Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, December 15, 2014
Why You Should Never Kill A Slow Roach
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
I wanted to post a status that says: "Never kill a slow roach, you just improve the breed!" But --I can't find the origin of it. All my google searches take me to my own blog : ). So --if Google says I said it, then I risk their ire if I should deny it. Google has spoken!!
I cannot believe that at a time when the right wing and many throughout the ranks of the GOP have most vociferously attacked Darwinism no one but me would have summoned up the wisdom of cowboys with respect to the propagation of cockroaches in order to refute them. Cockroaches are a species which, by Darwinian standards, typifies "natural selection", less accurately, the "survival of the fittest". Like Republicans, cockroaches can be depended upon to crawl into and spoil stuff.
Cockroaches are a species which, by Darwinian standards, typifies "natural selection", less accurately, the "survival of the fittest". Critics of Darwin have said that no one has yet produced an entirely new species by selection. But they have indeed done precisely that! Consider wheat! Wheat does not grow in the wild. Wheat is related to ancient grasses, clearly the result of an ancient application of "artificial selection." Had wheat evolved naturally, it would be found growing wild like prairie grass.
Wheat can be compared to a thoroughbred, but more evolved and, therefore, a better example of evolution at work. A thoroughbred, for example, is still a horse but wheat is no longer mere prairie grass. It's something entirely "new". It is a new species.
Social Darwinism has harmed mankind. It rationalizes and justifies the perpetual and deliberate impoverishment of large segments of our society. The GOP will support this as a matter of policy so long as someone like Ronald Reagan can, nevertheless, make them "feel good about themselves". Alas --the GOP will face its own extinction, a process that I believe is underway as we write.
Saturday, December 21, 2013
Has the GOP Inspired Prejudice about Texas?
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
For some reason, millions of people who have never been to Texas persist in spreading lies, and misconceptions about the state, "dissing it" though they have never bothered to confirm their prejudices by actually visiting the state. Nevertheless --they are convinced or have convinced themselves that Texas is a horrible and backward place. How much blame must be directed at Bush for having destroyed the reputation of a state that had been Democratic or progressive for over one hundred years?
Texas is not a 'backwater'. Second only to California with a population of 26.1 million residents, it is, perhaps, the nation's most cosmopolitan state. In Houston, officially the nation's fourth largest city, you will find a population as least as diverse (perhaps even more so) than those of New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco. Having often visited all three of those cities, I suspect that that is the case.
The Houston Grand Opera is typical of the trend. Last time I checked, it was the nation's most honored Opera Company having introduced 43 world premieres and six American premieres since 1973. For its efforts, HGO has received a Tony Award, two Grammy Awards, and two Emmy Awards—the ONLY opera company in the world to have won all three honors.
Houston may very well be the nation's greenest large city. Large parks include the very large Memorial Park known for a network of hike and bike trails through virgin wooded forests. Hermann Park, between downtown and the Texas Medical Center, is somewhat smaller but equally green and equally popular with joggers, bikers and nature lovers.
Hermann Park enjoys a choice location in the Museum District half-way between downtown and the Texas Medical Center, famous for having pioneered the science and art of heart transplant.
The famous/legendary Howard Hughes was hurrying "home" to the Medical Center but died enroute. I covered that story and was among the press when Dr. Michael DeBakey revealed to us that Hughes had died enroute.
Texas shares an international border with the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas.
My title asked the question: has the GOP inspired prejudice about Texas? YES! Dallas suffered as a result of the JFK murder though the city had nothing to do with it. Houston has fared somewhat better though Bush Sr lived in a high rise just outside Loop 610 north of the famous Galleria. I can only say this about Bush Sr whom I knew: he was NO Texan. Nor his idiot son!
Here's the kind of information that you might find in a guide book. I offer it for what it is worth:
For some reason, millions of people who have never been to Texas persist in spreading lies, and misconceptions about the state, "dissing it" though they have never bothered to confirm their prejudices by actually visiting the state. Nevertheless --they are convinced or have convinced themselves that Texas is a horrible and backward place. How much blame must be directed at Bush for having destroyed the reputation of a state that had been Democratic or progressive for over one hundred years?
Texas is not a 'backwater'. Second only to California with a population of 26.1 million residents, it is, perhaps, the nation's most cosmopolitan state. In Houston, officially the nation's fourth largest city, you will find a population as least as diverse (perhaps even more so) than those of New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco. Having often visited all three of those cities, I suspect that that is the case.
The Houston Grand Opera is typical of the trend. Last time I checked, it was the nation's most honored Opera Company having introduced 43 world premieres and six American premieres since 1973. For its efforts, HGO has received a Tony Award, two Grammy Awards, and two Emmy Awards—the ONLY opera company in the world to have won all three honors.
Houston may very well be the nation's greenest large city. Large parks include the very large Memorial Park known for a network of hike and bike trails through virgin wooded forests. Hermann Park, between downtown and the Texas Medical Center, is somewhat smaller but equally green and equally popular with joggers, bikers and nature lovers.
Hermann Park enjoys a choice location in the Museum District half-way between downtown and the Texas Medical Center, famous for having pioneered the science and art of heart transplant.
The famous/legendary Howard Hughes was hurrying "home" to the Medical Center but died enroute. I covered that story and was among the press when Dr. Michael DeBakey revealed to us that Hughes had died enroute.
Texas shares an international border with the Mexican states of Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León, and Tamaulipas.
My title asked the question: has the GOP inspired prejudice about Texas? YES! Dallas suffered as a result of the JFK murder though the city had nothing to do with it. Houston has fared somewhat better though Bush Sr lived in a high rise just outside Loop 610 north of the famous Galleria. I can only say this about Bush Sr whom I knew: he was NO Texan. Nor his idiot son!
Here's the kind of information that you might find in a guide book. I offer it for what it is worth:
Houston is the largest city in Texas and the fourth-largest in the United States, while San Antonio is the second largest in the state and seventh largest in the United States.
Dallas–Fort Worth and Greater Houston are the fourth and fifth largest United States metropolitan areas, respectively. Other major cities include El Paso and Austin—the state capital. Texas is nicknamed the Lone Star State to signify Texas as a former independent republic and as a reminder of the state's struggle for independence from Mexico. The "Lone Star" can be found on the Texas state flag and on the Texas state seal today.[9] The origin of the state name, Texas, is from the word, "Tejas", which means 'friends' in the Caddo language.[10]
Due to its size and geologic features such as the Balcones Fault, Texas contains diverse landscapes that resemble both the American South and Southwest.[11] Although Texas is popularly associated with the Southwestern deserts, less than 10 percent of the land area is desert.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Supreme Court Justices Should Stay If They're Able To Work
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
Some liberals have recently called on Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire so that President Barack Obama can choose her replacement. At 80, she is the oldest justice on the court. Some fear that if she chooses to stay, a Republican succesor to Obama might nominate another A. Scalia. God help us! But Justice Ginsburg believes that Supreme Court justices should not be influenced by political assessments of a party's future prospects with respect to the court.
One of Ginsburg's shining moments came with the dubious ascension of one George W. BUsh to the White House. With respect to Bush v Gore, Ginsberg's decision was the best, better even than those who agreed with her. Scalia's decision was poorly written, his conclusions wrong and wrong-headed.
Not only that --Ginsberg was, I believe, outraged that the case had been "dumped" on SCOTUS. At the end of her decsion, she wrote simply: I DISSENT --not "I respectfully dissent" as is normally the practice.
Some liberals have recently called on Ruth Bader Ginsburg to retire so that President Barack Obama can choose her replacement. At 80, she is the oldest justice on the court. Some fear that if she chooses to stay, a Republican succesor to Obama might nominate another A. Scalia. God help us! But Justice Ginsburg believes that Supreme Court justices should not be influenced by political assessments of a party's future prospects with respect to the court.
One of Ginsburg's shining moments came with the dubious ascension of one George W. BUsh to the White House. With respect to Bush v Gore, Ginsberg's decision was the best, better even than those who agreed with her. Scalia's decision was poorly written, his conclusions wrong and wrong-headed.
Not only that --Ginsberg was, I believe, outraged that the case had been "dumped" on SCOTUS. At the end of her decsion, she wrote simply: I DISSENT --not "I respectfully dissent" as is normally the practice.
Rarely has this Court rejected outright an interpretation of state law by a state high court. ...The extraordinary setting of this case has obscured the ordinary principle that dictates its proper resolution: Federal courts defer to state high courts' interpretations of their state's own law. This principle reflects the core of federalism, on which all agree. ...Notably, the Florida Supreme Court has produced two substantial opinions within 29 hours of oral argument. In sum, the Court's conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court's own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.I dissent.
--Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Justice, U.S. Supreme Court (Bush v Gore)
Labels:
Antonin Scalia,
appoint,
appointments,
bush v gore,
Florida,
justices,
law,
Obama,
politics,
republicans,
retire,
retirement,
Ruth Bader Ginsburg,
SCOTUS,
Supreme Court,
supreme court justices
Sunday, October 27, 2013
Is the GOP a "Kooky Cult" or a "Crime Syndicate"?
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
As it is true of individuals, it is also true of groups: they are what they do! The GOP, like any other group or any individual is defined by what it has done over the years. I am of the opinion that most of what the GOP has "accomplished" has been harmful to American society over all and to individuals in specific cases. This includes the GOP's apparent disdain for the environment, its horrific record with respect to any "class" that is not fabulously wealthy. By its many acts and as many omissions, the GOP has created the ruling elite.
I have often called the GOP a "kooky cult, possibly a crime syndicate". Following are The defining characteristics of a cult according to Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
As it is true of individuals, it is also true of groups: they are what they do! The GOP, like any other group or any individual is defined by what it has done over the years. I am of the opinion that most of what the GOP has "accomplished" has been harmful to American society over all and to individuals in specific cases. This includes the GOP's apparent disdain for the environment, its horrific record with respect to any "class" that is not fabulously wealthy. By its many acts and as many omissions, the GOP has created the ruling elite.
I have often called the GOP a "kooky cult, possibly a crime syndicate". Following are The defining characteristics of a cult according to Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
- The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
- Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
- Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
- The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
- The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
- The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society. The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
- The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
- The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion. Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
- The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
- The group is preoccupied with making money. Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities. Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
- The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group.
- They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group. --Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Why The GOP Occupied Texas
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
It only takes one crook/moron to ruin the reputation of an entire state. Yes --I am referring to George W. Bush though he is but one crook among many GOP crooks who 'stole' Texas back in the early 80s. The GOP plans ahead.
I tire of the 'fashionable' but baseless attacks on an entire state when for some 100 years, Texas had been liberal, often progressive. Now --there are some 'conservatives' among Democrats even today. But Texas Democrats were often liberal, progressive, activist and out-spoken. A Texas liberal/progressive --J. Frank Dobie --was invited to lecture at Cambridge where he was a big hit.
Some facts: Over a period of more than 100 years (1846 to 1979) EVERY Texas governor had been Democratic. Most were liberal and/or progressive. The term 'progressive' is especially applicable to the Furgusons --'Pa' Furguson and later 'Ma' (Miriam) Furguson who served two terms. 'Ma' Furguson was fondly recalled by the older persons I met and talked with while growing up. She was among the state's best governors.
It was not until January 16, 1979 that Bill Clements --a Republican --occupied the Governor's office. His tenure is recalled for a GOP revolution primarily TOM DELAY'S GERRYMANDER of the state. The GOP were motivated to gerrymander Texas. Its growing population had earned the state some 38 electoral votes (the map pre-dates that, showing only 34)
I won't write any more than this as this topic is worthy of a book advocating the abolition of the electoral college. Under the Constitution, the office of President represents all of the people! Then ---why is the President NOT elected by the people? Why are their votes watered-down? What right have the states to insert themselves in the election of the People's President (not the states' president)?
It is tragic that the GOP has succeeded in convincing the rest of the world that Texas is a conservative backwater. Great schools with great academic credentials (Rice Univ, U of T, Univ of Houston, et al, et al ) suffer when the state is unfairly maligned as a result of misdeeds by George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Tom DeLay (who gerrymandered the state) Bill Clements and other right wing extremists whose ruthless ambition has victimized Texas in particular and the nation overall.
It only takes one crook/moron to ruin the reputation of an entire state. Yes --I am referring to George W. Bush though he is but one crook among many GOP crooks who 'stole' Texas back in the early 80s. The GOP plans ahead.
I tire of the 'fashionable' but baseless attacks on an entire state when for some 100 years, Texas had been liberal, often progressive. Now --there are some 'conservatives' among Democrats even today. But Texas Democrats were often liberal, progressive, activist and out-spoken. A Texas liberal/progressive --J. Frank Dobie --was invited to lecture at Cambridge where he was a big hit.
Some facts: Over a period of more than 100 years (1846 to 1979) EVERY Texas governor had been Democratic. Most were liberal and/or progressive. The term 'progressive' is especially applicable to the Furgusons --'Pa' Furguson and later 'Ma' (Miriam) Furguson who served two terms. 'Ma' Furguson was fondly recalled by the older persons I met and talked with while growing up. She was among the state's best governors.
It was not until January 16, 1979 that Bill Clements --a Republican --occupied the Governor's office. His tenure is recalled for a GOP revolution primarily TOM DELAY'S GERRYMANDER of the state. The GOP were motivated to gerrymander Texas. Its growing population had earned the state some 38 electoral votes (the map pre-dates that, showing only 34)
I won't write any more than this as this topic is worthy of a book advocating the abolition of the electoral college. Under the Constitution, the office of President represents all of the people! Then ---why is the President NOT elected by the people? Why are their votes watered-down? What right have the states to insert themselves in the election of the People's President (not the states' president)?
It is tragic that the GOP has succeeded in convincing the rest of the world that Texas is a conservative backwater. Great schools with great academic credentials (Rice Univ, U of T, Univ of Houston, et al, et al ) suffer when the state is unfairly maligned as a result of misdeeds by George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, Tom DeLay (who gerrymandered the state) Bill Clements and other right wing extremists whose ruthless ambition has victimized Texas in particular and the nation overall.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Romney Shirked
by Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyIt was a dark and stormy night. Having strapped the dog atop the car, the Romney family embarked upon the long road to oblivion and mormons. The trip itself was uneventful, disturbed only by the flapping of dog ears in the lonely wind! It was, of course, fate. Fate! Fate to which Mitt would never submit or acknowledge. Mitt had to make this trip by car. As a matter of principle, he would never allow his dog or family aboard a craft that did not have roll down windows!
Ms Mitt sat by the window, her head thrown back defiantly in defeat. One of her two legs stretched across floorboard. If she expected Mitt to be aroused, she was sorely disappointed.The window frame trembled with the speed of motion despite the fact that the speed limit was posted --20 MPH. The window pane hung over empty darkness, and dots of light slashed across the glass as luminous streaks, once in a while, not often, and even then not worth mentioning. She was disappointed to learn that they were only fireflies.Mitt --for just about one second and a half --considered surrender, completely, utterly! That did not last long. Even as he tried to forget everything, he suddenly remembered it all. 'Darn it', he said aloud! 'Frap! Why can't I just permit myself to feel? Let go—drop the controls—this is it.'Then --as if awakening from hypnosis --he remembered the dog! The dog! But just as suddenly, he forgot the dog. He remembered the suffocating airplane trip, nearly choking, banging on the un-openable, the window, the CLOSED window, the window he could never open.Then he remembered being humiliated in public debates. He remembered being laughed at when his pants fell down. In his nightmares, he fled the scene in 'official' Mormon Doodiepants and photographed by vermin: photographers and reporters! Reporters! Reporters! Then he broke out in a sweat! He was never certain that the empty chair did not talk back to Clint. Somewhere on the edge of his mind, under the sounds of Lawrence Welch and his All Mormon Orchestra, he heard the sound of train wheels. They knocked in an even rhythm, like a good mormon orchestra --boring! Bored --he could relax now. He heard the wheels and was, therefore, reasonably sure that the car was still moving forward. But 'why?', he wondered. Why? Surely, he thought, the warranty had run out on the tires.

Monday, October 22, 2012
The GOP's 'Blame Game' Exposed
"There is a collective responsibility in an authoritarian regime." --Albert Speer, testinony at Nuremberg War Crimes TrialsI am fed up with the right wing blame game! And you should be as well. The U.S. right wing has more scapegoats than A. Hitler's wet dreams! Jean-Paul Sartre said:
"A man is nothing else but what he makes of himself!"And it was Bertolt Brecht who summed up right wing crookery:
"A man who does not know the truth is just an idiot but a man who knows the truth and calls it a lie is a CROOK!"The GOP has made of themselves CROOKS and MORONS and MORON CROOKS. Conan Doyle provided some bullet-proof logic:
"When you have eliminated the impossible whatever remains, however implausible, MUST be the truth!"--Sir Arthur Conan DoyleDoyle has never been more relevant. The GOP is defined by the utter BS that they espouse. That would be bad enough but, in fact, they expect you to buy into their ideology, propaganda, nonsense. The GOP is often threatening but that's typical of their psychopathic ilk. Don't buy it.The only option is that people must think for themselves and demand proof of the lies and mythology that makes up the GOP's 'alternate reality'. The best and most obvious examples are the many ways in which the party favors the ruling elite and helps to enrich them even further. The most egregious example is 'supply-side' economics, often called 'trickle down theory'. It's all ---or worse! Wealth has never, ever 'trickled down' (at any speed or manner) as a result of GOP tax cuts which are designed to enrich those already filthy rich, those already amogn the RULING ONE PERCENT. This tiny (and shrinking) segment of the population owns more than the rest of us combined. GOP 'economics' creates a very, very steep curve. Think for yourself. GOP ideology with respect to the economy is most easilly debunked with OFFICIAL STATS from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U. S. Census Bureau, and the U.S. Commerce Dept -B.E.A. among many university and various 'think tank' studies. The GOP is dead wrong about almost EVERYTHING. Secondly, don't buy GOP platitudes that simply cannot be proven one way or the other. That's a Nazi tactic that was exposed by Hitler's confidant: Herr Albert Speer.Food for though; wealth has never, ever trickled down nor has GOP policiy ever enriched or benefited any person who is NOT among the very wealthiest people in America if not the world. If you are not a billionaire, you are nuts to vote GOP.
Labels:
bunkum,
elections,
GOP,
lies,
politics,
propaganda,
Romney,
trickle down theory
Friday, October 19, 2012
Orwell's '1984' Revisited
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
Margaret Atwood called George W. Bush, the greatest threat to world peace to date! What Atwood did not mention was that Bushco derived its power from the deliberate and well-planned attack on truth by way of language. George Orwell predicted it; his works remain the textbook example of how governments may manipulate people by first manipulating the language.
If all else fails, a totalitarian regime may make the telling of truth a crime. Traditionally, the names given those truths are treason or sedition. A young United States experimented with the Alien and Sedition Acts giving near dictatorial powers to President John Adams, specifically, the power to imprison or deport aliens upon the mere suspicion that activities posed a threat to the new national government.
To his credit, Adams made no use of them but neither did he rebuke the Congress for passing them. George W. Bush proved a greater threat. Bush arrogated unto himself the power to 'define' the very word "terrorist"! Bush could create a 'terrorist' at will by merely re-defining a target. Indeed --Bush assumed and asserted the power and authority to make you a 'terrorist' by merely 'deeming' you to be one!
Orwell's classic cautionary tale, 1984, describes a fascist, totalitarian government spying on its own citizens, denying reality and creating an alternate state that exploits a fictional enemy in order to wage a perpetual war. Orwell's Big Brother tried to re-write history and succeeded.
In "It Can't Happen Here" Sinclair Lewis describes the dictatorship of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip who might have been inspired by George W. Bush had 'he' not preceded him. In both '1984' and in Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here", a fascist state justifies an omni-present dictatorship by maintaining states of perpetual war and perpetual terror.
The lesson of 1984 is less about the state itself than about the individual. When states are absolutely powerful, the individual ceases to exist. Philosophically, individuals robbed of free will are denied person-hood even as mere 'legal abstractions' (corporations) are made 'persons' by decree. In the U.S. 'corporations' are decreed to be persons by way of a bogus and dishonest decision by our Supreme Court, It remains the very worst decision since Dredd-Scott legitimized the keeping of slaves.
Big Brother is the Wizard of Oz, an illusion, an image on smoke if not mirrors. If millions suddenly deny the illusion, the lies, the bullshit, Big Bro is finished. The bad news is that, like the cowardly lion, we dare not challenge the great and powerful Oz
The most glaring use of Newspeak is the invention of what I have chosen to call "focus group phrases"; so called because they are invented, full cloth, by consultants who most certainly know their way around a focus group. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is just such a phrase. "911 Denier" is another. "Al Qaeda iln Iraq" is designed to make a lazy populace forget that the war was begun upon blackhearted lies about WMD.
"911 Denier" is 'Orwell-speak' or 'Newspeak' designed to shift the burden of proof when it is, in fact, Bush who must prove his theory of 911 --a theory for which there is not a shred of evidence --let alone proof. Anyone believing it is either a part of the plot or stupid! The Bush administration used up several ex post facto rationales for war. None of them were true! "Al Qaeda in Iraq", for example, implies the existence of a shadowy enemy that was never defined! That was by design! A real enemy is defined and can be targeted! Shadows may be summoned up whenever they are needed! 'Al Qaeda in Iraq', we can be sure, tested well.
A lazy news establishment liked it because it saved them the trouble of trouble of describing reality! Orwell understood as few have the power of language and in, 1984 the "tool of power" is language. Language empowers the all-powerful party which dictates the nature and use of language. The institutions of state maintain their power by exploiting the power of language to shape the nature of thought itself. That is, in fact, the job of the protagonist, Winston Smith. Examples may be found in any study of the recent Bush administration.
The George W. Bush regime very nearly gave the game away with the use of the phrase Total Information Awareness. In response to criticism, the regime stopped using the phrase to denote their program of widespread domestic and illegal surveillance.
Orwell is, of course, most famous for 1984 but his great essay on politics and language should also be required reading. See: Orwell: Politics and the English Language. Orwell explores how politicians exploit language to accrue absolute power. Modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.

If all else fails, a totalitarian regime may make the telling of truth a crime. Traditionally, the names given those truths are treason or sedition. A young United States experimented with the Alien and Sedition Acts giving near dictatorial powers to President John Adams, specifically, the power to imprison or deport aliens upon the mere suspicion that activities posed a threat to the new national government.
To his credit, Adams made no use of them but neither did he rebuke the Congress for passing them. George W. Bush proved a greater threat. Bush arrogated unto himself the power to 'define' the very word "terrorist"! Bush could create a 'terrorist' at will by merely re-defining a target. Indeed --Bush assumed and asserted the power and authority to make you a 'terrorist' by merely 'deeming' you to be one!
Orwell's classic cautionary tale, 1984, describes a fascist, totalitarian government spying on its own citizens, denying reality and creating an alternate state that exploits a fictional enemy in order to wage a perpetual war. Orwell's Big Brother tried to re-write history and succeeded.
In "It Can't Happen Here" Sinclair Lewis describes the dictatorship of Berzelius "Buzz" Windrip who might have been inspired by George W. Bush had 'he' not preceded him. In both '1984' and in Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here", a fascist state justifies an omni-present dictatorship by maintaining states of perpetual war and perpetual terror.
The lesson of 1984 is less about the state itself than about the individual. When states are absolutely powerful, the individual ceases to exist. Philosophically, individuals robbed of free will are denied person-hood even as mere 'legal abstractions' (corporations) are made 'persons' by decree. In the U.S. 'corporations' are decreed to be persons by way of a bogus and dishonest decision by our Supreme Court, It remains the very worst decision since Dredd-Scott legitimized the keeping of slaves.
"In order to acknowledge the collapse of Soviet Communism and the failure of fascism to reemerge as a potent political force, I ditched Orwell's oppressive totalitarian state in favor of an entertainment-fueled nihilism in which dimwitted citizens frittered away their lives watching web TV and working at slightly overpaid jobs to buy worthless junk ... on web TV, natch. Where Orwell envisioned endless rows of soldiers marching in perfect unison to the strains of the Two-Minute Hate, I saw a world where nations had been replaced by trading blocs and the objects of hatred were the immigrants in our midst."
--Ted Rall, Addicted To Perpetual WarThe images from 1984 are seared into our memories --big brother, the telescreen, the grotty bedroom, the cubicle, the memory hole, the drab gray existence, the rat cage. But 1984 is as much about language. It is more than mere sub-text. Language, in 1984, is the means by which Big Brother creates an alternate reality. It is only in the 'alternate reality' that Big Brother has power.
Big Brother is the Wizard of Oz, an illusion, an image on smoke if not mirrors. If millions suddenly deny the illusion, the lies, the bullshit, Big Bro is finished. The bad news is that, like the cowardly lion, we dare not challenge the great and powerful Oz
The most glaring use of Newspeak is the invention of what I have chosen to call "focus group phrases"; so called because they are invented, full cloth, by consultants who most certainly know their way around a focus group. "Al Qaeda in Iraq" is just such a phrase. "911 Denier" is another. "Al Qaeda iln Iraq" is designed to make a lazy populace forget that the war was begun upon blackhearted lies about WMD.
"911 Denier" is 'Orwell-speak' or 'Newspeak' designed to shift the burden of proof when it is, in fact, Bush who must prove his theory of 911 --a theory for which there is not a shred of evidence --let alone proof. Anyone believing it is either a part of the plot or stupid! The Bush administration used up several ex post facto rationales for war. None of them were true! "Al Qaeda in Iraq", for example, implies the existence of a shadowy enemy that was never defined! That was by design! A real enemy is defined and can be targeted! Shadows may be summoned up whenever they are needed! 'Al Qaeda in Iraq', we can be sure, tested well.
A lazy news establishment liked it because it saved them the trouble of trouble of describing reality! Orwell understood as few have the power of language and in, 1984 the "tool of power" is language. Language empowers the all-powerful party which dictates the nature and use of language. The institutions of state maintain their power by exploiting the power of language to shape the nature of thought itself. That is, in fact, the job of the protagonist, Winston Smith. Examples may be found in any study of the recent Bush administration.
The George W. Bush regime very nearly gave the game away with the use of the phrase Total Information Awareness. In response to criticism, the regime stopped using the phrase to denote their program of widespread domestic and illegal surveillance.
Orwell is, of course, most famous for 1984 but his great essay on politics and language should also be required reading. See: Orwell: Politics and the English Language. Orwell explores how politicians exploit language to accrue absolute power. Modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.
The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier -- even quicker, once you have the habit -- to say In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption that than to say I think. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only don't have to hunt about for the words; you also don't have to bother with the rhythms of your sentences since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious.
--George OrwellAll who have read Orwell's essay on how easily politicians debase the language for nefarious purposes have recognized in the Bush administration the very techniques that Orwell warned us about.
The White House saw September 11 as a golden opportunity. The first catastrophic terrorist attack on American soil sparked an unprecedented case of leadership projection: desperate for protection and answers (why do they hate us? can we kill them before they kill us?), Americans wishfully compared Bush to FDR and Churchill. Approval ratings hit 92 percent. But Bush's political advisors knew that peaking early wouldn't guarantee reelection in 2004. Bush's father had been turned out of office just 20 months after the Gulf War ratcheted his score up to 911.
...
The Bushies have lifted their reelection strategy straight out of "1984," and not just by creating ominous-sounding agencies like the Office of Homeland Security, the supposedly-closed Office of Strategic Information, and a "Shadow Government". As in "1984," the Bush regime tolerates zero dissent --a two-party system in name only has been distilled to one in which only Republicans express acceptable opinions. And an absence of follow-up attacks has been met by endless alerts, advisors and empty hysterics in the name of security, most recently culminating with Tom Ridge's much-mocked color-code warning system.
--Ted Rall, Why Bush Is Addicted To Perpetual WarTo be fair, it is not only politicians but bullshit artists who make us vulnerable to tyranny. This has been done by dumbing down the language and, thus, our ability to think critically. Until Bush, even Republican "Presidents" paid lip service to the Constitution.
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
—Sinclair Lewis, author of "It Can't Happen here"!In It Can't Happen Here Sinclair Lewis showed us how it might happen here and in ways not unlike those predicted by both Lewis and Orwell. The characteristics of the fascist state so vividly described by both authors were found in abundance in Bush's fascist regime. Millions are still in denial, evidence that truth is tragically denied. A quote from Sinclair Lewis' "It Can't Happen Here":
"Senator Windrip has got an excellent chance to be elected President, next November, and if he is, probably his gang of buzzards will get us into some war, just to grease their insane vanity and show the world that we’re the huskiest nation going."
--It Can't Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis, page 20Orwell and Lewis not only warned us, they predicted precisely how it would be done. As Shakespeare said: "All is true!" So --why didn't we listen? We did not listen because this nation has a fierce anti-intellectual streak which at its best makes us independent and at its worst makes us stupid!
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
A Vote for the GOP is a Vote Against the Middle Class
by Len Hart, The Existentialist CowboyThere is --unfortunately --NO middle ground in a two-party system. There is no compromising with evil. The fact is the GOP is the enemy of the middle class; it is, in fact, the party of 'make war and share the booty with the cult of the ruling elites". Put another way: the GOP is the party of 1) WARS FOR BOOTY 2) WARS which benefit ONLY the ruling elites. The Romney-Ryan-Republican plan in a nutshell:
REPUBLICAN'S WAR AGAINST THE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN
- It would, in effect, end Medicare, defund Planned Parenthood, repeal Obamacare
- It would slash student aid;
- it would GUT Social Security.
REPUBLICAN'S WAR AGAINST THE MIDDLE CLASS AMERICAN
Thursday, August 09, 2012
What the GOP Did to Texas in a Nutshell
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
Prior to the arrival of the Bush crime family in Texas, the state had been progressive and liberal; it was still possible to get a good education. That is true in no small part because every Texas Governor had been Democratic since Richard Coke took office on January 15, 1874. It was not until Bill Clements was sworn in on January 16, 1979 that a Republican would live in the Governor's mansion. It was at that moment that the Texas star began to tarnish.
The GOP has accomplished a great deal since 1974:
How did the GOP manage to get away with this scam? I submit the following explanation found on the blog: Blue Bloggin
Prior to the arrival of the Bush crime family in Texas, the state had been progressive and liberal; it was still possible to get a good education. That is true in no small part because every Texas Governor had been Democratic since Richard Coke took office on January 15, 1874. It was not until Bill Clements was sworn in on January 16, 1979 that a Republican would live in the Governor's mansion. It was at that moment that the Texas star began to tarnish.
The GOP has accomplished a great deal since 1974:
- Briefly the GOP successfully subverted public education with notable results.
- The label 'murder capital' stuck on Dallas for the resulting 'rise in crime'.
- The corporate-owned prisons were filled-to the brims! Cause and effect?
How did the GOP manage to get away with this scam? I submit the following explanation found on the blog: Blue Bloggin
Texas today is enduring losses of a personal and political kind that resemble the struggle against Santa Anna. Texas leadership has it’s hands in everyone’s pockets and takes what it wants, with a Texas sized smile. The concept of “No State Tax is the shiny object politicians dangle in front of our eyes to convince Texans that Texas ‘stays out of your biz’nez’. No they don’t. That is a Texas sized lie. Texas politicians want to divert all Texas funds to special interest at the expense of education and infrastructure. Texas State sponsored scams are the biggest ponzi schemes our politicians have pulled over our eyes.
Texas politicians want to control your personal freedoms, control your body, control your love life, pollute your land or just take your land away, for the pleasure of their campaign donors. Every decision made by the Texas Republican Congress has a big campaign donor behind it and the likes of Governor Rick Perry has his lies exposed on a regular basis. The ballot box is the greatest weapon Texans have, and even that is being manipulated by these crooks to make sure they have another shot at scramming Texans. Don’t fall for their lies. Vote them out!
Texas politicians have sold their soul so many times to so many special interest that Texans have no idea where their rent, grocery and car payment went. Makes you wonder how these crooks keep up with all the deception.
--Blue Bloggin
Labels:
Bill Clements,
Bush,
crime,
democrats,
GOP,
perry,
politics,
Prisons,
progressives,
richard coke,
Santa Anna,
Texas
Sunday, July 22, 2012
How Progressives Can Take Back America
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy
Many 'progressives' who voted for Obama expected a 'savior'. There are none! The best strategy left to disappointed progressives is to take back the party many believe abandoned them. I was among those who believed Clinton should have taken a stronger stand in defense of liberal and/or progressive values. I despised 'triangulation'.
My biggest disappointment was Janet Reno's attack on the Branch-Davidians in Waco, an unlawful attack violating federal and state laws --most egregiously --the presumption of innocence and every due process clause known to exist anywhere at any time to include the 14th Amendment
Progressives' best chance for changing the fascist direction taken by American politics may be found in a book that was, in fact, appropriated if not usurped by the GOP. I have in mind one Saul Alinsky whose 'Rules for Radical', written for a liberal, left leaning movement owing much to FDR and war opponents like Eugene Debs.
Interestingly, it is the GOP which has made more effective use of the strategies and tactics than have liberals or Democrats for whom 'Rules for Radicals' was written. It is cited in GOP campaign manuals, practiced in almost every campaign. I have personal knowledge of that, having acquired a few GOP 'campaign manuals' at a time when Tom DeLay was building a conservative machine while gerrymandering the state of Texas.
Alinsky advises 'activists' to work inside the existing system, to utilize the existing networks and/or infrastructure. Starting from scratch is inefficient, time consuming, wasteful of time and resources. Democrats have an infrastructure in place already. Use it! As ALINSKY himself said:
The invasion of Iraq, we were told, was part of the bigger 'war on terror' (more properly, 'terrorism'). Bin Laden was the boogeyman upon which were directed the fears and prejudices of much of the population and especially the right wing which wanted to believe. For Bushco, they were an easy sale!Recent events have turned the Bush strategy on its head! This is a paradigm shift rarely seen in American politics in which a right wing and a left wing had dug their trenches and had begun a long seige. In just a few short days, the news that Bin Laden had been killed --NOT on Bush's watch but by a Democratic U.S. regime --has shaken the GOP to its rotting foundations.
There is really very little the GOP can do but praise the efforts of a Democratic President. It must hurt! My heart bleeds!There are, therefore, opportunities to change the very complexion of U.S. politics but only if progressives work with the existing Democratic infrastructure.
Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals. Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.
Many 'progressives' who voted for Obama expected a 'savior'. There are none! The best strategy left to disappointed progressives is to take back the party many believe abandoned them. I was among those who believed Clinton should have taken a stronger stand in defense of liberal and/or progressive values. I despised 'triangulation'.
My biggest disappointment was Janet Reno's attack on the Branch-Davidians in Waco, an unlawful attack violating federal and state laws --most egregiously --the presumption of innocence and every due process clause known to exist anywhere at any time to include the 14th Amendment
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law.--U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights.The best strategy available to progressives now is not to create another party but to take back an existing party apparatus --the Democratic party. It will take years to mount an effective third party whose best hope would consist of 'brokering' a deal with more conservative wings of the only organized opposition to the GOP i.e. the Democratic party.
Progressives' best chance for changing the fascist direction taken by American politics may be found in a book that was, in fact, appropriated if not usurped by the GOP. I have in mind one Saul Alinsky whose 'Rules for Radical', written for a liberal, left leaning movement owing much to FDR and war opponents like Eugene Debs.
Interestingly, it is the GOP which has made more effective use of the strategies and tactics than have liberals or Democrats for whom 'Rules for Radicals' was written. It is cited in GOP campaign manuals, practiced in almost every campaign. I have personal knowledge of that, having acquired a few GOP 'campaign manuals' at a time when Tom DeLay was building a conservative machine while gerrymandering the state of Texas.
Alinsky advises 'activists' to work inside the existing system, to utilize the existing networks and/or infrastructure. Starting from scratch is inefficient, time consuming, wasteful of time and resources. Democrats have an infrastructure in place already. Use it! As ALINSKY himself said:
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future." --Saul AlinskyIf 'liberals/progressives will not heed and benefit from a 'legendary' liberal organizer/activist like Alinsky, I have a slim chance of waking them up! If the 'left' insists upon walking off a cliff there is little anyone can do for them.There is now, however, an opportunity to be seized. Whatever your feelings about the Bush occupation of Iraq, the political fact of the matter is that millions of Americans seemed to have bought into the many lies that the right wing told in order to justify the massive theft of oil resources in the Middle East.
The invasion of Iraq, we were told, was part of the bigger 'war on terror' (more properly, 'terrorism'). Bin Laden was the boogeyman upon which were directed the fears and prejudices of much of the population and especially the right wing which wanted to believe. For Bushco, they were an easy sale!Recent events have turned the Bush strategy on its head! This is a paradigm shift rarely seen in American politics in which a right wing and a left wing had dug their trenches and had begun a long seige. In just a few short days, the news that Bin Laden had been killed --NOT on Bush's watch but by a Democratic U.S. regime --has shaken the GOP to its rotting foundations.
There is really very little the GOP can do but praise the efforts of a Democratic President. It must hurt! My heart bleeds!There are, therefore, opportunities to change the very complexion of U.S. politics but only if progressives work with the existing Democratic infrastructure.
Through a process combining hope and resentment, the organizer tries to create a “mass army” that brings in as many recruits as possible from local organizations, churches, services groups, labor unions, corner gangs, and individuals. Alinsky provides a collection of rules to guide the process. But he emphasizes these rules must be translated into real-life tactics that are fluid and responsive to the situation at hand.
- Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do. Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people. The result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
- Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat. Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules. “You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
- Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.
- Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. “If your people aren’t having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.”
- Rule 7: A tactic that drags on for too long becomes a drag. Commitment may become ritualistic as people turn to other issues.
- Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose. “The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this that will cause the opposition to react to your advantage.”
- Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself. When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
- Rule 10: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Avoid being trapped by an opponent or an interviewer who says, “Okay, what would you do?”
- Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame. --Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals
Sunday, February 05, 2012
It Takes Courage to Leave the GOP Cult

The GOP is not a political party. It is a crime syndicate, to be sure, but also evinces characterisitcs of a kooky cult. I say that based upon my experience as a young man who got an education from 'inside the GOP'. I consulted them but stopped for reasons of conscience. I can relate to comments by John P. Judis, who chose to leave the cult.
"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery." U.S. Fascism Will Have TX OriginsThe GOP --sponsored as it is by exceedingly huge corporations which now presume to be persons --is an existential threat to American Democracy. The recent decision re: corporate personhood will prove to have been the piece de resistance! Either the GOP is in the pocket of the huge corporations or it is the other way around. The distinctions are as blurred as is the term 'corporate moraltiy' --an oxymoron.
--John P. Judis, quote found at Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis
The fact is corporations are mere 'legal abstractions'; they are NOT people. The definition of 'people' may be found in biology and/or psychology textbooks; I deny that politicians, old men, liars in robes can redefine with a mere decree some several million years of evolution over which they had no control or input. Robed judges are not 'God'! They cannot --with a mere decree --change the laws of evolution and/or physics. That some on the 'court' think so is evidence of insane and myopic arrogance!
I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them. And, in truth, I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of outsourcing, union busting and "shareholder value," the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one.That the GOP has gone too far may be good news! GOP extremes, crimes, lie and absuridties have, at last, awakened some Democrats to the danger. At the same time, some Republicans have grown uncomfortable playing Faust to to the GOP's Mephistopheles, i.e, Satan. To them --I say: too late! You may have already sold your soul! And --as they say in Hollywood: what else you got?
--John P. Judis, quote found at Goodbye to All That: Reflections of a GOP Operative Who Left the Cult, Mike Lofgren, Truthout | News Analysis
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
The GOP is Not a Political Party; It's a Crime Syndicate and Kooky Cult

The International Cultic Studies Association lists the defining characteristics of a 'cult'. I fully agree with the 'list' and also the assertion that the GOP meets most of several atttributes, perhaps all characteristics that define the word 'cult'.
Here is the list as 'published':
- The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
- The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
- The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
- The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
- The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, [torture,] lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
- The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

Someone posted recently that the two parties (Dems and Gops) are indistinguisable from one another. That's just not true and, if the media had done its job, that pernicious meme might not have taken root as it most certainly has! Clearly --it was the GOP which planted it and only the GOP has benefited from it.
The occupation movement has targeted the 'ruling elite' of just one percent! That they are a 'ruling elite' and that they amount to no more than one percent of the total population is the obvious result of GOP policies favoring their base and their base is, in fact, the increasingly tiny but powerful ruling elite.
I have many issues with the Democratic party but being GOP-lite is not one of them. For all their faults, 'being as bad as the GOP' is NOT among them. I can cite three essential and defining characteristics that distinguish Democrats from the cult of GOPism:
- EVERY Dem has presided over greater GDP and JOB GROWTH than has ANY Republican Prez since 1900;
- EVERY GOP 'tax cut' has been followed by a recession/depression.
- EVERY GOP TAX CUT has resulted in the transfer of wealth UPWARD to a 'ruling elite' which is now just ONE PERCENT of the total population.




Labels:
cults,
economics,
GOP,
job growth,
lies,
performance,
politics,
tactics
Friday, June 24, 2011
A Free People?

Democrats are unhappy. I daresay most criticism of President Obama these days is from the left wing --not the GOP! Much of this criticism of both party and the President is misplaced. As old West Texans might have said: "They would complain if they were being a hanged with a new rope!"
I daresay neither the party nor the President are responsible for conditions creating most of this 'unhappiness'. Primarily, I am reminded that just 1 percent own more than the rest of us combined. That outcome is not the result of Democratic policy but of GOP tax cuts going back to Ronald Reagan whose legacy it is. I am reminded that the Military-Industrial Complex has apparently set up shop on K-Street! But --I wonder --was this not noticed when it happened under Herrs Reagan, Bush and Bush?
As it was said in W. Shakespeare's 'Julius Caesar': "The fault dear Brutus lies not in our stars but in ourselves that we are underlings!" That is not said to absolve the Republican party of its many sins. It does mean that we should think clearly about a President who may not have 'undone' Bush as quickly as we might have preferred. It means that we should be loath to make the wrong reforms of the right party.
From Wiki:
"The United States has had a two-party system for over a century. Following Duverger's law, the winner take all system for presidential elections and the single-seat plurality voting system for Congressional elections have over time created the two-party system.Until these 'conditions' are changed and until MONEY is taken out of the equation, there is NO point in talking about '3rd Parties' which have the effect of splitting what little is left of the left when the GOP has sucked up all the campaign monies from elites for whom DEMS are but a hedged bet!
I have been writing about the transfer of wealth upward since the Reagan years. I witnessed the effects of much of that in Houston where, even in 'boom town', tent cities sprang up in parks, open spaces, under overpasses. The Reagan 'Recession' was clearly the worst recession/depression since the GOP-HOOVER Depression of the 1930s. There has been a 'recession' under every GOP regime since. Even Eisenhower (whom I called the last 'honest' Republican) presided over a recession/depression. By the way, the words 'depression' and 'recession' are synonyms, though folk think 'Depressions' worse. Bottom line: every Democratic President at least since WWII has presided over greater job and GDP growth than any Republican President.
From time to time you hear names of parties ---progressives, libertarian et al. Third parties have a disastrous history in the United States. That is because only the very rich have enough money to help finance campaigns of either party. Most money is concentrated at the top --the so-called 'ruling elite' of just 1 percent of the total population. This 'elite', as a result of Reagnomics specifically, owns more than the rest of us combined. To be expected, this 'elite' will vote the party that made them richer than almost everyone else in the United States. They will vote GOP.
The responses to this outcome have been irrational. Some propose that the opposition to this state of affairs be diluted even more than it already is with third, fourth, fifth parties. That's not smart! Others propose that Democrats might get more votes following a name-change. The usual suspects make the rounds: "progressive" being used from time to time to identify various shades of liberal and/or democrat. None of these 'movements' are viable because none of them have access to money!
There is no need to change the name of the 'Democratic' party. The name comes from the Greek --'demos' --for 'people'. Now --the word 'liberal' is from the Latin 'liber' for 'free'. Therefore, I am a LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. What fascist is going to convince me that there is something wrong with being FREE PEOPLE?
Ike Warns of the M.I.C.
The Military-Congressional Complex
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Revolution Postponed, Perhaps Indefinitely

I have been urging a 'peaceful revolution' for some 20 years now! I might have been wasting my breath and keyboard! The time for that has come and gone!
In America, too many progressives seemed content to post ugly caricatures of Bush Jr or the usual and almost always correct assessment of his utterly failed regime. Anyone would have been better, we supposed!
It was too easily forgotten that in the United States there is no 'left wing' with which to mount an effective opposition --let alone revolution. Campaigns are incredibly expensive to 'run' and even more so to 'win'! Only the increasingly concentrated, corporate media benefits. In a nation in which right wing policies --most notably those of Ronald Reagan --have resulted in the enrichment of an increasingly tiny elite, the tiny elite tolerates elections to maintain the appearance of 'Democracy'. I will not bother to post the actual 'Gini Indices' that prove that point --a point that should already have been made, documented, and known by all. In short, American wealth is increasingly concentrated in fewer hands with the rise of the GOP. It is not a coincidence --it's policy! Reagan's 'tax cut' and subsequent GOP largesse was and remains a payoff to the base.

But what is to be done about it? Forget about waging revolution in the conventional sense. The only hope left Democrats is a peaceful revolution waged first from within the party. It must be recalled that Hitler's 'Beer Hall Putsch' succeeded in getting Adolph arrested and thrown in jail. It is tragic that he learned from his mistake and eventually won the leadership of what was, at the time, a 'socialist workers' party. It would not remain so long. A. Hitler --like so many American politicians --pulled a 'bait and switch' on the German people.
The Democratic party is reduced to 'sloppy seconds'; they are but a hedged bet for those who buy and finance not just individual politicians but the process itself. We are property! Realistically --how 'radical', how 'progressive', how innovative can a Democratic candidate be when his/her entire campaign is financed by the same folk who brought you Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush --the three worst 'presidents' in U.S. history --the 'three horsemen of the political apocalypse'?
Progressives were content to sit on their asses and bitch about the choices in the general election! In many ways, the general election is the least important aspect of a political campaign. Policy and issues have been long decided. Is it no wonder, then, that elections are increasingly boring. Nothing new is ever said. Indeed, progressive issues are always the target of the right wing, prominently --Social Security.
To combat socialism Bismarck put through between 1883 and 1889 a program for social security far beyond anything known in other countries. It included compulsory insurance for workers against old age, sickness, accident and incapacity, and though organized by the State it was financed by employers and employees. It cannot be said that it stopped the rise of the Social Democrats or the trade unions, but it did have a profound influence on the working class in that it gradually made them value security over political freedom and caused them to see in the State, however conservative, a benefactor and a protector. Hitler, as we shall see, took full advantage of this state of mind. In this, as in other matters, he learned much from Bismarck. ”I studied Bismarck’s socialist legislation,” Hitler remarks in Mein Kampf (p. 155), ”in its intention, struggle and success.”--Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, as quoted by William Shirrer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p 87.Nazis were attacking 'Social Security' even in the 'Third Reich' and, given a chance, the GOP will attack and finish it off in a 'Fourth Reich' of their creation. As far as 'Social Security' is concerned it is --arguably --the government's ONLY success story, contrary to the following 'specimen' of the kind of fallacious and idiotic thinking that is destroying our nation before our eyes:
Regardless of what you personally think, Social Security is completely illegal and unCONstitutional, if you believe that the CONstitution is legally binding on anybody. I, on the other hand, take Spooner's attitude that it is NOT, and that therefore, the criminal syndicate referred to by dolts as the "federal government" has no legal authority at all. --An idiotIf Social Security were illegal (it is not) it ought NOT to be! Without it, any one of a number of GOP recession/depressions would have decimated millions of productive Americans whose 'work' made the nation strong. For the same reason, the ruling elites of the right wing will cut off their own noses but --sadly --not until they have relegated the rest of us to misery in the land of the worthless dollar! Alas! Comments like the excerpted one above tend to confirm many in the growing belief that we will have deserved our fate.
It is often said that there are no differences between the parties --a simplistic excuse for not getting involved at the local level during the primaries. If there are few differences between the major parties, then millions have been disenfranchised, left with no one to vote for. Any large block reduced to voting 'against' a major candidate has already lost, before the elections, the opportunity to vote 'FOR' a candidate.
The oft repeated excuse is: '...but there are no differences between the candidates'! There never will be if most of the population 'sits out' the primary process. There are, in fact, real differences between Democratic and Republicans not the least of which is the fact that every Democratic President at least since World War II has significantly better GDP and job creation records than any Republican president. There are other less significant differences but real nonetheless. But few people know this and, Democrats seem too timid to mention it during campaigns. Democrats should be beating the fricking GOP over its collective head with the truth!
In summary, the GOP dictates the agenda because it is owned by the ruling elite and, as a result, GOP policies are designed to enrich this elite. As long as the money drives campaigns, the differences between the parties will continue to blur and/or diminish. At present, Democrats get monies from the same people who finance the GOP. The Democratic party is reduced to a 'hedged bet'. The elites have the money, finance the elections. Democrats cannot afford to be truly independent. It's all a self-fulfilling prophecy, an echo chamber in which real people are simply drowned out. If you don't think so, just try getting 'equal time' to counter the bullshit that is spewed by Fox, Limbaugh, Beck, Billo and the boys!
Real reforms that could change things would be opposed by the big corporations. Naturally --when corporations via K-Street dictate policy, nothing will change. The power is entrenched. A real revolution would mandate mass bustups of the entrenched powers --corporations, the corporate kingmakers who 'select' the candidates they like with a check!
By the time, the 'general election' rolls around, the slate is reduced to Frick or Frack, Dumb or Dumber! There are no viable third choices! Nevertheless --not voting concedes the nation to the GOP. That is not an option. The better option --the third option --does not exist: a viable, grassroots, active 'progressive party' (if that is the preferred label these days)!
As I have written time and again --if 'progressives' want a real revolution they must first wage one inside the existing Democratic party. Progressives must take back the Democratic party --the party of Roosevelt and real progressives.
Even Hitler did not start from scratch; he and his goons got involved and took over an existing party, rebuilt it in their image, organized at the local level and eventually became a force to be reckoned with. Read Shirer's 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich'. Read any history of any revolution. Revolutions are not waged nor won by sitting on one's ass watching CNN and bitching about things. Do you think Hitler invented the Nazi party? No --he did not! But neither was he sitting at home --swilling a lager --while listening to 'primary' returns on the radio!
Many people claim to have options, choices, privileges, luxuries that they don't have, perhaps never had! But sitting out the primaries is not one of them if you wish to make a difference. Hitler did not invent the NAZI party; he took it over. With it, he built up a base of support that Hindenburg had to deal with and eventually make concessions to.
Anyone not willing to get involved in local conventions might as well stay home, swill a beer and watch the returns! But don't bother! Because millions think as you do, the end result has all been worked out on K-Street! One of only two viable candidates will win having been financed by the very same big money that bankrolls both major candidates. Interestingly, less money is given to the Dems! The Democrats have been reduced to supporting an illusion of Democracy.
Arrowsmith [Aerosmith] Eat the Rich!







Friday, February 04, 2011
The Winter of Our Political Discontent or How and Why You Only have TWO Choices, Two Parties

Why is the GOP where it is? Simply --GOP fascists turned out!! Why are the Democrats where they are? Don't ask a Democrat! You are likely to get a denial that he/she is a Democrat --rather, a 'progressive'! Don't bother asking what a 'progressive' is. But if you want to know the truth, here goes: a 'progressive' is a Democrat who does not want or dare to admit that he/she is a Democrat! This deplorable situation has resulted because a critical mass of 'Dems' committed what in politics is the unpardonable sin: they allowed the opposition [GOP] to define them! That's why Clinton found it necessary to 'triangulate' a center. Definition of a center in politics: something that is neither here nor there nor sharp but blurry in the middle!
Bottom line: 'progressive' does not mean a thing and will not result in a net gain of votes! The word owes is very existence to the fact that 'liberals' let the GOP get away with branding the word 'liberal'. Liberal is a perfectly good word! It means FREE! Again --LIBERAL means free! Anyone who runs away from 'freedom' deserves to lose an election and until progressives regain the courage of their convictions, they will continue to get 'ass whuppins' at the hands of ruthless and well-financed right wing nuts!
Things can change but only if Democrats regain their party by turning out. The PRIMARIES are more important than the general election. Sadly --the process itself is designed to REDUCE your choices to only two. I don't like it --but that's the way it is! Whining about it on FB will not change a thing. It's a SOP; someone threw us a BONE!
If you want to change America, so-called 'progressives' must --first --take back the Democratic party. But NO ONE is going to tolerate a long lecture on the kinds of reforms that are necessary AFTER the primaries are over!
[Condorcet] He divided the decision process into three stages. In the first stage, one “discusses the principles that will serve as the basis for decision in a general issue; one examines the various aspects of this issue and the consequences of different ways to make the decision.” At this stage, the opinions are personal, and no attempts are made to form a majority. After this follows a second discussion in which “the question is clarified, opinions approach and combine with each other to a small number of more general opinions.” In this way the decision is reduced to a choice between a manageable set of alternatives. The third stage consists of the actual choice between these alternatives. --Decision Theory: A Brief Introduction, Condorcet, [1793], pp. 342-343)Condorcet's distinction between the "first and second discussion" seems to me to be analagous to the U.S. primary process. In the first case, Democrats (for example) choose between other Democratic hopefuls. Invariably --enough to skew the validity of the primary as a barometer of public opinion --decisions will turn upon which candidate is perceived to have a better chance of winning in the general election.
Seen on FB: "ALL PARTIES SUCK" Well, that's an excuse to sit out the primaries! If you don't like the DEMS, then organize to take them back. That requires that you get involved. Taking back a party begins in the neighborhoods. It is done precinct by precinct. Sorry --there are no magic wands. There is NO INSTANT GRATIFICATION! That's the way it is. That's the system we inherited.
The French waged a real revolution shortly after 'we' separated from England. I can tell you this --no one was sitting at home pissing and moaning about "...oh golly gee...all the parties are the same...oh woe is me..." They MANNED THE BARRICADES.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Part Tinker Bell, Part Predator Drone: The Fantasy of the Presidency as Deus ex Machina

The devices employed in US election cycles and its national politics, in general, are akin to the dramatic conventions of children's theatre. Every two to four years, voters are instructed to clap their hands and believe in Tinker Bell. "Children, you have to believe -- you really, really have to believe in Tinker Bell." But behind the stagecraft is oligarchy. President Obama took millions from Goldman Sachs, et al. If there is a Captain Hook in this show, it is those Wall Street pirates who threw the global economy to the crocodiles for their ill-gotten gains.
Of course, this is a tired, old show, riddled with shopworn devices, performed by a rotating cast of hacks. Ronald Reagan set the fool's gold standard of a president playacting the role of populist, matinee hero -- Clinton, Bush, and Obama all learned from him -- as, all the while, he, in reality, went about the business of protecting and enhancing the holdings of the moneyed elite.
In Reagan's case, this con game was both an act of inspired career advancement and banal casuistry. Reagan, b-grade actor that he was, was never deep enough to harbor any belief he wasn't paid to evince. By professional necessity, he convinced himself he believed those bright and shining lies and polished platitudes he pitched to a public of credulous marks; for this is the mode of mind of effective salesmen and good showmen ... having the ability to conflate shallow self interest with the good of all.
Such self-deception -- played out as public legerdemain and state stagecraft -- is now the modus operandi of media age presidencies. The effect of this transformation, from executive gravitas to virtual playacting, has been somewhat less than salubrious for the health of the republic. When, for example, an American city drowns in floodwater and Americans are drowning in economic woes, US presidents know how to act like a president -- but not act as president. The soundbites make the man; not the man makes the soundbites.
Thus far, Obama's role has been to front the status quo. Whose interest do you think he had in mind when he picked Larry Summers and Tim Geithner as his top economic advisors? Hint: not those who clutch a subway strap nor sit stranded in freeway traffic, in bank-financed motor vehicles, on their daily commute to and from work.
Presidents, as is the case with all people, internalize the social and cultural architecture of their times. Reagan, the actor, had to find a way to believe what movie industry scriptwriters and film directors wanted from him insofar as the creation of character -- and, during the cold war and McCarthy era witchhunts, when G.E. and other defense industry giants started writing his checks (after his movie career died a lackluster death) he performed his role as resolute cold warrior as requested. And he, as has every president since, became a shill and enabler of the national security state.
Barack Obama's transformation from progressive hope-monger to status quo water-carrier should not come as a shock. It would be nearly impossible for the US populace, chief executives included, not to have internalized the tenets of the corporate capitalist/consumer empire. This corporate structure is as pervasive internally as it is extant. It exists as both outer architecture and inner psychological imprinting. Therefore, corporatism is as real to us as the deep forests and its woodland gods were to European pagans and The Church and its dogma was to the peasants of the Dark and Middle Ages.
The circumstances of the present era, like the ancient belief in the acts of self-involved gods whose doings were heedless to the fate of mere mortals, are larger than us and will not cede to our demands to behave with compassion or even sanity. To name but one example: The earth's oceans are suffering, many oceanographers say dying, due to the death cult calculus of runaway capitalism. In essence, we are confronted by a situation in which we experience abject powerlessness. An aura of unease and anomie prevails.
This unease contributes to a desperate fantasy of the presidency as deus ex machina. The right's deification of Reagan cast the fantasy into the realm of bughouse raving: The dead president as savor zombie. The belief that Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviet Union with 1940's era movie jibes and bromides is such a preposterous fantasy ... that it evokes one of my own: Ronald Reagan, endlessly imprisoned in a soundbite loop in Hell, throwing back his shoulders, doing that portrayal of manly resolve he wore out during his time in office ... then bandying into the indifference of eternity, this variation of his patented platitude, "Mr. Devil, tear down this wall of fire."
What is the emotional toil taken by the reality that in life, unlike theatre, there will be no sudden plot reversal brought about by a device of deus ex machina? In these desperate imaginings, we demand our president both lay on hands to heal the wounds inflicted by capitalism and smite our perceived enemies abroad. We insist he be not only a steely eyed warrior-king but our collective killer Christ.
Democratic presidents, and their handlers and advisers, become possessed of this errant archetype as well. Hence, according to the fantasy, to be viable as commander-in-chief, they are driven to prove their toughness, preferably, in some he-man display of resolute stupidity. They must prove they have a pair of killer/redeemer god balls -- which might be termed, Christesticles -- by bombing somebody -- anybody. At present, it appears this fraternity of hubris-blinded killer clowns has Iran in their cross hairs.
The act of imagining enemies serves as distraction from the angst arising from the vast economic inequities of life in the contemporary US. This is the good versus evil, dramatic conventions of the children's theatre of our politics: We boo the villains -- and are instructed to clap our hands to bring about an intervention by supernatural forces ... In this case, in the form of an action hero/magical being to do our killing: a deity -- who is part Tinker Bell, part predator drone.
But our situation is closer to that of the flawed protagonists in Waiting For Godot -- Samuel Becket's brilliant take on the self-deception at work within the alienated hearts of those who believe their suffering will be assuaged by the arrival of a god-like being. The last lines and final stage instructions of the play are emblematic of the Obama presidency:
VLADIMIR: Well? Shall we go?
ESTRAGON: Yes, let's go.
(Stage direction: They do not move.)
Obama and the Democrats do not move. They do not act. They do not govern. They do not serve their constituents.
Although, in reality, they do serve their true constituents ... the corporate elite -- the forces behind the rising level of authoritarian control over the lives of the people of the nation, both of ordinary citizens and the political class. In situations of veiled coercion, where unspoken threats to one's economic security and social standing are the primary motivating factors determining an individual's response to an exploitive system, there is no need to threaten potential dissenters with crude, old school totalitarian methods of repression such as forced deportment to labor and reeducation camps. In the class stratified, debt shackled US work force, where the personal consequences of financial upheaval are devastating, the implicit threat of being cast into the nation's urban gulag archipelago of homelessness coerces most into compliance with the dictates of the corporate oligarchs.
The effects are insidious. In such an environment, there is no call for the Sturm und Drang of mass spectacle, replete with blazing torches and blown banners hoisted by serried ranks of jut jawed, jack-booted ubermensch: corporatism establishes an authoritarian order by way of a series of overt bribes and tacit threats. This social and cultural criteria causes an individual to become cautious. A Triumph of the bland reigns. Obama's bland, non-threatening charm was cultivated in this hybrid, corporate soil.
As is the case with Obama, corporatism demands employees (and Obama is first among us underlings) render themselves fecklessly pleasant. This is the mandatory mode of being demanded of corporate hires -- self-annihilation by habitual amiability. And Barack Obama has perfected the form.
In his memoir, Dreams From My Father, Obama stated that he learned early: Never scare old, white people ... that is a good description of how he has dealt with BP and the banksters, and all the other old white men in their perches of privilege and power.
Obama, as was the case with Bill Clinton, will not challenge the corporate oligarchs. Both he and Clinton are gifted, intelligent men, but are products of their time. They are men of, what was once termed, "modest birth" who -- out necessity to rise past the circumstances of their origins -- studied, internalized, and made allegiance to the corporate structure. Why? Because, in the age of corporate oligarchy, they knew the only way to rise to power would be to serve its interests. In contrast, FDR came from the ruling class; he knew their ways ... wasn't tempted by the rewards and adulation that come with privilege. He was born into it, could never lose its advantages, and it held no novelty for him.
I'm not positing Clinton was simply a shallow narcissist, as was a fashionable invective aimed at his hulking frame and over-sized persona during his tenure as POTUS ... such palaver was so much shadow projection on the part of the vampiric careerists of the Washington-New York nexus of blood-sucking media undead. Rather, Clinton was a big talent. He was Byronic in his expansive nature. And like Byron he could claim, in all honesty, he could love a thousand women (and not only women, but varieties of constituents) in a thousand different ways, all at once. He was a romantic at heart in an age of crackpot realists. He was a large presence in a small-minded time. And this is how his trouble in the 1990s, and ours, in the present time, began.
When the Cold War ended, and the arrogant fantasies of neoliberal capitalism were ascendant, virtuoso of the zeitgeist that Clinton was, his prodigious wings caught those heady updrafts and he took the nation on an Icarian flight of Reaganesque economic deregulation, that would, later, contribute to the spiraling fall -- known, at present, as "the economic downturn."
Clinton could have used some saturnine apprehension regarding the dark side of capitalism, rather than the intoxication gained from the provisional, mutually serving alliances he made with his Wall Street bubble salesmen buddies, Rubin, Summers, and Geithner.
Clinton's periodic, erotic contretemps were not the problem; it was his and his advisor's flights of economic fancy that had real consequences for those of us who live at ground level among the debris and ash resultant from the inevitable fiery crash of their vanity and cupidity.
Enter Obama when the bubble burst. The stage is set for sweeping reform. Instead, we have received faux populist bromides, as all the while, behind the scenes, he has gone about the business of accommodation, capitulation, and general lickspittle boot-buffing of the corporate class.
If you listen closely, you might hear, all the way from the realm of the damned below, Ronald Reagan cackling in glee over it with his lower order demon companions from within their eternal prison of flames. Spread the word











Sunday, July 11, 2010
Let Them Eat the "Higher Pie"
by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy, Doug Drenkow, Communications Specialist
The U.S. right wing consistently mistakes bigger slices of a smaller pie for growth! In fact, wealth is the product of labor. Therefore, real growth creates larger pies, larger slices. Real growth is, by definition, egalitarian or not at all! America's ruling elite amounts to just one percent of the total population and they own more than the rest of us combined.
Economists call a 'shrinking pie' a 'contraction' but, since Ronald Reagan, the rich have enjoyed the growth of their 'slices' as the pie itself shank. With every GOP tax cut since 1900, the economy has contracted but the 'slices' owned by the elite increased. The rich decrease as a class but grow wealthier with bigger slices. If you can visualize this, you will have mastered right-wing, trickle UP economics.
The effect for everyone but the very, very rich is called 'depression' i.e, 'contraction'. This process can be modeled mathematically. Anyone not a member of the top one percent voting GOP votes against his/her own interests. Anyone voting GOP expecting to join them one day is insane. There is no 'higher pie' --only a shrinking one.
When I am charitable, I suspect that their perspective is myopic in the extreme. More realistically, I suspect that they just don't care! Or worse --the transfer of wealth upward to just one percent of the total population was deliberate and achieved with a carefully crafted program of GOP tax cuts beginning with Ronald Reagan's tax cut of 1982. Only the very richest people in America benefited. Everyone else got poorer in terms of dollars earned but also as a result of declining purchasing power as prices are bid upward by the wealthy.
Since 1900 the U.S. has 'experimented' with 'robber baron economics', 'supply-side economics', 'trickle down theory' and assorted 'stimuli' that also put the fat cats and so-called 'investor' class at the top of the pecking order with often tragic results --the Panic of the late 1800s, Hoover's Great Depression, Ike's 'Recession', Reagan's 'Tent City' Depression of over 2 years! Anyone not seeing the pattern is just not paying attention.
My thoughts along these lines are inspired by the following article by my good friend, Communications expert, Doug Drenkow.
The U.S. right wing consistently mistakes bigger slices of a smaller pie for growth! In fact, wealth is the product of labor. Therefore, real growth creates larger pies, larger slices. Real growth is, by definition, egalitarian or not at all! America's ruling elite amounts to just one percent of the total population and they own more than the rest of us combined.
Economists call a 'shrinking pie' a 'contraction' but, since Ronald Reagan, the rich have enjoyed the growth of their 'slices' as the pie itself shank. With every GOP tax cut since 1900, the economy has contracted but the 'slices' owned by the elite increased. The rich decrease as a class but grow wealthier with bigger slices. If you can visualize this, you will have mastered right-wing, trickle UP economics.
The effect for everyone but the very, very rich is called 'depression' i.e, 'contraction'. This process can be modeled mathematically. Anyone not a member of the top one percent voting GOP votes against his/her own interests. Anyone voting GOP expecting to join them one day is insane. There is no 'higher pie' --only a shrinking one.
When I am charitable, I suspect that their perspective is myopic in the extreme. More realistically, I suspect that they just don't care! Or worse --the transfer of wealth upward to just one percent of the total population was deliberate and achieved with a carefully crafted program of GOP tax cuts beginning with Ronald Reagan's tax cut of 1982. Only the very richest people in America benefited. Everyone else got poorer in terms of dollars earned but also as a result of declining purchasing power as prices are bid upward by the wealthy.
Since 1900 the U.S. has 'experimented' with 'robber baron economics', 'supply-side economics', 'trickle down theory' and assorted 'stimuli' that also put the fat cats and so-called 'investor' class at the top of the pecking order with often tragic results --the Panic of the late 1800s, Hoover's Great Depression, Ike's 'Recession', Reagan's 'Tent City' Depression of over 2 years! Anyone not seeing the pattern is just not paying attention.
My thoughts along these lines are inspired by the following article by my good friend, Communications expert, Doug Drenkow.
Presently, there is a great debate in the United States and beyond: In this, the greatest recession since the Great Depression, should the government spend more money on putting more people to work -- or saving more jobs, as by the federal government helping our increasingly desperate state governments -- or helping unemployed workers pay their bills till the job market turns around? Or should the government of this and many other nations focus more on paying down our historic debts, by cutting spending and/or increasing taxes, to stabilize our economies and thus, presumably, turn them around?Clearly, the U.S. remains powerless to address these issues as long as the government is literally owned by the dwindling few who benefit. It is simplistic and naive to expect a government beholden to the super-rich to work -in good faith --for those who are denied both a voice and a meaningful role in this 'government of the people." It is simplistic and naive to expect a robber baron class to simply bow to the will of what it must surely believe is but a great mob of unwashed masses to whom is left an absurd choice by elites and/or idiots: 'higher pies' or 'let them eat cake! It is folly to assist the theft of U.S. wealth by this robber baron class. It is America's death knell that so few care and that so many multitudes will suffer!Do we so soon forget where most of that debt came from, where most of our money went? In the United States, much has been spent bailing out institutions "too large to fail" as well as propping up the rest of our economy, although apparently not enough -- thanks in large part to fiscal "conservatives," in both parties, who slashed last year's stimulus bill in half.
But even more than that, our treasury has amassed massive debts due to tax cuts that went mostly to the wealthy, under the administration of the previous president, and that were unfunded, as were the wars that were then started, with or without just cause, and that rage on, although now with ends apparently in sight.In short, as many "deficit hawks" propose, should the Social Security, education, public safety, and other programs benefiting the working people and middle class of America be dramatically cut? Should the wealth of the country -- the product of the work of the workers of the country -- be in (unstated) effect permanently shifted from the bottom to the top, exacerbating the already historic inequality of wealth?Although such authorities as Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman do a better job of explaining the whys and wherefores, the bottom line is this: If the working families in America and beyond do not prosper, how can the nations we build and maintain and defend and support do anything but wither?Never forget, America is ultimately no greater than the sum total of the hopes, dreams, aspirations, and everyday lives of all our "everyday" people.From the Declaration of Independence ..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."... and the Constitution ..."We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."... to the Four Freedoms, espoused by President Franklin D. Roosevelt ..."In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.... and the challenge issued by President Barack Obama ...
"The first is freedom of speech and expression -- everywhere in the world.
"The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way -- everywhere in the world.
"The third is freedom from want ... everywhere in the world."The fourth is freedom from fear ... anywhere in the world."That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation.""I'm asking you to believe. Not just in my ability to bring about real change in Washington ... I'm asking you to believe in yours."So as we celebrate America today, let us protect, nurture, and cherish all the extraordinary "ordinary" people who are Americans. And let that be the guiding principle in our negotiations over budget, unemployment, and all the other public business of America. If U.S. working families work and prosper, then so will America. If not, then God have mercy on us all.Douglas Drenkow
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)