I had the epiphany today that the USA is crazy. And I mean this in more than just the flippant way we might say of someone "oh, he's crazy!" I mean that the USA (collectively anyhow) acts like a person living in what psychiatrists call a "delusional system."
We are now in what seems like the 10,000th month of the 2008 presidential campaign and nearly drowning intellectually in the cesspool of idea diahrea that issues from the cloaca of our national media. From the fatuous to the unfounded to the unfair to the irrelevant, nothing seems too idiotic to be reported, analyzed, dissected, and rebroadcast endlessly as regards the campaign. Like voices inside the head of a delusional person, the irrationality of this 24-hr barrage of idiocy threatens to overwhelm the saner part of the collective American consciousness and lead us as a nation dangerously closer and closer to a self-destructive act.
The media has turned its attention to discrediting Barack Obama. He's either not experienced enough or he's too liberal, or he has embarrassing associations with those who speak unpleasant truths about the land of the free and the home of the brave. There's more than an undercurrent of racism about this -- fear of black men, fear of the black community and what it might do if one of its own is president. But the mechanism is the same as with every other candidate the media decide to trash: sow doubts about experience, about competency, about moral fibre, about associations with people we're not supposed to approve of (eg Rev. Wright)
After the presidencies of Reagan and Bush II, it seems a bit late to make experience and competence a litmus test for the presidency. And on what basis could such a test be issued? Experience? Regan and Bush were former governors. Obama is a Senator, arguably a position even closer to the presidency. Competency? At one point, the Reagan White House was using an astrologer to decide who got to see the Presdent that day. And Bush II, an alcoholic whose poor use of the English language is, so far as I know, unique in presidential history, has "managed" the country into a war and what looks very much like the great depression of the 21st century.
Moral fibre? Let's see, our current president lied to start a war that serves no purpose and which has not only killed 100s of thousands, but may bankrupt our country for a generation to come. What defect in Obama's character can possbly compare to the things Bush has done?
Bad associations? Now we're getting closer to the nub of what is really scaring the media about Obama: the fear that he may actually represent one or more constituencies for change. Change of the kind that could threaten the elites who have managed to brainwash many Americans into thinking that lowering taxes on the rich is good for the poor, that attacking Iraq will make us stronger, that letting scoundrels plunder the economy is protection of "choice."
Unfortunately, while Obama is certainly to be preferred to McCain or Clinton, he is not Robin Hood and his election is unlikely to bring more than marginal change for the better. This fact alone should tell us that the firestorm of controversy over his candidacy is just more mental noise inside the collective head of our seriouslyh mentally ill country.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic
It's funny how, each time there's a national crisis, the Bush admin invents a new bureaucracy and/or consolidates old departments, but nothing useful ever gets done. As with new plans to re-organize the finacial regulatory bureaucracy. The problem isn't that there aren't the right federal agencies. The problem is that, thanks to the efforts of the relentless right-wing propaganda machine, there is a national attitude against regulating the rich and greedy (not to be redundant). The current financial mess could have been avoided by exercising prudent regulatory and legislative control using existing government structures. It does not require a new federal bureacucracy to:
* repeal the tax change that allows people to sell their primary residence tax free every two years, a change which helped fuel the real estate boom that is now going bust. Retain the change that allows a one-time tax-free sale for retirement-age homeowenrs.
* reinstate higher tax rates for the rich, who now pay only a tiny amount of their income in taxes
* reinstate higher short-term capital gains rates, thereby discouraging stock market gamblers and encouraging long-term investors
* conbsider repealing the mortgage tax deduction and replacing it with a housing allowance deduction that would apply to renters and home owners equally.
* repeal rules allowing brokerage houses to act as banks
* establish national standards for licensing of mortgage lenders and brokers
* outlaw mortgage advertising that only shows monthly payments based on a ridiculously low teaser rate. This sleazy practice is still going on -- as I write this, there are thousands of ads on the internet claiming to provide mortgages for unbelievably low rates. Why are these ads still allowed to exist after all the damage they have caused already?
* outlaw preditory practices by credit card companies, including zero-percent teaser rates designed to get you to transfer balances which then cause all new charges to be subject to a much higher finance rate until the zero balance is paid off
* re-establish consumer protection from usurious credit card rates
* appoint a new FCC chairman who will stop selling out the public's interests to the highest bidder, ie stop allowing media conglomerates, which then dominate public discourse with conservaive propaganda
* pass strict campaign financing laws, completely outlawing contributions to political campaigns by anyone except indivudal human beings. No organizational contributions. Period.
Well, that would be a start anyhow!
*
* repeal the tax change that allows people to sell their primary residence tax free every two years, a change which helped fuel the real estate boom that is now going bust. Retain the change that allows a one-time tax-free sale for retirement-age homeowenrs.
* reinstate higher tax rates for the rich, who now pay only a tiny amount of their income in taxes
* reinstate higher short-term capital gains rates, thereby discouraging stock market gamblers and encouraging long-term investors
* conbsider repealing the mortgage tax deduction and replacing it with a housing allowance deduction that would apply to renters and home owners equally.
* repeal rules allowing brokerage houses to act as banks
* establish national standards for licensing of mortgage lenders and brokers
* outlaw mortgage advertising that only shows monthly payments based on a ridiculously low teaser rate. This sleazy practice is still going on -- as I write this, there are thousands of ads on the internet claiming to provide mortgages for unbelievably low rates. Why are these ads still allowed to exist after all the damage they have caused already?
* outlaw preditory practices by credit card companies, including zero-percent teaser rates designed to get you to transfer balances which then cause all new charges to be subject to a much higher finance rate until the zero balance is paid off
* re-establish consumer protection from usurious credit card rates
* appoint a new FCC chairman who will stop selling out the public's interests to the highest bidder, ie stop allowing media conglomerates, which then dominate public discourse with conservaive propaganda
* pass strict campaign financing laws, completely outlawing contributions to political campaigns by anyone except indivudal human beings. No organizational contributions. Period.
Well, that would be a start anyhow!
*
Sunday, February 24, 2008
America - Love it or leave it
The front window of my employer's shop sports a large banner with some sort of avian device and the slogan "America - love it or leave it." As my partner and I are both conspicuously under-employed and, since upstate, NY has an unemployment rate somewhat above the ever-climbing national average, I must needs grit my teeth, grin and bear it each day as I pass this low-brow piece of political philosophy on my way into or out of the office.
Something about the design of the banner reminds me uncomfortably of early Nazi displays. As I am ignorant of art and its styles, I can't put my finger on what it is, but , in the same way that one can immediately recognize early Soviet poster art (which I adore actually) the love-it-or-leave-it banner seems connected to early (and sinister) Nazi stuff.
My first day of work was quite uncomfortable, because I wondered whether I'd be able to keep my mouth shut if my new boss exhorted me with what I imagined might be a litany of the superiorities of the Bush administration, the Iraq war, corporate control of the media, and how we live in the best of all possible worlds. This never materialized, thank heaven and my co-workers seem not to take the boss' (and his wife's) politcal views seriously. Not that the views aren't serious, but rather that no one in his right mind would waste a thought on such nonsense.
Still, eight months later, I continue to notice the banner every work day and to wonder if social progress is just an illusion, ie that things never really get any better -- at least not for long. As with a house that's just been lovingly restored, one is forced to confront the reality that it could become totally dilapidated again, given time and circumstances.
The reversal of social progress that began in earnest under the Reagan adminsitration shows no sign of having run its course today. And, as with a house whose dilapidations have gone too far to be repairable, perhaps American society has reached the point of no return.
And, at least with houses, people generally agree that a renovated house is better than a ruined one. I'm not at all sure that the American national attitude parallels this belief.
Something about the design of the banner reminds me uncomfortably of early Nazi displays. As I am ignorant of art and its styles, I can't put my finger on what it is, but , in the same way that one can immediately recognize early Soviet poster art (which I adore actually) the love-it-or-leave-it banner seems connected to early (and sinister) Nazi stuff.
My first day of work was quite uncomfortable, because I wondered whether I'd be able to keep my mouth shut if my new boss exhorted me with what I imagined might be a litany of the superiorities of the Bush administration, the Iraq war, corporate control of the media, and how we live in the best of all possible worlds. This never materialized, thank heaven and my co-workers seem not to take the boss' (and his wife's) politcal views seriously. Not that the views aren't serious, but rather that no one in his right mind would waste a thought on such nonsense.
Still, eight months later, I continue to notice the banner every work day and to wonder if social progress is just an illusion, ie that things never really get any better -- at least not for long. As with a house that's just been lovingly restored, one is forced to confront the reality that it could become totally dilapidated again, given time and circumstances.
The reversal of social progress that began in earnest under the Reagan adminsitration shows no sign of having run its course today. And, as with a house whose dilapidations have gone too far to be repairable, perhaps American society has reached the point of no return.
And, at least with houses, people generally agree that a renovated house is better than a ruined one. I'm not at all sure that the American national attitude parallels this belief.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Candidates - how about laying off each other and talking about the issues instead
Here's a quick piece of advice for all the candidates in the 2008 US presidential race: Stop talking about each other and start talking about the issues. I realize this advice is not novel, but it doesn't seem to be getting followed by most of the candidates either, especially McCain and Clinton.
I think it is fair to say that, even the dumbest members of the American electorate (all 239 million, 789 thousand, 499 of them) would rather hear talk of substance from the candidates than the continuous niggling, nitpicking, and criticism of each other that seems to be dominating their speeches.
If the mechanics of such a procedural change are eluding the candidates, let me cover how to go about it in a few easy points:
1. If the media ask for your reaction to what so-and-so has just said about you, simply answer something like "I'm sorry he/she feels that way. Now let's talk about the economy..." Don't allow yourself to be baited.
2. Do not yourself criticise other candidates. Period. When your mouth is open in public, what needs to be coming out of it is substance about the issues and what you as president would do.
3. If the media keep pressing for you to join in a pointless personality contest, state that you refuse to do so and, if they will not let you discuss the issues, then terminate the conversation.
4. Refuse to go on TV or radio interview shows where you cannot speak about issues. If you must go on, for example, Bill O'Reilly's show, threaten to get up and walk out the minute he either talks over you or tries to get you into a fight over what someone has said about you.
If you follow this scheme, we the people might actually learn something about your suitability for the presidency.
I think it is fair to say that, even the dumbest members of the American electorate (all 239 million, 789 thousand, 499 of them) would rather hear talk of substance from the candidates than the continuous niggling, nitpicking, and criticism of each other that seems to be dominating their speeches.
If the mechanics of such a procedural change are eluding the candidates, let me cover how to go about it in a few easy points:
1. If the media ask for your reaction to what so-and-so has just said about you, simply answer something like "I'm sorry he/she feels that way. Now let's talk about the economy..." Don't allow yourself to be baited.
2. Do not yourself criticise other candidates. Period. When your mouth is open in public, what needs to be coming out of it is substance about the issues and what you as president would do.
3. If the media keep pressing for you to join in a pointless personality contest, state that you refuse to do so and, if they will not let you discuss the issues, then terminate the conversation.
4. Refuse to go on TV or radio interview shows where you cannot speak about issues. If you must go on, for example, Bill O'Reilly's show, threaten to get up and walk out the minute he either talks over you or tries to get you into a fight over what someone has said about you.
If you follow this scheme, we the people might actually learn something about your suitability for the presidency.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Bartender, hit me again -- and make it a double!
The now nearly-continuous media fixation with the Federal Reserve's monthly interest rate-setting meeting and the unsolicited advice it nearly always offers that rates must be lowered (again) should be ringing alarm bells with anyone who has watched the current economic morass in development with their eyes open.
Rather than fix the system, the people in charge seem to be hoping that a continuing supply of cheap money injected into the economy will stave off a total collapse -- at least until someone else is in charge -- and they are probably right. However, it is likely that the longer the drunk continues, the worse the hangover will be.
The aversion to the R-word (ie regulation) by those in charge, coupled with undending pressure from the financial industry and the pundits who report on it to keep lowering interest rates -- at a time when other countries' central banks are doing the opposite -- is a frightening sign of a future economic disaster.
It's Economics 101 that you can't keep increasing the money supply forever without causing inflation; thus pressure to increase intrerest rates, not lower them, will be building up. It is also simple economics that a hugely expensive war, financed by borrowing, rather than by a tax increase, will result in pressure for higher and higher interest rates, because the people and governments who buy US debt obligations will demand higher and higher returns to keep buying them. (Especially, as now, when they have begun to realize that the phrase "backed by the full faith and credit" of the US government might not mean much anymore)
And these buyers of our debt are some of the most powerful nations on Earth -- China, just to mention one. If we were Argentina or Brazil, rather than who we are, the governments and bankers of our creditor countries would be pushing for economic concessions from us to force us to put our fiscal house in order. In the past, our government and bankers routinely drove debtor nations into near-penury and caused real hardship to their citizens by insisting on draconian repayment and economic restructuring arrangements on national debt obligations.
Suppose we in the USA were to be on the receiving end of such an arrangement? What would it be like to live in a country where nearly all government programs had to be eliminated and the bulk of our GDP siphoned off to pay foreign creditors -- possibly for a couple of decades? World wars have started over less.
Rather than fix the system, the people in charge seem to be hoping that a continuing supply of cheap money injected into the economy will stave off a total collapse -- at least until someone else is in charge -- and they are probably right. However, it is likely that the longer the drunk continues, the worse the hangover will be.
The aversion to the R-word (ie regulation) by those in charge, coupled with undending pressure from the financial industry and the pundits who report on it to keep lowering interest rates -- at a time when other countries' central banks are doing the opposite -- is a frightening sign of a future economic disaster.
It's Economics 101 that you can't keep increasing the money supply forever without causing inflation; thus pressure to increase intrerest rates, not lower them, will be building up. It is also simple economics that a hugely expensive war, financed by borrowing, rather than by a tax increase, will result in pressure for higher and higher interest rates, because the people and governments who buy US debt obligations will demand higher and higher returns to keep buying them. (Especially, as now, when they have begun to realize that the phrase "backed by the full faith and credit" of the US government might not mean much anymore)
And these buyers of our debt are some of the most powerful nations on Earth -- China, just to mention one. If we were Argentina or Brazil, rather than who we are, the governments and bankers of our creditor countries would be pushing for economic concessions from us to force us to put our fiscal house in order. In the past, our government and bankers routinely drove debtor nations into near-penury and caused real hardship to their citizens by insisting on draconian repayment and economic restructuring arrangements on national debt obligations.
Suppose we in the USA were to be on the receiving end of such an arrangement? What would it be like to live in a country where nearly all government programs had to be eliminated and the bulk of our GDP siphoned off to pay foreign creditors -- possibly for a couple of decades? World wars have started over less.
Monday, November 26, 2007
High price of failure at Middle East Summit
I find myself using the word "fatuous" more and more often as I read nonsense like today's "analysis" by the Associated Press of the upcoming Middle East Peace Summit.
AP asserts that failure at the summit would have a high price because "radical Islamists could gain the upper hand in Palestinian areas and in an increasingly polarized Middle East."
What about the high price that the Palestinian people have been paying since the partitioning of Palestine created a homeland for the Jews on 77% of what had been Palestine? What about the price they have paid as refugee camps -- once thought to be a temporary solution on the way to Palestinian statehood -- have become a permanent way of life for more than 4 million Paestinians (as of a 2005 count)! Or the ongoing high price they have been paying as Israeli settlements squeeze Palestinian territory more and more.
The so-called peace process -- which is not a process and has nothing to do with peace -- has been and continues to be an attempt by the USA, Britain, and Israel to gain international legitimacy for the status quo in Palestine: namely that Israel will continue to expand and the Palestinian territories will continue to be a large concentration camp. The upcoming summit, coming as it does late in the lamentable presidency of George W. Bush, is clearly nothing more than a hopeless publicity stunt to boost Bush's reputation. Having done less than any president in my lifetime to address the Palestinian mess, Bush now wants to go down in history books as having had his own peace summit.
Perhaps he really thinks he can bring peace to the middle east -- that he'll be able to succeed where many better minds have failed -- because of his great success bringing democracy to Iraq.
AP asserts that failure at the summit would have a high price because "radical Islamists could gain the upper hand in Palestinian areas and in an increasingly polarized Middle East."
What about the high price that the Palestinian people have been paying since the partitioning of Palestine created a homeland for the Jews on 77% of what had been Palestine? What about the price they have paid as refugee camps -- once thought to be a temporary solution on the way to Palestinian statehood -- have become a permanent way of life for more than 4 million Paestinians (as of a 2005 count)! Or the ongoing high price they have been paying as Israeli settlements squeeze Palestinian territory more and more.
The so-called peace process -- which is not a process and has nothing to do with peace -- has been and continues to be an attempt by the USA, Britain, and Israel to gain international legitimacy for the status quo in Palestine: namely that Israel will continue to expand and the Palestinian territories will continue to be a large concentration camp. The upcoming summit, coming as it does late in the lamentable presidency of George W. Bush, is clearly nothing more than a hopeless publicity stunt to boost Bush's reputation. Having done less than any president in my lifetime to address the Palestinian mess, Bush now wants to go down in history books as having had his own peace summit.
Perhaps he really thinks he can bring peace to the middle east -- that he'll be able to succeed where many better minds have failed -- because of his great success bringing democracy to Iraq.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Restoring Democracy
The fatuous calls for Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf to "restore democracy" are a good indicator of the intellectual level of the mainstream press. You either live in a democracy or you don't. If your civil liberties are dependent on the mood of one man (in this case Musharraf) then you do not have a democracy, even if his current mood is a pleasant one.
Musharraf may be talked into allowing TV stations back on the air, removing riot police from the streets, and allowing Benazir Bhutto to move about unhampered but everyone will quite justly wonder at what point their actions could cause him to "take away democracy" again.
In a real democracy, the rule of law and the stability of its institutions make it highly unlikely that one individual or even a small group could take over and suspend civil liberties in any situation other than a true national crisis. This, of course, is why thinking people in America are so worried about the erosion of our system of checks and balances by the constant onslaught of the Bush/Cheney war against democracy. Because that is how democracy is really taken away -- by weakening the laws that protect us from tyranny. Once those protections are gone, there will no longer be any democracy to take away or restore.
Musharraf may be talked into allowing TV stations back on the air, removing riot police from the streets, and allowing Benazir Bhutto to move about unhampered but everyone will quite justly wonder at what point their actions could cause him to "take away democracy" again.
In a real democracy, the rule of law and the stability of its institutions make it highly unlikely that one individual or even a small group could take over and suspend civil liberties in any situation other than a true national crisis. This, of course, is why thinking people in America are so worried about the erosion of our system of checks and balances by the constant onslaught of the Bush/Cheney war against democracy. Because that is how democracy is really taken away -- by weakening the laws that protect us from tyranny. Once those protections are gone, there will no longer be any democracy to take away or restore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)