As hard as I try, I am unable to build in my dense skull an image of what would constitute the Republican world. Or, perhaps I can and the image is so hellish that my liberal mind refuses to let me actually see it.
Would everything truly be better if it were privatized? Social Security handled by the demons of Wall Street, sticking their slimy hands deep into the trillions of dollars most of us have paid into all our working lives, and pulling out a nice fat chunk for themselves. "Ain't capitalism wonderful?" they declare as their own wealth expands by taking profits for managing our retirement money.
Other than Wall Street fatcats getting even wealthier by being granted the right to charge fees for managing one of the largest bank accounts in human history, where's the upside for the rest of us? Why does the right believe that somehow privatization makes anything more efficient? Where's the proof of that? Why haven't they come up with 5 or 10 wonderful examples of how private, capitalistic institutions, anywhere in the world, have proven out their theory?
I think the reason they don't is because such examples exist only in their collective minds. Objectively, I don't see anything about an organization beholden to stockholders and profits that unquestionably makes it more efficient.
How could it? Why would it? All I can see is a drive to provide the absolute minimally acceptable product or service by way of the absolutely cheapest possible means of production. In addition, the product or service is sold for the highest possible price the market will bare in order to produce the highest possible profits for the stockholders. Isn't that exactly how capitalism works by definition? Progressives call this the race to the bottom, which it clearly is.
Capitalism is fine for the production of a vast number of products or services. Stockholders and business owners are, without question, entitled to profits, dividends and returns on an investment. But, I just can't accept that because it works well for the manufacturing and sales of automobiles that it should somehow work as a method of providing essential government services.
Lets consider health care. How is the capitalist health care model working for us? Profits for investors and stockholders, mega-salaries for all-star CEO's, careful control of the delivery of services to customers, salaries for employees at as low a point as people will accept jobs, and charges for services as high as the market will allow while still competitive within the industry. Sounds good, doesn't it? Sounds just like how you would make and sell cars or clothing.
But what is dramatically missing from the big picture is that this is a business that deals with people's health. Their very lives and well-being depend on what is provided for the premiums they pay. There is no drive to place the customer's overall well being to the top of the list of priorities. Some for-profit health-care insurance companies do manage to achieve good results for their customers. Some even do an outstanding and commendable job. Others, not so much. Its a capitalist world and you get what you pay for. Right?
What if you can't pay for it? What if you're one of the 50 million or so citizens of this fine country that can't afford health insurance for you and your family? Good health insurance for a family of 4 could easily cost $1000 a month.
So according to the Republicans, well, tough luck. You're poor because you're lazy and lack the ambition to be rich like them. So you don't deserve to have health care. Besides, poor people don't vote Republican anyway. So why care about them.
To me at least, it seems clear that profit-making and health-care providing are incompatible. Take away the stock holders, the high-priced executives and the profit incentives and you might eventually have a health care system who's first priority is the health of the people.
What efficiency the capitalist model might provide can still be part of the picture. But the priorities are different. Good outcomes and healthy people are the goal and those that do the best job of achieving that should be better rewarded.
Instead of CEO's being selected because of their ability to make profit, their value and compensation is instead based on an index of general health and positive outcomes. People. Not profits.
Capitalism simply isn't humanistic. In areas where lives and well being are affected, profits
Friday, November 16, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Humanity's Future
The war between the past and the present continues and its flames reach ever higher each passing day. Human-kind divides itself between those that cling to the past, fighting to preserve things the way they are and denying the warnings of science and common sense. For these many, life should remain in a steady state unencumbered by new ideas or new ways.
To they rest of us, forced to live in the sphere of reality the others deny, there is an underlying sense of urgency. Science guides us. The sphere contains an abundance of common sense. We do not look upon a culture rooted in 3 thousand years of traditions to find our way. For us, the light that guides our path is the light of ever increasing knowledge. And what we have learned scares the hell out of us.
The others are content that all that happens is a matter of God's will and we should not question it. God will attend to our needs just as he has our ancestors for thousands of years. Besides, change requires effort and it also might affect the bottom line. So why change? Why believe what a few overpaid professors yap about if it doesn't make for a profitable outcome. After all, these science types are always trying to scare us into giving them our money for their pet research projects. As one senator said so adroitly - to assume that man can change the nature of our planet is an insult to Almighty God. Only He can change the world, should he decide to do so. So wise these pseudo-Christians.
Meanwhile a child could believe the simple case made by the climatologists. A simple graph shows that each summer is warmer than the last; the ocean temperatures are rising and the vast sheets of ice covering the north and south poles are melting away. Simple math can calculate that the amount of green house gases emitted by our modern world greatly exceeds what the biosphere can absorb.
So the days are warmer and the oceans rise and the storms, fueled by the energy of increasing temperatures, are larger, more powerful and far more destructive.
How long will the neo-cons keep their heads deeply buried in the sands? How long will the denials and ridicules continue to flow from their mouths? Will they change their minds when the coastal cities sink beneath the oceans and the great plains whose farms sustain us turn into baking deserts?
The truth is they are waiting around for Jesus to reappear. And with a simple raising of His arm all will be set to right again. So, no need to worry. No need to listen to the doomsayers. Life will always be good and there is no reason to fret.
To they rest of us, forced to live in the sphere of reality the others deny, there is an underlying sense of urgency. Science guides us. The sphere contains an abundance of common sense. We do not look upon a culture rooted in 3 thousand years of traditions to find our way. For us, the light that guides our path is the light of ever increasing knowledge. And what we have learned scares the hell out of us.
The others are content that all that happens is a matter of God's will and we should not question it. God will attend to our needs just as he has our ancestors for thousands of years. Besides, change requires effort and it also might affect the bottom line. So why change? Why believe what a few overpaid professors yap about if it doesn't make for a profitable outcome. After all, these science types are always trying to scare us into giving them our money for their pet research projects. As one senator said so adroitly - to assume that man can change the nature of our planet is an insult to Almighty God. Only He can change the world, should he decide to do so. So wise these pseudo-Christians.
Meanwhile a child could believe the simple case made by the climatologists. A simple graph shows that each summer is warmer than the last; the ocean temperatures are rising and the vast sheets of ice covering the north and south poles are melting away. Simple math can calculate that the amount of green house gases emitted by our modern world greatly exceeds what the biosphere can absorb.
So the days are warmer and the oceans rise and the storms, fueled by the energy of increasing temperatures, are larger, more powerful and far more destructive.
How long will the neo-cons keep their heads deeply buried in the sands? How long will the denials and ridicules continue to flow from their mouths? Will they change their minds when the coastal cities sink beneath the oceans and the great plains whose farms sustain us turn into baking deserts?
The truth is they are waiting around for Jesus to reappear. And with a simple raising of His arm all will be set to right again. So, no need to worry. No need to listen to the doomsayers. Life will always be good and there is no reason to fret.
Monday, November 12, 2012
Republicanism distilled
A few months ago I read an article by a well-known columnist in a well-known publication. I found the writer's point a perfect clarification of what republican and so-called conservative philosophy to be about. Using my own words rather than the writer's superb prose, I believe the most basic and fundamental motivation underneath this collection of political positions is, simply, I got mine and screw you.
I started my political journey as a libertarian. I read Ayn Rand's novels and accepted the premise that I have a right to be selfish and I have a right to ignore the needs of everyone else around me. I am, after all, a self-made man. I had no benefit of family wealth or social status. I had no means of obtaining a college education. My parents gave me nothing, not even emotional support or encouragement. My birth was not part of their plan. They already had their two sons and another boy with a mouth to fill and a brain to nourish was nothing but a bother. Thus, at age 18, I found the front door of the family home open and my father's boot coming up rapidly towards my ass.
Despite the sad story that is my childhood, I learned to do things to make myself successful. I worked very hard and taught myself some very useful and marketable skills. Whatever I possessed and whatever position in life I achieved was entirely something of my own creation. I was the very definition of a self-made man. So it made sense that I would tend to be a little selfish with whatever small amount of wealth I had accumulated.
In my 20's I felt very much like the main character of an Ayn Rand novel. I was successful because of my own hard work and self-dedication. I scorned the self-entitled and the vast numbers of dependents that blamed their parents, their bosses, their brothers and sisters and pretty much anyone else they encountered that were unwilling to provide for them. These people had simply not learned the most fundamental of life's hard lessons - that nobody owes them a damn thing.
My own son was a perfect example of that when in one of countless angry diatribes he looked at me with a most furious expression and said "Well, I didn't ask to be born". The implication of this I took to mean that having been born as a result of a conscious decision on the part of his mother and father, he was therefore entitled to have the road of his life cleared of all obstacles large and small.
Later on in life he informed me that his childhood had been hell and that growing up and taking on adult responsibility had been especially hard for him as a result of my failure as a father. Apparently, he had expected me to fix the damage to his life caused by his on poor judgement.
Oddly enough my son is a deeply committed Republican full of anger towards all those takers and their liberal conspirators, which unfortunately for him, I have become.
Having spent my younger years embracing the whole spectrum of self-reliant and self-dependent libertarian philosophy, life's experiences and a spiritual awakening nurtured the rooting and growth of a completely different perspective. A realization that the human race succeeded not as a result of rugged individualism but of community, interdependence and generosity.
At the dawn of the human assent to the top of the food chain, it wasn't the strength of greatest warrior or the success of the greatest hunter that propelled us upward. It was, in fact, the willingness of the great warrior to protect the weaker and the generosity of the great hunter to share his bounty with his tribe.
Spiritually, I found that the words of Jesus did not say that the strongest and most successful should stand above all others, but that the all of us should care for the least of us. To truly walk the path of Jesus Christ is to care for the weak, the poor, the sick, and the suffering. To share one's wealth and bounty so that all may benefit and not just the few who are endowed with the most strength or the greatest skill. Jesus did not say this once or to some select group. He said it often and to all His followers. His life was dedicated to the service of the least of us.
Nothing more clearly contradicts the principles of Ayn Rand and the so-called conservatism of the right than the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ and the very means by which human-kind has succeeded. If it were not for generosity, compassion and selflessness we would be just another animal thrashing out a means of survival a midst the trees and upon the grasslands.
Civilization itself is the result of its constituent members learning to cooperate with one another. To share the bounty of the hunt, to protect the weak and care for the sick. It exists because at the dawn of civilization's first day there where those that possessed compassion and a sense of generosity towards their brothers and sisters. We could not then and cannot now succeed without these qualities.
Today, we find that these attributes of character viewed as weakness. Today, we look upon wealth as the primary indicator of success. As Mitt Romney said, standing in front of a pretentious mansion, an enormous and conspicuous monument to one man's success, "we want everyone to have this kind of success". To Mitt Romney and his followers success is only measured in material wealth; in the size and quantity of your houses and cars or the height of your political position.
Despite the apparent link between the so-called conservatives and those claiming to be devout Christians, there is clearly a complete disconnect, a divorcement from the most fundamental teachings of the Man upon whom they seek to define themselves.
There is nothing wrong with being self-reliant. Nor is independence of means something of evil. Unless these things are obtained at the expense of others. The man in a thousand dollar suit getting into his 100,000 dollar Mercedes who shouts "Get a job!" at the beggar in tattered cloths shivering in the cold has no heart and, by any religion's definition, has placed his soul in jeopardy.
The so-called conservatives are all about keeping more and giving less. They place themselves above the least of us and demand that we follow their rules. What they say is so dishonestly contrary to what they do. They say they are not about creating classes while defending their own special class with mountains of cash and thousands of lies. They want to be in charge, not so they can raise up the least of us, but so they can give themselves more.
When distilled to its very minimum, the creed of the so-called conservatives is simple greed and nothing else. Greed for power and wealth is as old as civilization itself. And there has always been a group of people for whom nothing else exists - there is only being powerful and being wealthy. For all of human history these people have existed and in balance there have been those who have opposed them.
Those that defend the weak, the poor, the sick, and the old; those that take the coats off their own backs and place them over the shoulders of the shivering beggar; those that bring food to the hungry and kindness to the forgotten and guidance to the lost; those that find joy and reward in giving and helping; those that see that our success, the success of all of us and the least of us, is the only success that matters. Those people - they are the rest of us. Those for whom shrinking the government, reducing spending and the deficit, simplifying the law that constrains material growth, reducing the entitlements that the others claim is so damaging to the masses are merely words and concepts compared to the realness of those in need.
If we are a Christian nation then perhaps we need to remind ourselves of the true meaning of Christ's life. If we choose His way, we choose to care about all God's children equally. To see all as our brothers and sisters for whom we spare no expense and for whom we always have the time to help.
From the dawn of time we have been successful as a species only because we share our bounty. In 100,000 years this fundamental truth has not changed.
I started my political journey as a libertarian. I read Ayn Rand's novels and accepted the premise that I have a right to be selfish and I have a right to ignore the needs of everyone else around me. I am, after all, a self-made man. I had no benefit of family wealth or social status. I had no means of obtaining a college education. My parents gave me nothing, not even emotional support or encouragement. My birth was not part of their plan. They already had their two sons and another boy with a mouth to fill and a brain to nourish was nothing but a bother. Thus, at age 18, I found the front door of the family home open and my father's boot coming up rapidly towards my ass.
Despite the sad story that is my childhood, I learned to do things to make myself successful. I worked very hard and taught myself some very useful and marketable skills. Whatever I possessed and whatever position in life I achieved was entirely something of my own creation. I was the very definition of a self-made man. So it made sense that I would tend to be a little selfish with whatever small amount of wealth I had accumulated.
In my 20's I felt very much like the main character of an Ayn Rand novel. I was successful because of my own hard work and self-dedication. I scorned the self-entitled and the vast numbers of dependents that blamed their parents, their bosses, their brothers and sisters and pretty much anyone else they encountered that were unwilling to provide for them. These people had simply not learned the most fundamental of life's hard lessons - that nobody owes them a damn thing.
My own son was a perfect example of that when in one of countless angry diatribes he looked at me with a most furious expression and said "Well, I didn't ask to be born". The implication of this I took to mean that having been born as a result of a conscious decision on the part of his mother and father, he was therefore entitled to have the road of his life cleared of all obstacles large and small.
Later on in life he informed me that his childhood had been hell and that growing up and taking on adult responsibility had been especially hard for him as a result of my failure as a father. Apparently, he had expected me to fix the damage to his life caused by his on poor judgement.
Oddly enough my son is a deeply committed Republican full of anger towards all those takers and their liberal conspirators, which unfortunately for him, I have become.
Having spent my younger years embracing the whole spectrum of self-reliant and self-dependent libertarian philosophy, life's experiences and a spiritual awakening nurtured the rooting and growth of a completely different perspective. A realization that the human race succeeded not as a result of rugged individualism but of community, interdependence and generosity.
At the dawn of the human assent to the top of the food chain, it wasn't the strength of greatest warrior or the success of the greatest hunter that propelled us upward. It was, in fact, the willingness of the great warrior to protect the weaker and the generosity of the great hunter to share his bounty with his tribe.
Spiritually, I found that the words of Jesus did not say that the strongest and most successful should stand above all others, but that the all of us should care for the least of us. To truly walk the path of Jesus Christ is to care for the weak, the poor, the sick, and the suffering. To share one's wealth and bounty so that all may benefit and not just the few who are endowed with the most strength or the greatest skill. Jesus did not say this once or to some select group. He said it often and to all His followers. His life was dedicated to the service of the least of us.
Nothing more clearly contradicts the principles of Ayn Rand and the so-called conservatism of the right than the fundamental teachings of Jesus Christ and the very means by which human-kind has succeeded. If it were not for generosity, compassion and selflessness we would be just another animal thrashing out a means of survival a midst the trees and upon the grasslands.
Civilization itself is the result of its constituent members learning to cooperate with one another. To share the bounty of the hunt, to protect the weak and care for the sick. It exists because at the dawn of civilization's first day there where those that possessed compassion and a sense of generosity towards their brothers and sisters. We could not then and cannot now succeed without these qualities.
Today, we find that these attributes of character viewed as weakness. Today, we look upon wealth as the primary indicator of success. As Mitt Romney said, standing in front of a pretentious mansion, an enormous and conspicuous monument to one man's success, "we want everyone to have this kind of success". To Mitt Romney and his followers success is only measured in material wealth; in the size and quantity of your houses and cars or the height of your political position.
Despite the apparent link between the so-called conservatives and those claiming to be devout Christians, there is clearly a complete disconnect, a divorcement from the most fundamental teachings of the Man upon whom they seek to define themselves.
There is nothing wrong with being self-reliant. Nor is independence of means something of evil. Unless these things are obtained at the expense of others. The man in a thousand dollar suit getting into his 100,000 dollar Mercedes who shouts "Get a job!" at the beggar in tattered cloths shivering in the cold has no heart and, by any religion's definition, has placed his soul in jeopardy.
The so-called conservatives are all about keeping more and giving less. They place themselves above the least of us and demand that we follow their rules. What they say is so dishonestly contrary to what they do. They say they are not about creating classes while defending their own special class with mountains of cash and thousands of lies. They want to be in charge, not so they can raise up the least of us, but so they can give themselves more.
When distilled to its very minimum, the creed of the so-called conservatives is simple greed and nothing else. Greed for power and wealth is as old as civilization itself. And there has always been a group of people for whom nothing else exists - there is only being powerful and being wealthy. For all of human history these people have existed and in balance there have been those who have opposed them.
Those that defend the weak, the poor, the sick, and the old; those that take the coats off their own backs and place them over the shoulders of the shivering beggar; those that bring food to the hungry and kindness to the forgotten and guidance to the lost; those that find joy and reward in giving and helping; those that see that our success, the success of all of us and the least of us, is the only success that matters. Those people - they are the rest of us. Those for whom shrinking the government, reducing spending and the deficit, simplifying the law that constrains material growth, reducing the entitlements that the others claim is so damaging to the masses are merely words and concepts compared to the realness of those in need.
If we are a Christian nation then perhaps we need to remind ourselves of the true meaning of Christ's life. If we choose His way, we choose to care about all God's children equally. To see all as our brothers and sisters for whom we spare no expense and for whom we always have the time to help.
From the dawn of time we have been successful as a species only because we share our bounty. In 100,000 years this fundamental truth has not changed.
Sunday, November 11, 2012
The far right's rage
Predictably, the far right is blaming Romney for his failure to capture the presidency. He was simply not conservative enough. Women don't really care about abortion and birth control as mainline issues they say. Poor Mitt. It must a lonely time feeling so isolated from his former clan members.
Apparently Moderate Mitt lost the election because he lacked true conservative breeding. In other words, the electorate (us) is, in fact, extremely conservative. So conservative that we chose to elect a radical socialist bent on destroying the very fabric of conservative christian America rather than Mitt the Moderate. Yeah. Makes sense if you don't actually think about it.
Never mind the vast hordes of us left-wingers and middle-of-the-roaders, that loathed the constant lies and about faces on important issues. Never mind that Mitt the Moderate was perhaps one of the worst candidates in Republican history. While on the other side we have Barack. A man of obvious intelligence, filled to the brim with social sensitivity, trying hard to protect the rest of us from the Wall Street crooks, the coal barons and the radical bible thumpers determined to jam their brand of Christianity down our throats (and into our bedrooms). Never mind the vast array of liars and fear-mongerers dancing across our television screens trying their very best to just scare us into voting for the mechanical man known as Mitt.
Well good luck neo-conservatives as you detach yourselves even further from reality as you do your damn best to explain your failures. I guess the last possible thought that could ever form in your bald, white, liver-spotted, mostly-empty head is - most people just don't like you and your policies suck.
Apparently Moderate Mitt lost the election because he lacked true conservative breeding. In other words, the electorate (us) is, in fact, extremely conservative. So conservative that we chose to elect a radical socialist bent on destroying the very fabric of conservative christian America rather than Mitt the Moderate. Yeah. Makes sense if you don't actually think about it.
Never mind the vast hordes of us left-wingers and middle-of-the-roaders, that loathed the constant lies and about faces on important issues. Never mind that Mitt the Moderate was perhaps one of the worst candidates in Republican history. While on the other side we have Barack. A man of obvious intelligence, filled to the brim with social sensitivity, trying hard to protect the rest of us from the Wall Street crooks, the coal barons and the radical bible thumpers determined to jam their brand of Christianity down our throats (and into our bedrooms). Never mind the vast array of liars and fear-mongerers dancing across our television screens trying their very best to just scare us into voting for the mechanical man known as Mitt.
Well good luck neo-conservatives as you detach yourselves even further from reality as you do your damn best to explain your failures. I guess the last possible thought that could ever form in your bald, white, liver-spotted, mostly-empty head is - most people just don't like you and your policies suck.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Capitalism as a form of government
Starting in the middle of the 20th century America's conservatives found a face to hang upon the otherwise faceless political evil that embodied everything that was different than they were. Having vanquished both Hitler and Hirohito, America as a whole, felt a great sense of relief as well as an enormous sense of accomplishment. Even more importantly, America began to feel the strength of its enormous power. It had become the undisputed master of the world.
After the Second World War, America entered into a period of prosperity unmatched in its comparatively short history. It did so after overcoming a massive depression by way of the bloodiest and most brutal war in human history. Some Americans found the peace and prosperity a just reward for their incredible collective sacrifice and life was good.
For others the successful conclusion of the war had a different meaning. It brought an end to what defined them. It dampened the river of power and wealth whose headwaters were the very act of war. A not too original thought took shape in the many-headed beast that would soon become named the military-industrial complex. To these few who found no satisfaction in peace, it had become obvious that war was good for business.
It was not many years later that the basis for another war was identified and the riverbed of power and wealth was filled once again. This one too was bloody and brutal and had a well-defined enemy. It gave America another chance to demonstrate its power, which it did so willingly. In many ways big business was pleased with this effort as well.
Not ten years later, another opportunity surfaced. Another chance to fight a proxie war against the communist east. Kennedy opened the door and Johnson rushed us in. The military industrial complex was all smiles. Another dream come true. Despite the the red river of American blood it cost.
This time and this war were different. This time the enemy was not so easily subdued, despite the huge capital investment in ever more sophisticated munitions and war machines. And this time the war was not so popular at home and the sacrifices not so willingly given as it was for the big one.
But the military-industrial complex was strong and the will of the country's leaders was weak. The war churned on consuming lives and vast sums of money.
The recipients of the money loved the war and the wealth i brought them. When at last the US withdrew, the filthy rich and powerful just looked around for a new enemy. Fortunately for them we already had one - the Soviet Union.
Once the MIC leadership got the fear levels driven up high enough in the average citizen, the federal government, once again, began pouring huge quantities of taxpayer money into new weapons systems. The 70s and 80s were a great time to be in the defense industry. Rivers of money flowed into new and better weapon systems. And the ultra-rich smiled and partied. Life
was good.
Sadly for them, Gorbachev turned out to be a sensible, intelligent and moderate politician who ended the cold war.
The green river of taxpayer cash started to dry up. Projects were canceled and the defense industry shed jobs and shrank.
Not too many years later September 11th happened and America could once again put a face on the "enemy".
Today, the MIC lives on with two of the longest wars in the country's history flooding the green river with untold billions.
Meanwhile, Wall Street, feeling left out, engaged in some of the dirtiest, most underhanded financial dealings that ultimately wrecked the economy. But, answering this criminal behavior in a most predictable way, the Feds just dished out vast, I means VAST amounts of taxpayer money to "fix" the "too big to fail" corporations.
So, the fat cats in the MIC drive us into wars and then work very hard to keep us there - sucking down Billions upon Billions while the Wall Street fat cats gamble with mind-boggling sums, lose, get paid back from the treasury and walk away - each with enough cash to make a thousand people rich...
And then we have people like Mitt Romney running for the presidency - a poster child for the MIC, Wall Street and Big Oil.
All this is just meant to shed a little light on the folks that demonize socialism. Because the last thing in the world they want is the "people" to have control over the critical resources they need for their everyday existence. Or, to be in a position to say "NO" to unnecessary and pointless wars.
There is and always has been two classes of people in this country. The rich and powerful who believe they have a fundamental right to be in charge and the rest of us who are here to serve them.
After the Second World War, America entered into a period of prosperity unmatched in its comparatively short history. It did so after overcoming a massive depression by way of the bloodiest and most brutal war in human history. Some Americans found the peace and prosperity a just reward for their incredible collective sacrifice and life was good.
For others the successful conclusion of the war had a different meaning. It brought an end to what defined them. It dampened the river of power and wealth whose headwaters were the very act of war. A not too original thought took shape in the many-headed beast that would soon become named the military-industrial complex. To these few who found no satisfaction in peace, it had become obvious that war was good for business.
It was not many years later that the basis for another war was identified and the riverbed of power and wealth was filled once again. This one too was bloody and brutal and had a well-defined enemy. It gave America another chance to demonstrate its power, which it did so willingly. In many ways big business was pleased with this effort as well.
Not ten years later, another opportunity surfaced. Another chance to fight a proxie war against the communist east. Kennedy opened the door and Johnson rushed us in. The military industrial complex was all smiles. Another dream come true. Despite the the red river of American blood it cost.
This time and this war were different. This time the enemy was not so easily subdued, despite the huge capital investment in ever more sophisticated munitions and war machines. And this time the war was not so popular at home and the sacrifices not so willingly given as it was for the big one.
But the military-industrial complex was strong and the will of the country's leaders was weak. The war churned on consuming lives and vast sums of money.
The recipients of the money loved the war and the wealth i brought them. When at last the US withdrew, the filthy rich and powerful just looked around for a new enemy. Fortunately for them we already had one - the Soviet Union.
Once the MIC leadership got the fear levels driven up high enough in the average citizen, the federal government, once again, began pouring huge quantities of taxpayer money into new weapons systems. The 70s and 80s were a great time to be in the defense industry. Rivers of money flowed into new and better weapon systems. And the ultra-rich smiled and partied. Life
was good.
Sadly for them, Gorbachev turned out to be a sensible, intelligent and moderate politician who ended the cold war.
The green river of taxpayer cash started to dry up. Projects were canceled and the defense industry shed jobs and shrank.
Not too many years later September 11th happened and America could once again put a face on the "enemy".
Today, the MIC lives on with two of the longest wars in the country's history flooding the green river with untold billions.
Meanwhile, Wall Street, feeling left out, engaged in some of the dirtiest, most underhanded financial dealings that ultimately wrecked the economy. But, answering this criminal behavior in a most predictable way, the Feds just dished out vast, I means VAST amounts of taxpayer money to "fix" the "too big to fail" corporations.
So, the fat cats in the MIC drive us into wars and then work very hard to keep us there - sucking down Billions upon Billions while the Wall Street fat cats gamble with mind-boggling sums, lose, get paid back from the treasury and walk away - each with enough cash to make a thousand people rich...
And then we have people like Mitt Romney running for the presidency - a poster child for the MIC, Wall Street and Big Oil.
All this is just meant to shed a little light on the folks that demonize socialism. Because the last thing in the world they want is the "people" to have control over the critical resources they need for their everyday existence. Or, to be in a position to say "NO" to unnecessary and pointless wars.
There is and always has been two classes of people in this country. The rich and powerful who believe they have a fundamental right to be in charge and the rest of us who are here to serve them.
The angry right-wing white guy
I had lunch with a True-Blood Republican friend yesterday. He was very
angry and said we shouldn't talk politics or about Obama's reelection. I asked him why not and he
said it just made him more angry.
I asked him what what there was to be angry about. "Everything" he said. Benghazi lies, Fast and Furious lies, Obamacare lies, the great Small Arms Treaty lie where Hilary Clinton is working with other "socialist" countries to outlaw gun-ownership in America. It went on and on.
What I saw in my friend was the raw product of the Right-wing's strategy: an angry, middle-aged, white man addicted to Fox News - the rest of the main-stream media, apparently, is under the direct control of of the socialist/communist/anti-American left-wing liberals who lie about everything.
Even when I fact-check some of his issues for him he just snorts and gets angry. I fact-checked the Small Arms Treaty thing that the NRA is blatantly lying about. A statement made to Reuters by one of the actual US delegates to the UN engaged in the treaty talks stated something like this: "This only affects exports from the US and other major arms manufacturers (Russia, China, etc) to designated terrorist-supporting countries (Iran, etc) and has nothing to do with personal ownership or sales in this country". But he informed me that Reuters can't be trusted.
So, try to imagine that there are millions of angry white men out there just like him. THAT'S scary.
I asked him what what there was to be angry about. "Everything" he said. Benghazi lies, Fast and Furious lies, Obamacare lies, the great Small Arms Treaty lie where Hilary Clinton is working with other "socialist" countries to outlaw gun-ownership in America. It went on and on.
What I saw in my friend was the raw product of the Right-wing's strategy: an angry, middle-aged, white man addicted to Fox News - the rest of the main-stream media, apparently, is under the direct control of of the socialist/communist/anti-American left-wing liberals who lie about everything.
Even when I fact-check some of his issues for him he just snorts and gets angry. I fact-checked the Small Arms Treaty thing that the NRA is blatantly lying about. A statement made to Reuters by one of the actual US delegates to the UN engaged in the treaty talks stated something like this: "This only affects exports from the US and other major arms manufacturers (Russia, China, etc) to designated terrorist-supporting countries (Iran, etc) and has nothing to do with personal ownership or sales in this country". But he informed me that Reuters can't be trusted.
So, try to imagine that there are millions of angry white men out there just like him. THAT'S scary.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Labor: history repeats itself
It seems like history is repeating itself. Here we are, once again,
fighting for fair wages, safe working conditions and a right to
organize. Regardless of which candidate wins, the fight against the
anti-democratic capitalists continues. A Romney presidency will only
make the fight harder and longer. When the capitalists can buy the
presidency and install their puppet who in turn appoints more
conservative justices to the supreme court - I fear for democracy in
America. The Republicans are all in lock-step. Not one showing the
courage to break ranks and speak out against the moneyed interests behind
the once and former Grand Old Party. The future of this country looks
to be one divided, once again, between the rich capitalists who own and
control everything, and the poor working class. The middle class as we
know it will simply evaporate. Labor needs to regain its voice and its
power before its to late.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)