A Brief Republican-English Dictionary

January 7th, 2012
A Brief 2012 Republican-English Dictionary

It can really help, when trying to discuss any issue of the day with one of today’s Republicans, to have a guide handy to decipher current GOP terminology. Here’s a brief attempt at providing such assistance, in alphabetical order. (Adapted, edited, and expanded from versions circulated by the Huffington Post, Gary Sjogren, et al., but blame us.)

America, United States of: A country located in the northern hemisphere that is Number One (in everything good).

Bible: A sacred text, written by ancient holy men inspired by God, that provides incontestable answers on politics, economics, and everything else, when properly thumped.

Birth certificate: An official birth record required of (and often faked by) all US Presidents since 2008.

Blacks: A noisy, musically inclined minority people, who used to be called Negroes (what was wrong with that, anyway?) and are now treated better than whites.

Capitalism: A system of economic organization that, while maybe unfair, is much better than any of the fairer ones.

Christmas: A holiday commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ, now rarely celebrated due to persecution by atheists, socialists, and other Democrats.

Coal (now Clean Coal): An excellent source of fuel and power that has gotten a bad reputation just because of rumors about all the people coal has killed by pollution or something.

Coast (East): Politically a very bad area of the United States.

Coast (West): Another inexcusable coast, politically, full of fruits and nuts.

Communism: The false belief that the government should ever do anything for anybody, and that foolishly questions the Biblical faith that the poor will always be with us and alleges that poverty is somehow a bad thing.

Compromise: A form of political suicide.

Constitution, US: The hallowed founding document of United States, the text of which must be interpreted strictly by 1787 standards (because nothing important has happened since then) and must be amended at once in conformity to superior dogma. (See Bible and Capitalism, above.)

Corporations: Large people who are overtaxed and must be free to regulate themselves (if they feel like it), and whose checkbooks are Constitutionally protected free-speech generators.

Deficits: 1. Fiscal shortfalls incurred by Democrats that are sure to bankrupt the country. 2. Fiscal shortfalls incurred by Republicans that are necessary and don’t matter.

Democrat Party: A communist-inspired political party, fading fast, made up mostly of minorities, eggheads, and other foolish people.

Election: A method of selecting political leaders, the fraudulence of which may be determined by the number of Democrats who win office.

Endangered species: Animals that have it coming and add nothing to US gross domestic product, anyway.

Evolution: A false theory of human origins that inexplicably dares to challenge the true, that is, the Biblical accounts.

Extremism, liberal: Espousal or adherence to political beliefs that are held by the confused majority of Americans.

Fact: Information that has been made available by FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, and other equally reliable sources.

Fictions: Claimed “information” that is peddled on the so-called mainstream media and other unreliable sources.

Forest, National: Trees that have it coming and, converted to lumber, would add to GDP.

Guns: Objects that are our God-given Constitutional right to keep and carry at all times to protect against bad guys (minorities) and other evil forces.

Gut: Region of the body in which all decisions should properly be made.

Hitler: A man to whom it would be inappropriate (according to some current “politically correct” standards) to compare President Obama (in spite of the many uncanny similarities).

Homosexuality: A membership-only lifestyle that perpetuates itself through youth recruitment and tries to destroy real marriages simply by existing.

Intellectuals: People who have wasted their lives by going to school so long that they’ve become socialistic, agnostic, and unpatriotic.

Israel: small country south of Europe, full of non-Christians, all of whose policies America must defend anyway, because their agents write most of the op-ed columns that decide US elections.

Jesus: A charismatic religious leader, son of God, born in Bethlehem in the year 0, whose beliefs include love, charity, enhanced interrogation, privatized healthcare, elimination of the estate tax, and the right to freely carry loaded semiautomatic weapons.

Judaism: A so-so religion espoused by smart people who haven’t read the second (good) part of the Bible, and therefore will be left behind.

Koran (Quran): A fake sacred text, written by imposters and full of falsehoods, that advocates worship of an inferior god (who probably doesn’t exist anyway).

League, Ivy: An association of east-coast universities and colleges whose degrees, properly evaluated, disqualify graduates from high political office.

Liberal: A person who should be rounded up and shot. (Not really. At least not yet.)

Libertarianism: A politico-economic philosophy, now heroically advocated by Dr. Ron Paul, the consistent application of which would eliminate all such oppressive tax-supported government entities as Social Security; Medicare; free public schools, highways, fire and police departments; poor kids’ school lunches; and the Food and Drug Administration.

Marxism: A political and economic philosophy developed and promulgated by Karl Marx, Paul Krugman, Barack Obama, and Democrats.

Media, mainstream: Where you won’t hear things that are true.

Medicare: A fraudulent, socialistic boondoggle that is naively loved by the foolish majority of Americans who use it to keep from dying too young.

Mexicans: Brown people who have it coming, because they’re taking over the country.

Mormons: A quasi-religious cult whose members wear white shirts and ties, have multiple wives, and are trying to take over America by running multiple Presidential candidates.

Mountaintops: Ancient rock formations that have it coming, because they probably have lots of coal under them.

Muslims: Brown people who have it coming, because they’re imposing Sharia Law on the country.

News: FoxNews.

No: The universally useful word with which to greet any legislation not proposed by Republicans.

National Rifle Association (NRA): Our nation’s prime bulwark against anarchy, without which criminals, Sharia Law, illegal aliens, and atheist communism would long ago have taken over America.

Obamacare: A federally mandated program that addresses the national oversupply of grandparents through cleverly disguised euthanasia.

Occupy Wall Street: A small gang of unemployed, homeless losers and hippies who are squatting in and soiling a small park in New York City, yelling socialist slogans, and scaring passersby.

Organic foods: The comestibles eaten by lesbians, liberals, and other Democrats.

Parks, National: Empty areas that contribute nothing to our GDP and should be sold to the Disney Corporation.

Poverty: The character-building condition of lacking financial and material resources due to not trying hard enough, having a low IQ, or being chronically sick, and to having parents who use the same lame excuses.

Propaganda: The politically motivated dissemination of biased information, opinion, or data through its publication in the New York Times, ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, and other socialist media.

Punishment, capital: The legally authorized killing by the State of someone who is definitely guilty, despite any stupid exoneration by DNA testing, new evidence, or other socialist trickery. An effective deterrent, as shown by Texas, Georgia, and Louisiana, which, by killing the most prisoners, have eliminated the crime of murder.

Racism: A form of discrimination that is long gone and now always happens in reverse.

Regulation: Any rules issued by a government agency, usually for no reason other than to interfere with good businessmen who are increasing our GDP.

Rich, The: Our best Americans who, by employing everybody else, are responsible for other Americans’ happiness and need more tax breaks and government subsidies to help them carry out their benevolence.

Scientist: A person who employs a rigorous system of observation, experiment, measurement, and verification to perpetuate his Godless left-wing agenda.

Social Security: A leftist redistributionist Ponzi scheme that is naively loved by the foolish majority of Americans whom it helps to keep from having to Dumpster-dive for food.

Socialism: A economic system invented by FDR and promoted by Obama that seeks to reward the poor for their laziness and punish the rich for their industry.

Taxes: Levies imposed by the government that raise more revenue the lower they are.

Tea Party: A grass-roots movement of patriotic Americans devoted (1) to preserving the principle of “No Taxation With Representation” and (2) to discovering Obama’s secret Kenyan birth certificate and Muslim membership card.

Terrorist: A person to whom a politician who threatens to destroy the US economy unless his anti-tax demands are met should not be compared.

Torture: A method of interrogation that does not rise to the level of torture and is useful for training servicemen who later become policemen and prison guards.

Unbiased: Giving equal weight to both sides of discussions presented on FoxNews.

Warming, Global: An anomalous, anthropogenic increase in earth’s atmosphere and ocean temperatures that isn’t happening and has no relationship to burning oil or coal.

Wealthy, The: People who earned every penny and deserve every protection protective legislation can provide, because our economy’s laws are already stacked so unfairly against them.

Welfare: A government program to distribute Cadillacs to unwed mothers and other useless, lazy elements of society.

Yes: A word to be feared and avoided when dealing with socialists, secularists, scientists, and other Democrats.

 

 

 

 

Thanks, Occupy People

December 23rd, 2011

One small aspect of the “Occupy” movement’s protests against current American capitalism’s built-in injustices focuses on one practice that has victimized too many young Americans, specifically those who try to better their prospects in life by pursuing an education beyond high school.

Take today’s college grads. Those whose parents are rich leave college finally freed from the classes, papers, and tests their course work demanded. These kids are no longer obliged to spend their days in study and their evenings at bars and restaurants being waited on by their fellow students whose parents are not rich. Graduation means for the former a relief from the gentle requirements of academe and launches them, unburdened, into the world of adult achievement. Well, just now there happens to be a Great Recession, another routine bust in the endless cycle of booms and busts that constitute this staggering, devil-take-the-hindmost economic system, so actual jobs are hard to find.

Grads whose parent are poor, in contrast, leave their diploma ceremony similarly unable to find work but are now newly and heavily weighted under many thousands of dollars of indebtedness. It’s called student loan debt, and it drags down–at the very outset of their careers—all the kids who were stupid enough to have been born to parents who are not rich.

Okay, some skeptics might say, so college is harder for some kids than for others. But now they’re graduating and starting out on their own life’s course approximately equal–right? Wrong! Now the big inequality really kicks in for children of poor parents, not only unable to find jobs but crushed by debt, while the children of the wealthier few, through no virtue of their own, glide off relatively unburdened, to loll out this latest economic bust watching TV in one of mom’s extra bedrooms.

Some consider it to be a trivial problem confined to a few over-extended collegians too dumb to know when to stop borrowing to pay for tuition and books. They might be brought back to harsh reality by the numbers: US student loan indebtedness, now at between 865 billion and one trillion dollars, exceeds America’s crushing total credit card debt! This is yet another of our banking industry’s greed-inspired exploitations of the middle class, not only on our valuable but vulnerable kids but on what America hopes to become as well as a society.

Entering the post-college world as paupers, as many grads have done for decades, is bad enough, though capitalism’s warped values have called it fair. But to be saddled from the outset also owing more than one can pay off in years of tithing the moneychangers–well, it saps too many of the will to do anything but make money as fast as possible and to hell with the ideals that have, for two centuries, continually worked to make our nation better than it was.

Most Americans recognize gross economic injustice when they see it. Seems to me we owe the Occupy folks our gratitude for calling our attention to this worsening institutionalized unfairness. It’s an economic disaster for an entire generation of our brighter young people, upon whom we’ll soon be counting to move our country forward into a better future. And it’s a social crime about which something legislative can and should be done. A civilian GI Bill would solve it.

The Distress Factor

December 17th, 2011

It took me awhile, but I figured it out: Why my wool-dyed conservative friends absolutely refuse to watch MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow and the Ed Show and religiously confine their TV news viewing to FoxNews.

I think it’s what you could call the “distress factor.” These are good people, many of them at least as intelligent as I am. The uncomfortable fact is that if they were to see and hear the arguments and evidence presented so persuasively on both Fox and MSNBC, they’d be nudged by each exposure, leftward or rightward, as the pitch pushes.

But they were indoctrinated long ago (as we all are by our parents, peers, and cultural subgroup), and their minds are made up firmly about most political and social issues. Thus they find it distressing to be influenced even slightly in a direction that questions beliefs that have become for them, over time, matters of solid faith.

Both MSNBC and Fox can sound reasonable to viewers with little formal training in critical thinking, argument analysis, and the history of democracy’s successes and failures, courses avoided in too many US secondary schools. Having absorbed the ideas and notions of conservative parents and peers during their formative years, it’s reassuring to hear these very views substantiated by TV authority figures like Fox’s Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. No sweat there.

Why would anyone comforted by hearing unexamined attitudes thus verified want to invite the distress of having them questioned or contradicted by argument and evidence from the other side? Most wouldn’t, and many don’t, by strictly avoiding any exposure to such contaminating influences.

Decisions we consciously base on facts can be questioned, even changed, as better facts are accessed. But when our views just accumulate in us, based primarily on unquestioning absorption of prevalent attitudes within the setting we grow up in, we develop faiths. And exposure to conflicting information that threatens faiths can cause real pain.

A report released November 21 by Fairleigh Dickinson University showed FoxNews viewers testing lower on awareness of current events than people who watched no TV news at all. Even viewers getting their news from Jon Stewart’s comedy show scored higher. Telling.

Tea Party members and followers are especially prone to this discomfiting mindset, and FoxNews and right-wing talk radio offer easy listening. Sure, there may be an occasional venture into real-world media, but only to crow at the obvious falsehoods peddled there–”false” because they fail to jibe with established scripture already well-ingrained.

What’s the cure, if this condition isn’t to be tragically terminal? Fresh air, and kicking the one-drug habit that can only pull those addicted deeper into their confidently assured biases. Untreated, the addiction metastasizes, as conflicting real-world facts intrude, as they will, in a society like ours in which ideas compete openly.

A majority of Americans could conceivably get hooked on the Tea Party’s dependency on seeing the world through the cracked, intolerant glasses provided by FoxNews. In that scenario, we’d see the free exchange of views we celebrate today stifled as “evil” and “destructive” notions. The Tea Party, which sees no difference between communism and fascism (small c, small f), yet hails the aspirations of the latter as we saw them flourish in Mussolini’s Italy not long ago, would then certainly head down Il Duce’s road, imposing “Flag, church, conformity, and silence the opposition!” on us without missing a beat.

The other day one of my conservative buddies surprised me by saying, “I tuned in that Maddow woman the other night. Oh, what a crock of BS! I turned it off right away.” Of course he did. It’s distressing to have well-inculcated beliefs contradicted and ridiculed, particularly if the arguments presented are cogent, fact-based, and threatening to inherited biases long cherished.

Hey, Maddow is embarrassed and apologizes when she flubs a fact. O’Reilly says (often), “So? Sue me! And shut up!” Not a very subtle difference there.

I get it. Who wants to listen to both sides, weigh the conflicting arguments, and then decide what to believe, based on the evidence and their own good common sense. That’s not the way faith is protected.

 

A Brief Follow-up to Last Week’s “Our National Decline”

October 11th, 2011

Wait, there’s more (there always is) to say in this recountal of trends vitiating America, that formerly promising promised land situated so nicely between Canada and Mexico.

Associate Professor of Law and Economics William K. Black of the University of Missouri, was Director of the Institute for Fraud Prevention from 2005 to 2007 and oversaw prosecutions of financial crimes as Litigation Director of the Federal Loan Bank Board. His words, in discussing the criminality in our largest financial institutions that got us into our present Great Recession:

“This is the greatest financial crime in the history of the world, and no one senior, at any of the major places that drove the crisis, has gone to jail.” Or, we can confidently add, is ever even likely to be indicted.

The GOP, in its role of protector and abettor of all such adventuring by our moneyed classes, naturally found this conduct acceptable, and the Department of Justice, under President Bush Jr. made no effort to charge those guilty of the massive crimes perpetrated.

But it was left to the Democratic administration of President Obama to ratify and condone this acceptance. Thus, it appears, conduct far worse than what we saw in the Savings and Loan scandals of the 1980s, which resulted in over 1,000 felony convictions, is to go unpunished, which guarantees that it will happen again in future. Obama’s key financial advisers, from the Wall Street cabal that brought us the present meltdown, are hardly keen to bust their old cronies. Or themselves.

Another pair of sore points: Along with the increasing effort to privatize public education and the flood of highly profitable storefront “colleges” popping up on all sides (the booming so-called University of Phoenix being the most visible), the costs of a real college education in California have more than doubled in the last ten years. Both trends move education further out of reach for Americans who can’t afford the costs. This is a diabolically anti-democratic movement, planned, promoted, and executed by political agents of rich anti-democrats like the Koch brothers and the Mellon-Scaiffe Foundation, the Heritage Foundation, and the Federalist Society, who know that education should be for the children of those who can prove they deserve it (by having the funds to pay).

But in contrast to the shrinking accessibility of our educational system, our prisons industry (not under attack from Koch, et al., at all) is booming. Over two million Americans are still in prison, the highest percentage by far in all the industrialized democracies, and 3.8 million more are on probation or on parole. One out of every 36 of us is currently under control by the US criminal justice system. One-sixth of Michigan state’s public expenditures are on criminal justice. Of 300,000 prisoners released in fifteen states in 1994, 67.5 percent were re-arrested within three years. An appalled world looks on, wondering how America can have become such a nation of criminals, as even foreign investors find the shares of our growing private prisons corporations attractive.

Is it, then, to be education ultimately only for the few and the rich, the old US standard until the Roosevelt and Truman administrations and the GI Bill revolutionized education to make the possibility of going beyond high school possible for every parent’s child?

Christopher Hitchens, the always witty and often correct social commentator (now, sadly, showing early dotage), has called attention to this return to class warfare waged upon us so energetically from above:

Oxford professor, to an American graduate student who says he’s writing a paper on the US class system: “I didn’t think there was a class system in the United States.”

Student: “Nobody does. That’s how it survives.”

Our National Decline: A Reluctant Pessimist’s Assessment and Prognosis

October 2nd, 2011

 

The New World–America–was the destination of eager choice for emigrants desperate to leave the Europe of serfdom, both de facto and de jure, that distinguished us so starkly from the Old World’s constraints on the lives of its majorities. Until, that is, the 1980s, when changes in our economy began rapidly to erase and often reverse the differences that drew so many to our promising and welcoming shores.

The persistent ignorance among Americans generally about life in other nations has served to insulate most of us from an awareness of the creeping effects of these unique changes in our own society and from comparisons with others.’ Ask any American today whether we are still Number One in every respect–America’s traditional July 4th boast–and he’ll cheerfully insist that we are, without question, despite the presence of much glaring evidence to the contrary of which he remains blissfully unaware.

The annual State of the Union addresses by our Presidents were never, except perhaps in their earliest versions, much more than political speeches stressing the positive and euphemizing the negative aspects of the country’s current state and direction under administrations in power at the time.

What’s needed today, more than ever, in view of the press of troubles afflicting our fragile democracy, is something more realistic, specifically an assessment of where we are and whither we’re heading, so that we might embark on courses–possibly radically different–toward improvement and even salvation.

That is, if improvements are urgently needed (and possible), of course. Let’s take a critical look at where we stand and our outlook under present trends, programs, and policies.

The USA at the end of World War II stood in an enviable place among nations. We had been the winner in fighting, almost entirely at a safe distance from its battlefields, the most destructive war in human history. Both of our defeated enemies, Germany and Japan. and our co-victorious allies, principally the Soviet Union, Britain, and France, were in various stages of physical and economic ruin, from which it took them all decades to recover. Our starting point, at war’s end, was far in advance of theirs.

Flush with this success, and suddenly the world’s sole superpower, the United States of America, flaunted its role as Number One in everything by hosting the United Nations organization in New York City, newly the capital of the world. Beginning at war’s end in 1945 and not diminishing for nearly four decades, America was richest, most powerful, best educated, healthiest, most productive, sold the most, bought the most, and kept its citizens’ standard of living enviably high, an inspiration to peoples everywhere.

This position is no longer ours. The status of first in the world in all these criteria of dominance, except expenditures on maintaining military forces, pursuing warfare and military occupations in foreign countries, has now been diffused to other nations, as we’ll show by means of statistical evidence, hard facts, disputable only by wishful thinkers mired in fond retrospection.

Here’s how we rate, as a nation among nations, in 2011, compared with our rankings at the height of our power, wealth, and glory only a few decades earlier. Student test scores afford an interesting index. Of the 65 countries tested in 2009, the US scored 25th in math, 14th in reading, and 17th in science. In view of these data, it was striking to see the hostility to science expressed by all nine of our GOP presidential candidates during a September 2011 debate.

How do we rank today in such a key quality-of-life criterion as life expectancy? We are 36th in the world, just a shade better than such Edens as Albania, Slovenia, and Brunei. Infant mortality rates also sharply distinguish the healthful societies from those in the deprived world. We now rank 34th (UN data) or 46th (CIA data), far worse than, say, Slovenia, Macau, and Cuba.

One important index of the overall happiness of a society’s inhabitants is the free time its workers are allotted to spend recreationally with family and friends. Vacations and paid holiday times are best examples. Here are the numbers: Today we rank absolutely last among the industrialized democracies of Europe plus Japan and Canada. American sociologist Lisa Wade says, “When I show these figures [including those for parental leave and work hours required] to my students, they are STUNNED. (Her emphasis] Most Americans are woefully ignorant of how US policies compare with the policies of like countries.”

In France and Finland, 30 days of paid vacation annually are mandated by federal law. The United States mandates none. Sixteen other European nations require between 20 and 25 paid vacation days. These, it should be noted, are minima, with many employers offering more to their valued employees.

Two Australian bloggers (on “Sociological Images”) boast six weeks paid leave, plus two weeks at Christmas, plus ten days’ sick leave, plus nine paid public holidays. The typical US worker can only gasp in awe. One of the Aussies adds, “The gulf between poor and rich over there [in the USA] is staggering, and the rich devote all their energy to maintaining and widening that divide.” A view from a distance, but remarkably accurate in its reflection of what we can discern here on our own.

Our pay disparity ratios allow the US to retain Number One ranking, although it’s not one that anyone but an oligarch can cheer. In 1960 the average ratio of American CEO to worker pay was 42 to one. In 2007, it was 344 to one, and increasing. In Europe today it’s about 25 to one.

The combined pay of 299 CEO of Standard and Poor’s 500 Index corporations would support 103,325 workers who earn today’s median wage–not minimum, but median. Put another way, an average S&P 500 CEO’s earnings equal that of 225 teachers, 178 nurses, 213 police officers , or 753 minimum-wage workers.

It has come to this: In our purportedly classless, equitable, fair, egalitarian, equal-opportunity American society, the lives of some of us now bear a dollar value of 1/753d of those of certain others. And these disparities are widening, year by year, with worker pay consistently declining, as none but a few widely ridiculed “radical” Democrats and independents protest and offer constructive alternative policies.

To an extent unmatched by any other constituents, dollars available to a person translate into quality of life, an observation that remains one of America’s best-kept secret scandals, for good reason. The incomparably stupid myth that we can all be as rich as Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, and George Soros, if only we take advantage of the opportunities that surround us, continues to be peddled aggressively as reason enough for Americans to sit down and shut up, satisfied with what they’re permitted to enjoy as the status quo.

The gross national product of the United States has a certain annual value, and that value is shared among the nation’s residents by procedures set in place and enforced by the political and judicial branches of our government. As we have seen, these procedures today result in highly inequitable distribution of that national product, and are likely to remain so, given the present direction of established policies.

The Supreme Court’s recent “Citizens United” decision, made by a distinctly partisan Republican Court majority in shocking contravention of both precedent and the Constitution, gives to the wealthiest few Americans considerably more power to influence elections by means of lobbying and campaign contributions. The decision is sure to increase this disparity in sharing our wealth, at the further expense of the non-affluent majority, and to increase the levels of economic and political repression the majority now endures.

A perhaps irreducible majority of American workers are trained and educated to be employed at unskilled or semiskilled life occupations. But a very large proportion of jobs they need to be open to them–jobs in which their parents used to make wages enabling them to live acceptably comfortable lives–have been shipped to low-wage countries for the sole purpose of further enriching their already rich former employers, the owners and top executives of thousands of our nation’s corporations.

The present scarcity of livable-wage jobs in America, engineered by the political Right’s funders and enabled by Republican politicians frankly in their employ (and Democrats also mired in thoughtless obeisance to laissez-faire economic principles) is at the core of our present–worsening and probably permanent–Great Recession.

America’s long-pursued permanent state of war against one imagined threat after another, from Korea to Vietnam to Afghanistan to Iraq, impoverishes the country simultaneously in another way, pulling trillions of dollars from policies and programs that are needed at home and further enriching owners and top executives of our highly lucrative war industries. The uniformed military takes only a minority of these totally wasted funds. Privatization of the military is the new rule. Contracted services and contract personnel, in numbers exceeding those of our armies and often paid at up to ten times what our soldiers earn, are raking in enormous profits as they further impoverish the nation to no perceptible good effect.

The mini-wars of punishment on Iran and Afghanistan that were intended to somehow negate and avenge the 9-11 attacks by 19 religious fanatics from Arabia have now cost more than 6,026 US military lives (twice the Twin Towers toll) and over $1,370,000,000,000 in US tax dollars. Benefits to America from these costs are still hoped-for, but only by diehard optimists (most with tell-tale investments in the program). But the beat goes relentlessly on.

One of the highly visible results of this severe loss of national affluence can be seen in reduced government services at every level. Our city and county public libraries are being closed or operated on sharply reduced schedules. Our state vehicle licensing offices now have reduced hours, fewer staff, and higher fees. National, state, county, and city parks, many of which used to be free to users, have begun charging admission and other fees. The poor pay more, proportionally, and thus become poorer.

Staff layoffs in all kinds of government services further increase the rolls of unemployed, as formerly well-paid workers become unable to meet their mortgage obligations, default on their loans, and are thrown, with their families, out of their homes. The “official” national unemployment rate stands today at just under ten percent, but the actual rate, including workers employed part-time or who have given up looking for work, is between 16 and 17 percent.

The Republican governor of Florida boasted in late September about his administration’s having “created” over 87,000 private-sector jobs (probably an exaggeration) while firing more than 125, 000 state employees (probably accurate). What he omitted to mention was that many of the 87,000 may well have been minimum-wage fast-food jobs taken by some of those former fair-wage earners he dumped, further depressing the average earnings of Florida’s middle class.

This reduction of all government jobs promoted by leaders of the radical Right is part of the plan to, in their words, “starve the beast.” This is effective at a far deeper level than some observers recognize, for it makes all government services less responsive to citizens’ needs and thereby increases distrust of the idea of “government” in the hearts of the people. This, in turn, makes them ever more receptive to the notion that all government is bad and the less we have, the better.

For oligarchs plying their trade in an ostensible democracy, this is, of course, one of their most valuable outcomes. Any democratic government must fail to the extent that its residents can be made to distrust and fear it.

In a democracy, government–that is, the laws and their enactment and enforcement–originates in and is maintained by the people, in their needs and wishes, as expressed at ballot boxes in elections. The Right has always opposed, and in fact was everywhere, in all societies, created to oppose, the aspirations of the many, the demos, to share more equitably in the benefits their society generates. These were benefits that were, before democracy reared its dangerous head, always reserved for the rich and powerful few by laws imposed, like it or not, on the people from above by the rich and powerful. Thus it becomes a very important strategy of the Right in any democracy to actively sow distrust and, if possible, hatred of government.

The introduction of the voice of the people into political decision making is a very recent phenomenon. In all history, until only the late 18th century in the United States and France, all government was imposed from above, by small power elites. To the extent that our government still expresses the voice of the people, it remains a voice to be silenced to the degree possible, and the chief aim of the GOP-dominated Tea Party, financed by our current power elite, is to widen hatred of their own “government” among blue-collar Americans who increasing see it as the “enemy.”

The “great right-wing conspiracy” that Hillary Clinton once warned us about (ridiculed as illusory by the Right’s captive media) is real and readily observable in action.

Intrinsic to the Tea Party’s current dominance of the Republican Party is the hostility to discoveries of science that call into question ideological positions that TP adherents cherish. Thus evolution, environmental protective legislation, global warming warnings, and even some disease-preventive inoculations are feared and opposed as evil plots designed to weaken and destroy America. This antipathy grows while it is clear to rational observers that it is precisely those societies most hostile to science that are least advanced in every measure of quality of life.

Critic Jonathan Schell has noted, “The list of delusions and absurdities that play an active role in political life–from the widespread belief that the current President is foreign-born and a Muslim to the fear that Sharia law is poised to take over American jurisprudence–steadily lengthens.”

As the influence of the more fanatic and ignorant and highly religious Right (in its current manifestation, the largely blue-collar Tea Party and its fellow travelers) grows in our society, its efforts to destroy labor unions and generally weaken the already limited power of wage workers to make their voices heard pushes America’s living standards ever downward from their peak before the beginning of the “Reaganomics” era’s start in 1981.

This once-far-fetched dream of the Right’s leaders–to create in workers a fear and hatred of labor unions, their own last, best hope to achieve a fairer share in society’s wealth–has in the Tea Party found organized fruition at last. A heart-wrenching spectacle.

It’s inescapable that America’s already grossly inequitable economic system has now deteriorated to the point where 15.1 percent of us (46.5 million Americans) now live in poverty, an increase from 22.9 million in 1973. (Source: U. of Michigan, Gerald Ford Center) This while the richest one percent of us own 42.7 percent of the national wealth and the bottom 80 percent of us share a paltry 7 percent. But debt is not so sparing of the poorest: The bottom 90 percent owe 73.4; the top one percent owe 5.4 percent. And another startling fact: In 2004 the top one-tenth of one percent had more pre-tax income than the bottom 120,000,000 Americans. It seems that egalitarianism is racing away from us at an ever-increasing rate, as we see quality of life for the many descend further.

All of the dominant GOP’s presidential candidates vie in their debates for the title of staunchest defender of the cruelest feature of this cruel status quo, as the Democratic executive branch makes do with economic advisers many of whom were instrumental in engineering the financial meltdown that plunged us into this Great Depression. The two parties fated to rule America into the foreseeable future share an unshakeable faith in the 18th century economic tenets of the endless boom-and-bust and devil-take-the-hindmost religion called free-market capitalism.

Critical analysis of the basic dogmas of this faith is prohibited, according to the present rules of our society, with no less intensity than critical analysis of the dominant organized religions. “Equality of opportunity” is holy writ, while equality of outcome is damned as a heretical aspiration. The former myth pretends that a semiliterate child of the barrio crack-head single mother has the same chance of being appointed to the Supreme Court as the coddled son of lawyers, graduate of Choate, Yale, and Harvard Law. Which is no less inane a conceit than faith in playing the state lottery is a rational career choice.

Myth, pretense, thoroughly discredited economic wishful thinking, with rigid adherence to them all–these are hardly useful guides to guaranteeing any society’s enduring expectations of survival in our competitive world.

Another well-worn traditional activity among the Right’s propagandists is the promotion of mutual suspicion and distrust among and between various categories of working Americans. Christians against Muslims, Mormons, Jews, and agnostics; Italian Americans against Hispanics; higher-paid skilled AFL workers against the CIO’s lower-paid unskilled or semiskilled; Irish Americans against blacks; straights vs. gays; Protestants against Catholics—any group that can be riled up on any pretexts against any other to ultimately divide and conquer by fragmentation of democracy’s necessary unity of purpose.

It works so often, it’s so pathetic, and it’s increasingly being pressed into service by the mainstream GOP. A nation of interest groups kept well-differentiated and kept squabbling with each other is unlikely ever to join together in rational opposition to the cabal of oligarchs who are its true oppressors.

In a related and effective divide-and-conquer strategy, those who buy the legislators and own the media find a useful tool in our present criminal justice system, in which there is huge class of persons called “criminals.” This class comprises fully 3.1 percent of the males in our society. In 2009, 7,225,800 US adults were under criminal justice supervision; that’s 31 out of every thousand. Of these, 2,292,133 were in prison or jail. We imprison more than 7 times as large a percentage of our citizens as Canada, Germany, or Italy, and more than ten times that of Sweden, Denmark, or Iceland. Our figures are up over 800 percent in the last 30 years alone. We’re Number One in locking up our own, twice as punitive as China.

Our prisoners, we are instructed, are best confined, deprived, and tortured (within currently acceptable limits) for periods of time as “punishment” for their offenses (primarily drug-related) and then released back into society, well-trained, by their treatment and their prison associates, to re-offend and be recycled through the process.

A typical American felon is released from prison upon completion of his sentence by being given five 20-dollar bills and a one-way bus ticket to a destination of his choice. Supposed to be adequate to make re-introduction into non-criminal civilian life possible for him and prevent his falling back into criminal behavior, such cruel policies have proved highly effective instead in ensuring his re-offending.

Not only is there no organized societal interest in the causes of criminal conduct, but any glimmers of such interest are actively discouraged by political pressures. The question is prohibited: How does this cooing babe-in-arms in a mere twenty-odd years become a convicted criminal, in numbers to overfill the prisons of this most crime-ridden by far of all the world’s industrialized democracies? We simply do not want to know–period. We’ll continue to deal with symptoms, and that’s that!

No formula for long-term success, this, unless we count our world’s largest, most expensive and expansive, rapidly privatizing prisons industry as something other than a disastrous liability.

The trends we have discussed here, now in their fourth decade, are broadening, accelerating, and intensifying nationwide. Their effects must become apparent once a disinterested observer makes an effort to step back from his forgivable somnolent acceptance of the present stages of our national decline. We’ve called attention to some of them in the foregoing paragraphs. To extrapolate them over the next 20 to 40 years is a frightening exercise but one that also should be undertaken except by those committed to resolute denial of the obvious.

One of the most self-destructive policies pursued diligently for short-term electioneering advantage by all of the US political parties is our unwavering support of all policies and actions of the nation of Israel. This we do in contravention of America’s own political and moral principles and in brazen defiance of the protests, needs, and wishes of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims.

Defending and promoting bad deeds by what much of the world sees as the kleptocratic political gang ruling a tiny rogue state halfway around the world serves long-term American interests not at all. The gang’s rule can lead only to the eventual annihilation of that country’s people, as their increasingly hate-filled neighbors acquire the means to destroy them. Sure, Israel has nuclear weapons and its leaders may even have the insane determination to use them, but that represents a better plan for self-destruction than successful self-defense. Our current administration’s determination this week to veto in the UN Security Council the Palestinians’ request for statehood recognition is only the latest foolish act in six decades of masochistic US obstructionism based on one short-term fear alone: We dare not follow through on our declared preference for a two-state solution to the “Palestinian problem,” for to do so would alienate powerful American Jewish interests in the next domestic elections.

Added to the powerfully self-immolating societal influences recounted in the foregoing paragraphs are the immensely destructive economic effects of the mortgage/housing crisis and the subtly negative impact of consumer–particularly credit card–indebtedness in the USA. A poorly kept secret is the number of defaulted mortgages that lenders, primarily banks, are currently closeting, unforeclosed, in addition to the smaller number of real estate properties (the “shadow inventory”) they’ve already repossessed from borrowers but haven’t yet re-marketed.

If all bank-owned properties were to be put on the market today, the crashed market values of American homes would reach another, truer bottom, sparking a further re-collapse in real estate values nationwide. The banks are apparently waiting, their top executives impotently hoping, for something to happen to the nation’s economy that might make this whole (self-induced) horror go away.

These are not short-term or minor blips in an advancing or stable society’s course. Most or all appear to be characteristics of a culture in severe decline.

Ill-chosen grand policy decisions for short-term gain made by ruling cliques have always played a pivotal role in the declines of past empires along with persistent pressures of long-term aspirations of peoples whom the empires exploited and over whom they ruled for a time. From Persia‘s apogee (522 B.C.) to China’s (221 B.C.) to Rome (27 B.C.- 476 A.D.) to the Byzantine (476 A.D. - 1453 A.D.) to the Austrian (1453 - 1918) to the British (1500 - 1945) to the American (1944 - 2025?), empires have come and mostly gone, affording hegemony and unearned wealth and ease to a thin, privileged upper veneer of their home populations at the considerable expense and deprivation of subjugated peoples. Ours has been in conspicuous accelerating decline now for about three decades, and like the singers of imperial praises in those of our predecessors as they collapsed or merely disintegrated, our own odists are still at it here.

In view of so many glaringly apparent trends impelling this path of diminishing wealth and power of the United States, our day of reckoning seems to be at hand. Our leaders and their courtiers pretend that our former preeminence continues unchallenged. What then, if anything, emerges from this depressing review and prognosis as a course of action for an ordinary concerned American? Political action and protest are futile; they require numbers to become even faintly audible, much less effective. The prevailing forces are all massing mightily in the directions described.

Can it possibly–unthinkably–be time to consider emigration from, for any of the many compelling reasons our forebears immigrated to, these promising shores? Can our now inescapable concerns for the nature of the society our children are likely to grow up in soon actually force us to conclude that a better life for them, and for us, ought conceivably to be best pursued elsewhere?

 

 

On the Tea Party, Fox News, etc.

August 11th, 2011

 

(For today’s column let’s post a version of a letter we just sent to an old friend in the Middle West whose views on politics, economics, and religion are, as you’ll deduce, well to the right.)

Hey, old buddy,

Thanks for sharing your interesting letter printed in the Daily _______ in which you urged that “bloated and unnecessary” tax-supported programs should be cut to keep the US economically afloat.

Trouble is, you and the GOP balk at cutting the truly bloated and unnecessary ones, like huge subsidies to oil companies and corporate agriculture, excusing rich guys from paying any Social Security taxes on all income over $106,800 yearly, and their routine evasion of billions of US corporate income taxes by maintaining fake offshore domiciles.

Instead, the GOP you avidly support coldly seeks to strip our poorest kids of their free school lunches and their Head Start preschooling, and our non-rich fellow Americans of their Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid. “We can’t afford such waste…” while the unheard sotto voce is “…for a bunch of brats and freeloaders who are mostly niggers, Mexicans, and white trash.”

How can it be that the repeatedly disproved old myth, that we can best improve our economy by taking money from programs and policies that benefit the many, the working classes, and giving it to the few rich in tax breaks, still has such traction in conservative circles? “Trickle-down” seems perennially promoted in attempts to justify further enrichment of the haves at the expense of the have-nots. The idea is that they’ll be nice and give us jobs if we make them richer. Never worked and never will.

What does work, and has every time it’s been tried, is not to pay the rich more in tax breaks (they merely hoard it) but pay the struggling working classes more, because they immediately spend it (they need to, for life’s basics), which does enhance the national internal cash exchange and does improve the economy. Especially in recessions like our present one.

I’ve studied American politics for about half a century now, and I’ve never seen a time in which the rapacious greed of our party of the Right, the Republicans, has been so shamelessly displayed, as the Tea Party tail wags the entire GOP into obeisance to the whimsical interests of the rich and cold disregard for the desperate needs of the less fortunate.

Yes, Fox News did, as you insist, mention the Murdoch Corporation’s scandal for a time, after sitting on it for so long that Fox became even more of a laughing stock among the world’s real news media. Then Fox played it so low-key and dropped it so soon that you and all its other faithful viewers wonder, “What’s the big deal?” As you wrote. “The ATF’s recent gaffe allowing 226 guns to reach bad guys in Mexico is much bigger.” You fell for it yourself in this case. See how Fox warps the news?

Fox has attained the success it enjoys today because it is sustained by its followers’ blinkered and uncritical loyalty. The fact that you can say , without a trace of irony, that ALL of the real news media, including NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the New York Times, etc., are wrong and false and corrupt, and only Murdoch’s Fox is right and true and honest, tells objective observers all they need to know to understand your position, its underlying syndrome, and their roots.

Of course Warren Jeffs’s followers, including probably all of his 78 “wives” and sex slaves, believe only Jeffs tells the truth and no others can be trusted. The very syndrome Fox’s ditto-heads exhibit. One friend, “X”, swears that Glenn Beck today, after Fox itself dumped him, is still the only one on TV who tells the truth. Beck knows what’s what, and everybody else doesn’t. Makes life so much easier for X, since he doesn’t have to try to make up his own mind in the face of all those confusing, confusing facts that news media present. Fox relieves you of having to think.

Yes, Fox does mention a number of stories that the real news media report, but does so in such a manner as to emphasize (and often suggest) elements to reflect ill on politicians and principles Fox hates and to highlight elements to reflect positively on those Fox loves. Subtleties missed by most Fox viewers, who tune in primarily to have their biases and prejudices stroked and reconfirmed. Which Fox reliably does, every day.

Everybody who is not already a victim of the Fox Syndrome knows (from having watched Fox News, as I have) that, as an objective news source, it’s a joke. A sick joke, as any self-serving manipulative deception of the weak and vulnerable is sick.

Some Fox apologists have made the claim that, like that of Murdoch’s recent acquisition, The Wall Street Journal, Fox News reportage meets world journalism standards, while admitting that its commentary programs–its editorials–are often grotesquely slanted and mere caricatures of what objective, fact-based commentary ought to be. A majority of journalists, real ones, disagree strongly with that claim, and understand that even the WSJ’s reporting has lately been pushed by the Murdoch ownership ever more rapidly further to the partisan Right.

Two important differences governing what these two Murdoch properties offer are (1) the WSJ’s readers, while perhaps money-grubbers all, are better educated than the viewers of Fox News, and even have among them a sizable number of people to whom critical thinking is not a foreign language, including some Democrats and (2) the WSJ’s staff has not been selected from the outset, as was the case at Fox, for its willingness to slant everything produced.

When Murdoch bought WSJ, he acquired a real news organization, and it has been difficult for him to bring it down to Fox’s level in the short time he has been able to pull the strings, hire and fire, and write the paychecks at the Journal.

 

Religious fundamentalists of every stripe, Baptist to Wahhabi, are generally less well educated than those who profess a milder form of otherworldly belief or none at all. Their religious codes require that they practice unquestioning allegiance and distrust people whose nationalities, languages, colors, or faiths are different from their own. (For example, who but someone a stranger to science, history, and sociology could really believe the ahistorical, fantastic absurdities that constitute the core of all fundamentalist faiths?)

Since critical thinking is always discouraged or prohibited by the tenets of fanatics’ faith–for “faith,“ by definition, precludes critical questioning–they are necessarily less able to engage in it to arrive at rational conclusions that such thinking enables us to reach. It is those viewers, with all the accessory biases and prejudices that they can be expected to treasure, that Fox’s CEO, Roger Ailes, under Rupert Murdoch’s tutelage, has sought to engage, and he has done so with remarkable success. All over America, there are ill-educated white fundamentalist Christians who see Fox News as the source of truth, second only to their ancient holy book, as interpreted for them by their modern holy man..

The GOP’s successful efforts since World War II to meld religion and politics in America have cynically pushed faith into what used to be relatively rational, secular political decision making, to the point that for many, faith rules the hand that pulls the voting lever on election day. In most cases, the consequence of this is the subordination of rational decision making, which genuinely serves voters’ self-interest, to the dictates of faith, which almost never does so. And to that extent, the Fox Syndrome is bringing Americans closer to the Taliban model of Abrahamic church/state unity, albeit one with Jesus instead of Mohammed as their chief demigod here. Are you sure you want that?

Probably the only cure to be had for the Fox Syndrome is by watching and reading objective, real news reporting for long enough to perceive for yourself Fox’s sleazy tricks, to compare real reporting with the carefully selective versions Fox presents, and thereby finally to become appalled and rueful that you’ve been taken in for so long.

I’ll be rooting for you, and I’ll always be here to pose more questions. Always with tentative answers, for absolute truths are the shibboleths of the shaman and fraudulent to the core. But how could you know that?

Take care and hi to your good wife.

Norm H

****

A wry closing comment: It seems like eons ago that Bill Clinton was about to be termed out, and Al Gore–who soon beat George Bush Jr. by more than 500,000 votes in the popular election, only to be denied victory by a corrupt US Supreme Court–was about to step into his shoes and lead America for another 8 years of prosperity, to leave the country, in his turn in 2008, comfortably in the black, with continuing full employment, no Iraq war, and a contentedly stable nation.

Today, August 5, 2011, after two Jr. Bush terms during which he irrationally blew the surplus Clinton left us; made soiled appointments to further corrupt the Supreme Court; killed more Americans by invading Iraq (absolutely blameless for 9-11) than died on 9-11; invaded Afghanistan, to kill thousands more Americans there because its Taliban religious crazies had sheltered a few al Qaeda members; and, by ending regulation, encouraged profligate US financiers and bankers to wreck our economy by their speculative machinations, our nation reels on the edge of collapse, wallowing in debt, its S&P rating degraded for the first time in history by the anti-American antics of a small, crazed, irresponsible Tea Party minority in the House of Representatives.

A worse national decline has rarely occurred in so short a time. What a comedown, one that racist Tea Party nitwits now try to blame on a man who’d been President for only 22 months when he began being foiled at every turn by the angry club of haters now ruling what was once the party of Lincoln.

We’ve seen yapping Tea Party ignoramuses, without a clue about the consequences of a United States credit default, repeatedly cheering, at their televised meetings, the prospect of our country’s credit downgrade: “That’ll teach that nigger in the White house!” Well, now they’ve partly got their wish, but it’s not Obama they’ve put down. It’s America. And they don’t give a damn.

Our empire, like its predecessors, is being destroyed from within. In our case, the causes are plainly evident. Except, that is, to Fox News and its viewers. Please don’t tell me I have a jaundiced and inaccurate view of the Tea Party cult. It’s those limiting their exposure only to the sanitized look at TP antics that Fox News provides who wander in naïve innocence.

Better the coldly calculating but rational Republican Party of George Bush Sr. and his father Prescott than the raving Tea Party GOP we suffer today. At least the old gang had enough smarts and concern for the nation’s survival and health to keep them from the zeal to harm America exhibited daily by TP members.

As I never tire of warning, in 1911 Germany was the intellectual hub of a civilized Europe. British and American philosophers went there for advanced study. A mere 28 years later, it had become the evil sinkhole of Nazism. In much of the second half of the 20th century, America was the light of the civilized world, a beacon in many ways to humankind. Sinclair Lewis wrote It Can’t Happen Here to warn us that it can. Minor provincial ranters like Adolf Schickelgruber and Michelle Bachmann can rise to power occasionally, due to freak series of circumstances, and they can do untold damage to millions with the power they wield, once at the controls.

About a century and a half ago a new party rose meteorically in America, declared members holding 43 seats in the Congress at its peak in 1856. Called the Know-Nothing Party, its motives were fear, hatred, and exclusion, targeting Irish, German, Italian, and Catholic immigrants, where the Tea party activists aim at Mexicans, Muslims, and homosexuals. By 1860, the Know-Nothings were scattered, their power dissipated. If America retains its sanity, a like fate awaits the Tea Party, and soon, though today its declared members hold 60 seats in today’s Congress.

On a lighter note, isn’t the Newsweek’s current cover portrait of Michelle Bachmann a brilliantly true representation of that evil woman’s threat to America? The vacuous, fanatical stare of the empty-headed true believer who knows she’s right on everything yet has demonstrated that she knows so little about anything. She’s a classic, with inevitable strong appeal to those afflicted by the Fox Syndrome. I can easily visualize this 2012 Tea Party ticket: Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, pretty as Hollywood stars, leading the Christian racist South back into secession (as he’s already on record as advocating).

What a country that will be: Waco, Texas, its capital; Mississippi its spiritual center; Florida-style vote-counting its elections standard; expulsion (or possibly confinement in labor camps) of Muslims and suspect non-Christians, Mexicans, homosexuals, and other undesirables its operating principle; Fox News its only permitted TV channel. What a modern Eden that nation will be.

And on a heavier note: Our country’s basic economic problem is that we’re spending more than we’re taking in in taxes. The cruel and the greedy (often the same people) endlessly urge, “We must not take in more. We must only spend less, even if it means that the poor, the very old, and the very young must suffer. Better to gut Medicaid than to tax one dollar of the sacred surpluses of the rich. The old poor people who will die are useless anyway, as are the children of the inner-city poor whose hunger and untreated illnesses never contaminate our suburban gated communities.” So smug, so cold. So essential Tea Party, once you strip away the flag-waving façade.

Yet a motto fit to warm the heart of any American sufficiently in the grip of Fox Syndrome, as I regretfully surmise you’ll agree.

Expansion

February 8th, 2011

(In another of our daring ventures–into, well, call it benign industrial espionage–we planted a bug on the wall just before a secret meeting of a Walmart tactical team whose members were convening at a hotel in Kern County near Tehachapi. Their objective: Opening a Walmart Supercenter in another town too small to resist the retailer’s takeover.

From what we could pick up, there seemed to be four participants, a team Leader and three others whom we’ll call Abel, Baker and Charlene. Here’s what we heard.)

_____________________________________________________

Leader: This little town should not be a problem.

Abel: An easy one, boss.

Leader: How about these folks’ educational level?

Baker: Low enough to be Walmart-friendly or neutral. Fifty-two and 28 percent, respectively. Less than eight thousand population. A pushover.

Leader: That’ll work. How many supermarkets to put out of business?

Charlene: Just two, a Save Mart and an Albertson’s.

Leader: And pharmacies?

Abel: Walgreen’s. Rite Aid, Savon, and K-Mart. Plus maybe a couple little storefront independents. We’ll knock out all of them except maybe Walgreen’s. They’re national. They can match us, price cut for price cut. But we’ll undersell the others right into the ground. Scorched earth, guys.

Leader: Now, we don’t want to come out looking like too big, too bad, you know.

Charlene: Yes, not good for the Walmart image. We don’t want to be seen as doing what we do, do we?

(General laughter)

Leader: That would not be good. We’ll allow some token competition, of course. That’s routine. What about environmental impact? Any problems?

Baker: None, boss. We’ve got the municipal officials firmly on board. This bunch of brown-noses…I mean, they’re so eager to please us, it’s almost comical.

Leader: Good, healthy pro-GOP, free-enterprise bias. That always helps.

Baker: They’re pushing hard for approvals for us on every issue–parking, traffic congestion, pollution, whatever. Our Supercenter‘s gonna mess them up good, but they’re with us. They don’t care.

Abel: All they can see is more tax revenue…

Charlene: …Means more income for the city, which…

Abel: …Which means pay raises and more power for the officials.

Leader: I hear you. Anybody making waves about economic impact? You know, the usual sad mom-and-pops going out of business story? The whole collapse to come?

Baker: Every word out of these politicians’ mouths pooh-poohs such problems. To listen to these guys, you’d think we were paying them a salary. They couldn’t care less about the local businesses that put them in office. Or the folks who work there.

Leader: Brains of gold, hey? How about other possible opposition, like the local press?

Abel: All on our side. They’re greedy for our ad dollars. One of them was praising us for how pretty our parking lot is going to be. They’re grateful for the trees we’re planting in our parking lot!

(General laughter)

Leader: Can’t get much better cheerleading than that. So our plans are right on track, then. Would you all agree?

Charlene: We’re going in with no holds barred, boss. We’ll undersell every supermarket, every drug store, every hardware…

Abel: …For as long as it takes to crush the competition. Yeah!

Charlene: We’ll show the Walton family back in Arkansas that our team is the most aggressive, the most ruthless…

Leader: Don’t use words like ruthless.

Charlene: Sorry, boss. That our team is the most aggressive, the most efficient team in all of Walmart’s takeover efforts…

Leader; Don’t say takeover.

Charlene: Sorry, again. I get so enthusiastic about our mission. All of Walmart’s expansion efforts to, to bring low prices and a higher standard of living to America. How’s that?

(General laughter)

Leader: That’s better. We don’t want any government watchdog agency making before-and-after comparisons of the towns Walmart takes over…oops, I did it myself. I mean Walmart expands into. Our home office in Bentonville has done some private analyses, and it’s not…well, the numbers make us look bad, you know. Anyway, federal lawsuits are not what we want to defend.

Abel: It’s just Commuist propaganda, anyway, boss. Right?

(General laughter)

Leader: Right! Our lobbyists have taken care of Congress so far. But we’d best be careful. Okay, let’s get down to business. First, how about a cheer for good old free enterprise American business.

(Group cheer)

Leader: We want most of the retail dollars spent in Tehachapi to flow into our cash registers. That’s our goal–right?

(Chorus of voices) Right!

Leader: All right! Now let’s get on it. I want to see detailed price lists of everything sold at every retail establishment operating in Tehachapi. We want to undersell every merchant in town, right from the minute our doors open. We’re gonna break their backs, close ‘em down!

Baker: And all our customers will see is saving money, money, money for me, me, me.

Leader: We’ll make the people in our checkout lines so giddy with saving their three bucks here, ten bucks there, that their eyes and ears won’t see or hear anything about Walmart’s economic impact on their town. Do you read me?

Baker: We’ll razzle-dazzle the suckers, boss!

Leader: Don’t use words like suckers. They’re our intelligent, valued customers. When Cousin Joe or Uncle Ed gets fired or closes his store, it’ll be Joe and Ed’s fault, not ours. That’s how happy our new Tehachapi customers are going to be with our low prices. Always!

(Chorus of voices:) Always!

Leader: All right, let’s get to work. Walmart, bigger and better–Always! Let’s hear it!

(Chorus of voices:) Lower prices! Always!

_______________________________________________________

(At this point in the proceedings, our microphone’s batteries apparently had had it, and we lost our feed. But we had this opportunity to share an intriguing few minutes’ auditory peek into the expansion plans that America’s–and the world’s–richest and most aggressive corporation has in mind for our little town.)

 

[Our readers know this is fiction, but imagery with a solid foundation in Walmort corporate history.]

Looks Like We’ve Done It Again

January 30th, 2011
We backed the Shah’s evil dictatorship in Iran until the Iranian people blew the lid off and we got his successors, Ayatollah Khomeini and Ahmadinejad, as well as that people’s unending hostility, for our pains.

We ran military puppets, supported by US troops in Nicaragua in 1912 and the 1920s and ’30s, and then installed and supported the corrupt Somoza family dictatorship there, and we got the anti-US Sandinista regime as a result.

We supported the brutal Batista dictatorship in Cuba until the people’s hero, Fidel Castro, threw off the yoke and we got a nice Communist island in the Caribbean as a direct consequence. We supported yet more vicious dictatorships in Chile and Argentina for decades until they, too (doesn’t a pattern emerge here for even the dimmest among us?) got rid of their oppressors and put democracies, distinctly cool to the USA, in their place.

For over 30 years we have propped up, with untold billions of American taxpayer dollars and weaponry, dictator Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and it looks today as if his days are numbered too. This after the people of neighboring Tunisia rose up and dumped their dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, another US client, only a few days ago.

Some American administrations have been more culpable than others in providing aid, comfort, and dollars galore to this succession of vicious crooks, Nixon/Kissinger’s and Reagan/Haig’s having been most egregiously supportive. But all of our leaders have helped to help keep these power-crazed knaves secure, with liberal contributions of our money, weapons, and military “advisers.”

US governments have not been abetting these nasty bastards simply to reward their badness, of course. Our national leaders have been motivated by what they’ve perceived–stupidly and short-range–as “American interests” every time.

In the case of Iran and its Shah, the issue was protecting US and British oil interests in that petroleum-rich land. The Shah kept the oil flowing to our oil companies instead of to the Iranian people whose resources we paid him to help us loot. We had to overthrow their elected leader Mossadegh to accomplish the deed, but that was easy, both militarily and morally: you see, he was a “leftist.”

In Nicaragua we did our dirty work first to protect the interests of an American corporation, the United Fruit Company in the 1920s and ‘30s. Later our objective was to keep the left-leaning Sandinista movement out of power, and to prevent that tiny Central American nation from enjoying a people-oriented government for the first time. (They actually intended to enact their own versions of our own leftist Social Security and Medicare legislation. Intolerable!)

These Latin American dictators–in Cuba, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic (whose elected leader Juan Bosch our President Lyndon Johnson overthrew in the mid-1960s), Argentina, and Chile–were all kept enthroned by a succession of US administrations in the grip of a fanatical anti-Communism, fueled by fears that the USSR was about to overtake and replace us as the world’s dominant superpower.

But our coddling of Tunisia’s crime boss Ben Ali and Egypt’s Mubarak has had less to do with our anti-Left bias than it does with the long-established US aim of maintaining a “stability” in the Arab world–the Middle East–sufficient to enable Israel, our principal client in that potential cauldron, to survive and prosper.

The overthrow of Mubarak which, as this is written, now seems likely, promises to make it possible for Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood (MB) to achieve power at last in that nation. The MB, according to some analyses, currently has what amounts to a majority political following, and could attain significant power in elections almost certain to be held later this year. Among the MB’s first actions, once installed, might be a revocation of Egypt’s peace accord with Israel, signed in Washington under the aegis of President Carter, putting that kettle once again severely on the boil.

Some pundits have tried to raise our fears about the Suez Canal’s being closed if Mubarak falls. “Closed to shipping world-wide!” Hinting at the need for US military intervention, naturally. (Shades of the Anglo-French military’s failure in their 1956 attempt?) But the Canal is an important moneymaker for Egypt, and it’s probably safe to predict that it will remain open and profitable no matter which party achieves power there.

If (when?) the Mubarak dictatorship falls, will our policymakers have at along last learned not to prop up bad guys all over the world in pursuance of short-term aims and in blithe ignorance of the inevitable and far worse future consequences directly traceable to those policies?

As usual, “Nobody saw it coming.” The past, though perhaps mere prologue, sets the pattern far too often. Is it really too obscure, too complicated to face the idea that events have causes? And that addressing causes is always more economical than trying to clean up consequences?

 

Now Acapulco

January 21st, 2011

 

Youth on the prow, and Pleasure at the helm;

Regardless of the sweeping whirlwinds’ sway,

That, hushed in grim repose,

Expects his evening prey.

(Thomas Gray, 1742)

We saw the latest sign of Mexico’s descent into blood-soaked anarchy–otherwise known as its “war on drugs”–last Friday night. Twenty-seven people were murdered in tourist magnet Acapulco, 14 of them with their heads severed, in another grisly flare-up of that country’s unending and futile accommodation of its northern neighbor’s lust for fun drugs.

In the last four years 34,612 people have been killed in Mexico, most by drug gangs but many by law enforcers and the military, 15,273 in 2010 alone. That’s an average of 38 killed every day! Why?

Because trafficking pays so extremely well. Well enough for the gangs to buy all the high-tech weaponry they need (mostly from the super-lax US gun market) to match and overpower those of the government’s forces.

The Interior Ministry’s answer? More of the same: ”Acts of violence such as these underscore the need to fight with determination against organized crime.” American authorities, too, have vowed to renew their efforts to help Mexico “battle” the drug lords in the “war”–wonderful military metaphors that get everybody’s blood flowing faster and gets more money spent on enforcement, as our poor neighbor nation slides ever deeper into helpless, fear-filled lawlessness.

The decapitations, which have occurred in other Mexican cities as well, are calculated to terrify and make more compliant both civilians and police, and it works. Many mayors and prosecutors have also been assassinated. One of the most worrisome related problems is the number of police and military personnel who have been recruited by the drug industry to assist in their operations as only insiders can do.

It’s the money, spurred by the fear. Always the money. Mexico is a poverty-wallowing nation of about 120 million, in which thirty percent of the wealth is owned by only forty obscenely rich plutocrats. Fully sixty percent of the bottom-dwelling masses writhe in hungry need, and the promise of big money, fast, is an irresistible lure. As it is among an embarrassing but not well-publicized proportion of American users, dealers, and law enforcers. Clearly it is drug money that’s at the core of Mexico’s deterioration, its rapid descent to failed-state status. The question then arises, if it’s the money, could there be some way to remove it from the mix? To excise the inflammatory element that serves as the sole motive driving the greed-crazed violence?

The drugs are all very cheap to produce. What’s grown and made for pennies a pound, however, costs dollars an ounce–often very many dollars–by the time it reaches the underworld of drug-dealing in the USA. These are profit margins (rivaled only by the legal US distillery, winery, and beer industries) entirely off the books and untaxed.

Let’s speculate for a moment. What if all the illicit goodies smoked or sniffed or mainlined by all the American dopers who make up the Mexican gangs’ market were priced at their true cost? What if, that is, the money were taken out of the drug trade in the way we took the money out of Prohibition-era alcohol?

Today in America anyone can get snockered for the price of a ten-buck liquor-store purchase, whiskey or wine or six-pack. There is no longer any of the black-marketeering that grew and nourished the crime wave which did so much damage to our nation during the alcohol Prohibition of 1920 to 1933. Nobody kills anybody anymore over liquor dealing. It’s all legal and above-board. And heavily taxed to provide needed government revenue. Users get what they want in a rational, peaceful process that has now worked in a very civilized way for over 77 years. Sure, we’ve been paying a nominal price in alcohol-driven violence and crime during our relaxed post-Prohibition decades. But it’s a tiny, far more tolerable fraction of the disastrous nationwide crime wave engendered by the artificially inflated value of that drug during the Prohibition era.

We could, if we took a similarly intelligent approach, follow exactly the same course in our approach to the other addictive recreational drugs, eliminating most of our own very expensive national crime problem, besides saving our hapless neighbor state to the south from the total anomie in which its worsening drug war promises to culminate. It’s no secret that the major US manufacturers of alcohol products have long been poised, at the ready, to step right into making and selling all of the drugs that now create most of our national “crime” problem. “Most” because recent reports show that ______ percent of US prison populations (a $ _____ billion drain on our national treasure) are incarcerated for drug-related offenses.

Holding back any policy progress on this front are the usual tradition-bound political conservatives who have always impeded rational change on nearly every problem our country has ever faced. They know the way things work now (and even a few admit that this way leaves a lot to be desired), but they fear change. What else, after all, does “conservatism” mean?

The outlook for progress must await progress in our educational system to elevate problem solving and critical thinking over the thoughtless respect for tradition and convention that educationally challenged plodders cherish and conservative politicians pretend to worship.

Who Shot Gabrielle Giffords

January 10th, 2011
 
No, this is not a question. Read on.  

According to a recent Small Arms Survey of the Geneva Institute of International Studies, the USA appears to be the craziest country in the world when it comes to totally irresponsible gun proliferation. At 90 guns per 100 Americans, we’re number one. Yemen, that fount of international terrorism, is only second, at 61 guns, and chaotic Iraq is fourth, at 39 guns per 100 residents. Great company, wouldn’t you say? All right, you wouldn’t. Neither would I. But we’re there, in spades.

The entire membership of the US Congress, some 500 elected officials, is convening this week to decide whether to take armed police protection with them at all their public appearances, sometimes up to five events daily. Of course they should be protected by armed guards. In today’s hostile political climate, and with a loaded gun in nine hands out of ten, it’s only the sensible thing to do in America.

It is estimated that there are about 279 million guns now at large in our land. We also live with ceaseless 24/7 raging radio and TV ranters who urge hatred of government officials upon their ill-educated and confusedly impressionable listeners. Most members of this audience are fairly sane, but some are not.

Those dumb and disturbed and frustrated enough to listen to and absorb the rage and fear peddled daily like crack cocaine by the Rush Limbaughs, Glenn Becks, Oliver Norths, and Fox “News” include an appreciable proportion of only marginally sane gun owners. And it is from this hundred-thousand-strong cadre of alienated potential gun users that Jared Lee Loughner came, the wretch who pulled the trigger to shoot down Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others in the Safeway parking lot in Tucson, Arizona, on January 8, 2011.

Fundamentally evil organizations like the National Rifle Association (PR arm of the gun industry) and the legislators corrupted by its generous bribes are responsible in significant part for her wounding and the deaths of six others on that dark day. It is their highly successful efforts that have put a loaded gun in the hand of anybody who wants one and can pay for it.

Let’s consider, too, whether Sarah Palin, the dangerous airhead that the Republican Party nominated as its best and brightest Vice Presidential candidate in 2008, also bears a degree of responsibility for the carnage in Tucson. She’s the one who deliberately used the “lock and load” language (which does not refer to knitting) and posted aiming crosshairs on the Net to indicate what she wanted done to Represenative Giffords and others in the 2010 election. Wasn’t “taken out” the phrase Palin used approvingly in this context? 

And Sharron Angle, the grinning nitwit who failed to unseat Harry Reid in Nevada, has hinted very clearly that her followers might be well advised to use “Second Amendment remedies” against what they don’t like about governmment officials. Would it be unfair to expect Angle to be deriving some satisfaction from the fact that her hints may have borne some fruit in Tucson against one of the hated Democrats?

Also strongly in the mix are Arizona’s NRA-purchased gun laws, which encourage every fear- and hate-raddled nut possessing a few bucks and a burning resentment to buy and cherish his very own little people killer. And hey, in Arizona it’s okay to carry. And in America, thanks to George Bush Jr. and an NRA-managed Congress, it’s now also okay to buy and use a 30-bullet clip in your Glock.

Now for the question: Who Shot Gabrielle Giffords? Well, poor dissociated Jared Loughner bought the Glock (so easily) and pulled its trigger, as we know. But isn’t it merely sweeping the question under the rug if we content ourselves with blaming only the nutcase and relieving  his many abettors of their share of the responsibility?

Sticking a needle in Loughner and ignoring the rest will solve nothing. It will only make future Tucsons inevitable.

 

 


HTML Hit Counter
Web Counter