"Conversation" on the Budget

In response to this column:

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2011/apr/10/paulson-applauding-courage-with-clarity/#comments

Mr. Paulson,

I was intrigued by your Monday column (in The Star) regarding the budget deficit. You quoted Thomas Paine(!): “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.” You omitted: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it” (1777). Paine believed and preached that those of means should sacrifice in proportion to their wealth. “Patriotism” to Mr. Paine meant putting the collective good before private profit.

Obviously you agree, however, with Congressman Ryan that the budget would best be balanced by cutting services to our most needy, instead of taxing those who skim the richest cream off the top of our economy, paying little and often no taxes at all. Either of these measures could accomplish your objective, sir.

Obviously the groups that you and Mr. Ryan have targeted happen to have the least political clout, and contribute the least to the Republican Party.

I’ve looked over your website, finding a long list of impressive credentials that sadly don’t match the persuasiveness of your column. But I couldn’t find any articles from prior to 2008. In particular I was searching for any essay from eight years ago when President Bush was taking our budget from $250 Billion surplus into mountains of debt, that called him to task for budgetary recklessness. Mr. Bush did this during a period of relative economic expansion and prosperity. Please forward to me any column from that period: 2002 through 2006 (before the run-up for election), criticizing Mr. Bush. This would serve to get me on board with the sincerity of your crusade. Absent that, sir your column is vapid, partisan dribble.

Your (Republican) Party engages its base by telling gullible people what the want to hear, then manipulates it with lies and fear. It’s small wonder that the GOP is so hostile to decent public education in this country---it depends upon public ignorance...speaking of which, where did you get your degrees?

Sincerely, Mark Robbins

Mark--

Thanks for writing. I'm sure you speak for many in this country who have legitimate concerns about Republicans in Washington. Yes, I have written many times that Republicans have not always lived up to what they preached. I have criticized Bush and his administration many times for out-spending Democrats when they are supposed to believe in smaller government. Yes, they earned being defeated in the last election. They lost their base. They have been given another chance, and, if they are not successful in walking the principles they espouse, they will invite a third party.

I'm interested in your assessment of Ryan's budget. Are you serious in saying that the wealthy don't pay their fair share? All of the data that the government can provide indicates that the wealthy, the top quintile of Americans, pays the vast majority of taxes, and would continue to pay most of the taxes under Ryan's plan. Even with a flat tax, they would pay more of the taxes.

http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/taxdistribution.cfm

Now, granted some of the wealthiest Americans pay no income tax because they are paid no income. Warren Buffett just lives on his wealth and takes no income.

Yes, there are some businesses that pay no taxes--GE, Obama's pet being one.

Ryan wants to do away with deductions, lower the income tax rates, and INCREASE federal revenue. When you stimulate the economy by lowering taxes, you get more income (sic) Kenney, Reagan, Bush...all knew this and used it to increase revenue and help the economy and jobs grow. I share your anger in people not paying taxes and expecting others to pay their share. It's time we make taxes simpler and fairer. There is a chronic poor in America. Past "Bootstrap studies" indicate that over a 15-17 year time span only 5% remain poor. They need help. Not sure where you get the idea that the poorest of poor will not be helped. It's the people who aren't poor but get services--that goes for businesses too big to fail and people who are kept on unemployment for years. I agree with Reagan that a government's success should be measured by how many people no longer need government support than by how many receive it.

Obama said it right the other night. There is a key choice--bigger government or smaller government. The deficit will soon bankrupt our country. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. I'm not sure how you plan on dealing with that. I compliment Ryan for doing just that. I sure hope you read his plan.

We face tough choices. To keep trying to make a small segment of wealthy Americans pay more and more will result in what's happening already--they will get out of the game or take their game to other countries. Poor people don't hire anyone.

As to schools, UCLA, Fuller Seminary, Fuller Graduate School of Psychology. By the way, I'm more of a conservative than I am a Republican. They are the viable choice I have, and I'm often disappointed. America lives with some necessary tensions. How do I care, truly care, about helping the unfortunate in our midst without making them dependent? How do I fairly make citizens pay their "fair share?" What should a government do and what should individuals do for themselves? As Dennis Prager loves to say, the bigger the government the smaller the individual. I agree with that assessment. Give me freedom any day. I also believe that the best charity is local--we should care for our neighbors ourselves, not elect politicians who will take from others to do our caring.

You deserve a thoughtful reply.

Terry Paulson

Thank you, Mr. Paulson, for your most courteous reply. I must say I could not find your circumspection within the (Star) column.

For MY solutions, I look deeper than the income tax. You spoke of the rich paying “their share,” and of a flat-tax. Income tax is our only “progressive” tax---and even that, of course, is only on paper. We have a regressive tax system. Sales taxes, use fees, property taxes (or their counter-part, rent) are all wildly regressive; the income tax is the only vehicle in place to try to rectify that imbalance. When you advocate a flat (income) tax, you propose that the poor will pour an even greater share--percentage--of their income into taxes. I assume you’re aware of this; and even though it’s hidden from our political dialogue, you can’t blow it by me.

We enjoy, at times, looking back on the prosperity and relative tranquility of the Eisenhower years (except for disgusting civil-rights issues.) The country seemed to work; in fact we were the industrial engine of the world, admired by all. You and I are old enough to recall that marginal income taxes were in the 80% range for the wealthy, and our middle class was robust and prosperous. Democracy thrived---under Republican leadership. We had a healthy distribution of wealth across class lines. You and I had every reason to believe that our lives would be good and prosperous. I went on to graduate from UCLA, as you did, in ’67, paying around $650/semester for a fabulous education.

Oh, life is good, now, if you’ve got it! I retired in ’03, and live on savings and remnants of a terminated pension plan. Considering all that this country GAVE me on the road to prosperity, and generally over-compensated in my career, I paid ridiculously low income taxes.

Now the rich complain about marginal rates of 25 to 30%. The Bush tax cuts were absurd and are the primary cause of our budget dilemma. Actually I don’t really hear the “rich” complaining about their taxes---it’s the Republican Party that makes all the noise. This is their primary handle. “Flat tax” is bogus. Furthermore, with all the leverage that the wealthy have on investments, it’s unconscionable to contend that they should pay less on capital gains than a working man on the job. The “death tax” issue is absurd. 90% of wealthy people gain their wealth from manipulating our economic and tax systems---they draw their wealth from society and should be happy to return it when they die. If they give it to their kids, it messes the kids up. The statistics on third generation hand-downs are appalling. Our democracy is threatened by the wild disparity in income between the rich and the rest. The middle class is disappearing and draped in despair from dismal prospects for the future.

You state: “When you stimulate the economy by lowering taxes, you get more income (sic) Kenney, Reagan, Bush...all knew this and used it to increase revenue and help the economy and jobs grow.” I’m afraid, Mr. Paulson, that this canard is---and has been shown time and again to be--completely untrue. I expect to see this in your columns, but I’m surprised that you’ve dropped it on me. President Reagan gave us “credit card prosperity”, while President Bush used it to give us “bubble” prosperity, three wars, skyrocketing debt and a shocking zero increase in employment.

I have looked into the Ryan plan, and find it ingenuous and equally laughable.

MY solutions are pretty simple. Start by eliminating the Bush tax cuts. Simplify the tax codes, to eliminate almost all deductions except for personal exemptions and charity. End farm subsidies; end subsidies to industry. All of this amounts to “welfare for the rich”, of which we don’t hear the Republicans complaining. Our disgusting, bloated “defense” budget could, and should be cut by about a half-a TRILLION dollars a year. We have seen over and over that this is a euphemism, as reckless adventurers like George W. Bush use our might for offensive objectives. A significant portion of our “defense” budget goes into the Middle East---keeping the oil flowing. This is a glaring subsidy for the petroleum industry. That portion of the defense budget should be covered by taxes on petroleum---gas at the pump, which could be phased in over 5 to 8 years. Mortgage interest deduction should be ended, or reduced to cover only the first $60,000. As it is, poor people subsidize housing for the rich. They also do this by spreading out the cost of police and fire protection, which is concentrated in wealthy neighborhoods.

If we removed ourselves from the Middle East, most of our international problems would disappear, including, probably the threat of terrorism. Those people have shown the world that they’re prepared to tackle their own problems. “Supervision”, as such, should be tackled by their neighbors (Europe) through the United Nations, as has been done to some extent in the recent crises.

If we want to get serious about our world and the future, we could significantly reduce income taxes and replace the revenue with hefty carbon taxes to accelerate our rehab from an oil dependency which will end one way or another with symptoms of paroxysm and withdrawal. We could legalize drugs, which would empty out our prisons, cut police budgets by probably 50% and shatter the market for drugs which fuels violence, cartels and revolution all over the world. Tax the drugs, like alcohol, to fund free rehab for all, as well as general budgets.

I hope these ideas are specific enough, Mr. Paulson. While relatively simple, they would require great political leadership, and, unfortunately, cooperation among our disgusting legislative branch (whose dysfunction is backed up by an out-of-control, politically partisan Supreme Court!)

You call yourself a conservative, and I see elements of that in your letter. Yet you appear to support, or at least endorse The Republican Party. I (an ex-Republican) can find nothing conservative about that party. They are radicals by almost any standard…unless you call jingoism and gun-happy Bible-thumping “conservative.” I do not believe for one second that the Republican establishment cares one whim about the social agenda that they impose upon society, even encouraging anarchism, as we’ve seen alarmingly in recent assassinations. They use this “social agenda” to manipulate people into supporting their cause---and get them elected. The absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the Republican Party (aside from the election of Sarah Palin or “The Donald”) is repeal of Roe vs. Wade. This would cause a cataclysm of revolt that would break up the Supreme Court and bring the party to an end. You say you endorse “freedom;” how could you possibly balance that with an endorsement of the Republican Party social agenda?

As far as the “too big to fail” scenario, I agree with you completely. The financial services sector is a leach on our society. They contribute nothing, only re-allocating resources from the poor to those who can afford their services. This industry fuels the disintegration of our democracy by bloating the disparity in income that we now see, all the while stealing our money with fat salaries, bonuses and stock options. Our recent financial disaster was caused by the investment houses with the introduction of such instruments as “credit default swaps” and “co-lateralized debt obligations,” which were nothing but smoke and an excuse for these crooks to pile up huge sales commissions. They backed that up by rating “sub-prime” mortgages AAA. If Moodys, Standard and Poors, etc. had rated these instruments correctly as “D”, the bubble would have immediately burst (and their commissions would have evaporated.) It’s a disgrace that the Obama administration hasn’t thrown the whole bunch into jail---forever. Instead, they’re now reaping bigger profits than ever---while the economy staggers.

I recognize that the social safety net poses the threat of turning into a “nanny-state.” And I agree that this is a flawed model. But poor people are looking at some pretty bleak prospects. “The American Dream” is the “possibility” that any of us might be able to lift themselves from poverty to prosperity. Poor kids in our ghettos right now see the drug culture as the only possibility of escape. This is an extremely frightening outlook, (which could be eliminated by my proposal to legalize drugs.) It is still possible for some to escape the yoke of poverty and despair, but “some” is realistically a staggeringly low percentage. Until we make serious investments in quality public education for all, and adjust our economy to produce quality employment in new industries (like energy production, for example), we will be looking down the barrel of social decay and eventual anarchy, which will be well armed by the plentiful supply of guns provided by The Republican Party. Good luck.

Sincerely, Mark Robbins

Mark,

You can have your theories but the numbers don't lie. Lowering taxes increased federal revenue under Reagan. It doubled. Unfortunately, spending went up even further. Reagan fell for a Democrat promise of cutting the budget $3 for every $1 of tax increases he agreed to. He joined them and increased taxes once, and they never made the cuts.

“It would be more accurate to talk about the ‘Gingrich boom’ and the ‘Pelosi collapse,’ than to rant so endlessly about the ‘Clinton boom’ and the ‘Bush collapse.’ Official U.S. government figures show that the two presidents each experienced decisive turning points that shifted the fiscal fate of the nation when voters in midterm elections rejected the party in power. In Clinton's case, the ‘Republican Revolution’ of 1994 saved his floundering presidency and brought about his reputation for savvy financial management. For George W. Bush, however, the 2006 triumph of Pelosi's Democrats (based largely on Iraq war disillusionment) led straight to disaster, turning a president with a solid economic record into a symbol of catastrophic collapse.” Michael Medved, “GOP vs. Dems: Who's Best For the Economy?”

Gingrich Boom

Average unemployment went from 6.5% to and average of 4.77%

The federal deficit average went from 3.35% of GDP to an average of less than zero with surpluses from 1998 to 2001.

Pelosi Collapse

Average unemployment went from 5.29% to and average of 6.57% (Now 9.6%).

The federal deficit average went from 1.91% of GDP to 4.74% in next two years (Now 10.27%).

The Bush tax cuts helped us bounce back from 9/11. YES, Republicans added to the spending problems and deserve some of the blame, but the Pelosi spending and uncertainty killed the economic growth that still languishes.

Ah, good conversation, but not worth continuing. We both (sic) disagree. That makes America what it is...free to find its way with some conflict. Thank God and our founding fathers that we have the freedom to do so.

Enjoy your (sic) President, I have a feeling that he will be a one-term president. Then again, others may prove me wrong. There are enough employees and people dependent on government who will be fooled into voting for the gravy train to continue. But the true taxpayers have had enough. They are MOTIVATED!

Have a good weekend.

Terry

Thanks, Terry.

Looks like you get the last word, although "numbers" are like citing the Bible: "seek and ye shall find." (I suppose these come straight from The Heritage Foundation.) Seems like all we have to do is eliminate taxes altogether and the government would have so much money they couldn't spend it. The bottom line is that most of us believe what we want to believe. I've enjoyed the conversation. Good Luck....Oh, which Republican hopeful do think could 1) get nominated and 2) get elected? ….

MR

Welcome, February, 2011

Welcome, gentle readers, to the twenty-third edition of Robbinsense.

I HOPE you’ve noticed that we’ve not published for the last three months. The course of events over this period has been so profound that we can barely keep pace.

We’re looking at “a new world order.” Glenn Beck waxes over the grave danger that this presents. Glenn Beck deals in paranoia. The right wing perceives every world event from the perspective of how it relates to us (or to their political movement.) But the world is marching off to a drummer and rhythm that is beyond us. We may be witnessing the most profound international development---in the Middle East, maybe even in the Midwest, since WWII. The true significance of what’s happening in the Middle East is that we are irrelevant. What’s occurring there is occurring in spite of our presence, rendering a decade of squandering lives, treasure and national integrity meaningless. Considering the political forces yapping at his heels, the president has done an admirable job of staying on the sidelines.

Coming to grips with this phenomenon is wildly constructive in our growth and adaptation to this new world order. We believe these developments open a portal through which we might honestly engage in world affairs as a participant, rather than master. Is it clear at last that we don’t understand these people---that we cannot dictate their affairs with diplomacy, money or bullets? They have handed us the victory that we sought. All we have to do is leave them alone!

The real irony is that if we just let them do their own bidding, they will free us! They will free us from wars of political and economic conquest. They will free us from our “war on terror,” which is an illusion anyway. They may even force us into rehab, freeing us from dependency on their oil. We can walk away.

Imagine George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, one day in 1797 walking out onto their plantations and opening the doors to all of their slaves to freedom… How would that have changed our history?

The world scene aside, at home we face enormous hurdles. Our economy---our political order is in chaos. Charlie Jones has stepped forward and taken off the gloves. Are we on the edge? You judge.

Do you live in Southern California? Are you a long-time KCET viewer? Are you dismayed that this station has dropped from the public broadcasting network? We have KOCE, but they don't seem to be on top of their programming. If you're disgruntled, you may wish to tune into this correspondence with their programming department.

Robbinsense will publish periodically as the muse strikes. If you wish to be notified of new posts, contact the publisher; otherwise, just stop in for a pique. If you enjoy an article, please pass our site on to your friends; and don’t hesitate to insert comments---this is a "public forum". (Under “Select Profile” you may select “anonymous” or input your name under “Name/URL”. Leave “URL” blank---unless you have one. If all else fails, send an email to the publisher. Posted comments cannot be altered; they can only be deleted. If you wish to edit a comment, post your corrected comment and notify the publisher by email.)

Happy Reading

The Rise and Fall of Nations

by C. A. Jones

Not exactly a “founding father,” Thomas Paine is considered by many the “patron saint” of American patriotism. His lofty rhetoric was famously inspirational in its day, and still inspires. Beyond stirring the blood of revolutionary ardor, he rallied the fighting spirit of colonists horrified by the grotesque carnage of war. “These are the times that try men’s souls.” “The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country, but he that stands it now deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”

By the time Paine was writing The Crisis, it was clear that a sustained ordeal lay before the revolutionaries, opposed not only by the crown but by Tories, “elitists” of the day, who were busy cashing in on the war by over-charging for goods and services. Paine believed that the chief measure of patriotism was willingness to sacrifice “in proportion to means.” “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it” (1777). For those of means, that meant sacrifice in proportion to their wealth. “Patriotism” meant putting the collective good before private profit.

We’ve come a long way. The mantle of “patriot” has been assumed by our right wing. Republicans, buoyed by the “Tea Party,” stand behind flags and lapel pins, demanding freedom from taxes and promoting homeland security from the immigrants that fuel our economy. While calling themselves “patriots”, they spread lies to justify a collective philosophy of greed that brings riches to themselves as the nation wallows in daunting problems. While millions are without homes, jobs, healthcare, decent education for their children, the rich demand excuse from even the most trivial of patriotic sacrifice. “Freedom” to them means preventing the government from placing any restrictions upon their prerogatives to siphon resources up from the lower classes. Balancing the budget for this constituency means financing our endless welfare for the rich programs by cutting welfare for the poor and middle class.

The Republican plan, which ignores the needs of the poor, will deny them the resources necessary for a decent life for themselves and will lead to a rising tide of crime, or anarchy. This will be well-armed by they guns that these same Republicans champion the rabble’s right to amass. Meanwhile, the plan assures that our moneyed class will continue to accumulate staggering fortunes.

In the last fifteen years, and leading into the crash of 2007-08, the “financial services” sector has become our fastest-growing and largest industry. What exactly does this industry do to “earn” its enormous profits? This industry does not generate wealth. It’s not like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, creating things that drive our economy. It produces essentially nothing. These “industrialists” redistribute wealth. While income (adjusted for inflation) over the last 30 years among the bottom half of wage earners has increased by about 11.5%...(that’s less than 0.5% per year), income among these financiers has skyrocketed. Recent stats for California are much more alarming. In any case, these people control vast sums of monetary assets. Individuals and groups within the industry from time to time devise investment instruments such as credit default swaps and co-lateralized debt obligations, which come down to little more than complicated insurance schemes. These people are essentially salesmen, selling portfolios of insurance to back up risky investments. And who stands behind these policies? The public. Our government. The tax payer. Our children and descendants. The public assumes the risk! These financiers agree among themselves to create assets, sell them to each other and naïve investors, including foreigners, generating huge commissions. Then they reward themselves with extravagant salaries and bonuses, fueled by stock options that don’t appear on profit and loss statements. This money, my friends, is all siphoned from the economy.

We chortle and call Robert Rizzo, City manager at Bell (California), a crook… He is minutia in the big picture. Our financial sector has been fleecing this country for decades in the same manner. Government regulatory agencies are supposed to protect us from this kind of thievery, but they have been emasculated---by deregulation of the eighties, by apathy during the boom times of the nineties, then in a conspiracy between government and industry during the bubble times of the last ten years.

But the problem goes far beyond one of neglect. We have one party---half of our government---operating in tandem with these thieves. And this is the essence of the Republican platform. The GOP opposes all efforts to prevent the financial services industry from “doing their thing.” Beyond that, in return for paltry investments into the political system (bribes), they insist that these crooks shouldn’t even have to pay taxes on their booty.

Do you think this is an exaggeration, or the problem is confined to the financial sector? Our entire economy is riddled with such schemes. For example, the endless drug ads that foul our airwaves every night are for drugs, most of which don’t work. “Even a glance at medical journals shows that once heralded studies keep falling by the wayside.” Pharmaceutical companies now have the enormous resource of the “human genome,” available for research. By taking an active agent and sort of scatter-shooting at the genome in a laboratory they can find positive results somewhere. Oh sometimes they may have to invent a disease, but hey, that works for us. If they can work some test results to show efficacy, then the government gives the manufacturer fast-track approval. Advertising produces demand for these expensive, new drugs. But when subsequent, control-based studies prove a drug to be ineffective, which they usually do, it takes two years longer to get it removed from the market than it took to get it approved in the first place! During these several years, the drug companies continue to pilfer money from our healthcare system, driving up health costs. We could save $200 Billion annually from expensive, ineffective drugs by spending $50 Million on manufacturing placebos in a variety of colors and shapes, which would work just as well. Government should protect us from such schemes but it has been put to sleep by politicians, party to the conspiracy.

The vitality of a nation, friends, lies in the partnership between informed citizens, willing to make an honest contribution to society (patriots) and good government. We now have a significant, controlling faction in the government which uses lies and deceit to get out its message. Through its propaganda arm, Fox News, the GOP leads a campaign of misinformation that sabotages our system. It renders effective political integration of the public impossible. It uses our ignorance, naiveté and anger to manipulate us. The Republicans have forsaken “the people” on behalf of the moneyed elite which fuels the propaganda campaign that keeps them in power. And the health of our society has gone into freefall.

They’ve taken over our judiciary (see Bush vs. Gore, Citizens United). The Republicans have scuttled our legislative process with filibuster. And now we have recently rewarded their treachery by returning them to legislative majority! Republicans used the political strength of unions as rationale for Citizens United. Now we see in Wisconsin that once in power (for two months), they will try to destroy the unions. Two months!

And who are “they?” The GOP’s constituency is an unlikely partnership between an angry middle class that can be mobilized by their clever propaganda and ironically, the moneyed elite that preys off of them. The GOP champions the very concepts which they attack: “family values,” “morality” (whatever that is). They mobilize their angry constituents with fear: “terrorism”, illegal aliens, homosexuals. They pander to us with promises to reduce our taxes while their moneyed elite cheat us blind, depriving us of the income and property that they have promised not to tax! Meanwhile, the rabble has been convinced by the propaganda that “liberals” are responsible for their plight, rather than their own “partners.”

Aside from sabotaging the system from within, the GOP uses a “scorched earth” policy obstructing all legislation proposed by Democrats. It doesn’t matter how sound the policy is, or even if (inconveniently) they used to champion it. The full force of the right-wing propaganda arm is thrown against the legislation, in total disregard for the benefaction of our country. Power is the objective of the Republicans, not effective, public policy.

The current GOP legislative target, “Obamacare,” is a perfect example. In 1993, the Clinton Administration tried to push through comprehensive healthcare reform. Republicans did all they could to derail that effort, in part by proposing two alternate bills. Senator John Chafee (R RI.) introduced the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, co-sponsored by such influential Republicans as Bob Dole, Richard Lugar, Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch. Republicans also proposed the Consumer Choice Health Security Act, supported by Jesse Helms and Trent Lott. Both plans included an “individual mandate,” as does Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. Everyone needs healthcare eventually; the system won’t work if people are allowed to buy in after they contract significant illness. Neither of these bills went anywhere, of course, because the Republicans weren’t serious about the issue; they only wanted to de-rail the Clinton effort. But it tied individual mandate to Republican healthcare thinking.

As recently as June, 2009, Chuck Grassley told Fox News that Republicans favored individual mandate. After all, individual responsibility is a central theme of Republican sloganeering. President Obama, who first opposed this provision, was encouraged to endorse it to enlist bi-partisan support. But once the Democratic bill was on the table, Republicans saw this very issue as the handle to challenge it. It doesn’t matter that it’s rational policy, or even if it’s a bastion of Republican ideology. The CBO has calculated that Obamacare will save the government over $200 Billion over the next ten years. Isn’t that a Republicans priority? Well, no; Republican strategy is to block all legislation coming from Democrats. (When a Democrat does this it’s called “flip-flopping,” and that’s grounds for sending that Democratic offender to political oblivion.)

On the environmental front, the GOP has completely repudiated its heritage of environmental responsibility (Theodore Roosevelt, even Richard Nixon). They are the party of “No,” No to science, No to any kind of restrictions on industry, their wealthy benefactors.

Nature rewards collaboration, my friends. Generally, the waste products of every species provide nutrients that foster other life. Species that don’t co-operate end up extinct. Of some 50 million species on this planet, our greatest transgressor, by far, is man! Republicans tell us that “God” gave us this world to exploit, and that God will keep it healthy. Combine unspeakable arrogance with laughable stupidity and unlimited greed and we have the Republican formula for---disaster. Here again, with lies and clever catch-phrases, they combine greed from the industrial polluters with bitterness and despair of the lower classes who care not about posterity, to muster support.

One half century ago a charismatic president invoked the true challenge for a patriot: “Ask not what your country can do for you---ask instead what you can do for your country.” The nation stood in awe and approved. How far have we descended? The Republican Party panders to us for votes and money. They tell us we need give nothing---that being a good citizen means buying guns and resisting any drive to support your neighbor or your community. It manipulates us with fear and hatred---enemies in our midst: aliens, poor people, liberals! Then they hypocritically plant “fascist” labels on their opponents! Their objective is to keep us so ignorant that we will continue to vote for them…It’s sort of a national invocation of the “Stockholm Syndrome.”

Our next election cycle promises to be one of the most fascinating, if not pivotal in our history. Beyond the fate of the Obama Presidency, we will discover the fate of this circus: The Republican Party.

Throughout history a succession of nations have risen to the pinnacle of power and influence: China, Greece, Rome, Carthage, Spain, Netherlands, Britain… We are only the latest in the line-up. The longevity of these successive empires has grown shorter as the centuries have passed and the pace of civilization and technology has accelerated. There is a familiar course that leads empires to their demise. Arrogance, complacency, laziness, declining industry and the assumption of the inevitability of dominance lie its heart. The mantle is passed on to those people with enough industry and discipline to assume power. For the last 30 years our government has imposed its will by military might. As successive “rogue states” achieve nuclear power, our options dwindle. And as we allow each successive president to continue pouring mountains of resources into weapons instead of education, innovation and research, we doom ourselves to the dustbin of empire.

C. A. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer

KCET Programming

KCET

4401 Sunset Blvd.

Los Angeles, Ca 90027

Bohdan Zachary, Programming Director

Dear Mr. Zachary:

I am a long-time KCET viewer and supporter. My membership number is 50101081.

I am dismayed that you have dropped from the PBS network. As of month 2, I have tuned in to only a few of your programs, compared to at least twice as many from our local PBS affiliate.

Yesterday I finished your 2-hour retrospective on the Reagan presidency, a period that was an extremely mixed bag.

In the mid seventies, our balance of payments went south. President Carter responded to the alarming prospect of our out-of-control petroleum demand with a speech in which he outlined a plan to tackle these problems. The Reagan campaign labeled it the “malaise” speech, then promised “Morning in America”---no oil problems, no economic problems no trade problems, lower taxes. That’s what we wanted to hear! Reagan turned around every effort that Carter made to reduce energy consumption and tend to the environment. During his years we went from the world’s largest creditor-nation to the world’s largest debtor-nation. We’ve gotten everything that Carter presaged and more…it’s unfolding even now.

Your program did not mention any of this, or the skyrocketing national debt that Reagan launched with his “credit card prosperity.” He told us that government was inefficient and “the problem,” then set about to prove that he was correct by crippling it. Iran-Contra was glossed over.

The program mentioned the shoot-down of Korean Air 007 in 1983, but there was no mention that the plane actually was on a CIA-sponsored spy mission. Our most sophisticated radar-mapping resources, including two RC-135s (AWACS of the day) and many sophisticated ships were on hand for the “show.” Captain Chun delayed his departure from Anchorage by forty minutes, then flew off-course, at very low cruise speeds to coordinate penetration of the Sakhalin Island military defense network with the passing of the space shuttle. While flying out of radar coverage, he used a parallel flight, Korean Air 015, to “shadow” his flight plan and make false position reports. The two governments would never admit, of course, their involvement in this shameful caprice, but the evidence for intentional penetration is overwhelming. The crew on flight 015 was placed on “house arrest” upon arrival, and never left the country again. As a 36-year, career airline pilot, I am extremely familiar with all the equipment and procedures involved in that disaster, and it was no “accident.”* Reagan used the lives on that plane as a propaganda bonanza against the Soviets.

He taught us that we, as a people, and as a nation, do not have to be responsible. Your program said nothing of any of this! I suspect that this was the Reagan retrospective that was dropped by CBS two years ago after program directors realized it was just fuzzy, Republican remembrances. Did you pay for this program, or did the RNC pay you to broadcast it?

I am not a partisan Democrat. In January you aired a 2-hour show about the Kennedy family that had the same tint: fuzzy remembrances of Camelot past. It seemed to portray the Kennedy ancestors faithfully. But Jack: No mention of his long-time addictions to drugs and womanizing…nothing about his involvement with gangs, engaged to assassinate Castro. The program failed to point out that his alleged “missile gap” that lit the afterburner on the cold war was actually an imbalance drastically in our favor. Kennedy was probably responsible for tripling the number of nuclear weapons and missiles in the two arsenals. And why didn’t he stop the war? “Bear any burden, pay any price…” politics!

Bobby: Not much on him in the program, but they failed to mention that he was head hatchet-man for Joe McCarthy.

And Teddy: how could they side-step Chappaquiddick and the death of Mary Jo Kopechne? Not exactly irrelevant in his story, this incident unraveled any possible run at the presidency.

These are not the kind of programs that I have come to expect from KCET. I mourn the loss of the special programming that you have offered for decades. With my terminated pension and a limited budget for contributions, when that time rolls around, I will apportion my gifts between you and KOCE according to the quality of your programming.

Thanks for the run; and good luck.

Sincerely,

Mark Robbins

* Shootdown, R.W.Johnson, Viking Penguin, 1986

Election Wrap

The voters have spoken…the verdict is in. The President is toast. Well, maybe---maybe not.

Turnover in the House is the largest in over 60 years… But, this election was the third in a row that has swung that body by twenty or more. Polling of voters has indicated that dissatisfaction is widespread for both parties. Voters want action---change. But will voters support a candidate who says he’ll start with a 50 cent per gallon levy on gas along with other tax increases, import duties on cheap consumer goods, significant cuts in defense spending, plus an end to farm subsidies and tax deduction for mortgage interest? Such a program would eliminate the deficit, ease our balance of payment woes and start us on the road to energy independence. This is the kind of program that our government advocates for other countries in economic and financial distress. It’s also the program that we voters condescendingly prescribe for them! Oh, but now we run back to “American Exceptionalism”. We are special; we don’t have to be responsible.

Republicans berate the healthcare bill, as they would, but it covers 32 million additional Americans, while decreasing the deficit, creating competitive insurance markets, restricting insurance companies’ prerogative to drop customers or increase their premiums, beginning to pay doctors for quality care instead of quantity, and ratcheting back private-plan abuses.

The 111^th Congress has been one of the most productive in recent history. Beyond healthcare, in less than two years we’ve seen significant work on stimulus packages, congressional ethics reform, significant financial service industry regulation, 75,000 infrastructure projects, massive investments in renewable energy sources, “race to the top” (to replace “No Child…,”) “national service” legislation, expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program to cover 4 million more kids, new regulations on tobacco, 2 million acres of wilderness lands restored to federal protection, expanded benefits for veterans, minimum wage increase, environmental issues and much more, all in the face of recalcitrant, Republican obstructionism. There are currently over 400 bills passed by the house, awaiting Senate review.

This is not to say that all of these measures are good for the nation; but more than any Congress in decades, this has been an action Congress.

So what’s to complain about? Well the Republicans are crying because they’re not in control. The hushed truth is that many Americans could never be content with a black president. Being a Democrat seals Obama’s fate. The GOP’s only real agenda is to prevent the country from moving toward prosperity while Democrats are in control.

Liberals are unsettled because of lack of resolution on big-ticket items: the wars are still raging, even expanding into Pakistan; Gitmo is still operating, no formal censure of the Bush Administration---or even repudiation of torture, for that matter. The Healthcare bill did not contain a “public option.” Financial service reform was late and seriously diluted. Military budgets continue to grow, along with the deficit.

And all are disturbed over persistence of the recession. Well, there have been no significant, structural changes to promote the kind of changes that will eventually put the country onto a strong economic footing.

A significant part of the problem is polarization of the electorate. We are the farthest apart, politically, in modern times. Everyone is drained and fed up with partisan bickering. But as we demand compromise, we all see ourselves as “the center”. Compromise means coming my way!

It’s impossible to deflect blame from Obama. He may be working hard, but he’s definitely not connecting with the people. Our “ship” of state is foundering after hitting an iceberg. Fortunately [and unlike the Titanic,] since hitting the last iceberg (the great depression) we have institutional mechanisms that keep us afloat While the ship is listing and taking on water, the captain is working extremely hard with the 750-man crew.

But the crew is below decks. No one is addressing the 2500 passengers, running in a panic all over the ship. These frightened people want to SEE the captain, working, leading, fighting! They want re-assurance, visible leadership. To us, what’s going on below decks is irrelevant. All we know is the economy is still sluggish, our jobs are still gone or threatened. The “change” promised by candidate Obama has not come to pass.

When the Republicans promise to dismantle the progress made in the last two years and destroy the president, citizens don’t want a “cool” response, a promise to work together with “our opponents” toward a resolution of the crisis. Americans expect dynamic, aggressive leadership. They believe that if the man won’t fight to defend himself and his office, he won’t fight to defend them. It appears that Obama, a black man running for national office, trained himself never to appear angry. This extends to public displays of frustration. This doesn’t resonate with the American people. We expect passion, verve, heart! One needs only watch television for about 20 minutes on any evening to experience what the public expects! Our heroes deliver action---violence!

So what do incoming Republicans offer? Anti-government rhetoric works well as an electoral strategy---it stokes contingency frustration and validates fears. But as a governing strategy, it has no traction. Ronald Reagan, that icon of Republican conservatism, used “conservative” rhetoric to salve the base while heaping massive increases onto government spending. “W” did the same.

In 1994, Newt Gingrich made the mistake of trying to implement Republican rhetoric with the “Contract with America.” He ran into the Clinton Administration and the will of the American people. Clinton balanced the budget, riding the “tech” wave with a small tax increase and a significant reduction in defense spending. Meanwhile “Contract” went on the rocks and Newt was soon thrown out of government.

In broad terms, Americans prefer Republican appeals on behalf of liberty and small business over Democratic appeals to fairness and compassion. But in practice, the preferences get reversed. Democratic social programs retain widespread popular support while conservative cuts in these programs provoke antagonism. Hence, while conservatives love to talk philosophy, you can’t get them to discuss programs; and while it’s difficult for the Dems to connect their policies to their beliefs, it’s near impossible for Republicans to follow through on their ideas.

For a generation the Rep’s have tapped voter selfishness by using the clarion call of “lower taxes.” But complicating matters now is the new contingent of Tea Party rabble that seems intent on Republican ideology enough to hold their feet to the fire of rhetoric that politicians know is only a bunch of hot air. The new congressional delegation insists that there will be no compromise with their ideals. Things could get interesting! Stay tuned.

THE POLITICS OF ANGER

Election season is upon us---it’s all over us. Voters are angry; candidates are angry. Voters are angry at politicians; they’re particularly angry at politicians who are not angry. All over the country we’ve seen politicos move up in the polls after expressing rage, such as New York GOP Gubernatorial candidate, Carl Paladino, who threatened to “take a baseball bat to Albany.” OK! Will there be any cool heads left standing to run the country, or will we be in the hands of clueless hot-heads on a highway full of impassioned, road-raging motorists brandishing their 2^nd Amendment rights?

It appears that the president will survive, although signs have been dropped of impending impeachment hearings! The president has committed “high crimes and misdemeanors?” This is irrelevant, of course: the Republican strategy is to distract the government so that no constructive work can be accomplished---work that might be credited to the Democratic Party. Who cares about the country? This is about getting elected. Groundless impeachment proceedings fit the bill---it worked to distract Bill Clinton, and it actually succeeded with Grey Davis!

Who are these angry people, and what are they worked up about?

The obvious answer is that they are frustrated people, impacted by the economic downturn, and lashing out at supposed villains, perpetrators. These are people who have bought into “The American Dream,” and see that their birthright is destabilized, violated. These are people who have spent a lifetime believing that our lots will forever ascend…at least through their lifetimes. This is what the people of China, Greece, Rome, Netherlands, Spain, Britain, “The Third Reich”, Japan, in their time, also assumed.

Anxiety can easily turn to rage when our “leaders” stoke the fire by telling us we’re victims. This most insidious tool of the demagogue tells us that we are being victimized, and to focus on a scapegoat. It’s fascinating that the groups using these techniques also demonize the president by comparing him with Hitler!

These tools of manipulation are always available to those vile enough to use them. But the problem, Dear Brutus, lies not in the stars, but within us. We are political children, unsophisticated---ignorant.

Those now screaming the loudest have stood back while the economic booms of the ‘90s and ‘00s funneled the spoils of prosperity to a small group. They voted for the politicians who perpetrated the policies that caused this, and they are now supporting candidates whose response to our predictable crisis is to continue with those same policies. While most anxious voters look for reasonable sources of information, the “angry” ones wish only to rally ‘round their convictions. In these times of economic pain, they seek validation! Their struggle is bad enough without having someone tell them they are wrong or worse: responsible!

Democrats, or the president, can bombard the airways, op-ed pages and blogs with studies, but this deflects to oblivion. According to Hank Jenkins-Smith, political scientist at University of Oklahoma, “If you have a strongly held belief with an emotional component, the brain defends information that reinforces those ‘priors’ and is skeptical of information that challenges them.” When our emotions are engaged in the conversation, logic is disabled, and the fact that “experts” contradict our beliefs only stiffens our defensive conviction.

The only true resolution for this mess MUST come from us! Among scattered, disenfranchised, under-educated, misinformed, apathetic, easily-manipulated voters, this is a tall order.

Picture a family of four. Doctors have told the parents their two over-weight pre-teens are “pre-diabetic.” The parents know well enough that their children require decent food, with balanced diet and exercise, but with marital turmoil they cravenly use their children as a battlefield. They curry favor from the kids, each playing off the other. Mealtimes are at the mall, where the father insists that the kids have their choice at the food court of which pavilion to attend. The kids go for ice cream and cookies! The father assures them that their mother is a stern, unloving tyrant if she dares to suggest the salad bar. The kids know nothing else, because they’ve grown up with no knowledge of nutrition---but they know what they like!

As their health is on the verge of collapse and nutritional warnings become more strident, the kids cling to their father’s assurances that ice cream and cookies are just fine. Any threat to bring them to the vegetable stand causes them to scream and throw a tantrum. Instead of acting 9 and 11, now seem to be 4 and 5.

We have grown up since the 50s believing in the strength, the invincibility of our country, our system of government. We believe those political leaders, who since 1981 have told us we don’t have to pay the price of government services. In fact, we haven’t been paying the bills since the forties; but emerging from the war, our prosperity and industrial strength were so great that this drain was masked. By the 70s the picture was becoming clear. Jimmy Carter was the first politician with the political courage to line out our limitations and chart a course for future prosperity. We rejected that!

When Howard Jarvis (Proposition 13, 1978) showed us the blueprint for anti-tax populism, and no politician (except Jerry Brown, who half-heartedly opposed the measure) stood up for responsible, public policy, the die was cast. In 1981 Ronald Reagan backed up wholesale tax-cuts with dramatic increases in government spending. If we were taxed to pay for the excesses of government (like waging immoral wars), we wouldn’t stand for this! But divorced from the responsibility of paying, we have lost interest in how much government costs. The Reagan formula has been the paradigm for Republican populism ever since. We pay lip service to fiscal responsibility, but when pressed for real reform, we defer to the mantra of waste, corruption, oh, and blame the poor (who have no political clout.)

The sad parallels in the allegory of our dysfunctional family are all too familiar. The father doesn’t care about his children; he uses them as leverage in the personal struggle with his wife. The mother may care for the children, but feels powerless in the face of the father’s manipulation. She has colluded too long to have a serious voice of authority over their life-style.

We are not 9-year-olds, but we are the politically and culturally equivalent. We’re unwilling to face the stark reality that our national spending binge can no longer be sustained in the face of collapsing economic power, financial chicanery and a planet that can no longer sustain our wasteful gluttony. [We’re uninterested in the truth about nutrition.] Clearly those politicians who go on telling us that we don’t have to pay the bills (taxes) don’t care about the welfare of this country; their only objective is to attract voters.

Curiously, the angry tea-partiers are righteous in their rebellion against the treatment that we’ve been subjected to our whole lives, but they’re unwilling to face the reality of what needs to be done. Anti-tax platitudes line the road to election. They still insist on dining at the dessert pavilion. Their strident voice comes off as a tantrum and attracts media attention.

What’s going to turn this around? We need to face the true costs of our national standard of living. It cannot be sustained without enormous investment in education and new technology. This requires serious enlightenment, which at this time our schools don’t provide. They’re too busy focusing on inane standards testing. We, disillusioned consumers, are the teachers!

It begins at the ballot box. Do we vote for candidates who champion ever decreasing tax burdens for all…even the richest of the rich?!! Or do we vote for candidates who at least try to present a valid picture of what needs to be done?

See the accompanying Robbinsense endorsements for the up-coming election.

Ballot Recommendations

Page 1, all Democrats except Republican, Steve Cooley, doing excellent work for under-privileged poor folks. Harris is also a good candidate.

All Judges: Yes.

Page 2 (overleaf)

All Judges: Yes.

School: Larry Aceves

School District: No endorsement

County: Steve Hintz

Page 3, Props:

19. You’re on your own with this. We favor legalizing all drugs (except methamphetamines) for a number of reasons, primarily because of the devastating consequences that our hypocritical “war on drugs” has on foreign countries that supply our demand (Mexico and many others.) See “The Politics of Drugs”:

http://robbinsense.blogspot.com/2009/06/politics-of-drugs-international aspects.html

The Mexican government is on the record opposing this initiative, but we consider that position to be politically motivated.

On the other hand, it’s a poorly constructed bill that MAY cause more legal problems than it’s supposed to solve.

20. Yes, for obvious reasons.

21. No, because part of our State’s budgeting morass is caused by this kind of “targeted” funding.

22. No, for the same reason above.

23. No for obvious reasons

24. No. This is clear bullshit.

25. Yes! 2/3, “super-majority” requirements are at the heart of our budget problems.

26. No. See 25.

27. No! See 20 and 24.

The "Ground-Zero Mosque"

by Jackson Dave

Our latest cultural flap may be one of our most puzzling: the “Ground-Zero Mosque.” Curiously, even among my circle of associates, polling produces shocking antipathy toward this project.

First, we must note that most of the principals involved in stirring up this pot were avid supporters of the Bush Administration while then President Bush made numerous overt gestures toward the moderate Moslem community.

Next, the proposed “Mosque” is not a Mosque; it’s a “cultural center”, complete with basketball court, auditorium, swimming pool, restaurants and a multitude of facilities. It would be located in a currently vacant building, in a distressed part of the city that desperately needs an influx of capital and life.

Then, it’s not “in the shadow of ground zero”, it’s two and a half blocks away---two densely-constructed blocks, completely out of sight-lines as well as shadow lines. As usual, the right-wing has inflated an issue with potential to offend whites, then distorted it with inflammatory rhetoric into a wedge issue for political distraction. This is only the latest in a string of such issues.

Before we look at this closely, let’s consider the bigger picture. The international community, generally more astute in consideration of our [own] politics than we are, still regards the United States of America as a “bastion of freedom” and source of stability in the world. But this heated debate is reverberation across the globe, with the potential of creating a worldwide black eye for the United States. Many Muslims abroad are miffed by the controversy, largely conducted by non-Muslims, that has grown so loud as to become a world-wide topic of discussion on talk shows and newspapers. “Rejecting this has become like rejecting Islam itself,” said Ahmad Moussalli, a professor of Islamic Studies at the American University of Beirut. “The United States has historically been distinguished by its tolerance, whereas Europe, France, Belgium and Holland have been among those who have rejected the symbolism of Islam. Embracing it will be positively viewed in the Islamic world.”

Since the Sept. 11 attacks and the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, America has spent millions trying to improve its image among Muslims, especially in the Arab world. Now political shakers and movers are banding to undo this colossal effort with what is essentially fear-mongering silliness.

Denying permission for an Islamic center in New York City is not only an open manifestation of hostility towards Moslems world-wide, but it’s a direct assault upon our own constitution. The irony is that the agitators come short of advocating scrapping the 1^st amendment, while currently they do advocate scrapping the 14^th. It’s not clear just how “patriotic” a citizen can sound while calling for dismantlement of our most basic freedoms. But in reality, of course, no one is calling for any action on this matter. This issue is strictly one of “stirring the political pot” in an election year.

Political opportunity runs rampant with this issue. Newt Gingrich, in his unannounced and on-going presidential campaign, has said, “Building this structure on the edge of the battlefield created by radical Islamists… is a political statement of shocking arrogance and hypocrisy.” He went on to say the leader of the proposed Muslim community center, the Kuwaiti-born scholar Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, (currently touring the Persian Gulf states on a U.S. State Department-funded trip to promote goodwill for America), is connected to terrorists and radical Islamic groups. When pressed for reference, Gingrich sited National Review. Arrogance and hypocrisy? These are characters that Newt knows well.

Rauf, who worked with the Bush Administration in a project with the mission of spreading religious understanding and tolerance, is known as a moderate Moslem, and already has an Islamic center, open for 30 years, and 10 blocks to the north of the proposed site. But the present location is cramped, and the proposed site offers a better location on considerably less expensive real estate.

From the Muslim perspective, houses of worship are humdrum affairs, and Muslims in that neighborhood now have nowhere else to pray. Some appear baffled that anyone in their right mind would scoff at a $100-million private-sector investment at a time of global economic crisis.

New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg, in the face of community opposition, has come out on behalf of the center: "The ability to practice your religion was one of the real reasons America was founded." Mayor Bloomberg, who grew up surrounded by anti-Semitism and knows what it feels like to be a target of religious discrimination, reports that all the families of 9/11 victims he has spoken with have been supportive of the building. Referring to the victims, Bloomberg says, "We do not honor their lives by denying the very Constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights - and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked."

Inexplicably, the Anti-Defamation League has come out against the center, saying, “…anguish (of the 9/11 families) entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.” Does Abraham Foxman (head of the ADL) believe that bigotry is OK for people who feel victimized? OK, then, does the victimization of Palestinians entitle them to anti-Semitism? Hypocrisy, of course, runs straight through this entire controversy. The ADL, committed to “fighting bigotry and extremism”, fights bigotry and extremism with bigotry and extremism.

Five years ago, The ADL honored NEWSWEEK journalist, Fareed Zakaria, with their “First Amendment Freedoms” prize, including a plaque and $10,000. In the wake of the ADL stance on this issue, Zakaria returned both.

In recent weeks in New York City, Islamic centers and mosques have been subjected to protests and harassment by right-wing groups across the country. Protesters have shouted: "Jesus hates Muslims" and called Muslim children entering day care centers "murderers." The Christian Dove World Outreach Center has renamed 9/11 “International Burn a Koran Day," and Bryan Fischer of the right-wing American Family Association says that we should not allow "even one more mosque in the United States of America." These people call themselves Christians?

Is it possible that a single issue could galvanize the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, The Taliban and U. S. right-wing Republicans? This is the issue. “By preventing this mosque from being built, America is doing us a big favor,” Taliban operative Zabihullah told NEWSWEEK magazine last month. “It’s providing us with more recruits, donations, and popular support.” United States’ enemies all over the world are delighted by public mobilization over this matter. The issue is a propaganda windfall; and it’s supported by public opinion. How can we be so stupid?

From one side of their mouths, Republicans accuse the president of being “soft on terror”; out of the other side of their mouths they routinely promote policies that enflame Islamic passion and provoke terrorists. In the end, of course we know that when the inevitable attacks occur, these same hypocrites will place all the blame on the president.

In the 1959 film, The Mouse that Roared, a comedy-spoof lampooning our “gun-boat diplomacy,” a small country “attacks” the United States hoping for foreign aid. Through a series of chance circumstances, the attacking force “wins” the war, holding us hostage to nuclear terror. The movie was a classic, but raised few eyebrows.

In 1996 Osama bin Laden declared war on The United States. Bin Laden prophesied that we would never be the same. The declaration made no headlines and raised about as many eyebrows as the attack by Grand Fenwick. The notion of defeating the United States of America militarily, on the sands of Iraq or the streets of New York, is silliness. Defeating the United States of America through terror? Are you kidding….”the land of the free and the home of the brave?”

But would we recognize a cultural attack if it were launched? We are so accustomed to bullying the world culturally, as well as militarily, that we can’t recognize a cultural attack while tripping over it. Is it conceivable that one [rag–head] could be more intelligent than the combined force of our mighty, political establishment?

The attack comes not from Moslems, or even bin Laden. True to his promise, our own politicians have led the attack since 9/11, surrogates in the bin Laden army. These politicians, with their throngs of brown-shirt, cultural street thugs, have championed the fear and discord that this “silly Rag-head” promised. They have undermined the strength upon which our country was founded.

We face a defining moment. This small controversy offers us the opportunity to turn back the tide of hatred and fear. We need to welcome all faiths into the very heart of our society, Islam in particular! By welcoming this Islamic center we stand true to our beliefs, our constitution, our heritage and to those who have died for our freedoms.

Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer

Our Lying Times

by William Jellick

Commenting that ‘this was the first time that I’ve seen a senator denied an extra minute or two to finish his remarks’ after Al Franken had enforced the senate speaking limit on his buddy Joe Lieberman during a recent health reform debate, John McCain then added ‘ I must say, I don’t know what’s happening to this body but I think it’s wrong’.

McCain, either unable to remember that he himself had actually done the same to a Democratic senator in 2003, or simply calculating that no one would notice his lie, was just doing business as usual and saying whatever it took to gain some advantage (in this case, publicly slamming a Democrat ) – truth, hypocrisy and embarrassment be damned. And compared to some of the whoppers that he’s coughed up, (‘We are all Georgians today’ and ‘I never said I was a maverick’ are two that come to mind), this one was microscopic. So who cares?

The calculation appears to be one that more people choose these days. One thing we can agree with McCain on though is that something is indeed wrong – wrong with the body politic that he’s helped shape. You’d think that so much immediate and pervasive reporting through internet news and YouTube would throttle these guys but instead the lies and exaggerations only seem to be coming at an ever faster rate.

The ‘get-ahead-at-all-costs’ culture has adopted and nearly perfected the ‘lie, mislead, obfuscate – whatever suits you at this moment is ok’ game plan. And unlike earlier times when the framing of the news, i.e. the delivery through trusted sources, was capable of forming the critical and relevant themes of our times, our current world is no longer able to rely upon this major filter to skim the propagandists out. Bogus, slanted and outright dishonest operations enabled by big money and the Internet assume the solemnity and gravitas of these bygone gatekeepers but not their integrity for truth. Our news has been 'Photoshopped' and it's become nearly impossible, unless you make it a full-time job, to know what the real photo looked like.

The modern world of charlatans and poseurs, who traffic not only in outright lies of commission but ‘omission', has a formidable ability to shape and steer not only those among us who are less aware (sometimes referred to as ‘clueless’) but also some who should be beyond their grasp. Reckless and suicidal financial scams go viral within the usually risk-adverse and conservative world of legitimate finance. Groups of ‘outraged citizens’ have their anger harnessed and misdirected against their own best interests by political demagogues - stoking the rising tide of ‘tea baggers’ and ‘patriots’ to scream against health care reform that would most surely help them more than the skillful puppeteers pulling their strings.

Fox News recently seized on the signing of the nuclear reduction pact by president Obama and Russian premier Medvedev to produce one particularly snarky sequence between Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity. This ‘discussion’ has Gingrich blatantly lying about whether Obama has ‘said’ that we will not retaliate with a nuclear response even if we are attacked by biological weapons. And Hannity, in his most Cronkite-esk tone, ‘confirmed’ that Obama did in fact ‘say’ this. Anyone having read this part of the agreement or who had seen the meeting or read the transcripts, which was not particularly long or complex, knew immediately that Gingrich and Hannity were lying. But in the upside-down world of Fox News, fact-checking never happens to stories they want to believe in so this absolutely blatant lie went into the minds of its viewers - adding to their ‘Obama-hatred’ index and giving them yet another ‘reason’ (out of the fire-hose spray Fox puts out daily) to get ‘armed and dangerous’ (Minnesota Republican congresswoman Michelle Bachmann’s words) to stop our socialist/Marxist/Fascist/Nazi-ist/Kenyan-born/Muslim president from thoroughly dismantling our country.

Say anything, do anything, no matter how outrageous, for some fame, money, power or other such self-serving end. Retract it (maybe) or deal with it later – or worse, simply ignore it until it goes away, allowing it to settle into that vast pool of erroneous ‘conventional wisdom’ that informs so many of our beliefs.

The lying grows as the perpetrators of this ruse find their success lures them to ever more outrageous behavior as they continue to push the envelope like some bizarre game of ‘chicken’ that tests the limits of our tolerance. Wall Street, televangelists, politicians (usually of the Republican variety, but occasionally Democrats too), hate-talk radio, Fox News - these groups have taken ‘con artist’, propaganda and ‘free speech’ to a new and dangerous level.

But all public lies aren't equal. Simple lies committed by 'rogue' liars such as Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman, pale to 'systemic' lies organized by well-funded interest groups. These are lies are part of larger strategies to discredit or reverse the truth and live within a program of patient, calculated deception - and whose gestation is often defined not in terms of months or even years, but in decades. Yes, the basic blocks of giant scams not expected to bear fruit for decades to come are being laid today. The Federalist society, an ultra conservative group, was conceived in the 1970's to provide reliably conservative candidates to the Federal judiciary. The selection of many of these candidates, predicated upon Republican administrations, would not take place for years as in the case of Samuel Alito and John Roberts. And what is the big lie behind the Federalist Society? That they are for truth rather than partisan advancement.

Lying seems to have become a valid and uncontested strategy in many areas of public ‘discourse’. David Brock wrote a book (The Republican Noise Machine) on how the Republican Party fabricates then advances lies into ‘fact’ through their media outlets. He’s one to know since he was part of the apparatus (specializing in the ‘Arkansas’ project to discredit Bill and Hillary Clinton) until abandoning it in the 90’s, even though he was well subsidized, as his conscience finally got the better of him. He was so filled with contrition that he started the website 'Media Matters' to act as watchdog for right-wing lies (let me know if anyone can find a similar site whose sole purpose is to point out only left-wing lies.)

Has our modern life with its awesome ability to collect and distribute information, turned us into creatures that even our least-educated ancestors would not recognize? Have we reached our limit to adequately digest what we see, read and hear to have become a generation of naive pawns in sophisticated propaganda ploys? Unlike the American army who laughed at Tokyo Rose, are we collectively taking her modern indigenous ilk seriously when they are cloaked in respected wrappers of ‘news’ or ‘religion’ and delivered not with an Asian accent but with the down-home sensibility of ‘heartland’ America? Are we becoming creatures who cannot tell truth from fiction? Are we now only capable of manufactured and misguided rather than honest outrage? The answers to these questions may not be as disturbing as our indifference to the effects they inflict on us in the first place.

There have always been swindlers and charlatans to bilk the gullible but it seems like rather than being repulsed by these people we are now more likely to be inspired by them. The modern big-lie con-artist no longer belongs just to the 'lumpenproletariat' underclass of swindlers, beggars and prostitutes who live in the shadows of society - they run the meetings of business, speak from the pulpit of religion and walk the halls of government proudly - confident in their righteousness and invincibility.

Not long ago the very core of the definition of 'conservative' meant 'following the rules' - particularly in matters of finance. How was it then that, in the supposedly highly 'conservative' area of banking and finance, a decision was made to stop checking employment on mortgage applicants – a decision that was adopted by a huge segment of the home mortgage industry? Why did the person who made that decision - and you know it really does come down to one person – like ‘person-x’ in a viral epidemic - decide that it was ok? Or did they not even think that far, succumbing to the new conventional wisdom that surely someone in that supposedly vast sea of people with ‘integrity’ would eventually put a stop to it if it got too far out of control?

Yes, forces beyond the local loan originator were dictating some of the new rules that acted like termites gnawing away at our economic foundations. But still, something so pervasive as to have a nickname in the popular lexicon - 'liar-loan' - must have reached someone somewhere where it set off sirens and alarms - someone who had the authority to put on the brakes. But yet, it was only when our entire economic system was on the verge of meltdown did it become important to understand its implications.

The reverend (sic) Pat Robertson, a Yale-educated man, said on his television show that Haiti, after the recent earthquake, is paying the price for ‘making a pact with Satan’ that helped them get out from under French colonial rule. He also said that 9-11 was the result of God’s wrath for all the homosexuality and paganism in the US. In the past a statement like this might have been accepted by those within earshot or a printed pamphlet. His success, if he had any, fell into the 'fooling some of the people some of the time' category but once exposed to the larger pool of people it would surely have been called out and neutralized by the larger 'reality-based' community.

These days nothing stays within the protective boundary of 'local' - everything is (or should be expected to be) put out there on the great information highway – so using yesterdays logic, certain and immediate censure should fall on the perpetrator of such terrible slurs as those uttered by Mr. Robertson. But for some reason we have lost that side of the equation. Now Robertson is not a clergyman in any church and is only a 'reverend' in the sense that Sarah Palin is a 'governor'. But he spews his hate speech while standing on the shoulders of Christianity so surely there could have been a unified response to him from the leaders of the major Christian denominations. But none came.

It seems that the big lie requires a big response to offset it otherwise it dissolves into that vast ocean of 'conventional wisdom' - taking its place alongside other distortions and valid, reasoned positions. But where are the big responses? In today’s world, nothing happens – except for some op-ed pieces. But there is no shortage of manufactured outrage fueled by ‘astroturf-roots’ groups created by demagogues funded by right-wing oligarchs.

Like drops of rain that flow into mighty rivers, every unchecked amoral/immoral decision adds to the numbing of our societal consciences and the dimming of our collective critical faculties. This river has flooded our souls to the point that even brazen, prima facie public lying, usually reserved only for ‘sociopaths’ and bare-knuckled politicians, barely raises an eyebrow today, as if we’ve all succumbed to mass hypnosis or mass fatigue. The advertising professional, who's business it is to shape opinion, knows the game. A discussion with one of its bright stars summed up what he’d seen over the years: ‘it’s not a fair fight anymore – my profession can make ‘up’ look like ‘down’ and ‘black’ look like ‘white’. All we need is enough money and we can move an opinion and therefore improve a company’s sales, or determine the outcome of an election’. He doesn't really understand why but he knows that the formulas and strategies have been vetted and they work.

Bill Jellick is a Robbinsense staff writer