In the Dark

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Albert Einstein 

Me and Kati (12(

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Bernard Shaw

Defending the "Big Dog"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It’s Only Kinky the First Time”

Bumper sticker  

How the Mighty are Falling

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

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

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

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

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

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

  

Jim Dandy to the Rescue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

e. e. cummings 

Money vs Morality

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

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

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

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

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

 M.F. Moonzajer

There must be Gods

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

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

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

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

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

There is no gambling like politics.

Benjamin Disraeli 

Freedom and Capitalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bertrand Russell 

Me and Kati (11)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Orwell 

Journey to the West: Death and Dying

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aljazeera America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Henry David Thoreau 

On "Fairness"

You don’t have to be very old to discover that things are “not fair.” It’s probably the first thing you learn on the school playground. It may have to do with hitting someone when they are down, two kids picking on one, or something like that, but it is clearly recognizable as not fair. There is obviously some idea of “fairness.” Chris Hayes has a short piece on MSNBC in which he says his parents taught him that things “ought to be fair,” even if they aren’t. Where does this idea of fairness come from? I assume it is a kind of human idea as there would seem to be no idea of fairness in nature. That is, where is the fairness when a newborn fawn is run down by a pack of wolves or a salmon run is destroyed by a dam or an elephant is killed by a poacher?

From a human point of view it does seem that things are unfair, but it is not clear to me what that means. For example, is it fair that some people have billions of dollars while others have virtually none? Is that fair? Leave aside for the moment that in our contemporary culture the idea of fairness seems not to exist at all and think about a more abstract culture. Would it be fair if everyone in any given culture had precisely the same amount of wealth? I think not, it seems clear that some individuals work harder, are smarter and more creative than others, and would inevitably be more successful. That would seem to be fair. But in our culture it is possible to be obscenely wealthy without any effort at all. All you need to do to be rich is to inherit money, win it, or otherwise acquire and possess it, which automatically guarantees you to become even more wealthy. When money itself breeds and produces more money the idea of fairness becomes irrelevant. This seems to me to be obviously not fair.

Leaving aside the question of wealth for the moment, is it fair that some people die young and others live into a ripe old age? This seems to me obviously unfair. Why should my wonderful, talented, and super energetic wife have to die at 60 while I continue on into my 80’?. Why should some individuals die in childhood without a chance to live full and rewarding lives, why should others be stricken with diseases and die painfully while others do not? I do not know where you would find a better example of unfairness. It appears there is no unfairness in nature, it is apparently irrelevant. Would it not be more fair if everyone was scheduled to die at the same age, say 75 or 80, maybe even 90? Everyone born would have the same chance to live their lives as best they could, a fair chance for all. If, during the course of their lives, some were more successful than others (barring inheritance and criminal enterprise) would that not be fair?

On the other hand, if everything was fair, if everyone lived the same amount of time and knew when they would die, would life be worth living? If everyone had the same amount of money, irrespective of their personal incentive, would not life be boring and unrewarding? It seems to me that unfairness is built into life, is in fact a necessary condition of life, is, in a sense, what makes life worth living. If everything was completely fair we would live like robots or ants, existing merely to perform and experience only that for which we were pre-ordained and equipped for, living lives of quiet non-expectations, automatons on the way to nowhere.

I guess we need to accept the unfairness of our lives. But here again, when perplexed, I always turn to my mother’s advice, “do everything in moderation.” That’s exactly what we need, moderation in unfairness. Unhappily, that’s not what we have at the moment.

Be moderate in order to taste the joys of life in abundance.” 

― Epicurus

The SpamaScamaCramajama

I don’t understand it. I have gone for years relatively untouched by spam and scams but somehow in the last two or three months my server has gone berserk and I now find that anytime I turn on my email there are anywhere from seven to twenty seven entries. These are not all spam or scams but many are. While I find this irritating and a nuisance, and I know I will eventually have to have my friend, “The Fixer,” do something about it, it is also a bit of a learning experience.

First, I guess you have to admire the apparently desperate optimism of those who try to sell Viagra and Cialis to dead birds. I wonder if they are in league with the nubile Russian and Asian girls who offer themselves, apparently without reservation, to a broken-down 84 year-old widower. Then there are those who seem to believe that people will rush out and buy stocks because they receive unsolicited tips on the internet. I know, I know, the optimism is limited and the offers are sent out randomly looking for lonely and/or stupid suckers as desperate as the senders themselves must be. While I resent having to take the time to delete all of this hopeless effort, it doesn’t bother me anywhere near as much as the incessant solicitations.

There are at least four things about the apparently endless solicitations that offend me: first, the amount of them, second, the assumption that I must have endless amounts of money to donate, third, the nature of the requests, and, finally, what happens to the money if donated.

I receive requests for money for so many different reasons I find it overwhelming. Save the wolves, save the Grizzly bears, save the whales, save the dolphins, save the sharks, save the pygmy rabbits, save the sage grouse, save the Butterflies, save the Polar bears, save the Puffins, save the Manatees, save the baby seals, save the coral, and even save the oceans and the forests. I firmly believe all these creatures and natural treasures fully deserve to be saved. But I wonder, why is it up to me to save them? Where are the governments and all the governmental entities that exist presumably to monitor and guard them? Where is the Forest Service, Fish and Game, Environmental Protection, and all the other agencies responsible for protecting them?

I can understand how a rare frog or snail may have been overlooked and thus need private help to survive, but then you encounter something like Wounded Warriors. Of course I believe wounded warriors need help, but where is the government that wounded them, where are all those billions of dollars of taxpayer money that is supposed to care for them? I’m sure their needs are real, and I also believe they should get absolutely first-class treatment in every way, but why should they have to depend on private donations for what they need? Perhaps some of the billions being spent on creating more and more wounded warriors could be diverted into caring for those who already exist? No, probably not, the Military needs more useless tanks and planes, and more trillions of dollars they can’t even account for. Our military/industrial/political complex is the most gigantic scam of all time. It exists primarily to siphon taxpayer dollars into the pockets of those who promote it.

This brings me to the subject of political contributions. Apparently most every politician in the United States believes they can get donations from me. I get requests for donations from places like Illinois, New Jersey, New York, Florida, and many more states. Interestingly enough, I don’t get many requests from Idaho Democrats who are, of course, a truly endangered species. Donating money to Idaho Democrats is essentially the same as flushing your donation down the toilet. As I don’t donate much to the rare Democratic candidates who do, from time to time, actually exist, I should have more money to donate to politicians in other states, right? Thinking about where the money goes hurts my aged brain.

Now I get requests for money because the Koch brothers or other conservative groups are spending hundreds of millions backing conservative candidates. The idea is, I guess, that donations from me and others like me will somehow match those of the billionaires. This seems to me a questionable goal at best, if not just another scam. Let ‘s say I do make a contribution to the campaign of, say, Ito Pucci. Ito will use that money to buy advertising space mostly on television so he can match the ads of his conservative opponent. The billionaires own the television stations so, in effect, Ito is spending my money by enriching the very people he is opposing. Why should I donate money to Murdoch to help Ito Pucci? Fortunately (or perhaps unfortunately) I have so little money to donate I am not personally affected much by this little scam, but isn’t it beautiful? Limbaugh, and others of his ilk (I love the word ilk as to me it kind of reeks of slime and nepotism), and the media they represent, make their profits no matter who wins or loses. Is it any wonder that campaigns are encouraged to spend more and more each time?

  Cats have a scam going - you buy the food, they eat the food, they go away; that's the deal.

Eddie Izzard 

Kati and Me (10)

Kati, my sweet girl, I find it almost impossible to blog anymore. The truth is I think I have pretty much given up. No, I haven’t given up on life, I still marvel at the mountains, the scenery, the sunrise and sunset, the remarkable diversity of life all around me, the deer and coyotes, the magnificent elk and moose, the birds, and even the weather, although it has been, for me, too cold. Basically I am at peace with the natural world.

It is the human world that has turned me into a rather cynical and unhappy person. Aside from a small number of friends I have become increasingly isolated from society, even American culture itself. Everything has changed during my lifetime, changes that do not seem to me to be in any way either useful or pleasant. It’s true we don’t have as many flat tires as we once did, and refrigerators and technological stuff work better. But of late it seems to me my life has come under attack from the forces of, I guess, capitalism. The profit motive is destroying my everyday life in ways that may strike you as trivial.

Even simple things that once gave me pleasure have changed. For example, I once enjoyed watching MSNBC. I like Rachel Maddow and Chris Hayes. But I rarely watch them anymore because there are too many commercials. There are so many commercials  I no longer  have the patience to sit through them for the programming. I just turn it off. Similarly, the ads for movies are so overwhelmingly violent (and stupid) I no longer care even to see them. Much of the other advertising is so embarrassingly awful I find myself having to avert my eyes rather than watch it. When you realize that MSNBC is perhaps the least offensive of channels you have little choice but to simply abandon TV entirely.

But my experience with TV is merely symptomatic of the problems with contemporary American life that have completely turned me off. Ever since my childhood I have considered myself to be a Democrat, as was my father. I no longer consider myself a Democrat, but, rather, a Socialist, not that it matters to anyone but me. This is not simply a matter of claiming the Democratic Party has moved away from me, it is far more serious than that. The Government of the United States itself has abandoned me and the rest of the 99%. There is no longer any connection between the wishes of the 99% of people and their government. The vast majority of U.S. citizens want sensible gun control, their desires apparently fall on deaf ears in Congress. The vast majority of U.S. citizens were opposed to war with Iraq, they were ignored, a majority want us out of Afghanistan, they are ignored, a majority want diplomatic relations with Iran, they may well be ignored, a majority want the rich to pay more in taxes, and so it goes. What is supposed to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people, has become a government for the wealthy, for the corporations, and for profit over people, in short, a Fascist country pretending to be a democracy.

This would be bad enough if it were not for the unutterably stupid “news” we are being fed on a daily basis. The most trivial matters are blown up entirely out of proportion by the corporate owned newspapers and television stations. Obama’s handshake with Raul Castro proves he is a communist, the Obama’s black dog’s attack on a 3 year-old White girl suggests they are racists, Obamacare is socialism, as are unemployment  insurance, Social Security, Medicare, and anything else that might improve the lives of the 99%. Now even the somewhat covert racism that affected Obama’s election has become overt, blatant, and dysfunctional.

I now believe I have become completely divorced from our supposed government. I wish to live my remaining years without having to concern myself with what I believe to be the absolute idiocy that now constitutes our politics. I believe a majority of our elected officials are either  incompetent, dishonest, hypocritical, and greedy, or perhaps all of those things at once.

The greatest disappointment of my life comes from the realization that my (perhaps naïve) faith in our government has been shattered. World War II was our proudest moment, it’s been all downhill ever since.

Remember Kati, “Pride goeth before a fall.”

Communal Spirit

You might think that as Republicans are humans (I hope) that live collectively with other humans, as all humans are wont to do, they would have and participate in what we can call “communal spirit.” Humans live together in organized groups for mutual support and protection. They empathize with each other and help each other when it is necessary for them to do so. As far as I know this is characteristic of all human groups, except, I fear, of contemporary Republicans. Somehow they don’t seem to share this basic human characteristic.

This has become quite evident in recent years as they have consistently opposed virtually all attempts to better the lives of ordinary citizens. They are opposed to welfare in general, food stamps and unemployment insurance in particular, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, a minimum wage, job creation, fair taxation, and anything else that even hints at communal spirit and help to others. They seem to lack empathy entirely, which is surely one part of communal spirit. I do not believe Republicans in the past were so callous and uncaring about their fellow Americans. Why this change in attitudes has occurred I am not sure. I’m pretty sure that Saint Ronnie the Moron had at least something to do with it. Perhaps they confuse the word communal with communism, assuming they even know the word communal in any other context. It does seem that anything communal is considered by them to be communism, or at least communistic or maybe socialistic. I doubt that most of them have any idea of what communism or socialism were about but they seem to be pathologically frightened by the thought of either of them. When you hear one of them say Obama is a socialist you know, immediately, they have no idea what they are talking about.

In any case our society is now split almost in two, with one faction insisting on sharing and caring and the other focused on a kind of simple-minded social Darwinism, a state of nature where them as has stomp on them that hasn’t. As George Orwell observed in his marvelous book, 1984, “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—for ever.” How such a large segment of society came to be this way would be a subject for several dozen PhD dissertations. How they can be so vehemently opposed to even a minimal redistribution of wealth is a mystery to me. But they are as their behavior in recent years makes clear. They are, I believe, a danger to themselves and others.

What makes all of this worse is that they lie: incessantly, flagrantly, willfully, shamelessly, even idiotically. John Boehner has become their Liar-in-Chief. Apparently lying with a straight face has become heroic in their circles. Boehner, for example, consistently insists they (Republicans) are interested in creating jobs. In five years they have passed not one single piece of legislation that would have helped create jobs and have, in fact, resisted any attempt  by President Obama and Democrats to do so, and then hypocritically blamed Obama for the failure. They claim to be interested in health care but criticize Obamacare shamelessly with no alternative of their own. They claim to want to have immigration reform but refuse to even allow a vote on it.

It has become so bad I am beginning to believe that the stress of his office may be making Boehner, shall I say, a bit “dotty.” How else could you explain his recent claim that Republicans are trying to protect Americans from the Affordable Care Act? This is like saying they are trying to protect people from being healthy. No one in their right mind would say such a thing, especially at the very moment that people are signing up for that very thing. Boehner, who used to at least dabble in the communal spirit, has apparently completely surrendered to the Tea Party,  lock, start, and seven iron.

That Republicans lack communal spirit seem obvious. Why and how this developed over recent years is not entirely clear. It is obviously linked to our bizarre ideas about the benefits of “free market capitalism.” In an somewhat ironic way one might argue that capitalism has been a resounding success, it has done what it was meant to do, turned land, labor and money into commodities,  put profits ahead of people, reduced working people to wage slaves, damaged the environment for short term profit, and run rampant over morality and common sense. Old homilies are often the best: “Money is the root of all evil.”

 “And, for an instant, she stared directly into those soft blue eyes and knew, with an instinctive mammalian certainty, that the exceedingly rich were no longer even remotely human.” 

William Gibson

Hillary the Bland

I have always assumed that Hillary Clinton would run for President if presented with an opportunity. I still believe she will. If she does run she will almost undoubtedly win. I can see no possible Republican politician that could outmatch her in experience, intelligence, preparation, political savvy, grit and determination. Nor is it likely any particular Republican candidate could substantially raise more money or have a better and more experienced staff. She is virtually guaranteed the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Women’s vote, the Jewish vote, the Homosexual vote, and quite likely the Asian vote, Republicans having themselves virtually destroyed their chances with anyone but angry White working class males would surely have a difficult time (there are probably only so many votes they can suppress).

Hillary comes from a fine family background, has done well in the University and Law School, and has engaged in politics all of her adult life. She has no doubt dreamt of a female President for a long time. She is now uniquely qualified to become our first female President. It is virtually impossible to believe she will not go for it.

She would probably make a fine President, having been First Lady of both Arkansas and the United States, having previously run for President, having been a successful Senator and a fine Secretary of State. She will doubtless surround herself with good experienced and loyal people. I am sure she knows she will be ruthlessly and shamelessly attacked by Republicans, Roviated non-stop with their usual sliming, dishonest, and filthy innuendo, and thus will not be surprised or overwhelmed by it. She has already experienced lots of it. As she has long been a Hawk they probably cannot touch her on that score and Benghazi will not make much difference.  We probably know more about the Clintons than any other couple in history so it is unlikely there will be any new and surprising revelations about her or her family.

The potential and perhaps serious problem for Hillary is that by 2016 we are going to need a Teddy or a Franklin rather than a Dwight or a Gerald. Hillary is sooo 2012. As a consummate Washington insider for so long she has been in an important way, part of the problem. With strikes and picketing an increasing problem, along with the demand for higher wages, and the growing awareness of our terrible inequality, to say nothing of the increasing disenchantment with capitalism itself (even now by the Pope), the President of 2016 is going to have to be in the forefront of the coming battles against these injustices. “Too big to fail” will have to be challenged along with the criminal banking practices that have reigned for so long. Huge international corporations will have to be domesticated and Israeli racism and pillage will have to be curbed, as will the fantastically bloated defense budget. I cannot see Hillary at the head of serious populist attempts to change these gross injustices. We are going to need someone like Bernie Sanders (too old and truthful to be a serious candidate), or Elizabeth Warren (who I doubt will run for President), or someone with the will and determination to “lead the charge.” I do not know who that might be but I’m pretty certain we will not need a merely caretaker President. This is not to say Hillary would be a mere caretaker. I have no doubt she will fight for women’s rights, fight poverty, strengthen health care, and defend us from our enemies. She might even create jobs. But all this will not be enough to bring about the substantial changes we need to our basic social and economic problems which, alas, are linked to the seemingly inevitable and monumentally serious problem of global warming.

Hillary, I fear, will fall once again to the vagaries of change. Having had the Presidency snatched from her by the strangely upstart Barack Hussein Obama, she may lose out again through no fault of her own. In spite of her obvious qualifications and talent she may just prove to be the wrong person at the wrong time. I could, of course, be wrong about this, I often am, but one thing might comfort us, if Hillary does get elected, she will be thousands of times better than any of the roster of village idiots we will likely be offered by the Republicans.    

“Unseen in the background, Fate was quietly slipping lead into the boxing-glove.” 

P.G. Wodehouse

On "Rights"

We hear almost constantly from all sorts of different people about “rights,” that we presumably have or should have. But what, precisely, are rights? More frequently than not we are told by some that we have “God given” rights, and probably just as frequently by others that there are “Natural” rights. There are also “Human rights.” As an avowed Atheist I cannot bring myself to believe there are God given rights. I certainly cannot believe we have a God given right to own AK 47’s or to starve the poor in order to create billionaires. It has never been clear to me just what actually constitutes God given rights as they are rarely, if ever, precisely defined, and if they are you should beware of them. One of our favorite claims is that “all men are created equal,” and also that we have inalienable rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” With the possible exception of “life” these claims are demonstrably false, however noble they may sound.

Turning to the question of Natural rights it is possible to argue, I think, that yes, we may well have, for unknown reasons, a right to life. It would seem to me that the fact that we are born and exist certainly implies that somehow we must have a right to do so (consult The Great Mystery for confirmation). The fact of births would also seem to confirm a right to heterosexual relations between members of the species. Going one step farther, because we are born so terribly helpless we can presume there is a right to nurturance and protection at least for an initial period. As we arrive as living, breathing creatures you might also say we have a right to breathe air and drink water. Similarly, if we are to continue to survive we also have the right to sustenance, to hunting and gathering. I don’t believe we have Natural rights to Supermarkets where we can choose between some 60 or more kinds of frozen potatoes, or dozens of different breakfast cereals, but this adds a more complicated dimension to the problem.

 This kind of thinking breaks down when you arrive at the rights to hunting and gathering. The fact is, these are not truly rights, merely conditions of human existence. Thus while you can argue at this basic level that humans may have certain rights by virtue of their existence this is of little or no help because these presumed rights can be and typically are abrogated. Your birth, for example, can be denied through abortion, or you brief existence can be ended by infanticide. Nurturance can be denied, along with air, food, and water. Even sexual relations can be and usually are at least minimally controlled. You cannot hunt and gather, or even plant anyplace you want, and while in the abstract it may be in the state of nature permissible even to kill to survive, this does not mean you can kill others of your own species with impunity as this would create chaos and violate the very fact of species survival. If everyone ran around doing only what they wanted to do there would be chaos.

Human beings even in a state of nature do not normally exist in complete isolation from others of their kind, they always exist in social groups, sometimes very small groups and sometimes huge ones. It is this basic fact of human existence where we find the necessity for rules relating to what is right, what rights you have, and what is not considered right, cultural values that determine how one should behave. All human cultures both prescribe and proscribe what is possible and necessary. Sometimes the prescriptions and proscription are not entirely clear, sometimes not everyone wants to obey them, sometimes there are violations, and sometimes they change over time, but this is still the only source for the creation of what we consider human rights. They are considered human rights because they are not rights permitted to animals and because humans created them. God given and Natural rights do not exist although they are often posited by those with vested interests. Neither God nor Nature demands universal health care, only (some) humans are concerned with such rights. God and Nature do not even demand that people marry, let alone who they marry. These are purely human concerns. Does anyone believe that we have a God given or Natural right to oppose global warming? Does anyone believe that either God or Nature give a damn about the right of individuals to own and operate AK 47’s? Are God and Nature responsible for our current level of poverty and inequality? Oh yes, I know, some will say that of course God is concerned about such things but he/she/it is remarkably absent, and if not their presumed concern is based on myths or fairy tales.

 There are no rights and wrongs in nature, there is no good or evil, just life rushing on in all its manifold forms and glory.In an ideal human, healthily functioning culture people should want to do what they have to do. In our current U. S. culture most seem to believe they have a right to do only what they want to do. Alas, that is not a right that is destined to last and be successful for long.

The earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.

Chief Joseph