A few days ago, a friend (we’ll call her “Mary Jane Doe”), sent me the text of a speech ( you can read it here: http://jihadwatch.org/archives/o22867.php). , and a series of emails ensued, which I have decided to put together, here. The text was prefaced by this (I don’t know who wrote it; I doubt it was Mary, because of the grammatical and structural errors):
This is of critical importance for all Americans to read.... and to integrate. It is... essentially a call to arms... irrespective of age or religious preference. We are at war beyond Iraq and Afghanistan ... and Pakistan to be complete and throw in Indonesia if you will. Ignoring it can only lead to a blood bath that will dwarf what is happening to our ever-dear economy... not the same as life and threats against existence.
My first response was:
Knowing nothing about it, I looked up the Hudson Institute. It is a conservative think tank, founded in 1961 by a futurist, military strategist named Kahn. They seem to be somewhat xenophobic and care more for the concentration of money and power than the welfare of human beings. I think this speech is A )preaching to the choir of conservatives, and B) alarmist and probably a little paranoid and reactionary. It may be the pot calling the kettle Jewish, but I'm not sure. If you have a few grains of salt, it might be good to use them in reading this. Thanks.
Mary wrote back:
I wouldn't take the article so seriously if I hadn't met a middle age doctor several months ago who left a very successful practice in France as a prominent ultrasound doctor, dragged his wife and teenage twins to the U.S. so he can start over, becoming a medical resident again, because he feared for his family's safety in France because they are Jewish. He had a good life, was well respected, was a prominent physician in his area of specialty, having authored books on his specialty. If the article had not reiterated his story I would not have taken it so seriously.
I have spent all of my life bending over backwards being politically correct even before it was the popular thing to do. I think it's been a diservice to myself and is a diservice for my country to do likewise. It violates the basic principle that each of us needs to live by: to thine own self be true.
I am becoming a bleeding heart conservative, I guess.--
Not being inclined to let this issue rest, I got up in the middle of the night and wrote back, as follows:
Interesting story that could well be true. If it is, that's a shame, and I wish him and his family the best. But you should get your terminology straight: Bleeding hearts are, by tradition and defintion, liberals. True conservatives have no heart, therefore they cannot bleed. You can't have your cake and drink plasma, too.
It is possible, however, for you to be a sympathizer. Both liberals and conservatives can do that without fear of losing any blood, at all. On the other hand, people who have sympatized in the past, with communists, African Americans, the disabled, war vets, the poor, the oppressed and the disenfranchised have been jailed, harrassed and spit upon. Many of them have become "community organizers", and the McCain/Palin campaign has gone to great lengths to make sure we know what awful people (like Obama) they are. In Mississippi and Alabama we just shoot them and leave their bodies by the side of the road. In Russia, they get sent to Siberia along with the Jews. In other parts of the world, symapthizers get hung or have burning tires hung around their necks. No matter where it is, as long as it is called genocide or ethnic cleansing, and the non-liberals wind up with most of the money and the tanks, conservatives have no problem with it. Their non-hearts lose no blood. But you can sympathize if you like.
Many sympathizers tend to be young, liberal or Democrat or all three. They are dealt with (and those with whom they sympatize) by making it hard for them to vote, throwing out their votes, rigging their voting machines and under-funding or eliminating the programs they represent or count on. The heartless, bloodless conservatives wish they all lived in Ohio, where it appears they are easiest to control. That particular movement is called 'compassionate conservatism" and we all know how well that has worked out. A team of medical experts are, as we speak, researching the improbablity that someone can be compassionate and have no heart, all at the same time. I hear their funding has been cut again.
Also, however, Mr. Kahn and the other founders of the Institute (who mostly came from the Rand group) was at least sympathetic to Jewish ideas and both radical Jews and radical Islamists have a knack for speaking in especially vile and foreboding terms about one another. The Hudson group (you can read this stuff on Google or Wiki) is admittedly a "think tank", where they worry about concentrations of money and power and do what they call "future think". I.E., they contemplate whose views will get to dominate those of others in the future. They like to make big decisions for people they consider little. It is the neo-con version of the rapture or getting to have sex with 70 virgins in heaven. "Think tanks" by the way, as I heard them described recently, are places where people learn to "think tanks". They are visionary only insofar as they look foward to and plan for a future when it will be (they think) necessary to blow up or dominate the next deserving segment of the world's population. There are certain places in the US where your Dr. friend could have moved and felt just as fearful as he was in France, for instance, anywhere there are Southern Baptists or members of the religious right who refer to Jews as "Jesus killers". Or there is always Argentina, where he could have the chance to work in a hospital alongside Dr. Mengala.
Come to think of it, radical Islamists and Nazis have much in common, but the radical Muslims are moving to Europe and the European Nazis are moving to Latin America. Then the latinos move to the U.S. and buy from the Arabs who run the 7-11 stores. It all works out except for middle class Amrican whites, who lose their jobs because the Husdon and Rand groups, and the bankers, have helped move their jobs to Asia, where they can build tanks more cheaply. (You probably didn't know I had this figured out, did you?) WWIII will be fought on the ground with guns and tanks made in China, the airplanes will come from Brazil or Argentina, but the sophisticated missiles will come from GE (but made in Indonesia), whose advisors are the Hudson and Rand groups. And the Paulsonites and Bernankes and other neo-cons. And before you ask, neo-cons do not have neo-hearts.
Most non-Jews, in America at least, have no problem with Islamists: Latinos know that they run every 7-11 in the US, at which they and the disenfranchised blacks do business at prices approachin usury (see above). I (we) do have a problem with radical Islamists, everywhere. But it is the same problem I (we) have with right-wing, fundmentalist, bible-beating, snake handling evangelicals who think it is quite all right to murder doctors and nurses who do abortions. Radical right-wing anybodies (anti-bodies?) are dangerous and belong locked up together in a colony on an island somewhere. They are harmful to children and other living things, sort of like (but worse) than Sarah Palin. And far right-leaning Jews can be just as anti-social and militaristic and can maintain as high a disregard for life as anyone else: the hawkish side of the government of Israel, aided by "thinkers" from places like the Hudson Institute, are all hunkered down and ready to use their US made weapons to blow up Iran, and nobody really understands why. Some in Iran would be happy to visit Israel the same destruction, but GE, the Hudson group and the neo-cons won't sell them the firepower. There are skunks in every kind of woodpile. Literal "scriptural" believers of any ilk or faith and are equally dangerous. They just wear different garb. I'm guessing St. Paul would approve across the board, as long as no women can have a say in what happens (see below).
Speaking of scripture, while we are at it, as a scholar of said stuff myself, the next time you ponder sending me a biblical quote or reference involving the "apostle" Paul, you should know that history has proven quite convincingly that Paul was a right-minded political fund raiser for the early Catholic church, who was a complete chauvinist pig who thought strongly that all women should stay home, barefoot and pregnant and kiss their husband's asses. It is quite posible that Karl Rove is his direct descendant. Somehow, I don't see yo travelling with this crowd.
You are my friend, and I care about you deeply, but your latest emails have me concerned about how your thinking has changed. Lord knows I don't want you to be politically correct, but if you are going to let your heart bleed, donate the blood to the right (not THAT right) causes.
And I got out of bed to say this? Sheesh.
I went back to bed but awoke still troubled and questioning. After some more research ( and yielding ot the urge to release of at least small amounts of skeptical indignation), I sent this to Mary:
Addendum to Thoughts about Wilder’s Speech, the Hudson Institute and the Spread of Radical Islam.
Still not being able to sleep or leave this conversation alone, I went back to Google and Wikipedia and searched out Gert Wilders. I am sending this along, because after I railed at you the last time, after you told me about your French doctor friend, I thought I owed it to you to make sure I had my facts and suspicions straight.
Gert is a Dutch parliamentarian, born in 1963. As it said in the preface to the speech you sent me, he was speaking as the Chairman of the “Party for Freedom”, and as a member of the “Alliance of Patriots”, prior to speaking at the “Facing Jihad Conference”, which was held in Jerusalem.
Right off the bat, I’m hearing Donald Rumsfeld, a torture approving, Lazarus-like, neo-con conservative Republican, presenting the virtues of the Patriot Act to a group of Pentagon military advisors, who are preparing to invade Iraq (and any place else where they think they can use tanks and guided missiles to create chaos and cause death and destruction. George W Bush is seated in the front row, and Dick Cheney is watching electronically, from an undisclosed location.
Gert, bless all of his flowing white hair, is a rabid anti-Islamist and ethnic bigot, having made countless speeches on the subject, attempted to push through legislation in the Netherlands that would impose great restrictions on any Muslim and ban the Quran. He has made a very controversial film (it is on YouTube), written extensively on the subject and has had numerous threats made on his life, and they were not all by Islamists. His "Freinds" list on MySpace is apparently very short.
Wikipedia says he could be genberally described as a Dutch version of an American Libertarian: smaller government, lower taxes, reductions in welfare and conservative economics. As the speech states it, his main premise is that “our political correctness is costing us our freedom and our future”. He is very single-minded in his view of the world, clearly xenophobic and protectionist and prone to over-statement and at least some exaggeration. I think there are many specific sectarian groups in America who would welcome him. I don’t happen to belong to one of them, and I don’t think you do, either.
In this country, he has been publicly interviewed only by Glenn Beck of CNN (who is being welcomed with open arms to Fox Noise, very soon). Other than speeches to groups like the Husdon Institute, he has not been welcomed in many other places in the US.
When I first responded to you about the speech, I recommended taking it with a grain or two of salt. This morning I am changing that recommendation to a large box of Morton’s Course Kosher Salt that you can get at the HEB. See ya.
I am not altogether certain what all of this means, but I do know that an election is coming up, everyone’s extreme urges and desires to believe anything that makes them feel both smart and empowered are running high and this is not the time for anyone to be sidetracked or high-jacked by over-the-top rhetoric about anything from anybody. If that is too subtle, let me put it this way: urge nervous white people not to vote white just because the McCain campaign has played the race/ethnic/9-11 fear card.
My thanks to Mary Jane Doe for pouring (kosher) salt in a wound I didn’t know I had.
Life goes on in Texas.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Cognition Negligence
I am going to watch the vaudeville act again tonight, and I will not hold my breath for anything meaningful. But I have been watching and reading closely for days now, and I think the whole country has got it wrong.
Everyone is getting told by the media that Obama is 14 points (?) ahead and the Dems are already "measuring the drapes", as they say. But we have three weeks to go and I am hearing several things that lead me to believe that the Dems are living in la-la land.
First off, Bushco can start another war. Or they can keep de-engineering Wall St. to the point where everything collapses. Paulson will be made CZAR.
States like OH, FL and MI are ripe for voting fraud and rigged voting macnines.
Lots of folks who speak Obama-ese in public will slip behind the booth curtain and vote white because most of America is very racist.
Some one will shoot Obama. McCain will get sick. Cindy MCcain will shoot John for screwing Sarah in the back of the bus.
The results will be contested and go to court for months while the market tanks some more and we start another war.
The Supreme court will declare the whole election bogus and we will start all over again.
People will riot and cities will burn and W will declare martial law. Israel will attack Iran and the mid-east will explode
The repugs will steal the election in some way and everyone will just say "OK" and everything will go to hell as we bomb.bomb,bomb Iran.
Beyond that, I am very optimistic but I think the bulk of the country is stupid and numb. We should just pass out beer at the polling places. It worked in Chicago.
Everyone is getting told by the media that Obama is 14 points (?) ahead and the Dems are already "measuring the drapes", as they say. But we have three weeks to go and I am hearing several things that lead me to believe that the Dems are living in la-la land.
First off, Bushco can start another war. Or they can keep de-engineering Wall St. to the point where everything collapses. Paulson will be made CZAR.
States like OH, FL and MI are ripe for voting fraud and rigged voting macnines.
Lots of folks who speak Obama-ese in public will slip behind the booth curtain and vote white because most of America is very racist.
Some one will shoot Obama. McCain will get sick. Cindy MCcain will shoot John for screwing Sarah in the back of the bus.
The results will be contested and go to court for months while the market tanks some more and we start another war.
The Supreme court will declare the whole election bogus and we will start all over again.
People will riot and cities will burn and W will declare martial law. Israel will attack Iran and the mid-east will explode
The repugs will steal the election in some way and everyone will just say "OK" and everything will go to hell as we bomb.bomb,bomb Iran.
Beyond that, I am very optimistic but I think the bulk of the country is stupid and numb. We should just pass out beer at the polling places. It worked in Chicago.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Habitual Liars or Just Sick?
Pseudo Populists, Politics and Legitimized Immorality
I try never to engage in conversations that have anything to do with morals. The biggest reason is that these exchanges usually wind up not being conversations at all, but highly opinionated and animated harangues, defiant, judgmental outbursts which preclude logic, ignore history and insist that God has had something definitive to say about it. Trust me, here, God did not invent or create the concept of morality: man did it, and he probably did it in order to get the upper hand in some awkward situation. He/she wanted to put something over on his/her brother/sister-in-law, to save some money, to get out of an obligation or to justify why he/she slept with his/her bother/sister-in-law/neighbor’s wife/husband and should not be prosecuted. But God had nothing to do with any of it and should be left out of the discussion. God has bigger fish to fry, or to create, depending upon your perspective. And please do not try in any way claim that any of the above reasoning had anything to do with intelligent design. Creative marketing? Maybe. And if morality was not treated so irrationally, we would not have racism, sexism or homo-phobia. You can tune in later, for that.
But the current political milieu in America is trying my patience. As much as I would rather not talk about morals, I am finding it much more difficult right now to avoid the issue. In order to continue this exercise, I need to ask you to agree with me on just one definition: Any acts, or deeds, or the thoughts that may precede them, are immoral if the end result is that another human being is hurt, harmed or suffers. Now I know that this can describe a wide range of both hurt and suffering: you may just get your feelings hurt or you may suffer financial loss. Or you may wind up being unjustly imprisoned. Or worse. Perhaps you might get blown up by a terrorist, or some “maverick” in an F-16 could napalm your village? Or perhaps it is a lesser crime, like having a drunk driver total your car or some foul degenerate rapes your daughter? Or a priest fondles your son or a right wing fundamentalist blows up an abortion clinic( killing three doctors and two nurses in order to “save a life”… it is amazing what people can talk themselves into). Immorality comes in all shapes, sizes and disguises, to be certain, but some of it we can stop, some it we can prevent and some it we can eliminate in it’s infancy before too many more people get hurt or suffer. Generally, we refer to that as a process of education. Generally that requires the dissemination of information.
Let me give you now, three elements of contemporary life to consider, both together and separately. These are 1.) the concept of “talking points”(one form of information dissemination), which has become 2.) the art of lying and deliberate deception, and then 3.)the acceptable parameters of mental illness in our society. Before you ask me how in the world I managed to hook these three items together, let me just say that if it were not for the electronic media and the challenges and intellectual fire alarms that were set off for me by two close friends, I would never have managed this conflagration on my own.
I have become increasingly annoyed and nauseated by the incessant, droning use of talking points to further the ends of political campaigns. I was recently reminded that this repetitive practice was originated by a man named Frank Luntz, and it has been a round since the 1960’s. While indeed everyone seems to employ the strategy, it is most commonly used by the non-thinking, regurgitative sect of the conservatives. These I call “pseudo populists” and are usually Republican office seekers and their surrogates. This strategy involves repeating two or three points over and over again, whether they have a grain of truth or not, in complete concert with your fellows (or girls), in the hope that if they are heard often enough, someone will accept them to be true. On Sunday, Oct. 5, Gov. Pawlenty (R-MN) and Rep. Mel Martinez (R-FL) appeared on a panel on the ABC weekly program, hosted by George Stephanopolous, and gave (almost) the best demonstration of talking point technique I have seen lately. Speaking from separate locations, speaking almost word for word, they both repeated the same mantra about John McCain: He is 1) a maverick (he is not, and everyone knows it now), 2) a populist (he is not: he is an erratic opportunist who owns too many houses and cars and has lost touch with anything down to earth), and 3) he is a “straight-talker”: that might be the case if you can figure out which side of his mouth he is talking from at any one time. He may have been once, but he has zigged and zagged and flipped and flopped so often that nothing is straight, any longer. Dare I say, the man lies?
As Joe Biden would say, “Let me say that again”: both Pawlenty and Martinez repeated the same three point message, nearly word for word TWICE. These three statements were all lies, and if accepted as fact, they will all surely hurt someone or cause suffering, somewhere. At issue for me is whether or not they actually believe what they said, and as lies, do the statements themselves constitute immorality? And what does it all have to do with what we will accept as permissible and acceptable levels of moral human behavior? More on that, later.
Putting aside, for just a moment, at least, the fact the DJ average is down 539 points as I write, and America’s financial crisis (which seems to have been brought on by copious lying and deception on Wall Street, which was seemingly enabled by copious lying and deception in the halls of government) is spreading to markets around the world at an alarming rate, let’s talk about Sarah Palin for a moment. Hell, the rest of the world is.
Sarah Palin came from relative obscurity and exploded onto the national scene largely because, lacking any substance, poise, intellectual acumen or inherent skills, she could read and memorize talking points. She can lie well and consistently. Pundits, critics and analysts have dissected her (somebody’s) every word for days. And they have worked hardest (especially on SNL) to cull (without result) any important and salient points from her debate performance. Everyone seems to agree that Ms. Palin can fluently repeat that she and McCain are both mavericks, she can display herself and speak (if crudely) as a populist, and has no trouble repeating the claim that John McCain is a straight-talker. Now does all that sound familiar? And the RNC expects us to accept her as legitimate. Be serious.
Clearly the use of talking points has reached a new peak. And clearly those using the points mentioned here are counting on the success of repetitive lies and then the deception that they hope will result. Which brings me to the subject of mental illness.
Also very clear is the fact that these pseudo populists will say virtually anything to get elected, and will say it over and over again. I am still mulling over what this may say about in what manner of regard they hold their fellow man (Palin speaks of Eskimos as “Arctic Arabs”?). But these talkers are like a Greek chorus in a tragedy that is playing out before us. In all the instances I have cited here, Pawlenty, Martinez and Palin have all fallen exactly in lock step with the party line, in an amazing uniformity. Ms. Ptof-whatever-her-name- is, as a McCain surrogate and spokesperson (and another pseudo populist) even showed enough boldness to appear on the Rachel Maddow show this week, and perform exactly in the same manner. I.e., she repeated the same claims with as much bald-faced-ness as Pawlenty, et.al. (What I find curious, as do many others, is that McCain himself, as the party standard bearer, has not been so consistent: indeed, from day to day he seems unable to remember what he claimed, as chapter and verse, from the gospel of the day before. That really inspires confidence.)
While it was the urging of one friend that I was forced to remember that not only pseudo populist Republicans utilize the talk point strategy (Democrats can and do employ it, as well), it was another friend that urged me to acquaint myself with the concept of “anti-social personality disorder”. Much to my surprise, this is the point at which my thoughts about immorality and mental illness (or health) came together.
Among the other information I gathered from reading Wikipedia entries about anti-social personality disorder, I learned that persons so afflicted have a blatant or “high disregard for the welfare of others”. This would seem to imply, at least to my way of thinking, that this disregard for the welfare of others is a kind of immorality, just as is lying, if it leads to the harm, hurt or suffering of others (has Ms. Palin shown us that she holds any other human being in high regard except John McCain? I know she doesn’t care about polar bears, but…). Now I would be loathe to make any broad, sweeping generalizations about either all Republicans, or even all pseudo populist Republicans, BUT….and I know I already have the nations mental health practitioners seething…
What is it that you say about a group of Republican (or Democratic) lawmakers (and aspirants to the same positions) who deny extending unemployment benefits to the 159,000 newly unemployed in the American work force, when you must think about this as a possible disregard for the welfare of fellow humans? What might you say about this group, when they blindly give $700BN to bail out Wall Street CEO’s and do nothing to stave off the home foreclosures for millions of the rank and file and the middle class? What do you say about this group who stand so firmly behind a President who authorizes the deaths of hundred and thousands (in fact hundreds OF thousands) of military and civilian people around the world for oil? What do you say and surmise about this group of people who deny health care to millions of Americans who have none and then offer subsidies to big pharmaceutical companies? What do you say about this group when they send thousands off to war and then deny them health care when they come home without limbs and afflicted by PTSD? Does it make you wonder if they have managed some form of collective denial? Or have they in some way become affected by serious anti-social tendencies?
Which brings me to this: what are we to say and think about the Pawlentys, Mertinezes, Palins, Rices, Cheneys and the Bushes when they lie so uniformly and consistently and without pause or hesitation? Have they succumbed to habitual lying? Is their notion of morality diametrically opposed to that of the rest of us? Do they really believe what they lie about so consistently, or are they simply delusional in their approach to life? Do they want power and control so badly that they are willing to skew completely their view of humanity and disregard its’ values? Are they basically immoral?
Pseudo populists of any ilk are seeking to legitimize immorality. Such abundant, consistent and pervasive lying will surely lead to the hurt, pain, harm and suffering of the many that will fall victim to it. Do I need to say that again, or shall I call Joe Biden?
And don’t give me any crap about that Ayres guy, in Chicago.
Life goes on in Texas
I try never to engage in conversations that have anything to do with morals. The biggest reason is that these exchanges usually wind up not being conversations at all, but highly opinionated and animated harangues, defiant, judgmental outbursts which preclude logic, ignore history and insist that God has had something definitive to say about it. Trust me, here, God did not invent or create the concept of morality: man did it, and he probably did it in order to get the upper hand in some awkward situation. He/she wanted to put something over on his/her brother/sister-in-law, to save some money, to get out of an obligation or to justify why he/she slept with his/her bother/sister-in-law/neighbor’s wife/husband and should not be prosecuted. But God had nothing to do with any of it and should be left out of the discussion. God has bigger fish to fry, or to create, depending upon your perspective. And please do not try in any way claim that any of the above reasoning had anything to do with intelligent design. Creative marketing? Maybe. And if morality was not treated so irrationally, we would not have racism, sexism or homo-phobia. You can tune in later, for that.
But the current political milieu in America is trying my patience. As much as I would rather not talk about morals, I am finding it much more difficult right now to avoid the issue. In order to continue this exercise, I need to ask you to agree with me on just one definition: Any acts, or deeds, or the thoughts that may precede them, are immoral if the end result is that another human being is hurt, harmed or suffers. Now I know that this can describe a wide range of both hurt and suffering: you may just get your feelings hurt or you may suffer financial loss. Or you may wind up being unjustly imprisoned. Or worse. Perhaps you might get blown up by a terrorist, or some “maverick” in an F-16 could napalm your village? Or perhaps it is a lesser crime, like having a drunk driver total your car or some foul degenerate rapes your daughter? Or a priest fondles your son or a right wing fundamentalist blows up an abortion clinic( killing three doctors and two nurses in order to “save a life”… it is amazing what people can talk themselves into). Immorality comes in all shapes, sizes and disguises, to be certain, but some of it we can stop, some it we can prevent and some it we can eliminate in it’s infancy before too many more people get hurt or suffer. Generally, we refer to that as a process of education. Generally that requires the dissemination of information.
Let me give you now, three elements of contemporary life to consider, both together and separately. These are 1.) the concept of “talking points”(one form of information dissemination), which has become 2.) the art of lying and deliberate deception, and then 3.)the acceptable parameters of mental illness in our society. Before you ask me how in the world I managed to hook these three items together, let me just say that if it were not for the electronic media and the challenges and intellectual fire alarms that were set off for me by two close friends, I would never have managed this conflagration on my own.
I have become increasingly annoyed and nauseated by the incessant, droning use of talking points to further the ends of political campaigns. I was recently reminded that this repetitive practice was originated by a man named Frank Luntz, and it has been a round since the 1960’s. While indeed everyone seems to employ the strategy, it is most commonly used by the non-thinking, regurgitative sect of the conservatives. These I call “pseudo populists” and are usually Republican office seekers and their surrogates. This strategy involves repeating two or three points over and over again, whether they have a grain of truth or not, in complete concert with your fellows (or girls), in the hope that if they are heard often enough, someone will accept them to be true. On Sunday, Oct. 5, Gov. Pawlenty (R-MN) and Rep. Mel Martinez (R-FL) appeared on a panel on the ABC weekly program, hosted by George Stephanopolous, and gave (almost) the best demonstration of talking point technique I have seen lately. Speaking from separate locations, speaking almost word for word, they both repeated the same mantra about John McCain: He is 1) a maverick (he is not, and everyone knows it now), 2) a populist (he is not: he is an erratic opportunist who owns too many houses and cars and has lost touch with anything down to earth), and 3) he is a “straight-talker”: that might be the case if you can figure out which side of his mouth he is talking from at any one time. He may have been once, but he has zigged and zagged and flipped and flopped so often that nothing is straight, any longer. Dare I say, the man lies?
As Joe Biden would say, “Let me say that again”: both Pawlenty and Martinez repeated the same three point message, nearly word for word TWICE. These three statements were all lies, and if accepted as fact, they will all surely hurt someone or cause suffering, somewhere. At issue for me is whether or not they actually believe what they said, and as lies, do the statements themselves constitute immorality? And what does it all have to do with what we will accept as permissible and acceptable levels of moral human behavior? More on that, later.
Putting aside, for just a moment, at least, the fact the DJ average is down 539 points as I write, and America’s financial crisis (which seems to have been brought on by copious lying and deception on Wall Street, which was seemingly enabled by copious lying and deception in the halls of government) is spreading to markets around the world at an alarming rate, let’s talk about Sarah Palin for a moment. Hell, the rest of the world is.
Sarah Palin came from relative obscurity and exploded onto the national scene largely because, lacking any substance, poise, intellectual acumen or inherent skills, she could read and memorize talking points. She can lie well and consistently. Pundits, critics and analysts have dissected her (somebody’s) every word for days. And they have worked hardest (especially on SNL) to cull (without result) any important and salient points from her debate performance. Everyone seems to agree that Ms. Palin can fluently repeat that she and McCain are both mavericks, she can display herself and speak (if crudely) as a populist, and has no trouble repeating the claim that John McCain is a straight-talker. Now does all that sound familiar? And the RNC expects us to accept her as legitimate. Be serious.
Clearly the use of talking points has reached a new peak. And clearly those using the points mentioned here are counting on the success of repetitive lies and then the deception that they hope will result. Which brings me to the subject of mental illness.
Also very clear is the fact that these pseudo populists will say virtually anything to get elected, and will say it over and over again. I am still mulling over what this may say about in what manner of regard they hold their fellow man (Palin speaks of Eskimos as “Arctic Arabs”?). But these talkers are like a Greek chorus in a tragedy that is playing out before us. In all the instances I have cited here, Pawlenty, Martinez and Palin have all fallen exactly in lock step with the party line, in an amazing uniformity. Ms. Ptof-whatever-her-name- is, as a McCain surrogate and spokesperson (and another pseudo populist) even showed enough boldness to appear on the Rachel Maddow show this week, and perform exactly in the same manner. I.e., she repeated the same claims with as much bald-faced-ness as Pawlenty, et.al. (What I find curious, as do many others, is that McCain himself, as the party standard bearer, has not been so consistent: indeed, from day to day he seems unable to remember what he claimed, as chapter and verse, from the gospel of the day before. That really inspires confidence.)
While it was the urging of one friend that I was forced to remember that not only pseudo populist Republicans utilize the talk point strategy (Democrats can and do employ it, as well), it was another friend that urged me to acquaint myself with the concept of “anti-social personality disorder”. Much to my surprise, this is the point at which my thoughts about immorality and mental illness (or health) came together.
Among the other information I gathered from reading Wikipedia entries about anti-social personality disorder, I learned that persons so afflicted have a blatant or “high disregard for the welfare of others”. This would seem to imply, at least to my way of thinking, that this disregard for the welfare of others is a kind of immorality, just as is lying, if it leads to the harm, hurt or suffering of others (has Ms. Palin shown us that she holds any other human being in high regard except John McCain? I know she doesn’t care about polar bears, but…). Now I would be loathe to make any broad, sweeping generalizations about either all Republicans, or even all pseudo populist Republicans, BUT….and I know I already have the nations mental health practitioners seething…
What is it that you say about a group of Republican (or Democratic) lawmakers (and aspirants to the same positions) who deny extending unemployment benefits to the 159,000 newly unemployed in the American work force, when you must think about this as a possible disregard for the welfare of fellow humans? What might you say about this group, when they blindly give $700BN to bail out Wall Street CEO’s and do nothing to stave off the home foreclosures for millions of the rank and file and the middle class? What do you say about this group who stand so firmly behind a President who authorizes the deaths of hundred and thousands (in fact hundreds OF thousands) of military and civilian people around the world for oil? What do you say and surmise about this group of people who deny health care to millions of Americans who have none and then offer subsidies to big pharmaceutical companies? What do you say about this group when they send thousands off to war and then deny them health care when they come home without limbs and afflicted by PTSD? Does it make you wonder if they have managed some form of collective denial? Or have they in some way become affected by serious anti-social tendencies?
Which brings me to this: what are we to say and think about the Pawlentys, Mertinezes, Palins, Rices, Cheneys and the Bushes when they lie so uniformly and consistently and without pause or hesitation? Have they succumbed to habitual lying? Is their notion of morality diametrically opposed to that of the rest of us? Do they really believe what they lie about so consistently, or are they simply delusional in their approach to life? Do they want power and control so badly that they are willing to skew completely their view of humanity and disregard its’ values? Are they basically immoral?
Pseudo populists of any ilk are seeking to legitimize immorality. Such abundant, consistent and pervasive lying will surely lead to the hurt, pain, harm and suffering of the many that will fall victim to it. Do I need to say that again, or shall I call Joe Biden?
And don’t give me any crap about that Ayres guy, in Chicago.
Life goes on in Texas
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Mud Slings and Wooden Arrows
This is October 2, 2008. The United States is on the precipice of, well, something. Nobody seems to know exactly what it is, but that is nothing new in American culture and politics. But I am sure that today you, like many others, are either transfixed by the prospect of the upcoming VEEP debate and/or scared to death about what happens next with the financial crisis. All I really know is this:
Re: the VEEP debate. Either Palin will finally and completely reveal herself as the single most unqualified person in the history of the country to hold high office, thereby irreversibly dooming the Republican campaign, or she will turn on her feminine charm (snake oil?) and seduce America once again (here, have an apple), thereby throwing the entire race into another cocked hat between now and the election. (Perhaps she will give everyone in America a sugar-laden sno-cone, to stave off the hunger pangs of the financial crisis) After reading everything I can get my hands on (I guess like the way Sarah reads newspapers: "All of um"), that is the best summarization I can manage about the nature of the debate , right now. Mostly, I just want her to GO AWAY! I have no more energy molecules to waste on her. Please, someone make it STOP! In the meantime, "I'll just hafta git back to ya." Gawd help us.
Re: The financial crisis. I am completely convinced the politicians (who are not economists) know absolutely nothing about what it is wrong or how to fix it. And with Dubya and Paulson leading the fray, it is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind ( Two MBA's in the same room is never a good thing: look at Wall Street). And the economists (who do what is going on and how to fix it) are largely being ignored by the politicians (who don't know...never mind. You know how that sentence ends). And these economists say that the bail-out/rescue/buy-in/relief effort bill is all wrong and misses the boat. In fact, in terms what America needs, long term, as well as any real for real help to come to Main Street (have you ever met a politician OR an economist on Main Street? I haven't), this bill not only misses the boat, it misses the dock, the shore and even the north American continent (parts of it do reach China, however).
Last night, the Senate (you elected 'em!) passed a version of this non-helpful legislation by a whopping 75% margin ( this just two days after the House rejected something like it by a similar margin: we are politically schizoid) . To no one's surprise, even in the midst of our darkest hour, it is packed chock full of earmarks and pork. The media pundits have said that these add-ons and taxation rule changes and FDIC modifications "sweeten" the bill enough for it to be passed by the House. The economists (whom the politicians don't listen to) say that despite all of this bombast and rhetoric (from the politicians who don't know what's wrong or how to fix it...there I said it again), that the Congress is saddling each American with an additional debt of around $2200.00. According to the politicians (who don't know..oops, sorry), we will get this back some day. Well, probably never in my (your) lifetime. Trust them. They are your friends. However, when you do get it back, it will be in Chinese currency.
This morning, that silly and irrelevant man pretending to be the President of the United States, met with some "business advisors" (Wall St. guys?) and then went on television to plead rather pathetically that the Congress should act quickly (that would be novel) because, "London Bridge is falling down, falling down". The only thing missing was the music. If you missed it, you missed nothing, because his oratory was simply "naw-some". That is to say. it was a combination of nauseous and awesomely bad. He didn't help. He should have been out walking Barney or riding his bike: either activity would have been as useful (he probably thinks he was offering his "contributoriness"). Lame ducks should never quack in public.
But the capper, here, may well be this: in his daily NYT op ed, Professor Krugman (Princeton and all that, one of those economists that politicians don't listen to) declared that this was not a good bill but it was the only one we had and we should do it...but he didn't like it. He then pointed out that one of the earmark/pork barrel/bill stuffers was a section that addressed special tax efforts on behalf of the makers of "certain kinds of wooden arrows, made for children".
If you can find something, anything more irrelevant or more absurd to attach to this landmark (boat-sinking?) legislation (which the economists say isn't going to work, anyway), then please tell me what it is. If the House has the gall, in the face of the huge public outcry against such an action, to pass this bill, then I submit to you that it simply won't matter whether Sarah Palin ends the evening looking like a pile of moose droppings on the snow, or comes off like the second coming of Mary Magdelene, speaking in tongues. We will all only have big government bags full of wooden nickels...er arrows... to show for it all. Somehow, I don't think that was what anybody had thought of as the perfect "rapture". Have a nice day and be careful what you do with your arrows.
Life goes on in Texas
Re: the VEEP debate. Either Palin will finally and completely reveal herself as the single most unqualified person in the history of the country to hold high office, thereby irreversibly dooming the Republican campaign, or she will turn on her feminine charm (snake oil?) and seduce America once again (here, have an apple), thereby throwing the entire race into another cocked hat between now and the election. (Perhaps she will give everyone in America a sugar-laden sno-cone, to stave off the hunger pangs of the financial crisis) After reading everything I can get my hands on (I guess like the way Sarah reads newspapers: "All of um"), that is the best summarization I can manage about the nature of the debate , right now. Mostly, I just want her to GO AWAY! I have no more energy molecules to waste on her. Please, someone make it STOP! In the meantime, "I'll just hafta git back to ya." Gawd help us.
Re: The financial crisis. I am completely convinced the politicians (who are not economists) know absolutely nothing about what it is wrong or how to fix it. And with Dubya and Paulson leading the fray, it is clearly a case of the blind leading the blind ( Two MBA's in the same room is never a good thing: look at Wall Street). And the economists (who do what is going on and how to fix it) are largely being ignored by the politicians (who don't know...never mind. You know how that sentence ends). And these economists say that the bail-out/rescue/buy-in/relief effort bill is all wrong and misses the boat. In fact, in terms what America needs, long term, as well as any real for real help to come to Main Street (have you ever met a politician OR an economist on Main Street? I haven't), this bill not only misses the boat, it misses the dock, the shore and even the north American continent (parts of it do reach China, however).
Last night, the Senate (you elected 'em!) passed a version of this non-helpful legislation by a whopping 75% margin ( this just two days after the House rejected something like it by a similar margin: we are politically schizoid) . To no one's surprise, even in the midst of our darkest hour, it is packed chock full of earmarks and pork. The media pundits have said that these add-ons and taxation rule changes and FDIC modifications "sweeten" the bill enough for it to be passed by the House. The economists (whom the politicians don't listen to) say that despite all of this bombast and rhetoric (from the politicians who don't know what's wrong or how to fix it...there I said it again), that the Congress is saddling each American with an additional debt of around $2200.00. According to the politicians (who don't know..oops, sorry), we will get this back some day. Well, probably never in my (your) lifetime. Trust them. They are your friends. However, when you do get it back, it will be in Chinese currency.
This morning, that silly and irrelevant man pretending to be the President of the United States, met with some "business advisors" (Wall St. guys?) and then went on television to plead rather pathetically that the Congress should act quickly (that would be novel) because, "London Bridge is falling down, falling down". The only thing missing was the music. If you missed it, you missed nothing, because his oratory was simply "naw-some". That is to say. it was a combination of nauseous and awesomely bad. He didn't help. He should have been out walking Barney or riding his bike: either activity would have been as useful (he probably thinks he was offering his "contributoriness"). Lame ducks should never quack in public.
But the capper, here, may well be this: in his daily NYT op ed, Professor Krugman (Princeton and all that, one of those economists that politicians don't listen to) declared that this was not a good bill but it was the only one we had and we should do it...but he didn't like it. He then pointed out that one of the earmark/pork barrel/bill stuffers was a section that addressed special tax efforts on behalf of the makers of "certain kinds of wooden arrows, made for children".
If you can find something, anything more irrelevant or more absurd to attach to this landmark (boat-sinking?) legislation (which the economists say isn't going to work, anyway), then please tell me what it is. If the House has the gall, in the face of the huge public outcry against such an action, to pass this bill, then I submit to you that it simply won't matter whether Sarah Palin ends the evening looking like a pile of moose droppings on the snow, or comes off like the second coming of Mary Magdelene, speaking in tongues. We will all only have big government bags full of wooden nickels...er arrows... to show for it all. Somehow, I don't think that was what anybody had thought of as the perfect "rapture". Have a nice day and be careful what you do with your arrows.
Life goes on in Texas
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Financial Black Ops for Main Street
Today, Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of (but not for) the House of Representatives (a group who obviously represents someone other than you and I), said that this gigantic, enormous, emergency (hurry up and pass this, before somebody notices) $700B Congressional bailout plan was:
"not a bailout. It's a buy-in".
If so, before I (we) start to feel better about this, I have a few questions (and so should you!). But before you even stop to consider the fact that the Congress has NEVER, EVER moved this fast, at any time in our history, you might review the following:
If it's not a "bail out", why is everyone carrying water buckets to and from Wall Street, and why are they filled with tax money?
If it's not a "bail out", why are the people carrying the buckets all taxpayers, while the people on Wall Street are looking smilingly out the windows, waiting for the buckets?
If it's not a "bail out", why are all the buckets coming back empty for the next five years?
If it is a "buy-in", who asked me (you) if I (we) wanted to buy in in the first place? Did I miss something?
If you were offered a chance to "buy-in", would you buy-in without a contract and some safeguards? "What's in your wallet?"
If you were offered a chance to buy in, would you do it with the Federal government as your partner? With George Bush as the CFO? With a contract written by government lawyers?(Put another way, how far are you prepared to bend over?)
If you were offered a chance to buy in, would you let Bernanke and Paulson be the brokers of record ?(remember that their lawyer was Roberto Gonzales...and he got fired)
Just in case someone might ask, would you like to have the option NOT to buy in? I don't hear Ms. Pelosi or the "Representatives" offering that one. (I thought I voted for these people. YOU?)
If this is not a "bail out", why are we so worried about the ship sinking? And if it is sinking, why hasn't someone looked for the leaks? Can anyone spell "Cause and Effect"? There must be"fault" lines here, somewhere.
And whether or not it is a "bail out" or a "buy in", why are the Chinese all smiling?
I think Ms. Pelosi is neglecting to tell us (lying through her teeth, maybe?) that this "buy-in" of Wall Street Real Estate is really like having us "buy-in" to beachfront property in Arizona. But that would explain two things:
It's probably why John McCain has awoken and is suddenly so keenly interested, as well as why we always talk about Wall Street as "swimming" in money.
WTF!?
Life goes on in Texas.
"not a bailout. It's a buy-in".
If so, before I (we) start to feel better about this, I have a few questions (and so should you!). But before you even stop to consider the fact that the Congress has NEVER, EVER moved this fast, at any time in our history, you might review the following:
If it's not a "bail out", why is everyone carrying water buckets to and from Wall Street, and why are they filled with tax money?
If it's not a "bail out", why are the people carrying the buckets all taxpayers, while the people on Wall Street are looking smilingly out the windows, waiting for the buckets?
If it's not a "bail out", why are all the buckets coming back empty for the next five years?
If it is a "buy-in", who asked me (you) if I (we) wanted to buy in in the first place? Did I miss something?
If you were offered a chance to "buy-in", would you buy-in without a contract and some safeguards? "What's in your wallet?"
If you were offered a chance to buy in, would you do it with the Federal government as your partner? With George Bush as the CFO? With a contract written by government lawyers?(Put another way, how far are you prepared to bend over?)
If you were offered a chance to buy in, would you let Bernanke and Paulson be the brokers of record ?(remember that their lawyer was Roberto Gonzales...and he got fired)
Just in case someone might ask, would you like to have the option NOT to buy in? I don't hear Ms. Pelosi or the "Representatives" offering that one. (I thought I voted for these people. YOU?)
If this is not a "bail out", why are we so worried about the ship sinking? And if it is sinking, why hasn't someone looked for the leaks? Can anyone spell "Cause and Effect"? There must be"fault" lines here, somewhere.
And whether or not it is a "bail out" or a "buy in", why are the Chinese all smiling?
I think Ms. Pelosi is neglecting to tell us (lying through her teeth, maybe?) that this "buy-in" of Wall Street Real Estate is really like having us "buy-in" to beachfront property in Arizona. But that would explain two things:
It's probably why John McCain has awoken and is suddenly so keenly interested, as well as why we always talk about Wall Street as "swimming" in money.
WTF!?
Life goes on in Texas.
Friday, September 26, 2008
A Sporting Event
I tuned in tonight, armed with a glass of Gatorade and a handful of fig newtons, to watch the debate, the one referenced in the subject line, above. I must have had the tuner on the wrong station, because instead of the fire that I expected to break out, with flames shooting at me in high def, instead of claims and counter claims, accusations and blame-gaming, I saw two people in boring suits, with boring ties ( and one guy in a puke-green shirt) starring in a replay of a ping-pong match.
The guy on the left kept saying the guy on the right was inexperienced and naive. He said that about seven times. The guy on the right kept saying, "You're right, John". He said that about eight times. When both guys were asked (by the only guy who was really "on topic") what they would both do without (as President) because there would be no money in the bank, they ignored him and played more ping-pong. They did that three times. Back and forth. Back and forth.
Afterwards, some other guy on TV said the guy on the left was "contentious". I just thought he was being old and gnarly. Then someone said the guy on the right was "too nice" and "missed a few openings". I just thought he was showing respect for his elders. You have to go easy on old people, especially when they work for the government and crashed planes for a living.
There was some chit-chat about oil drilling and alternative energy sources and resurgent surges of terrorists, and the guy on the left denied ever being Miss Congeniality but said he and his newgirlfriend were both Mavericks. At that point I thought maybe the guy on the right would start a real argument over how to pronounce the name of the president of whatsitstan, but instead he talked about tax loopholes for the drilling people who already had more money than the alternative energy people who needed tax breaks to pay for health insurance for the people installing the alternative energy equipment. And for a moment I wondered if while that was going on, the guy on the left was thinking about drilling his girlfriend.
It was all very exciting. It was something like the thrill I experience when I watch my instant oatmeal heat up in the microwave every morning. Then Keith Olberman made some jokes, and Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan yelled at the microphone about who went 15 rounds without a knockout, and I had some ice cream and went to bed.
Nobody ever did tell me what the hell they plan to do with that $700 billion. Maybe it's not important in ping-pong.
Life Goes On In Texas.
The guy on the left kept saying the guy on the right was inexperienced and naive. He said that about seven times. The guy on the right kept saying, "You're right, John". He said that about eight times. When both guys were asked (by the only guy who was really "on topic") what they would both do without (as President) because there would be no money in the bank, they ignored him and played more ping-pong. They did that three times. Back and forth. Back and forth.
Afterwards, some other guy on TV said the guy on the left was "contentious". I just thought he was being old and gnarly. Then someone said the guy on the right was "too nice" and "missed a few openings". I just thought he was showing respect for his elders. You have to go easy on old people, especially when they work for the government and crashed planes for a living.
There was some chit-chat about oil drilling and alternative energy sources and resurgent surges of terrorists, and the guy on the left denied ever being Miss Congeniality but said he and his newgirlfriend were both Mavericks. At that point I thought maybe the guy on the right would start a real argument over how to pronounce the name of the president of whatsitstan, but instead he talked about tax loopholes for the drilling people who already had more money than the alternative energy people who needed tax breaks to pay for health insurance for the people installing the alternative energy equipment. And for a moment I wondered if while that was going on, the guy on the left was thinking about drilling his girlfriend.
It was all very exciting. It was something like the thrill I experience when I watch my instant oatmeal heat up in the microwave every morning. Then Keith Olberman made some jokes, and Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan yelled at the microphone about who went 15 rounds without a knockout, and I had some ice cream and went to bed.
Nobody ever did tell me what the hell they plan to do with that $700 billion. Maybe it's not important in ping-pong.
Life Goes On In Texas.
Klugman...er, Krugman on our money
I will just keep sending Krugman along to everyone until he stops making such good sense. HE should go to Washington and McCain should go somewhere else. Far away.
And FactCheck.org reports this morning that the police chief of Wassilla ordered rape victims to pay for their rape kits, not necessarily Palin, although she may have had something to do with it. And it turns out that they shoot grey wolves in Alaska because they are largely a menace, like rats in NYC. Of course we have menaces walking the halls of the capitol in DC and we don't shoot them...curious.
----- Original Message -----
From: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
To: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: NYTimes.com: Where Are the Grown-Ups?
OPINION September 26, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist: Where Are the Grown-Ups? By PAUL KRUGMAN The grown-up thing to do is to rescue the financial system. If Henry Paulson isn’t the grown-up we need, are Congressional leaders able to fill the role?
Life Goes ON in Texas.
And FactCheck.org reports this morning that the police chief of Wassilla ordered rape victims to pay for their rape kits, not necessarily Palin, although she may have had something to do with it. And it turns out that they shoot grey wolves in Alaska because they are largely a menace, like rats in NYC. Of course we have menaces walking the halls of the capitol in DC and we don't shoot them...curious.
----- Original Message -----
From: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
To: ihentschel@austin.rr.com
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 9:20 AM
Subject: NYTimes.com: Where Are the Grown-Ups?
OPINION September 26, 2008 Op-Ed Columnist: Where Are the Grown-Ups? By PAUL KRUGMAN The grown-up thing to do is to rescue the financial system. If Henry Paulson isn’t the grown-up we need, are Congressional leaders able to fill the role?
Life Goes ON in Texas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
