I find it interesting that Hillary won Ohio by 10 points yesterday while in spite of an Ohio Poll released on Sunday that showed her ahead by 9, the MSM kept saying Obama was surging and the race was too close to call. Interesting that she also won with a "wider than expected" margin in Texas too.
Hmmmm, do you think the MSM might just be trying to manipulate the process a bit? Why do they dislike Hillary so much? Is this going to be a repeat of Gore v W in '00 where the MSM could not find enough good to say about W and willingly propagated every falsehood and lie it was handed, and made fun of Gore for being a wooden wonk at every opportunity?
I held my nose and did something I said I would l not do yesterday. I wanted to vote for Edwards as he was still on the ballot and got 4% of the popular, but no delegates. I just could not stomach throwing my vote away in protest this year.
Obama does seem to have a problem in large states. I wonder why? I have no idea except that perhaps his charisma is more potent when people see him in person.
Pennsylvania is very similar to Ohio, so unless Obama can flesh out his message, and be less compromising, he may not have much of a chance. My own feeling is the voters of Ohio saw the lack of clothes on Obama, and do not want compromise after having been given the short end for so long.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Now is Not the Time for Bipartisanship
It is all over the main stream media. Like W’s promise to be a “uniter not a divider” it is the central theme of Obama’s concept of change. There is a conference in Lawrence, Kansas bringing together DINOs like former Senators Nunn and Brownback, with GOP moderates like former NJ governor Whitman and NYC mayor Bloomberg.
It is all a big bait and switch. A scam pure and simple. The economic elites who have benefited from the past 25 years of redistribution of wealth are scared and doing their best to limit the damage of the coming wave.
To me the plan goes something like this:
- Given the utter dissatisfaction the electorate has with conservatism and the GOP the first play is to get the Democrats to nominate someone who is unelectable for President. Hillary is very polarizing. Obama’s race may not be a factor among Democrats, but among white males of whom a majority vote conservative you had better believe race is an issue. The nomination of either of these candidates will narrow the margins in the general election. Heaven forbid Democrats pick a white male from a southern or western state as their nominee.
- In case no. 1 above fails, co opt the anointed Democratic candidates so that if one of them does win in the general election they will not push for radical changes. Both Hillary and Obama have been co-opted in this way from my perspective.
- Call for “bipartisanship” which translates as liberals compromising to adopt more conservative policies. Make any candidate who is unwilling to adopt this line appear to be a left wing whacko, or out of touch. (The treatment John Edwards is getting in the MSM)
- Keep the electorate unhappy with congress. Just imagine how much the Democrats could accomplish with a 60 vote majority in the Senate? The best hope here is to create an anti incumbent furor, so people vote against the current office holder rather than for a particular party. Do this by having the MSM talk about how the Democratic congress cannot get anything done, without mentioning it is because of Senate filibusters by the GOP and vetoes by the current occupant of the White House.
So, to a tin foil hat wearing nut like me, a vote for bi partisan change and compromise is really a vote for the status quo. My question is how do we get people to realize they are being manipulated? It is one of those things no one really wants to know. They would much rather believe they are actually choosing for themselves.
Friday, January 4, 2008
What a Way to Choose a President
Finally, after a year of campaigning, it has begun, the Iowa results are in and it does not look good. I’ll ignore the GOP side of things for now because the Democrats seem determined to give the presidency to whatever wing nut the Republicans nominate.
What I find so discouraging is how the main stream media do everything they can to limit the field to the few candidates they and their corporate masters find to be acceptable. On the Democratic side there are 2: Hillary, the choice of Wall Street, and Obama, the choice of energy and agri-businesses. Edwards has been written off as being “too populist”, a fault that is just beyond my comprehension.
To me this is all just so obvious. But then again I am just a tin foil hat wearing nut. The elites who control the MSM have determined a Republican is close to unelectable in ’08 so they hand picked 2 right of center “Democrats”, candidates who would not do much to disrupt the status quo and the continued redistribution of wealth. They then declared these 2 candidates to be the only ones who were “viable” or top tier. Unfortunately, John Edwards muddled things up by raising if not equal, comparable amounts of money and doing well in polls. Well now the Iowa results are in. A “must win” for Edwards. So according to the analysts he is no longer viable because he came in 2nd based upon the choice of roughly 250,000 people. For example writing about Obama's win NY Times columnist, David Brooks said: "He’s(Obama) made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over. " But keep in mind that Brooks is good source for the next set of conservative talking points so you can see where this is headed. On the other hand, Hillary, who finished 3rd still can win if she can do well in New Hampshire and so on according to the MSM.
It bothers me is that statements of this sort on or in the MSM do effect the way people perceive candidates and vote. It really is rather disgusting. What is perhaps more disgusting is how we (the American electorate) are so easily manipulated by people with an agenda so contrary to the self interest of the majority.
The irony is that Obama won on a platform of change, where when you look at his positions his proposals he offers the least change to the current way the country operates. You just have to wonder how a guy comes out of a state legislature to run for president in just 4 years. Who has been greasing the rails? As stated above: big energy and agri-business. Is it any wonder he won in a state so dependent on agriculture and looking forward to bio fuels? But you won’t hear that from the MSM.
What I find so discouraging is how the main stream media do everything they can to limit the field to the few candidates they and their corporate masters find to be acceptable. On the Democratic side there are 2: Hillary, the choice of Wall Street, and Obama, the choice of energy and agri-businesses. Edwards has been written off as being “too populist”, a fault that is just beyond my comprehension.
To me this is all just so obvious. But then again I am just a tin foil hat wearing nut. The elites who control the MSM have determined a Republican is close to unelectable in ’08 so they hand picked 2 right of center “Democrats”, candidates who would not do much to disrupt the status quo and the continued redistribution of wealth. They then declared these 2 candidates to be the only ones who were “viable” or top tier. Unfortunately, John Edwards muddled things up by raising if not equal, comparable amounts of money and doing well in polls. Well now the Iowa results are in. A “must win” for Edwards. So according to the analysts he is no longer viable because he came in 2nd based upon the choice of roughly 250,000 people. For example writing about Obama's win NY Times columnist, David Brooks said: "He’s(Obama) made John Edwards, with his angry cries that “corporate greed is killing your children’s future,” seem old-fashioned. Edwards’s political career is probably over. " But keep in mind that Brooks is good source for the next set of conservative talking points so you can see where this is headed. On the other hand, Hillary, who finished 3rd still can win if she can do well in New Hampshire and so on according to the MSM.
It bothers me is that statements of this sort on or in the MSM do effect the way people perceive candidates and vote. It really is rather disgusting. What is perhaps more disgusting is how we (the American electorate) are so easily manipulated by people with an agenda so contrary to the self interest of the majority.
The irony is that Obama won on a platform of change, where when you look at his positions his proposals he offers the least change to the current way the country operates. You just have to wonder how a guy comes out of a state legislature to run for president in just 4 years. Who has been greasing the rails? As stated above: big energy and agri-business. Is it any wonder he won in a state so dependent on agriculture and looking forward to bio fuels? But you won’t hear that from the MSM.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Create One Two Three… Many Irans
Back during the cold war, when the war in Vietnam was justified as part of our policy of the containment of “Communism”. I read an essay by the brilliant Argentinean revolutionary Che’ Guevara, which advocated creating many Vietnam wars to bring down the United States. Che’ felt that the best way to defeat the United States was by playing on our fear of communism to involve the U.S. in many foreign entanglements, which would eventually result in our system being overwhelmed and crumbling under the weight of these multiple burdens.
The current occupants of our executive branch seem to have adopted Che’s stratagem in their attempt to destroy the United States government as we know it. With our policies in Iraq, and now with Pakistan we do what is contrary to the real interests of the we the people. One has to see through the Orwellian newspeak of the advocates of the war on terrorism, the “long war”, or war against the islamofascists, what ever you care to call it. But by peeling back that superficial layer the real goal becomes clear.
First let’s go back to 1981. On January 20th of that year, the revolutionary guards in Iran released their hostages per the agreement made with the man inaugurated as President of the United States of America, on that day. The fact that he made this deal with our enemies while he was still a candidate, a private citizen, and purely for his own political advantage seems to be lost on those who remember the 40th president. Jimmy Carter, left the White House on that day, and he felt that we would soon have normal and cordial relations with Iran. This was not to be. Instead U.S. policies toward Iran were hostile and consolidated the power of the anti democratic, religious right. While there was some softening of our stance during the 1990’s which resulted in more moderate governments being elected, since 2001 our foreign policy seems to have been designed to push Iran toward the hard liners and the mullahs, who oppose liberalization of Iranian society.
Our next Iran is its’ neighbor Iraq. Our strategy in that county has resulted it the strengthening the religious right and those who use terrorism to achieve their goals. In addition to creating an unstable Iraq our policy has driven many in the Islamic world toward those who advocate theocracy over democracy, because our current government promotes “democracy” through occupation, oppression and torture.
Now we have Pakistan. Musharraf’s suspension of the rule of law in the name of promoting democracy, and defeating terrorism, is in reality a stratagem which enhances the power of the religious right. Those being arrested in Pakistan are the not the theocrats, not the terrorists. No, they are the advocates of the rule of law and of liberalization. They are lawyers and others who advocate a free and open society. They are those who oppose the adoption of Islamic law and advocate human rights for women and religious minorities. Yet the current occupant of the White House has supported the Musharraf regime and continues to do so because “he is an ally in the war on terrorism”.
I don’t believe the current administration is so naïve as to believe that by promoting oppressive regimes and instability they are promoting democracy. I don’t believe they don’t understand how suppressing liberal forces in a society promotes Islamic fundamentalism and hatred of the United States. I don’t believe they do not understand how terrorism is used as an instrument of foreign policy when one’s enemy has an over whelming advantage in military force and that by making enemies among the general population of these countries we promote terrorism.
They may play incompetent, but to a tin foil hat wearing nut like me, the real agenda is clear. The destruction of our republic so that power may be concentrated in the hands of a few elites. They have created and played on a fear of terrorism to create an environment where terrorism thrives. They use the threat of terrorism they create to justify the violation of our law, and ignoring our basic and fundamental rights. The real enemy lies within.
The current occupants of our executive branch seem to have adopted Che’s stratagem in their attempt to destroy the United States government as we know it. With our policies in Iraq, and now with Pakistan we do what is contrary to the real interests of the we the people. One has to see through the Orwellian newspeak of the advocates of the war on terrorism, the “long war”, or war against the islamofascists, what ever you care to call it. But by peeling back that superficial layer the real goal becomes clear.
First let’s go back to 1981. On January 20th of that year, the revolutionary guards in Iran released their hostages per the agreement made with the man inaugurated as President of the United States of America, on that day. The fact that he made this deal with our enemies while he was still a candidate, a private citizen, and purely for his own political advantage seems to be lost on those who remember the 40th president. Jimmy Carter, left the White House on that day, and he felt that we would soon have normal and cordial relations with Iran. This was not to be. Instead U.S. policies toward Iran were hostile and consolidated the power of the anti democratic, religious right. While there was some softening of our stance during the 1990’s which resulted in more moderate governments being elected, since 2001 our foreign policy seems to have been designed to push Iran toward the hard liners and the mullahs, who oppose liberalization of Iranian society.
Our next Iran is its’ neighbor Iraq. Our strategy in that county has resulted it the strengthening the religious right and those who use terrorism to achieve their goals. In addition to creating an unstable Iraq our policy has driven many in the Islamic world toward those who advocate theocracy over democracy, because our current government promotes “democracy” through occupation, oppression and torture.
Now we have Pakistan. Musharraf’s suspension of the rule of law in the name of promoting democracy, and defeating terrorism, is in reality a stratagem which enhances the power of the religious right. Those being arrested in Pakistan are the not the theocrats, not the terrorists. No, they are the advocates of the rule of law and of liberalization. They are lawyers and others who advocate a free and open society. They are those who oppose the adoption of Islamic law and advocate human rights for women and religious minorities. Yet the current occupant of the White House has supported the Musharraf regime and continues to do so because “he is an ally in the war on terrorism”.
I don’t believe the current administration is so naïve as to believe that by promoting oppressive regimes and instability they are promoting democracy. I don’t believe they don’t understand how suppressing liberal forces in a society promotes Islamic fundamentalism and hatred of the United States. I don’t believe they do not understand how terrorism is used as an instrument of foreign policy when one’s enemy has an over whelming advantage in military force and that by making enemies among the general population of these countries we promote terrorism.
They may play incompetent, but to a tin foil hat wearing nut like me, the real agenda is clear. The destruction of our republic so that power may be concentrated in the hands of a few elites. They have created and played on a fear of terrorism to create an environment where terrorism thrives. They use the threat of terrorism they create to justify the violation of our law, and ignoring our basic and fundamental rights. The real enemy lies within.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Is NPR’s Right Turn Straightening?
Anyone who listens carefully to NPR has noticed a sharp right turn over at least the past 7 years. This is not just my perspective. Before he quit, former NPR Ombudsman Jeff Dvorkin, found that NPR used “experts” from right wing think tanks, (e.g. Heritage, Cato) 4 times as often as “experts” from moderate think tanks (Brookings). The fact that Liberal “experts” were never consulted went unsaid. Additionally, comments to from listeners run strongly to the position that NPR is too right wing.
To any critical listener to the main NPR news programs, (Morning Edition and All Things Considered) it has been obvious that NPR’s agenda was closer to Fox News than an unbiased reporting of all sides of the issue. For example, the Pennsylvania trial on intelligent design, being taught along with evolution in public school science classes, was reported as if there were real scientific controversy. Unless you realized the story was being covered by NPR’s religion reporter, you may have gotten the impression that there was actual merit to the intelligent design hypothesis.
While not as shrill as Fox News, NPR has used its’ subtle low key style, to push the right wing agenda for years while maintaining an image of impeccable unbiased credibility.
Perhaps that is changing. This week on the NPR program “On The Media”, there was the story of how NPR declined an interview with Bush (43) because the organization did not want to have the reporter specified by the White House, Juan Williams, (who also works for Fox News) conduct the interview. NPR would take the interview only if it were with NPR and not a specified reporter.
In January Willams did an interview with the current occupant of the White House. The softball questions, and doting praise for Bush, during this interview by Williams, would make the bile churn in the most cynical listener.
So NPR declined the interview offer. Interesting. Is there a change of direction in the works? Will the organization that covered the Watergate hearings and Iran-Contra with unbiased professionalism, shedding the bias that has been its’ hallmark for at least the past 7 years? Only time will tell.
To any critical listener to the main NPR news programs, (Morning Edition and All Things Considered) it has been obvious that NPR’s agenda was closer to Fox News than an unbiased reporting of all sides of the issue. For example, the Pennsylvania trial on intelligent design, being taught along with evolution in public school science classes, was reported as if there were real scientific controversy. Unless you realized the story was being covered by NPR’s religion reporter, you may have gotten the impression that there was actual merit to the intelligent design hypothesis.
While not as shrill as Fox News, NPR has used its’ subtle low key style, to push the right wing agenda for years while maintaining an image of impeccable unbiased credibility.
Perhaps that is changing. This week on the NPR program “On The Media”, there was the story of how NPR declined an interview with Bush (43) because the organization did not want to have the reporter specified by the White House, Juan Williams, (who also works for Fox News) conduct the interview. NPR would take the interview only if it were with NPR and not a specified reporter.
In January Willams did an interview with the current occupant of the White House. The softball questions, and doting praise for Bush, during this interview by Williams, would make the bile churn in the most cynical listener.
So NPR declined the interview offer. Interesting. Is there a change of direction in the works? Will the organization that covered the Watergate hearings and Iran-Contra with unbiased professionalism, shedding the bias that has been its’ hallmark for at least the past 7 years? Only time will tell.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
The Dismal Science of Alan Greenspan
Last night on NPR’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross. Terry Gross interviewed former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan. Greenspan is promoting his new memoir.
All I can say is: No wonder we are in such a mess if we allow the likes of Greenspan to have such a major influence on economic policy.
In practically the same breath Greenspan said basically this:
Under Clinton’s budget surplus policies we (the people and the government we create) would have been debt free in 2006. Greenspan felt this would have been bad because this surplus would have to be invested and would have given the Government ( us the people) too much power over the financial markets. Then he goes on to say we have a pending financial crisis as boomers retire, especially in Medicaid, because there will not be enough money to pay for health care as this group starts to rely on the government funded system.
OK Mr. Greenspan what makes you feel you can have it both ways?
It seems to me that a surplus, which we (the government) could invest, might just produce a return that would generate the money to cover the Medicaid and perhaps social security shortages. What am I missing here?
Later in the interview Greenspan admits he is a member of the Libertarian wing of the Republican party. He has a "post enlightenment" philosophy. A post enlightenment philosophy? So he does not believe in the enlightenment? He does not believe in reason, or the public interest? In short Alan Greenspan is either a selfish individualist or an idiot. Most likely both. From my perspective these terms are not mutually exclusive. A philosophy of every person for them self causes devolution of society. To take this a step further: Greenspan hates America and the Constitution. He wants to see a return to an aristocratic society. He is an advocate of the Norquist strategy to kill our democracy: “starve the beast. ”
To me, hearing this, the fact that President Clinton (42) kept Greenspan on as Fed chairman, is perhaps his greatest disservice to our nation. The fact that a Democrat (D) would keep a Libertarian in charge of the fundamentals of our economy is unconscionable. A deadly sin. In spite of my human desire, I cannot curse these men or judge them. I will not judge, I will leave that to a higher power. Let them receive their just reward for their selfishness.
All I can say is: No wonder we are in such a mess if we allow the likes of Greenspan to have such a major influence on economic policy.
In practically the same breath Greenspan said basically this:
Under Clinton’s budget surplus policies we (the people and the government we create) would have been debt free in 2006. Greenspan felt this would have been bad because this surplus would have to be invested and would have given the Government ( us the people) too much power over the financial markets. Then he goes on to say we have a pending financial crisis as boomers retire, especially in Medicaid, because there will not be enough money to pay for health care as this group starts to rely on the government funded system.
OK Mr. Greenspan what makes you feel you can have it both ways?
It seems to me that a surplus, which we (the government) could invest, might just produce a return that would generate the money to cover the Medicaid and perhaps social security shortages. What am I missing here?
Later in the interview Greenspan admits he is a member of the Libertarian wing of the Republican party. He has a "post enlightenment" philosophy. A post enlightenment philosophy? So he does not believe in the enlightenment? He does not believe in reason, or the public interest? In short Alan Greenspan is either a selfish individualist or an idiot. Most likely both. From my perspective these terms are not mutually exclusive. A philosophy of every person for them self causes devolution of society. To take this a step further: Greenspan hates America and the Constitution. He wants to see a return to an aristocratic society. He is an advocate of the Norquist strategy to kill our democracy: “starve the beast. ”
To me, hearing this, the fact that President Clinton (42) kept Greenspan on as Fed chairman, is perhaps his greatest disservice to our nation. The fact that a Democrat (D) would keep a Libertarian in charge of the fundamentals of our economy is unconscionable. A deadly sin. In spite of my human desire, I cannot curse these men or judge them. I will not judge, I will leave that to a higher power. Let them receive their just reward for their selfishness.
Friday, July 20, 2007
Hillary and the War
OK this is about as simple as it gets. Millions of us were not misled by the lies that lead up to the war in Iraq. Any member of Congress who uses that as an excuse for their vote to authorize the war was at best stupid, and therefore not fit to hold office now, or they are using it as a convenient excuse now, for what was politically expedient then.
Unestimateable numbers of us protested, wrote to our representatives and otherwise said this war was a bad idea, but we were ignored. Not covered by the media, nor listened to by our represenitives. Our judgment proved to be correct. Our prediciton of the outcome was dead on. Hillary was wrong, so wrong in fact, that we should not trust her with any position of leadership.
Whatever she is doing now, is the same as she was doing in 2002 and 2003. She is being politically expedient, not what serves the best interests of the republic. She is going with the flow, not leading. If she makes decisions based upon expediency and not the possible and what is best, she is unfit to lead. Period.
Unestimateable numbers of us protested, wrote to our representatives and otherwise said this war was a bad idea, but we were ignored. Not covered by the media, nor listened to by our represenitives. Our judgment proved to be correct. Our prediciton of the outcome was dead on. Hillary was wrong, so wrong in fact, that we should not trust her with any position of leadership.
Whatever she is doing now, is the same as she was doing in 2002 and 2003. She is being politically expedient, not what serves the best interests of the republic. She is going with the flow, not leading. If she makes decisions based upon expediency and not the possible and what is best, she is unfit to lead. Period.
Monday, July 9, 2007
Drinking the Same Kool-aid
Al Gore, and I must be drinking the same Kool aid. I wonder what you have heard about his latest book, The Assault on Reason? Probably not much, so great has been the main stream media's suppression of the content. Why is that? Perhaps because the MSM are one of the perpetrators of the assault Gore describes.
The Assault on Reason, is largely an indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration, book ended by essays on political philosophy. How we came to find ourselves in the current state of affairs, and our prospects for extracting ourselves and saving democracy in the United States of America.
I was astounded by this book. Not because it produced any revelations, but because it validated so many of my own feelings on the current state of our political economy. In a way I find this scary because it is often dangerous to have ones ideas validated. One’s thinking becomes less critical. However, in my case, as long time readers of my missives may recognize, my ideas are so far out of the box, so far from the main stream, any validation in any form can be profound, and to find someone as prominent as Gore, espousing thoughts that parallel my own is indeed scary.
I have certain central themes in my ideas about our political economy. Cardinal among these are that conservatives are neo feudalists, intent on dismantling our republic and re establishing an aristocracy, that mass marketing controls the vast majority of Americans, and that the confluence of the above have resulted in a marketplace that is no longer free as described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. These are Gore’s central themes as well.
Prior to the age of enlightenment, European society was controlled by 2 forces, Royalty and the Church. The power of both over the masses was by “divine” right, The relationship was symbiotic and self validating. The Church confirmed the divine right of Kings to rule, and the King confirmed the power of the Church. A convenient concentration of both wealth and power in the hands of very few. The invention of movable type resulted in the broad dissemination of ideas based upon reason. These ideas pushed royalty and organized religion from their preeminent positions in society. The idea that power (political and economic) resides in the individual is the fundamental thesis of the enlightenment.
Gore identifies the 4 members of the reactionary coalition who are the antithesis of the enlightenment. These are: Economic royalists (who fund the whole proposition), foreign policy hawks, a cabal of pundits (who enforce the dogma), and extreme religious conservatives and fundamentalists. Gore goes on the point out how successful this coalition has been. How in just 40 years they have brought us to the brink or past it. To a point where democracy in America no longer really works as the framers of the Constitution intended. From my perspective this is by design and has culminated in the reign of the Bush-Cheney regime.
At this point, I highly doubt very many of my tiny readership have bothered to read, let alone think about the above ideas. We have become so disinterested in civics, let alone political philosophy, that individuals like myself and Mr. Gore are branded as exceedingly strange. Even the best educated among us do not want to think about these issues. They feel their civic obligation begins and ends at the ballot box. Politics and political discourse are fine as infotainment, but taboo if there is any action or thought required. Again I would argue this is by design. This is the manipulation of the electorate through mass marketing to achieve outcome desired by Gore’s economic royalists. “If wealth can easily be exchanged for power, then the concentration of either can double the corrupting potential of both” (Pg. 73)
The bulk of The Assault on Reason, reminds me of the Declaration of Independence. As Jefferson did with George III, in a highly organized manner, Gore lays out the grievances against the George W. and then sets forth an indictment on a charge of violating our Constitution and the principals at the core of our republic.
Gore shows the courage of a leader. Something, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, lacking in our current crop of Democratic presidential candidates. Gore is very brave indeed. It has long been my contention that had he been president in 2001, the attacks of September 11, would never have happened. Gore concures. Gore states that the failure to connect the dots, pre 911, was due to incompetence rather than design, but in his categorical denial of this being by design, he is brave enough to state this possibility. Anything other than denial, exposure of this dirty secret, would bring down our system and foment revolution. At this time in our history, given the state of the public mind, a revolution would play into the hands of the neo feudalists and religious extremists.
Gore sees salvation of or democracy in the displacement of the medium of television by the more interactive medium of the internet. The viability of democracy in the United States is dependent upon the engagement and participation of the governed. Television and mass marketing create a system where influence can be spread far and wide though the use of propaganda based upon an intimate understanding of human psychology. The internet provides a means for individuals to reassert themselves. Time shifting is making television less effective, so the coercion of the the economic royalists has shifted from overt adverts to covert content as in the Fox program 24. As the internet becomes the dominant medium, Gore feels it will be more and more difficult for the neo feudalists to have such a one sided influence on the public. Providing of course that we prevent them from controlling this medium as they do television.
My only criticism of Gore’s work is that it is overly complex. The first step in systemic change is the dissatisfaction of the intellectuals. Perhaps this is Gore’s intended audience. It is certainly not a work that will interest a wider audience. The ideas presented are rooted in the philosophy of the enlightenment. Something it seems, very few people in the United States care to think about, or understand anymore. Again I would argue this is by design.
There is a Persian proverb that one can only be one step ahead of the people to lead them. If someone is two steps ahead the people cannot see the goal and will not follow. The conservatives / economic royalists have been very effective at using deceit and misdirection to push the public consent in a direction that does not serve the public interest. Until we learn to counter those deceits and misdirections in a way more compelling than those currently in control we will never put power back into the hands of the people.
The Assault on Reason, is largely an indictment of the Bush-Cheney administration, book ended by essays on political philosophy. How we came to find ourselves in the current state of affairs, and our prospects for extracting ourselves and saving democracy in the United States of America.
I was astounded by this book. Not because it produced any revelations, but because it validated so many of my own feelings on the current state of our political economy. In a way I find this scary because it is often dangerous to have ones ideas validated. One’s thinking becomes less critical. However, in my case, as long time readers of my missives may recognize, my ideas are so far out of the box, so far from the main stream, any validation in any form can be profound, and to find someone as prominent as Gore, espousing thoughts that parallel my own is indeed scary.
I have certain central themes in my ideas about our political economy. Cardinal among these are that conservatives are neo feudalists, intent on dismantling our republic and re establishing an aristocracy, that mass marketing controls the vast majority of Americans, and that the confluence of the above have resulted in a marketplace that is no longer free as described by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations. These are Gore’s central themes as well.
Prior to the age of enlightenment, European society was controlled by 2 forces, Royalty and the Church. The power of both over the masses was by “divine” right, The relationship was symbiotic and self validating. The Church confirmed the divine right of Kings to rule, and the King confirmed the power of the Church. A convenient concentration of both wealth and power in the hands of very few. The invention of movable type resulted in the broad dissemination of ideas based upon reason. These ideas pushed royalty and organized religion from their preeminent positions in society. The idea that power (political and economic) resides in the individual is the fundamental thesis of the enlightenment.
Gore identifies the 4 members of the reactionary coalition who are the antithesis of the enlightenment. These are: Economic royalists (who fund the whole proposition), foreign policy hawks, a cabal of pundits (who enforce the dogma), and extreme religious conservatives and fundamentalists. Gore goes on the point out how successful this coalition has been. How in just 40 years they have brought us to the brink or past it. To a point where democracy in America no longer really works as the framers of the Constitution intended. From my perspective this is by design and has culminated in the reign of the Bush-Cheney regime.
At this point, I highly doubt very many of my tiny readership have bothered to read, let alone think about the above ideas. We have become so disinterested in civics, let alone political philosophy, that individuals like myself and Mr. Gore are branded as exceedingly strange. Even the best educated among us do not want to think about these issues. They feel their civic obligation begins and ends at the ballot box. Politics and political discourse are fine as infotainment, but taboo if there is any action or thought required. Again I would argue this is by design. This is the manipulation of the electorate through mass marketing to achieve outcome desired by Gore’s economic royalists. “If wealth can easily be exchanged for power, then the concentration of either can double the corrupting potential of both” (Pg. 73)
The bulk of The Assault on Reason, reminds me of the Declaration of Independence. As Jefferson did with George III, in a highly organized manner, Gore lays out the grievances against the George W. and then sets forth an indictment on a charge of violating our Constitution and the principals at the core of our republic.
Gore shows the courage of a leader. Something, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich, lacking in our current crop of Democratic presidential candidates. Gore is very brave indeed. It has long been my contention that had he been president in 2001, the attacks of September 11, would never have happened. Gore concures. Gore states that the failure to connect the dots, pre 911, was due to incompetence rather than design, but in his categorical denial of this being by design, he is brave enough to state this possibility. Anything other than denial, exposure of this dirty secret, would bring down our system and foment revolution. At this time in our history, given the state of the public mind, a revolution would play into the hands of the neo feudalists and religious extremists.
Gore sees salvation of or democracy in the displacement of the medium of television by the more interactive medium of the internet. The viability of democracy in the United States is dependent upon the engagement and participation of the governed. Television and mass marketing create a system where influence can be spread far and wide though the use of propaganda based upon an intimate understanding of human psychology. The internet provides a means for individuals to reassert themselves. Time shifting is making television less effective, so the coercion of the the economic royalists has shifted from overt adverts to covert content as in the Fox program 24. As the internet becomes the dominant medium, Gore feels it will be more and more difficult for the neo feudalists to have such a one sided influence on the public. Providing of course that we prevent them from controlling this medium as they do television.
My only criticism of Gore’s work is that it is overly complex. The first step in systemic change is the dissatisfaction of the intellectuals. Perhaps this is Gore’s intended audience. It is certainly not a work that will interest a wider audience. The ideas presented are rooted in the philosophy of the enlightenment. Something it seems, very few people in the United States care to think about, or understand anymore. Again I would argue this is by design.
There is a Persian proverb that one can only be one step ahead of the people to lead them. If someone is two steps ahead the people cannot see the goal and will not follow. The conservatives / economic royalists have been very effective at using deceit and misdirection to push the public consent in a direction that does not serve the public interest. Until we learn to counter those deceits and misdirections in a way more compelling than those currently in control we will never put power back into the hands of the people.
Thursday, July 5, 2007
We are All "Sicko"
I applaud Michael Moore. His latest movie "Sicko" is undoubtedly his best. In showing how our lousy health care system costs us more, and does not provide the treatment we need, Moore is able to demonstrate how we are more oppressed and less free than people of any other industrialized nation.
But we will not stand for this! We are brainwashed from birth to believe that the United States is the best. That our system provides the best for everyone. That in other countries people are far worse off. They pay higher taxes, wait in line, suffer rationing. Yes we do not want to hear anything that will contradict what we want to believe.
We want to believe that in Europe, because there is a mandatory 4 weeks of vacation, plus an additional 18 paid holidays per year they suffer high unemployment. We want to believe that because taxes are so high to pay for health care and other social services, people in Europe cannot afford decent housing, cars, or consumer goods. We want to believe that in Europe there is less opportunity to better oneself. In spite of free secondary education
We are delusional.
In a subtle way, Moore shows how our system is run for the benefit of the elites. The elites have been very clever with their propaganda. Because they control our elected officials with their campaign contributions, and control our media with their ownership, we only hear what they want us to hear. We want to believe we live in the greatest place on Earth. We want to believe we cannot make it better by changing the system, because that is the crap we are sold. Day in and day out.
We are the victims of a con game. We are the perfect marks, because in confidence games, the mark never wants to believe they have been conned. That would make them feel stupid, and no one wants to feel stupid, do they?
I applaud Michael Moore. Everyone should see his latest film. Change only comes with awareness. Sicko, provides 2 hours outside the conservative mind control beam.
Will it have any effect? Will it create a critical mass needed to effect change? I don’t think so. We are such sheep it is disgusting. We don’t what to think about this because it conflicts with what we want to believe. It makes our little heads hurt.
There is an old expression: “My country right or wrong.” The United States is my country and I love it even when it is so very wrong. What can I do to make it right? What can I do to change it? We should all be asking ourselves that question every day. Instead we do exactly what we are told to do. We are all Sicko.
But we will not stand for this! We are brainwashed from birth to believe that the United States is the best. That our system provides the best for everyone. That in other countries people are far worse off. They pay higher taxes, wait in line, suffer rationing. Yes we do not want to hear anything that will contradict what we want to believe.
We want to believe that in Europe, because there is a mandatory 4 weeks of vacation, plus an additional 18 paid holidays per year they suffer high unemployment. We want to believe that because taxes are so high to pay for health care and other social services, people in Europe cannot afford decent housing, cars, or consumer goods. We want to believe that in Europe there is less opportunity to better oneself. In spite of free secondary education
We are delusional.
In a subtle way, Moore shows how our system is run for the benefit of the elites. The elites have been very clever with their propaganda. Because they control our elected officials with their campaign contributions, and control our media with their ownership, we only hear what they want us to hear. We want to believe we live in the greatest place on Earth. We want to believe we cannot make it better by changing the system, because that is the crap we are sold. Day in and day out.
We are the victims of a con game. We are the perfect marks, because in confidence games, the mark never wants to believe they have been conned. That would make them feel stupid, and no one wants to feel stupid, do they?
I applaud Michael Moore. Everyone should see his latest film. Change only comes with awareness. Sicko, provides 2 hours outside the conservative mind control beam.
Will it have any effect? Will it create a critical mass needed to effect change? I don’t think so. We are such sheep it is disgusting. We don’t what to think about this because it conflicts with what we want to believe. It makes our little heads hurt.
There is an old expression: “My country right or wrong.” The United States is my country and I love it even when it is so very wrong. What can I do to make it right? What can I do to change it? We should all be asking ourselves that question every day. Instead we do exactly what we are told to do. We are all Sicko.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Why The Democrats Will Continue to be Losers
If you read these thoughts on the last debate by liberal blogger Digby you find this little gem:
“If I had to pick a winner, I think tonight was Obama's night. He seemed loose and comfortable and in charge. He certainly had the best laugh line ---“
Liberals and Democrats just don’t get it. They continue to choose based upon who looks best or who is the most “electable”, not based on the quality of ideas.
What the Republicans realized a long time ago, is the electorate prefers conviction over looks, and values over electability. It does not matter if 99% of it is crap. The electorate wants consistency. They want to know where a candidate stands. They equate this with leadership, even if they disagree with the position. They do not want a wishy washy, flip flopper, who gives a complicated answer they cannot follow or understand. Republicans are not dumb, they know how to speak in complete sentences. It is Democrats who are too stupid to realize they have to communicate to an audience with the attention span of a 5 year old, who has just downed a litre of caffeinated pop and needs to find a toilet fast
Democratic candidates need to learn how to speak in simple declarative sentences. Democratic voters need to listen to what candidates say, and not how they look. For gosh sake forget the Nixon-Kennedy debate already. That was almost 50 years ago.
Pay attention dammit! Democrats have only had the White House once in the past 27 years. It is because they need to act more like Republicans, not be more like Republicans.
I like Ted Rall’s take on this.
“If I had to pick a winner, I think tonight was Obama's night. He seemed loose and comfortable and in charge. He certainly had the best laugh line ---“
Liberals and Democrats just don’t get it. They continue to choose based upon who looks best or who is the most “electable”, not based on the quality of ideas.
What the Republicans realized a long time ago, is the electorate prefers conviction over looks, and values over electability. It does not matter if 99% of it is crap. The electorate wants consistency. They want to know where a candidate stands. They equate this with leadership, even if they disagree with the position. They do not want a wishy washy, flip flopper, who gives a complicated answer they cannot follow or understand. Republicans are not dumb, they know how to speak in complete sentences. It is Democrats who are too stupid to realize they have to communicate to an audience with the attention span of a 5 year old, who has just downed a litre of caffeinated pop and needs to find a toilet fast
Democratic candidates need to learn how to speak in simple declarative sentences. Democratic voters need to listen to what candidates say, and not how they look. For gosh sake forget the Nixon-Kennedy debate already. That was almost 50 years ago.
Pay attention dammit! Democrats have only had the White House once in the past 27 years. It is because they need to act more like Republicans, not be more like Republicans.
I like Ted Rall’s take on this.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Iranian Threat?
Iran has become the new cause of some conservatives. During Tuesday’s GOP Presidential debate, Duncan Hunter said he would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I hear other rumblings too. Last week heard one conservative say he prays that Bush will bomb Iran.
Well I don’t get it. Actually I do get it, but figure it is all a sham. What we are being told is not the reality of the situation. To a tin foil hat wearing nut case like me, the reality looks like this:
Iran is a democracy. Not one that follows the western model to be sure, but certainly more so than the former Soviet Union. Or our allies Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The religious fundamentalists have a lot of influence on the lives of Iranians, but there is an opposition and forces that would like to see a more liberal society in that country. This opposition is tolerated and given a chance might even be able to exert some influence. Would Iran become a secular state in a generation? Probably not, however remember that the country does have a democratic tradition that was squashed during the cold war.
The last thing the U.S. conservatives want is a liberal, secular Iran. This would present many problems for their allies in the region. Additionally, it eliminates an external enemy. The classic solution of a regime without a real base of support is to create external enemies to distract the populous from domestic issues. The conservatives need external enemies to distract us from the complete failure of conservative economic and social policies. Because conservatives need a threat, and Iran conveniently fills that role, they take actions that push Iran more and more toward the theocratic conservatives. I see this as a symbiosis of sorts. The external threat of the United States, helps to keep the theocratic conservatives in Iran in power.
It is useful to get beyond the domestic media when it comes to Iran. We only hear a very narrow party line in this country. This link to the BBC back ground page on Iran gives a more rational perspective here:
Be it Iran, or Chavez in Venezuela, we in the United States, get the line that these governments are somehow irrational. From what I observe, conservatives feel that anyone who does not completely and enthusiastically agree with them is dismissed as irrational or crazy. This is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, where not being completely happy with the “workers paradise” created by the fascists (no they were not any more socialists than the Chinese are today) in that country might land you in a mental institution.
So let’s just take a different perspective on Iran for a moment. It is hard, we are bombarded with a contrary perspective, and you may experience a bit of cognitive dissonance as in the Tom Tomorrow cartoon here:
Still suppose Iran has rational leaders, who, although they do not have the same core values as us, none the less want what is best for the people of Iran. Also suppose they see outside threats from a world and regional nuclear powers, and not without reason, fear attack or invasion by these powers. Anyone who has studied deterrence theory knows that when two parties have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of them being used diminishes. Nuclear weapons are additionally the best deterrent to ground invasion. In spite of what you may want to believe about the bomb, it really is an instrument of peace among rational actors. The latest example being India-Pakistan.
Now let’s take another wild leap. Iran is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. The official line of the Iranian government is that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. All of the controversy is because we, the United States, say they are liars. As a result we have created a hostile environment where Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors complete access to their facilities. It is interesting that the IAEA report on this matter is restricted. I wonder what is so secret? I wonder what would happen if we just took Iran at their word and allowed them to have a nuclear energy program that did not violate the NPT?
There is a rub though. The capability to enrich Uranium is the key to being able to develop a bomb. An Iran with nuclear weapons threatens the hegemony of the only nuclear power in the region. It that a bad thing? Let’s take another baby step away from the conservative propaganda. If deterrence theory is correct, and nuclear weapons help to keep the peace, another nuclear power in the region would most likely make it more peaceful. The outcome might not be the most economically advantageous to the allies of our American conservatives, but it might actually be a good thing for both the majority of the people in the region and the world as a whole. Now, I am just a nut with a funny hat on, but I really don’t believe that the Iranians would give a bomb to “terrorists”. If you do a little research you will find the “suitcase bomb” as it is portrayed in the MSM is a myth. (Compact nuclear weapons take a lot of development, have low yields, and are still beyond the ability of a single person to practically lift and carry around) Giving a bomb to terrorists is irrational, and I just cannot for the life of me see the Iranian government as being any more irrational then our current administration.
But to a nut case like me the current strategy makes sense from the perspective on the conservatives. Even provoking Iran to build nuclear weapons makes sense. Attacking Iran makes sense. It all makes sense if your goal is to perpetuate a “long war” and insure conflict for years to come.
Well I don’t get it. Actually I do get it, but figure it is all a sham. What we are being told is not the reality of the situation. To a tin foil hat wearing nut case like me, the reality looks like this:
Iran is a democracy. Not one that follows the western model to be sure, but certainly more so than the former Soviet Union. Or our allies Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. The religious fundamentalists have a lot of influence on the lives of Iranians, but there is an opposition and forces that would like to see a more liberal society in that country. This opposition is tolerated and given a chance might even be able to exert some influence. Would Iran become a secular state in a generation? Probably not, however remember that the country does have a democratic tradition that was squashed during the cold war.
The last thing the U.S. conservatives want is a liberal, secular Iran. This would present many problems for their allies in the region. Additionally, it eliminates an external enemy. The classic solution of a regime without a real base of support is to create external enemies to distract the populous from domestic issues. The conservatives need external enemies to distract us from the complete failure of conservative economic and social policies. Because conservatives need a threat, and Iran conveniently fills that role, they take actions that push Iran more and more toward the theocratic conservatives. I see this as a symbiosis of sorts. The external threat of the United States, helps to keep the theocratic conservatives in Iran in power.
It is useful to get beyond the domestic media when it comes to Iran. We only hear a very narrow party line in this country. This link to the BBC back ground page on Iran gives a more rational perspective here:
Be it Iran, or Chavez in Venezuela, we in the United States, get the line that these governments are somehow irrational. From what I observe, conservatives feel that anyone who does not completely and enthusiastically agree with them is dismissed as irrational or crazy. This is reminiscent of the former Soviet Union, where not being completely happy with the “workers paradise” created by the fascists (no they were not any more socialists than the Chinese are today) in that country might land you in a mental institution.
So let’s just take a different perspective on Iran for a moment. It is hard, we are bombarded with a contrary perspective, and you may experience a bit of cognitive dissonance as in the Tom Tomorrow cartoon here:
Still suppose Iran has rational leaders, who, although they do not have the same core values as us, none the less want what is best for the people of Iran. Also suppose they see outside threats from a world and regional nuclear powers, and not without reason, fear attack or invasion by these powers. Anyone who has studied deterrence theory knows that when two parties have nuclear weapons, the likelihood of them being used diminishes. Nuclear weapons are additionally the best deterrent to ground invasion. In spite of what you may want to believe about the bomb, it really is an instrument of peace among rational actors. The latest example being India-Pakistan.
Now let’s take another wild leap. Iran is a signatory to the Non Proliferation Treaty. The official line of the Iranian government is that their nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. All of the controversy is because we, the United States, say they are liars. As a result we have created a hostile environment where Iran has not allowed IAEA inspectors complete access to their facilities. It is interesting that the IAEA report on this matter is restricted. I wonder what is so secret? I wonder what would happen if we just took Iran at their word and allowed them to have a nuclear energy program that did not violate the NPT?
There is a rub though. The capability to enrich Uranium is the key to being able to develop a bomb. An Iran with nuclear weapons threatens the hegemony of the only nuclear power in the region. It that a bad thing? Let’s take another baby step away from the conservative propaganda. If deterrence theory is correct, and nuclear weapons help to keep the peace, another nuclear power in the region would most likely make it more peaceful. The outcome might not be the most economically advantageous to the allies of our American conservatives, but it might actually be a good thing for both the majority of the people in the region and the world as a whole. Now, I am just a nut with a funny hat on, but I really don’t believe that the Iranians would give a bomb to “terrorists”. If you do a little research you will find the “suitcase bomb” as it is portrayed in the MSM is a myth. (Compact nuclear weapons take a lot of development, have low yields, and are still beyond the ability of a single person to practically lift and carry around) Giving a bomb to terrorists is irrational, and I just cannot for the life of me see the Iranian government as being any more irrational then our current administration.
But to a nut case like me the current strategy makes sense from the perspective on the conservatives. Even provoking Iran to build nuclear weapons makes sense. Attacking Iran makes sense. It all makes sense if your goal is to perpetuate a “long war” and insure conflict for years to come.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Leaders Inspire People to Follow
Al Gore in an interview with NY Times Columnist Bob Herbert: “But what politics has become requires a level of tolerance for triviality and artifice and nonsense that I find I have in short supply”
Exactly! and what American voters want is someone who with cut through that crap. It is the difference between a person with ambition and a real leader. Someone who will tell reporters that they are idiots, and answer other questions with an equal degree of honesty. Someone who really will ignore the polls and the consultants and just be his or her self. Who will lay out what the believe and why and what they think we really ought to do as a nation.
The level of artifice in our politics has gotten to a point that people are numb. They buy into it, tolerate it, or quit participating all together. The elites like the third choice because it concentrates power, and invests more in those who are easily manipulated.
Al Gore could run the campaign of a contrarian. Be an anti candidate. Just get out there and talk to people. No polls, no consultants, limited adverts. Just Al Gore being the wooden, policy wonk, the MSM hates. He would get my vote, and a lot more. He would get my time my energy, and I’ll bet others would follow Al Gore. He is a leader.
Re-elect Gore in ’08!
Exactly! and what American voters want is someone who with cut through that crap. It is the difference between a person with ambition and a real leader. Someone who will tell reporters that they are idiots, and answer other questions with an equal degree of honesty. Someone who really will ignore the polls and the consultants and just be his or her self. Who will lay out what the believe and why and what they think we really ought to do as a nation.
The level of artifice in our politics has gotten to a point that people are numb. They buy into it, tolerate it, or quit participating all together. The elites like the third choice because it concentrates power, and invests more in those who are easily manipulated.
Al Gore could run the campaign of a contrarian. Be an anti candidate. Just get out there and talk to people. No polls, no consultants, limited adverts. Just Al Gore being the wooden, policy wonk, the MSM hates. He would get my vote, and a lot more. He would get my time my energy, and I’ll bet others would follow Al Gore. He is a leader.
Re-elect Gore in ’08!
Friday, June 1, 2007
Don't You Know? Global Warming is a Good Thing
NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, on NPR May 31, 2007:
“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
This is the new conservative line. In essence: Global warming is a good thing. Yeah I agree a good thing if your goal is to bring on the apocalypse. While I have no doubt this is the ultimate goal of some conservatives, it is not one I with which happen to agree.
As often happens, this leads me to question the underlying motives of the conservative movement. Aristocracy? Theocracy? I don’t know for sure, but I do know it involves the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. The penultimate goal is to show the American experiment in democracy to be a null hypothesis. Why do the conservatives hate America? Because in addition to economic liberty, to which they pay lip service, but support established interests who manipulate markets to concentrate wealth, it also offers social liberty. Conservatism is a movement based upon racism, and maintaining the long standing social order.
How does this relate to global warming? Controlling this man made phenomena will require a revolution. Changing all 7 aspects of society, in the classic definition of that term. This sort of change causes a reordering of things that displaces the status quo. The elites who now reap the majority of the benefits of our collective labor are worried. I doubt this has much to do with money. When you have that much it just becomes play money after a while. It is more about power, a sense of entitlement, a Calvinist view, and a feeling that they, the choosen, alone know what is best for the world.
“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”
This is the new conservative line. In essence: Global warming is a good thing. Yeah I agree a good thing if your goal is to bring on the apocalypse. While I have no doubt this is the ultimate goal of some conservatives, it is not one I with which happen to agree.
As often happens, this leads me to question the underlying motives of the conservative movement. Aristocracy? Theocracy? I don’t know for sure, but I do know it involves the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of an elite few. The penultimate goal is to show the American experiment in democracy to be a null hypothesis. Why do the conservatives hate America? Because in addition to economic liberty, to which they pay lip service, but support established interests who manipulate markets to concentrate wealth, it also offers social liberty. Conservatism is a movement based upon racism, and maintaining the long standing social order.
How does this relate to global warming? Controlling this man made phenomena will require a revolution. Changing all 7 aspects of society, in the classic definition of that term. This sort of change causes a reordering of things that displaces the status quo. The elites who now reap the majority of the benefits of our collective labor are worried. I doubt this has much to do with money. When you have that much it just becomes play money after a while. It is more about power, a sense of entitlement, a Calvinist view, and a feeling that they, the choosen, alone know what is best for the world.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Gee, I Didn't Realize Insurance Companies Could Vote
Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of economics at Princeton University was talking about the various Presidential candidates health care reform proposals on APM "Marketplace" yesterday.
Reinhardt:..."and if they're smart — what they'll come forth with is versions of the Massachusetts-Arnold Schwarzenegger plan, which is a little bit of everything. You pay off the insurance industry by letting them be the vehicle through which people get third-party coverage."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/05/29/PM200705295.html
Hmmm. I wonder why we, or "our" government, would need to pay off the insurance industry to reform our health care mess? Aren't the insurance companies the reason we already pay triple the administrative costs for health care what the rest of the civilized world pays, for better care? Oh, and when did we amend the Constitution to give corporations the right to vote?
Just another example of how letting the marketplace decide, results in the worst solution for the majority. Is it any wonder some of us advocate class warfare? Or at least fighting back in the class war the elites have been waging on the middle and lower classes since 1981? ( I often am astounded at how many middle class people align themselves with the elite even though they are actually getting screwed worse than some of us with even lower incomes.)
It really comes down to reforming campaign finance doesn't it. While to not allow individuals to contribute to campaigns would clearly violate the 1st Amendment, it is only a court decision that gives corporations the same right. In the current election cycle, candidates are abandoning public funding because the rates for adverts during an election campaign are sky high. But don't we the people own the airwaves and the broadcast spectrum? It seems to me it would be in every candidates interest to regulate the costs and accessibility of air time during campaigns. This would promote democracy. Even if this does begin to tilt the scales more toward the less known candidates and parties. Competition in the marketplace of ideas is a good thing... Right?
Reinhardt:..."and if they're smart — what they'll come forth with is versions of the Massachusetts-Arnold Schwarzenegger plan, which is a little bit of everything. You pay off the insurance industry by letting them be the vehicle through which people get third-party coverage."
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/shows/2007/05/29/PM200705295.html
Hmmm. I wonder why we, or "our" government, would need to pay off the insurance industry to reform our health care mess? Aren't the insurance companies the reason we already pay triple the administrative costs for health care what the rest of the civilized world pays, for better care? Oh, and when did we amend the Constitution to give corporations the right to vote?
Just another example of how letting the marketplace decide, results in the worst solution for the majority. Is it any wonder some of us advocate class warfare? Or at least fighting back in the class war the elites have been waging on the middle and lower classes since 1981? ( I often am astounded at how many middle class people align themselves with the elite even though they are actually getting screwed worse than some of us with even lower incomes.)
It really comes down to reforming campaign finance doesn't it. While to not allow individuals to contribute to campaigns would clearly violate the 1st Amendment, it is only a court decision that gives corporations the same right. In the current election cycle, candidates are abandoning public funding because the rates for adverts during an election campaign are sky high. But don't we the people own the airwaves and the broadcast spectrum? It seems to me it would be in every candidates interest to regulate the costs and accessibility of air time during campaigns. This would promote democracy. Even if this does begin to tilt the scales more toward the less known candidates and parties. Competition in the marketplace of ideas is a good thing... Right?
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Is Rudy a Lunatic?
Paul Krugman: “Here’s the way it ought to be: When Rudy Giuliani says that Iran, which had nothing to do with 9/11, is part of a “movement” that “has already displayed more aggressive tendencies by coming here and killing us,” he should be treated as a lunatic.”
Why are so many Republicans so delusional? Because it serves their interests to be so. Fear can be a powerful motivator. But it is time those of us who retain our rationality start calling these ideas for what they really are. Do you recall how the neocons used the argument that poor people were poor because the Democrats, kept them that way to maintain their constituency? While that argument had little if any merit, this one does: The neocons secretly support terrorists, and promote terrorism with their polices, because the fear created keeps their constituency motivated and keeps them in power.
Why are so many Republicans so delusional? Because it serves their interests to be so. Fear can be a powerful motivator. But it is time those of us who retain our rationality start calling these ideas for what they really are. Do you recall how the neocons used the argument that poor people were poor because the Democrats, kept them that way to maintain their constituency? While that argument had little if any merit, this one does: The neocons secretly support terrorists, and promote terrorism with their polices, because the fear created keeps their constituency motivated and keeps them in power.
I'll Take the Weird Guy Please
In this morning’s New York Times, David Brooks, attacks and attempts to discredit Al Gore (again). Brooks:” “The Assault on Reason” is well worth reading. It reminds us that whatever the effects of our homogenizing mass culture, it is still possible for exceedingly strange individuals to rise to the top.” As if this were a bad thing. Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, were exceedingly strange, and look at their legacy
To my mind we want visionaries as our leaders. People who can peer 20 years into the future and see that funding something like a distributed, node based, computer network, might have some value in the future. Thinkers who understand that carbon emissions might be a looming problem, long before the mass media accept this idea. Weird people, who see how mass advertising and mass psychology erode the underlying principals of our culture and democracy make the best people to make decisions about our collective lives.
People like that, are willing to make decisions based upon the future and the greater good. They make decisions and promote policies based upon what is right, not what is best for the short term interests of economic elites. I am sorry, but given the choice between a guy who might be great to go to a ball game with, a fun, rich, frat boy, who, while charming, and likable, does not have a clue, and a socially inept, weird, visionary, who thinks about the future in profound ways. I will take the weirdo. But I am just a tin foil hat wearing nut. A weirdo myself.
Of course you realize, Al Gore, scares the bejesus out of the status quo. The main stream media hate him because he brings up real issues and makes them look bad. He threatens the current order of things. He has had a peek inside the machine and knows how it really works. He wants to not only change course but change how the machine works as well. Al Gore is a dangerous man.
Brooks, shrill of the conservative elites that he is, gives us an insight as to what a campaign against Gore, in ’08 might look like. Brooks wants us to believe that we should choose our leaders as we often do in grade school, or social organizations. Not based upon their competency, or vision, but based upon their social skills, and popularity based upon personality. This only plays into the hand of the economic elites and results in more of the same lousy policies we have had for the last 25 years.
To my mind we want visionaries as our leaders. People who can peer 20 years into the future and see that funding something like a distributed, node based, computer network, might have some value in the future. Thinkers who understand that carbon emissions might be a looming problem, long before the mass media accept this idea. Weird people, who see how mass advertising and mass psychology erode the underlying principals of our culture and democracy make the best people to make decisions about our collective lives.
People like that, are willing to make decisions based upon the future and the greater good. They make decisions and promote policies based upon what is right, not what is best for the short term interests of economic elites. I am sorry, but given the choice between a guy who might be great to go to a ball game with, a fun, rich, frat boy, who, while charming, and likable, does not have a clue, and a socially inept, weird, visionary, who thinks about the future in profound ways. I will take the weirdo. But I am just a tin foil hat wearing nut. A weirdo myself.
Of course you realize, Al Gore, scares the bejesus out of the status quo. The main stream media hate him because he brings up real issues and makes them look bad. He threatens the current order of things. He has had a peek inside the machine and knows how it really works. He wants to not only change course but change how the machine works as well. Al Gore is a dangerous man.
Brooks, shrill of the conservative elites that he is, gives us an insight as to what a campaign against Gore, in ’08 might look like. Brooks wants us to believe that we should choose our leaders as we often do in grade school, or social organizations. Not based upon their competency, or vision, but based upon their social skills, and popularity based upon personality. This only plays into the hand of the economic elites and results in more of the same lousy policies we have had for the last 25 years.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
A Percentage of the Population
Listening to an interview with one of Petraeus’ warrior/intellectuals: Brig.Gen. H.R. McMaster, on NPR this morning, I heard him make this statement about the “terrorists” in Iraq: “They rely upon a certain percentage of the population looking to them as their protectors.”
Well to me, that strategy sounds very familiar. It sounds like the strategy of the current people in charge of our executive branch of government.
Last night on the PRI program “Marketplace” I heard Ben “Bueller…Bueller?” Stein, fear mongering in a commentary. To echo Stein: How can we be so complacent when the terrorists want to kill us?
FDR brilliantly said: “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” This is my perspective. I have more fear of dying in an automobile accident than in a terrorist attack. This is because statistician in me tells me this is far more probable. When someone uses fear to motivate a population, or a certain percentage of the population, it is because they do not hold the moral high ground. Because they have no other means of moving the population to support their policy. I would argue that in our current situation the real reasons for the current policies cannot be made public. They would be completely and utterly unsupportable by a large percentage of the population.
There are simple solutions to the threat of terrorism. The support for terrorism is not because “they” hate our way of life. No "they" hate our policies, and the injustices and inequities those policies create. Although the solutions are simple they are not easy. In fact, politically, I would put them close to impossible. But we can move away from extremism, back to a more even handed policies. Policies that seek justice, and economic equity for all peoples. If you look at history, in the 1960’sand 1970’s the United States was much admired in the Near and Middle East. I would ask rhetorically: What has changed? and why?
Well to me, that strategy sounds very familiar. It sounds like the strategy of the current people in charge of our executive branch of government.
Last night on the PRI program “Marketplace” I heard Ben “Bueller…Bueller?” Stein, fear mongering in a commentary. To echo Stein: How can we be so complacent when the terrorists want to kill us?
FDR brilliantly said: “We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.” This is my perspective. I have more fear of dying in an automobile accident than in a terrorist attack. This is because statistician in me tells me this is far more probable. When someone uses fear to motivate a population, or a certain percentage of the population, it is because they do not hold the moral high ground. Because they have no other means of moving the population to support their policy. I would argue that in our current situation the real reasons for the current policies cannot be made public. They would be completely and utterly unsupportable by a large percentage of the population.
There are simple solutions to the threat of terrorism. The support for terrorism is not because “they” hate our way of life. No "they" hate our policies, and the injustices and inequities those policies create. Although the solutions are simple they are not easy. In fact, politically, I would put them close to impossible. But we can move away from extremism, back to a more even handed policies. Policies that seek justice, and economic equity for all peoples. If you look at history, in the 1960’sand 1970’s the United States was much admired in the Near and Middle East. I would ask rhetorically: What has changed? and why?
Welcome TMW Readers!
Thanks to "Tom Tomorrows" encouragement, my crazy ideas are now accessible to an audience beyond my limited email list. I post almost daily to my nature themed: View From Gildersleeve Mountain (link on the right). While posting to this blog is irregular. I hope readers will find it interesting enough to come back now and again.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Why is Immigration Policy so Difficult?
As a first generation American. The son of an immigrant. I am a bit perplexed by our inability to fix the immigration problem. But to a tin foil hat wearing, nut like me. Someone who thinks from way outside the box. It is not all that complicated. In fact it is easy.
First we have to make legal immigration easy. There is no need to build a fence or a wall. People will just find a way around that. In making legal immigration easy, we automatically control illegal immigration and make it much more difficult. Having worked in Mexico, I found their system to be quite effective. Upon entering the country I applied for a work permit. I had to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, and identity. With my work permit I was permitted to work and conduct business in Mexico for the limited period of the permit. Upon leaving Mexico, I was required to turn the permit back in. Failure to do so would result in a hefty fine the next time I returned to Mexico to work. As I recall they even had computers set up in the immigration office to check this. With our work permit would come a number. This would be the equivalent of a social security number, and any employer would have to utilize it in that manner. Wow! You realize this means we would collect social security and income taxes on immigrant workers. Since immigrant labor would never collect social security, except in the rare cases of those who become citizens, this would also help to resolve the "crisis" with this program.
This next bit is the real sticking point. Holding employers responsible. If any employer caught paying compensating or utilizing the services of anyone without a valid work permit, was fined on a escalating scale and eventually faced jail. Well then, not many people would employ illegals would they? Make this apply to the top person in the company. Make that person responsible for insuring the company follows the law. Of course we know in most cases Fortune 500 companies are not employing illegals. Most of the time it is construction contractors, farmers, labor contractors, and small businesses.
How about enforcement? Right now we rely on the INS and Border Patrol. Enforcement too is easy. How about we empower local law agencies to enforce the laws and gave them a cut of the fines? This is not empowering them to arrest the people without work permits. No, we do not want the labor to scatter like the wind when the police show up. That is the traditional approach that goes after the immigrants and not those who hire them. This is the power to arrest their employers.
I too worry about the creation of another permanent underclass. As a part of allowing someone employ an immigrant and the regulation of both interstate and international commerce we could create a minimum wage for immigrant workers. Setting that wage would be a matter of economic policy, but as a part of this, employing an immigrant could not be on a cash, or day labor basis. Make the employer collect or pay all the applicable taxes. We might even have an additional tax on immigrant labor to cover the cost of administering work permits and other associated costs. This has the additional advantage of creating a disincentive to using immigrants. Right now it is actually easier in many cases, to employ illegal immigrants than it is to employ citizens.
How about the highly skilled knowledge workers big companies say they need? Let the Microsofts, and the Hewlett Packards, bring in as many as they want providing: 1. They cannot find a qualified US. Citizen or permanent resident. 2. They offer a multi year contract with benefits. 3. They take responsibility of the cost of the person’s return home if they do not want to stay. These workers cannot be allowed to job hop. They must be tied to one employer to make this work. They must be allowed to quit at any time, but must also be guaranteed employment by their sponsor. They could also come in for a shorter time with a regular work permit.
What about the illegals already here? Make them go to the border or an INS office and get a work permit just like everyone else. No amnesty. If they continue to work without a permit their employer will suffer the wrath of the law. When the permit expires they must turn it in at the border and go through the required waiting period before they are able to return
What about citizenship? The privilege accorded citizens or permanent residents is that of free enterprise. Going beyond working for wages. The American dream. Immigrant labor should be just that, and only that...labor.
I think you should see where I am going with this. I am making those who employ immigrants the responsible party. Not the immigrant, not the government. By regulating the marketplace for immigrant labor the problem becomes easier to deal with and control. But I doubt this will fly. Employers wont stand for being held responsible, and it will put upward pressure on wages, which according to the Federal Reserve is a bad thing for some reason.
The reason immigration is a complicated problem is because there are 3 forces at work. 1. As in any economy, there exists a market for cheap labor. 2. Citizens are unhappy with the downward pressure on wages this creates. And 3. A bi-partisan group of people believe in the rule of law, but are more beholden to the interests of employers than of ordinary citizens and immigrants. It is in trying to continue to supply(1) while pulling a con on (2) that (3) have all the trouble. In more simple terms: It is very difficult to take from the wealthy and give to the poor. No wonder it is all so complicated.
We could make immigration work to everyone's advantage. Especially if it were combined with universal heath care. We want immigrant labor to play on the same level as the rest of us. If all immigrant labor were included in the tax base, had health care, and were a part of the above ground economy, there would not be such complexity. We have complexity because the underground economy works to the advantage of an elite few. But those few have tremendous power with lawmakers. In fact they often are lawmakers, or in government. Think "nannygate".
First we have to make legal immigration easy. There is no need to build a fence or a wall. People will just find a way around that. In making legal immigration easy, we automatically control illegal immigration and make it much more difficult. Having worked in Mexico, I found their system to be quite effective. Upon entering the country I applied for a work permit. I had to provide proof of U.S. citizenship, and identity. With my work permit I was permitted to work and conduct business in Mexico for the limited period of the permit. Upon leaving Mexico, I was required to turn the permit back in. Failure to do so would result in a hefty fine the next time I returned to Mexico to work. As I recall they even had computers set up in the immigration office to check this. With our work permit would come a number. This would be the equivalent of a social security number, and any employer would have to utilize it in that manner. Wow! You realize this means we would collect social security and income taxes on immigrant workers. Since immigrant labor would never collect social security, except in the rare cases of those who become citizens, this would also help to resolve the "crisis" with this program.
This next bit is the real sticking point. Holding employers responsible. If any employer caught paying compensating or utilizing the services of anyone without a valid work permit, was fined on a escalating scale and eventually faced jail. Well then, not many people would employ illegals would they? Make this apply to the top person in the company. Make that person responsible for insuring the company follows the law. Of course we know in most cases Fortune 500 companies are not employing illegals. Most of the time it is construction contractors, farmers, labor contractors, and small businesses.
How about enforcement? Right now we rely on the INS and Border Patrol. Enforcement too is easy. How about we empower local law agencies to enforce the laws and gave them a cut of the fines? This is not empowering them to arrest the people without work permits. No, we do not want the labor to scatter like the wind when the police show up. That is the traditional approach that goes after the immigrants and not those who hire them. This is the power to arrest their employers.
I too worry about the creation of another permanent underclass. As a part of allowing someone employ an immigrant and the regulation of both interstate and international commerce we could create a minimum wage for immigrant workers. Setting that wage would be a matter of economic policy, but as a part of this, employing an immigrant could not be on a cash, or day labor basis. Make the employer collect or pay all the applicable taxes. We might even have an additional tax on immigrant labor to cover the cost of administering work permits and other associated costs. This has the additional advantage of creating a disincentive to using immigrants. Right now it is actually easier in many cases, to employ illegal immigrants than it is to employ citizens.
How about the highly skilled knowledge workers big companies say they need? Let the Microsofts, and the Hewlett Packards, bring in as many as they want providing: 1. They cannot find a qualified US. Citizen or permanent resident. 2. They offer a multi year contract with benefits. 3. They take responsibility of the cost of the person’s return home if they do not want to stay. These workers cannot be allowed to job hop. They must be tied to one employer to make this work. They must be allowed to quit at any time, but must also be guaranteed employment by their sponsor. They could also come in for a shorter time with a regular work permit.
What about the illegals already here? Make them go to the border or an INS office and get a work permit just like everyone else. No amnesty. If they continue to work without a permit their employer will suffer the wrath of the law. When the permit expires they must turn it in at the border and go through the required waiting period before they are able to return
What about citizenship? The privilege accorded citizens or permanent residents is that of free enterprise. Going beyond working for wages. The American dream. Immigrant labor should be just that, and only that...labor.
I think you should see where I am going with this. I am making those who employ immigrants the responsible party. Not the immigrant, not the government. By regulating the marketplace for immigrant labor the problem becomes easier to deal with and control. But I doubt this will fly. Employers wont stand for being held responsible, and it will put upward pressure on wages, which according to the Federal Reserve is a bad thing for some reason.
The reason immigration is a complicated problem is because there are 3 forces at work. 1. As in any economy, there exists a market for cheap labor. 2. Citizens are unhappy with the downward pressure on wages this creates. And 3. A bi-partisan group of people believe in the rule of law, but are more beholden to the interests of employers than of ordinary citizens and immigrants. It is in trying to continue to supply(1) while pulling a con on (2) that (3) have all the trouble. In more simple terms: It is very difficult to take from the wealthy and give to the poor. No wonder it is all so complicated.
We could make immigration work to everyone's advantage. Especially if it were combined with universal heath care. We want immigrant labor to play on the same level as the rest of us. If all immigrant labor were included in the tax base, had health care, and were a part of the above ground economy, there would not be such complexity. We have complexity because the underground economy works to the advantage of an elite few. But those few have tremendous power with lawmakers. In fact they often are lawmakers, or in government. Think "nannygate".
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
Errata
Some thoughts on various issues. Seemingly disconnected but perhaps interrelated. You decide...
Al Qaeda sleeper cells? More like the gang who couldn't shoot straight. The arrests in New Jersey, just go to show how the threats are overblown for the purpose of creating fear. Attacking a military base with a squad sized unit, no matter how well armed, is like taking on an elephant with a BB gun. (They did plan to die in the attack, but give me a break…) Yet the FBI wants us to be afraid, be very afraid. Right. These guys were idiots living some sort of fantasy. I doubt they would have ever carried out the attack unless goaded into it by an informant/infiltrator.
As I watch the Democratic, pre Presidential, campaign I realize how little I trust both Hillary, and Obama. Obama especially. This is in part because he refuses to lay out specifics for anything. Also, because I don't trust his rapid rise to prominence. I look at a piece of legislation he sponsored, to limit greenhouse gas emissions and see a classic example of greenwashing. It is a toothless bill, co sponsored by “Joementum” Lieberman. To me Obama is the Energy and Agribusiness candidate. A stealth version to be sure, but in reality just W in sheep’s clothing.
On the Republican side, I wonder why the GOP can’t do better. Why can’t they get beyond the extreme conservatism that has gotten us into the mess we are in? Being from Kirtland, Ohio I have little worry about Romney’s religion. That is a red herring from my perspective, and he is the least scary of the GOP candidates. But why can’t someone who would be a darn good President, someone like former New Jersey Governor Whitman, succeed on a national level? We know the answer. The extremists still control the GOP, and will continue to hang on in spite of multiple failures. This is a good thing.
A few posts ago I wondered about what caused the tipping point in the attitudes of the elites toward global warming? I see Citicorp is going to invest $70 billion in green technology. This follows a plan by Bank of America to invest $20 billion announced in March. Two years ago this was all so inconclusive. A hoax designed to ruin the American economy. While I am glad to see the change. A tin foil hat wearing nut like me, always likes to ask why? 5 times.
A little math to put things in perspective: Price of a Honda hybrid, well equipped, $25K or 2.5 x10^4. Number of passenger vehicles sold in North America every year, about 17 million, or 1.7x10^7. Cost to convert the entire vehicle fleet to hybrid technology for 1 year =4.25 x 10^11 or $425 billion. Wait! That doesn't make sense… How much have we spent on the war in Iraq? The current estimate is a mere $424 billion. In other words, for what we have spent on the war in Iraq we could have given a hybrid car to every American who purchased a vehicle last year. To quote a song by an old punk band: “I’m not crazy…You’re the one who’s crazy…” Oh well, I have to inspect my funny hat to make sure there are no holes in it.
Al Qaeda sleeper cells? More like the gang who couldn't shoot straight. The arrests in New Jersey, just go to show how the threats are overblown for the purpose of creating fear. Attacking a military base with a squad sized unit, no matter how well armed, is like taking on an elephant with a BB gun. (They did plan to die in the attack, but give me a break…) Yet the FBI wants us to be afraid, be very afraid. Right. These guys were idiots living some sort of fantasy. I doubt they would have ever carried out the attack unless goaded into it by an informant/infiltrator.
As I watch the Democratic, pre Presidential, campaign I realize how little I trust both Hillary, and Obama. Obama especially. This is in part because he refuses to lay out specifics for anything. Also, because I don't trust his rapid rise to prominence. I look at a piece of legislation he sponsored, to limit greenhouse gas emissions and see a classic example of greenwashing. It is a toothless bill, co sponsored by “Joementum” Lieberman. To me Obama is the Energy and Agribusiness candidate. A stealth version to be sure, but in reality just W in sheep’s clothing.
On the Republican side, I wonder why the GOP can’t do better. Why can’t they get beyond the extreme conservatism that has gotten us into the mess we are in? Being from Kirtland, Ohio I have little worry about Romney’s religion. That is a red herring from my perspective, and he is the least scary of the GOP candidates. But why can’t someone who would be a darn good President, someone like former New Jersey Governor Whitman, succeed on a national level? We know the answer. The extremists still control the GOP, and will continue to hang on in spite of multiple failures. This is a good thing.
A few posts ago I wondered about what caused the tipping point in the attitudes of the elites toward global warming? I see Citicorp is going to invest $70 billion in green technology. This follows a plan by Bank of America to invest $20 billion announced in March. Two years ago this was all so inconclusive. A hoax designed to ruin the American economy. While I am glad to see the change. A tin foil hat wearing nut like me, always likes to ask why? 5 times.
A little math to put things in perspective: Price of a Honda hybrid, well equipped, $25K or 2.5 x10^4. Number of passenger vehicles sold in North America every year, about 17 million, or 1.7x10^7. Cost to convert the entire vehicle fleet to hybrid technology for 1 year =4.25 x 10^11 or $425 billion. Wait! That doesn't make sense… How much have we spent on the war in Iraq? The current estimate is a mere $424 billion. In other words, for what we have spent on the war in Iraq we could have given a hybrid car to every American who purchased a vehicle last year. To quote a song by an old punk band: “I’m not crazy…You’re the one who’s crazy…” Oh well, I have to inspect my funny hat to make sure there are no holes in it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
