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.