The Scurrilous and the Superficial

It appears to me the Republican Party is attempting to get away (and perhaps succeeding) with the most scurrilous attack on a President of the United States ever undertaken. You will notice they constantly complain how it is President Obama has failed to create jobs, has failed to improve the economy, has failed to lead and etc. Obama is to be blamed for everything, bar none. What they fail to acknowledge is the obvious fact that they, themselves, have undermined every attempt he has made to turn the economy around, create jobs, and so forth. The slow growth of jobs and the economy is directly traceable to the deliberate, planned, announced program of doing everything possible to make Obama a failed one term President. Having been reasonably successful in keeping Obama from making much in  the way of progress they have the unmitigated gall to blame him for the failure. As far as failing to lead goes, Obama has tried to lead, has tried to gain bipartisan support, has gone a long way to compromise, only to be snubbed and rebuffed at every turn. How is a President supposed to lead when one of the two political parties announced their intention from the beginning of his tenure they had no intention of cooperating with him in any way and were determined to remove him from office as soon as possible? From the standpoint of our nation what the Republicans have done is absolutely shameful. History is not going  to treat them well, let us hope the next three plus years will do the same.

As far as the superficial goes, one need only look at the famous (or infamous) Ryan budget. It is superficial in more ways than one. First, it is basically nonsensical as it has no chance whatsoever of succeeding. It also neglects to say just what loopholes would be closed as part of the plan. It is said by many to be not even a serious attempt to create a real budget. As a mere copy of his original budget plan that was already defeated in the recent election, perhaps even worse than the original, it ignores the outcome of that election and there is no serious justification for presenting it again. It also calls for eliminating Obamacare, a proposition that has been defeated at least 32 times previously, is now the law of the land, and is thus both superficial and unnecessary.

If this is so, and I guess it pretty much is, one might ask why Ryan even bothered to present it again. Some say it was not meant to be serious as it is really an attempt to maintain the Tea Party base, others, like Ryan himself, are trying to suggest it is merely to stimulate discussion and lead to eventual negotiation. As it is so bad I doubt there will be much negotiation over it, certainly not when it comes to overturning Obamacare or making Medicare a voucher program, to say nothing of the host of other outrageous cuts demanded of popular programs like Pell grants and such.

There is another question that comes at least into my mind. What qualifications does Ryan possess to make him a serious budget guru in the first place? My granted, somewhat superficial research into Herr Ryan does not indicate to me he has any special qualifications to be authoring a definitive budget for the United States of America. His father died when he was 16 and he received Social Security benefits until  18 that helped him go to college. He graduated from a not particularly prestigious college (Miami University in Oxford, Ohio) in 1992 with a dual degree in economics and political science. One of his major influences was the work of Ayn Rand. He was an intern for Wisconsin Senator Bob Kasten as a foreign policy advisor (in the summer he worked as a salesman for Oscar Mayer and once drove the Wienermobile). He was attacked to Kasten’s office as a staff economist for a time but also worked as a waiter, fitness trainer, and even a speechwriter. He also worked for a time as a marketing consultant for a relative’s firm. After being elected to Congress he eventually became the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee and became chairman of that body in 2011. In his 13 years in the House he sponsored 71 bills or amendments, only two of which were enacted into law, one renamed a Post Office, the other lowered the excise tax on arrow shafts.

I could of course be quite wrong in my analysis of this record (that came mostly from Wikpedia) but it does not indicate to me any particular expertise on budgeting for the nation. I know, you might think his experience on the Budget Committee would be of great relevance, but he was not appointed there to further study economics but, presumably, because he already had such knowledge (and remember the kinds of people appointed to the science committee). In any case, although I might be unfair, I cannot  see why he has any more expertise for creating a national budget than most anyone else. I suspect that anyone, starting from the assumption a balanced budget was absolutely necessary, could play with figures that would produce that result. But, as in Ryan’s case, they would not necessarily have any connection with reality or with the needs and desires of the citizenry. As there is no compelling need to have a balanced budget (an extremely rare occurrence in U.S. history), and certainly no necessity to have one in ten years, this is the kind of exercise that might be given to University students. You can play around with the figures all you want as long as it is merely an academic exercise with no connection with reality. Ryan is basically a charlatan and his budget superficial. It is a pity that so much time is being wasted on it.

We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals; we know now that it is bad economics.

Theodore Roosevelt

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Bait and Switch

I guess we don’t usually associate the bait and switch technique with the news, but it happens there all the time. Headlines do not always reflect what you will find in the article that follows. An interesting example of this is a headline that appeared today on the internet (I forget exactly where), “Why is President Obama taking orders from a Billionaire?” The article goes on to describe billionaire Peter Peterson’s attempt to do away with Social Security and his willingness to spend millions to try to bring this about . There is nothing in the article that suggests President Obama is “taking orders” from him. It seems to be true that Peterson and/or his operatives have some kind of access to the White House, but this is a far cry from the claim he is giving orders to our President.

Similarly, there is another headline that reads, “Why do Boxer and Wyden want to bomb Iran?” If you read the article carefully it does not suggest that either of these individuals “want to bomb Iran,” although it is true they are supporting some measure that would allow such a thing if the circumstances were to warrant it, a far cry from the claim they actually want to bomb Iran. Headlines often suggest things that do not appear in what follows. I guess this is a kind of bait and switch technique that is commonplace in the news as it occurs with regularity both in print and on the internet. This is a rather insidious means to lead people to believe things that are just not true, to bias their information in ways to their advantage whichever way they desire. You cannot, I have learned over time, depend upon the headlines to tell you the actual content of the article or essay or whatever.

I suppose most readers are aware of this problem and are not always duped by the duplicity involved. There is another somewhat similar problem that also seems to occur with regularity although it cannot be termed bait and switch. Maybe it should be called something like “Stuff and Nonsense.” The most recent case in point is Paul Ryan’s budget proposal that is to be released tomorrow. This proposal involves doing away with the Affordable Care Act and converting Medicare to a voucher system. It is common knowledge that these proposals, which Ryan already proposed before, have absolutely no chance of happening. They are not only dead on arrival they have already been decisively declared dead previously (doing away with Obamacare has already been defeated some 32 or more times). So why does Ryan propose them once more when there is no chance whatsoever they will ever fly? I suggest there are at least two main reasons: (l) Ryan wants to appeal to the Tea Party base because he might  want to run for President in 2016 (an absurd pipe dream), and (2) he is an absolute phony when it comes to having any serious understanding of national budgets. His much touted budget proposals are far more for the sake of publicity than serious attempts at budgeting.

It is far too common for individuals to utter completely ridiculous ideas and proposals for the sake of publicity, but for reasons I do not completely understand the news people seem always eager and willing to announce and promote them as if they are worthy of attention. Thus it is we are bombarded with comments from people like Palin, Trump, Cain, and others of that ilk who should rightly not even be acknowledged. It is as if editors are a thing of the past so that anything goes whether it has merit or not. I can see no reason whatsoever why we should ever have to pay any attention to the obviously absurd rantings of someone like Donald Trump or Herman Cain. Not only that, not everything that comes out  of the mouths of even more respectable spokespersons is necessarily worthy of being “news” and would often be better off ignored. Comments by Santorum, Robertson, Huckabee, and others come readily to mind.

And then, of course, there are the disgusting hate merchants like Limbaugh and Coulter with nothing to say but whatever will shock and make them money. O’Reilly, Hannity, Malkin, and others are not much better. It seems that “news” nowadays consists of anything with shock value or anything said by someone who is a celebrity or aspires to become one by “shooting off their mouth” about  anything and everything whether they know anything about  it or not. What used to be the Fourth Estate has become  Skid row, and what was once champagne and caviar has now become pig tails and beans (with a few rare exceptions). We have now reached a point where you literally cannot believe anything you read or hear. This does not bode well for the future.

The one function TV news performs very well is that when there is no news we give it to you with the same emphasis as if there were.

David Brinkley

The Fate of the Poor

I cannot help but wonder what the fate of the poor would be if Republicans actually managed to win and govern our country for a time. As far as I can tell, in general they seem to be:

Opposed to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (universal health care in any form), unemployment insurance, food stamps, a minimum wage, unions, taxes, socialism, communism, big government (much government  at all), abortion, contraception, immigrants, any form of welfare, environmental protection, sustainable energy, evolution, science, and government jobs.

They seem to be for, only no taxes, smaller (or no) government, privatization of all things, oil, gas, and nuclear energy, global warming, massive corporations, millionaires and billionaires, capitalism, and creationism. I cannot help but wonder what the fate of the poor would be if they were ever to have their way.

Under our current capitalistic system, and as there is at the current time, there would be a huge unemployment problem. As there would be a huge surplus supply of labor wages would continue to be very low, businesses would not hire for the sake of hiring but only for profit, and as they would not  condone government creating jobs, unemployment  would continue, poverty wages would be the rule, there would be no safety nets, no health care, no food stamps, etc. Under such conditions the poor would, of course, suffer and die. London and Manchester in Dicken’s time would look like a form of paradise unless some kind of welfare existed. As far as I know, Republicans have not suggested how they would deal with the conditions they would have created. Their solution, I guess, would be simply, let ‘em suffer and die. Have they ever suggested any solution to the problem of poverty and the poor? What might they propose to do about it? They might, I suppose, argue that the market would take care of the problem, but as long as labor remained merely a commodity that would never happen.

You might think that decent people, in a decent society, would not allow such a thing to happen, but it is happening right now with some 50% of the population living at or below the poverty level. So far, under the past few administrations, little or nothing has been done to improve things. Republicans have blocked all of President Obama’s attempts to alleviate unemployment or anything thing else that might have improved the lives of ordinary citizens. The enormous gap between the wealthy and he poor has been widening for years until we now have a situation in which one or two percent of the population own and controls more wealth than the vast majority, the “99%.”

I think one of the reasons this situation has been allowed to continue and fester as it has is due to what I would call the “Progressives’ fallacy,” their disbelief in the venality of the wealthy. This has been especially true of President Obama who seriously underestimated how greedy and selfish some could be. He kept insisting he could accomplish “bipartisanship” only to learn the hard way that was not to be. This attitude prevails among “Progressives” in general. Think, for example, of Chris Hayes who wrings his hands and says we need health insurance because our fellow citizens are suffering, unable, I guess, to understand that not all people are concerned about the suffering of their fellow creatures. It can also be seen in the fact that  Republicans are unwilling  to increase taxes on the obscenely wealthy even by a measly two or three percent even though their current taxes are about at an all-time low. A few billionaires have indicated they would be willing to pay a bit more but obviously the majority have not and, in fact, use their fantastic wealth to ensure they will not have to pay more.

I am not sanguine about the possibilities for any major change in the way things are. Change will only come about by dragging Republicans kicking and screaming at every modest step that might occur. American capitalism, following Dylan Thomas’s advice to his father, will not go gentle into that good night, but will rage, rage against the dying of the light.

"Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinct feature: it has simplified class antagonisms. Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other — bourgeoisie and proletariat.” 

Karl Marx

 Karl Marx    

It's so Confusing!

This business about Social Security is so confusing. Someone is lying. But who is lying? I know, that is a dumb question as we know by now that everyone is lying.  I guess the more pertinent question is who is lying the more egregiously. I have heard for weeks, months, even years that Social Security has nothing to do with the deficit. It is not funded by taxes, is solvent, at least for quite a while, can presumably be easily adjusted to survive for a very long time, and has been said repeatedly to be “off the table.” So why are we now hearing about possibly reducing it, or eliminating it, or privatizing it, or who know what with it?

I can understand why Republicans keep bringing it up, dragging it into deficit reduction, “entitlements,” and so forth, even though as an independently funded program it is not an entitlement. They have been opposed to it, and attempting to do away with it since FDR established it in the first place. Presumably they miss the enjoyment of seeing old people living in poverty and slowly suffering. But why on earth would President Obama even consider tampering with it, reducing it, using it as a negotiating tool?  It is supposed to be off the table, so why isn’t it? I cannot answer this question unless, perhaps, maybe, possibly, President Obama is not really serious about using it as a negotiating tool, or is basically just a “Fink,” which I do not like to think about.

 Another thing I find terribly confusing is the deficit. That is, is the deficit a problem or is it not? Most everyone, including Obama, seems to think it is a serious problem. But others seem to think it is not such a problem. One claim now is that whereas when Obama took office the deficit was 10% of something-or-other it is now only 5% of something-or-other. So what is it? Damned if I know. I wonder if anyone else really knows or if this is all just more hot air. Some say the deficit is the most serious problem and can only be solved by less spending, others say jobs are the most serious problem and increasing spending for jobs is the solution. So what is a mental midget supposed to believe? I tend to go with the more spending, more jobs view, not because I know that is necessarily the best solution (I mean, after all, what do I know?), but because I know from experience that while Democrats lie sometimes, Republicans lie all the time.

Gun and ammunition sales are apparently soaring. I take this to mean, following the logic of LaPierre, that eventually gun violence will disappear, as the answer to gun violence, according to him, is more guns. The good guys with guns will win in the end, just like they always did in the “B” westerns I grew up with, and just as LaPierre says they will. I guess we should take comfort in knowing there are apparently more guns now in the U.S. than people. Whee! It’s so exciting!

On another front, run, run, run for your life, the Iranians are coming, the Iranians are coming! They may someday, perhaps, possibly, if we don’t bomb them quickly, have the capacity to sometime in the future make a bomb, and if they do, watch out world, they will use it to not only attack Israel and the United States, but presumably the entire world (they are said to be a danger to the world). This Iranian scare is the most nonsensical bullshit I have ever heard, leave it to Netanyahu, the world’s number one Yahoo, to keep fanning the flames for another war, and leave it to Lindsey Graham, the world’s second greatest Yahoo, to keep egging him on. There is no doubt a diplomatic solution for the (basically non-existant) Iranian “problem” could easily be found if the ridiculous mass hysteria would subside. I commend President Obama for keeping us out of another unnecessary criminal “war” so far, but it looks now that we might still be maneuvered by Netanyahu and the hawks into another terrible and stupid war crime just as we were in the case of Iraq. I am hoping (not against hope I hope) Obama and Hagel will be able to resist the pressure for another senseless premature attack on still another innocent Middle East country to try to prevent something that is ultimately militarily unpreventable and will cost thousands of innocent lives.  But stupid is as stupid does (I hate that phrase).

Ah, this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'safe' that I wasn't previously aware of.

Douglas Adams

Explanation, Please

Consider the definition of treason from an online dictionary:

1

: the betrayal of a trust : treachery

2

: the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance or to kill or personally injure the sovereign or the sovereign's family.

Now consider the following:

• “I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub."

“This goal of a radically reduced government is not simply the dream of small-state ideologues within the Beltway in Washington D.C. Consider the 2008 platform of the Republican Party in Texas. It called for the elimination of every federal agency not mentioned in the original constitution – including the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Departments of Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, Education, Commerce and Labor. Programs like Social Security and policies like the minimum wage would also be abolished. And Texas Republicans believe that not only should taxes never be increased, but that most current taxes should be abolished, including income taxes, inheritance taxes, capital gains, corporate income taxes, payroll taxes, and property taxes. In short, this GOP platform is a blueprint for how to cripple the federal government.”

“… the President should let the public see the Tea Partiers for who they are — a small, radical minority intent on dismantling the government of the United States. As long as they are allowed to dictate the terms of public debate they will continue to hold the rest of us hostage to their extremism.”

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

I suppose one could accept the goal of making the President of the United States a “one-term President” as a reasonable goal from a political standpoint. In a general way that is perhaps the common goal of most minority parties. However, when the means to bring about such a goal involves an absolute refusal to allow a President to do anything at all, to effectively refuse to participate in governing, and therefore harms the government by not allowing any positive changes to come about, it seems to me that is close enough to treason to warrant an explanation of why it should not be so considered.

When Grover Norquist said “I don’t want to abolish government, …” that (perhaps questionable) disclaimer is in my opinion the only thing that keeps the goal of “drowning it…” from being treasonous, or certainly borderline treasonous.

It is becoming more and more obvious that the goal of the current Republican Party, apparently now controlled by the Tea Party, is to essentially dismantle or cripple the government, to “eviscerate” it if possible (to take out the entrails of : disembowel).

At least a few of these anti-government nutcases have even suggested “second amendment remedies” if they don’t get their way, and even more extreme ones have   suggested less euphemistic violent means, “we have come unarmed this time,” or worse. These could be dismissed as the outrageous rantings of a few, which of course they are, but it does seem to me that this type of behavior is close enough to treason to be almost indistinguishable from that unpleasant possibility. In our “democracy,” with its emphasis on free speech, there is nothing that can be done about this (unless it were to actually happen), except to wait for the next election, which may or may not make a difference (depending upon the whims of voters). While I am not advocating a more serious solution to this problem, I cannot help but observe that in some other nations these kinds of people would already be incarcerated in jails or mental institutions, if not shot or hanged.

I have never found, in a long experience of politics, that criticism is ever inhibited by ignorance.

Harold Macmillan

Me too, Rush

Poor ol’ Rush Limbaugh, I guess he thought he was delivering a bombshell to his loyal patriotic followers when he announced the other day he was, “for the first time in his life ashamed of America.” He is ashamed because he says “the ‘left” has taken over, liberals have won, they have created “more low-information, unaware, uneducated people” and what not. Low-information, unaware, uneducated people sounds to me like a perfect description of his own audience, but leave that aside for the moment. I never thought I would agree with him in any way, but I agree with him that I am ashamed of my country, although for very different reasons.  Let me list some of the ways:

First, I guess I am ashamed to confess that such a large number of my fellow citizens actually listen to Rush’s daily stupid, mostly infantile, unfounded, hate-filled babble, and seem to take it seriously and delight in it.

I am also quite ashamed to live in the only highly industrialized, supposedly “modern,” supposedly “democratic” nation that does not provide universal health care to its citizens. I am likewise ashamed to live in a country that devalues education to the point we only begrudgingly finance our schools and teachers and carelessly allow them to deteriorate so badly (producing the very uneducated, unaware people Rush disparages). Of course I cannot say I am very proud to live in a country where our infrastructure has likewise deteriorated to the point that it will take trillions to repair it all. Of course there is also the fact of global warming, probably the most serious threat we have ever faced, and about which we have so far done next to nothing (except to deny it). I am also ashamed to live in a culture where the environment is considered completely expendable when it comes to making a profit.

I am ashamed, too, to be part of a nation eternally at “war,” or so it seems, especially as at least some of these so-called “wars” have never been authorized and are internationally defined as war crimes, Iraq comes specifically to mind, but there are others as well. Similarly I am ashamed to live in a nation that protects admitted war criminals while at the same time demanding those of other countries be held accountable.  I am even more ashamed to acknowledge our uncritical, unquestioned, and immoral support for another country obviously guilty of multiple ongoing war crimes against an essentially helpless population.

I also find it difficult to be proud of our use of drones wherever we choose, violating international law and killing hundreds, even thousands, of innocent people. Along with this outrageous behavior is the claim that our government (President) claims the right to kill whomever they wish if they define them as “terrorists” (one nation’s terrorists are another nation’s heroes). I also find it shameless that using the excuse of promoting democracy around the world we continue to exploit other countries and attempt to maintain hegemony around the world. I am also not very proud to acknowledge that with some 5% of the earth’s population we use somewhere around 25% of the known resources.

 I am also ashamed to live in a country where the wealth is distributed so unfairly, and even stupidly. One percent of the population owns as much or more than the 99% and fight endlessly to not have to share it with anyone no matter what their obvious needs. I think this kind of naked greed is truly shameful and should not be permitted (let alone promoted as somehow rightful). Most of all I am ashamed to be living in a nation of cannibals:

“Capitalism turns men into economic cannibals, and having done so, mistakes economic capitalism for human nature.” Edward Hyam.

Basically, I believe this is so, and if left unchecked and unregulated it will inevitably lead to the demise of our society as we have known it. The battle against greed ebbs and flows, at the moment greed is winning.   

There is no calamity greater than lavish desires.
There is no greater guilt than discontentment.
And there is no greater disaster than greed.

Lao-tzu

The Pipeline

I am not all confident I understand what this Keystone pipeline is all about. If I do understand it, it must be about the craziest idea ever proposed, and if President Obama approves it, it will prove that he is not only in the pockets of big oil, but also crazy himself.

Of course I am not confident that I truly do understand it as nowadays you cannot believe anything you see or hear, especially when it comes to politics and government. You have to listen to what different sources claim and then pick the ones that at least seem to be the most accurate or logical. With this in mind, it seems to me that what is being proposed is so outrageously awful it should not even be taken seriously, let alone approved.

As I understand it, in the Province of Alberta there is a vast expanse of underground oil that can only be obtained by what is known as “fracking.” This is an extremely destructive and expensive way of producing crude oil that will apparently destroy miles and miles of forests and other aspects of nature. This exceptionally dirty oil needs to be transported to centers where it can be processed into saleable oil. Alberta cannot build a shorter pipeline directly to the west coast across Canadian territory because of environmental objections. As they cannot take this option they are suggesting a 1700 mile pipeline across the entire Midwest of the United States, through Montana, Nebraska, and on down to processing centers in Texas.

Needless to say this is a multi-billion dollar project fraught with real dangers as it will pass over critical aquifers as well as much productive agricultural land where the possibility of spills could be devastating. Proponents of this project claim it will be safe, will create 20,000 jobs, help stop our dependence on oil from other parts of the globe, and so on.  They also argue it is critical for the U.S. to maintain good relationships with our Canadian neighbors who will, of course, at least in the short run, benefit hugely from selling this valuable resource.

Opponents of this monumental project say it will not produce that many jobs, certainly not permanent ones. It is dangerous, environmentally damaging, and potentially disastrous. Furthermore, they point out, the oil so transported is not really for use by the U.S. but is, in fact, for export to China and other nations, thus doing nothing to reduce our need for other foreign oil. They also point out that while it is true Canadians will profit from selling this oil, the true beneficiaries will be the giant international oil corporations.

In summary, Alberta is willing and eager to destroy enormous areas of their Province to produce very expensive and very dirty oil they will not be allowed to transport across the Province of British Columbia because of the opposition of their own citizens. They propose building a gigantic pipeline across the entire United States in order to transport this oil to processing centers in Texas where it can be refined and then sold to other countries. The only benefits of this for the U.S. are apparently the promise of 20,000 mostly temporary jobs and congenial relations with Canada. The potential environmental destruction to the U.S., as well as the almost certainty of spills, are being downplayed by those eager for the presumed jobs (but more realistically by those U.S. Congresspersons being bribed by the Oil corporations). As this project involves crossing an international border it must be approved by President Obama. Imagine the pressure he must be under to approve this monstrosity of capitalism.

 There is extreme opposition to this pipeline on the part of environmentalists and scientists who believe it will be symbolic of where the U.S. (and the world) will go with respect to energy. Will we continue to depend on unrenewable fossil fuels rather than commit to other more renewable forms of energy? Will we continue to put jobs ahead of environmental protections? Whose side will Obama elect to support? He is certainly not in an enviable position, no matter which way he decides there will be monumental objections and complaints. Obama has said he (we) will deal with global warming. This pipeline is said to represent a crucial step in attacking that problem. I believe this is one of the most important, indeed crucial, decisions faced by any U.S. President. No doubt I have oversimplified the situation, I’m sure there must be more to it than the simple scam I have outlined. But even so, we are being asked, once again, to risk hundreds of miles of our productive land and our basic water supplies, potentially massive environmental degradation, for the benefit of Oil company profits. An old union man once told me if it came to a choice between a stupid little owl and a job he would of course go for the job. And so it all  continues. Who needs owls and healthy environments anyway? If Obama decides against this pipeline he will no doubt face excruciatingly painful recriminations from Republicans (and maybe even a few others), but he will also go down in history as one of the most important and greatest Presidents of all.

Do not disrespect

she who gives you sustenance,

move gently across

the land and the blue oceans,

like dancing with a lover.

Morialekafa 

I'm Somewhat Sympathetic

In a somewhat perverse way I am sympathetic to those who are taken in by lies, rumors, and deceptions. There are at the moment probably dozens of falsehoods making the rounds of the media. I came across one just now that claims to have proof that Obama is Gay, not only that, he was apparently once married to a Gay man.

There are also now claims that the Pope resigned because of a report of a Gay cabal in the Vatican that would be so difficult and embarrassing to deal with he felt it wise to get out of the situation.

Our new Senator from Texas, Cruz, is reported to have claimed there were 12 communists on the Harvard Law School Faculty while he was a student there. And, of course, he has also said President Obama is the most radical President ever.

Then there is the now famous case of those currently imprisoned at Gitmo receiving G.I. benefits, an absolutely ridiculous claim that was apparently taken seriously by one of McConnell’s staff.

There has also been the completely false claim that Hagel has received support from an organization called “Friends of Hamas,” an organization that does not even exist, and if it did it would not go by such a name. This has apparently been believed by at least some of our Senators even though it is ridiculous on the face of it.

Of course there are also the longstanding claims that Obama was born in Kenya, is a Muslim, a Socialist, Communist, Fascist, mysterious intruder from outer space who wants to take away guns, promote abortion, and so on.

All of these claims are obvious nonsense with no factual basis whatsoever, but yet t here always seems to be some who accept them, or at least give them the benefit of the doubt. And for those who believe it is virtually impossible to convince them otherwise. How can this be? Why are so many willing to believe what most of us recognize immediately as utter hogwash, balderdash, claims so far-fetched as to deserve no credibility whatsoever?

It is true, I guess, that in some cases there might at least be some sliver of truth involved. I suppose it could be true there is some Gay faction in the Vatican, and depending upon your definition of radical I suppose one could conceivably argue the point about Obama, but there certainly can be no question of Obama’s sexuality, his birth, 12 communists on the Harvard faculty, Gitmo prisoners getting the GI Bill, and whatever. Unfortunately it has become increasingly difficult to separate the remotely possible from the obviously impossible.

The unfortunate ability for people to believe virtually anything these days has to do, I think, with the fact that lying has become the norm rather than the exception in our political system. It is doubtless true that politicians have lied from time immemorial, at least about certain things, but I don’t think they lied on the massive scale, and about almost everything, that has become so commonplace in recent years. The Bush/Cheney administration made lying the norm rather than the exception. I doubt that anyone, especially Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or Rice ever told the truth about anything. This has created a situation of such massive distrust on the part of the public they are no longer capable of separating fact from fiction, truth from untruth, and are thus far more susceptible to accepting even the most outrageous lies as possible truths. While I obviously don’t know the exact extent of lying in previous administrations, I seriously doubt that any of them lied so persistently, glibly, or unconscionably as Bush/Cheney and their gang of loyal prevaricators. Being a pretty forgiving person I would like to think they might have believed the lies they fed us on a daily basis, but I know better. They knew they were lying, and I guess they thought that lying in the pursuit of oil was no vice.  They even outdid Richard Nixon.

 Nixon is a shifty-eyed goddamn liar....He's one of the few in the history of this country to run for high office talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time and lying out of both sides.

Harry S Truman

Pussyfooting

I’m not in the least impressed with President Obama’s attempt to raise the minimum wage or increase taxes on the obscenely wealthy. Suggesting the minimum wage should rise to $9 an hour is truly pussyfooting. If the minimum wage had kept up with inflation over the years it should probably somewhere closer to $20 per hour. I understand why Obama would not suggest such a dramatic increase all at once, but $9 an hour, while somewhat helpful, would still leave workers basically in poverty and is little more than a polite gesture in the right direction.

Similarly, the attempt to raise taxes on the wealthiest individuals and corporations, currently making more and more money all the time, a mere 3 or 4% is pussyfooting on a grand scale. When you realize their taxes are at an all time low, and have been as much as 90%, the piddling amount involved is just that piddling, more pussyfooting. I don’t know exactly what the increase should be, but it should involve far more than merely closing some obvious and totally ridiculous loopholes. As profit comes from exploiting the environment and labor, and as the filthy rich are exploiting both by far the most, they should pay the most by far. If they were our national debt would soon decrease significantly while at the same time workers could have decent wages and a decent living above the poverty line. There is plenty of wealth in the U.S., it is unfortunately distributed so unequally as to mostly be wasted.

I believe that those who are talented enough or hardworking enough to do better than others should be rewarded for their talent and effort, but certainly not in the obscene amounts they currently enjoy. So enough pussyfooting around, we should go for the major changes that need to be made, eliminate the national debt, help everyone better their circumstances, and forget the greed driven unchecked capitalism that has created the current mess. It can be done, should be done, must be done. We need a form of democratic socialism that does away with the terrible imbalances that are leading us inevitably to doomsday.

I must say, as I’m sure I have said before, it is hard to comprehend Republicans.  Here they are, opposed to just about everything ordinary citizens want: abortion, contraception, minimum wages, universal health care, food stamps, Planned Parenthood, equal wages, unemployment insurance, environmental protection, women’s rights, fair taxes, even government itself, and somehow they think all they need to do is explain these positions more adeptly to attract votes, apparently oblivious to the obvious desires of the citizenry.

Along these lines it is being said by many, or at least some, that Republicans are “out of touch” with the people, or “not paying attention,” or oblivious to the polls, and so on. I think what is meant by out of touch needs to be clarified. They are out of touch if you concede their positions are contrary to the desires of the majority, but if you mean they are out of touch because they don’t understand the situation that seems to me quite misleading. I think they understand the situation full well, they just don’t care about ordinary people. When you consider what many of them say from time to time it is pretty clear they would be willing to let the poor live in misery, poor health, and just die, rather than provide for them. Think of the 47% Romney spoke of, or the 51% Herman Cain recently spoke about, those without health insurance Ron Paul spoke of, the comments of the “Base” in Arizona to McCain, those who would suffer from the lack of food stamps, health care, and so on. Think also of their callous attitude towards the Palestinians, Iranians, and others who do not enjoy the same “exceptionalism” they do.

I suspect nothing of substance will be accomplished until our timid pussyfooting is abandoned in favor of genuine attempts to change things: poverty, guns, fairness, global warming, environmental degradation, superstructure, education, health care, and just about anything else you might name. And I assure you no positive changes will result from “privatization” and the “free market.”  

 But pain... seems to me an insufficient reason not to embrace life. Being dead is quite painless. Pain, like time, is going to come on regardless. Question is, what glorious moments can you win from life in addition to the pain?

Lois McMaster Bujold, 

Abandon all Hope...

Ye, who live in these (hopefully still mostly) United States of America. Now that it has become clear our government is apparently in the hands of second and third graders engaged in unsupervised play on our national playground, Washington, D.C.  I am not sure that even hope is warranted as it is becoming more and more obvious our elected Congresspersons are now operating on the basis of personal grudges and animosities. John McCain has confessed the Republican opposition to Senator Hagel can be traced to his criticism of former President Bush and his opposition to the Iraq war (never mind that Hagel was quite right about  all of this). More importantly, however, is the now openly admitted opposition to President Obama because they do not like him. This is playground childishness if ever there was such, pathetic to the point of infantile rage. Republicans can apparently not get over the fact they lost the election, Obama was elected to a second term, and they continue to oppose him at every turn. As many of the things Obama wants to do are precisely the same things they themselves once proposed this constant opposition makes no sense whatsoever aside from their irrational hatred of him. Like children on the playground they want to take their ball and go home.

I am perhaps too dense to “get it,” but I confess I cannot understand the depth of their hatred for our President. Although there are things Obama has done I do not personally approve of, all in all he seems to me to be a fairly decent President, even quite a successful one in spite of overwhelming opposition for no apparent reason. I mean, really, he is not a foreign born imposter, not  a socialist, not  a Muslim, has not tried to take our guns away, tried to do well by the middle class and the poor, has saved our automobile industry, staved off a depression, improved our health care, championed women’s rights, Gay rights, ended our  unfortunate “war” in Iraq, is winding down our foolish “war” in Afghanistan, and so on. No matter how one might feel about any one or all of these accomplishments, I fail to comprehend what he has done to deserve the hatred that seems to be driving the Republicans. His greatest problem, it seems to me, is simply being President while Black.

How can a government function if those in charge act like children? So, your lost an election, that does not give you license to refuse to do your duty and cooperate in the operations of government. What Republicans have been and are doing seems to me completely unprecedented. In a system such as ours you cannot have one party simply refusing to cooperate at all, refusing to do the public’s business, refusing, basically, to govern. I cannot believe the Founding Fathers could have even imagined such a situation. The basic premise of our Republic is that we elect officials to conduct public and national affairs on our behalf. Many of our currently elected officials have simply abandoned public and national interest entirely, concentrating solely on staying in office and serving those private interests that keep funding (bribing) them, and, in this case, also attempting to humiliate a President because they do not like him. They say he is not friendly enough to them, does not reach out enough, is aloof and distant, doesn’t have enough personal friends in Congress, and etc. I take this to mean they basically think he is Black and “uppity.”

I knew that when Obama was first elected as our first Black President the ramifications would be far deeper and more serious than anyone seemed to think, that talk of a “post-racial” society was nonsense, that he would face almost impossible opposition. The basic paradigm of White superiority, which had been in existence for hundreds of years, would not be easily abandoned, and it unfortunately has not. Black people were not supposed to be competent, intelligent, or successful. Obama has exposed the lie for what it was (and still is for many).  That is why he is hated and disrespected, it has little or nothing to do with his policies and much to do with his successes. Stepin Fetchit made a fortune portraying what a Black man was supposed to be, Obama will make a fortune and go down in history as what a Black man can truly be. I will not be around to see it but I would bet that someone in the future will argue he was successful only because he was half White, fundamental beliefs even while false and stupid do not die easily.

He who endeavors to serve, to benefit, and improve the world, is like a swimmer, who struggles against a rapid current, in a river lashed into angry waves by the winds. Often they roar over his head, often they beat him back and baffle him. Most men yield to the stress of the current... Only here and there the stout, strong heart and vigorous arms struggle on toward ultimate success.

Albert Pike

Tomorrow

Tomorrow is Monday, finally, thank goodness. I don’t like weekends, Saturdays and Sundays, as not much of anything happens, at least according to the MSM. It’s like the world shuts down for the weekends and then begins again on Mondays. But does it really?

…
Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing. — Macbeth (Act 5, Scene

I find it incredible that Shakespeare could have written this description of U.S. politics so far in advance. He must have been psychic. But isn’t it an almost perfect description of what is going on at the moment in our Congress? Nothing much happens, the pace creeps on, we are still dealing with yesterday’s foolishness (as well as today’s), McCain and Graham and Cruz (and others) strut and fret their hours on the television stage soon to be left behind, their idiotic tales full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (except their personal animosity towards a perfectly qualified candidate). Shakespeare was indeed a genius, as it were, having his hand on a future situation he could not even have imagined. Oh something will eventually happen, when Congress gets back from their vacation they will eventually vote for Secretary of Defense and turn their attention to what else they can do to keep us from making any progress on the many problems that face us. They will no doubt continue to concentrate their efforts on trying to make President Obama fail at all things. I guess they will never admit, however begrudgingly, that for a Black man Obama has been remarkably successful as President in spite of all their blatant efforts to thwart him at every turn. I like to imagine how much better things would be if Al Gore had not been cheated out of the Presidency, or how much better they would be if Republicans had not chosen their strange form of quasi- treason rather than cooperate for the sake of our nation. It almost makes me wish there was some kind of supernatural being that punished greed and stupidity.

Of course it is true the world is changing, even more rapidly than ever before, and apparently not always for the best. As one example I like to think of Will Rogers:  “You can't say that civilization  don't advance, however, for in every war they kill you in a new way.”And then I think of Kipling:  

Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,

Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God's great Judgment Seat;

But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,

When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!

 A new medal has just been commissioned, to be given to those fine warriors who man the drones, thousands of miles from their killings. Sitting in chairs at computers (sipping tea and eating crumpets?) while “fighting,” that is, engaged in something that used to be called “battles” is indeed quite a change. I guess we might describe this as “The War of the Nerds.” This is something that never should have been started and may well result in the end of “wars” forever, along with the short-sighted species that invented it, what an absolutely stupid idea, destroying the “romance” of war.

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.

Rick Cook,

Lunatics?

Someone described Wayne LaPierre (surely you know him by now) as a lying lunatic. I have no doubt he is a liar, in fact it would be virtually impossible to believe he is not a liar, but a lunatic? That raises a most interesting question that I think is much broader than the individual case of LaPierre. In his particular case, however, whether he is a lunatic or not hinges on whether or not he actually believes the pig pucky he routinely mouths, or whether he has another motive for saying it, which he probably does. Rather than describing him as a lunatic it might be more accurate to describe him as a marketing genius because he truly DOES SELL GUNS, and lots and lots of them. By promoting fear and helplessness to a gullible public he makes them believe their only chance to survive the collapse of civilization as we know it is to buy and have more guns, the more the better, and the more powerful (and expensive) the better. Going by the reports of gun and ammunition sales in the past couple of years you have to admit he is unbelievably successful at what he does.

Probably the best example of this is in the strange case of assault rifles. It is being reported that we might actually manage to get universal background checks, in spite of LaPierre’s objection, but we are unlikely to get a ban on assault rifles. I find this extremely interesting given the fact there is absolutely no genuine reason or need for any ordinary citizen to need such a weapon. But as this is true, and it is also true there is such resistance to giving up such unnecessary weapons, one can only conclude the motivation for this is fear, fear of government. I suppose you could argue people like to use them for target practice (as they have no other practical use) but that is a feeble argument at best . They are not used for hunting and serve no useful purpose. There is no point in having one…except to presumably protect yourself from your government, a threat that of course does not even exist. It is based purely on the propaganda that has been promoted for years by those who know that fear is a great motivator and if you can keep the public fearful enough you can get them to buy guns, and more guns. I suspect we have Saint Ronnie to thank for this completely irrational fear as he assured us “government is the problem,” read “enemy”).  As assault rifles serve no useful domestic purpose, other than killing policemen and miscellaneous civilians including children, you might think citizens would quite rationally agree to give them up. But fearful people are not rational and thus fall prey to LaPierre and his gun manufacturing sponsors. I (foolishly I suppose) would have thought it much easier to get an assault weapon ban than universal background checks.

But the problem of distinguishing lunacy from other motives is not found only with respect to LaPierre and the problems of gun violence. It seems to be involved in other aspects of politics as well. I think it is one of the reasons President Obama has had so much trouble trying to get any form of bipartisanship from Republicans. I don’t think he ever believed that any American politician would behave in ways that are contrary to the national interest. He has now learned after four bitter years of experience that Republicans have had no interest whatsoever in the national interest and have consistently put personal and party interest ahead of public or national interest. From the standpoint of our national interest this can easily be seen as lunacy. How is Obama to know if his Republican opponents actually believe the nonsense they spout endlessly or if they are crazy enough to believe it. This has become a genuine problem in the past few years because members of the Tea Party rather routinely take positions one can only assume are truly loony. Do they really believe the nonsense they peddle or do they do it for other reasons (like to bring down Obama, he’s Black, you know).

So how do you separate the crazies from the others? How can you be certain? What can you do about it in any case? In some other more authoritarian nations such people might well end up institutionalized, shot, or even “disappeared.” Here we can only wait until the next election and then hope for the best, and now that gerrymandering has been so successful for Republicans there may not be a “best” for quite a while. I don’t believe LaPierre is a lunatic, I think he is a lying, evil, money grubbing, unconscionable shill for an equally disreputable and disgusting gun industry willing to sacrifice innocent lives for profit.

 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?

Bible

Ho Hum, the Israelis...

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

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

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

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

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

H. L. Mencken

Republicans Can't Help It...

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

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

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

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

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

Ludwig Tieck

The Luck of the Draw

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

Cancer

Stroke

Heart

Parkinson’s

Stroke

Suicide

Stroke

Alzheimer’s

Dementia

One still alive but suffering from MS

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

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

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

How appropriate,

when the Great Mystery calls,

to leave in autumn.

Morialekafa

  

The Iranian Hysteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace.

Thomas Mann