I'm not smarter, but maybe I'm wiser

Frank Rich had an interesting article in the New York Times on Sunday titled, "Patriots Who Love the Troops to Death."

He mentions Michael Ignatieff, a former Bush War cheerleader, who acknowledged "that those who “truly showed good judgment on Iraq” might have had no more information than those who got it wrong, but did not make the mistake of confusing “wishes for reality.”"

Although I don't like to toot my own horn: me too.

The title: Patriots Who Love the Troops to Death is morbidly humorous but deadly accurate. I have to scoff at these war-lovers who, when confronted by these thousands of useless American military deaths, offhandedly remark: 'it's an all-volunteer army,' s if 'they were asking for it.' Or that other callous statement flowing from their lips; ' Vietnam saw 50,000 dead.' Which statement is more ignorant is up for grabs. Did you see that recent Young College Republican Convention video where the reporter asked these young men about supporting the war, then asked 'why haven't you joined the military?' The bobbing, weaving, and ducking was classic Dick Cheney.

Yes, these 'patriots' love the Bush War. Broad definition of patriotism, no doubt. Does a true patriot follow the leader blindly and mindlessly? Does the leader receive carte blanche from his citizens? One might ask: when does dogged party loyalty dilute patriotism?

Today we read that Afghanistan is more dangerous than it was a few years ago according to President Hamid Karzai. The poppy crop was enormous this year. Karzai told the press yesterday about finding bin Laden, "We are not closer, we are not further away from it."

Six full years after 9-11, the mastermind is still on the loose, but Saddam Hussein is dead. And so are more American soldiers than Americans who died on 9-11. Brilliant.

I am still troubled by the fact that so many of my fellow citizens were bamboozled by the Bush/Cheney rhetoric and rush to invade Iraq while bin Laden sat in his mountain hideout. What happened to my fellow citizens? Was their need for vengeance so great than they were willing to use Hussein as a scapegoat for bin Laden? Any dastardly dictator will suffice?

What were they thinking? Why do wisdom and logic fail during patriotic passion? Perhaps the better question is: have we learned any lesson from this major mistake? Or, will some charlatan a few years down the road once again lead us astray with a wave of the flag?

My First Socialist Worker Meeting

I attended my first meeting sponsored by the Socialist Worker Party this evening at Sanger Branch Library. It was great. My grandfather, his brother and my older cousin were all socialists and I felt right at home among the assembly. The topic was 'universal health care' for Americans. Wow! How radical is that.

Local physician Dr. John Ross was one of 3 panelists who spoke of the need for universal health care for all citizens as their right of being a citizen. Insurance companies would argue against it and have, in fact, been successful in stifling any thought of that. This is why they contribute so heavily to members of Congress. They know that once the tide begins to shift against them, it's good bye profits and easy street.

Some in Ohio are making an attempt at a single payer health care system at the state level. SPAN Ohio is attempting to get petitions signed to bring up legislation for universal health care in Ohio. Their website has informationon this project: http://www.spanohio.org/

Nationally, HR676 attempts to address the issue and one can only imagine the number of representatives, coached by the insurance donors, who will castigate the bill. In fact, that was the very issue I brought up during the open forum section of the meeting. Surely the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies have slick ad agencies already working on disinformation advertisements against such a 'radical' plan.

It was pointed out that Medicare seems to work well with a one-company administrator. Another point was that if corporate America would not have to plan for employee health care plans, they would free up great quantities of capital to invest in their product. Further, if taxes were slightly raised for the cost of the plan, that small increase would be balanced by the citizens not having to pay monthly insurance costs, prescription drugs, co-pays and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred even with 'insurance.'

Clearly it is a no-brainer. Yet that means nothing because of the amount of money and power wielded by insurance and pharmaceutical lobbyests in Congress. They have already 'bought' the majority.

I believe that soon, millions of middle-class Americans will wake up and realize what a ruse this has been, how they have been scammed by both the insurance industry and politicians. Whether that comes sooner or later spells the difference between savings now or later.

I'd bet on later.

A link that discusses the issue: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/072707S.shtml

Freakonomics: Crime and Abortion

Last week I was in a conversation with my son-in-law and he pointed out that in the book, Freakonomics, there is a hypothesis that Roe v. Wade actually is responsible for the lower crime rate of these times.

Of course, this is a delicate matter to discuss and further, cause-effect in a hypothesis like that is bound to create controversy.

The website, The Ornery American, has this essay with this statement: the fetuses that were aborted, had they been born, would have become children who were statistically the most likely group to become criminals. Raised by single mothers, in poverty, with genes that might not provide them with much ability to foresee the longterm consequences of impulsive actions.

The author, Orson Scott Card, admits that what he is saying is tantamount to genocide: Purifying the race by preventing the birth of the class of people who are most likely to degrade the quality of life for the rest of us. So few would have dared even suggest such a thing in 1973; but a group of judges decided to perform this eugenics experiment on the American people, and now we're seeing the results.

Card refers to the book by Levitt and Dubner for the data on this. The data is there but the cause-effect of the facts can be debated, and Card offers his own opinion.

What I find interesting is that the right-wing of the political spectrum is often both anti-abortion and anti-crime. I wonder how many of them know that, according to data, the two go hand-in-hand?

Freedom of Speech in Peril: Tories Among Us

In my previous post we read of a 74-year-old man who was 'arrested' for selling 'Impeach Bush' buttons at a farmer's market. What happened to Freedom of Speech, the First Amendment to the Constitution. Dictators, kings, and other scoundrels fear it and suppress it mercilessly.

As a child hearing my teacher telling the story of the American Revolution, I would visualize those early papers in the Colonies nailed to lamp posts and trees which spoke of defying the king of England and his soldiers. Brave men nailing them, more brave authors. Sedition was the crime; death the sentence.

As we slide up the history time line a few hundred years to our day, we find curious Tories among the American populace these days. The Tory of the Revolutionary War days believed that the King's authority was supreme and superseded that of the Parliament. How interesting that today, here in 'the colonies,' that same argument continues.

Lately, many Americans are alarmed at the ever-expanding powers of the Executive Branch of our government. Many believe that the term, 'executive privilege,' is tantamount to limitless monarchical authority.

Some Americans are confused by the statements of President Bush, especially when he speaks of 'bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq.' Some ask: what kind of freedom, what type of democracy?

Some Americans are brave enough to publicly question the wisdom of the leaders, the President and Vice-President, the Congress. Many Americans, blinded by the fresh images of 9-11, cheered President Bush's preemptive invasion of Iraq back in March of 2003. They were misled by the propaganda that falsely linked Saddam Hussein to the attacks of September 11, 2001. There are still Americans who believe that.

Nonetheless, some Americans spoke out against such an invasion. I was one of them. And I was severely criticized for my speech. My phone rang off the hook after I had written a letter to the editor of The Blade questioning the wisdom of such an invasion. I was jeered and called un-American as I carried a 'No War' sign on street corners. Tories, indeed.

Apparently there are fewer and fewer Tories today, four years later, yet they have not all gone away. They wait in ambush in dark alleys and under the shrubs. They blindly follow authoritarian figures no matter where they are led. There must be some sort of satisfaction that they derive out of this, a cathartic akin to a baby's pacifier. Presumably these folks find comfort in a power-figure, in the status quo. Tories.

A short while ago, a friend of mine wrote his own letter to the editor critical of the 'imperial presidency' that he observed of the Bush/Cheney reign. As with me, his telephone answering machine recorded the verbal blast of one of those Tories for what he had written. Freedom of speech. My friend used his Caller ID and called back. Rather shocked by the return call, the Tory continued his rage and hung up, not permitting the author to speak. A second call-back resulted in profanity and the slamming of the receiver once again.

Tories hiding in dark alleys and under the bushes. Ready to pounce or shoot those who dare question the authority of the king. Freedom of speech apparently has limits.

If They Arrest Them All, Will They Have Won?

Cindy Sheehan along with 45 fellow Iraq war protesters are arrested for demanding an impeachment for Bush and Cheney. Disorderly conduct. Could that 'charge' mean: conduct not befitting the normal style of citizens? I guess that the Founding Fathers were charged with that along with sedition.

What is 'normal' conduct and how do we recognize it when we see it? Complacent folks nodding off? Detached people working hard to make some money? Incurious citizens dumbed-down by propaganda?

Fascists love to arrest the so-called trouble-makers. Nixon relished the idea. Latin American prisons are filled with these identified provocateurs. So are the Russians and Chinese.
malcontents not satisfied with the status quo. Anarchists, instigators and rabble-rousers. Throw the whole lot into prison cells before the masses awaken.

Toledo Catholic Bishop Caught in Web of Deceit

Bishop Blair of the Toledo Catholic Diocese has been caught in blatant act of hypocrisy. According to an article in The Blade, "A Toledo priest who was to take over St. Rose Parish in Perrysburg — but then abruptly stepped away from the new post — has been placed on a sabbatical after a “consensual but inappropriate” relationship with a woman, the Toledo diocese said."

Many Catholics have been wondering why Fr. David Nuss, appointed by Bishop Blair to succeed Fr. Leyland as pastor, suddenly declined the new post. Now the truth is known. Not only that truth, but the fact that the bishop knew about this 'affair' back in January, seven months before he appointed Nuss to the position.

The Blade article continues: "But just why the diocese revealed the information yesterday is baffling and frustrating, said Joan Foster, a longtime St. Rose parishioner. Bishop Leonard Blair “knew this in January and now he pretends this is brand new news? Aren’t we Christians? Isn’t truth one of our most important things?” she asked."

Would 'cover-up' be the operative term here? Of course, the Toledo Diocese is up to its ears in cover-up, especially in priest sexual abuse issues in the diocese. It is a pattern of behavior that once served the hierarchy of the local church quite well. Until it all unravelled.

The Blade continues: "Claudia Vercellotti, local coordinator of SNAP — the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests — earlier had been contacted by the advocate for the woman and said she also “tried to get answers” from the bishop about his plans for the priest.“Shame on the bishop,” she said. “He owes the community answers.”"

One more interesting note about all of this is the fact that Fr. Leyland wanted to continue to serve as pastor of St. Rose Parish but was forced out by Blair because Leyland had voiced some strong opinions about the Catholic hierarchy. Now this.

Oh well, what a wicked web we weave...

Let's Be Nice to Each Other Hormone

The drug/hormone Oxytocin is a natural chemical found in the bodies of men but especially women in labor and infant nursing.

Wikipedia says:

Oxytocin (Greek: "quick birth") is a mammalian hormone that also acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain. In women, it is released mainly after distension of the cervix and vagina during labor, and after stimulation of the nipples, facilitating birth and breastfeeding, respectively. Oxytocin is released during orgasm in both sexes. In the brain, oxytocin is involved in social recognition and bonding, and might be involved in the formation of trust between people.

Trust. That's it. A drug that lessens the distrust between people; the 'trust drug.'

The June 2005 edition of Nature has an article titled, Oxytocin increases Trust in Humans. It opens with:

Trust pervades human societies. Trust is indispensable in friendship, love, families and organizations, and plays a key role in economic exchange and politics. In the absence of trust among trading partners, market transactions break down. In the absence of trust in a country’s institutions and leaders, political legitimacy breaks down. Much recent evidence indicates that trust contributes to economic, political and social success.

................................................................................................................................................................

Imagine that: trust contributes to economic, political, and social success. I suggest that all 535 members of Congress as well as the entire Executive Branch be mandated to begin Oxytocin hormone therapy at once. Just think how much progress our nation could make with the folks in power 'trusting' each other.

Useless Political Pander vs. the Security of the United States.

The American electorate is grossly ignorant and so easily hornswoggled that it isn't funny. Not funny at all, especially when the security of our nation is left to amateurs and charlatans.

The Christian-right panders for support and props up legislators who will toe the line in support of their religious beliefs, but have few other qualifications to be representatives of the people. Their agenda, it seems, is God, the flag, anti-gay, prayer in schools, vouchers, the 10 commandments and anti-abortion. Other issues are of little importance to these religious zealots.

As a result of this numskullery, a group of incompetent congressmen and women have been elected throughout this nation, a group whose sole ambition and only talent is addressing the Christian-right's laundry list.

They are supposedly 'pro-family' yet they sit by and watch thousands of businesses and factories close as the jobs are outsourced to China and India. They do nothing to quell the spiraling medical costs and prescription drug prices that threaten the life savings of the family. They sit by idly as oil prices soar and home heating/cooling rates continually rise forcing the family to spend more of their hard-earned dollars for basic needs.

They confirm incompetent people to 'serve' the nation: directors of Homeland Security, Veterans Affairs, FEMA, the EPA, and FDA. Directors who clearly have no idea how to manage such important federal agencies.

They allow the Executive Branch to extend their authority way past the Constitutional provisions of the branch. They support the War in Iraq, sending tens of thousands of our soldiers to their deaths and to rehab centers while authorizing tens of billions of dollars on the ill-conceived war.

The Christian-right in Ohio were largely responsible for the re-election of Bush/Cheney. Astonishingly, we heard yesterday that al-Qaeda is stronger than they were on 9-11. Despite that fact, Mr. Bush said yesterday, "Al-Qaida is weaker today than they were on 9-11." An outright lie.

Iraq has become al-Qaeda's their new training camp, allowing recruits hands-on experience in bomb-making and other deadly tactics. Afghanistan is no longer important. Apparently so as it was announced that the largest crop of poppies was harvested there, poppies to be made into cocaine for the American drug users.

Our food supply is in danger of being poisoned, yet the department in charge of inspections has been slashed; only 1% of the food imported into this country is inspected. Think about that potential gap as an opportunity for a so-called terrorist attack just waiting to be made.

Port security is no more than a joke. Few of the tons of cargo off-loaded at American ports is inspected. Again, a ripe opportunity for terrorists. The border with Mexico is wide open yet cars and trucks have to wait in long lines to enter Windsor, Canada from Detroit.

Incompetent people in high places spells disaster. One needs only to look at Michael "Brownie" Brown, L. Paul Bremer, Scooter Libby and Don Rumsfeld to understand that many people confirmed to important national security positions are no more than political hacks.

Back to the original point: the citizens of this nation have been duped, pure and simple. They allowed themselves to believe that, because a person is a 'good Christian' that they were competent as government operatives. Let's face it: there is more to running a nation well than going to church. Here's the question, though, that yet needs to be answered: will they be duped again? Will they fall for the Christian-right's banter and blather again in 2008? Will they elect 'good Christians' to office who know little more than Bible verses?

Don't bet that it won't happen again. American voters are not known for wisdom.

Revisiting an Old Book: Future Tense

While cleaning up today I found Gwynne Dyer's book, Future: Tense, a book I had read 3 years ago. While thumbing through, I focused on the highlighted sections I had marked when I last read the book.

His website can be found here.

Coincidentally, today we Americans were subjected to the latest warning of an al-Qaeda threat by the Bush/Cheney team. Remember: be afraid. Fear-filled people are obedient.

In the front matter of Dyer's book is a quotation from Sydney J. Harris that befits today's warning nicely:

'Terrorism' is what we call the violence of the weak and we condemn it; 'war' is what we call the violence of the strong and we glorify it.

To be sure, we Americans do glorify war, of course, encouraged by the neocon artists in the White House. Today is also the 'debate' going on in the Senate about the War in Iraq. The shill for the White House, Mitch McConnell, is attempting to kill any motions on the floor to terminate the war. Good old boy Lindsay Graham of South Carolina thinks what we are up to in Iraq is of vital interest to our nation. The gaggle of 'loyal' Bush Republicans that hold the Senate hostage may succeed in stalling the anti-war vote, but our troops will pay the ultimate price for the filibuster.

One of the most troubling statements made in Future: Tense is this especially challenging statement that neither the Bush/Cheney cabal nor the Loyalists in the Senate will abide:

The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq."

No doubt, that must make Cheney boil with anger. Dyer, further in the book, says this about the so-called 'terrorist threat' that the Bush-Cheney team calls out so often:

The fact is that neither the Europeans nor Asians nor [above all] Middle Easterners agree with mainstream American political opinion any more. They don't think al-Qaeda is a global menace. They don't live in fear of rogue states. They don't think we are living in the opening stages of a 'clash of civilizations' [though they worry that Washington's efforts might yet make it happen.] They don't agree with pre-emptive and preventive wars, and they don't believe that 9/11 'changed everything.'

Dyer concludes his book with this statement which will be very difficult for Americans to digest:

The hardest thing Americans are going to have to do in this generation is to get used to the idea that the United States is just another country. Still a very big and powerful country, to be sure, but not the “indispensable nation;’ not a beacon of liberty shining into the darkness, and not the only great power that really matters. Most other countries are now democratic too, and they do not look to the United States for example. No other country yet rivals the United States in military power, but that is not as important as Americans think because their enormous military machine can only be used, in practice, against very weak countries: war with a serious opponent would lead to a level of American casualties that the U.S. public would not tolerate for long. And the world does not need America in the same sense that it did when totalitarian Communist powers controlled the heart of Eurasia. But neither does it need America to go into a gigantic sulk about its lost status.

I'm glad that so-called synchronicity occurred today with the book, the DC cabal, and the Senate. Which one tells the truth is, however, a roll of the proverbial dice.

Nothing New: Study Finds Americans Don't Understand Others Too Well

From LiveScience.com:

Rugged American individualism could hinder our ability to understand other peoples' point of view, a new study suggests.
And in contrast, the researchers found that Chinese are more skilled at understanding other people's perspectives, possibly because they live in a more "collectivist" society.
"This cultural difference affects the way we communicate," said study co-author and cognitive psychologist Boaz Keysar of the University of Chicago.

Americans, the study reports, find it difficult to empathise with others. The Chinese, on the other hand, are much better at that. The report goes on:


Collectivist societies, such as the Chinese, place more value on the needs of the group and less on the autonomy of the individual. In these societies, understanding other peoples' experiences is a more critical social skill than it is among typically more individualist Americans.

I suppose this 'rugged individualism' characteristic of Americans explains why there are so many people who hold onto that right-of-center political philosophy: the boot-straps philosophy. That government has no responsibility to the society as a whole; that government ought to get out of our lives; that the only thing government should do is maintain the Armed Forces to defend the nation.

The so-called 'common good' factor is quite absent from their view of the role of government. They scoff at the current European model, the philosophy that it is the duty of the government to take care of all of its citizens, especially in the area of health care. They deride the Canadian health care system as well. President Bush is ready to veto a bill in Congress that would give health care insurance to millions of American children. 'Too costly,' he says.

Odd stuff. His party, the GOP, has voted for spending multiple billions of dollars over the past 6 years for all sorts of issues benefiting corporations and business as well as the military. Billions upon billions yet denied many social programs, educational programs, and health programs for the citizens.

These days when I hear a Republican tell me that they are for less government, I say to them, 'Oh really? Where have you been for the past 6 years?' That fairly well catches them off guard.