Ah. The good old days are returning. If you can remember The Great Depression, get ready for déjà vu.

Eighty-odd, very odd, imbeciles have done more damage to this country than we can presently foresee.

You thought that you lived in a democracy. If you count Pakistan, Mexico and Iraq as models of democracy, then you’re right.

Didn’t we once have a democracy we were proud of? Now we know that an out of control minority can get their druthers by blackmail and obstruction of the democratic process.

Everyone paying attention knows that our foremost problem is the insufficiency of money flowing through the economy. So, Washington’s answer is to take another two and a half trillion dollars out of the economy.

The basic problem of too little money in the economy means the hole of unemployment gets even deeper. The only way to increase the amount of money in the economy in the long term is to create jobs. That’s important to the jobless but it is important to the country. Cut government jobs. Cut jobs of government vendors. Cut jobs where all of the newly jobless used to spend their money.

The estimates I’ve heard are for a million or so jobs lost. I think those people are wearing rose-colored glasses or have graduate degrees in wishful thinking.

The word seems to be that, even though the debt ceiling will be raised, interest rates will rise. I’m not quite certain it will but that is a possibility.

With unemployment definitely going to increase and the prospect of increased interest rates, the most obvious reaction will be a lot of red arrows in the bottom corner of your flat screen.

Stocks will fall. I’m admittedly not a fan of gambling in casinos where the house ensures you lose and counters your bets with their own. Even if you are far more reckless than I, you must realize that now is the time to cut your losses.

It would be easy to say that the direction of the stock market is irrelevant. That’s not true. It should be but it’s not. People have been trained to look at the Dow Jones. Emotion is the dominant factor in the market. That means the market reacts based on perceptions.

It also means that reactions of businessmen and the general public are dependent upon their perceptions of what the market is doing. These two aspects feed on each other. The market will go down. Businessmen and the public will be pessimistic. They will help push the economy lower.

A failure to raise the debt ceiling would have had a more immediate and obvious detrimental effect on the economy but not necessarily worse. Comparisons are not needed here because the policies being followed by Obama and most members of Congress are headed in the same direction. It seems now that a double-dip is unavoidable.

Who’s to blame? All of us. No, we’re not all as stupid as a Washington politician but we are culpable. We are not equally guilty but, in a democracy, we, the society, get the government we deserve. Perhaps we shouldn’t have tried to get education on the cheap. We have produced too many people unable to think for themselves, unable to discern nonsense, unwilling to put any effort into parsing the spiels of con men.

Well, at least we have The Housewives of Beverly Hills and the largest butts in the world. What more could you want?

Our national trait of assuming we are the greatest in all things is insufficient to maintain the illusion much longer.

Greece, Rome, France, England. They enjoyed centuries leading their worlds. The US will not get to spend a commensurate period basking in the sun.

Unless we are willing to discard those fun house mirrors and face reality, the middle class will atrophy to a point that it can no longer be the propulsive force of the economy. We will have to get used to eating the dust of those nations that respect education, intellect and other attributes that are alien to our politicians and our electorate.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Why the Tea Party? Why the absence of civility, what my mother called good manners?

It is the inevitable result of our devotion to various boneheaded ideologies. It makes no difference what the ideology is.

It’s time we recovered from this childhood disease of devotion to ideologies.

The incompetence of our politicians for the past few decades is to blame. They are in the game of politics but never learned the basics.

Parties play many roles. Parties can either be ideological or umbrellas. Umbrellas? An umbrella party is one that is deliberately non-ideological. It has no litmus test. If you want to join the party, come on, as long as you behave yourself.

So, why even have such a party? To help you get elected. That’s what politics is all about. If you don’t get elected, your chances of seeing any of your agenda enacted is severely curtailed.

No one ever accused George Wallace and Ted Kennedy of being ideological bed mates. But, they were both Democrats. I’m certain they didn’t relish the opportunity but when it came to endorsing each other they bit the bullet, smiled and said nice things about one another.

It wasn’t just a Democratic peculiarity. The Republicans likewise indulged. The distance between Arizona’s Senator Goldwater and New York’s Senator Javits was not merely geographical.

Given the rabid ideological posturing that has of late commanded the fields of battle, it is understandable if the behavior of those dinosaurs is perplexing. Why would they yoke themselves to people with whom they shared few, if any, positions on the issues of the day?

If you want to be a politician in the Deep South next year, your odds of success are much better as a Republican. The mirror image of that can be found in other locations.

The concept was not difficult. If you want to get elected, you position yourself to best advantage, at least as long as the others in that party are people with whom you can associate socially. They don’t have to agree with any of your policies. They just have to be willing to help you get elected and accept your help in their time of need.

Such arrangements can flourish only in an ambiance of cordiality. That atmosphere has an element of contagion. The supporters of the candidates are less likely to misbehave in public.

Two Is Enough

With umbrella parties two is all that’s necessary. Everyone, excepting the loonies, can find a home. The result is stability. Yes, I know that stability often translates as no change. I prefer to see it as allowing for deliberation and providing time for adjusting to changes. Although, the Great Depression proved alacrity was not forbidden when the times and events demanded.

Let me reminisce. I think it was in the 1980s when I took a look at Italy’s postwar political situation. The numbers may be slightly off, but only slightly. After about 39 years, the Italians had endured 37 administrations. There is a reason. Ideology. It produced a couple of dozen parties.

People seem never to be satisfied with just disagreeing. Catholics and Protestants disagree. Baptists and Presbyterians take issue with each other. Foot-washing Baptists don’t see eye to eye with Snake-handling Baptists. To some extent, the closer you are, ideologically, the more apt you are to produce another schism. Once you start splitting along ideological lines it’s just as difficult to stop as eating potato chips.

Hence, 37 administrations in about as many years. Political instability can lead to paralysis in the operation of a government. Do you commit to a significant project based on the orders of someone who will not last as long as the planning stage?

It was so bad that every few months the Italian post office would take all of the undelivered mail, bulldoze it into large piles and set it ablaze. Remember that the next time you complain about government efficiency.

We can see the beginning of that counting to 37. We have a Tea Party. Well, really, we have several tea parties. Seemingly, no one is ideologically pure enough to satisfy the rabid. They really don’t understand politics. They really don’t give a fig for democracy. They just want their way. They want to take their country back. Back from whom? From people who actually respect the concepts to which this nation has for so long been devoted?

Perhaps they should be speaking of giving the country back to the original inhabitants.

Are You Up For Some History?

We know that Michele Bachmann and St. Sarah are estranged from history and facts. That may be a requirement to belong to one of the tea parties. My first degree being in History, I have a fidelity to facts. Therefore, I will never be qualified to wear those silly outfits.

The original tea partiers dress as Indians. I probably would have tried to conceal my identity had I been involved. I guess that means I would have behaved cowardly too. If they weren’t Indians, who were they? Were they performing an act of patriotism for their fellow man’s liberty and posterity? Well, the answer has to be no.

Ninety thousand pounds of tea was dumped. Was it because of the tax? No. Really? Really. There were two reasons, neither was taxes.

The colonists were buying more tea from smugglers than from the East India Company. They wanted to change that. Parliament wanted to help. They passed the 1773 Tea Act. This was meant to accomplish the two things the Company wanted. First, it would give more emphasis to the Company’s monopoly. Sellers needed a license to legally sell tea.

The Company shipped tea from China and India to England, then to the colonies. A tax was collected for landing in a British port. The Tea Act eliminated that tax. Why? So that the Company could sell their tea for a lower price than the smugglers and the unlicensed sellers.

Now, can you guess who the ‘Indians” were? Just a hint: they were smugglers and unlicensed sellers.

Not all of their fellow colonists thought very highly of them. It was more than six decades before they first called it the Boston Tea Party. It was known as “the destruction of the tea.” That doesn’t have quite the same ring to it. For the most part, those who were around at the time didn’t consider the destruction of property laudable.

Many condemned their little party; Ben Franklin forcefully so. He insisted that the cost of the tea must be paid.

This was an act that was unnecessary and not indicative of the general mood of the colonies. New York, Philadelphia and other ports simply boycotted the tea. That tea was returned to England.

My Way – Or Else

So, what do we have? We have people who know no history. We have people who don’t understand politics. We have people who don’t like democracy. Despite their uninformed claims, they have no allegiance to the Constitution. They are missing any fraternal feeling for their fellow Americans. They are not patriots. They are spoiled brats.

Obviously, that is not a description of everyone who feels some sympathy for their averred aims. Americans, perhaps 98% of us, have good reason to be upset with our lack of influence on events. The Tea Party is not an acceptable response.

We don’t need these fake populist groups, funded by the plutocracy and corporations. We don’t need this distraction from the real, basic issues. We don’t need simplistic policies based on lies and ignorance.

I don’t appreciate being used and otherwise ignored by those running the country. However, the only alternative is not to be threatened with a gun by an ignorant bully who despises the things I cherish. Some make a lot of noise under the guise of patriotism and other laudable banners. Others put an unwarranted trust in those claims.

I would rather see them spend more time learning the facts, including historical ones, than making fools of themselves.

Look that up in your Funk and Wagnell’s.

.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

There has been a joke circulating through Egypt.

His advisers tell Mubarak that he needs to draft a farewell and goodbye speech to the people. Naturally, he asks where the people are going.

Here I am prepared to offer the world my assessment of the situation and prospects in Egypt and I get blindsided by the breaking news that Mubarak is expected to step down this evening. No he didn’t. Yes he did.

I’ve had to wait a couple of days to let the dust settle. I thought it better if it was not dated before it was posted and that it made some sense.

We are living in a time of important change. First, Tunisia, an unlikely trendsetter, led off the parade. The desire for a better life, the desire for dignity bubbled over. Sure, the concept of democracy was a driving force. Just don’t expect it to look exactly like our version or result in outcomes totally consonant with our visions.

Tunisians are not yet singing happy songs as they dance down the Yellow Brick Road. The army has called out the reserves. The interim government is far from stable. The army seems honest in their efforts to maintain an adequate stability to allow for the scheduled elections.

Ben Ali, Tunisia’s Mubarak, held power for 24 years. There will be, there must be a degree of flux when transitioning from decades of dictatorship to something closer to an expression of the people’s needs.

There is the possibility that what the demonstrators wrought will be thwarted by powerful players. There is no guarantee. That lack of a guarantee in Tunisia is an object lesson for Egyptians.

In Egypt the army has reluctantly taken control. Technically, since Mubarak was the head of the army and command now doesn’t include him it is a coup. It certainly wasn’t your typical coup.

The army intends to include the supreme court. Okay, but neither group has experience running the government day to day. The biggest question is what becomes of the Ministry of the Interior. That may be as many as a million and a half thugs, closely tied to Mubarak and his closest thugs.

When you read that 40% of Egyptians subsist on $2 a day or less, you might be inclined to describe Egypt as a poor country. Wrong. Egypt is a wealthy country containing very large numbers of poor people. The family wealth of the Mubaraks is being estimated at $5 to $85 billion. Hosni doesn’t like to share.

Maybe you’ve heard about the Muslim Brotherhood. Maybe you’ve heard of Wikileaks. Some of those leaked documents show that out analysts in Egypt consider them to be a factor that we can afford to essentially ignore. If you hear anyone speaking of the danger they represent, you may rest assured that either they are trying to scare you for their own reasons or have been gulled into believing it by one of the former.

I expect matters to resolve themselves in a relatively stable process. Given that the army is in charge and its close ties to the US military, the results should be something we will find acceptable. That doesn’t mean we get our way completely. But, that country belongs to Egyptians and should reflect their aims.

Egypt represents one-fourth of all Arabs. Much of the area must adapt itself to whatever results. That adjustment may include regime change or, at least instability, in other countries in that area. Let’s take a peek.

Given that the eventual results in Tunisia and Egypt may not be totally to our liking, however positive they look now, there is room for very different results in any countries that make be infected by this democracy/freedom bug.

Everyone expects Yemen to be next on the list. Their dictator has moved to defuse the situation somewhat by announcing he will step down in due time. After all, he’s only held office since 1978.  That may or may not satisfy the people.

We tend to think of Iraq and Afghanistan as theaters of war for us. Yemen occupies a substantial portion of our special forces. While Afghanistan may harbor as many as a hundred al-Qaeda, Yemen hosts thousands. While they live in Saudi Arabia, Yemen is the home of the bin Laden family.

The events in Tunisia and Egypt have seen an alternative to al-Qaeda’s favored scenario. Any instability, actually increased instability, is somewhat less than likely to appear as a clone of its predecessors.

Who else may be standing in line? Jordan? The king there claims to be a descendant of Mohammad. However, he rules a country composed of 85% Palestinians. They are not exactly content with their present situation. Full disclosure requires me to remind you that my late 2^nd wife was Palestinian. The US will do everything it can to keep that country from leaving our orbit.

The king did get rid of his entire cabinet. I guess that’s supposed to cure all ills.

Americans see a picture of Saudi Arabia that is much prettier than reality. Periodic outbreaks of unrest in that country result in such actions as putting a town in “medical” quarantine. While there is more unrest than we see, the wealth has been spread around far more than in Egypt.

While we think of Saudi Arabia as being an ally, we would do well to remember that 15 0f the 19 hijackers on 9-11 were from Saudi Arabia. That government is also the primary funder of the Wahhabi sect. It is considered the most regressive, dangerous version of Islam. It operates an untold number of schools, both in Saudi Arabia and across the Arab world.

A regime change there seems less likely than but, then again, so did it seem in Tunisia and Egypt.

Syria is the acknowledged master of internal security. I doubt any intelligence analyst expects Bashar al-Assad to succumb. He learned well at his daddy’s knee. The late Hafez al-Assad seemed not to have any weaknesses in the area of maintaining order.

Syria effectively controls Lebanon. No significant changes are expected there. They also have major influence among Palestinians. Unless Israel returns the Golan Heights to Syria, there is no possibility of rapprochement. That is unlikely, as it has some military value. My opinion is that the military value in any likely war is overrated. Tank commanders would prefer the advantages it offers but they are only one military element.

The Maghreb

This is the term commonly referring to Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Mauritania, and the disputed territory of Western Sahara. Tunisia, of course, led this parade. The others in this group are feeling the pressure. Algeria has already cut off the Internet. They may not all fall but all will feel the effects of what has already happened in their midst and in Egypt.

Iraq will cheer on the Egyptians and any that follow. They are rid of Sadam. Events may have some effect on how their leadership regards the potential of the people and somewhat modify their plans.

The Iranian people may be taking some hope from what is happening. Its leadership is not. Both are undoubtedly trying to find what lessons are to be learned from Egypt’s experience. While the Iranian government is heaping praise on the demonstrators in Egypt, they have announced that a planned demonstration in Tehran will not be permitted.

The emirates’ leaders are worried but their situation is less than critical. Being small and wealthy, they have generally shared some of the wealth. Enough? Maybe. Each has large numbers of foreign workers who do not share in much of that wealth and not all are treated well. They could bring a bit of instability but it is unlikely to be sufficient. There may be an increase in the turnover of these workers. Abu Dhabi appears to be the most vulnerable of this little coterie – less wealth and more foreign workers.

That covers the most immediate players but further afield are Uzbekistan and others of that stripe that will have need to be concerned. Even China is sufficiently concerned to restrict news of what has been happening in Egypt. What does get through is credited to ruffians, troublemakers and anyone else they consider to be unsavory.

There will be instability. There will be changes. There will be regimes that survive. The interests of the US may not always benefit. Then again, that’s not what all of this is about. For our government to not get out in front would be a mistake. We need to use a great deal of precision with some regimes. Their leaders have been sucking on our teats for a long time. All will be wary. Some will need to be let down softly, not in consideration of their feelings, they have none, but to limit unwanted, unexpected ramifications.

It is a high wire act, fraught with known and unknown perils. I don’t expect our government to handle this perfectly. After all, our intelligence, once again, was caught off guard.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

First, let me reiterate my detestation for all ideologies and labels. To the extent that I use them in this post, it seems necessary and is for the convenience of the reader.

The imminent retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens highlights the problems caused by both. Stevens is commonly referred to as the most liberal Justice on the Supreme Court. He hates being so described.

Stevens was, and remains, a lifelong Republican. He was nominated by a Republican president, Gerald Ford in 1975. But, he and his retirement are just the impetus. This post is about far more.

Why is a Republican called the most liberal member of the Court? Well, it seems that terms such as liberal, conservative, left, right, capitalism, socialism, even populism are thrown around willy-nilly by people who think they know what these words mean.

The right of privacy is not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or its Amendments. However, through the years the Supreme Courts have firmly stated and reconfirmed that it is such a basic right that many other protections that are included would be meaningless without it. They have ruled that it is an implicit right.

Justice Stevens followed that tenet in his opinion in re the Patriot Act. The ‘conservative’ members of the Court just ignored their own claims of conserving the Constitution.

In the recent decision to give corporations free speech, Justice Stevens did something almost unheard of. He not only dissented; he actually read his dissent aloud in the courtroom. He felt that the Declaration and Constitution were clear in their intent when stating “We the People” and “government of, by and for the people.”

As Justice Stevens himself noted, with the single exception of Ruth Ginsburg, every departing member of the Court, since Stevens himself came aboard, was replaced by someone to his or her right.

I have written before of the Founding Fathers’ fear that corporations would destroy their work. Here again, the ‘conservatives’ ignored the Constitution. It makes you wonder if you understand the meaning of the title they claim of being “Strict Constructionists.”

If ‘Constitutional scholars’ have wandered so far away from the Constitution, we common folk may be excused for being less than precise in our usage.

I find it odd that people are so drawn to the label of conservative, given the politicians who claim it today. The original conservatives were the supporters of the king’s prerogatives. The Founders were on the opposite end of the political spectrum.

The king claimed the right of his troops to be boarded in your home. Our Constitution proscribes that practice.

The king preferred that people not criticize him openly. The Constitution says we can criticize George III or George W.

The Founding Fathers not only were progressive, they stated that times would change. They devised a document that allowed for our social and political progress. They were certain that we would improve upon their situation, their conditions and their document. They themselves were no strict constructionists. Oddly, to be a strict constructionist one would have to be against strict construction. One would have to be a progressive. Oooh. There. I said it.

Back in the 1980s a nationwide survey of historians was taken as to the greatest Senator of all time. The winner was Robert “Fighting Bob” Lafollette. He received this signal honor about 60 years after his death in 1925. Lafollette became a Senator in 1906 and died in office. Prior to that he was the Governor of Wisconsin. Prior to that he was a member of the House of Representatives.

Lafollette was a Republican. So, why was he held in such high esteem? Most people credit another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, with first promoting universal health care in the 1912 platform of the Bull Moose Party. Lafollette did it earlier. He also suggested unemployment insurance, social security and a host of other measures, some which appeared in FDR’s administration, some which have yet to appear.

How could a Republican other than Teddy Roosevelt be so liberal? Well, he wasn’t. He felt that conservative values meant that the benefits of our system should be broadly enjoyed. He felt an (perhaps Christian) obligation toward the well-being of his fellow Amercians.

He felt that America, its democracy, its protections, its potential, should not be denied to his fellow citizens. He thought America was too good, too great to be seen as selfish and stingy. He felt that as more people benefited from America’s system, the easier it was to conserve that system.

Lafollette wanted to conserve the benefits and promise of America. For that, he was fondly remembered and honored by those of the fraternity that keeps the record of our achievements and our failures.

At some point, conservatism became almost solely about conserving the treasure and prerogatives of the wealthiest among us. An article of faith was that government should be small. Why? Because a small government cost less but, more importantly, a small government had insufficient power and resources to interfere with their ‘Robber Baron’ activities and their credit default swaps.

Later, it subsumed the idea that to preserve all of that it was necessary to be isolationist. It also so feared the Bolshevik Revolution that it branded any deviation from laissez-faire capitalism as communist, socialist, anti-American, liberal, union, et al. It wasn’t necessary to understand any of those things. It was only necessary to have a knee-jerk reaction to any word the plutocrats told us was bad.

As this restrictive perversion of conservative began to wane, after the embarrassment of Joe McCarthy, the true believers realized they needed an infusion of bodies and money. They had finally realized that the military-industrial complex could be a goldmine. It could also co-opt the label of patriotism

Have you ever wondered why a Republican President, a 5-star general warned us against that group? Could it be that he still considered himself a real conservative? Did you ever wonder why the John Birch Society and its descendents called Ike a communist dupe; why they questioned his patriotism while advertising their own?

Where to get the people? Lyndon Johnson gave them a present. He was able to get civil rights acts passed. There go the racists.

Then there was Roe v. Wade. Then there was prayer in the schools. That caused the social conservatives to go looking for champions. They now had the numbers to go with their financial resources.

But who was running the show? Was it the social conservatives? No. They just provided the volume. The tune was still called by the ones that paid the piper. The plutocrats and their prosti . . . er, politicians worked in close harmony.

The new conservatives commandeered the Republican Party. They told the social conservatives they would overturn Roe v. Wade. They would put God back in the classroom. They would . . . Well, did they? Not just yet. After all it’s only been about 50 years.

With the Republican ‘conservatives’ enjoying electoral success, why were these promises not kept? If these new conservatives had actually accomplished these things, they would no longer have the means of motivating the troops. If the voters who had been convinced that their leaders were really conservatives felt that everything was right with the world, they wouldn’t need to come down to the polling booth. Those politicians would lose their faithful. They would lose their jobs. Better to keep them angry and going to the polls than actually come across on the promises.

Along came a spider. A part of those controlling the ‘conservative movement’ thought, “Why not control the world?” These were largely macho draft dodgers and other wannabes who thought war was as portrayed in John Wayne movies. We call them neoconservatives.

They believe that everything they dislike domestically can be overrun through bluff, bluster and making up the rules as they go along. They believe that everything they dislike internationally can be gotten rid of by a crude use of America’s supposedly unlimited military might. Unsurprisingly, they think of themselves as realists, as smarter than average.

There is nothing wrong with the concept of conservatism, beyond how it is being used and who is using it. In the form exercised by many in the past it has much to commend it. But, it has been commandeered by the political dregs of the country as a method of fooling large numbers in order to obtain and maintain control.

I can easily identify with many conservative precepts. Similarly, I can do the same with liberal and progressive. I cannot identify with capitalism, communism, socialism and such. They are tools to be used by people who understand them and their limitations. I feel most comfortable calling myself a populist but not in the sense that far too many use it. I see a bifurcation of those whose highest priority is people (Populists) and those whose highest priority is corporations (Fascists).

Take your pick. There are those two. There is room for conservative, liberal and progressive inside populism. There is only room for plutocrats, politicians and dupes among the fascists.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

If you stay to the end of this post, you will see an offer you can’t refuse – no strings attached.

My last post was about a health issue, not healthcare reform. Writing so frequently on healthcare reform and the economy has built up a tremendous reserve of frustration.

I wanted to take a psychic break by expounding on other subjects but it seems not to be possible to get away from these matters. Storming once more into the breech they come again to the subject of reform.

Just now I feel more inclined to address the method than the substance. Could it be that there is so little substance to speak to?

I can’t help but wonder if anyone in Washington actually knows the definition of the word reconciliation. The dictionary says it is the reestablishing of cordial relations. All I see is animosity and hostility. How could a spirit of reconciliation engender such enmity and division? So, with the understanding that the term itself is inappropriate, let’s get on to the real problem.

That problem is the disdain so many Senators have for democracy. They seem to think that their prerogatives are more important than representing the needs and opinions of the people.

While the people have been confused, frustrated and angered at the shenanigans taking place in Congress, the majority still support the need for reform and, specifically, the public option. Many of those opposed do so out of a misunderstanding or lack of understanding of the problems and possible solutions.

Throwing around such accusations as this being an attempt to take over healthcare or mischaracterizing it as socialism come from ignorance or deliberate lies. The government has Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, medical care for the active military and veterans, coverage for civilian employees and other programs which it operates or for which it pays. It also subsidizes, through tax breaks, most private policies. The government already pays for 45% of healthcare costs, not including the subsidies.

The private insurance industry is permitted to skim off the cream. It is allowed to reject anyone they wish. They reserve the right to not pay the costs for whatever they wish to avoid. They skim the money to provide their executives multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses, private jets, lavish parties and such. Can you guess who bears the brunt of their exercise of these privileges?

At this time, several companies are attempting to increase premiums in a range from 22% to 59%. This while they are reducing the actual total amount they are paying out for your health care. Last year our health costs amounted to 17.3% of our entire economy. My untutored guess is that the above-cited increases might make the economic burden even greater. You get another guess as to who will get screwed.

Takeover? No. This is an attempt to provide almost everyone with health care and save our economy. As a nation, we cannot afford to rank 37^th in the world in health care. Nor can we afford an ever greater percentage of our total resources being designated as profits for the industry that has put at such a lowly ranking.

We shouldn’t forget the millions they spend on bribes. Is it possible this is a consideration when these “public servants” refuse to permit democracy to exist in the chambers of the Senate?

This talk of reconciliation may actually result in a vote. Even more important than the outcome of that vote is the fact that it will provide us undeniable evidence of who hates democracy and has no concern for their constituents. Every one of those opposing reconciliation needs to be thrown out of office. If your Senator opposes it, you have an obligation to yourself, your family, your country and the Constitution to oppose them. Yes, it is that simple.

My apologies for the preachy tone but it comes from frustration with our elected officials.

Now for the free offer. As mentioned earlier, my last post was on a health issue. It was one that is mired in misinformation. My book, Why Are You Mad?, is on the subject of mental illness. While this subject is not of interest to everyone, it does contain some nutrition information that is of universal concern. It speaks to another area drowning in misinformation: fats, saturated, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, the whole panoply.

So, to anyone interested, I am offering a free copy of my book. Just send me an email and I will attach a copy of the book to the return. It will be in the form of a PDF file. If anyone prefers an actual dead tree version, I will send you one for $10 – $8 off of the retail price.

Why am I doing this? I did not spend 14 years of research and almost 3 years writing it because I wanted it to make money. I wrote it to provide as many as possible with an understanding of the subject. For those not interested in the overall subject, I feel that the dietary information is likewise of importance, but to everyone.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

We need to send some senators to Guantanamo. They are far more dangerous to our country than any of the people already in residence there.

I’m certain you have at least heard the name of Christopher Bond, Senator from Missouri. You, however, may be forgiven for not recognizing Martha Johnson’s name.

Miss Martha was the President’s nominee to head up the General Services Administration. It’s difficult to think of a political appointment to a less political position. The GSA is primarily the nation’s landlord and maintenance arm. They do the grunt work so that government employees have a roof over their heads.

What connection is there between these two?

Little Chris (Kit) was pissed about something to do with a new Federal building in Kansas City. So, he did what any grammar school kid would do. He took “his” ball and refused to let the others play. He put a hold on her nomination.

Believe it or not, the Democrats finally showed some backbone and forced a vote. What was the outcome of this controversial nomination? She was confirmed: 96-0.

Senators are so impressed with themselves that they refer to the Senate as the world’s most exclusive club. Sometimes they call it the world’s most exclusive debating club. One problem – they no longer debate. They just pose for the cameras and talk past each other.

Given how impressed they are with themselves, they feel they deserve special privileges. So, they give themselves a bunch of special considerations. My problem with that, beyond the attitude that engenders it, is that essentially all of these privileges are anti-democratic. Somehow that doesn’t seem meet in, arguably, the world’s most successful democracy.

The privilege pertinent to the above embarrassment is the rule that permits any Senator to put a hold on any nominee or bill, for any reason, or for no reason. Any single Senator can put the whole country on hold, at his pleasure. It this any way to run an airline?

Now, another Senator has taken the next illogical step. He has put a hold on all nominations. Who is this terrorist? He goes by the American-sounding name of Richard Shelby. Unsurprisingly, he comes out of Alabama, our leading state – at least alphabetically.

Surely there is a serious national danger that calls for such a drastic measure. What could it be?

Old Dick wants a government contract to go to a defense contractor who would do assembly work on a new tanker back home in Alabama. I’m convinced that he merely wants government-funded jobs for his constituents. It has nothing to do with his being on the contractor’s payroll.

Actually, the Dick has another reason, as well. He wants the FBI to build an explosives testing facility in Alabama. We mustn’t locate such a facility too conveniently to the FBI’s primary offices in Virginia. That would only help one part of the government function more efficiently. That would violate one of his “conservative” tenants.

The Dick is famous for how tentative his tenants can be. He once pontificated, “Far too many of the president’s nominees were never afforded an up or down vote because several Democrats chose to block the process for political gain.” That, of course, was when Bush had a majority of Republicans in the Senate.

Another rule has become a “privilege.” That is the rule requiring a super majority. When the Democrats had 60 votes, that meant any Democratic Senator could stand in the way until he/she got what they wanted. That worked out so well we ended up with a joke called a healthcare reform bill. It was more like a ménages à cent.

Now, with the Republicans having 41 votes, one of that group can either stop the majority or broker a deal to get what they want. What about what the people want? Silly question.

How do they justify these privileges? They sometimes resort to calling them a part of the system of checks and balances. Pure BS.

The Constitution provides for several checks and balances. There are what are considered to be the main ones: between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. We also have another between the two branches of Congress. The primary one was to be between the people, on the one hand, and Congress and the White House on the other. That one has been effectively eliminated by the Senate.

There are several ways to eliminate these anti-democratic privileges. The Vice President could, at the beginning of the next session, declare them eliminated. It seems he is not so inclined. The Senate Majority Leader could also lead. Not much chance of that.

The Constitution begins, “We the People.” Forget the Constitution. The Rules of the Senate take precedence. The people have been beaten into complete submission. Do you really think the people are prepared to take time away from their 50″ flat screens and video games to regain the power promised by the Constitution? Sure, there are the teabaggers but they are a thankfully small group of yoyos that are too easily led by faux populists such as Dick Armey and the corporate interests he represents. They are ready and willing to blindly follow con men to support policies that are against their real self-interests.

It doesn’t make much sense to depend on such as the corporately mislead teabaggers to help rid us of the corporate-owned legislators. What is the solution? Realistically, there seems not to be one. They say knowledge is power. How I wish that were true.

.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

In her gentle and succinct manner, Cheryl took me to task for my last post. To quote, “Who are you and what have you done with Crawford.”

I did respond in the comment area but felt the need to explain more fully. Her objection didn’t specify one aspect, so I intend to address each of the matters in its own, separate post.

There were four points: Afghanistan, healthcare reform, the economy and a strategy to get from the present sorry state to solving these problems. First, let’s explain the problem of Afghanistan.

Just what outcome do we want in Afghanistan? No. Be realistic. There is a better chance of Michelle Bachmann making a rational statement than of establishing a functioning, stable, Western-style democracy in that relic of the 14^th Century.

However much we are disgusted by the inhumane tenets and actions of the Taliban, they didn’t attack the Twin Towers. True, they cheered those who did it but they never attacked anyone outside of their own territory, at least until we drove them into Pakistan. We may want to eliminate such barbarians but that is neither our prerogative nor our responsibility.

The justification for our attacking Afghanistan was to strike back at al-Qaeda and deny them a base of operations. They now have bases in Pakistan, Somalia, Iraq and a few other places where they don’t have to compete with Club Med. We need to change the definition of success.

I subscribe to the tenets of the Powell Doctrine as I understand it. We should commit our troops only when our vital interests are at stake. We should have clearly defined and limited objectives. We should employ overwhelming force. We should have an exit strategy. None of those criteria were met when we militarily engaged in Afghanistan.

According to the Army’s own book, the metrics for fighting an asymmetrical war in that country require a force of at least 500,000. That would call for a major, politically and economically unattainable increase in the size of our army.

So, with 68,000 troops in country, how did our military leadership come up with the stated need for 40,000 additional troops? First, they wrote off about half the country. It would not be defended. Also, certain necessary, according to the book, operations would be eliminated. That helped get the required number down to 200,000. That still leaves a slight, unaccounted discrepancy.

That means we don’t have and never will have the force required to permit the government of Afghanistan to establish viability. And just what is needed from that government?

They need a stable government. They need the support of the people. They need stable conditions; reasonable safety for their citizens, infrastructure and economy. They need to substantially eliminate corruption. They need well-trained and reliable military and police forces. That’s what is needed. What do they have?

The brother of the President is a, if not the, major drug trafficker in the country. The “government” is an unruly conglomeration of tribal warlords. The President should more accurately be called the Mayor of Kabul. He retained that lofty position by a universally acknowledged corruption of the electoral process. There is no reliable or well-trained military or police presence. Whatever support the government has depends on continuing the rental payments. None of that bodes well for a viable national government.

In the previous post I gave the possible length of time our services would be needed as 400 or, possibly, 700 years. That obviously was said with less than full seriousness. When juxtaposing the present state of affairs against the stated requirements demanded by the Army’s own policies, it appears that the actual time would be somewhat in excess of infinity.

Now, taking all of that into consideration, how many troops should we commit and for how long? If there is no expectation of success, the killing of more of our young people is unconscionable.

Employment of military force is supposed to be the last, unavoidable option; not the first. Military leaders are imbued with the desire to win. That is what we expect and desire. Once we are involved in a conflict, military leaders generally are the last ones wanting to stop short of victory. If victory is definitely not in the cards, our need for their advice is limited to how to accomplish an orderly disengagement. They are not the ones to determine national policy.

National policy is the purview of our political leadership. We have many important, indeed vital, interests as a nation. Afghanistan is not one of them. It detracts from more important issues. It diverts resources from those other interests.

Will a decision to do what needs to be done represent a political liability? Yes, but it is unavoidable, except at great and unnecessary costs to our military, both institutionally and individually to many young fathers, mothers, sons, daughters and other kith and kin.

As a personal aside on a lighter note, the graphic of a spanking brought to mind my days at a military prep school. The football coach also had to teach a few classes. He was known as Man Mountain. He had been a star lineman at the local college, back when you played both offense and defense. He sat on the bench of the New York Giants for two years. He was far ahead of his time in size.

One time he caught two brothers and their cousin cheating. He made each stand to one side of his cleared desk resting on their elbows. Each malefactor received one blow from his paddle. He used only wrist action. The result in each case was a cadet sprawled on the floor on the other side of his desk. Oh, those wonderful memories of childhood.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Do you REALLY want a democracy? The healthcare reform farce we see in Congress is proof positive that we do not actually enjoy a democracy in the United States.

Who is to blame? You and me. Who can bring back democracy? Only you and me. How, you ask. Well, that’s what I’m here for. I have the answer. While I have the answer, that doesn’t mean that I can do it alone. I need your help.

I recall a BC comic strip from during the 1968 presidential campaign. One of the characters was Peter. He had a stone couch and gave psychiatric advice. One of the other characters came to him complaining of a recurring dream. He dreamt he was in the voting booth and that there was only one name on the ballot. Peter asked what was the name. The response was Humphrey-Nixon-Wallace.

There actually was no choice. Corporations donated to all three campaigns. Things have changed. They have worsened.

Kent Conrad is the most prominent Democratic Senator opposing the public option. Yes, I know about Max Baucus. He says he is for it (he isn’t) but will not support it because it can’t pass. Anyway, back to Conrad.

The North Dakota Democratic Party held a convention. They voted, without dissent, to include the single-payer system as their healthcare reform policy. They sent a letter to Conrad, the state’s other Senator and to their lone Representative. That letter stated their policy and added that, if single-payer was not to be, their fallback position was for a public option.

Senator Conrad has received $2,362,436 in bribes from the insurance companies, health industry and lobbyists. I’m guessing that he didn’t share any of that with his state’s Democratic Party. A poll in his state shows an overwhelming support for the public option. Still, he is recalcitrant. Who does he represent? The people of North Dakota are missing that little thing called democracy. Remember the immortal words of Deep Throat, “Follow the money.”

Conrad was in politics before but he came to the Senate in 1987. He promised he would not run for re-election if the budget deficit was not reduced. It wasn’t. He ignored that promise. By the way, his present position is Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. He is in his 23^rd year in the Senate. That is the problem.

He needs all of those bribes to pay for his re-election campaigns. No re-election campaign, no need for campaign funds. Without those bribes, he could vote the way his constituents want – for single-payer. Wow. Just think about that for a moment.

Term limits would solve the problem. But, what are the chances of them voting themselves out of office? Nil. That leaves it up to us, the voters, and those who are eligible but don’t vote.

That should be easy. While the approval rating of Congress is 9%, 95% of them get re-elected. We, you and I, are to blame. We are stupid, gullible, lazy, don’t care enough or some combination of those virtues. They won’t do it, so we must.

The corporations have a Congress. We don’t. So, the answer is obvious. Don’t re-elect incumbents.

While the overall approval rating for Congress is 9%, the majority has a higher opinion of the member from their own bailiwick. Or, maybe we are just more forgiving. That may explain why a Congressman can consistently vote against his constituents’ interests or even get caught lying, stealing or making trips to The Argentine and still maintain the support of many, possibly most, of the voters in his district.

About a third of Congressmen run unopposed. Incumbency, and the money that comes with it, keeps a lot of good people from running. We could have a peoples’ congress. And, it wouldn’t cost us a dime. All we have to do is vote against all incumbents.

Would the very few good ones get ousted? Yes, but I’m willing to bet that there are other good people in their district. Perhaps they, as Sarah Palin, can work more effectively for our benefit outside of the system, without the onerous responsibilities of office.

After one or two election cycles they might feel it to be in their interest to enact some term limits. I would personally prefer an individual limit of ten to twelve years of total public office, i.e., combining the time of holding any combination of offices, with no more than two terms in any one office. Also, no elected or appointed official should receive retirement benefits or any other benefit after leaving office. While in office there should be no benefits not available to average citizens.

Judges are required to recuse themselves if they have any relationship with either party. They implement the laws. However, Congressmen, who make the laws, are permitted to take money from various parties and still vote on those laws. What is good for the courts is good for the legislatures.

Pay for each Congressman should be based on the income of the average family in their district. If they maintain a residence in their own district plus one in the Washington area, they would get the sum of that plus the average income for residents of D.C. Their pay would be tied to how their constituents fare.

Ridding ourselves of career politicians isn’t just something that would be nice. It is absolutely vital to reestablishing this country as a democracy.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

America is the greatest country in the world. I grew up hearing that and I used to believe it. I still hear people saying it.

Is it true? What did people mean when they made that claim? What does it mean now? Are people now just saying it out of habit? What criteria are they using? Perhaps we need to look in the mirror.

We aren’t the richest country in the world. We don’t have the longest life expectancy. We rank way down the list on satisfaction with our lives. We have the highest crime rate in the world. One of every four prisoners in the world is one of us.

We spend half of all the military funding in the world. Is this what they mean when they call us the greatest? I think not.

Our politicians collect more bribes than those of any other country. Is this what they mean when they call us the greatest? I hope not.

America isn’t so much a place with amber grain waving between shining seas. It is essentially an idea, an experiment. Can the people govern themselves? Do we need a monarch or a dictator to make those decisions for us? That is the idea. That is the experiment.

Many people actually think us incapable of making decisions for ourselves. They may be right, or not. The funny thing is, those that believe it just happen to think that they are the only ones qualified and suited to impose those decisions on us.

Who are these exemplars of omniscience? Who are these people worthy to replace democracy? There are two groups of such exalted beings that bless us with their very presence. One group, ironically, acquired their lofty stations via the democratic process they hold in such low esteem. The others are the economic elite, known historically as plutocrats.

These two groups, composing government and corporations, work as a team. The problem is that we make up the other side. There are two political parties: the corporatists and the populists. One side holds the interest of corporations supreme. The other considers actual human beings of greater importance.

There are two quotes that I feel appropriate. The first I commend to you comes from Benito Mussolini, “Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power.” Those corrupting our country should take note of the other, by Charles de Gaulle, “The cemeteries of the world are full of indispensable men.”

We came to expect W, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton, Wolfowitz, and the others of that ilk to repair to their authoritarian bent, whether they felt challenged or not. They were essentially sociopaths. We hoped those eight years were an aberration. We sat back and waited.

We found someone who promised change. Were those sincere promises that became sullied in the rough and tumble of political combat? Or, were those promises no more than a marketing ploy to attract those who were desperate for a government that valued the people.

Obama is being assaulted by the “birthers,” people who make their own reality. He is being compared to Hitler, by people who have no understanding or appreciation of what Hitler represented. He is called a socialist, by people who couldn’t find the word in a dictionary. From Newt Gingrich to the droolers who think he cares about them we hear claims of government plans for euthanasia.

UnAmerican crowds are denying others the right to express themselves, as democracy requires. They threaten bodily harm to anyone with the temerity to hold a different position. Those are the tactics employed by the Brown Shirts back in the 1930s. Rational discourse is disappearing from the American body politic.

The President is doing his fair share of damage to this American idea. He campaigned on the accurate claim that the government and people are being ripped off by al-PhARMA. He proclaimed that banning Medicare from negotiating drug prices had to change. He promised that all negotiations with the health industry would be covered by C-SPAN. Boy, that sounded great. It was just what was needed to restore some confidence in our government.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCRO0g9CfAw

C-SPAN is ready. The people are waiting. Stand down. There has been no coverage by C-SPAN. The ban on negotiation has been ratified by fiat from the Oval Office. So much for change. Hope felt nice, while it lasted.

If, as Obama and most everyone else agrees, healthcare reform is the most important issue, what are we to do now that it is official there will be no real reform? The White House staff is putting together a marketing campaign to support their empty claim that they have achieved reform. Marketing is hardly an adequate substitute for democracy.

We will be told again that we have the greatest healthcare system in the world. The 47 million uninsured has grown to 52 million. The last study from the World Health Organization listed us as 37^th. Before you gloat too much at that wonderful ranking, you should know that report came out in the year 2000. Before that, the U.S. was falling. It is only natural to assume that the decline wasn’t reversed. Why has there been no updated report? The WHO says that correlating those eight factors is just too complex. My personal opinion is that the U.S. exerted some influence to avoid further embarrassment.

While the cheerleaders shout about our healthcare system being the best in the world, the cost rises. The number without healthcare rises. And The Changer promises the the greediest group in the system a bigger piece of pie. Meanwhile, polls in every country with national healthcare systems shows overwhelming support for their systems. Not a single one of those countries has any interest in adopting our “Greatest Healthcare System in the World.”

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Having been a politician, the addiction never goes away. The interest remains even though what you see continually sickens. My intensity of interest may account for the fact that matters which go unnoticed by others cause a ‘fingernails on the blackboard’ reaction in me.

It is, therefore, perhaps my sensitivity to the question that makes it appear to be so prominent and so frequently appearing. What is this irritant under my skin? Many people are wont to exclaim that this country is a republic, not a democracy. The instance of such a proclamation seems always to be a condescending, even sneering, attempt to teach some great but simple truth to a dullard. The teacher reeks of self-satisfaction . He is so much more intelligent and enlightened than his audience. The problem is that they know not what they know not.

Here we find another case of someone pontificating on a subject they really know nothing about, using words of whose meanings they are ignorant.

In a simple bifurcation, there are only two kinds of government: hereditary and non-hereditary. The former is called a monarchy. The later is called a republic. Is this country a republic? Despite the best efforts of the Bushes and the Clintons, we tenuously hold on to the classification of republic.

So that settles it? Why have I bothered to bring up the matter? Well, I’m old enough to recall the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I haven’t checked lately but trust that the People’s Republic of China is still around. So? Surely that doesn’t mean there is no difference between the USSR, China and the Good Ol’ USA. Easy now. Calm down. We still have a little way to go.

We now know the definition of republic. What is the meaning of democracy? Literally, it means rule by the people. Wow. It’s really simple. Well, it’s really not that simple. The Greeks claim to have invented it. But, what they developed may fall a bit short of what we would tend to picture as the ideal to which we should strive. Women couldn’t vote. You may see that as a limitation or not but we still classify them as people. Slaves couldn’t vote.

Our Founding Fathers hewed closely to the Greek model. They didn’t permit women and slaves to vote either. They even forbid the participation of good, upstanding white guys, if they didn’t own enough property. Political leadership has always been creative in defining words and deciding who is worthy.

The basic intent of democracy is to allow people who are effected by decisions of the government to participate in those decisions. That is a noble goal. Noble, but not always practical. It is a given that decisions made by our government have an effect on the lives of people in other countries. Few Americans, regardless of their devotion to the ideals of democracy, are prepared to advocate for the participation of foreign citizens in our elections. See? Somewhat impractical.

Our wise, generous and heroic leaders also make decisions that have a considerable impact on those who are yet to be born (see the national debt). Perhaps you could give the solution to that problem a moment or two of thought. How do we deal with these limitations? We just admit that the ideal is the ideal, the unreachable goal. We accept the real world while venerating the basic impetus. Ideally, as citizens we should take into consideration how our actions effect those unable to participate.

Geography and time are not the only insurmountable hurdles to pure democracy. The Greeks emphasized the part about participation. A citizen could attend any meeting that was going to decide any public issue. That seems obvious but what about trials? You might find a jury of 500 people show up. Can you imagine how many people would have showed up for jury duty in the O.J. Simpson Trial?

Size. That is another major hurdle to full participation. That resulted in a variation calling for representation. We select people to attend all of those meetings and represent our interests. It’s just a way of dealing with the limitations that size imposes. It is still a democratic mechanism. We call it, representative democracy.

It seems that those who would tell us that this is not a democracy are confused. The fact that representative and republic share the initial three letters is too much of a strain for their intellectual capacities. We live in a republic and a democracy, a representative democracy. Across the pond, the British enjoy a monarchy and a democracy. The Chinese labor under a republic and an oligarchy. Zimbabwe is a republic and a dictatorship.

Some of these people who are unacquainted with dictionaries hold prominent positions. Recently, NBC and MSNBC have been touting their coverage of the elections. According to their promotional efforts, we learn that their team of reporters and analysts are devoted to participatory democracy. Listening to the incessantly repeated promos they have broadcast got me to thinking (a rare and dangerous event). What alternatives are there to participatory democracy?

Now you can join me in laughing at the hubris of those who claim that this is a republic, not a democracy, and being frightened by their ignorance.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites