, while another 10 percent understands what they are doing, and the 80 percent, having been poorly educated and fed so much propaganda are seemingly lost in a world of consumer goods, sporting events, and ignorance. When you have a population where so many believe angels are real, Obama is a Muslim, a majority don’t even know for certain who was responsible for the death of bin Laden, and so forth, you should know you are primed real trouble. Such is the condition the U.S. has fallen into in recent years. I fear if we continue down this path of certain failure we will, indeed, eventually fail.
Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone
John Maynard Keynes
Friday, September 07, 2012
Agent Garbo - book
Agent Garbo the Brilliant, Eccentric Secret Agent Who Tricked Hitler and Saved D-Day, Stephan Talty, 2012, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
This is a Spy tale that while true does read rather like a novel. Not only that, the tale itself is so fantastic you might well believe it is a work of fiction. I confess to finding it hard to believe that German Intelligence was so easily duped by one Spaniard and his almost completely fictional troop of spies and even a million man army that he at one time essentially made to disappear, and who managed to keep Hitler’s troops so confused about the Normandy landing they arrived only after it was too late to effectively prevent it.
What is even more incredible is the main character, a young Spaniard named Juan Pojol, who prior to becoming a double agent nicknamed Garbo (apparently because of his abilities along those lines), had accomplished very little in life, managed to become a spy at all, let alone one of the most successful of WW II. He knew nothing of espionage, but having seen both sides of the Spanish Civil War and becoming disenchanted by both sides, and having come to despise fascism and especially Hitler, decided on his own he should become a spy and work against the Germans. He initially attempted to volunteer as a spy for the British but as he had nothing but good intentions was ignored. He decided that if they were to take him seriously he would have to have at least something to show them he did have information. He then approached the Germans and finally encountered a German intelligence officer that gave him some invisible ink and rather minor instructions, with which he then convinced the British he was real. He was all by himself sending false information to the Germans before the British recruited him as a double agent.
Once he was actively engaged by the British he was given a handler who helped him enormously and worked closely with him throughout the duration of the war. He was allowed to feed just enough true accounts of activities to the Germans that he eventually became one of their most trusted agents. Over time he invented a host of other completely fictional spies who supposedly fed him information from various different locations. He made some serious mistakes a couple of times but somehow the Germans always fell for his explanations and had developed complete trust in him. Once, for example, he sent some extremely important information that was true, but arranged to have it delivered a day late. Garbo (Pujol) was regarded by the Germans with such respect he was awarded an Iron Cross, usually reserved for active troops serving in combat. Pujol’s most important deception, that saved literally thousands of lives, was his role in convincing the Germans the allied attack would occur at Calais when in fact it was to occur in Normandy. He and other British spies convinced even Hitler this was the case even though Hitler himself had been certain they would mount the attack on Normandy and only changed his mind at the last minute because of their successful deception. Some German officers even after the war did not understand what had actually happened.
One of the things I found most fascinating about this book is the discussion of the competence of both British and German Intelligence at the beginning of the war. There is little about the Germans aside from the obvious fact they were not entirely competent, but the British recruitment of spies, at least initially, was somewhat haphazard and brought together a collection of rather odd characters. There was Pujol himself, of course, not a likely candidate for such an important role, but there were others perhaps even more unlikely. Johann Jebsen, son of a wealthy Hamburg shipping mogul, with a monocle and Mercedes-Benz convertible who wore fine suits and dazzled beautiful young girlfriends, his friend Susko Popov, a Serb who became a double agent known as tricycle, a beautiful Peruvian girl known as Bronx, Brutus, a Polish air force officer, and elegant small and somewhat obnoxious man whose real name was David Strangeways, and many, many others: “For years, the intelligence services had been the home of clubbable young society men and veterans of the Indian colonial police force; ‘eggheads’ were looked down upon and rarely hired. Now the British government began signing up academics at a furious clip: historians, linguists and classicists for the spy services, and mathematicians and scientists for analytical jobs like codebreaking. Oddballs, such as the almost unfathomably brilliant Alan Turing, became the order of the day.” Somehow this unlikely group of eggheads managed to win the day.
Pujol paid a price in his family life for his service, at one point faked his death and lived undetected for several years to be eventually found and highly honored. If you like spy tales this is a particularly good one.
This is a Spy tale that while true does read rather like a novel. Not only that, the tale itself is so fantastic you might well believe it is a work of fiction. I confess to finding it hard to believe that German Intelligence was so easily duped by one Spaniard and his almost completely fictional troop of spies and even a million man army that he at one time essentially made to disappear, and who managed to keep Hitler’s troops so confused about the Normandy landing they arrived only after it was too late to effectively prevent it.
What is even more incredible is the main character, a young Spaniard named Juan Pojol, who prior to becoming a double agent nicknamed Garbo (apparently because of his abilities along those lines), had accomplished very little in life, managed to become a spy at all, let alone one of the most successful of WW II. He knew nothing of espionage, but having seen both sides of the Spanish Civil War and becoming disenchanted by both sides, and having come to despise fascism and especially Hitler, decided on his own he should become a spy and work against the Germans. He initially attempted to volunteer as a spy for the British but as he had nothing but good intentions was ignored. He decided that if they were to take him seriously he would have to have at least something to show them he did have information. He then approached the Germans and finally encountered a German intelligence officer that gave him some invisible ink and rather minor instructions, with which he then convinced the British he was real. He was all by himself sending false information to the Germans before the British recruited him as a double agent.
Once he was actively engaged by the British he was given a handler who helped him enormously and worked closely with him throughout the duration of the war. He was allowed to feed just enough true accounts of activities to the Germans that he eventually became one of their most trusted agents. Over time he invented a host of other completely fictional spies who supposedly fed him information from various different locations. He made some serious mistakes a couple of times but somehow the Germans always fell for his explanations and had developed complete trust in him. Once, for example, he sent some extremely important information that was true, but arranged to have it delivered a day late. Garbo (Pujol) was regarded by the Germans with such respect he was awarded an Iron Cross, usually reserved for active troops serving in combat. Pujol’s most important deception, that saved literally thousands of lives, was his role in convincing the Germans the allied attack would occur at Calais when in fact it was to occur in Normandy. He and other British spies convinced even Hitler this was the case even though Hitler himself had been certain they would mount the attack on Normandy and only changed his mind at the last minute because of their successful deception. Some German officers even after the war did not understand what had actually happened.
One of the things I found most fascinating about this book is the discussion of the competence of both British and German Intelligence at the beginning of the war. There is little about the Germans aside from the obvious fact they were not entirely competent, but the British recruitment of spies, at least initially, was somewhat haphazard and brought together a collection of rather odd characters. There was Pujol himself, of course, not a likely candidate for such an important role, but there were others perhaps even more unlikely. Johann Jebsen, son of a wealthy Hamburg shipping mogul, with a monocle and Mercedes-Benz convertible who wore fine suits and dazzled beautiful young girlfriends, his friend Susko Popov, a Serb who became a double agent known as tricycle, a beautiful Peruvian girl known as Bronx, Brutus, a Polish air force officer, and elegant small and somewhat obnoxious man whose real name was David Strangeways, and many, many others: “For years, the intelligence services had been the home of clubbable young society men and veterans of the Indian colonial police force; ‘eggheads’ were looked down upon and rarely hired. Now the British government began signing up academics at a furious clip: historians, linguists and classicists for the spy services, and mathematicians and scientists for analytical jobs like codebreaking. Oddballs, such as the almost unfathomably brilliant Alan Turing, became the order of the day.” Somehow this unlikely group of eggheads managed to win the day.
Pujol paid a price in his family life for his service, at one point faked his death and lived undetected for several years to be eventually found and highly honored. If you like spy tales this is a particularly good one.
Thursday, September 06, 2012
The Democratic Convention
I have just now turned off the Democratic Convention that I believe was very successful. If speechmaking, enthusiasm, and passion could win the election Democrats would win it hands down. President Obama was faced with an almost impossible challenge, making a better speech that Michelle and Clinton. I don’t think he did, but he did make another fine speech and certainly did not lose any points. I don’t know why in the world people think making speeches is a contest of some sort, just like a prize fight or a football game. One of the peculiar characteristics of American culture these days seems to be the belief that everything has to be a contest or competition of some kind. Even the cooking shows have developed into contests. Of course you might say the comparison between Obama and Romney isn’t really much of a contest as the latter isn’t even a worthy opponent.
I think I might have an idea about why it is the polls keep insisting this is going to be a close race, a nail-biter, and so on. Given the makeup of the electorate, with Blacks, Latinos, Women, young and old, and many others disenchanted with Republicans and so obviously favoring Obama and the Democrats, how is it possible the polls cannot be reflecting this? It makes no sense whatsoever to me as I would think if the truth were known Obama would be favored by a virtual landslide. I believe there is something strange, even dishonest about the polls. Remember that most polls are being conducted and reported by the MSM that obviously favors and protects Republicans. They have to maintain the race is truly close because they intend to steal the election. If there was a truly wide discrepancy in the polls and the Republicans should win the election it would appear to be obviously questonable because they must have stolen it. They would have no credibility. If, on the other hand, we can be made to believe it is really close, and then they steal it, it would be much harder to prove it was fixed. I don’t know if this is true, and it may not be true at all, but as I do not trust Republicans to play fair, what with their massive attempts to suppress the vote, their ownership of the voting machines, the huge fortunes they are putting into their attempt to defeat Obama, I would put nothing past them, nothing at all.
I was truly moved by the speech given by Representative John Lewis from Georgia, one of the first Freedom Riders and a victim of vicious beatings by those opposed to the civil rights of Blacks. He was there, he experienced what happened like few others, and has survived to become a fine Representative. I thought Jennifer Grandholm’s speech was also very effective as she spoke with passion and authority I had never seen in her before. Of course Joe Biden gave a fine speech and a wonderful description of his experience working with President Obama. Obama’s speech was perhaps not one of his very best, but it was fine and managed to portray Romney/Ryan as the bungling amateurs they really are. I found it interesting that neither Michael Steele nor Steve Schmidt, Republican analysts, could find anything bad to say about any of the Democratic speeches. I will be surprised if they don’t eventually jump ship and give up trying to defend the indefensible.
In fact, by any yardstick of reason or decency, unless Republican do succeed in stealing this election, I would be surprised if this does not spell the demise of their Party for years to come. It is already being said by some that this is the last time they can attempt to win an election by appealing to the angry, uneducated, White voters, and as they have grievously offended most everyone else I cannot see how they can recover without several years of massive changes to appeal to all those they have alienated. The electorate is changing dramatically and they are not keeping up with the changes. In my opinion, since the Clinton Presidency, what used to be a respectable political party has morphed into little more than a criminal conspiracy, and like all criminal enterprises deserves to be treated as such. I don’t think lying and stealing should be rewarded, and as that seems to be all they have to offer they should go the way of all such organizations. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but I like to believe they are still turning here in my wonderful country.
It does no harm just once in a while to acknowledge that the whole country isn't in flames, that there are people in the country besides politicians, entertainers, and criminals.
Charles Kuralt
I think I might have an idea about why it is the polls keep insisting this is going to be a close race, a nail-biter, and so on. Given the makeup of the electorate, with Blacks, Latinos, Women, young and old, and many others disenchanted with Republicans and so obviously favoring Obama and the Democrats, how is it possible the polls cannot be reflecting this? It makes no sense whatsoever to me as I would think if the truth were known Obama would be favored by a virtual landslide. I believe there is something strange, even dishonest about the polls. Remember that most polls are being conducted and reported by the MSM that obviously favors and protects Republicans. They have to maintain the race is truly close because they intend to steal the election. If there was a truly wide discrepancy in the polls and the Republicans should win the election it would appear to be obviously questonable because they must have stolen it. They would have no credibility. If, on the other hand, we can be made to believe it is really close, and then they steal it, it would be much harder to prove it was fixed. I don’t know if this is true, and it may not be true at all, but as I do not trust Republicans to play fair, what with their massive attempts to suppress the vote, their ownership of the voting machines, the huge fortunes they are putting into their attempt to defeat Obama, I would put nothing past them, nothing at all.
I was truly moved by the speech given by Representative John Lewis from Georgia, one of the first Freedom Riders and a victim of vicious beatings by those opposed to the civil rights of Blacks. He was there, he experienced what happened like few others, and has survived to become a fine Representative. I thought Jennifer Grandholm’s speech was also very effective as she spoke with passion and authority I had never seen in her before. Of course Joe Biden gave a fine speech and a wonderful description of his experience working with President Obama. Obama’s speech was perhaps not one of his very best, but it was fine and managed to portray Romney/Ryan as the bungling amateurs they really are. I found it interesting that neither Michael Steele nor Steve Schmidt, Republican analysts, could find anything bad to say about any of the Democratic speeches. I will be surprised if they don’t eventually jump ship and give up trying to defend the indefensible.
In fact, by any yardstick of reason or decency, unless Republican do succeed in stealing this election, I would be surprised if this does not spell the demise of their Party for years to come. It is already being said by some that this is the last time they can attempt to win an election by appealing to the angry, uneducated, White voters, and as they have grievously offended most everyone else I cannot see how they can recover without several years of massive changes to appeal to all those they have alienated. The electorate is changing dramatically and they are not keeping up with the changes. In my opinion, since the Clinton Presidency, what used to be a respectable political party has morphed into little more than a criminal conspiracy, and like all criminal enterprises deserves to be treated as such. I don’t think lying and stealing should be rewarded, and as that seems to be all they have to offer they should go the way of all such organizations. The wheels of justice turn slowly, but I like to believe they are still turning here in my wonderful country.
It does no harm just once in a while to acknowledge that the whole country isn't in flames, that there are people in the country besides politicians, entertainers, and criminals.
Charles Kuralt
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Belief and Behavior
Stephen Pizzo, who writes for the Smirking Chimp and elsewhere, has raised an interesting question that is not usually supposed to be discussed. In its clearest form:
“Just how strange, even crazy, does a candidate's self-stated belief structure have be, before it's just too crazy?”
He has Mitt Romney and his Mormon beliefs in mind, because:
“That's why I'm doing this. I may regret it. But I'd regret even more waking up on the third Wednesday this November to discover we have a man in the Oval Office who believes things, at the very core of his being, that are provably untrue, phantasmagorical in the extreme, homophobic and misogynistic and authoritarian. Who firmly believes in entire civilizations that never existed and that a 150-years ago convicted conman and womanizer was shown the "real truth" by looking through a "seer stone," a rock with hole in it.”
I am not particularly interested in Romney’s specific beliefs or how “phantasmagorical in the extreme” they may be, mainly because I find the stated and written beliefs of all religions more or less phantasmagorical. I am interested here in the much broader question having to do with the relationship of belief to both what is claimed to be the beliefs and the ensuing behavior. There must be thousands, perhaps millions of people who claim to be devout Christians who, I am reasonably certain, do not, in fact, believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. I doubt that most of them believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, or that Noah built an ark large enough to encourage a pair of all the creatures of the earth, or that someone parted the Red Sea, or perhaps even in virgin birth. Such Christians can go to church regularly, enjoy the sermons, the hymns, and the fellowship, the community spirit and social solidarity, and what have you, even though when pressed would admit they do not actually believe everything they are said to believe, and for the most part these beliefs also do not affect their behavior (although I guess there are some few who actively search for the ark).
It is not difficult to find all kinds of examples where people profess to believe things but do not behave accordingly or appropriately. I know, for example, there are Jews who eat pork, there are Muslims who drink alcohol, Catholics who do not take communion or eat fish on Friday, and quite likely Mormons who do not always tithe the expected ten percent. Most certainly there are many who do not observe the golden rule, “Do unto others…” And how many religious believers go through life avoiding all seven of the deadly sins? And what greater disconnect between belief and behavior could you possibly find that some 97% of Catholic women use contraception against the beliefs of their Church?
It is not just in the religious sphere of cultures where stated beliefs are not really believed or acted upon. A simple example from the New Guinea Highlands makes the point. The natives I worked with refuse to eat chickens because, they believe, chickens eat feces. But they eat pigs although they know pigs also eat feces. This contradiction does not bother them in the slightest, it’s just the way things are. Here is an examle of people acting on a belief in one case but not the other. There are always exceptions, it seems, when it comes to beliefs. Thou shall not kill,” for example, is constantly invoked depending upon who is involved, who is being killed, how much oil is involved, and so on. Some cultures put such a high premium on virginity they test for it after the first night intercourse occurs in a marriage, and there are consequences for any suspicion of a violation. When this takes the form of stoning the bride or some other serious punishment we can say that in such a case people really do behave as they believe they should. Similarly, in the case of suttee, when a wife climbs onto her husband’s funeral pyre and voluntarily burns to death, you have a genuine case of behavior following belief.
So, it is not necessarily the beliefs of someone that are important, it is what relationship there exists between their actual behavior and their belief system. As Pizzo says, some, perhaps even most politicians, use their professed religious beliefs only as one of the requirements you need for office in the U.S. Who knows how serious they are about such beliefs? Generally speaking this does not usually raise a problem. However, the question of how a politician’s beliefs might influence his/her behavior is potentially crucial. If a candidate claims they are strictly pro-life will they work to overturn Roe vs Wade? What do you believe yourself if someone tells you they are pro-life but will not work to overturn Roe vs. Wade? What if a Catholic claims their loyalty to country is stronger than their loyalty to church, as in the case of John Kennedy? What if a known conservative bible-thumper swears they will uphold the distinction between church and state? And what if that promise turns out to be a lie? What if a candidate like Romney refuses to discuss his religion but it contains beliefs and ceremonies that are known to be phantasmagorical as Pizzo is suggesting?
There is supposed to be a clear separation of church and state in the U.S., but this distinction has been more and more violated, especially in recent years. As it turns out this distinction is virtually impossible to achieve, especially in a nation that claims more religious believers than most other industrialized nations. I suspect we are increasingly becoming a laughingstock around the world, to say nothing of the hypocrisy involved in our foreign policy, wars, and violence without end. Like Pizzo, I cannot answer his basic question, but merely bring it to your attention. You decide. My personal opinion has never been a secret. There are too many “Churches of the Altogether Bonkers” and far too little interest or emphasis on education and intellectual activity. But, then, it is football season.
Anybody who watches three games of football in a row should be declared brain dead.
Erma Bombeck
“Just how strange, even crazy, does a candidate's self-stated belief structure have be, before it's just too crazy?”
He has Mitt Romney and his Mormon beliefs in mind, because:
“That's why I'm doing this. I may regret it. But I'd regret even more waking up on the third Wednesday this November to discover we have a man in the Oval Office who believes things, at the very core of his being, that are provably untrue, phantasmagorical in the extreme, homophobic and misogynistic and authoritarian. Who firmly believes in entire civilizations that never existed and that a 150-years ago convicted conman and womanizer was shown the "real truth" by looking through a "seer stone," a rock with hole in it.”
I am not particularly interested in Romney’s specific beliefs or how “phantasmagorical in the extreme” they may be, mainly because I find the stated and written beliefs of all religions more or less phantasmagorical. I am interested here in the much broader question having to do with the relationship of belief to both what is claimed to be the beliefs and the ensuing behavior. There must be thousands, perhaps millions of people who claim to be devout Christians who, I am reasonably certain, do not, in fact, believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. I doubt that most of them believe Jonah was swallowed by a whale, or that Noah built an ark large enough to encourage a pair of all the creatures of the earth, or that someone parted the Red Sea, or perhaps even in virgin birth. Such Christians can go to church regularly, enjoy the sermons, the hymns, and the fellowship, the community spirit and social solidarity, and what have you, even though when pressed would admit they do not actually believe everything they are said to believe, and for the most part these beliefs also do not affect their behavior (although I guess there are some few who actively search for the ark).
It is not difficult to find all kinds of examples where people profess to believe things but do not behave accordingly or appropriately. I know, for example, there are Jews who eat pork, there are Muslims who drink alcohol, Catholics who do not take communion or eat fish on Friday, and quite likely Mormons who do not always tithe the expected ten percent. Most certainly there are many who do not observe the golden rule, “Do unto others…” And how many religious believers go through life avoiding all seven of the deadly sins? And what greater disconnect between belief and behavior could you possibly find that some 97% of Catholic women use contraception against the beliefs of their Church?
It is not just in the religious sphere of cultures where stated beliefs are not really believed or acted upon. A simple example from the New Guinea Highlands makes the point. The natives I worked with refuse to eat chickens because, they believe, chickens eat feces. But they eat pigs although they know pigs also eat feces. This contradiction does not bother them in the slightest, it’s just the way things are. Here is an examle of people acting on a belief in one case but not the other. There are always exceptions, it seems, when it comes to beliefs. Thou shall not kill,” for example, is constantly invoked depending upon who is involved, who is being killed, how much oil is involved, and so on. Some cultures put such a high premium on virginity they test for it after the first night intercourse occurs in a marriage, and there are consequences for any suspicion of a violation. When this takes the form of stoning the bride or some other serious punishment we can say that in such a case people really do behave as they believe they should. Similarly, in the case of suttee, when a wife climbs onto her husband’s funeral pyre and voluntarily burns to death, you have a genuine case of behavior following belief.
So, it is not necessarily the beliefs of someone that are important, it is what relationship there exists between their actual behavior and their belief system. As Pizzo says, some, perhaps even most politicians, use their professed religious beliefs only as one of the requirements you need for office in the U.S. Who knows how serious they are about such beliefs? Generally speaking this does not usually raise a problem. However, the question of how a politician’s beliefs might influence his/her behavior is potentially crucial. If a candidate claims they are strictly pro-life will they work to overturn Roe vs Wade? What do you believe yourself if someone tells you they are pro-life but will not work to overturn Roe vs. Wade? What if a Catholic claims their loyalty to country is stronger than their loyalty to church, as in the case of John Kennedy? What if a known conservative bible-thumper swears they will uphold the distinction between church and state? And what if that promise turns out to be a lie? What if a candidate like Romney refuses to discuss his religion but it contains beliefs and ceremonies that are known to be phantasmagorical as Pizzo is suggesting?
There is supposed to be a clear separation of church and state in the U.S., but this distinction has been more and more violated, especially in recent years. As it turns out this distinction is virtually impossible to achieve, especially in a nation that claims more religious believers than most other industrialized nations. I suspect we are increasingly becoming a laughingstock around the world, to say nothing of the hypocrisy involved in our foreign policy, wars, and violence without end. Like Pizzo, I cannot answer his basic question, but merely bring it to your attention. You decide. My personal opinion has never been a secret. There are too many “Churches of the Altogether Bonkers” and far too little interest or emphasis on education and intellectual activity. But, then, it is football season.
Anybody who watches three games of football in a row should be declared brain dead.
Erma Bombeck
Sunday, September 02, 2012
Further Notes on the Nacirema
I have been inspired to write these further comments on Nacirema society and culture because of the approaching llabtoof season. The llabtoof season can be described in our language as an annual occurrence of supreme importance to the Nacirema. It begins in what we consider autumn when the deciduous leaves just begin to turn, known to the first Nacirema, the snaidni, as the Full Corn Moon, continues through the Hunter’s moon when the leaves are truly falling, the Full Beaver Moon, and the Long Nights Moon, finally culminating usually in the Full Wolf Moon. It begins conveniently when it does because it is usually during this time the beasts are slaughtered that provide the niksgip for the sacred llabtoof, the primary ball-like object, pointed at both ends to enhance its aerodynamic qualities, used in all the games.
Llabtoof is described as a game by some, but for others it might well be considered a religion. Although it is played everywhere in Naciremaland, it is considered much more important in certain regions than others, although I cannot explain why this should be. During the season it dominates virtually all other activities for the Nacirema. It is played by Nacirema males from a very early age and on up in age until the players are in their twenties or thirties. Although it is not completely banned for Nacirema females, that gender only very rarely engage in it directly, preferring instead to dress in brief costumes and jump up and down hollering and waving brightly colored shredded paper as the games progress.
Those young Nacirema that prove to be the most talented and adept at the game gain in importance to the point where they are rewarded by free admittance to the institutions of Nacirema higher learning, the seitisrevinu. As the seitisrevinu are the intellectual centers of the Nacirema, and there is nothing intellectual about llabtoof, this is by no means easy to explain. It is also virtually impossible to explain why the most exalted high priests of the game, the sehcaoc, some of whom attain mythical proportions for their successes , are rewarded far more handsomely than the even the highest placed leaders of the seitisrevinu that employ them. Each of the most important sehcaoc is provided with a number of specialized assistants that instruct the players in skills like throwing and receiving the llabtoof, head-slapping, leg-whipping, and what is described in general as “smash-mouth llabtoof.”
Llabtoof is played in gigantic stadiums that sometimes will accommodate 100,000 or more spectators who often dress in rather outrageous costumes, wear funny hats, shout encouragement as loudly as they are able, drink and eat, and also wave towels and other things. These stadiums are extremely costly and are most usually built at public expense, even though the revenue generated by them is claimed by those already very wealthy individuals that own the teams. The teams are most usually named after totemic creatures such as bears, falcons, tigers, and lions, but sometimes after mythical creatures such as giants or saints, and sometimes, more rarely, after local names like packers or oilers. Although these names have lost the former totemic significance they once had for the snaidni, they are of great importance to those who claim them as their own. The owners compete with each other for the best players available and often must pay exorbitant salaries for those considered the very best. The leader of each team, known for some unknown historical reason as a “quarterback,” is usually assisted by halfbacks, fullbacks, and a host of other specialized players variously known as ends, tackles, guards, and so on. The quarterback is almost always the most highly remunerated player on the team and also the most difficult to replace, so the rules have had to be changed over time to protect him from injury. The modern day players now wear elaborately padded costumes, helmets, face masks, and other protective gear that has evolved over time from the original much simpler uniforms of the past, and the rules regarding specifically what kinds of violence is permitted have been modified. To reduce the need for holy-mouth-men the players wear special rubber mouth guards. In spite of these precautions players sometimes still have to visit a latipsoh or a holy-mouth-man. Even so, as llabtoof has always been considered a vicarious substitute for warfare, emphasizes only manly virtues of strength, courage, bravery and stamina, as well as strategy and defense, and as it is most basically a violent sport, these changes have offended the most committed aficionados of the game who believe the game is being ruined by becoming more and more “sissified.” Similarly, a well-known Professor who once wrote an essay suggesting certain homoerotic elements to the game immediately began receiving death threats. Players and fans take llabtoof very seriously. Each llabtoof team has its own medicine men and many now employ their own specially trained “listeners,” that attempt to exorcise the devils that sometimes cause poor performance by the players, especially the quarterbacks and all-important specialty “kickers.”
Llabtoof is a uniquely Nacirema phenomenon that has virtually attained the status of a religion. It has replaced what was long regarded as the quintessential Nacirema pastime, llabesab. Llabesab still exists of course, and has been even more successful at becoming an international sport than llabtoof, but here in Naciremaland it is llabtoof that now prevails unchallenged, with lower level games played on Friday nights, seitisrevinu games on Saturdays, and the most high-powered, highly paid, and prestigious professional llabtoof now played religiously every Sunday. It must also be mentioned here that what once began as a young man’s amateur sport, played for fun, has now grown into a serious billion dollar capitalistic enterprise. Those who participate at the highest levels, players and sehcaoc alike, increasingly regarded as entertainers, are paid staggeringly large sums of money. The revenue generated from advertising and sales of memorabilia runs into the billions.
Some people think llabtoof is a matter of life and death. I don't like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that.
Bill Shankly
Llabtoof is described as a game by some, but for others it might well be considered a religion. Although it is played everywhere in Naciremaland, it is considered much more important in certain regions than others, although I cannot explain why this should be. During the season it dominates virtually all other activities for the Nacirema. It is played by Nacirema males from a very early age and on up in age until the players are in their twenties or thirties. Although it is not completely banned for Nacirema females, that gender only very rarely engage in it directly, preferring instead to dress in brief costumes and jump up and down hollering and waving brightly colored shredded paper as the games progress.
Those young Nacirema that prove to be the most talented and adept at the game gain in importance to the point where they are rewarded by free admittance to the institutions of Nacirema higher learning, the seitisrevinu. As the seitisrevinu are the intellectual centers of the Nacirema, and there is nothing intellectual about llabtoof, this is by no means easy to explain. It is also virtually impossible to explain why the most exalted high priests of the game, the sehcaoc, some of whom attain mythical proportions for their successes , are rewarded far more handsomely than the even the highest placed leaders of the seitisrevinu that employ them. Each of the most important sehcaoc is provided with a number of specialized assistants that instruct the players in skills like throwing and receiving the llabtoof, head-slapping, leg-whipping, and what is described in general as “smash-mouth llabtoof.”
Llabtoof is played in gigantic stadiums that sometimes will accommodate 100,000 or more spectators who often dress in rather outrageous costumes, wear funny hats, shout encouragement as loudly as they are able, drink and eat, and also wave towels and other things. These stadiums are extremely costly and are most usually built at public expense, even though the revenue generated by them is claimed by those already very wealthy individuals that own the teams. The teams are most usually named after totemic creatures such as bears, falcons, tigers, and lions, but sometimes after mythical creatures such as giants or saints, and sometimes, more rarely, after local names like packers or oilers. Although these names have lost the former totemic significance they once had for the snaidni, they are of great importance to those who claim them as their own. The owners compete with each other for the best players available and often must pay exorbitant salaries for those considered the very best. The leader of each team, known for some unknown historical reason as a “quarterback,” is usually assisted by halfbacks, fullbacks, and a host of other specialized players variously known as ends, tackles, guards, and so on. The quarterback is almost always the most highly remunerated player on the team and also the most difficult to replace, so the rules have had to be changed over time to protect him from injury. The modern day players now wear elaborately padded costumes, helmets, face masks, and other protective gear that has evolved over time from the original much simpler uniforms of the past, and the rules regarding specifically what kinds of violence is permitted have been modified. To reduce the need for holy-mouth-men the players wear special rubber mouth guards. In spite of these precautions players sometimes still have to visit a latipsoh or a holy-mouth-man. Even so, as llabtoof has always been considered a vicarious substitute for warfare, emphasizes only manly virtues of strength, courage, bravery and stamina, as well as strategy and defense, and as it is most basically a violent sport, these changes have offended the most committed aficionados of the game who believe the game is being ruined by becoming more and more “sissified.” Similarly, a well-known Professor who once wrote an essay suggesting certain homoerotic elements to the game immediately began receiving death threats. Players and fans take llabtoof very seriously. Each llabtoof team has its own medicine men and many now employ their own specially trained “listeners,” that attempt to exorcise the devils that sometimes cause poor performance by the players, especially the quarterbacks and all-important specialty “kickers.”
Llabtoof is a uniquely Nacirema phenomenon that has virtually attained the status of a religion. It has replaced what was long regarded as the quintessential Nacirema pastime, llabesab. Llabesab still exists of course, and has been even more successful at becoming an international sport than llabtoof, but here in Naciremaland it is llabtoof that now prevails unchallenged, with lower level games played on Friday nights, seitisrevinu games on Saturdays, and the most high-powered, highly paid, and prestigious professional llabtoof now played religiously every Sunday. It must also be mentioned here that what once began as a young man’s amateur sport, played for fun, has now grown into a serious billion dollar capitalistic enterprise. Those who participate at the highest levels, players and sehcaoc alike, increasingly regarded as entertainers, are paid staggeringly large sums of money. The revenue generated from advertising and sales of memorabilia runs into the billions.
Some people think llabtoof is a matter of life and death. I don't like that attitude. I can assure them it is much more serious than that.
Bill Shankly
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
