EVERETT DIRKSEN WAS RIGHT

Senator Everett Dirksen (R. Ill.) served as Senate Minority Leader in the 1960’s. Distinguished for other reasons as well, his greatest legacy…or the one most cited…was his statement about government spending “A billion here, a billion there and soon you’re talking real money”. Or perhaps not. According to the nonpartisan center developed in his name designed to promote better understanding of Congress, he probably never uttered those words or anything remotely close to them.   http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_emd_billionhere.htm

The lack of a credible basis for that quote has failed to impede billions of pundits from using the quote to focus attention on any other presumed societal excess that is cumulative but has an effect equal to it occurring all at once even, .I suppose, in reference to tooth decay.

Did you hear about 9/11? You recall, the despicable act of al Qaeda terrorists flying four airliners into buildings or the ground, killing nearly three thousand people in the doing.

There is no argument that that was horrific on so many levels but yet it is a singular event in American history because of the depth and breadth of its immediate, sudden, and unfathomable occurrence that affected so many real victims in one fell swoop and millions more watching in despair and/or being frightened of a similar doom for themselves. And our government has exploited and perpetuated that fear through ill-conceived laws and two destructive utterly unnecessary wars.

I bet you also vividly recall the bombs set off near the finish line of the Boston Marathon last year perpetrated by two young Russian immigrants who had developed an obsession with Islamic terrorism. There have been other killings attributable to Muslims in the U.S. since that fateful day in 2001 that have drawn enormous media attention while at the same time only served to increase the ill treatment of American Muslims often to the point of violence and very often to craven politicians advocating the violation of the very Constitutional privileges they have vowed to uphold with their oaths of office and which they purport to adhere to in their emotional irrational rhetoric.

But, just as the two wars we instigated killed more Americans in total than the 9/11 crimes as well as many times the number of innocent civilians eradicated on that day, so have home-grown terrorists been more destructive in this country than any alleged Jihadists.

So goes the point of this Op-Ed piece arising from the weekend shootings at a Jewish Center and retirement community in Kansas by a KKKer that brought three needless deaths.

In fact, since 9/11 extremists affiliated with a variety of far-right wing ideologies, including white supremacists, anti-abortion extremists and anti-government militants, have killed more people in the United States than have extremists motivated by al Qaeda’s ideology. According to a count by the New America Foundation, right wing extremists have killed 34 people in the United States for political reasons since 9/11. (The total includes the latest shootings in Kansas, which are being classified as a hate crime).

http://us.cnn.com/2014/04/14/opinion/bergen-sterman-kansas-shooting/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter

And while we verbally and editorially assail Syria for its use of chemical weapons in its Civil War and fear Iran developing nuclear weapons to be unleashed on Middle America, with some in Congress willing to vote for war, we ignore the folks who have seemed to possess a tendency to employ chemical and biological weapons to kill their fellow American citizens.

From the same op-ed:

Moreover, since 9/11 none of the more than 200 individuals indicted or convicted in the United States of some act of jihadist terrorism have acquired or used chemical or biological weapons or their precursor materials, while 13 individuals motivated by right wing extremist ideology, one individual motivated by left-wing extremist ideology, and two with idiosyncratic beliefs, used or acquired such weapons or their precursors.

In other words, Ladies and Gentlemen, our right wing extremists give us more reason to fear than do Jihadists or left-wing fanatics. And the toll the right wing nuts have taken could have increased several fold if the idiots supporting Cliven Bundy’s illegal grazing had had their way this past weekend, having sent a veritable written and embossed invitation to federal law enforcement officials to attempt to enforce the law and remove Bundy’s cattle so they could respond in a deadly manner.

Not only was that defiance a matter of potential terrorism it would also have been an act of treason.

Not that all far right wingers are so depraved but these folks had a huge rooting section cheering them on across the country. Imagine if a few Muslims had committed a violent act and the fallout against their millions of members here would have been  unjustifiable accusations of complicity if not outright revenge attacks for their “conspiracy”.

While the op-ed particularly addresses the media failure to cover most of these right wing acts with the same emphasis they do Islamic terrorism the American public eats it up largely due to their own preconceived notions, reinforced in various ways, that they need to fear the Muslims, leading to illogical profiling.

Yes these right wing acts of violence add up. A body here, a body there and soon you’re talking real terrorism.

It turns out that the right wingers especially who want to condemn all Muslims and find nothing wrong with profiling them would have better results from profiling potential terrorists if only they would look in the mirror.

THE WAR ON POVERTY HAS BECOME THE WAR ON THE POOR

“The same guys who can deny others everything are famous for refusing themselves nothing”

Leigh Hunt

Recently we observed the 50th anniversary of when President Lyndon B. Johnson announced measures to be taken to mount a war on poverty. Contrary to popular opinion these measures were not limited to providing pure handouts to shiftless blacks and lazy scumbag poor white trash. Indeed aside from common notions of poverty aid, Johnson’s plans were much more comprehensive and included provisions and programs to not only provide direct payments but which were designed to move to eliminate or at least lessen the causes of poverty entailing health, education and other social programs that benefited entire groups rather than individuals.

Such widely accepted programs as Medicare and Medicaid and federal aid to education were large parts of the entire package as was the establishment of the Food Stamp program, now called SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

Despite some criticisms from both liberal and conservative factions, the actions instituted did decrease poverty levels significantly in the first ten years, according to the prevailing metrics of the time. The poverty rate fell from 17.4% when the initiatives began to 11.1% in 1973, when the rate leveled off.

A good overview of the War on Poverty (not an official name) and related topics can be found here.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

Also contrary to popular opinion the War on Poverty has continued to be successful, perhaps not so much in reducing the poverty rate itself to miniscule levels but to prevent more people from falling into that defined status.

In observation of this anniversary the New York Times (NYT) offers an analysis of the present state of poverty in America with information gleaned from various sources. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/the-war-on-poverty-at-50/?_r=1

However, the writer refuses to frame the analysis in terms of winning versus losing.

So, collecting all of these facts, the answer to the question posed above is that it’s the wrong question, in that its inherent win/loss framing precludes a nuanced analysis of the play between many disparate factors.

The momentum to fight the WOP (War on Poverty) lessened considerably after 1973 and ground to a comparative halt in the past thirty years.

President Ronald Reagan notoriously virtually dismissed the entire WOP with his characterizations of the recipients of largesse as leeches looking to game the system at great cost to our country. The epitome of his scorn was the so-called Welfare Queen, traipsing in furs and driving Cadillacs while collecting thousands upon thousands of dollars in funds ideally directed to the neediest of our citizens.

While there was actually some truth to the alleged fraudulent schemes of of his main target, one Linda Taylor, legend has grown over the years that this woman was a myth created out of whole cloth and Reagan’s dementia fed imagination. But there really was such a woman who was convicted of welfare fraud but whose crimes, cons and scams were far more egregious than those petty misdemeanors, possibly even including murder.

(For an examination of Linda Taylor’s actual life—much undocumented—read the fascinating tale presented here. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html)

Unfortunately the image of “Welfare Queen has been iterated and replicated many times over since Reagan’s tenure though he assuredly was not the first person of any stripe or prominent leader to make that erroneous generalization.

Of course the notion that the WOP is an utter failure simply feeds that stereotype and lends  support to arguments propagated by conservatives to seriously slash these social safety net programs because…well…they don’t work anyways.

Senator Marco Rubio has taken up the failure mantra but liberal Michael Tomasky, building on the NYT article, observes that

What’s wrong with thinking is that we have not, of course, been fighting any kind of serious war on poverty for five decades. We fought it with truly adequate funding for about one decade. Less, even. Then the backlash started, and by 1981, Ronald Reagan’s government was fighting a war on the war on poverty. The fate of many anti-poverty programs has ebbed and flowed ever since. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/06/marco-rubio-is-wrong-the-war-on-poverty-worked.html

Arguably  Exhibit 1 of the decrease in willingness to attack poverty is the welfare “reform” enacted in 1996, that drastically altered eligibility requirements for  the primary cash payments to the poor. Morphing from Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) the number of families receiving such aid has dropped from about 12.3 million in the throes of the AFDC system to about an average of just under 4.5 million families receiving TANF.

With those reforms came a work requirement and a lifetime limit on benefits.

I do not maintain that these and the other changes did not have logic and a factual basis behind them. Just about any government program, social or otherwise, demands frequent reevaluation and revision to remain effective. I do note, however, that the poverty rate during the intervening years is substantially the same as it was prior to “reform”. That leads to a conclusion that there remains a crying need for assistance on the previously broader scale, even if some revisions assured that only the truly needy received aid and that fraud was minimized.

Indeed there are so many variables at play here that result in our poorest citizens as a class losing pretty much any hope of truly living the American dream——you know, the dream that has individuals living in spacious houses,  replete with granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances, with cars that are more than “beaters”, designer clothes on themselves and their children, and having said children obtain a good education in our public schools and going on to the college or vocational school of their choice so they can achieve these same goals.

But it ain’t so, Joe.

Our economic system is supposedly based on free enterprise and free markets, though many conservatives insist on portraying government as one big clogging influence that drags down our economics and taxes the “job creators” to death.

This canard is repeated over and over when it can be demonstrated that the government gives far more to these “business titans” than it asks in return. Not only that but income and wealth inequality in the United States has reached epic proportions, far exceeding that of the “Gilded  Age”

I have written on that particular aspect previously such as here.  https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/wealth-redistribution-its-already-a-reality/

The video linked to here is a real eye-opener that provides facts about what people believe the ideal income distribution should be (surprise, it’s not everybody gets the same) what people believe our income distribution is, and further facts revealing that the situation is far worse than many Americans commonly think.      http://www.upworthy.com/9-out-of-10-americans-are-completely-wrong-about-this-mind-blowing-fact-2?c=wa1

Now is this growing inequality the fault of the “failed” WOP? Absolutely not. I have already mentioned the changes and reductions of help that have characterized the past forty years under Presidents of both parties. Indeed, what seems to be clear is that due to political expediency, philosophical adjustments, and a penchant for favoring guns over butter, we have reached the point where the average person finds it extremely difficult to move up the scale.

If only we had fought the war on poverty with the same fervor, unity of purpose and seemingly limitless expenditure of dollars that we have in attacking hapless nations we would have achieved far greater inroads against poverty.

But not only has the will to fight to end poverty been lost, today we find nefarious forces at work which are thoroughly hostile to the poor. (And since the middle class has been so ravaged I include them as the targets of the oppressors).

A quick glance through any news source finds the poor and middle class under attack as never before. They are being assailed for the lack of contents in their wallets while questioning their character. In other words, blame the victim.

Public school teachers, always underpaid in comparison to others of similar education, are now derisively attacked for the shortcomings of our public education system most especially if they have the gall to be union members.

Other public servants are barraged with allegations of greed, laziness and ineptitude, again more so if they are unionized. In Wisconsin and elsewhere their collective bargaining rights have been unilaterally removed. That is, except for police and firefighters. Ironically the most common instances of overreach of public servants are rooted in law enforcement. Certainly the offending parties are relatively few but annually they cost their cities and counties millions upon millions of dollars for illegal arrests, unjustified beatings and shooting, and outright corruption.

Unions and their members in general apparently are solely responsible for the near total demise of the auto industry recently and the steel industry before that. At least that is what you are fed every day by cowardly politicos and craven business moguls.

The image of the welfare queen has not faded but now is supplemented by the anger generated by the mere notion that someone on food stamps can actually buy soft drinks with them. Oh, the nerve!

One of the most successful public programs in history, Social Security, is beset by unthinking budget cutters wanting to curtail or reduce benefits or install new cost of living (COLA) formulas to hold future increases in benefits down. Of course, save for the short-lived SS tax reduction, not one cent from general revenues has ever been put into the SS Trust Fund nor has any benefit for retirees been paid out of general revenues. Also, of course, the current COLA formula already has prevented any increase in two out of the past five years.

I personally have seen my fixed living costs go up more than any increase in benefits I have received, meaning I have less disposable income than I did five years ago.

The evils of “Obamacare” are so horrific that Republicans want to eliminate it though its basic tenets were their original creation. The refusal of the governors in over twenty states (I believe all Republican controlled) to expand their Medicaid rolls under the Affordable Care Act and non-participation in the insurance exchanges will prevent millions from having coverage who live in poverty as well as making it more challenging for their citizens  to procure insurance on their own.

People making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year resent any move to increase the minimum wage to around $10/hour which would enable that earner to pocket $20,000 a year. This is so even with the fact that the current minimum wage is less in real dollars than what that figure was forty years ago.

Somehow these brilliant business folks are completely immune to and ignorant of the reality that putting more money into the hands of the less well off means it will be spent often generating more income for the rich while upping demand for jobs. Then they complain that President Obama isn’t creating enough jobs while out of the other side of their mouths comes the mantra that government does not create jobs, the “job creators” do. That’s them, naturally. So why in the hell have they not created more jobs while they and their business experience record earnings levels?

Every advantage is given to the rich. Their corporations face too high a tax rate, they moan, while paying no taxes at all. They bitch and kvetch about paying welfare mothers while they sit back and collect farm subsidies. (75% of those go to corporations, not family farms.) Some sit in their New York City penthouses and search their mail for their next subsidy payment while their Wyoming hunting camp doesn’t plant the crops that never would be planted in the first place.

While rich guys get billions in subsidies the poor are the targets of overzealous legislators convinced that they are all druggies and need to be tested before receiving benefits.

The unthinking Congress creatures and Fox news hacks decry the present movement to increase the minimum wage, futilely exclaiming that such an action will destroy the fragile economy when history proves otherwise. And, Dr. Watson, it is elementary that more money in the hands of those inclined or necessitated to spend nearly every cent they receive will increase demand for the very goods and services allegedly purveyed by the 1%.

Mitt Romney’s famous declaration that 47% of Americans pay no taxes and therefore must be totally disregarded drew much attention in the 2012 Presidential campaign. His unconscionable contempt for many of the same folks who are more naturally inclined to support conservative causes and ideals…you know, older people, military retirees and the like…may as well have been a major part of his standard stump speech. he never backed down from those remarks and, if you recall the recording, those vile words were spewed from his mouth almost in glee.

We have billionaires expressing the bizarre belief that any criticism of the rich is the equivalent of the Nazi degradation of the Jews and that a rich man’s “holocaust” is imminent. But we’ve recently learned that the 85 richest people in the world have wealth equal to the poorest 3.5 BILLION PEOPLE on this earth. So any extermination should be swift and not drain too many resources.

Of course that entire idea is preposterous and I can offer nothing but sarcasm for this idiocy.

The Affordable Care Act has been under assault from the date of its passage. As I cited earlier much of the resistance to it is an overt way to stick it to the poor or at least would have such an effect as an underlying consequence.

Poor students in one Salt Lake City school had their lunches taken away because their parents were not fully paid up. How thoroughly embarrassing for the kids thought it does seem that those who received totally subsidized lunches were not affected. But elsewhere there have been calls to eliminate any free lunches and substitute a work requirement for the kiddies to “earn ” their way.

I can detail so many examples of the way our lawmakers want to punish the poor for merely being poor, with the support of far too many factions in our society, most disgustingly some “Christian” groups.  But I believe these odious proposals are not only Unchristian but also Unmuslim and Unjewish and probably Unzoroastrian.

Let me say here I do not condemn those who are rich for merely being rich.

I do condemn those who are rich who possess the mistaken assumption that all beneath them are dirt.These reverse Robin Hoods desire to take from the poor so that the troughs of the rich can become ever more bloated with lucre.

I do condemn those who are rich for limning the poor as poor in character, not only in financial resources.

I do condemn those who are rich for their desire to have it all, not just most of it, to bleed every dollar from every transaction to line their own pockets.

I do condemn the rich who portray themselves as victims and under siege. They know very well that farcical that is.

I never advocate violence and mayhem as a solution to a problem, but the sentiments of this song are difficult to ignore and repress.

“Eat The Rich”

Well I woke up this morning
On the wrong side of the bed
And how I got to thinkin’
About all those things you said
About ordinary people
And how they make you sick
And if callin’ names kicks back on you
Then I hope this does the trick’Cause I’m a sick of your complainin’
About how many bills
And I’m sick of all your bitchin’
Bout your poodles and your pills
And I just can’t see no humour
About your way of life
And I think I can do more for you
With this here fork and knife[Chorus:]
Eat the Rich: there’s only one thing they’re good for
Eat the Rich: take one bite now – come back for more
Eat the Rich: I gotta get this off my chest
Eat the Rich: take one bite now, spit out the restSo I called up my head shrinker
And I told him what I’d done
Said you’d best go on a diet
Yeah I hope you have some fun
And a don’t go burst a bubble
On the rich folks who get rude
‘Cause you won’t get in no trouble
When you eats that kinda food
Now their smokin’ up the junk bonds
And then they go get stiff
And they’re dancin’ in the yacht club
With Muff and Uncle Biff
But there’s one good thing that happens
When you toss your pearls to swine
Their attitudes may taste like shit
But go real good with wine
[Chorus]Wake up kid, it’s half past your youth
Ain’t nothin’ really changes but the date
You a grand slammer, but you no Babe Ruth
You gotta learn how to relate
Or you’ll be swingin’ from the pearly gate
Now you got all the answers, low and behold
You got the right key baby but the wrong key ho, yoBelieve in all the good things
That money just can’t buy
Then you won’t get no belly ache
From eatin’ humble pie
I believe in rags to riches
Your inheritence won’t last
So take your Grey Poupon my friend
And shove it up your ass!
[Chorus]Eat the Rich: there’s only one thing they’re good for
Eat the Rich: take one bite now – come back for more
Eat the Rich: don’t stop me now I’m goin’ crazy
Eat the Rich: that’s my idea of a good time baby

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/aerosmith/eattherich.html

Writer’s Notes

Though I have included some citations for quotes and source materials, I drew from many more for my views expressed here. Below is a list of resources utilized here as well as some interesting reading which is related to this topic and will enhance your knowledge. I read each of them in preparing this post.

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-scam-wall-street-learned-from-the-mafia-20120620?page=2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/31/florida-welfare-drug-tests_n_4525534.html?ncid=txtlnkushpmg00000037

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/02/koch-obamacare-ads_n_4533477.html

http://www.wearesc.com/forums/forum/main-category/off-topic/51431-stephens-obama-s-envy-problem

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/02/federal_judge_rules_floridas_welfare_drug_testing_law_unconstitutional/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/03/glenn-grothman-wisconsin_n_4537891.html

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/something-to-behold–2

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2014/01/05

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/koch-backed-political-network-built-to-shield-donors-raised-400-million-in-2012-elections/2014/01/05/9e7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/counter_narrative/2014/01/david_brooks_smoking_pot_should_black_kids_pay_for_his_pothead_sins.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/education/2014/01/north_carolina_s_assault_on_teachers_has_to_stop.single.html

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/01/06/marco-rubio-is-wrong-the-war-on-poverty-worked.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2013/12/linda_taylor_welfare_queen_ronald_reagan_made_her_a_notorious_american_villain.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2014/01/07/republicans_will_only_revive_unemployment_benefits_if_they_get_to_keep_more.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/health-care-obstruction_n_4556307.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carly-paul/the-slow-grip-of-poverty_b_4516679.html

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/a-new-low-in-health-care-rhetoric-20140108

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/01/09/wealthy-gop-candidate-illinois-governor-cut-states-minimum-wage.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-alan-grayson/what-obamacare-really-is-all-about_b_4570052.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/09/noelle-roni-fired_n_4569907.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/10/robert_reich_gops_divide_and_conquer_strategy_is_backfiring/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/28/congress-austerity_n_4509179.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/10/krugman_explains_why_the_war_on_poverty_has_failed/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/10/jon-stewart-income-inequality_n_4575409.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/01/social_darwinism_and_class_essentialism_the_rich_think_they_are_superior.single.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/01/marco_rubio_and_paul_ryan_lead_a_republican_campaign_against_poverty.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/01/10/snap_should_be_cash_instead.html

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2014/01/welfare_works_for_kids_children_whose_parents_get_money_grow_up_healthier.html

http://www.salon.com/2013/12/30/the_middle_class_myth_heres_why_wages_are_really_so_low_today/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/14/minimum-wage-raise-proof_n_4597721.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/17/8_conservative_anti_poverty_ideas_that_will_make_things_so_much_worse_partner/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/red-state-voters_b_4608891.html

http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2014/jan/12/occupy-democrats/pro-democrat-group-says-9-10-poorest-states-are-re/

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/19/how_the_young_elite_rise_in_washington_d_c/

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/19/what_i_learned_from_a_week_on_food_stamps_paul_ryan_couldnt_be_any_more_wrong/

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/01/21/global_inequality_oxfam_report_finds_85_richest_people_s_net_worth_equals.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/poor_hating_hypocrites_secret_pro_military_loophole_reveals_latest_gop_outrage/

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kevin-oleary-oxfam-poverty-fantastic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/american-dream-dead_n_4651337.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/wage-growth-50-year-lows_n_4651882.html?utm_hp_ref=business

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/23/gilded-age-state-of-the-union_n_4647348.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marian-wright-edelman/its-time-to-end-child-pov_b_4652975.html

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/23/when_companies_break_the_law_and_people_pay_the_scary_lesson_of_the_google_bus/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/low-wage-workers-education_n_4653020.html?utm_hp_ref=business

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/22/wall_street%e2%80%99s_lamest_enemies_meet_groups_who_represent_the_poor_%e2%80%93_but_push_deregulation/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/27/thomas-perkins-doubles-down-holocaust_n_4674266.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/27/republicans-poverty-gop-inequality_n_4577490.html?utm_hp_ref=business

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20140129/us-wealth-gap-health-overhaul/?utm_hp_ref=homepage&ir=homepage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/29/the-daily-show-minimum-wage_n_4688134.html

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57468293-78/lunches-olsen-lunch-district.html.csp

SILENT NIGHT?—FAT CHANCE

Oh my gosh. Poor Phil Robertson has had his 1st Amendment rights quashed… as some of the biggest bloviators and blowhards on the political right would have you believe. Of course that does not mean they are politically right, but most especially they are not factually correct.

As many other commentators have pointed out A&E, on which Robertson’s show, Duck Dynasty, appears has temporarily suspended him. Oh crap, new shows are already taped with him in them and will be aired in January. That suspension must really hurt.

What is most telling about these conservative complaints is that they are so hypocritical. Dixie Chicks anyone? That singing trio lost all kinds of money when in 2003 one of them, Natalie Maines, spoke up against the looming war in Iraq and told a European audience that not all Americans backed this action.

Without keeping a list and checking it twice many of the naughty and not so nice members of the conservative right threw a hissy fit then and the Chicks were excoriated thoroughly as their patriotism was called into question.

More recently Martin Bashir and Alec Baldwin of MSNBC have each lost their programs there due to some objectionable language they used. Bashir said what could be interpreted as a very crude comment on Sarah Palin (though goodness knows she does far more damage to herself every time she opens her yap). Baldwin simply made homophobic remarks about a celebrity photographer whose conduct he took issue with, but that comment occurred during a private confrontation in a public place, not on the air on his show.

Now I have rarely watched Bashir’s TV performance and am familiar with Baldwin only from his appearances in movies and TV shows. I am no great fan of Bashir and I appreciate Baldwin as an actor . Both are ostensibly liberal but that has no influence on me.

But these recent dustups, or the one concerning the Dixie Chicks, or the numerous “gotcha” moments where various of our well known (or possibly not so well known) citizens are caught not on their best behavior seem to generally draw a lot of comment by those we seem to have anointed to form our opinions for us.

However, these critical commentaries pretty much serve no one but the commentators themselves. Their targets, having misspoken, suffer consequences ranging from the faux suspension delivered to Robertson to the actual loss of jobs by Baldwin and Bashir or lost income for the Dixie Chicks to absolutely no consequence whatsoever (Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann).

Yet I am uncomfortable with all this noise, superfluous and hypocritical as it may be coming form all quarters.in protest of ugly stupid words. Yes, Brad Paisley had his song “Accidental Racist” knocked, and yes Steve Martin apparently tweeted a racist joke (his main sin being that the joke simply was not funny). And the PR lady going to Africa tweeted about how she was safe from AIDS since she was white.

Ultimately I don’t give a shit.

Whether I have done so in the past or not, before I get my shorts in a knot about something someone has said somewhere that may offend a particular group or type of other human being, I am going to ask myself this question. “is the person speaking these words in a position to affect public policy or to effect change in our policies or society?” If not, leave them alone. If so, then by all means go after them. Such an attitude could prove harmful to our nation. Bachmann and Cruz serve in Congress and should be more responsible.

At the same time there are some racist, low-minded, folks who do not inhabit a seat of power but who still wield immense influence over the opinions of their listeners, viewers, or readers. (Yes, Rush, you know who you are) And I suppose that where some nonentity has taken the opportunity to not only speak intolerant words but has combined them with negative actions that impact others they deserve our scorn.

But, folks such as I who reach a limited audience or even most MSNBC hosts who reach substantially fewer viewers than their Fox counterparts, or those who speak only in some private capacity but have somehow been placed in the spotlight, let us not waste our precious time getting all upset about them.

Phil Robertson is on a very popular TV program but it would not surprise me to know that the vast majority of the show’s fans already share most of his retrograde opinions so his ability to change minds is limited.

My Facebook friends are fond of posting news items about this nonsense. While I may share a philosophy (or not) with them I think I’ll pass in joining their crusades from now on.

But if you want to duck a dynasty, more power to you.

NSA—DO NOT KEEP YOUR LISTENING EARS ON!

Judge Judy is clearly irascible, frequently wrong on the law while ignoring facts, and far too often seems to have as her sole purpose not to fairly judge a case but to simply humiliate the litigants and piss them off. One of her favorite expressions, invoked when she’s expressed her view of the case but a party seems to have missed the point is “Put your listening ears on.”

Well recent revelations about the National Security Agency (NSA), the spies whose secretive ways make the CIA look like neighborhood gossips by comparison, demonstrate that they have absolutely no compunctions about  putting their listening ears on. In fact, they appear to never have them off.

Now the NSA’s performance during the Obama administration reveals that its actions have increasingly been more intrusive, tracking emails and other computer correspondence as well as building a metadata base of phone calls made by EVERYONE. All this without warrants or even a healthy suspicion of illegal activity by their targets. Of course their targets include you and me. I don’t know about you, but I believe the last plot I was involved in was throwing a surprise birthday party for my then wife in 1985.

But, no mind, the NSA has brought us closer and closer to Big Brother. I find fault with Obama for permitting this broadening of unwarranted and warrantless surveillance but in reality, the NSA has been conducting such activities since before Obama took office and the main difference might be the simple notion that technology keeps advancing at an alarming rate, thus increasing the possibility of more and more intrusiveness.

Then again, what we have learned by observing our spy complex over the years is that though the President…any President…is nominally in charge, these agencies have few reservations about going rogue and acting with no or at least dubious authorization.

Throw in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which dates back decades, its later revisions, and the Patriot Act in response to 9/11, and instead of fear and loathing in Las Vegas we have fear and intelligence gathering in our homes. Of course it behooves the spy-industrial-security complex to keep us scared shitless. Those in the government gain ever more power and those in the private sector bleed the public fisc while advising the government that terrorists lurk in every corner.

So the private guys build sales and profits by supplying the very goods and services that the private guys, in separate contracts, have recommended that the government utilize. All those “independent” security consultants are nothing but shills.

Now we have the case in which a federal judge attempts to put the brakes on the runaway train that the NSA has morphed into.

Judge Richard Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (a George W. Bush appointee) ruled today that the NSA is probably trampling the Constitution with its metadata base.

Emily Bazelon incisively explained this decision in Slate.

Let’s start with what the government is doing.At issue is the part of the Patriot Act, building on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, that allows the government to collect an enormous trove of phone call metadata, and then query it based on an “identifier” phone number called a “seed.” A seed is a number associated with terrorist activity, based on a reasonable and articulable suspicion. Sounds OK so far. But wait: Once you’re an NSA agent with a seed, you can analyze all the numbers within three hops from that seed—meaning the numbers the seed called and received calls from, and the numbers connected to those numbers. Judge Leon points out that if one seed calls just 100 numbers in five years, and each of the numbers in the next two hops also connects with 100 numbers, the NSA can trawl through the metadata for 1 million phone numbers. And that’s got to be a low-ball estimate, since it doesn’t take into account the possibility that someone used one of those phone numbers to order from, say, Domino’s Pizza, allowing the NSA to vacuum up zillions of other callers.  http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/12/judge_richard_leon_rules_the_nsa_s_phone_record_collection_program_probably.html

Unfortunately Judge Leon strikes me as a lone wolf fighting against the tide of technical progress combined with fear-mongering about terrorism. Relatively few objections come from our citizens upon hearing these revelations. While it is easy to blame the President or Presidents under whom these offenses have occurred, to paraphrase Shakespeare, “the fault, dear Americans, lies not in our Presidents but within ourselves.”

I have noticed a tendency in our Commanders in Chief to exercise that power even if ill-advised. (https://umoc193.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=544&action=edit) Such power in practicality extends to matters that are not pure military in nature such as any matters of security.

If you object to the NSA  actions have you also objected to the Bush wars? Have you also objected to the drone strikes killing “terrorists”? Have you objected to the establishment of and maintenance of the obscenity known as Guantanamo? Have you objected to the profiling of Muslims? Have you objected to any hint of further military action in the Middle East and North Africa? Have you objected to the uncovering of terrorist plots that really were fomented by undercover government agents? Have you objected to the needless and costly measures taken in the name of security that provide anything but?

If you cannot answer “yes” to each and every one of those questions please spare me the drama of your objections to bad NSA behavior. I may listen but those are crocodile tears I am shedding in sympathy.

THROUGH THE PRISM DARKLY

Given all the scandals plaguing the Obama administration lately it would not surprise me if some of my regular readers had not pondered my silence on possibly the biggest and most serious one, the National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance of phone records and internet traffic.

I suppose a few of my critics may surmise this is due to my “Messiah”…Obama….having it occur on his watch, maybe literally.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

• Drone attacks on suspected terrorists off the battleground
• Drug sniffing dogs at ostensibly routine traffic stops
• New York City’s “stop and frisk” campaign that is racist and a highly ineffective police tactic.
• Police departments morphing into paramilitary organizations
• The Patriot Act
• The War On Terror
• The wanding of patrons entering PNC Park for baseball games
• Guantanamo Bay
• The Supreme Court broadening the powers of police to search and seize sans warrants
• The Pittsburgh Marathon’s undue security concerns in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombing.
• The question as to whether to interrogate Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev without providing the requisite Miranda warning.
• The war in Iraq
• The war in Afghanistan

Folks, these are all related to each other and to the NSA surveillance activities. How are they related? Because each of them tests Americans’ willingness to have its Constitution twisted to achieve the illusion …more a mirage actually…of greater security in the wake of 9/11.

Yet, there is no consensus among politicians, professional pundits nor the American public that all of these are bad. Review the comments on these pages anent drone strikes or the Miranda issue. Some of my readers who generally share my point of view were adamantly opposed to my positions on those topics.

Even the NSA surveillance has drawn mixed reviews with some polls showing that the majority of Americans are not troubled by these actions and even such natural political enemies of Obama like Lindsey Graham figuratively shrugging them off.

Importantly most of these measures did not sudenly pop up under Obama save for any issues that have arisen due to specific events during his Presidency.

PRISM is the system that the NSA uses to access information from nine internet services. It is now probably the cause of the greatest upset. Why who knew that stuff we put on the internet could be seen by others?

In fact PRISM has existed since the waning days of the Bush administration and the access NSA has is

…governed by Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which was enacted in 2008. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper tacitly admitted PRISM’s existence in a blog post last Thursday. A classified PowerPoint presentation leaked by Edward Snowden states that PRISM enables “collection directly from the servers” of Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook and other online companies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/06/12/heres-everything-we-know-about-prism-to-date/

That article also relates the tale of YAHOO’s failed anti-PRISM lawsuit in a secret case from 2008.

Objections to these policies and actions are frequently dependent upon who holds title to the ox and/or the political identity of its gorer.

Case in point. The brilliant and visionary Sean Hannity saw the value in the NSA surveillance in a land and time far far away from the one we inhabit at this moment. But, given the change in the powers that be in the interim this surveillance now is destined to destroy life as we know it. Just view the video found in this link.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/12/sean-hannity-nsa_n_3431346.html

Nonetheless when we have reason to believe the targets of these extra security measures are members of a suspect group our hackles are in complete retreat.

Thus you see support for needless and unjustified wars, for unlawful inprisonment of persons suspected of but not charged with terrorism, for intrusions upon our personal space when in public, and all the other offenses committed in the name of our protection.

Yeah, the Boston Marathon bombing was a horrible thing but the two incompetent misfits managed to kill two people with their bomb. In the past week or so we have witnessed two instances of a lone nut killing at least four people in Santa Monica and St.Louis without generating any belief we should cower under our school desks or head for the air raid shelter in the basement..

Walter Pincus has a piece in the Washington Post in which he briefly explores  the history of surveillance in the U.S.

I have never forgotten one thought in a lecture I heard at Yale University back in the early 1950s when Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy, R-Wis., was carrying on his anti-communist witch hunt. Professor Harry R. Rudin declared that the two peoples most willing to trade civil liberties for personal security were the Germans and the Americans. Sixty-plus years later, I think the reaction to 9/11 that we still see proves again that Mr. Rudin was right.

 http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/a-surveillance-history-lesson-americans-are-ok-with-it-691835/#ixzz2WN6edWtT

Professor Rudin was a wise man.

TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OUT OF NONSENSE

Okay, I’ll narrow the field for you since there is so much nonsense afoot at any particular time.

We have learned that the IRS targeted right wing groups regarding their tax-exempt status or efforts to secure that status. I’ve already addressed this issue and I can safely maintain that I’m agin’ it! https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/no-country-for-old-tax-exempts/

We have also learned that the Department of Justice obtained at least two months of phone records of Associated Press (AP) journalists in an attempt to determine the source of leaks in conjunction with anti-terrorist activities.

There is no doubt these actions by our government are extremely troubling and the Obama Administration is deservedly taking heat.

Piggy-backing on top of the renewed Benghazi investigation Republicans in Congress are undoubtedly feeling their oats. Especially joyful at these revelations are those on the right who are constantly preaching of the evils of the federal government and warning of complete government suppression.

Infortuitously for Obama and his minions, it will be easy to exploit these missteps to make political hay that even, conceivably, could carry over into the 2016 Presidential campaign.

However much one is offended by these actions, and I am sorely offended, I really cannot say that they signal a seachange in government misdeeds that threaten our very Republic.

Senate Majority Leader Democrat Harry Reid offered his two cents that the IRS focus on Tea Party groups is no different than when the agency picked on Greenpeace and the All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, California during the Cheney…er…Bush Administration without a peep of protest from Republicans. http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/reid_republicans_hypocritical_for_benghazi_irs_outrage/

In the former instance Greenpeace was subject to an extensive IRS audit due to allegations its advocacy passed lines of permissibility for a tax-exempt. It seems that a supposed watchdog group, heavily financed by Exxon, instigated this audit. Exxon, of course, is the natural enemy of Greenpeace. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0322-10.htm

The Church got into trouble when its former Rector, Rev. George F. Regas, gave a guest sermon chastising Bush for the Iraq war. http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/07/local/me-allsaints7

Neither did spying on journalists originate with the Obama DOJ.

But obtaining phone records of journalists is an extreme course of action that has serious ramifications. There are special rules in place in the United States that authorities are supposed to adhere to when obtaining journalists’ communication records, and they’re intended to protect press freedom and stop prosecutors from compromising journalists’ constitutionally protected newsgathering role. Federal regulations instruct investigators that they can obtain journalists’ phone records only as a last resort, and the decision to seek the records should receive the “express authorization of the Attorney General.” The authorization should be given on the basis that “effective law enforcement and the fair administration of justice” is deemed, in the specific circumstances, to outweigh “the public’s interest in the free dissemination of ideas and information.”

In recent years, however, the FBI has flagrantly disregarded these rules on multiple occasions. A scathing 2010 review by the DoJ’s inspector general criticized how the feds had spied on Washington Post and New York Times reporters in a leaks investigation carried out in 2004. The feds obtained 22 months of reporters’ phone records “without any legal process or Attorney General approval,” the inspector found, which illustrated “the absence of internal controls” and was judged to be “negligent in various respects.” The same report detailed two other cases of the FBI obtaining reporters’ phone records without following the proper procedures. One of these cases was described as “deficient and troubling” and the other a “clear abuse of authority” that violated the Electronic Communication Privacy Act, federal regulation, and DoJ policy.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/05/14/ap_reporters_allegedly_spied_on_by_the_justice_department_aren_t_alone.html

Also in the past American journalists have allowed themselves to be used by the CIA for intelligence gathering, i.e. spying, mostly furing the Cold War. Carl Bernstein gave a lengthy review of this practice in this essay. http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

So the great concept of Freedom of the Press has often been compromised in the past and, on occasion, it is the Press doing the dirty deeds.

Our level of disgust when we are informed of these abuses usually depends on whose ox is getting gored. That is, if the party in power is one you are antipathetic towards, your umbrage will reach record highs.

It often develops that the offenses are dreamed up at the lower levels of bureaucracy, whether out of a misgiuded sense of loyalty to the administration then in power or from an inner need to feel self-important by wielding power not actually granted to you.

But these offenses and abuses are most egregious when they are the product of the high political appointees to office who are most likely striving to consolidate and enhance their designated powers.

However outraged we are over the AP spying, we seem to be less so when faced with the erosion of 1st and 4th Amendment rights when it comes to fighting terrorism. In Salon, Natasha Leonard enumerates the steps taken, laws enacted, etc, that seem to have us going quickly down the slippery slope. Again, though not new with Obama or even George W. Bush, since 9/11 the government has sought and been granted greater access to our personal lives, all in the name of “anti-terrorism.” http://www.salon.com/2013/05/14/whats_so_special_about_journalists/

Reg Henry of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette opines that these current scandals are simply more of Obama’s opponents crying wolf. http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/reg-henry/obamas-opponents-do-a-lot-of-crying-wolf-687665/

I take a more wait and see attitude before judging the impact of these matters. I’ve already clearly stated that the IRS actions merit full investigation.

I do have a suspicion that there will be no sustained effect on the Obama Presidency. I’ve had my own bones to pick with him but to date these latest “sins” don’t appear to be anywhere near as serious as what I’ve been railing about.

In the end, history will tell us which it is. We do not, however, need to wait thirty years or so in order for that history to be written. These scandals often have a way of working themselves out so that in a few years down the road we will need stark reminders to recall they ever occurred.

I HAVE PRINCIPLES—YOU’RE THE HYPOCRITE

In the world of blogging one finds oneself baring one’s thoughts and opinions, exposing them not only to the perusal of others, but also to potential backlash from commenters. I must say that while I have often found encouragement for my ideas, even total approval from and unanimity with readers who have contributed their own words in the comments section, such is not always the case.

Indeed, I have been accused of being utterly wrong, being hypocritical and inconsistent in my offerings or, at the very least being inflexible and unwilling to accept nuance or permit exceptions to “my rules” under even the most extraordinary circumstances.

I await sentencing subsequent to my plea of “No Contest” to all charges. I really do not believe I am guilty but can readily admit the evidence adduced for my prosecution might, just might, be sufficient to gain a conviction.

But as these charges are often applied to my ethical and moral arguments I do submit to the Court the following in an attempt to mitigate my punishment.

We are all guilty of the same behavior.

Thus could be characterized the summary of this article discussing the dichotomy frequently inherent in any moral or ethical argument between strict application and practical exceptions to be made for the greater good. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opinion/sunday/how-firm-are-our-principles.html?_r=0

MORAL quandaries often pit concerns about principles against concerns about practical consequences. Should we ban assault rifles and large sodas, restricting people’s liberties for the sake of physical health and safety? Should we allow drone killings or torture, if violating one person’s rights could save a thousand lives?

We like to believe that the principled side of the equation is rooted in deep, reasoned conviction. But a growing wealth of research shows that those values often prove to be finicky, inconsistent intuitions, swayed by ethically irrelevant factors. What you say now you might disagree with in five minutes. And such wavering has implications for both public policy and our personal lives.

I have no doubt that my own scribblings…the end result of listening to the voices inside my head…are subject to this analysis.

How we arrive at the conclusions that form our moral framework appears to lie within two opposing philosophies.

Philosophers and psychologists often distinguish between two ethical frameworks. A utilitarian perspective evaluates an action purely by its consequences. If it does good, it’s good.

A deontological approach, meanwhile, also takes into account aspects of the action itself, like whether it adheres to certain rules. Do not kill, even if killing does good.

No one adheres strictly to either philosophy, and it turns out we can be nudged one way or the other for illogical reasons.

 I can deconstruct the process I went through to develop and post two of my most notorious entries in this blog, both dealing with killing—-the death penalty and our drone attacks on alleged terrorists.

The former is a long held belief that I adopted when I was a lad of 14 or 15. You can review it here, if you’d like. https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/death-kills/

It was a gradual process to be sure. But my reaction to the drone attacks after learning of the one that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, was immediate; it was expressed with certainty; and it was visceral.

Now I don’t feel the need to revisit the arguments on either side of either issue but refer to them because I hold just as tightly to one as to the other, but there are substantial distinctions between the roads traveled to arrive at each conclusion. Too, I am now equally as adamant and unforgiving towards disparate views on each topic, but most assuredly was not as rigid on the death penalty fifty years past.

Is that due to me being a callow youth at that time? That would seem to be self-evident but my recognition of what I consider to be the injustice of capital punishment was pretty damned sophsticated for that age.

True, I am well set in my ways in many areas of my life, whether through habit or possibly approaching senility (still many years on the horizon I would assert).

In most ways my take on  these two topics are internally consistent with each other. But I wonder, and perhaps there are volunteers eagerly awaiting the opportunity to advise me it is so or not, if my ethical and moral stance on these issues is compatible with and complementary to my stance on other issues I deem vital in my life and which also have a large moral component.

However, those subjects may not provide the best examples for how our morals (or to be more precise—my morals) may be more situational than anyone cares to admit.

And other published studies have shown that our moods can make misdeeds seem more or less sinful. Ethical violations become less offensive after people watch a humor program like “Saturday Night Live.” But they become more offensive after reading “Chicken Soup for the Soul,” which triggers emotional elevation, or after smelling a mock-flatulence spray, which triggers disgust.

Let’s see. Rush Limbaugh assailed Sandra Fluke for desiring birth control and called her a slut. Todd Akin denied a woman can get pregnant from a “real rape.” The other day President Obama remarked on the physical attractiveness of the California Attorney General, a woman.  All three men received at least a degree of enmity for their “sexist” statements.

I was offended by these remarks or believed them to be very ill-considered.

In February Seth McFarlane hosted the Oscars and several of his jokes or skits seemed to play on sexist stereotypes of women, particularly Hollywood actresses. One friend of mine, a woman whose intelligence and views I admire, was terribly offended. I have watched McFarlane work before and know that his humor can be quite crude and borderline offensive even as I’ve laughed my ass off. I didn’t feel he did anything unexpected or that anyone should have been upset at since it lay in the realm of satire, however poorly executed.

Ultimately we find ourselves facing problematic moral dilemmas of great importance relatively rarely. We ourselves are not at war, having to choose whether to save one person or five on the subway platform, or being a juror determining whether a convicted killer should die.

We do face questions of whether to exceed the speed limit, cheat on our spouses, accept the excessive change we receive from the cashier, or simply need to decide between right and wrong on countless options we have before us, most of which have no great long term consequence.

Here is where we far too often depart from our expressed values.

The politics of today has many of us immediately launching all out searches for the least bit of hypocrisy exhibited by the pols and pundits we love to hate.

In 2004 Peter Singer had his book published, The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush. Singer found huge inconsistencies in Bush’s public pronouncements and his administration’s actions. yet, when I read it, I was somewhat discomfited because Singer’s review was not nearly as scathing as I would have wished.

I cannot recall many specifics now but this book review may give you some insight into Singer’s findings. http://philosophynow.org/issues/49/The_President_of_Good_and_Evil_by_Peter_Singer

In fact the author was aware of the inherent difficulty in taking this approach.

Inquiring after the ethics of George W. Bush might seem to many like a Herculean task, and possibly doomed to failure, but worth a try anyway. Peter Singer, one of the world’s best-known philosophers, has taken up this daunting challenge in his The President of Good and Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush, and the result is a superbly instructive lesson on the strengths and limits of applying the methods of philosophy to current events.

It’s a very interesting read and, at this late date, may provide greater prospective to the first Bush term.

What are we left with?

We can take the cynic’s view that we are all hypocrites but this means we can never achieve full credibility in expressing our opinions or taking personal actions with a moral element attached.

We can each demand we are excluded from any charges of hypocrisy but that measn we are all saints and if there is any truth among us it is that NONE of us are saints.

Or we can bow to our natural humanity, strive for evenness of hand and the most consistent application of our moral values possible, realizing this is an unattainable ideal.

Except for the rightness of my blog opinions, of course.

A CHALLENGE TO CONSERVATIVES

Sorry, I won’t promise $5,000,000 to your favorite charity if you reveal irrelevant information about yourself though I do favor Mark Cuban’s $1,000,000 offer to donate to Donald Trump’s favorite charity if he shaves whatever that is on his head.

No, this is pretty simple and it involves two of conservatives’ major complaints against President Barack Obama that are, surprisingly, grounded in real situations. These complaints are that the government still is steeped in deficit spending and that the National Debt has grown over $5 trillion ($5,000,000,000,000) during Obama’s term so far. (We won’t quibble about the precise amount…point taken.)

Deficits occur when more money is spent than is received in income. In private life that means you are eligible for the CSNBC show Till Debt Do Us Part. In government life it means you are eligible for immense criticism from the party not in power while they also demand their fair share of the largesse.

At this time the party out of power is the Republicans. Fortunately they have their own budget Wunderkind in Rep.Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) who, coincidentally, is now also the GOP nominee for Vice President.

His wisdom on budget matters is pretty much undisputed on the right and he has the evidence to back that up having introduced multiple budgets in the House of Representatives that have been adopted by that House but not by the Senate.

How terrible, you must think, an opportunity to end deficit federal spending lost. Would that it were so. Assessments of Ryan’s budget proposals by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office have resulted in the finding that deficits would still exist to about the year 2040 under the scenarios Ryan presents.

Now the Romney campaign, offering what I believe to be a mixture of past and present Ryan and Romney ideas, has as its budget mainstay a plan to cut taxes across the board for all income levels. That sounds fine but, of course, doing so will result in lost revenue that will perpetuate and hike deficits.

The 2 R’s (lacking a third R, most likely rationality) they maintain that reforms in the tax code together with economic growth will mean their plan is revenue neutral at worst.

The problem here is that all independent appraisals of this plan demonstrate that it is mathematically impossible for this revenue neutrality to be true. Other adjustments that the candidates have not revealed would have to be made to achieve their goal. But, in fact, they have no plan in place to deal with these factors.

Now let us address the National Debt. That is the cumulative effect of all deficit spending in the past. Recent history has seen few balanced budgets save for the last four years of the Clinton Administration. The debt virtually tripled when Ronald Reagan was President and nearly doubled when George W. Bush was in office as he returned to deficit spending.

In 2011 there was a prolonged battle in Congress over raising the debt ceiling, the total amount the U.S. is permitted to borrow to fund PAST deficit spending. Having actual debt that exceeds that ceiling with no balanced budget in place would mean that the nation could be in default of its obligations

Now, it is a mathematical impossibility to keep having deficits without the national debt growing thus requiring periodic hikes in the debt ceiling.

The CBO this past summer came out with an analysis of the elements of our national debt and determined that there are distinct causes of it. Among those are the recent recession itself, the ongoing effects of the two rounds of tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars being the largest components. The Stimulus plan passed under Obama was a contributing factor, and  which undoubtedly is the one action taken by Obama apart from anything else that has helped the debt grow. However, if the value of it is $1 trillion, as most estimates are in that range, over 80% of the growth of the debt under him is attributable to these other factors.

Now here is your challenge. Had John McCain been elected instead of Barack Obama would the deficit and debt situations  have been any different, aside from the Stimulus? If so exactly how?

Two connected questions are would he have, as Obama did, extended the Bush tax cuts, and would he have shortened the two wars substantially? My belief is that he would have not taken either action and, indeed, may have retained a higher commitment in Iraq than had been negotiated by Bush and adhered to by Obama. In addition I believe he may also have expanded our role in Afghanistan even beyond Obama’s “surge” and not initiated a timeline for withdrawal in 2014.

If you can factually and logically meet my challenge you will have a more convincing case for Obama’s fiscal irresponsibility. Remember, McCain would have been working with a Congress with a Democratic majority in both houses for two years and in the Senate alone for the past two years.

Okay, I welcome your responses.

ROMNEY’S WAR

President George W. Bush gave us two wars which have weakened our nation financially, morally and spiritually. Afghanistan was a questionable, at most minimally justifiable, adventure. Iraq  could be placed in the farcical category were it not for the tragic loss of life on both sides, the physical and psychological maiming of our troops, and the obscene destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure to which the corrective action of an even more obscene and corrupt reconstruction was applied.

When violence in post-Saddam Iraq exceeded all the neocons’ predictions, a surge was instituted.

When Barack Obama was elected many of us hoped for a quick exit from both lands but Obama stuck to the timetable for witdrawal from Iraq established by Bush. He continued and expanded the war in Afghanistan with his own surge and promised to end the debacle but no one has confidence that will be done.

Romney’s war? Well he is not yet President, and perhaps may never become Commander in Chief empowering him to wield such awesome, frightening authority. But he stands in a command position in another, possibly equally important war that daily affects the lives of the more than 300 million people within our borders.

He is not commander in chief but is a four star general and many of his fellow brass hats take their marching orders from him or conspire with him on strategy and tactics in aspiring to total conquest.

This war? Why it is the class war waged on the vast majority of Americans. The one in which the rich have been decidedly winning the past thirty years even as they seek to deceive the public by claiming it is they are under siege.

BULLSHIT!

The income and wealth disparity our nation has been undergoing  is getting worse. I have written about this phenomenon previously. https://umoc193.wordpress.com/2010/12/04/wealth-redistribution-its-already-a-reality/

Amidst all the turmoil in the Middle East the past week or so the news that the situation is getting worse has not made waves. But here the L.A. Times reports on  how this gap has grown. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/sep/12/business/la-fi-census-poverty-rate-20120913

Here in America we have become accustomed to going to war without the formal declaration the Constitution demands come from Congress. For a war such as conducted by Romney and his allies, no such formality is mandated or expected.

But the revelation this week of Romney’s verbal strafing of those who do not pay income taxes may be the “declaration” that resolves whether there is a class war or not.

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. And he’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video

One can consider that statement as his declaration of war or a preliminary announcement on the surge in the war he intends to institute once in office.

What is this surge?  It is his tax proposals which, if enacted, will benefit millionaires far more than the middle and lower classes. It is the desire of him and his second in command, Paul Ryan, to fundamentally change Social Security and Medicare. It is his announced plan to limit funding for Medicaid and SNAP (popularly known as food stamps). It is his intention to repeal the Affordable Care Act even as it becomes more evident day by day that the provisions already in force are having a positive effect on many Americans of lesser means.

Notwithstanding his new campaign rhetoric Romney is not seeking the welfare of 100% of the American people. And while he has many allies, with no draft, many of his fellow millionaires and even some billionaires remain reluctant to enlist in this war.

Even FoxNews knows that a  class war is being waged. But just like the propagandists of World War II they keep defending the wrong side.

So Mitt, it is plain that you are rich and we are not. Yet you seek further conquests which will strip us of the limited resources many of us use to barely get by. But you have shown us also that you want to strip us of our dignity and our humanity.

That is a war in my book.

Then again it may not be a class war for one simple reason. Willard Mitt Romney has no class.

FOREIGN POLICY—BY THE UMOC

This is another in my series of examining the issues which should be prominent as we near election day.

Foreign policy is one topic that is difficult to approach by merely using actual facts to bolster one’s position. One can state the facts of our present situations and how we arrived there out the wazoo and come nowhere close to a consensus as to how to proceed from here.

That is particularly so as the history of our engagement with nations throughout Africa, the Middle East, the indian subcontinent, and Southeast Asia is replete with treachery, support of murderous regimes, back door politics that, surprisingly,  have been effective on occasion in furthering American purposes despite their egregious immorality.

That is not to say these purposes were justifiable,  at least not long term, but they were pragmatically dealt with to achieve short term goals.

A quick review of some that came back to bite us in the ass.

1. Placing the Shah of Iran in power only to see the revolution leading to a Muslim theocracy that threatens its neighbors.
2. Arming and empowering Saddam Hussein, including with WMD’s, that enabled him to become a tyrant supreme, gassing the Kurds, and eventually drawing the enmity of the U.S. in two wars resulting in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths (not to mention our own blood payments).
3. Arming what became the Taliban to fight the Soviets and repeating their folly by now engaging those same Taliban in our own pointless, endless war.

Then you can take our support of Israel and divide it into the eras where such support was blind, when support was lukewarm due to Israel’s own behavior, when American zionists (not necessarily Jewish) condemned any efforts to temper some Israeli policies, and when the Middle East was relatively quiet and demagoguery was at a minimum.

India comes under fire these days for thieving jobs while its neighbor Pakistan is dysfunctionally schizophrenic towards America, easy to do as the Pakistani Republic of Corruption could easily be its official name.

North Korea wants to play nemesis but may have to do so with large portions of its populace starved to death while its dynastic ruling family often offers more comic relief than terror. South Korea is an economic powerhouse (my TV is a Samsung) and questions may grow as to why it is not more self-sustaining in its international security.

Then there’s the 800 pound Panda in the room. Those who fear socialism in this country should see what a socialist/communist government and economy has wrought in China. Its GDP growth outstrips our own, it holds a significant part of U.S. debt (around $1.15 trillion, lower than last year), and its international power and influence appears to have balloooned despite lack of military action to promote this growth.

But large parts of China’s “success” may be illusory. Its population is so huge that the outward mien of prosperity still means hundreds of millions of its citizens remain in agricultural poverty.

The so-called Arab Spring looks as if it may now be in the middle of a desolate winter. The ongoing demonstrations and embassy attacks signal not all is hunky dory. There is some preliminary evidence to suggest these protests are thoroughly organized by groups which do not have either the welfare of Libyans or Egyptians as their agenda, nor are they inclined to let the U.S. get any traction towards acceptance as worthy allies as their regime changes ripen into full-blown governments capable of being criticized on their own demerits. A danger indeed as their recent revolutions opened up a Pandora’s Box of desires for freedom and democracy.

Any interference in African affairs is fraught with peril. Getting drawn into tribal or other internecine conflicts has much downside and little up, and that at almost a 90 degree angle.

Poor Syria has turned into a bloodbath with the accumulation of bodies disturbing. It probably qualifies as a civil war and there is little future in taking sides in those. That is especially so in the Middle East where suspicion of American motives (for good reason) is off the charts.

My own prior commentaries on American foreign policy have basically amounted to these points:

1. A demand, a repeated demand for an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan.
2. A demand to immediately cease our drone attacks or any other methods employed to murder suspected terrorists.
3. Applause for Obama for his restraint during the Egyptian upheaval.
4. Criticism of Obama for committing U.S. air power to the Libyan upheaval, which more resembled a civil war. (See comment above on those conflicts)

In the rest of the world Obama has kept us on track with little innovation or straying from long time principles. Of course unlike at home you are dealing with leaders who are your equal in terms of automatic status and who all are seeking the best for their homelands. Russia remains thorny but Russia will ALWAYS remain thorny.

South America will almost always be an afterthought save for specific situations requiring action. Canada and Mexico both send us their oil but there seem to be 116 Mexicans hiding in their tankers. For all we know Canada could be doing the same thing but we never know until one of them uses a word with the “ou” combination or says “eh?” at the end of a sentence.

What is Romney’s foreign policy? Well, near as I can figure it goes something like this:

1. Obama acts———————————Romney condemns him
2. Obama sets policy————————–Romney condemns him
3. Obama meets with foreign leader——–Romney condemns him
4. Something bad happens in a foreign land–Romney condemns Obama

The man has articulated NO foreign policy positions other than to excoriate Obama for whatever he has done. Here there is ample leeway to honestly criticize Obama, as I have on Afghanistan. Romney simply says Obama setting a timeline for withdrawal is wrong, but offers no ideas of his own.

My fear is that the only change Romney would make in current policy would be to become more militant and aggressive. I believe that would bode ill for the United States.

Romney’s foreign policy, based on jingoism and military power, could be summed up by the title of an old Paul Newman movie:

Rally Round The Flag Boys