Creating Real Capitalism, For A Change

EVERY ECONOMIC PROBLEM, particulalry the usual two, unemployment and poverty, could be remedied in a heartbeat, or at least within a few years, by any American Presiednt, without congress, if properly egged on by we the American people. The President of the United States (POTUS), all by himself, has the power to break up the wealthy elite corporate oligarchy which owns and controls everything and stifles real economic prosperity for most of us. The president can take anti-trust action. Doing so would stimulate real competition, which we do not now have, and would create higher wages and more jobs, lifting us out of poverty, turning us all into productive participants in a thriving economy. Yes, what we need in America is good old fashioned free market capitalism, which, surprisingly, has been seldom seen in history, due to the rapidity with which monopolies form in almost every industry, without government action to stop it. Our current corporate oligarchy, the one percent or less, stifles the economy for everyone but themselves. A prosperous capitalistic economy consists of many small businesses, with competition for market share, workers, wages, and prices. An economy dominated by a few corporate monopolisitc giants will not sustain, because wages are kept too low, and the consumer bass is therefore too small. Ravi Batra, an economist at Southern Methodist University, is a must read for all who not only wish to understand our economic problems, but also how to fix them. And it isn't rocket science. In fact, its amazing, how simple the problem is and how simple the remedy. Its all in a new book "End Unemployment Now", published just this year. What the title lacks in creativity the text more than makes up for with clear, entertaining, easy to understand explanations. I don't understand economics. I'll make that clear right now. I get lost somewhere in the middle of the very first equation. I am, however, smart enough to understand that when most people don't have enough money, demand is small, hence production supply decline, and hence, economic prosperity is reduced. Supply side, trickle down Reaganonimcs is a scam, and always was. Or, in the words of Pope Francis, trickle down economics is a "myth". (his word not mine). What we need is demand side, trickle up economics, and the way to achieve that is to create new markets by getting money into the hands of people who currently don't have enough, primarily through wage increases. As Abraham Lincoln said: " labor is prior to capital, which is only the fruit of labor, and never would have existed had labor not existed first. Labor is superior to capital, and should always be given the higher consideration." The next Occupy Wall Street movement should be centered on the internet, should advocate demand side economics, and should work to help convince the public to do what it takes (force governments) to break up monopoly/oligarchy capitalism, and replace it with real free market capitalism. " Workers of the World, Unite", someone once said.

Making Sense of the Constitution

SO NOW, UM....according to the U.S. Supreme Court, the United States Constitution guarantees the right of gay people to marry each other. Or, viewed in another way, the U.S. Constitution does nothing to prevent gay marriage, since it doesn't eenmention it, and therefore it is inherently legal in Amrica. In theory, therefore, said constitution has guaranteed the right of gay marriage by failing to prohibit it since Sept 17, 1787, the very day the document went into effect. The court must interpret the constitution, not rewrite it, correct? Therefore, we must assume that gay marriage has always been constitutional, and should have been accepted as legal from the very beginning, but unfortunately, becuase of the limitations of our society and the people who are part of it, only now do we see this truth. At least, that's the way it would seem, based on the court's decision the other day. Of course, those who don't like gay marriage assert that all this is nonsense, and that the court simply got it wrong, and that gay marriage cannot should not be made legal in America by interpreting the consitution and distorting it. Which may well indeed be a valid point of view. Original intent? Five'll get you ten that our founding fathers had no intention of gay marriage being legal, or anything other than a sickness, a perversion, something to be shunned and criminalized. We, however, in our modern world see things differently. We interpret our constitution as we see fit, not as we think its authors intended it to be interpreted, which, if you think about it, makes a lot of sense. The founders are not around to interpret it, but we are, so we must, without trying to guess what they would or might have done or thought. The dirty little secret is; if we could just have enough sense and cooperation to keep our constitution up to date, by either updating or replacing it every so often, as Thomas Jefferson suggested, we would have to spend far less time and effort trying to "interpret it", and more time and effort clearly iunderstanding what it clearly says - to us - because it would have been written by us, not by a group of folks dead for two hundred years. But that would make way too much sense.

Enjoying the American Conservative Freak Show

YOU ALMOST HAVE TO feel sorry for both the U.S.Supreme Court and the American conservative (con) community. The former is being mercilessly hounded by an irate multi million member mob (aforementioned cons), and the American conservative community is distraught to the point of outright despair, resulting in a outpouring and display of raw anger the likes of which hasn't been seen in America since, um...since the last time the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. To make matters worse, shortly the court will probably validate gay marriage, and that's likely to set off another explosion of conservative outrage. We might see tea party types forming mobs, and roaming the streets of working class America (where liberals mostly live) armed with Holy Bibles and firearms. The vengeance of the Jesus, guns, and money crowd, cutting loose in all its full fury. Obamacare, according to the cons, is a complete, unmitigated disaster, which is transforming America, turning it into a tyranny, which will lead to the utter destruction of the country. The U.S Supreme Court, claim the cons, is a tool of the liberal movement, a puppet of Barack Hussein Obama, having been infiltrated by closet liberals, and maybe a few extraterrestrials. And, incredibly, conservative panic stricken despair is motivating ideas and comments among the cons even goofier than those just mentioned. Our only recourse is to offer comfort, a few kind words of consolation, if nothing else, to the conservative community, then sit back, enjoy the show, and hope that it lasts a while longer.

Embracing Dark Forces, or Taking Positive Action

CONSERVATIVES IN AMERICA seem fond of embracing dark, mysterious, all powerful forces; the great invisible hand of the free market, the Judeo Christian God, and so forth. And yet, they accuse liberals of living in a world of emotion based fantasy, of wanting to create a magical, impossible utopia on earth by doing such crazy things as taking money from the rich and redistributing it among the poor, if you can even imagine such a thing. Who was it who said "go thy way, and sell whatsoever thou hast, and give unto the poor" ? And who said "render unto Caesar" ? Surely not some conservative republican. Whether there is any such thing as an invisible hand automatically guiding the free market toward an economic efficiency in which all humans act rationally in their self interest, without any involvement from government whatsoever, resulting in a happy, healthy capitalistic world, is questionable, if not downright absurd. Without government involvement, we have the annoying little matters of monopolies and poverty, among other problems. Even the philosophical inventor of modern capitalism, Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, 1776), mentioned that government is needed to protect the poor from the brutal consequences of unfettered capitalism. As for the great Judeo Christian sky God, the author of the Holy Christian Bible? We should hope that dodesn't exist either. According to the Bible, God is quite a monster. Blood sacrifices and lies. It is fortunate that the powerful, evil forces, such as conservatives tend to revere, are imaginary. As to liberal fantasy, that we can all work together to create a better, more perfect world through humanistic action such as redistribution of wealth and strong action to halt human made climate change? Ridiculous ideas, according to American conservatives, very doable and desirable, according to liberals. We may all find contentment in the choices we make.

Flying the Confederate Flag, Proudly, I Presume, In My Town

FORTUNATE IS HE OR SHE WHO, in today's America, sits down to write an article, looks out the window straight on to the square of a tiny, quaint southern American town, and see a confederate flag proudly flapping in the warm summer wind. My question is; the flag seems to fly a bit more than the wind is blowing; could it be that he has a fan in the back of the pick up, whipping it up? Surely not. The turck is quite old, like you would exepct the truck of a southern American redneck to be, and the man himself - well, he certainly looks the part. Here, in my little southern American town, for real. Do I dare go ask him about the fan, or even drive by and look in? Would he shoot me? He's parked right in front of city hall, which is a tiny brick and metal building, as if to remind us, all two thousand of us, of his freedom of speech. Well, whatever. Flying the confederate flag is about as relevant as flying the thirteen star American flag, or the fourteen star, or the forty eight star version, or any of teh roughly forty incarnations, and counting. I always thought, and still do, that Lincoln and the north should have accepted southern cessastion insteas of fighting about it, and should have tolerated the confederacy as a new nation, under God, to the south. Best guess is that eventually the two would have remerged later, due to economic considerations, namely, the fact that the modern world was going, inevitably, one way or another, force an end to confederate enslavement of African-Americans. But I digress. The thought occurs that we make much too much out of flags, and the specifics of speech. Hillary Clinton, speaking near Ferguson, Missouri, shouted profoundly "All lives matter!", a statement which, on the surface, seems true enough to sound hackneyed. But, no. Because Hillary didn't say "all black lives matter", she evidently, according to members of the black community, is forfeiting much support, believe it or not. Picky, picky...don't they understand that the word "all"' means...well, whatever. In my tiny southern town live a total of roughly five or six African-Americans, and as of this writing they have not shown up to protest. I'll keepy y'all posted.

Arming All Good Americans, Part II

WELL, IT DIDN'T TAKE LONG, did it? (see article "Arming All Good Americans" below). Actually, less than two days. Two new shooting sprees have "popped up", so to speak, in the United States of Armament, less than a week after the Charleston church massacre, and I'm going to be a millionaire soon, as soon as those who took me up on my little wager pay up, which, being good Americans, they surely soon shall. Only one person was killed in the two latest incidents, but that's enough, they still qualify as mass shootings, since a whole boatload of folks was wounded. Its the thought that counts. Some mass murderers just can't shoot straight, thank heavens. If the conservative American community gets it way, and all us good Americans start going heals, we'd all best be spending some quality time at the rifle range, just in case. Few of us might be a tad rusty, or downright wild. The American people just do not pack enough heat. We don't have enough guns on good people in public places, and that's why so many people are getting shot. Never anybody around to put a stop to the carnage before it really gets rolling. Poverty, social alienation, widespread desperation and frustration and anger throughout America are irrelevant, says popular conservative dogma. Its the shooter's fault, exclusively, regardless of the kind of country he lives in. Environment plays no part. In a more perfect world, each and every would be mass murderer would be stopped cold by a barrage of righteous bullets from a concerned citizen, and that, as they say, would be that. An economically and emotionally sick society is quite beside the point. What we need is more guns.

Trumping the Field

THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL campaign, we hope, will be exactly what America needs: a riveting, entertaining, exciting, tantalizing, profitable, free- for-all discussion about the United States of America, and what to do with it. Both wings of the party of property have an impressive collection of interesting candidates, and soon there should be more. Only Bernie Sanders doesn't seem to belong in the groups, and for precisely that reason he is the best choice, for an overwhelming majority of the American people. If you're poor, or you're a worker, and most of us are, aren't we? - vote Bernie. Any of the other three demos would be far preferable to any of the legions of repubs, if you're poor, or you're a worker. The best republican candidates are, in no particular order: Jeb Bush, Rand Paul, and Donald Trump. Jeb is open minded, and doesn't regard liberals as evil, stupid, or delusional. he seems wiling to listen to other people, and to step outside the conservative box, policy-wise. Rand Paul deserves great credit for his opposition to the American security-surveillance state, at a time when most other republican candidates seem determine to trade a little liberty for a little security, thus revealing them to deserve neither. The Donald is amazing. Did he, or did he not go bankrupt four times? (that might be a deal breaker for me). In America, it gets hard trying to distinguish fantasy from reality. Trump might be able to gather some support among liberals and independents, without alienating quite all of the conservatives. Unless I'm dreaming, he supports increasing the minimum wage, single payer public health insurance, taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and humane treatment of illegal alien human beings. Simultaneously, he has a vigorous and aggressive pro business job creation agenda, with a nice and healthy prosperous sound to it. He seems to think that we ought to be doing something to stop climate change, unlike his republican conservative colleagues. Trump might easily be accused of being a liberal, because he is independent, open-minded, and oriented towards results rather than image or ideological consistency. We need more of that in American politics.

Arming All Good Americans

WHAD'YA WANNA BET before the end of 2015 there is at least one more shooting spree mass murder in America? Any takers? Maybe a friendly little wager for a, say, cool million? Not that I have the money, but so confident am I of the outcome, I'd borrow the money just to make this wager, with anyone. Most Americans might not want to take me up on it. Many Americans might be willing to make the same wager. Most non-Americans who pay attention to America undoubtedly would. There's still a lot of time left in the year, time to get your bets in, and also time for the dreaded but inevitable blood bath to transpire. So it seems like a pretty good bet to happen. Obviously, you can't wager that a mass murder will happen today, or within a week - but the very thought that it almost seems inevitbale that another will take place within the year is, shall we say, a tad unnerving. And you know its true. You just don't know exactly when.... And yes, at this point I would be willing to try anything to stop it, any and all solutions, mild or extreme, liberal and conservative, including arming all good law abiding Americans all the time, to make sure that the next killer is stopped. That's the conservative republican solution, isn't it? To arm all "good" law abiding Americans? Let's try it! I'm willing! It aint my solution, but my solution is not necessarily any better than anyone else's. (Actually, I'm one of those wacky liberal proponents of civilian disarmament. Go figure). Maybe we should pass a law REQUIRING all good law abiding Americans to pack heat in public. Again, what do I know? My grandfather (1888-1956) is reputed to have said: "put a gun in a man's hand, and the first thing he wants to do is use it." Meaning, any man, good or bad. It sounds like something grandfather might've said, based on what my father told me. All Iknow is, when Wyatt Earp was Sheriff in Dodge City, Kansas, THE Dodge City, Kansas, you didn't bring a gun into town. If you did, you turned it over to Sheriff Earp, and he would return it on your way out. Wyatt was damned serious about this, for some reason. Wyatt Earp was a man who knew a thing or two about guns and people, and you wonder what he knew that we don't. My personal opinion, considering what I know about my country after living in it sixty years and paying attention, is that to arm the American people much more than they already are would be to set off a nation wide ongoing shoot out at the O.K. corral, even above and beyond the rather active one we already have going on, but, hell, what do I know...

Smiling First, Smiling Often, Smiling My Way Through Life

CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?, the familiar refrain goes, as if doing so is merely a matter of will, of decision, of determination. Well, maybe it is. Maybe we should all, meaning all members of the human species, make a solemn determination to get along, under all circumstances, at all cost.. I try to help. I try to smile, a lot. My problem is, when I relax all of my facial muscles, and make no attempt to convey any emotion at all with my facial expression - I look mean, and angry. At least, I look that way to other people, and, truth be told, I kinda look that way to myself in the mirror. And, I swear, I don't intend it to be that way, but, as we say these days, it is what it is. I can be the happiest person in the world, or the most rexaxed and content at any given moment, but if I don't put a smile on my face, if I just relax and make no facial expression, I look mad, no matter how happy and content I actually am. And this simply won't do. To counteract the effect I have learned to smile, a whole lot, at everybody, particularly strangers, who might be most vulnerable to misinterpretation of my face. This is extremely important to me. Otherwise, everyone looks at me with an angry expression on their faces, as if imitating me, or getting even with me, or perhaps, out of respect, or a perceived need to conform to me, for some reason, which seems doubtful. Or maybe they're thinking that they simply cannot possibly be the first to smile, because it might make them look or be vulnerable, vulnerable to the horrible possibility of giving warmth and not getting it back. As mean as I look, well, they have to look mean right back at me, to keep it even, to keep it fair. Hell, I don't know. All I know is, it gets depressing, going through life with everyone scowling at me because they mistakenly think I'm scowling at them. Americans, in my humble opinion, are not very good at giving out the first smile, but tend to be darned good at returning smiles. So I'll just keep right on smiling at everyone, thus improving my life, and, maybe a fad will sweep across America in which it becomes terribly fashionalbe to smile first, no matter what. Doubtful, but it could happen.

Being A Killer, or Becoming One, Suddenly

FOR WEBSITES DEVOTED at least party to global events and to commenting on them, the world is currently a fertile field. Another mass murder, for example ho hum, in the land of milk n' honey, in the United States, again, and we just don't hear much talk about anger and alienation in a well armed capitalistic/competitive society, and the inevitable consequences of this stressful combination. To have the right to be armed is far more important and beneficial than actually being armed, it might seem. Perhaps some "inherent" constitutional rights are best left unexercised, without fear of losing them. - do we all really have to pack and carry lethal weapons all the time to exercise the right to do so, or to protect ourselves? Sure, if someone, or everyone, in the congregation in South Carolina among the nine dead had been armed, the violence might have been truncated. Or, it might have been increased, depending on specifics, such as the actions of the other gun carrying citizens. (didn't work out too well in Texas, among the biker gangs, those good, god fearing conservative upright far right citizens). But what about the "law abiding" people who are armed in defense against killers? What's to keep them from using their weapons wrongfully, deadly? A belief in their inherent "goodness?" A criminal background check? Killers often suddenly spring forth from among the well armed law abiding people, strangely enough. It is truly amazing how quickly previously law abiding people can become killers. Jes sayin....

Trying, and Failing, To Stop Sex and Race Changing

THE MAN WANTS TO BE FEMALE, and the white lady wants to be black. Those among us who aren't complaining about it may not be more tolerant, necessarily; we may, however, be more aware than those opposed to it that we quite simply have no choice, it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks about it; they'll be what they want to be, and the rest of us have no choice in the matter. We might as well stop complaining, and move on. To complain about someone who alters his or her gender or changes skin color is useless. Hell, I still want to be a big league ball player, and, I assure you, my desire is less likely to come true than that of any transgender or transracial person. No harm, no foul. May the man become a lady, and may the lady become black, or whatever she chooses to call herself. But not so fast. Our conservative colleagues don't like the idea, no matter how badly those seeking personal sexual or racial change want it, and how effectively they achieve it. As if the opinions of outsiders even matter, or will have any impact on anyone. Reasons abound for the discontent of the critics. It isn't traditional. Jesus didn't encourage it. Or what not. Thus, transgender transracial weirdos must first be deterred, then ridiculed, then outcast and condemned. Certainly, these people must not be admired for their courage in honestly telling the rest of us who they believe themselves down deep to be, knowing that by so doing they will suffer great ridicule. Conservative talk radio is encouraging everything from browbeating to lynching. Here we go again; they're sinners, they're mentally ill. The same comments we heard about homosexuals within memory. We can't do anything about that either. We already tried, and tried hard, and we failed.

Silencing the Pope for Being Disobedient

I HAVE SOME CONSERVATIVE frenimies (believe it or not) who were really pumped up when Francis became Pope. Seems they found some pre papal quotes touting the value of free enterprise, and the freedom stifling effects of state economic interventionism. Cloud nine for the cons. A gloriously capitalistic, conservative, corporate Pope! But not so fast. Perhaps there was a slight misunderstanding. Flash bulletin :Pope labels trickle down Reagononics a "myth", touts severity of man made global warming. Say what!?! How can this be ? Kingdom of conservate christiandom thrown into turmoil. Enter second time American presidential aspirant Slick Rick sanitarium Santorum, a sure loser, to set the Pontiff straight. Santorum says the Pope should stick to matters of morality and church dogma, and leave science to those who know it best, namely, those who deny global warming, if there are still eny left. (they're getting hard to find, unless one looks under corporate boardroom hors devours spreads or at republican party functions.) After all, the church never was very good at science, Santorum says, having always chosen to cling to outdated science, and it does dogma much better. Ironically, is is the Pope who is accepting science, and Rick and his ilk who cling like imaginary Martian lichens to outdated science. Rock on,Rrickie boy! If the Pope disagrees with you, and departs from conservative dogma, he should shut up, and you should be the one to tell him to. After all, you've only been voted out of the Senate once, and failed seeking the presidency, um, twice, almost. Stand tall upon your flat earth while your former spiritual leader goes flying waywardly into some unimaginably fantastic, liberal, literal scientific future.

Governing Badly

IN ANCIENT ROME, the emporer Caligula appointed his horse to the Senate. In 1914 Germany declared war on Russia, then attacked France. In 2001 the World Trade Center was destroyed by Saudi Arabians working for Islamic jihadists, and the United states attacked the secularly governed nation of Iraq. The point is, the world seems seldom granted the gift of good governenace, and often seems to bear the burden of bad governance. Sometimes we get lucky, and our leaders say or do something sensible, such as telling the truth, or withdrawing from Viet Nam. Thomas Jefferson said: "I fear for my country when I reflect that God is just". Well, so should we all, dreamy Tom. American statesman, historian, and purveyor or realpolitik George Kennan came through in 1948, when he spoke the following truth: "we have about fifty percent of the world's wealth, but only six point three percent of its population. In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security. To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality and daydreaming." Indeed we must, and do. Aside from the ostensibly contradictory term "positive detriment", the message is clear: if you have everything and nobody else has anything, most likely you'll have to plan and act vigorously in order to retain the status quo, for the wolves, hungry, will be at the door. Now that's inspired leadership, and honest too! Or how about this: "though the object of being a great power is to be able to fight a great war, the only way of remaining a great power is to not fight a great war." (A.J.P. taylor). Or try this one: "people never lie so much as after a hunt, during a war, or before an election." (Otto von Bismarck). Today, we are given the inanities of the Bush clan, which could fill a tear off calendar for years. ("this is still the greatest natin in the country". (george H.W. Bush) Or behold the spectacle of an American president contemplating the meaning of the word "is". Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, takling about the lack of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, articulated, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." As the Russian proverb goes, "a country without its Tsar is like a village without its idiot."

Not Knowing, Not Caring

JUST FOR FUN, try this: invite people to type in the name "April Glaspie" on google, and scroll down to the link "conversation with Saddam". April Glaspie was America's ambassador to Iraq at the time, the first woman to ever hold such a position vis a vis an Arab country. The conversation transcript clearly reveals that the Bush administration (the first one) deliberately encouraged Saddam to attack Kuwait in the summer of 1990. Clear as a bell, available for all to see. One week before the Iraqi army invaded and conquered Kuwait, the United States told him to be our guest, we didn't care. When one gives another a blank check, one presumes that the recipient will fill in the numbers as said recipient duly chooses. As did Saddam Hussein, who, the transcript reveals, "smiled" at Glaspie's statement. "President Bush and Secretary of State James Baker have instructed me to inform you that the United States has no interest in or concern about conflicts or matters involving Arab nations." Or something to that effect. The rest, as they say, is history. Several thousand dead Americans, tens of thousands of dead iraqi civilians, and, most recently, the Islamic State, self proclaimed. I enjoy doing this, and then monitoring the various reactions. From most people I never hear back. I assume they didn't bother to follow my suggestion. Oh well, their loss. Of those who do, I divide the reactions into three groups. There are those who say they really don't know much about it, and have no reaction. Then, there are those who simply don't care. Ancient history. Too late to do anything about it. Then, there are the patriotic rationalizers. There must have been a good reason, he misinterpreted her words, that sort of thing. The confused, the apathetic, and the blindly patriotic. How do you draw to that? Well, so much for my massive protest and revolution. Aint hapnin'. In the late sixties and early seventies it was fashionable to decry America's ignorance and apathy. Unconcerned citizens, unresponsive to their patriotic duty. Itsstrangely comforting to know that these traits can also be put to use in service to one's country, no matter how villianous one's country. It worked well in Germany during the thirties.

Questions, Questions... JUST A COUPLA QUICK QUESTIONS: why, in the name of all that is cruel and unusual, has solitary confinement in federal prisons not been deemed unconstitutional by the high court? At any given time, something like eighty to one hundred thousand inmates are in solitary, out of a prison population of approximately two million. That's less than five percent of the prison population, and, one might think, qualifies as "unusual". The cruelty of it is beyond question. Nearly all prisoners, about ninety five percent, eventually are freed, and when a person who has been in solitary for an extended period of time is suddenly turned loose unto the world, bad things happen, having to do with psychological and adjustment difficulties. Rarely is any help offered by the system to prepare for this. Again, cruel. On the other hand, if we adopt a broad definition of "cruel and unusual", we might be imprisoning parents for requiring children to attend church. Second question: why have the NFL, NBA, and MLB amateur player drafts not been ruled unconstitutional? Don't these drafts amount to involuntary servitude? Either sign with the team which drafted you, or choose a different career. No choice for the young person, who, one might think, should have the inherent right to seek employment with whatever employer he or she chooses. Possibly the answer is that each of the professional sports leagues is legally regarded as a single employer, but who knows? Final question: when will Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton be indicted o charges of treason for undermining the President of the United States while treaty negotiations are ongoing with a foreign nation? The Senate is enjoined by the constitution to "advise and consent", not to undermine. You might recall that Cotton and forty six other U.S. Senators wrote, signed, and sent a letter to the government of Iran informing it that President Obama has no power to conclude an enduring treaty with anyone, since whatever arrangements he participates is are likely to be reversed by future American governments? Doubtless this is true, but still....question...question...

Being Neighborly

I LIVE IN A MIDDLE CLASS neighborhood in a small, very small, southern Midwestern town. I work the normal nine to five thing. I have lived here for ten years, with the same job, same neighbors, same house. My neighbors seem to all be nice people, but its hard to tell, because I rarely speak to them. A time or two I have knocked on their doors, but there hasn't been any answer, even though they were obviously inside. No problem, their choice. People are busy, and a sudden knock on one's door does not obligate one to answer the door. Anyhow, they would have been disappointed; all I wanted was to say hello, and have a short neighborly visit. Well, at least I tried. My back up strategy became; say howdy to the neighbors if and when I happen to be outside in my yard, and they happen to be coming or going. That works a little better, but not much. The guy on my right is very personable, but a bit taciturn. And every danged time I start a conversation with him in our yards, his wife starts yelling at him to come hither, as if his speaking to a neighbor is not acceptable. this happens about once a year, because I dare not try communication any more often; I might risk being perceived as a busy body bad neighbor. Over on the left, is a nice lady about my age, with a grown daughter, a dog, and a cat. I am careful to only try her about once a year also; wouldn't want to intrude. Yesterday was my day. She got out of her car, and went to her mailbox. I dropped my hedge trimmers, and waled in her direction, determined to just say hello. I did this, then remarked that although we are indeed neighbors, we rarely speak to each other. Her reply is that"we are all so very busy". Now, I'm willing to ignore the truth as much as the next guy, but I have limits. I responded: "No, Judy, we are not too busy to speak. We are simply unfriendly". She didn't respond to this (people seldom respond to truth, because they don't like the truth), but instead, got her mail out of her mailbox, and proceeded to open and read it, even as we spoke. Too busy, indeed. Here she was, making herself too busy to speak, even as we spoke. I realized my cause was hopeless, except perhaps for the man across the street; he is from Guatemala, and, not being American, is much friendlier. I bade Judy a good day, and returned to my house, to the air conditioning, to the computer, and to thousands of people who are my true friends, because they have me on their friend list, I have them on mine, and I think I will have to wait a long time before my physical neighbors click on the "like" button.

Being Hypocritical

NOAM CHOMSKY, professor emeritus at M.I.T. and icon of the far left, who spews the usual liberal line - redistribution of wealth, helping the poor, and all that - happens to be a multi millionaire. For this, he has been accused of hypocrisy. His response is eomething like: "what do you want me to do, go live in a log cabin?" And: "I don't apologize for trying to do something for my children and grandchildren". He might be better advised to simply say "yes, I am a hypocrite". Then, in small print, he could add (just like everyone else is). For the hard, cold fact is, dear reader, we are all, at one time or another, in one way or another, hypocrites. Or perhaps its bettter to say something like: in everyone's actions and words, at one time or another, there is an element of hypocrisy. Suppose you happen to be a conservative, and you articulate the standard conservative line: "socialism does not work". In order to avoid being a hypocrite, please be sure to never make use of your local police or fire department, and be sure to stay off publicly owned and operated streets and highways, which might be a bit difficult. For verily, the above named public services are owned, operated, and maintainted, (we must whisper) "socialistically". Your local police department, dear reader, is a socialized entity, pure and simple, no ifs, ands, or buttholes. Suppose you happen to be a socialist. Where are you going to get your food? By growing it yourself? Certainly not at your local supermarket. Alas, dear reader, whether we wish to admit it or not, we are all part socialist, and we are all part capitalist. And, last, and least, we are all, at least in part, at one time or another, part hypocrite.

Attacking

FOR SOME REASON, the only kind of talk radio there is is conservative talk radio. Well, that, and sprots talk radio. Presumably this is because the people who own the radio buisness are conservatives. It would certainly seem that there are enough liberals in America to support a liberal radio talk show, if given the chance. After all, when Barack Obama won reelection in 2012, Rush Limbaugh sadly commented: "they outnumber us". Probably not. Probably, we are all outnumbered by the teeming masses with either no interst in political and public affairs, or people whose views are so vague that the only way to describe them is "moderate". Oh, that we could all be moderates, and stop the uncivil back biting. According to the online encyclopedia, radio talk show celeb Michael Savage (aka Michael Weiner) once wrote a letter to Alan Ginsburg in which Savage expressed a desire to have anal intercourse with the famous writer. My face must've lit up like a roman candle; dirt, on the detested Michael Savage. Then it occured to me that I was doing what I detest most about conservative talk radio, and in the cultural war at large; the tendency to look for any way, anything at all, with which to attack those with whom we disagree. Gratuitous, irrelevant trashy attacks. We are in the midst of an epidemic of this. Look for dirt. Anything. Keep digging. A political candidate makes a grammatical error; send in the attack forces. I do it all the time, and I need to stop. So does everyone else. the sad part is; most likely, none of us will.

Purchasing the American Presidency

JEB BUSH, who may or may not run for president - we still don't know because he still hasn't formally announced his candidacy with press conference, parade, or champagne brunch - but almost certainly will - tells us that he fully intends to comply with the law if and when he begins raising money for his maybe campaign, which he has already been doing, long since. That sounds good. A Bush, complying with the law. Very refreshing, very encouraging. Complying with federal election law is extremely easy these days, because almost anything is allowed. You can raise as much money as you want, as long as you pretend that the money has absolutely nothing to do with your election campaign. Or rather, as long as you pretend that it has nothing directly to do with the person running for office. Yes, we are here to purchase advertising for Jeb Bush, but we have nothing to do with him, we hardly even know the man. We intend to spend a billion dollars on ads for a person we swear we never speak to. Political Action Committees are a wonder of nature. Collect a few billion dollars, spend it on buying the American presidency, and just be sure that there is no direct connection between candidate and PAC. So long as the money is spent properly - for advertising - there doesn't really even need to be any intercourse between candidate and PAC, so, it all works out well for the wealthy; political offices can be purchased with impunity. Hillary clinton, meanwhile, proclaims her intention of raising two and a half billion dollars .Of the dozens of republicans running for president, each has at least one billionaire in the background, lurking, checkbook in hand, but the billionaires themselves have nothing to do with the candidates they are supporting. If the United states ever becomes a democracy, which seems very unlikely, elections may be determined by somebody other than billionaires, which seems even more unlikely. Crazy thing is, the solution to this massive national corruption may be found in nine little words: "the sale and purchase of political advertising is prohibited." Solutions to problems are sometimes too easy, and too obvious to be considered.

Making It Easy To Do the Right Thing

IT WOULD BE GOOD IF more poor people, young people, blacks and Hispanics in America registered to vote, and voted, wouldn't it? Seems like a good idea, harmless enough to express it. Long live democracy, power to the people, and all that. Hillary Clinton accused the republicans of actively trying to prevent those groups from voting, which is going a step further. Looks like Hillary is really gonna come after those onery repubs; be warned. What republicans are really trying to do, at least, what they say they are really trying to do is to eliminate election corruption and fraud by requiring more proof of identity, such as photo ID, when registering and voting. For various reasons, the poor, the young, and minorities are less likely to be able to comply with these new requirements. Poor people, young people, and minorities have a greater tendency to vote for democrats and liberals, when they bother to vote, than do, say, wealthy white males and their lovely spouses and families. Maybe Hillary should keep it positive, and work to actually register and get people out to vote, rather than accuse conservative republicans of nefarious misdeeds of which the lambs could scarcely be capable, so morally upright are they. It would probably be better to have a few people voting twice than to have too few people voting at all. Power to the people, remember? In the United States, we have too few people voting, so we need to try to make it as easy as possible for people to vote - early voting, online voting, and so forth. WE Americans prefer exerting as little effort as possible when fulfilling our civic and patriotic obligations.

Adding Up the Numbers, Unexplained

SOMETHING'S ROTTEN IN THE STATE OF DENMARK. It just doesn't add up. Look at a list of the world's wealthiest countries, per capita; the Danes are up on top. So are most of these other socialistic European countries: all top ten, at the top of the list. The United States is hanging in there, on most lists, around number ten or something, sometimes not that high. Number one, believe it nor not, is actually Luxembourg, that tiny country somewhere in the middle of Europe tucked in between France, Belgium, Holland, or somewhere. How do these people do it? The average rate of income taxation in, say, Denmark is something around seventy percent. Seventy percent of your income, going to the government. Sounds outrageous. But what do the other numbers say about Denmark's economy? How do their businesses, large, and small, do? You would think that Danish companies aren't doing too badly, since the country is the second richest in the world, per capita. Free college, free health insurance, free everything, like some Bernie Sanders fantasy world. The very economic values scorned, despised, and demonized by our conservative American republicans, forming the basis of the most successful national economies in the world. Makes you think. There is much greater economic equality in countries like Denmark, with janitors, doctors, and lawyers all living in the same neighborhood. Levels of happiness, as measured in polls and surverys, are very high in these countries, higher than in, say, the United States. It shouldn't be that way. Is Denmark rich despite socialism, or because of it? Isn't the American way supposed to be the best way? At least, that's what we're told in America. We're told that we're "the best". The numbers would seem to indicate otherwise.

Ignoring Society's Rules, Like Normal

EVEN PEOPLE IN RUSSIA know about the Duggars, presumably, America's largest and most interesting nuclear family, not counting the Kardashians and perhaps a few others. Get married, have twenty kids, get your own reality TV show. Works every time. But not always the way it was intended. Many if not most teen age siblings engage in sex play, since time immemorial. Simple fact of humanity. Its "normal" for teen age sliblings to do this, since so many do it, whether or not we like it, whether or not we allow it, whatever our attitude about it. Our response is our choice. Sometimes, perps become guilt ridden, and confess. Most folks just go on with life, and push the memory away. The question is, how are we going to, how do we, as a society, deal with it? Many many Americans have been on the Duggars case from day one, for having too many kids, or for capitalizing on it, take your pick. Environmental and moral considerations, don't you know. Now Michelle Duggar and hubby stand accused of having permitted then covered up their son's sex play actions with his younger sisters, then having done too little or nothing about it, and so on, and so forth. And of course, everybody in America weighs in with an opinion. The Duggars caved, feeling compelled to speak up in their own defense. Their description of how they dealt with it; the prayer, the counseling, the time away from home for the "troubled" boy, it all sounds good, just fine. Obviously, good people, a good family, dealing with a problem properly. It might be well to remember, though, that a teen age male who is sexually attracted to his own sisters and does something about it is not emotionally or mentally "ill", doesn't need counseling, and is not a criminal, who needs exclusion and incarceration - unless we say so. What he is, is a perfctly normal human animal, who is/was selectively ignoring some of society's rules and trying to get away with it for what he perceives as personal gain. Sounds like most of the rest of us, frankly.

Viva la Fragmentation!

ON JUNE 15 JEB BUSH will evidently declare his pursuit of the American Presidency, and teh excitment will begin in earnest. The more the merrier. Share the power, and power to the people, am I right? We might well end up with a whole boatload of candidates on both the republican and the democratic side, and we can only hope that most of them stay in the race a long time, for the sake of sheer entertainement, if nothing else. Fragmentation, its the only way to go. Our founding mothers and fathers, we all know, despised political parties, and didn't want them to even get started in America. But started they got, and started they stayed. Now we have this horrible two party-same party system, in which the two choices are nothing but slight variations of each other; parties of property, parties which favor the wealthy at all costs, because the wealthy own and control them, because the wealthy pay the bills. So maybe we will see so many presidential candidates soon that it wills seem as if there are no political parties, but only a mass of humanity, each individual with a butthole, an opinion, and a vision for the future. Or, perhaps, a large number of political parties, representing all elements of society, such as they tend to have in European countries. Say,a Tea party to the right of the republicans, and a social labor party to the left of the democrats. Now that would be REAL varitey, real choice! A little fragmentation wouldn't hurt within the religious community either. A huge human family of over seven billion different religions!

Planning Poorly

FOR A VERY LONG TIME, lovers have attached their padlocks of love to the lovelock bridge in Paris, a grand French tradition, and over the years the sheer weight of the locks on the bridge has become, as you might suppose, a danger to the future of the bridge itself. So, the inevitable has happened, and the locks are being removed, and future attachments presumably forbidden. Couples who placed locks there decades ago are expressing the profoundest sadness and disappointment. Some are angry. But, again....wasn't this development inevitable? Weren't all the lock leavers of the past merely contributing to, indeed hastening, the inevitable removal of all locks, one way or another? Surely. Meanwhile, on the University of Arkansas campus, in Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S. of A., everyone who graduates gets his or her name engraved into the sidewalk, a tradition which began in 1871. The sidewalk, containing thousands of names over the decades, winds all over campus. Every year more people graduate. In 1871 only about seven graduates had their names chiseled in. In 1872, a coupla more. Every year, more names....currently, they are way behind on the sidewalk names. something like ten or fifteen years behind, at least. They always have been behind, but doggedly and determinedly they keep chasing the elusive dream, keep paving and chiseling toward the recent past, towards the recent graduates. I remember in 1971, when I was 16, my father remarking that eventually the U. of Arkansas sidewalk of graduates will have to be pointed towards Oklahoma, and just allowed to head in that direction. Maybe it'll eventually reach the pacific ocean. You can see the lawsuits now.

Corporations, Owning Everything, We, Owning Nothing

BEYOND ALL DOUBT now is the time for a revolution in America, and, for that matter, throughout the world. The wolves are in charge of the hen house, and must be evicted. In the United States, Bernie Sanders could actually win and become president, contrary to what everyone thinks, and his election would be a definite American revolution. He already has about fifteen percent support among the folks in his uphill race against Hillary, and he's been drawing crowds in conservative places, like Iowa. What he needs to do is spend time in liberal places, and build his base, consisting of students and workers. All these self proclaimed "small government, limited government" republicans, running for president, in the House of Representatives and Senate, behaving as if government surveillance of the American people is absolutely vital to America's future and security. A good liberal candidate like Bernie Sanders can really capitalize on that. The republicans believe in small government welfare programs and small government regulation of corporations, but big government police state surveillance of we the people. Before long, the way things are going, one person will have all the money in the world, and will own everybody and everything. The final victor. That's why we the billions of poor working people all across the world need to organize, and put a stop to it. An international worker's revolution, spearheaded by a newly emerged and growing labor party in America! In america, the democrats and republicans both represent the one percent, while piously claiming to represent the "middle class", whatever that's supposed to mean. It means little in a country or world in which the middle class is shrinking, vanishing, coalescing into an elite wealthy class, and everyone else, billions of working poor. Granted, Karl Marx had a lot of bad ideas. But when he said "workers of the world unite, you have only your chains to lose", he was right on the mark(s). If you're a working class corporate capitalist supporter, and not a socialist, you're not serving your own best interests, but rather, the interest of your corporate masters, who, in the current system, basically own everything, including you, including, it seems, your thoughts and opinions.

Being Turned Into Sheep, Willingly

THE WAY IT LOOKS NOW, we, the U.S.A., are going to be stuck with big brother. Only now, it will be a more corporate big brother, fittingly. Everything we do or say will continue to be monitored and recorded by the feds, as always, but will henceforth be stored and kept by some huge telecommunications corporation or other; one of the fortune five hundred type which already owns and controls America, everything, and everyone in it, lock, stock, and barrel. So, really, after all the fightin' and fussin', little or nothing will have changed, after all, for which we should most assuredly not be surprised. Big brother was bound to arrive someday - and, well, He has. When Aldous Huxley and George Orwell were writing their warnings back in the nineteen thirties, they were looking at places like NAZI Germany and Stalinist Russia, but they always said it could happen anywhere, and it has. Its a damned shame, too, because there was a time, long ago, when this country had the promise of becoming the world's first functioning democracy. Or was there? Most people don't really know what a democracy is, and don't really care if they live in one, or are owned and controlled by masters, as long as they are safe and secure. The Constitution clearly intends us to be governed by the wealthy elite, Madison's 'better sort", and, indeed we are. But to be absolutely helpless in a vast electronic network of control which is operated by our corporate masters in the form of government is almost beyond anything even Orwell or Huxley conceived. Just think how much information we all freely share on Facebook, utterly oblivious to the implications or possibilities. We are all of us both consumer and commodity, just as the corporate complex is both the economy and the government. Just keep us decently fed, clothed, and housed, and we're down with whatever.

Living In Our American Police Spy State

AS OF NOW, the first of June, the United States of Apparatus, as in "intelligence gathering", is still in full swing, very much in business, as the U.S. Senate debates whether to put its official seal of approval on the national security surveillance police state, which it most surely will, within the week. Either the National Security Administration has unplugged the spyware until the matter is officially resolved, or it hasn't, your guess is as good as anyone's. They say they have, quite naturally. And if the National Security Administration and the American government can't be trusted, who can? And really, whatever Congress says, George Orwell's "1984" is here to stay, as the corporate states puts the finishing touches on its efficiently plutocratic oligarchy. Obama is totally down with it. No problem for him. Let the big boys run free and wild. Ditto Hillary, and just about all the Republicans. Let our science fiction electronic master thrive! Only Bernie Sanders and the brave Rand Paul are fighting against it. The rest of us don't seem to care, one way or another, just as, you may remember, in those two great weirdly prophetic nineteen thirties science fiction novels "Brave New World" and "1984", nobody cared about being a powerless cog in a great, seductive machine. The United States of Aggression has been at war with somebody or other since December 7, nineteen "fordy" one (FDR), our day of infamy. We the U.S.A. have been a national security state, since the passage of the national Security Act around 1950. Always fully armed, always at war, always with the masses passive, well under control. Always looking for those often annoyingly absent terrorists, who lurk just around every corner. And now, thanks to the imminent renewal of the Patriot Act, and Executive Order 12333 or whatever, our corporate masters know exactly what we're doing, every minute of every day, and evidently that is not going to change for a long time, if ever.