A Brief History of The Earth

by Jackson Dave

Our solar system was born from the swirling debris of exploding stars some 4.5 Billion years ago. Our emerging star, at the center, pulled in most of the matter, leaving eddies and pockets of stuff to congeal into planets, moons, asteroids, comets and stray debris. 

As gravity pulled the matter together, forming Earth, it compressed and heated up. Frequent collisions with astral bodies produced a wildly hostile environment. Finally, an extremely large passing body crashed into our young planet, knocking its rotation askew. Gravity trapped the attacker, and its mass stabilized our small “binary system.” We call it Moon. It slowed our rotation, gave us seasons and has been slowly moving away ever since.

As the planet compressed, volcanic activity began in the center and started radiating outward. The mass of our planet was in the correct zone that caused formation of a solid surface. Water from comets, as well as vaporized rocky mass from the lunar collision, began collecting into pools. Trapped by gravity, an early atmosphere of poisonous (to us, but we weren’t there) gases developed from the exhaust of intense volcanic activity.

Spurred on by chemicals and lightening, amino acids formed, which eventually led to DNA, then life in the water. Next, autotrophs emerged, which eventually became the whole basis of the food chain. At the 1 Billion year mark, cyanobacteria started photosynthesis, producing oxygen.

With an atmosphere rich in carbon-based gasses from the core of the planet, over the next 3 Billion years, plant life teemed in the sea. This life poured oxygen into the atmosphere, which from growing air pressure also accumulated in the water. As it cooled, the water absorbed most of the gasses that would be poisonous to animal life.

 

Finally, Pangea emerged. Plants took hold on the land; and eventually, lignite appeared, which allowed them to go up-up-up into trees. For a hundred million years, Earth was “Planet of the Trees.” Forests contributed to the massive production of oxygen; and with no animals (termites), the trees piled up in massive deposits, forming coal.

 

In a world, then, where life had existed for 3 Billion years, over a brief period of 40 MILLION years, what is called “The Cambrian Explosion” suddenly produced every phylum of animal that lives today—including vertebrates. The sea offered animals an enormous banquet of plant life, and oxygen to breathe.

The explosion of animal life in the sea, then on land, was promoted by a concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere that reached 35% . With high partial pressure of oxygen some could virtually absorb it through their exoskeletons. Millipedes, which now measure up to 6 or 7 inches, weighed in at 6 to 7 feet!

Now things start to get interesting. For the previous 3 Billion years, when organisms died, they descended, absorbed into the crust of the earth. Over the eons, all of this carbon-based material, heated and compressed by the enormous pressures of the oceans, collected and formed into giant deposits of ———- petroleum!

But an important new development changed all: life on the land doesn’t sink to the bottom of the sea when it dies. Living plant life, be it grasses or rain forest, adds oxygen to the atmosphere, but when it dies, and as it sheds growth tissue, it's eaten, it rots, or burns. That consumes as much oxygen as the plant produced in its lifetime. 

So over the next 350,000,000 years a new equilibrium was achieved. This led to the atmospheric conditions and the climate under which WE emerged and thrived. This was responsible—and essential—for our existence.

Fast forward: Our healthy seas continue to contribute oxygen to the atmosphere, but animal life on the land depletes it. And our oceans’ health are deteriorating. The disappearance of vast tracks of forest and other plant life subtracts oxygen also. When things burn, oxygen is removed from the atmosphere and hydrocarbons take its place; and the planet heats up. 

You can see where this is going: Our existence is a product of the accumulation of oil buried in the crust of our planet. By extracting the petroleum, burning it and spewing the exhaust into the atmosphere, WE are reversing the process that made our existence possible. The notion that we can get away with continuing this is folly. 

Our climate is already on the brink of massive “correction.” Poisonous carbon-based gasses that were absorbed from our early atmosphere into the oceans have been held in check by constant, low temperatures in the depths. IF, or when, the oceans begin to release those gasses, we may be looking down the barrel of our own extinction—-as did the dinosaurs when an asteroid struck 65,000,000 years ago.

Would that happen in a lifetime? Not likely. But as conditions deteriorate, the social, political and military chaos that is likely to erupt as world governments maneuver toward the end times may make our existence a living hell. 

The time is nigh, my friends, to take these warnings seriously.

 

Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer

Myths of the Road, and Internet Wisdom

by C. O. Jones

I love it when friends forward emails filled with information and caveats that I’ve have never heard before…..especially when there’s no documentation! Among our favorites are driving tips.

Twenty years ago I attended a dinner party with about thirty middle-aged, well-educated people, split between sexes. Something came up, and one of the men announced: “Oh yes, you should NEVER use your emergency brake for normal driving because it could put you through the windshield.” It’s hard to imagine braking that could rip seatbelts from their mounts; but nonetheless, several men nodded and grunted concurrence. Since it was the host who said this, none but your intrepid reporter had the gall to question this bit of wisdom. I had heard it before.

In the early days of motoring, mechanical problems occurred often. Before the advent of safety glass, head-on collisions were frequently fatal because going through the windshield produced severe lacerations. Even in minor accidents, motorists often bled to death. Braking systems were inefficient, often faulty. In the event of brake failure, the “emergency” brake, if there was one, was so poor that generally the vehicle could not be stopped. This is perhaps the source of this connection between use of the emergency brake and going through windshields. 

It really seemed that the brake to use in an emergency would be the “emergency” brake. Surely that would produce the shortest stopping distance. The problem with this illogic is that the only emergency for which this mechanism is designed is failure of the normal braking system. So in the face of this myth gathering steam, about 30 years ago auto makers stopped calling the auxiliary brake an “emergency” brake. The unit became called a “parking” brake, and usually came with the caveat of never being used while driving…not because it would put motorists through the windshield, but because the crash resulting from the unit’s poor performance might actually produce this result. 

Parking, or “emergency” brakes, usually use mechanical linkage to the back wheels only. The back wheels produce less than 25% of braking performance because the units are smaller and during heavy braking the great majority of the vehicle weight is thrown to the front tires. There are no anti-skid systems linked to parking brakes and they easily lock up, which reduces braking even more.

OK, next:  A couple of times in the last few years we have seen emails circulating with warnings about using cruise control on slippery pavement. According to an unnamed Highway Patrolman, “Driving on wet pavement using the cruise control risks runaway acceleration if the vehicle hydroplanes and exits the pavement.” Really!!? I’m afraid this fails the Robbinsense Bull#@&t test.

Let’s consider: 

1) Modern highways are crowned to prevent water accumulation, and grooved for added traction. The grooves in the pavement act the same as tread on tires, channeling water, which prevents hydroplaning. At “normal” speeds this will not occur.

2) Most of the data accumulated to study hydroplaning is for aviation, where takeoff and landing speeds are necessarily high. Formulas center around air pressure in the tires, which is critical because aviation tires are rounded like on a motorcycle. Rounded tires help prevent hydroplaning, but are poor for cornering traction, which airplanes don’t need. For automobile tires that have flat surface area at the road, the most significant factor is speed. 

For most drivers, accustomed to tooling along at 70+ miles per hour, driving on a rural highway, which may not be crowned or grooved, may easily present a challenge in speed control. On wet roads the absolute best thing you can do is keep your speed down! There is no better tool for this than a cruise control. A cruise control set at 52 will not waver from that speed, unlike a momentarily distracted driver on foot control, for whom 52 mph feels like standing still. Clearly, under circumstances where road conditions are rapidly changing, greater caution is required, and in this case the driver will probably be attentive to his task and the cruise control is a nuisance anyway. For every driver who (may, conceivably) encounter the aforementioned bout with hydroplaning and uncontrolled acceleration, there are probably ten who would stay on the road because they’re not driving too fast!

3) Let’s look at the operation of a modern cruise control, which does not monitor vehicle speed. In the alleged scenario above, a vehicle loses traction, which causes the vehicle to slow, which causes the cruise control to increase the throttle. An antiquated throttle lock, or “throttle friction” would do this. Instead, a modern cruise control monitors drive train speed. When the tires lose traction, the wheels speed up, while the vehicle may or may not be slowing down. As the drive train speeds up, the cruise control will decrease throttle, and if engine speed increases fast enough, will disconnect, perhaps sooner than a distracted driver would release the throttle.

4) Modern vehicles respond to irregularities in the road much faster even than the cruise control can intervene. Most expensive cars are equipped with an “active handling” system. This measures traction at each tire and applies braking and throttle inputs that are individual and beyond the scope and awareness of the driver. Active handling would intervene to disconnect a cruise control. In addition to that, basic “traction control,” standard on almost all newer cars, would do the same.

So there it is, friends! Merit or Myth? You choose. To stay on the road, keep your speed down! Meanwhile, be skeptical of the stuff you get on the internet. Most of the people writing these tracts have an ax to grind, or just want to propagate their opinions.

C. O. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer

Final thoughts

Still undecided, my friends? STILL?

Two days to go… Here’s the final word:

You say the President has not lived up to his promise? We agree. We might re-iterate the list of complaints, but you already know them. We could roll out the standard retort: “the Republicans have engineered his failure by opposing all that he has attempted.” OK, but a good “leader” rises to the occasion and brings factions together. Mr. Obama is not that leader. He has resorted all too often to executive powers to achieve his ends.

Here’s what he can take credit for, though:

●          An economy still afloat after the melt-down of 2007, with unemployment falling below 8% as of November 2.

●          “Adult” and reasoned leadership in the aftermath of the Bush years, even in the face of a continual barrage of silly and distracting challenges to his citizenship and legitimacy. Contrary to reverberating claims from the right, he has offered pragmatic leadership instead of ideological mayhem.

●          Meaningful healthcare reform bringing insurance to some 40 million otherwise-uninsured.

●          Financial services regulation to rein in our abusive and renegade banking system.

●          Restored excellence of our auto makers in world markets, with an almost unimaginable concession to fuel efficiency over the next ten years.

●          Reduced costs for student loans.

●          An end to the war in Iraq and scheduled pull-out from Afghanistan.

●          Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

●          While he has increased the rate of illegal immigrant deportation, he stopped deportation of young people brought into the country by their parents.

Republicans have sought to make this an up-or-down referendum on the Obama presidency, but we must see this as a choice between the two candidates.They don't want us to look closely at their man, whom almost every prominent Republican during the primaries cast as a bad (even the worst) candidate.

While Mr. Romney “appears” to be a composed and competent business leader who may be able to bring these skills to the office, these assumptions don’t bear scrutiny. We’ve had businessman-presidents in the past, including George W. Bush, and their record is not good. Generally, business leaders don’t have to be skilled in the political arena.

Here, Mr. Romney has shown himself to be feckless. He has reversed his positions and promises time and again on most important political and social measures. While this strategy, known as “flip-flopping” in Republican circles, is poison for Democrats, it appears to be condoned by their own. In any case, we really don’t know what the man stands for. We must take on faith that he will execute his office on behalf of all the American people. This seems unlikely, given that his tax and economic agenda is geared to the right and the wealthy. Beyond that, the election process has shown him to have an extremely loose relationship with honesty. He retracts or re-words a majority of his statements, while “fact-checkers” have a field day with the rest. Do we really want a president who we know won’t be telling us the truth? WE carry the responsibility, my friends, of keeping our government in line and on track. The only  way we can accomplish our responsibility is if we have the necessary information from which to make decisions. If our government officials give us distortion and lies, our system breaks down --- from the top.

Aside from that, Romney is on the wrong side of immigration reform, gay rights, abortion, birth control, taxation, “American Exceptionalism,” and military spending. His bellicosity toward Iran leads us to conclude he will launch another insane war in the Middle East. Meanwhile, his provocative statements toward Russia, China and our major trading partners portend trade wars and even greater threats to our currency.

The numbers that he has offered on taxation and our economy starkly refuse to add up, and he has not told us the programs he plans to cut to pay for increased military budget and tax cuts for the rich. He did mention axing FEMA, however, right before Sandy. Oh wait… no, he retracted that!

In sum, Romney’s constantly-modulation positions lead us to believe that the only thing he stands for is his own election. For those who criticize Mr. Obama for spending four years running for reelection (including the Robbinsense editorial staff,) we can take heart that for him that will not recur. For Mr. Romney, though, his often-stated promises for actions on “Day-1,” including repeal of Obamacare and all federal regulations passed in the last four years, we know he will be pandering to his voting base, running for reelection right out of the blocks.

It’s easy to say that inertia of government bureaucracy will constrain either candidate, but the greatest mischief that either can inflict is in Supreme Court appointments. The next president will likely have one or even two. If you like the 18-month circus of a $2 Billion presidential election brought to us by “Citizens United”… if you feel that poor women who can’t even afford birth control, much less travel to a foreign country for abortion, should be forced to bear children, vote for Mr. Romney.

Over the last two days the hype will be intense. If you listen carefully, you’ll hear that the Republican and right-wing media message is directed at your heart. Their words will drip with moral absolutes and apocalyptic warnings. They don’t want you to consider any message that is intended to make you think.

And when you hear a person say that in "4 more years President Obama will destroy America as we know it," this is coming from a person who 8 years ago almost surely voted for George W. Bush. Good luck.

The Republican Narrative

by Jackson Dave

You may be on the receiving end of a seemingly endless stream of emails passed around by right-ringers, espousing Republican “values,” endlessly castigating Democrats, liberals and the evils of welfare. Many are filled with hatred for President Obama, socialism, communism.

One of the fascinating aspects of this commerce is that it’s so difficult to get the sending parties to remove you from their mailing list---even though you may consider this person a friend.

We have one friend who’s been particularly persistent, on a five-year run. My neighbor and I pass notes occasionally, sharing our frustration, over the intrusion of his ideas, biases, hatred into our world. When pressed about particularly obnoxious mailings, he denies endorsement, but we know better.

Here are excerpts from the correspondence with my neighbor; the names have been changed to protect the innocent. The issue precipitating this exchange was Jack’s assertion that in scrutinizing political information, he had come to realize that he can’t trust what he hears from ABC or NBC. (The major networks have journalistic standards. One of the most distinguished journalists in history, Dan Rather lost his job at CBS in 2004 after reporting that George W. Bush had a poor service record in the Air National Guard. He was fired, not because the story was incorrect, but because the source was “unreliable.” Hate-filled e-mailers, concocting fanciful reports from their imagination and totally incredible sources have no journalistic standards.)

Yes, Frank, this is very troubling. Jack certainly seems like a good guy. He is fun to be with, generally. He is an exceptionally good conversationalist, witty and charming.

But he’s a little older than we, and perhaps he’s pulling baggage that he cannot---and does not want to---let go of. It seems clear enough that he’s part of the large movement that opposes the president because of his race. He endorses the writings of his right-wing correspondents because he agrees with them, but invalidates the networks because he disagrees with much of their material. He’s oblivious that mainstream media are also biased to the right, just not as far to the right as he would prefer. My God, they are all run by large corporations and Republican industrialists. There are endless examples of their rightward tilt…I have chronicled a number in my blog.

To some extent these messages are intended to distract meaningful dialog, but I think it goes beyond that. I get one or two e-notes per month from left-wingers over some political shenanigan, looking for joint laughs or countenance. Right-wingers, however, pursue a river of self-validation, I suspect, because they realize their message is so bloody inane. When people do something they know is wrong, or dumb, they tend to either hide it or actively pursue validation.

We are all compelled by our opinions; but some people hold them more tenaciously than others. I like to divide people into two groups according to whether or not they want to know if they are wrong about something. Unfortunately, it appears that the great majority fall into the latter group, and that includes many very intelligent people.

In a book called “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Can’t….” Jonathan Haidt studies our political divide. Republican “leaders” have institutionalized ignorance. By repeatedly lying about almost everything over and over, year after year, they have brought us to the point where a large number of us find ignorance a virtue and “facts” to be inconvenient and suspicious “truthiness.” According to Mr. Haidt, a person hearing a contradictory argument is able to discard this unwelcome information if only one person who claims to be knowledgeable steps forward to gainsay it. We can have 1000 experts, verses one “informed source,” and that’s adequate. This arrogance is then supported by the vast array of partisans who rush in to support the ignorant opinion.

The interesting thing about Jack, in regard to his persistence, is that he’s unwilling to engage in these matters directly. If you approach him face-to-face, he will regurgitate Republican boilerplate. You cannot get a conversation out of him. Never included in the endless mailings that he sends out is something that he has written or researched---something that he must answer to. He hides behind the writing of others. I have offered a number of times to “discuss” anything he likes. I once asked him why he sends us all this crap after being asked to desist. He became agitated, noticeably angry: “None of your business!” Well, actually it is.

After this latest mailing, about the usual crap: “we can’t give poor people welfare,” I returned an adult comment to his address list, which he carelessly included. He actually returned a quick apology, with the promise to never send me anything again.  Fine.  So I returned a simple, direct request to explain his priorities in this matter---something that he would have to consider and write down. Well, you can probably guess: no reply.

Right-wing “populists,” given voice by the Republican Party, have a narrative---a story that is intertwined within the myth of The American Dream. This story focuses on scapegoats and moves away from real issues of power and privilege. It’s a very compelling story and pulls at the unwary’s notion of “patriotism,” (see Patriots All).

The important factor here is that the Republican message goes straight to the heart; it has an emotional tag, and that’s what makes it so compelling. Democrats are inclined to counter this manipulation with facts and logic…heady stuff---boring, and for a less-than-intellectual, it goes right on by. We love to be told that we are victims. Liberals can’t seem to put together the catchy slogans that offer bromides to salve this open sore.

Beyond the allusion of “patriotism,” however, this all becomes very contradictory. There’s a “conservative,” religious sanction that has turned the Republican Party into a Church of Capitalism…in the name of Jesus. This is odd, considering that he was executed in part for overturning the money-changers tables in the temple. Those were the contemporary expression of capitalism, and the religious hierarchy extracted their cut from the commerce within their domain. Does this not cast Republicans in the role of the Jewish establishment that served Jesus up to the Romans?

Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer

300 Day Assessment

From a “liberal” perspective, the President’s record is anything but satisfactory. Our wars drag on, some have been dramatically expanded: Afghanistan, Pakistan. We are outraged over drone airstrikes, and consider them to be counterproductive. We are outraged by selective “killing” of civilians, including American citizens---. Beyond this, our government has become involved in a number of other struggles, as in Syria and Somalia.

There are endless other examples of failed policy on social and environmental fronts. The President was late on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” forced into moving on marriage rights by his vice president. This insane "war on drugs" still rages-- (aside from the toll that criminalization of drugs takes on our youth, who thinks that if the Canadian government outlawed tobacco products, our government would kill 70,000 of us to stop the flow of cigarettes across the Canadian border?); and he's been MIA on reeling in the financial establishment that has brought the world economy to its knees. These men should be in jail, not collecting record bonuses for their illegal practices (see accompanying article.)  Admittedly, much of candidate Obama’s “promise” was actually “expectations” on the part of the left wing. The president is a “Corporate Liberal:” he tilts left, but remains well within the bounds of the existing power structure. No corporate feathers are ruffled. Republican claims of liberal takeover and socialist decline are inane blather. (Comparisons with Hitler, Stalin, etc. are such vapid dribble that they magnify the irony: Hitler and Stalin were right-wing despots, not liberals. The Republicans have adopted and fully endorsed these leaders’ programs of propaganda/brainwashing, fear and hate mongering to gain political support.)

We can tell ourselves that if reelected, Mr. Obama will pursue the agenda that is really in his heart in his final years. But history has shown this to be unrealistic. Emerging from a triumphant, first term in 1996, President Clinton brought in enormous political capital, and many expected his second term to yield tremendous positive change. This was short-circuited by Republican exploitation of his personal foibles.

The real question looking forward to November is: which of our two candidates will make a better President for the next four years? While Mr. Obama is a known entity, we can only speculate about Mr. Romney. A more protean character has not been seen on the contemporary US tableau.

The Republican base, and the “Tea Partiers” in particular, have not lost their taste for the GOP promise to cut taxes, cut government services and balance the budget on the backs of the irresponsible, undeserving poor. The fact that this program has met with dismal failure every time it has been put to the test causes no caution or skepticism among this group of “believers.”

Mr. Romney has opted to 1) discard the conventional “shift to the middle” expected of general election candidates; 2) double down on expansion of our wars and our vast war-making capacity; and 3) glorify our nation’s position on the world stage, defying widespread international opposition, even among our “allies,” and fully re-endorsing “American Exceptionalism,” the primary source of the vast majority of our domestic insecurity and international mischief. Please re-visit our discussion of American Exceptionalism.

With almost daily faux pas that would make G. W. Bush blush, frequent disclosures of his shady business practices, even shadier personal financial practices, frequent offensive remarks made to almost every interest group, daily reversals on policy positions, evasion of almost any kind of concrete proposal or policy stance, the candidacy remains afloat.

Romney comes from a political family. Father George was a long-time political activist, governor of Michigan in 1962, and ran for president in ‘68. His mother ran for U. S. Senate. Both were moderate, and pursued many progressive programs. As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt followed a moderate course and set up the archetype of “Obamacare,” which he now vilifies.

But in order to run as a Republican, he must run as an extreme “conservative.” (Extreme conservative is an oxymoron, my friends.) His base, the one that led George W. Bush to office, is incredibly active, angry and energized by racial hatred of our African American President. We believe that the dichotomy between his personal beliefs and the “conservatism” which he’s forced to profess lies at the core of why the man makes so many mistakes. His blunders are a reflection of the battle going on inside. This does not, however, explain his personal problems, such as his tax returns. The man has been running for President for probably six years, or more. Reputed to have wealth approaching ten figures, as a future presidential prospect, everyone knows that the public expects him to pay taxes! Certainly he can afford it.

The latest flap is a case study in the difficulty of the campaign. In a video clip produced by Priorities USA, a senior citizen whose wife died from cancer after he was laid off from a steel plant, perhaps displaced by Bain Capital, alludes to Romney’s culpability. To cast her candidate in a favorable light, Andrea Saul, Romney’s press secretary, stated that if the woman had been a Massachusetts resident, Romney’s healthcare plan would have covered her and saved her life. (Actually, the woman had private healthcare insurance.) But the Republicans want to distance themselves from Romney’s plan in Mass.  Ann coulter, Rush and the GOP establishment demanded Saul’s head for going “off message,” “message” being reiteration of the same meaningless and misleading blather over and over ad nauseum.

It gets better! The most intriguing thing about this flap is that the video clip was an allusion only. There’s no claim of Romney’s blame. More significantly, it was never commercially broadcast…it was a brief bit on the internet. The Romney camp took the bait and in their indignant zeal to repudiate Mr. Obama, they forced the issue to public attention---the clip goes viral.

Meanwhile, the Obama campaign is circulating ads referring to Romney’s personal and business financial practices. With Romney as head of their audit board, Marriott Hotels was running a “Son of BOSS” tax evasion scheme for several years in the ‘90s. The IRS sued and Marriott was hit for back taxes and a multi-million dollar fine. This coupled with Romney’s personal tax avoidance schemes present an effective negative ad campaign. The Romney camp hasn’t bothered refuting this ad.

Instead, he counters with the claim that: Mr. Obama is trying to “undo welfare reform.” This is false. He signed an executive order which allows individual states discretion in implementing welfare. Republicans are supposed to favor “States’ rights,” but really they simply oppose everything Obama does.

We might assume that if elected, Romney will revert to the moderate policies that have highlighted his career, but that would be naïve. The reality of modern American politics is that immediately after election, a first term president begins running for reelection. That will demand continuing gratification of his boisterous, right-wing constituency. Robbinsense believes strongly that the spectacle that we have seen, which prompted most prominent Republicans to dismiss him as the worst candidate that the party could put forward, will continue to play out on the national and world stage. Romney will become George W. Bush II, a better-educated, perhaps more polished version, but every bit as embarrassing and disastrous for our country.

We know that there are good people at various levels of government still holding onto the Republican banner, but it’s difficult to get behind any candidate pandering to this base. For the last three years Republicans have shown that they have no interest in advancing the welfare of our country. In fact, they have been up front with this, announcing to the public that their legislative and political agenda for the next 3 ½ years was to unseat the President. In the process, they have done everything possible to aggravate our recession, including opposition to any program that might create jobs or restrain businesses from exporting jobs. Much of the President’s moderate policies have been pulled right from the GOP playbook, yet they still oppose and revile the man.

The Republican Party tosses the terms “liberal” and “conservative” around like pillows at an adolescent slumber party. “Liberal” comes from the root: liberty. The classic liberal is one who advances freedom, generally through change in social and political processes and institutions. “Conservative,” in contrast, is one who resists change, or strives to conserve the status quo. It doesn’t take much to see how the modern Republican Party has stood these terms on their heads.

While extolling the virtues of “understood” American freedom and “liberty,” the GOP pursues an agenda that actively suppresses our freedoms: freedom to vote, freedom of speech, freedom to assemble, the right to an abortion, freedom to control the size of our families (through birth control), freedom to practice any religion (except GOP-favored Christianity) and freedom to conduct our lives in a style that is different from their norm. They claim they want government “out of our lives,” but actually, they demand to have it in YOUR bedroom, monitoring your private affairs. This hypocrisy should not be tolerated.

While Robbinsense is dissatisfied with the record of the president, and recognizes that progress on any number of fronts toward reforming our society has been poor, the prospect of a Romney presidency is even worst. We advocate reelection of President Obama.

More Mayhem Among Money Mavens

by C. O. Jones

Jon Corzine was a star, a shooting star: CEO of Goldman Sachs, U. S. Senator (D.NJ), spending $62 Million of his own money in the 2000 election, recipient of the coveted Enron Prize for Distinguished Public Service in 2005, Governor of New Jersey in 2007, (another $38 Million). Corzine made things happen; he was a prince of the revolving door.

Returning to the public sphere in March 2010, he was appointed CEO and Chairman of MF Global, a multinational futures broker and bond dealer. With experience, political connections and a veteran of the revolving door, he was expected to turn around this mid-level company with a struggling balance sheet.

Always known as a risk-taker, Corzine took personal control of investment decisions and surreptitiously began buying European “sovereign bonds,” i.e. he began betting on the bailout of troubled European economies.

“Accepted" accounting procedures for these nefarious instruments allow profits to appear immediately after purchase of the bonds. Investors began taking notice that the firm was making a profit, and stock prices rose; but “customer” funds, as required by law, were kept aside.

 The cycle was augmented by pulling in funds from other sectors of the company through a highly risky and discredited financial practice called “Internal Repo.”  This led to the inevitable growing pyramid of profits: as long as the funds came in, more of these highly risky derivatives could be purchased, which led to ever greater profits shown on the books. With the funds leveraged to 40:1, staggering profits might be realized with a swing of a mere 2 or 3%. This, of course, promised enormous bonuses for Corzine. Conversely, a drop of 1 or 2% would produce margin calls from J. P. Morgan, Global’s banker, and trouble for investors---but not for Jon Corzine!

Finally, with Euro Bond holdings exceeding $6 Billion, word started leaking out, investors became nervous, and the bubble burst. MF Global now stands as the 8^th largest bankruptcy in US history. With $1.2 Billion in customer funds “missing,” we speculate that the funds were slipped into margin calls.

Testifying under subpoena at a House Agriculture Committee hearing, Corzine professed ignorance about the massive shortfall that emerged as regulators and federal investigators began probing MF Global's Oct. 31 bankruptcy. Though several committee members still thanked Corzine for opting not to cite his Fifth Amendment right to avoid testifying, others appeared somewhat irritated by his carefully chosen answers. Several described the financial jeopardy now faced by farmers and other agriculture constituents who were MF Global customers.

This sad, troubling tale comes four short years after the previous, massive collapse of the financial services industry, generated by industry fraud, and bailed out by government and future taxpayers. The point here is that the nabobs who run this industry know no bounds in greed and duplicity. The Obama administration has not brought justice to the men who cooked up the myriad of fraudulent schemes from the last mess, any more than it has brought Jon Corzine to justice.  There have been no trials, no jail time. In fact, the same people who brought down the world economy are still pulling the strings, and claiming even greater salaries and bonuses than before the crisis.

In another, recent financial corruption case, United States of America v. Carollo, Goldberg and Grimm, a threesome of bit players on Wall Street got convicted of obscure antitrust violations. This just-completed trial in downtown New York against three faceless financial executives, over 10 years in the making, allowed federal prosecutors to make public for the first time the astonishing inner workings of the reigning American crime syndicate, which now operates not out of Little Italy and Las Vegas, but out of Wall Street.

The defendants in the case – Dominick Carollo, Steven Goldberg and Peter Grimm – worked for GE Capital, the finance arm of General Electric. Along with virtually every major bank and finance company on Wall Street – not just GE, but J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, UBS, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Wachovia and more – these three Wall Street thugs spent the past decade taking part in a breathtakingly broad scheme to skim billions of dollars from the coffers of cities and small towns across America. The banks secretly colluded to rig the public bids on municipal bonds, a business worth $3.7 trillion. By conspiring to lower the interest rates that towns earn on these investments, they stole from schools, hospitals, libraries and nursing homes – from “virtually every state, district and territory in the United States,” according to one settlement. And they did it so cleverly that the victims never even knew they were being ­cheated. No thumbs were broken, and no cement goulashes were recovered, but lots of money disappeared, and its manner of disappearance had a familiar ring: organized crime.

In fact, stripped of all the camouflaging financial verbiage, the crimes the defendants and their co-conspirators committed were virtually indistinguishable from the kind of thuggery practiced for decades by the Mafia, which has long made manipulation of public bids for things like garbage collection and construction contracts a cornerstone of its business. What’s more, in the manner of old mob trials, Wall Street’s secret machinations were revealed during the Carollo trial through crackling wiretap recordings and the lurid testimony of cooperating witnesses, who came into court with bowed heads, pointing fingers at their accomplices. The new-age gangsters even invented an elaborate code to hide their crimes. They spoke in thieves’ cant, or as Italian mobsters talking about “getting a button man to clip the capo.” On tape after tape these Wall Street crooks coughed up phrases like “pull a nickel out” or “get to the right level” or “you’re hanging out there” – all code words used to manipulate the interest rates on municipal bonds. The only thing that made this trial different from a typical mob trial was the scale of the crime.

Some progress is being made. Last month the SEC announced a $150 Million refund to Capital One credit card customers for abusive, misleading, even fraudulent lending practices. OK, this is nice, but it represents hardly even a wrist-slap to the managers who carry out this chicanery. 

On cue, the international system brings us TIBOR, or LIBOR. This bank scandal is so large that Barclay’s Bank set aside $300 Million just for litigation. Fines for Barclay’s alone are near $500 Million. This scandal involves massive collusion, among the largest banks, worldwide, to manipulate interest rates (as in the Carollo case) to suit the individual bank’s portfolio.

While the fines here may reflect the magnitude of the crimes, the important factor is that Barclay’s share holders will shoulder the burden of the penalties. Those who committed the crimes go scot-free. These people belong in jail, for God’s sake, not idling around watching for the next big opportunity for a killing. Our political leaders don’t have the gumption to go after the criminals. We need new laws---a return to Glass Segal. We need regulatory teeth to enforce our existing laws. Legislative injunctions to prevent fraud and collusion are impossible because the bankers control our politicians.

Millions in this country alone live in crushing poverty. Scores of Einsteins and Mozarts live in squalor without a chance to present their gifts to the world. Bankers, who contribute nothing, control our politicians, travel the oceans in yachts and hide their millions/billions in foreign tax havens. We need to be aware, my friends, of the faceless threat from the reigning oligarchy that controls our country, our public dialog and us!

As we move toward what looks to be a pivotal election in November, consider the likely positions of our two candidates on confronting this threat to our democratic structure. We can conclude from the last 3 years that if re-elected, President Obama is unlikely to take dramatic steps to control the banks.

Mr. Romney, on the other hand, refuses to be specific on any policy issue. From what he does say, however, we can assume that he will continue the trend of taking the teeth out of regulatory agencies. Given that these are the only things that stand between us and the rapacious bankers, we must conclude that under his government this disturbing trend will continue unfettered. Take your pick.

C. O. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer

Conservatives All

In a relatively short February campaign speech, Mitt Romney used the word "conservative" 26 times. Does anyone know what that word means? Conservatives don’t know? For some reason they just want to hear it.

“Conservative” used to be a personal style, connoting a relatively staid demeanor and opposition to change. Republicans applaud Teddy Roosevelt, who championed conservation and reined in corporate greed.

As recently as the sixties, the philosophy was relatively clear. There was no question about what “conservative” meant to Barry Goldwater, in contrast to Lyndon Johnson. They were both eloquent in drawing out opposing visions for this country.

What a “conservative” stands for now is vague at best. He claims he will shrink government, but actually expands it, without raising taxes; he says derogatory things about government, wanting it out of his life, but into your bedroom; he seems to endorse solid, American values like baseball, lapel pins, apple pie, Chevrolet and guns, oh, and war, and is very responsive to corporate issues. In campaigning, these conservatives carefully say nothing specific about policies; they only smear their opponents, be they Democrats or fellow “conservatives,” who oppose their electoral objectives.

In scrutinizing politics, the editorial staff of Robbinsense has never before experienced anything like what has occurred in the last six months. Politics on our national stage has turned into comedy. One cannot tune in to the national news, be it CBS, MSNBC, CNN, or FoxViews, without being stunned into laughter.

Mitt Romney, the presumptive candidate, doesn’t fill squares for the "Tea Party" a loosely-packed bunch of whackos, most of who don't like black people and are resentful that we have a black president. While pandering to these offshoot zanies, the Republicans have presented a parade of marginal candidates, who have then been systematically shredded by each other, who are all awash in money presented by the Supreme Court, which seems to be the “legal branch” of the Republican Party, courtesy of "Citizens United.”

In response, Romney has contorted himself into the laughing stock of the country. He has chosen both sides of almost every important issue, sometimes contradicting himself in the same sentence: abortion, birth control, war/peace in the Middle East, bank bailouts, the Blunt Bill, health care, gay rights, Presidential apologies for American international atrocities. The only things that this man has not changed course on are 1) his insistence that he will undermine Social Security, 2) his determination to “balance the budget” on the backs of the poor, and 3) a defense of “American Exceptionalism.”

The up-coming election should be one of the most interesting in history---no “Tweedle-dee” and “Tweedle-dum” here. Obama is a known commodity: a measured, conservative man, with a slightly liberal agenda, driven by political expediency. The Republicans present a fascinating turn-around in their politics over recent times. Twelve years ago, the GOP cared only about winning. They stampeded behind George W. Bush, with a prominent pedigree and a hefty war chest, who promised to be a bland, conservative technocrat, but he turned out to be a radical in every sense of the word---and arguably the worst president in the modern era. Romney, aside from shamelessly pandering to his base and proposing the same policies as Mr. Bush, is literally promising to be more radical and an even worse president than he was! We know that a hard core of 20% to 30% will vote the Republican ticket no matter what. It will be interesting to see how many of the American people can forget this circus, and come to consider him as a viable candidate to lead our country. Good luck!

The Face of Tragedy

by C. O. Jones

In all the hoopla over the tragedy of Trayvon Martin, perhaps the most cynical comment comes from (would-be) news correspondent, Geraldo Rivera: “Parents, don’t send your children out with hoodies.” WHERE is the national, political, social outcry (in the face of the NRA during an election year) suggesting that parents: “Don’t send your children out with guns!” This includes our 15, 28 and 60-year-old children! There are millions of “George Zimmermans” out there whom we cannot order off the streets. George Zimmerman, and those now stepping forward to vouch for his “sweet” nature, is not the problem. The problem lies with US! We allow people like him to prowl the streets with guns. States like Florida, with comical laws, even encourage it. Arizona has gun laws now more permissive than the law whose enforcement led to the legendary gunfight at the OK corral in Tombstone in 1881.

Florida gun laws endorse a “vigilante” system of bounty hunting, with tacit immunity to what would otherwise, clearly be second degree murder. This self-promoted “protector of the community,” was clearly instructed by the police dispatcher to stand down. This incident is one more piece of a puzzle in which violence in our culture has become more and more accepted, to the point of veneration. Our street thugs who find glory in pounding each other to a pulp now make mega-bucks on TV in (respectable?) “Ultimate Fighting” leagues. I would rather watch a cock fight. Young people attend “slam dances,” in which violence is part of the fun(?) The U. S. Army now endorses “cage fighting,” in which many of the women, encouraged to participate, are carried off on stretchers.

Violence in sports runs the gamut, from the NBA, where it’s strongly discouraged, to the NHL, where it’s openly encouraged….to attract more fans. Roger Goodell, commissioner of the NFL, was praised for his tough stance against the New Orleans Saints coaching staff for imposing stiff sanctions in a “bounty hunting” scandal. Fines and suspensions? Am I missing something? We’re talking mob violence here, with bosses and goons. These men, passing out “contracts,” are guilty of assault and battery at least. They belong in jail, banned for life! Hey, Pete Rose just had a gambling problem; he wasn’t hurting anybody. Instead, our prisons are filled with people who want to smoke an occasional joint…or with kids whose only hope to escape inner-city madness is the drug culture.

Our children are encouraged to sit in front of television sets from age 1, where they watch violence and mayhem that makes Roadrunner Cartoons look like “.…a Jolly Holiday with Mary (Poppins.)” Is it any wonder that we, (THAT’S YOU AND I) are tolerant of our government conducting multiple wars all over the planet, killing thousands of innocents including assassination of our own citizens, for the sake of protecting commerce and our prerogative to dictate to these people how they should run their lives? Our so-called “liberal” president is just as guilty as the last ignoramus we ran out of office, with the help of term limits.

Take note, my friends, of the many forms and the degree of violence that permeates our culture and take a stand against it.

C. O. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer

Immigration "Justice"

Jackson Dave,

reporting from Los Angeles

Many of you may have missed this. Akio and Fukado Kawashima came to Southern California from Japan in 1984. They (legally) operated three popular sushi restaurants in The Valley and Thousand Oaks. Like many good citizens, they under-reported their income in 1991. For this they paid a hefty $245,000 for back taxes, interest and penalties, along with four months in prison. Nothing too interesting here.

Where this picks up steam is, in mid-February the U. S. Supreme Court, our Uber-watchdog of Republican (Party) interests, handed down a 6 – 3 ruling which allowed the INS to declare such a miscue an “aggravated felony.” Aggravated felony includes crimes of “fraud or deceit” that cost the miscreant more than $200,000; this subjects the offender(s) to automatic deportation.

The couple’s appeal went through the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals, then to the Supreme Court. Still sounds pretty ho-hum, you say? Well, speaking for the court was our own Prince of Darkness, The Honorable Clarence Thomas, Esq., Mr. Mum: “…the Kawashimas knowingly and willingly submitted a tax return that was false and therefore had committed a felony that involved deceit.” ---off with their heads!

Ok, the kicker: six months ago, the IRS discovered that, Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from that venerable, conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, over five years, a group says. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not include it on their financial disclosure forms.

"It wasn't a miscalculation; he simply omitted his wife's source of income for six years, which is a rather dramatic omission," Gillers said. "It could not have been an oversight."

The Supreme Court is "the only judicial body in the country that is not governed by a set of judicial ethical rules," Gillers added.

Some quick mental calculations give us unreported income of $680k, with a marginal tax rate for a couple in this bracket around 30% Federal, would yield a tax of approximately $204,000, plus five years of compounded interest and penalties. Get the picture? Justice Thomas should be deported to the closest Federal penitentiary and impeached for high crimes and “aggravated felonies.”

Number One: Thomas should have recused himself from the case.

Two: This man rarely speaks out on anything. What sordid irony would bring him to announce the decision?

Three: This man is a menace to our country, if not our society.

Four: What will it take to bring this court to its robed knees?

Five: For those who think George H. W. Bush was a pretty decent president, think again. Thomas is still only 63.

Regrets due here, as your editor is speechless in the face of indignation that accompanies this story: “Words fail me, my lords. Nothing that I might utter could possibly match the depth of my feelings on this matter.”

Jackson Dave is a Robbinsense staff writer

GAMAY, Roots of the Republican Right

For those bemused by the string of circus acts parading through the Republican nomination process, here’s your primer.

While the Republicans vie for the legacy of Ronald Reagan, the Gipper would disapprove of much of what they propose. He was not the fountainhead of Republican orthodoxy. The actual source of modern “conservatism” is William F. Buckley Jr. Sixty years ago, 26-year-old Buckley, recalling his term at Yale, authored God and Man at Yale. GAMAY, as it came to be known, essentially laid out the doctrine of modern Republican politics.

Buckley had two bones to pick with his alma mater:

First, in politics, Yale professors were teaching the Keynesian model of economics. As a laisey faire advocate, Buckley had no truck for government meddling in economic affairs. Surely the market would rein in industrialists and protect us from corporate and executive greed (as we’ve seen in the last few years?). Regulation and fiscal policies pursued by devious politicians would only bring distortion to pure market forces. Buckley advocated “individualism” to combat the looming menace of “collectivism,” the sure path to socialism, which he associated with “communist” regimes of Stalin and Mao Tse-tung.

Secondly, he was outraged over the academic, secular tilt of Yale’s religion department. By and large, the professors in theology at Yale, some of whom were ordained ministers, taught academic religious theory, instead of proselytizing the Christian faith to young, absorbent minds.

Buckley argued that academic freedom was a myth, and it was the responsibility of the University to lead its students down the path of [Buckley’s] choosing. “I believe,” he stated, “that the duel between Christianity and atheism is the most important in the world. I further believe that the struggle between individualism and collectivism is the same struggle reproduced on another level.”

The Cold War was raging, as well as a hot war in Korea, and McCarthyism had spread its tentacles across our vision of freedom. Still these forces did not directly affect Mr. Buckley, and he seemed to be unconcerned with issues of freedom. These parochial views clearly defy the vision of “intellectual,” which we normally ascribe to this erudite and articulate gentleman.

Buckley conflated Christianity and economics into the focus of our goodly struggle against an evil, Godless empire. It was good verses evil. Even scholarly, John Maynard Keynes would lead us down the path to perdition.

And who would argue with this doctrine? Who could argue with it? There was no logic behind it---then, nor is there now. This is sentiment, a rationality based on emotion and faith. But this sentiment has imbued the modern Republican Party with the almost mindless fervor that is required to lock out reasonable dialogue. Sentiment trumps logic, or facts, because it's backed by the force of emotion. They don't discuss matters of politics because they're not dealing with what they "think;" it's a matter of what they believe. "Facts" or science have no bearing. When speaking derisively of the "intellectual elite" they're talking of non-believers, thinkers!

This anti-intellectual approach leads directly to the bombast of demagogues like Rush Limbaugh. It leads to sensational titles to widely-selling books from people like Ann Coulter: “Treason,” “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” “Demonic,” and “Guilty: Liberal Victims and Their Assault on America.” It also leads many on the right to make the irrational connection between Republican conservatism and Christianity.

You wonder why actual conservatives such as Jon Huntsman and (even) Mitt Romney can’t breach the walls of Republican legitimacy. They don’t speak with fervor and righteousness. And when they try, they don’t get it right. They sound phony. The Republican base demands chords of crusade.

So the next time you slip into a “discussion” with a Republican, keep in mind that you’re speaking to his heart, not his head. If you’re not speaking his language, he won’t be listening.

American Normalicy

by C. A. Jones

It isn't surprising that Mitt Romney played the "American Exceptionalism" card in his first major foreign-policy address. What was startling, given Romney's image for moderation, was that he credited God for that exceptionalism.

"This century must be an American century," Romney said. "In an American century, America has the strongest economy and the strongest military in the world. God did not create this country to be a nation of followers."

This takes the invocation of the Deity a step further than George W. Bush's much-criticized 2003 State of the Union address, in which he said, "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to humanity." Bush's line is actually anti-chauvinistic, whereas Romney is claiming a divine blessing for his assertion that "We're No. 1." Well, God is an American, right?

Has the United States always been an exceptionally free and virtuous nation? (Are you kidding me??) If you have to ask the question, you are already well on the road to unpatriotic perdition—or so every Republican about to run for president seems to think. “Don’t kid yourself with the lie,” Rick Santorum recently told a group of college Republicans. “America is exceptional, and Americans are concerned that there are a group of people in Washington who don’t believe that any more.” Mike Huckabee gives the same indictment a quasi-spiritual spin: “To deny American exceptionalism,” he told Politico last August, “is in essence to deny the heart and soul of this nation.” In his new book, Mitt Romney adds a messianic note: “Billions of people today live in freedom, or have the hope of freedom who otherwise would have lived in despair, if not for the greatness of the United States.”

Romney, the Robbinsense projected winner of the Republican nomination, further states: “I believe we are an exceptional country with a unique destiny and role in the world.” It is noteworthy that there is zero Biblical citation to support such a claim. This, by default, comes from a “de facto,” “third testament” of The Bible, which only people like Republicans seem to grasp. Or maybe this would be straight from the writings of Joe Smith (LDS founder), who claimed to have “found” ancient writings, and who also happened to be an American. Well people always find reasons to believe that they are the chosen. But Romney goes on to state that those who don’t subscribe to his Third Testament are ready to “wave the white flag of surrender.” As such, they would be presumed to be unpatriotic. Sorry, Mitt, but a true patriot, is NOT in denial as to the transgressions of his loved ones, including his country; he assumes responsibility for their faults and errors. We expect, we demand this of our president!

God’s chosen are not bound by the rules of other mortals; certainly they need never admit error: “I will never, ever apologize for America,” he goes on. “When America is strong, the world is safer.” Vietnam notwithstanding, even a peek at world history since the fall of the “Iron Curtain” makes a mockery of this statement. This is precisely the dangerous attitude in a president that has launched three wars in the last decade!

The issue of Romney’s Christianity (as a Mormon) is moot. The significance here is that he openly subscribes to “faith-based” statesmanship. And virtually no prominent Republican will gainsay these assertions.

You can see, there is no “logic” or rational argument being forwarded here. This is pure “sentiment,” a notion to be taken on faith…faith, the issue that drives religion. We’re not supposed to operate our government on this element of human frailty, much less our country.

Today in a poll conducted by The Hill, 69% of Americans believe we are in decline. Yet even President Obama, in response to the drumbeat, is reluctant to buck the sentiment in an election cycle. He posits that “the 21^st Century will be another American century.”

Growing up in the ‘50s, politicians didn’t make pronouncements like this. There was no need to. We were that country, and the whole world knew it. Now this sentiment is central to the essence of the Republican Party, and its campaign buzz. The reason they trumpet this cause is that it is no longer true. But they will say it over and over again. We are bludgeoned by oh so many lies, leading us to irrational wars, irrational election decisions, over and over again, because they know that if they repeat a lie often enough, people will come to believe it.

In the action films of the ‘50s, the sheriff, Gary Cooper or John Wayne, was a normal person, with the courage to stand up for the weak and prevail against odds. This was accepted as a metaphor for our country. After our prestige and integrity were destroyed in Vietnam, Rambo emerged to signify our national will. Our new heroes were pumped up with artificial muscles and bristling with overwhelming firepower, like our pumped-up military. Rambo was a creature of American defeat.

The politicians who trumpet this cause are stand-ins for Rambo. Our government seduces us with: “Support Our Troops” to distract us from looking closely at the wars being waged in our names. When we had real wars and normal, conscripted Americans fighting them, our sons and neighbors, we were not distanced from the fighting. The “professional fighting force” gives us separation from war. Our politicians no longer ask us to pay for wars…more separation. They can wage their economic and political battles in a vacuum, away from our surveillance.

Today our heroes return from war to a country that has lost its nerve, lost its spirit, lost its prestige, and has no jobs to offer them. Does anyone wish to take on a rational discussion of American Exceptionalism?

C. A. Jones is a Robbinsense staff writer

Founder, O Ship of State

by Jackson Dave

The ship of state is a famous and oft-cited metaphor put forth by Plato in book VI of the Republic. It likens the governance of a city-state to the command of a naval vessel - and ultimately argues that the only men fit to be captain of this ship are philosopher kings, benevolent men with absolute power who have access to the Form of the Good. The origins of the metaphor can be traced back to the lyric poet Alcaeus and it is found in Aeschylus' Seven Against Thebes before Plato.

It’s difficult to find fulfillment of this promise in our list of presidential aspirants. Meanwhile, our ship founders while the government fiddles. How did we get here?

At the close of World War II The United States of America was not only the envy, but the pride of the world. Virtually all countries looked here with admiration, and for most, gratitude. In less than four years, for the second time in a generation we had extracted the world from the jaws of horrific war. We were in the course of rebuilding allies and vanquished foes, through The Marshal Plan. We were the economic and manufacturing engine of the world. We were (in the eyes of the world) a beacon of freedom.

The course of history shows that great empires, through corruption and greed, swallow their own hubris and sink into decline and despair.

In the ’60s our ship of state hit hit its first, post-war iceberg. Both our self esteem and international prestige were challenged by the Vietnam fiasco. Sponsored by our own State Department, under the hand of no less august proctor than Dean Acheson, this war was a vestige of antebellum, European colonialism. Vietnam was a “pushover pawn” to fight the supposed threat of communism. A succession of five presidents could not find the courage and wisdom to put an end to the carnage and disgrace.

In the ‘70s Toto pulled the curtain back to expose a vulnerable giant. Our own president announced to the world that we could not satisfy our thirst for energy. We discarded him in order to maintain course. Middle East oil was inexpensive, and kept so by our bristling military might, and we wallowed in the politics and drama of that dysfunctional region. Our balance of payments dropped below the red line. The world watched as we were again humiliated by foes and friends alike (Iran, Hussein in Iraq, Israel).

The ‘80s, “Morning in America,” saw our government lead the charge on our own economic health as “Reaganomics” led to a spiral of debt. In the international sphere we sponsored another major proxy war; this time Afghanistan stood in (for us) against the Soviet Union, instead of Vietnam standing in for the Soviet Union against us. Meanwhile, we promoted and supplied both sides of a terrible war between Iran and Iraq in a misbegotten effort to control that region and keep the oil flowing. We provided chemical weapons to our friend, Saddam Hussein, who later used them against his own people to retain power. International disgrace was intensified by illegal arms deals and meddling in Latin America. For the first time, the United States of America became a debtor nation, beholden to the world not only for energy, but for our economic stability.

The ‘90s brought a brief plateau in our decline. Military expenditures were cut back and our economy prospered. But on the political front, chaos struck as an ambitious congressman (Newt Gingrich) saw an opening for power from below. Taking a page from the playbook of “Tailgunner Joe” (McCarthy) he trumpeted his “Contract with America” as a cure for evils he invented. Our political climate turned from backroom cooperation to personal attack and intransigence. This kind of impasse had not been seen since the nineteenth century. The “contract” was really a manifesto of political war, leading one of our major parties, believing its own rhetoric, to no longer tolerate being out of power.

At the dawn of the new century we hit two more icebergs. Re-implementation of “Reaganomics,” brought exploding deficits. This coupled with financial deregulation led to an economic disaster which has spread over the world. Meanwhile, our jobs have been shipped overseas and our manufacturing base has disappeared. International meddling, which finally resulted in an attack on our shores, led a reckless president to seek his personal legacy by unleashing our military colossus against any country he didn’t like. In the face of government lies that we didn’t want to see through, we stood back and allowed him to do it. We prefer war to truth, so long as we (think we) don’t have to pay for it, and my kid doesn’t have to fight.

In 2012 we find our ship of state taking on water as we navigate the next century. Almost everyone believes that we have the resources to repair the ship and sail on to prosperity. Our crew has the equipment and experience to repair the hull. Our captain is a capable and honest leader.

But the first officer, with a sizable faction behind him, wants to take over the ship and the drums of mutiny ring out. The problem is that the ship can probably reach the next port, and most of us will be getting off there…we don’t care enough about the ship or our descendants, who will be sailing on, to take action. The first officer, rather than showing us how capable his faction is at repairing the ship, has adopted the strategy of blocking all efforts to plug the holes. (While the lower decks are awash, the mutinous faction has quarters on the upper decks!) He hopes the passengers will blame the captain. But while recent history clearly shows that when in command, the first officer will continue on through ice-infested waters, it's clear to most that he is brazenly threatening to allow the ship to sink if not promoted to captain.

The question remains: “How high does the water have to get before we passengers remove the first officer from the chain of command and take charge, as we did on United flight 93, bound for the capital?” It’s no mere co-incidence that the same party that supports the mutinous first officer seems to do all it can to sabotage an educational system that might teach our children what’s been happening to them.

Jackson Dave in a Robbinsense staff writer

Social Disconnect

Dear Senator Boxer:

To remind you of what occurred in Afghanistan last week, President Hamid Karzai pardoned Guinaz, a 19-year-old woman, victim of rape, who has been incarcerated since “her crime” and has borne the child of the rapist while in prison. The victim was imprisoned, not the rapist, because she had sex out of wedlock. Meanwhile, the condition of the pardon is that both Guinez and her attacker agree to marry---each other.

The separation in social mores between this society and ours cannot be described in a short letter. Yet we expend our national treasure in prestige, lives and wealth to support this government against attack from its own people. You may contest that the Taliban would treat its women even more harshly; but that is their affair, Ma’am, not ours. The responsibility for THIS government is ours. We have no more legitimate authority over the progress or process of this society than we had authority over the Vietnamese people, 50 years ago, while we proceeded to destroy their country. These people will transform their society on their schedule, not on ours.

You, my government, tell us our mission is succeeding, as you told us 50 years ago that the struggle in Vietnam was succeeding. Our proposed success lies merely in driving our “enemies” under ground---awaiting our departure. In the meantime, large numbers of those who collude with the proxy government that we have put in place are executed for their treason. This is madness.

Your other excuse for our commitment, that we confront terror on their soil, is equally lame. Our military presence in that part of the world incites their passionate, selfless commitment to attack us. Our military presence there also drives Iran toward the nuclear option, which is their only assurance that we will not attack them. After we depart, they will return to squabbling among themselves.

I beg you: Stop this insanity. Bring all of our troops home immediately. We have plenty of egregious problems to address here at home. Our national treasure will be much more effective in the form of goodwill and war reparations.