Proving the Obvious?

There is an old derogatory definition of a sociologist as being a person who needs a fifty thousand dollar Research  grant in order to find the nearest whore house (an anthropologist, being a participant-observer, would, of course, have already be there). You might say this is a case of someone discovering the obvious.

I do not wish to take anything away from Thomas Pikklety’s fine and controversial book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, that seems to have thrown Republicans and Libertarians into fits of hysterics, but in my simple-minded view of economics it seems to me Pikkety has demonstrated the obvious: basically, that to make money (capital) you to have money, and in a capitalistic system, left unchecked (by high taxes on the wealthy and restrictive inheritance laws), where money itself makes more money, you would ultimately and inevitably be left with a dysfunctional, harmful, massively unequal distribution of wealth. I confess this has always seemed perfectly obvious to me. I am amazed it took Pikkety years of masterful research and 700 pages to finally make our greedy capitalists (perhaps) get the point. I just heard of another study that after years of effort demonstrated that the “elite” have greater influence than others. Wow, that’s good to know.

However, pointing out the obvious, especially when the truth hurts, can cause resentment and even retaliation. Who knows how many millions, perhaps billions, The “One Percent” will spend to try to discredit Pikkety’s definitive work, and quite possibly the author himself.

Another case in point, hypocritically amusing, has to do with John Kerry’s warning that if no peace deal can be reached between Israel and the Palestinians, Israel will become an apartheid state. That this is obvious might well be seen in the fact that even many high-level Israelis have said the same thing. Given Israeli obvious racist attitudes towards Palestinians and their Arab second class citizens, an apartheid state will be inevitable. Given the reaction on the part of many Israeli supporters you might think Kerry had said something so terrible he should resign forthwith, apologize, and claim he didn’t really mean it. Unfortunately hypocrisy seems to be one of the prevailing characteristics of Republicans (if not, sadly, of the human species itself).

Probably the most common approach to things that are unpleasantly obvious is to try to just ignore them. It is, for example, perfectly obvious that Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld, et al, committed rather heinous war crimes. They have even admitted it and in some cases even boasted of it. These unpleasant obvious facts have simply been ignored for years and no doubt will continue to be, at least in the United States.

A similar case in point has to do with the Israeli/Palestinian situation. It is perfectly obvious that Israel does not want peace with the Palestinians, does not want a Palestinian state, and also does not want a one state solution. They prefer instead to let things remain as they are with the Palestinians increasingly shoved out of the West Bank and robbed of more and more of their territory, unable, realistically, to do much about it. Anyone could have predicted that Kerry’s recent attempt to mediate an agreement would fail. Indeed, the very idea that Kerry and the U.S. could honestly mediate an agreement between the two parties is basically absurd given our obvious bias in favor of Israel. This has been obvious for years and while not completely ignored a pretense is made periodically for change and the charade begins again and again until Israel, perfectly predictably, kills it.

Racism, too, is most often ignored unless it becomes so scandalously public to the point where it cannot be completely ignored. The case of Sterling is an obvious example. Everyone in the NBA, and even the wider community, has known for years that Sterling is an out-and-out racist, but nothing much was done about until his recent appalling statements became public. While Sterling is (sort of) being punished for his racism the obvious Republican racism directed at President Obama and Attorney General, Eric Holder, is mostly inexcusably ignored. It is also perfectly obvious that some of the Big Banks have committed egregious criminal acts, but here again, nothing is done about it. When it comes to things like this I guess the idea is that if they are just ignored they might somehow magically disappear. This appears to be the strategy with respect to education, infrastructure, taxation of the rich, global warming, and etc. Thus, if you don’t like something just put your head in the sand and hope it goes away. Unfortunately, this can have disastrous consequences.

 “If it weren't for the last minute, nothing would get done.” 
 Rita Mae Brown

Dumb and Dumber

Yes, Cliven Bundy is a deadbeat, criminal rancher, a racist, and possibly even treasonous. He has refused to pay the grazing fees other ranchers pay, now owes the government around a million dollars, but as he claims to “not recognize the federal government” he apparently thinks he will somehow get away with his criminal behavior. Someone labeled him a “welfare rancher,” which, I guess, sort of sums it up. Why he has been allowed to not pay the normal fees for ten years and is only just now being brought to task I do not know. And what might happen next I do not know but I am pretty certain this is not the last of it and he will not get away without paying (maybe a nice prison term will convince him).

Anyway, you all know the story by now: Agents of the federal government attempted to round up his cattle and sell them to pay off his debt. Before they could accomplish this task a number of militia members arrived with guns, some aimed at the federal agents, so rather than risk another terrible episode like Ruby Ridge the agents backed down. Of course Bundy and his militia followers claimed an epic victory over the wicked federal government “overreach,” and Bundy became an instant folk hero worshipped by not only his immediate militia friends but also by high ranking Republicans and right-wing radio hosts like Hannity who went overboard in his praise of him.

However, the euphoria over having bested the “feds” didn’t last too long as Bundy, given his 15 minutes of fame, went on a racist rant so unbelievably stupid that even Hannity and everyone else changed their tune and tried to distance themselves from him as quickly as possible. I suspect they probably privately agreed with Bundy’s racist nonsense but were put off because he was so dumb as to go public with his (and, by implication, Republican) racism.

Think about this. Even though Bundy was a deadbeat who had refused to pay his legal fees the right wingers immediately jumped on his bandwagon. Joyfully celebrating his criminality and carrying on about “government overreach.” Why it is overreach for the government to want to collect their legal due, the same grazing fees that all Nevada ranchers pay, I do not know, but the right wingers love to carry on about government overreach all the time although it would seem to have no basis in fact (they are not notable about accepting anything factual, preferring instead their fairy tales about how bad government is).

What I find the most interesting about Bundy as folk hero, and this rather absurd incident, is not his criminality or racism, but, rather, his incredible, even awesome ignorance and stupidity. Bundy is, to put it in a very general way, “dumb.” I say dumb because he is both stupid and ignorant. That is, it is possible to be smart and ignorant if you happen to just be uninformed about certain things and therefore ignorant, even though actually intelligent. But it is another thing entirely to be both ignorant and stupid at the same time. What this means to me is that Bundy immediately and without any apparent thought on the part of many, became an important figure for many highly placed Republicans and hate-mongers like Hannity and Limbaugh, even though he is as dumb as a post. He hates the federal government but rides around on a horse proudly carrying an American flag. His various rants about government and racism betray his complete ignorance of either subject, they are illogical, false, almost unintelligible, and stupid. None of this seems to matter to the right, except that he was dumb enough to reveal that which the right knows is best left unsaid. That he was against government (actually against paying his bills) is all those who immediately supported him needed to know. How do you explain this? It’s easy, they are even dumber than he is.

 “He had just about enough intelligence to open his mouth when he wanted to eat, but certainly no more.” 
― P.G. Wodehouse

Never Say Never

I guess we could only expect Joe (Big Mouth) Biden carry on in the best tradition of our childish foreign policy. On his recent trip to Ukraine he announced that “The U.S. will never accept Russia’s annexation of Crimea,” or words to that effect. I guess no one ever told him that never is a very, very long time. As Crimea (as well as Ukraine itself) was a part of the Soviet Union, until Nikita Khrushchev (a Ukrainian) arbitrarily assigned it to Ukraine after the breakup of the Soviet empire (some say in a drunken moment), that was apparently quickly accepted. And why would anyone be foolish enough to claim they will never accept an obvious fait accompli? Crimea is now part of Russia, Russia is not going to return it to Ukraine and everyone knows it (except perhaps Biden and the U.S.). It was a perfectly obvious move by Putin after the coup in Kiev, as he was certainly not going to allow his only warm water naval base to potentially disappear and a majority of the Crimean population wanted to be part of Russia rather than join with Europe. Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine were part of Russia since the time of Catherine the Great, so what’s the big deal that so many are upset about? Does anyone really still not accept our theft of Texas and California from Mexico?

One might well ask who really cares whether Crimea is part of Russia or part of Ukraine? The answer, I fear, is no one…except those corporate interests looking to profit by looting the Ukraine of its resources and rich agricultural potential  (just as Hitler wanted to do).  During World War II many Ukrainians fought on the side of Germany against Russia, a fact that has not been forgotten and at least partly accounts for the animosity between the Ukraine and Russia today, and also accounts for why Putin worries that he may have to defend Russians living in Ukraine.

Anyway, after the EU and the US provoked a coup in Kiev, Putin reacted in a very predictable way. But now, of course the story is all about Russian “aggression,” stoking fears that Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Empire, he may move further into Ukraine, take over Moldova, Georgia, Latvia, Poland, even the arctic circle, and etc. As Putin disavows any such intentions, and has shown no signs of doing anything but protecting Russians living in Ukraine, this is all fear mongering on the part of the West. Putin and Russia are constantly portrayed as “bad” while we the West are, of course, all “good.” Thus we are reassuring our NATO allies that we will stand by them if they are attacked by the bad guys, we are sending one or more ships into the Baltic, 150 U.S. troops to three NATO allies, perhaps as many as 10,000 to Poland, and so on, foolishly beating our chests and baying at the moon, boasting that our military is superior to theirs, our god is better than their god, our Dad is tougher than their Dad, and our pee-pees are bigger than theirs, just as kindergarteners behave on the playground.  Putin and Obama apparently had a pretty good relationship and there was considerable mutual cooperation between the U.S. and Russia, but now, of course, with all this childish saber rattling and fear mongering it appears that relationship may be impossible to maintain. Unfortunately, our foreign policy demands that no nation on earth should have any national interests that might conflict with ours. This has worked for us (in a way, anyway) with most of the smaller nations we have bullied for years, but Putin is not going to stand for it, thus he is really “bad,” even super bad, possibly the only one standing in the way of the Neocons desire for world domination.

If Putin turns eastward and becomes part of a viable, united Eurasia, the “jig is up” for the possibility of world domination and the “Lone Superpower” myth will vanish, putting an end to the American Empire once and for all. Childishness is not a viable strategy when dealing with adults. If we don’t change our attitude and behavior with respect to Russia it may well lead to the very thing the Neocons fear most, a  united Eurasian power, Russia, India, China, and others with a majority of the world’s population and power.  I wonder, will Joe Biden be concerned about Crimea then? All of our sanctions and pressure on Russia may very well drive them eastward towards the development of the very thing we do not wish to see, a union that would dwarf the influence and power of EU/US axis and dramatically change international politics to the detriment of the West.  

 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

Corinthians 13:11

Infantile, Puerile, Hostile, and Futile

This would seem to sum up our current foreign policy. Could there be anything more childish than refusing to allow Hamid  Aboutalebi, Iran’s choice to represent them at the UN, to enter the United States? This is silly, even stupid, almost beyond belief.  Aboutalebi is a seasoned, experienced, Iranian Diplomat, who has served successfully in several different countries, and is more than merely qualified to hold such a post. President Obama has apparently signed an order to prevent him from entering the United States, following the suggestion of that expert on foreign policy, Ted Cruz. Aboutalebi is considered persona non grata by Cruz because many years ago he served sometimes as a translator during the Iran hostage crisis. Coming at the very time we are trying pretty successfully to negotiate with Iran over their (imaginary) nuclear bomb threat this would appear to me to be designed to torpedo those negotiations, stupid, unnecessary, unhelpful, and unwise, everything you might expect from a poisonous, outside the box jerk like Ted Cruz. Why Obama went along with this absurdity I do not know. Perhaps he secretly does not wish a successful solution to our Iran (non) problem.

Not only has Obama gone along with this diplomatic nonsense he has also mocked Russia’s military might, with a claim almost beyond comprehension. He said Russia does not want a military confrontation with us because he knows our military might is superior to his. What the hell is that supposed to prove? Where, if not on a battlefield, could this be proven? Does hoObama envision a war on Russian territory where our military might would win against the Russian army? Does he believe that we could ship our troops across the Atlantic (or Pacific) to confront Russia on their own soil? Has he no idea what the hell is talking about? Does he know nothing about the Battle of Stalingrad? Boasting that our military might is superior to Putin’s is childish in the extreme, you might well think we were in kindergarten.

Then there is our gullible (or stupid) Secretary of State, John Kerry, who was apparently willing to accept as fact the anti-Jewish leaflets that appeared in the Eastern Ukraine without even waiting to learn they were produced by some minority group of dissidents with no authority whatsoever. This is just part of our basic infantile belief that Russia is bad, Putin is very bad, the U.S. is good, very good, and Obama is somehow good/bad. Whatever, we know that we (along with the racist genocidal Israelis) are exceptional and the entirely predictable failure of the “peace talks” is completely the fault of the Palestinians. Everyone with even a small bit  of brain knows that Netanyahu does not want a Palestinian state, does not want peace, and prefers to maintain the status quo forever if possible. Why John Kerry or anyone else believes the U.S. can act as a fair intermediary in this endless conflict, when it is obvious we are overwhelmingly on the side of Israel, is just another example of childish delusion.

When you start from the belief that Russia is all bad, and Putin is worse, especially when Putin holds all the cards, so to speak, you are not likely to successfully resolve your mutual problems. Similarly, when you start from the belief that Israel is all good and the Palestinians are all bad, you are not likely to get very far in resolving the basic problems of the Middle East. Our foreign policy, in my opinion, is indeed infantile, puerile, hostile, and will prove in the long run to be futile.

When only one in six U.S. citizens can even remotely find Ukraine on a map, and the farther they are from that, the more they think we should attack, it is pretty obvious we need to teach geography (remember that) in kindergarten, along with the necessity to “see ourselves as others see us.”

Hubris is one of the great renewable resources.

P. J. O'Rourke

  

"It"

“It”

What a remarkable word (pronoun) “it” is. While it generally refers to some particular object or behavior it also often refers to something much more general and, in some cases, may have virtually no meaning whatsoever. I am drawn to thinking of this because last night I had reason to believe that I may well be losing “it.” I was cooking dinner for us, baked chicken, some cranberry sauce, broccoli, asparagus, and dressing. I also intended to serve some French dinner rolls. When I removed the chicken from the oven I put in the frozen dinner rolls that supposedly take only 8 minutes to cook. I forgot them, didn’t serve them, and didn’t remember them until several hours later. By then, of course, they had turned blacker than the blackest of coal, and I worried that, indeed, I must be losing “it.” This could refer to my memory, my cooking, my timing, my sanity, or whatever.

Usually “it” refers to something in particular, something in context that the speakers are all aware of, like “where did you put it,” referring to the butter or paint or beer. But what about something like the recent Rachel Maddow documentary, “Why did we do it?” In this context the “it” refers obviously to the “war” with Iraq. This apparently expensive and time-consuming investigation concludes that “it” had to do with oil, something that anyone with a brain larger than a split pea already knew. But of course it is somewhat more complicated and the documentary does give us a bit more insight into why it happened. But this is not unlike asking why did “it” happen,”it” being WW II, an event that cannot really be described as an “it.”

We also might well ask, “Why did Putin do it?” The “it” in this context being his takeover of Crimea, and the answer being obvious to anyone not conditioned to believe Russia and Putin are simply evil, aggressive, empire builders with no important national interests. Then there is also the phrase, “kicking ’it’down the road,” usually referring to some decision Congress does not want to make.

How about “Let’s do ‘it’?” This could refer to any number of things, kissing, dating, going to the movies, even sex, or, more prosaically, building a chicken coop.  How about “she is the “it” girl of 2000? Or “you can’t do ‘it’ in the road because it might frighten the horses.”  Or John Lennon’s brilliant parody, “Why don’t we do ‘it’ in the road?” Then there are lyrics like “Birds do ‘it,’ bees do ‘it’, even little Pekinese do ‘it.’” How about “”’It’s’ the in thing to do,” or “’It’s’ not the right thing to do.”

“’It’ will happen when hell freezes over,” “’It’ will happen at the end of times,” “’It’ will be the end of the road,” “If you don’t mind ‘it’ don’t matter,” “We’re footing ‘it’ back to camp,” “’It’s’ a dirty, rotten shame,” “this is ‘it’,” “’It’s’ all in your mind,” “’It’ can’t happen here,””The Devil makes us do ‘it,’” “’It’s’ too late for tears,” “’It’s’ too much to bear,” How’s ‘it’ going,” “’It’s’ just politics as usual,” “’It’s’ just baying at the moon,” “What is ‘it’ and where did ‘it’ come from? “We don’t know what ‘it’ is, “We’re never going to find ‘it’,” and “When in doubt, kill ‘it.’”

Is there any other word in the English language with such a range of meanings and non-meanings, a word that can be so specific but also so general, a word than can simply gloss over complexity and reduce it to a simple two letter word, a word both precise and imprecise at the same time, a word that actually allows us to evade the complexities of the real problems facing us? There is a bill that would raise the minimum wage, vote against “it.” There is a bill that would help stop global warming, vote against “it.”There is a bill to stop voter fraud, vote for “it.” There is a vote to defund Planned Parenthood, vote for “it.” And so all of our decisions come down to voting either for “it” or against “it,” all nuances, facts, or complications aside. Don’t you just love “it?”

 By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth.

George Carlin

  

Me and Kati 15: Nothing to Declare

Kati, Kati, Kati, my only constant companion, my little feline friend with the cutest face in all of cat kingdom, I was really worried about you this morning. I know you are subject to occasional psychotic breaks (or something like that) but you really had a “doozy” this morning. First you refused to leave the kitchen even after having been Fed, you were underfoot constantly while I was working on our more complicated breakfast. You continued this uncooperative behavior even after I gave you another snack. Then you were on the table where you know you were not supposed to be, then you were behind the refrigerator in the paper bags where you also know you were not supposed to be, then you were under the kitchen sink and refused to come out, and then you had the audacity to jump up on the kitchen counter, a real “no-no,” and, finally, you jumped up on the buffet where you also definitely know you are not supposed to be. You were so bad I finally had to put you out. Why you were so bad I do not know. Perhaps it was because you caught and ate the mouse that Spencer brought in that got away, the innards of which I found this morning? Perhaps that is why you threw up and made a terrible mess. I don’t know but you truly ruined my morning.

Anyway, what I wanted to tell you was about Oscar Wilde and the Republicans. Yes, I know, there is no real connection between the two, but you must be aware of the weird free associations we humans sometimes experience. When Oscar Wilde visited the United States and went through customs, he reportedly announced, “I have nothing to declare but my genius.” This, unaccountably, made me wonder, what would Republicans declare if they had to declare anything? I immediately came to the conclusion they would say, “We have nothing to declare but our idiocy.” Why did this come to me so quickly? I’m not sure, but I guess it is because they somehow believe they are going to win in the coming elections. Given that the term idiocy includes “notably stupid or foolish behavior” I do not think I am wrong in coming to this conclusion.

Assuming Republicans want to maintain control of the House of Representatives and take over the Senate in 2014, and assuming they also want to win the Presidency in 2016, their behavior appears to be notably stupid or foolish. They are opposed to everything the American public is in favor of: they oppose the minimum wage, oppose abortion, oppose equal pay for equal work, oppose unemployment insurance, unions, Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the EPA, public education, contraception, and just about everything else that might benefit anyone other than billionaires, including, of course government itself.  They are opposed to taxes on even the obscenely wealthy, preferring instead to tax the struggling 99%, they want de-regulations to benefit corporations and the wealthy so they can make even more money, they refuse to even consider reducing our totally ridiculous military budgets, and more or less seem to prefer more wars. All of these things would seem to place them directly opposed to the general public.

And Kati, on top of all that, their obvious racism, sexism, homophobia, and fear of immigrants, should certainly work against them, except perhaps for their relatively uneducated White voters that seem to be their only remaining base. In spite of all this they still seem to believe they have an excellent chance of reaching their goals. Kati, I don’t understand it, and it certainly appears idiotic behavior to me.  Even their blatant attempts to keep democratic voters from voting may well backfire and cost them as many votes as they hope to gain by their devious attempts. But this is the United States where many are brainwashed to vote against their own interests. The criminally partisan Supreme Court and a few billionaires, along with a few Republican governors, are doing everything possible to stack the deck in their favor. It will all come down to just who actually votes and how many. Wouldn’t it be ironic, Kati, even idiotic, if in fact the Republicans somehow managed to win?

Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

James Bovard

Wastin' Away in the Fun House

The House of Representatives has voted now more than fifty times to do away with Obamacare even though everyone knows, including them, these votes are a complete waste of time and taxpayer money. They have also held repeated meetings to prove some kind of White House conspiracy or cover up about Benghazi. Similarly they have also held repeated meetings to investigate the IRS, determined to prove the White House was involved in the IRS investigations of various tax exempt organizations even though it has proven without a doubt their claims of White House involvement have no basis in fact  whatsoever. In short, they have basically wasted endless hours of time and endless amounts of taxpayer money chasing their tails.

 One might well ask why they have been permitted to do this, or, as it is sometimes asked, where are the adults? Why can’t these ridiculous and repetitive investigations simply be stopped when everyone knows they are completely without merit, costly, and disruptive of our governmental process? Where, in other words, is any overriding authority that could insist they cease and desist wasting our time and money?

It is here, I believe, where there is a troublesome flaw in our democratic process as there is no overriding authority that can move quickly enough to discipline such rampant and fruitless behavior. The only thing like an overriding authority is the ballot box. But as elections are held only ever two or four years the possibilities for abuse are obvious. First, the collective memory is so short that by the time the next election comes around the electorate has probably forgotten the problem. Second, the system is much too slow and unpredictable.

Can anything be done to rectify this unfortunate situation? Probably not, as unfortunate as that desirable possibility might be for the proper functioning of our (at least supposed) democracy. I am not a fan of dictatorships, even benevolent dictatorships, but I can see here why such a dictator might be worthwhile. Someone, or some entity, ought to have the authority to put a stop to pointless, wasteful, and purely partisan political malfeasance. Someone, for example, should have the authority to tell Issa to stop wasting our time and money. Or tell Boehner that another vote against Obamacare should not be allowed. Waiting for the next election, which may or may not bring about an end to such frivolous nonsense, is not a useful solution.

I realize how profoundly naïve this may be, but perhaps we could have a “Commission to Protect Democracy” (the CPD), vested with such authority. This assumes, of course, that we could as a nation agree on just how it is we want our democratic process to work, and then we could elect a number of responsible bipartisan members who would police the process so that our politicians could not willfully and irresponsibly violate those principles. There is no doubt that Republicans in the last few years have done everything they could to circumvent what most of us believe in the democratic process (like the right to vote, for example). Of course we would have to agree, first, precisely how the system should operate, and second, find a suitable number of individuals trustworthy enough to enforce the rules. I guess the death penalty for violations might be a bit extreme, but how about immediate removal from office, massive fines, public humiliations, maybe a week in old-fashioned stocks. Tar and feathering, riding people out of town on rails, might also be too difficult, but I bet it would work. Somehow the thought of seeing Cheney, Rumsfeld, Issa, Boehner, Palin, Bachmann, and others of that ilk being suitably chastised is comforting. Having made a mockery of our democracy they would fully deserve it.

  The punishment which the wise suffer who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of worse men.

Plato

So, What's What?

There have been several reports that Russia is massing troops along the Ukrainian border. Putin and other Russian officials have denied any such buildup. NATO General Breedlove seems to believe the buildup is real and says Russia could begin moving into Ukraine in 3 to 5 days.

Two reporters completed a 1000 mile trip along the Russia/Ukraine border and could find no signs of such a massive buildup. They were told by at least one official that the international hype is “completely unfounded.”

Doesn’t that make you wonder just What’s What? How could someone like me, with only information from the news media and the internet, possibly know the truth? This does not, however, keep me from having an opinion. My opinion is there most probably is no massing of troops and tanks, Putin is telling the truth that he has no intention of invading Ukraine, and, in fact, it is international hype completely unfounded.

Why do I think this? I think so because there is no doubt in my mind that both Putin and Russia have been consistently (and, I think, unfairly) demonized by our news media for years. I also know that we have consistently expanded NATO further and further to the east although we promised not to do so, and Ambassador George Kennan, whom I greatly admired, warned that expanding NATO would be a terrible mistake (he was, of course, ignored). Similarly I believe what Putin did in Crimea was the only reasonable thing he could have done. He feared that if Ukraine was seduced by the West, and possibly into NATO, they might try to take away his only warm water naval station on the Crimean peninsula and acted quickly in the national interest of his nation as any strong and decent leader would have done. I also know that the United States lies pretty consistently about its foreign policy that, in recent years, has become more and more stupid and disastrous.

A similar problem of What’s What might well be seen in all the verbiage about Obamacare. Republicans have been claiming for years that it would never succeed, was a government takeover of health care, was going to include death panels, make health care more expensive, perhaps even kill women and children, and blah, blah, blah. On the other side it was argued that it would reduce costs, provide much better health care in a variety of ways, would eventually succeed, and so on. In this case it was not at all difficult for me to side with the proponents of Obamacare even though I believe it should not have included insurance companies. In any case, although I am disappointed with Obamacare, I do believe it is demonstrably better than what we had before in spite of all the ridiculous claims made by Republicans. I know the Republicans consistently lie about everything, especially anything promoted by President Obama. In the case of health care some of their lies were so blatantly ridiculous they could not be taken seriously to begin with, others although not so transparently false, were equally recognizable as lies. More importantly, when it came to taking sides in the argument, I knew Republicans would lie. I knew this because I have seen them lie consistently for at least twenty years. Thus, although I know Democrats also lie, I know they do not lie as regularly and as often, and as outrageously as Republicans. Indeed, I do not believe that George Dubya, Dick the Slimy, or anyone else in that administration ever told the truth about anything. This seems to be the policy followed faithfully ever since they were tutored by one of the greatest  liars of all, Karl Rove, who invented, or at least adopted the policy of what I termed “roviation:”

 Roviate v. to smear, slime, malign, denigrate, and attempt to destroy an opponent through the use of innuendo, rumor, slander, outright lies and any other despicable means available.

In the case of Obamacare it was not too difficult to understand what’s what, but this is because there was such a long history involved and over the years I began to understand many of the players. In a case like Crimea it is not so easy to know what’s what, but even there a knowledge of the history of the players is about all one has to go on. As I have now followed U.S. foreign policy for quite some time, but especially in the past twenty years,  I think I have a good idea of what’s what. I do not like it.

“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.” 
 Friedrich Nietzsche

This is Serious

Just at the end of the 19^th century (1896, I believe) Andrew White published his well-known book, A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. This book created quite a stir when it appeared as it dealt with topics like evolution, science versus religion, and so on. Looking back at it now it seems like an interesting intellectual or philosophical discourse on the resistance of religion to science that was, at that time, an interesting but not vital practical matter. That is no longer the case. This is a problem that at the moment has an extremely vital, urgent, practical, life and death importance.

When this fine book first appeared there was no particular threat to either the environment or human life. That is no longer the case. We are now faced with a real possibility of human extinction, mostly from global warming but also from nuclear and other technology gone wild, to say nothing of human greed and denial. Far from a merely interesting intellectual or philosophical question this has now become a crisis than demands an answer and a solution, a situation that may well demand some changes to our cherished rights of free speech and  intellectual freedom.

You will have noticed that we have people in important positions of power who still deny the fact of global warming, ignoring the fact that some 97% of all world scientists agree there is such a problem and that it is, at least in part, due to human activity. That is, they deny the scientific evidence, the scientific fact that global warming is occurring, and argue that it is merely a myth, cannot be real, and in extreme instances pass legislation to prevent even further study of it. It is difficult to believe these anti global warming proponents can actually believe this but apparently at least some of them do. No doubt some are motivated by the money they receive from corporations opposed to action on this vital topic, but some cite religious beliefs having to do with “only God can change the climate,” and so on. These people are trying to kill us. This is not a case of “two sides to every argument,” as there are no two equal sides to this particular argument. Scientific facts are not merely an opinion, they are, in fact, facts, there are no equivalent “facts” on the other side, only “facts” based on opinion.

This problem seems to break down into two factions, those who believe in science and those who do not. While this is not necessarily a distinction between Democrats and Republicans it does appear to correlate somewhat. You may have noticed the controversy over the recent TV program “Cosmos,” where the religious right demands equal time for more “balance.” There is no balance. Science is not merely a difference of opinion about evolution and creationism. Evolution is a scientific fact, not merely an opinion, just as gravity is a fact, electricity is a fact, the planet earth is round and not flat is a fact, the earth revolves around the sun is a fact, and so on. Creationism is not factual, has no evidence, and is based upon biblical (non) authority. It is a matter of faith having nothing whatsoever to do with fact.

Thus we have a situation in which there are no two opposing views of reality. There are the facts of science and the opinions of those who would deny science. To allow those who deny science to have any credence whatever would be to adopt suicidal behaviors potentially destroying us all. So what do you do in a society that allows unlimited free speech and unlimited religious opinion no matter how foolish and destructive it may be, a society in which the media seem to believe that both sides should get equal footage? Perhaps if our citizens were better educated…but no, that costs money, money that is needed for more weapons and ammunition, more killing, more trying to rule the world. Religious fundamentalism, especially in high places, threatens to destroy us all. Hallelujah.

    “People are never so completely and enthusiastically evil as when they act out of religious conviction.” 
―

Umberto Eco

Killing us Softly

There is little doubt in my mind “They” are killing us. Softly may not be the right word to describe this, perhaps slowly, quietly, secretly, insidiously, criminally, purposely, deliberately, but perhaps on the other hand, blatantly, obviously, even flagrantly, depending on your point of view. “They,” here refers to corporations that exist solely to make a profit. The gigantic oil companies are of course the most obvious offenders, but big coal, big timber, big pharmaceuticals, big banks, big insurance, big plastics, and so on, are each, in their own ways, just as unhealthy for human life on this tiny planet we are forced to call home. In fact, under our existing circumstances, it appears that the very acts of human life are inevitably leading us to our own extinction, “Us” being just that, all of us, who are contributing in our own small ways to that undesirable end.

It is not hard to see what is happening with the fossil fuel energy companies. First they are eagerly trying as hard as they can to exhaust whatever stores remain of oil and coal, gleefully boasting now that the U.S. is the major producer of such stuff. Second, not only are they short-sightedly and greedily ripping this stuff out of the ground they are also leaving much of it spread over the landscape, the rivers, lakes, and oceans where it ruins the water, kills plants, fish, and animals, and cannot easily be removed even in years. I will not even mention the absolute insanity of the nuclear energy business which may well hasten our eventual demise.  

Not so easily seen and understood are the acts of billions of individual daily that collectively contribute to our eventual downfall. Think of this every time you come home with plastic bags, plastic bottles, plastic cups, and nowadays just about plastic everything. Huge collections of plastic garbage are already swirling about in the oceans where they do not quickly, if ever, deteriorate. And do not forget our serious overfishing that has already depleted the stocks of certain commercial fish. The building of dams on our rivers has also had a deleterious effect on some species. Not only has this created a problem, the pollution of our lakes, rivers, and oceans, makes things even worse

Then there are the pharmaceuticals, busily inventing new problems and the pills that will overcome them, putting them on the market prematurely, reaping huge profits and then perhaps paying a relatively insignificant fine. The only bright spot in this is that lawyers no longer have to chase ambulances, just using the media to convince people to sue because of some recklessly marketed pill, and thus saving a bit of oil. Doctors, hospitals, and of course the insurance companies all have a hand in the health care racket, dosing us with unproven drugs, subjecting us to unnecessary tests, and cutting us off when we really need them.

In some places even the air we breathe is so foul it kills people, millions go without clean drinking water (which, by the way is becoming scarce), the powers that be have colluded to bring about more poverty than ever, housing has become too expensive for many, homelessness is present in our cities, and life has indeed become brutish and unpleasant for far too many. I do not believe this is how humans were meant to live.

I know it sounds foolish to say so, but humans, as we live now, are just not part of the ecosystem, as they once were. When humans lived in small bands and lived by hunting and gathering, and even when they had primitive agriculture, they did not disrupt nature in important ways. They fashioned only primitive tools, constructed simple containers that were biodegradable, husbanded their flora and fauna, and were unable to kill by the thousands. They were, in a real sense, simply another part of nature. I realize that living like a Bushman or Australian aborigine, or even a traditional American Indian or Eskimo, is not a very appealing career for anyone living in the “modern age,” but I cannot help but believe that is what was intended for humans by the evolutionary process. In many ways we are still “primitives,” but are living in cultures that are completely out of sync with nature and apparently out of our control. The internal combustion engine, plastics, explosives, and other such technological breakthroughs are mixed blessings at best and completely out of control at worst.

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of power,

And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave,

Awaits alike the inevitable hour.

The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

From  Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard

The Powder Puff "War"

I cannot help but wonder what is going on in the current Russian move to reintegrate Crimea, a feat that will shortly be completed. People in the West claim to be surprised and are expressing their outrage while at the same time implicitly recognizing they can’t do much of anything to stop Putin from getting his way.

First of all I believe most everyone with any knowledge of Russia could not have been  surprised. The UK and the US basically got caught with their “hands in the cookie jar,” trying not at all subtly to lure Ukraine into NATO or at least into the European sphere and away from Russia. In their greed to accomplish this they collaborated with neo-nazis, anti-semites, and anti-Russians. They could also not truly be surprised that Putin acted quickly and predictably to protect the major Russian Naval Station in Crimea, Russia’s only warm water base. Nor, I suspect, could anyone have been very surprised that Putin would act to return Crimea to Russia, especially as it had been rather whimsically given to Ukraine by Nikita Krushchev (himself a Ukrainian) as an act of (possibly drunken) goodwill.

Whether surprised or not the various parties involved in this dispute of course had to react to what would obviously become a fait accompli. Obviously no one wanted to go to war with Russia over Crimea, but they had to do something, so they decided on sanctions, apparently to save face. It seems to me the sanctions applied to date are little more than symbolic, focusing on a few individuals with ties to Putin, or conversely a few individuals tied to Obama. Although Obama has threatened even more sanctions, and more serious ones, they may or may not materialize and most probably will not make much of a difference to Putin or Russia. This is partly true because Germany and the UK have vital interests in Russia for various reasons, not the least of which have to do with oil, natural gas, and massive trade agreements. To me the whole show seems little more than a charade, a slap on the wrist at most. As Obama and Putin had at least a working relationship with respect to Syria and Iran, and Obama has been often on the phone with Putin, I wonder if in fact they do not have some kind of “gentleman’s agreement” about sanctions that for obvious reasons could not be made public. I am not usually a conspiracy buff but these rather useless sanctions are suspicious.

In fact I hope Putin and Obama may be acting in this rather mild way, as that would indicate they do not truly want hostilities to go too far, what with nuclear bombs and all lurking in the background. Obama, of course, is on the receiving end of much criticism from the right for being weak, wearing “mom jeans,” and so on. The Neocons lust for war, as usual, or at least another “cold war” (it’s good for business, you know, and there is no doubt business had a hand in the coup that started it all).

I find it difficult to believe that Obama personally had a hand in the coup. I think it is more likely that the CIA and others may have acted on their own, doing their usual duty for the corporations that lust over Ukraine. But whatever one may think of Obama in other respects I believe he should be given much credit for insisting on diplomacy rather than the usual show or threat of military force. He resisted calls for military action in Syria, has insisted on diplomacy with Iran (resisting the Israeli demand for force), and now seeks a diplomatic solution for the current Crimean crisis (he has to say and do something even though he must know Crimea will not be given up by Putin and will become part of Russia, as it should be. Personally I am delighted to know this battle is being fought with powder puffs rather than military means. I don’t think we really need another “Charge of the Light Brigade.”

   “Today, it is imperative to end this hysteria, to refute the rhetoric of the Cold War and to accept the obvious fact: Russia is an independent, active participant in international affairs. Like other countries, it has its own national interests that need to be taken into account and respected.”

Vladimir Putin

Me and Kati (14)

So Kati, what do you think about Russia reclaiming the Crimean Peninsula? What? You ask if it will keep you from eating, sleeping, and playing outside. No, I don’t think so. Does it really make any difference to us if Crimea is part of Russia or the Ukraine? No, I don’t think so. So what is all the fuss about? Well, Kati, it’s sort of like this. When the U.S. was trying to get Russia to agree to the reconciliation of West and East Germany, when George Bush senior was President, we promised Putin that we would not expand NATO to the borders of Russia. Of course we quickly broke that promise and proceeded to surround Russia with NATO affiliated nations. Ukraine was not yet one of them although it was being courted to that end. So…when the EU and the US staged a coup to get rid of the democratically elected President of the Ukraine, and installed a bunch of neo-Nazis and anti-Semites who had participated in the coup as leaders, who also had obvious anti-Russian sentiments, Putin, quite understandably, acted to protect the Russian interests in the Crimea, particularly their large warm water naval base. And, as Crimea had been generously awarded to the Ukraine by Khrushchev (reportedly after a drunken party), although it had been part of Russia for a very long time, Putin saw an opportunity to get it back.

The West, that is the EU and the US, are outraged and threatening sanctions against Russia for violations of the Ukrainian constitution and international law, conveniently ignoring the fact that we have done the same thing repeatedly. Our Secretary of State, John Kerry, apparently with the intellectual capacity of a baboon, hypocritically, said Russia could not do such a thing, as it was wrong to invade another country without provocation, completely ignoring our own unjustified invasion of Iraq and our meddling in the affairs of other countries all over the world. Kati, it is such fun. Putin is basically thumbing his nose at us, unconcerned about sanctions, and holding all the Daddy and Mommy cards. Whether Crimea becomes part of Russia or simply an independent entity doesn’t matter as it will now be in the hands of Russia rather than Ukraine. Is this really going to affect our relations with Russia in the long run (or even the shorter run), probably not. So who cares? Ah, only those whose goal is to attain hegemony over the entire world, those huge international corporations who, by using the U.S. military, believe they can  accomplish an empire the likes of which has never been seen.

But Kati, do you want a world controlled by a few huge international corporations rather than  the people who live and work in it, a world in which the citizens are reduced to the status of worker ants toiling for little reward while the 1% live in untold luxury? I don’t, and I am absolutely opposed to an American empire which is merely a front for such plan. Hopefully, we are just beginning to see the American empire fail with other nations now beginning to say “no” to our demands. Putin is a great example, but South America is also rebelling, as are other countries like Afghanistan, Syria, and so on. The sanctions so far proposed against Russia are laughable, and in spite of our threats will probably not get much more serious. Putin will ultimately win, as he should. Germany, the strongest nation in Europe, will have too much to lose by sanctioning Russia. They do too much business there, and besides, German know-how, in conjunction with Russia’s resources, will inevitably become too powerful a combination for anyone to challenge.

Kati, sometimes I wish you could talk, but sometimes I’m glad you don’t. I am worrying about you of late as you seem to have an eating disorder, wanting to eat whenever I enter the kitchen no matter how recently you have been fed. But more importantly, your periodic psychotic breaks seem to be getting weirder, now taking place in the bathtub. Kati, there is nothing in the bathtub, nothing, no mice, no bugs, no nothing, no place to hide, nothing to do but chase your tail. Perhaps it is symbolic of American foreign policy. I wonder if we will ever understand that you cannot expect successful diplomacy and compromise if you consistently start by demanding your opponents agree to all of your demands before you will even talk with them. This hasn’t worked with Iran, won’t work with Russia, won’t work with the Palestinians, Venezuela, and is now becoming laughable because everyone knows our obnoxious threats of force (“all options are on the table”) are increasingly useless.

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

George Bernard Shaw

Liars, Scoundrels, Poltroons and Hypocrites

I made up this title two or three days ago. I was going to comment on the annual CPAC meeting. You  know, the most recent gathering of the largest group of the most morally, ethically, and intellectually bankrupt members of what used to be the Republican party. I did not, of course, actually watch this hilarious display of petulant bombast, but as some of it was played on MSNBC, I have a good idea of what transpired there.

While I believe the description above is a pretty accurate account of the various speakers and participants, I find I cannot bring myself to actually discuss them or the meeting. I am just plain tired of having to worry about the activities of this collection of morons, imbeciles, and know-nothings who, having no ideas or solutions to our myriad problems, are united only by their collective hatred of President Obama and everything he attempts to do. I have developed such an utter contempt for them I don’t believe they are worthy of any more attention. Some of them probably should have been carted off to the “loony bin” long ago.

Even so, being contemptuous of anyone makes me feel uncomfortable, even though I think they have earned my contempt. Things between Republicans and Democrats have not always been so bad. When I was a teen, for example, I was a Democrat, because my father voted that way. My best friend was a Republican because his father was a Republican. We did not dislike each other, nor did we fight over politics. This may well have been because we didn’t really know much of anything about politics, but in any case we remained close friends for life in spite of our political identifications. We knew that Republicans favored business and Democrats favored labor but that, I think, was about all.

As we grew older and more aware of politics we did argue at times, but we never had contempt for each other. The fact that some voted for Truman and others for Dewey was just accepted and the outcome of the election was itself just accepted. I don’t recall any bitterness or hate involved. I truly did not want either Nixon or Reagan elected but I never felt contempt for those who did. I did not want the senior Bush as President but it was for me not a particularly big deal. It seemed to me that whether the President was a Republican, like Ford or Eisenhower, or a Democrat like Kennedy, things stayed pretty much the same. I did not have truly strong feelings about it one way or another even though I remained a Democrat throughout.

It was only during the Bush/Cheney years that my contempt for Republicans began to grow, and it has clearly intensified since then. What Republicans did to President Clinton I felt was disgusting. While Clinton behaved scandalously in his personal life they should never have tried to impeach him, and the methods they used were absolutely revolting. No President’s personal life had ever before become the subject of such an inquiry, the fact that Kennedy was a far more serious womanizer than probably any previous President made this quite clear. The Starr report was a disgraceful document better fitted to the National Enquirer than anywhere else.

Things have been all downhill since then. When the Supreme Court made George W. Bush President while Republican Brown Shirts were interfering with the vote count it was obvious the citizens were no longer in charge. And with Karl Rove leading what became little more than a criminal attempt to keep Republicans in charge forever, using means better suited to the Mafia than politics, things became worse and worse. And since President Obama was elected what was once a viable political party simply refused to cooperate in governing entirely, devoting themselves to denigrating and humiliating the elected President of the United States. Congress has been corrupted, bribery is considered a normal part of the political process, and any serious Republican interested in governing has become persona non grata in the once respectable Republican Party. Our country is now run by huge international corporations and their bought and paid for toadies, mostly, but not exclusively, in the Republican Party. While Democrats are also partly responsible for this current state of affairs, it has been engineered primarily by Republicans. Like my friend and I recognized way back when, Republicans favored business, Democrats favored labor. And so it is today. What was once a simple matter-of-fact difference has become a nightmare.

   “Republicans stand for raw, unbridled evil and greed and ignorance smothered in balloons and ribbons.” 

Frank Zappa

Moral Irrelativity

You are no doubt aware of the question of moral relativity. That is, the view that morality in one culture may not be the same morality that exists in other cultures, morality is relative to its cultural context.  Usually, I think, people assume that moral codes exist, and that where they exist, people generally follow them fairly consistently. One could also argue that morality is also situational. That is what might be considered moral in one situation might not be so considered in a different situation. It is, for example, generally immoral to kill someone, but not during wars. Similarly, one could argue that some wars, being necessary, are also moral, or at least more moral than others.

Unfortunately, many people in the United States appear to have adopted a stance in which morality is simply irrelevant to most any situation. The current situation in the Ukraine is an interesting example of morality being considered basically irrelevant. The European Union, in conjunction with the United States, apparently engineered a violent coup that forced a democratically elected President to flee and replaced him with someone of their own choosing. The fact that the outgoing President may well have been terrible does not change the fact that he was democratically elected. The newly appointed acting President and his cronies are actively anti-Russian in their beliefs and want to join the European Union rather than stay closer to Russia. There are good reasons to believe their policies will be harmful to Russians living in the Ukraine, especially to those living in the east of the country that identify more with Russia. There is also a potential threat to the Russian Naval Base in the Crimea. Because of these fears Putin sent troops into Crimea to protect Russian citizens and his Naval Base. Do not forget that Crimea was historically part of Russia for a very long time.

The West, including the U.S. is outraged, calling Putin’s act one of terrible aggression against another nation, a violation of international law, an example of Putin’s ambitious attempt to reinstate a Soviet Union, and so on. Ignore the unbelievable hypocrisy involved for the moment. I would argue in this case that although Putin may have violated international law and other agreements between the two countries, he had every right to do so. Actually, it appears that he was invited by the Crimean leaders to send troops, so describing this as an invasion or an act of aggression is not exactly the case. It seems to me he did not act immorally even though the reaction of the West would suggest that he did. Interestingly, no one as far as I know has actually mentioned the question of morality per se, either with respect to Putin or the  coup that brought the situation about. Notice that in this so called aggressive invasion no one has died, no battles have ensued, and  Putin has said he will wait to see the outcome of the coming elections. In this case I would argue that Putin did the right (moral) thing whereas the leaders of the coup certainly did not.

Contrast if you will the “moral outrage” directed at Putin over his “aggressive invasion” of Ukraine with the behavior of the Israeli government vis-à-vis the Palestinians. For years the Israeli apartheid government has been engaged in ethnic cleansing and even a kind of slow genocide, to say nothing of daily discriminations and humiliations with respect to Palestinians. They have systematically stolen Palestinian land and water, built many illegal settlements, bulldozed Palestinian orchards and houses, assassinated Palestinian leaders at will, and repeatedly violated international law. They have made no secret of the fact they do not want a Palestinian state and prefer to maintain the status quo. They have done everything possible to make the possibility of a viable Palestinian state impossible. There is no doubt they have engaged in war crimes and have been repeatedly condemned by the international community. Not only is there no moral outrage over this consistent criminal behavior on the part of Israel,  the U.S. has in fact condoned it, defended it, and generously and shamefully supported it to the tune of billions of dollars per year.   

I conclude from this that at worst the United States government is morally bankrupt, or at best considers morality to be simply irrelevant when it comes to foreign policy. “Might makes right,” human decency, fairness and objectivity have nothing to do with it. I wonder how and when the American “Empire” will collapse, because surely it will.

 Money, not morality, is the principle commerce of civilized nations.

Thomas Jefferson

Out of Control

I know very little about what is happening in the world. The only information I get comes from television news and magazines. This means, in effect, I know virtually nothing, and what I think I know is probably wrong. I should not write about things I know so little about. However, I notice ignorance does not stop anyone and everyone else from commenting on things they seems to know little about. So…

It seems to me, that as others have observed, American foreign policy is completely out of control. The recent coup in the Ukraine is an obvious case in point. It seems the European Union and the United States collaborated in a violent coup that removed a democratically elected President from power, forced him to flee to Russia, and replaced him with a person of their own choosing. In other words, just another case of our patented, “regime change” we have been using for years around the world and have been using very much lately in the Middle East. Vladimir Putin, no dummy when it comes to such things, immediately sent Russian troops into the Crimean Peninsula to protect Russian national interests, including but not limited to, the large Russian naval base there. The U.S. and the E.U. are outraged and accusing Putin of aggression against the nation of Ukraine. Apparently in the eyes of the U.S. and the E.U. organizing a violent coup against a democratically elected President is not considered aggression. Ukraine, by the way, was historically part of Russia for a very long time, a majority of Ukrainians speak Russian, and many Ukrainian citizens consider themselves to be Russian. Ukraine is a near neighbor to Russia and is obviously within the Russian sphere of influence. I am not aware that the U.S. shares a border with Ukraine and is, in fact, thousands of miles from there. What goes on there should be none of our business.

But, of course, everything that goes on in the world becomes our business, when the goal of the neocons is to control the world, and force all nations by threats of military action to make sure their national interests do not conflict with ours. Many, if not most nations, usually comply as they cannot stand up to the U.S. Russia is an entirely different manner. Putin will do whatever he wants and no one will realistically be able to stop him. It is not at all clear at the moment just what he will do. He could simply just take over the Crimean Peninsula, or he could even take over all of the Eastern Ukraine, perhaps even all of Ukraine. He might well do none of these things and wait impatiently for the new government to form in Kiev so that negotiations might begin.

No doubt you are aware that the western part of Ukraine wants to join with the E.U. whereas the eastern part wants to identify with Russia. As the new government in Kiev is basically anti-Russian, apparently also anti-Semitic, and as one first step they changed the status of the use of the Russian language in Ukraine, I believe Putin has every right to be suspicious of what they may try to do. They are surely attempting to lessen Russian influence.

I cannot tell you why, but my belief is that President Obama, although compelled to object to the Russian move, was most probably not personally involved in this coup. I think he has lost control of the State Department and the Military, who seem to have taken over and are actively following the same neocon strategy that Bush/Cheney favored that led to the war on Iraq. This is why we are actively involved in Syria, Venezuela, and several elsewheres, and precisely what the neocons would like us to be doing in Iran. It is to Obama’s credit that he managed to not attack Syria and so far has resisted demands to attack Iran. I wonder if he will manage to control Bush’s foreign policy or if finally he will be ignored and shunted aside. His biggest mistake was to keep in office many of the same officials that did the bidding of Bush/Cheney and, among other things, made the worst foreign policy blunder in history by attacking Iraq.

I am beginning to believe that John Kerry is little more than a buffoon who enjoys flying around the world telling everyone how they should behave, mindlessly repeating our mantra, “All options are on the table” as he goes. The MSM and the Administration can badmouth Putin all they want, and they certainly do at every opportunity, but Putin will have the upper hand in his own backyard. As he controls so much of the oil and natural gas Europe depends on, sanctions against Russia will probably not work very well or for very long.    

Can you believe that Kerry actually said, “It is really a stunning, willful choice by President Putin to invade another country…You just don’t in the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another country on completely trumped up pretext.” One can only wonder where he has been for the past few years, or if he is just another mindless American foreign policy idiot like John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Anyone who doesn't regret the passing of the Soviet Union has no heart. Anyone who wants it restored has no brains.

Vladimir Putin

 

Clueless in Phoenix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Moore

Who are "They?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Atsushi Ōkub