Let The Games Begin...

Got this from my friend Joe:

AAAhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Is this really happening? Am I having a nightmare?

Bush and Cheney are f**king insane!!!!!

Out of curiosity, and you need not reply, who of the current candidates are you most in favor of and why? Personally, even though he has no chance, I'm supporting Richardson because of his experience dealing with Sadam all
Those many (it seems like) centuries ago and his understanding and respect for their culture. Hey, the people of Iraq want us out, lets do it!

Oh yeah, we don't need the military to invade Iran, we have Blackwater and
other merc orgs for that. Perhaps Thomas Jefferson was right... we need to have some form of revolution every twenty years and the longer between revolutions, the more violent they must become. Unfortunately, the last revolution we had was in the late 1800's when the lawyers changed the law that prohibited lawyers
from holding office..... That's it, the tipping point! The freakin' lawyers did it! Where's my gun?

JR

So I replied:

Actually, I have some requirements for candidates for POTUS:

First, they must be smart, because this prevents a whole legion of idiot actions and basically if they're smart they'll pretty much do what I wanted them to do anyway.

Second, I want them to be deceitful, sly, sneaky, cunning and a real bastard. This is because I want them to outsmart, outthink and outmanouver all the other sly, cunning, sneaky lying bastards out there.

Last, I want them to understand in their guts that government represents the people and that it is there to maintain the balance of power between the people and every other entity that seeks to control the people. Government is our sword and shield to defend against attacks and incursions by those who hate us; whether by other states, other stateless fanatics or by trans-national corporations.

That being said, it's also important to recognize that the next president will spend about 99% of his/her time cleaning up the mess that Droolin' George has left. I will be surprised if they get a second term.

I like the idea of blacks and women seriously running for the office of POTUS, I think it shows that there really has been a sea change in politics in this land. And my fondest hope is that the Republican party will shatter into it's natural parts: the Southern White Racist party, the Christian Theocratic party and the Corporate Fascist party. That kind of honesty would be a relief to see!

As to the Democratic candidates: my personal favorite would be John Edwards, he wasn't ready in 2004 but he is now. He certainly understands the plight of working folks in corporate Amerika and I think he now has the political chops to do what needs to be done. Weird, that after all my ravings against southern domination of the electorate over the past half century, I pick a southern white guy! Obama seems to be fulfilling my thumbnail estimation that he's not ready... he needs more experience and more study, maybe 8 years from now. Chris Dodd and Joe Biden could each do the job from day one but their time has passed. Bill Richardson has some good ideas but his name doesn't sound hispanic and he doesn't look hispanic and worst of all: he's fat - not a problem so far as I'm concerned but it makes him unelectable. And I won't even talk about Kucinich...

that leaves: Hiliary. She passes my first and second tests with flying(?) colors and I think she understands the third. I don't agree with her on a number of issues... but truth be told I'm unlikely to agree with any of the candidates on everything. The important things here are: can she do the job from day one? Does she have the political savvy to get what she wants done, legally? Does she have the strength of will to stand up to the right-wing scream machine? And, last, does she have the fundamental understanding that government is there to help the people and that we have to change from a YoYo (You're On Your Own) culture to a WITT culture (We're In This Together)... I think she does.

As to your other point, I'm much more worried about "Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad" (1880), the Supreme Court ruling which confirmed that corporations have the same rights as persons. This was the last in a series of unfortunate rulings which has unleashed the dragon of the trans-national corporation: they acknowledge no law or boundary, they hew to no moral code, they recognize no rights but their own and they see that as their right to... everything.

To paraphrase Cato the Elder: "Trans-nationals delanda est!"

The Eternal Return

Hello all... once again. I've been away for quite a while and much has happened, both in the the real and the imaginary realms. I offer below some of the correspondence I've had over the past couple of years for the amusement (and possibly edification) of anyone who cares to read on... actually I should say a few words about the conversations below: I met Greg in a local tavern whose bartender loves good talk, we traded political viewpoints in a pretty sane manner and I left thinking about the exchange. Here's what followed:

Greg:

I actually thought some more about our conversation yesterday and there are a couple of things I'd like to say.

Before that, however, I want to acknowledge the difference in format: we had a face to face conversation that was cordial and spirited. I think we both got a sense of the other and his position. That's a bit different from writing back and forth where the immediacy may be lost, on the other hand this format allows time for ordered thought and perhaps even an elegant turn of phrase. If you'd rather not use this form, or if I offend in some way, just let me know and I'll stop.

That said, I was going over our discussion and I saw a theme that I think merits more focus. You spoke of building a formidable (or defensible) border on our southern side and I responded with the obvious end-of-the-fence argument. We also spoke of the current war situations and I ranted a bit about competency and blunders, I thought you took the realistic view that, no matter what the good intentions, things had indeed gone awry.

It seems to me that these are both part of a bigger issue: what's the better way to present the idea of America?

I don't think we do well when we're being proactive (or preemptive) about it. I don't think we can impose democracy from above. And I don't think we're well served when we try to enforce the Pax Americana with force of arms. The situation we're in now pretty much demonstrates that.

Caveat: This doesn't mean we don't defend ourselves, for example: 9/11 demanded a response, we gave the correct response, invaded Afghanistan and wiped out the Taleban. I supported that move, as did just about everyone else on the face of the earth.

A good illustration of my point is to go back to one of your heroes (I presume), Ronald Reagan. As you might guess, I don't hold much brief for Mr. Reagan but the way in which we participated in the well-deserved death of the Soviet Union was not to defeat them by force of arms and invest their territory but to keep raising the bar of competition until they collapsed (OK, it was competition in an arms race but the point is the same).

We do best when we are the "City on the Hill" when people aspire to come here because the streets are paved with gold (don't look behind the curtain). We do best when we really can hold other countries' feet to the fire and say things like: "We won't buy your goods because they are produced by slave labor." We do best when men and women come here to have their babies because an American passport is the greatest gift they can give their children.

What we want is for the rest of the world to envy us and aspire to be us. Let the mullahs keep the Arab world in chains, the smart ones will wriggle out… and they'll come here. Let the tinpot dictators crack down on dissent, the brave ones will look across the waters… and they'll come here. Let the oligarchs repress their labor pool: the ones with fire in their bellies will down tools…and come here.

I shoulda been a speechwriter…

I want to make one more point before I bore you to sleep.

I'm going to presume again that you are a libertarian (not sure whether to capitalize the "L" there) like John. In any event you did seem to be in the anti-government camp (so to speak) so here goes:

There's nothing wrong with government, per se

There's nothing wrong with business, per se

There's nothing wrong with people, per se

But it's a triangle of power and if it's out of balance, we're all in big trouble…

…I think we're in big trouble now.

Partly because of naïve assumptions and partly because of the Law of Unintended Consequences and partly (a tiny part) because of the actions of People Who Are Not Our Friends (and they're not the ones you're thinking of).

Naïve Assumptions:

1. Given the chance, people will do the right thing

Repeatedly proved false: when unwatched people will always do the thing most likely to benefit them; when watched, they will mouth all the right words… until they get around the corner and then they will do the thing most likely to benefit them.

2. The Trickle Down theory

More recently known as "Supply Side Economics" this hilarious notion has been debunked so often now that no one with any serious credentials pays it any heed, except (no surprise here) the people who have all the money. It's really useful as a propaganda tool which plays to the same wisp of hope that you, too, can win the lottery.

3. Free Markets work

Once again, a lofty ideal that crashes and burns in reality because it depends on everyone playing fair (see Naïve Assumption 1). The sad fact is that everyone cheats, some governments have massive subsidies, some have slave labor, some have staggering tariffs. Some have no protection at all...

These three false assumptions have done us tremendous damage over the last fifty years because we haven't been smart (my favorite hobby horse riding in from the west).

Our society is based on the concept of the 'common weal' (originally the common grazing ground that all the villagers could use to fatten up the cattle). That grazing ground was kept up by all the villagers so that, if bad times befell them, there would be a common resource to see them through.

Our constitution is based on the legal precept of the nation-state. This is basically a territory, defined by borders, in which the denizens are governed by an agreed upon set of laws and are represented by citizens elected to oversee and regulate that government.

Our economics is based on the observations of a 17^th century scot modified by a few 18^th century enlightenment philosophers.

These three concepts do not always work synergistically, sometimes they are even at odds. The problem we face today is that we have not updated our vision of the world to see what is actually happening rather than what we wish would happen.

The real problem for the 21^st century is not Jihadi Islam. The confrontation and conflict between 21^st century modernism and 12^th century religious ecstaticism was inevitable. Equally inevitable is the result; we will learn how to fight the Jihadis, we will go after them in an effective way, we will force them to retreat and remain behind their walls of sand. It will take 50-100 years, it will cost unbelievable amounts of wasted treasure, anguish and lives. So be it.

That's not what we have to worry about (here's the first time where the Law of Unintended Consequences comes in). We made some big mistakes back in 1790, 1818, and especially 1886 (Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company), we didn't know it then of course. That's when we made corporations into 'persons' in the eyes of the law. Before then a corporation was pretty much limited to the task for which it was formed, after these decisions corporations acquired 'rights' of citizens and the stall door was open… we saw some of the abuses in the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age where vast amounts of wealth was generated and sequestered by an incredibly tiny minority of individuals (so what, you say) who promptly moved to take over…everything (well maybe that isn't a good thing).

This brought in the trustbusters as it became obvious that balance between the people and government and business had gone too far in one direction (remember the triangle?). The balance got restored for a little while because the government (of the people) had the power to rein in the economic giants of the day.

No one said they were dumb. As America woke up to the world in the 20^th century, so did they. They looked around and said to themselves "Y'know, there's a whole wide world out there…" and promptly started expanding their operations on a global basis. Then a funny thing happened (the second application of the Law of Unintended Consequences) they discovered that, once they were globalized, they weren't accountable to anyone. Problem in India? (see Union Carbide) move those operations to Namibia (or wherever) and hire some lawyers to tie up the claimants in court for… now going on 30 years. Not making enough profits? (see Enron) create some fictitious Cayman Island corporations and launder a hundred million through them. Need to lower costs? (see Wal-Mart) outsource manufacturing to slave labor factories in China. Etc., etc., etc…

What government is going to go after them? How are they going to do it? Who has the power now?

The real problem we face in the 21^st century is how to create a new balance of power between governments of nation-states, trans-national corporations and people (remember them?). Right now it's way, way out of whack and we're in true danger of creating a variation on an, earlier, much more odious model:

Oligarchic fascism, (not your father's fascism). This one isn't where the state determines and directs the corporation, oh no, it's even worse. Here, there is no state except where it exists to further the interests of the corporation. If you want to live in the world of Grover Norquist ("I want to reduce government to the size where it can be drowned in the bathtub."), sit back and relax, we're almost there… if this seems like it just maybe, might impinge the slightest bit on your freedom (OK, OK, I'm being sarcastic here). You need to start paying attention because the social contract has been badly broken and the little people like you and me, are being dealt out.

That leads me to the third, and last, point (phew!). There are a bunch of people around now who call themselves conservatives (they aren't and Barry Goldwater would have reached for his gun). These folks have basically hijacked the Republican Party and are using it to promote a stealthy (or perhaps not so stealthy now) takeover of our country… no I'm not talking about the Christian Right, V. I. Lenin had a phrase for the religious folks: Useful Fools.

These are the People Who Are Not Our Friends. They are uniformly wealthy and therefore consider themselves entitled to determine the course of events. They are smart and committed and they have no one's interest at heart except their own. Normally, (and what does that word mean these days?) this wouldn't be that big a problem, but… did I mention that they're smart?

About 40 years ago (late '60s-early '70s) they took a look around and noticed a few things:

Lobbyists, when properly funded and controlled, can really, really influence legislation, all they need is copious amounts of cash.

This advertising stuff really, really works, all it needs is copious amounts of cash.

Freedom of the press really, really does belong to the guy who owns one, all it needs is…

Politicians are like sock puppets, they'll say or do anything you want, all they need is…

Hmmm..., they said, we've got lots of cash…

You can't even blame these guys, they're just doing what we told 'em about capitalism: go out and do whatever you have to do to win, we don't care whether you lie, cheat or steal. Crush your enemies if you can and run over anyone who gets in your way, so long as you win. That's all that matters.

This sounds like I'm on a 'liberal' rant, not so: capitalism is not immoral, it is amoral. It is nonsense to ask or demand morality from capitalism, it is semantically null.

The problem is that we have conflated capitalism with democracy to the point where we can't tell the difference anymore. They are not the same but we don't know that and that's why we're in big trouble.

We need to re-establish the balance of power between business, government and people so everyone is well served. We can't do it on a nation-state basis any longer, the size and shape of the playing field has changed and it's no longer enough to stay within fortress America, those days are gone.

We have to wake up and be smarter, we have to engage the trans-national corporations at the level where they are playing because they've got their game on and they're ahead on points.

I hope you waded through this all and thanks for reading if you did,

Hi Craig,

So happy to meet a thinking liberal. You are a truly a rare and endangered breed. Yes, I read with great interest your entire letter. I personally prefer the written word to the in-person-lecture-format because of the reflective nature of composition. I find written source bibliography far easier to research. I find it amusing that you used "The Guardian" as a source with such sense of authority and confidence. When I debated members of campus communist front groups (notice: I don't call them communists) I always had fun debunking their theory and revealing the nature of their sources. My Senior Year book has a caption under my photo. "The Philosopher and Debater of the class, Greg likes nothing better than a good hot debate." I am trying to learn from one of my heroes (in addition to Reagan) to be more gracious and charming rather than merely logical and informed. It is always tempting to destroy the easy target (irrational thought) rather than persuade people to a superior option. This is why we could have an above average dialog with Mr. McEnroe. John and I don't care about winning an argument. We both simply explore difficult political/philosophical/spiritual issues with a sincere love of Truth. I am not a hopeless Romantic/Spiritualist. I no longer enjoy Mensa or Libertarian meetings. We care about achievable goals and the greater good. I care more about Good vs. Evil than Right Vs. Left.

As to your critique of our current age: I respect the effort you expended, however, Even Carl Marx (a small soul), could come up with a sufficiently accurate critique of Liaise Fare Market economics of the world he knew. His counter proposal, however, was deeply flawed, even on a purely theoretical and spiritual level. Superior leaders create superior options for the public to choose from. I am disappointed with all of the political parties. I am not convinced that the Democrats have any better ideas or candidates than any other party. The only way to defeat evil ideas/system is to build better ones and compete for followers. The real question is: Can I see your proposal? If you were as rich as Bill Gates and as Powerful as Alexander the Great, what kind of country would your America look like. Notice that I don't use the "what would President Penna do?" question. The power of the office of President of the United States of America is overrated. America has survived despite:

One Term of LBJ

The Re-election of Richard M. Nixon (the second term by a 49 state landslide)

4 years of Carter

12 years of Reagan/Bush,

8 years of Clinton (and her husband)

6 years of Georg W.

and nearly 60 years of Democratic con troll of Congress.

Our once greater nation used to have a rich cultural life centered on deeply held values that levitated dialog above politics. Virtue, duty, Honor, character, conscience, courage, and patriotism are still of interest to Americans. They were once the platform on which public policy was debated.

In the '60s the "outed" Communists said that everyone is defined by Class (economics) and Politics. Though that may be the desire of those influenced by Marxist-Leninist thought, I disagree. Unfortunately, what our home-grown communists could not accomplish by force they have nearly achieved with the virtual takeover of the "mainstream media" and once great Democratic Party. Most "Old Media" people are liberal Democrats. Are all liberal Democrats communist? No. To be a true Communist requires education, intellect, self-sacrifice and discipline. Most "liberals" lack the attributes of a dedicated Marxist-Leninist. They are perhaps unwitting tools of the ideological enemies of the America that I would like to see built. The real battle is over the meaning/identity or soul America Should we be an amoral pragmatic nation? Should we continue to indulge our baser passions and live in a nation swimming in sins of commission and omission. Example:

Class Hatred/envy Vs. Hedonism...both are evil.

Left vs. Right. seems to have a parallel here.

This is the classic false dilemma. This is why I don't fit neatly into the any political party. I am not a conservative on policy. I can be very "outside of the box". If I agree to choose "the lesser of 2 evils" I am still within the realm of evil...am I not. This is our choice on every election day. I am not in love with any politician. It is the nature of democracy to eventually settle into meritocracy. I believe that the historical benefit of the war of 1776 was the eventual decline of many "Evil King Dynasties" on the global level. History is littered with the corpses cut down by the Logic of power. When will we explore the Logic of Love? The more interesting discussion is: What would King Craig Della Penna Do in 2006?

I welcome the opportunity to converse with you.

Greg:

An interesting challenge. I can’t say I’m crazy about the Philosopher King model, the Athenians killed Alkibiades for trying it and Dionysios didn’t do so well as Dictator of Syracuse… power corrupts, etc.

Nevertheless, I’ll be pleased to use the opportunity to float some ideas I have about the body politic.

But first, I have to clarify a few points

The last name is Della Penna, two words/one name. For a long time I thought it meant ‘scribe’ (an Anglocentric bias there) turns out it actually means ‘of the sorrows’ a bit dark but it’s actually closer to my personality. A minor point but there it is.

I cited The Guardian not because of its left wing predilictions but because it is internationally respected for its even-handed reporting. I also mentioned it because it is not a US newspaper and thus would not be expected to have a vested interest. If you want to explore a US newspaper, go to the archives of the Miami Herald and look up the 2000 election results investigation.

BTW, I also read the WSJ because its reporters are also internationally respected despite its foaming-at-the-mouth right wingnut editorial board.

As to Marx and Engels, it was, as you say, a flawed vision at the very least. Mostly, I think, they were guilty of myopia – they could only see what was in front of them so their solution was seriously short-sighted. 19^th century industrialization politics just didn’t translate into the far more sophisticated world of 20^th century socio-economics. We could have a world of discussion here but let me just say that I regard communism as I regard any other religion: because it requires an act of faith, it is inherently resistant to analytical thought processes.

The one salient fact that the Marxists did bring up: if the disparity between rich and poor gets to be too great, your society is in trouble.

Lastly, the media. I think it’s way too late in the day for conservatives to yell about the ‘liberal media’ that dog just won’t hunt any longer. The most influential medium of them all, television (we won’t even discuss radio), is totally dominated by right wing political propaganda. The tattered remains of free media consists of about six newspapers, which no one but us pointy-headed ‘intellechuls’ reads. At this point that canard is only used to provoke screaming matches. If you want to know the truth about the media, just follow the money… not too hard as some 95% of the mass media is owned by six companies, all stalwart Republican, conservative organizations whose owners/managers have publicly avowed right wing political agendas.

…and one more Last Thing: the Good Old Days. Yeah, I remember them nostalgically too, they sure seemed better and cleaner, safer and saner….screeeech! BANG! Whoops, my rose-colored glasses just fell off. Remember the ‘Duck and Cover’ drills in case of nuclear attack? Remember ‘Whites Only’ drinking fountains? Remember “Tailgunner” Joe McCarthy?

Plus sa change, plus c’est la même chose, I think.

Nonetheless, you’re right, there is a difference between then and now, the second World War was the last completely justifiable war we have fought. There was, and is, absolutely no question about the moral imperative to fight in that war against truly evil adversaries. No war (or police action) we have engaged in since has had that level of moral authority attached.

I agree that the real battle concerns the meaning, identity and ‘soul’ of America. I think we should be a moral/pragmatic nation, no doubt we differ over the meanings of those terms, but…

On to the fun stuff: given the chance, what changes would I impose on society? (if I may paraphrase your challenge).

Hmmm…

Here are some of my thoughts. I’m going to divide them into three areas:

Personal/character

Political/Economic

Enlightened Capitalist

As you may note, I’m leaving out the spirituality part, for two reasons: first, I don’t feel that I’m qualified to tell any other adult what’s god/not god, right or wrong, evil or good: we’ve got churches for the first, laws for the second and a mirror for the last. Second, religious wackos to the contrary, this country was founded on the simple principle of separation of church and state, for very good reasons. In fact the FFs had very close personal experience with what happens when you don’t have that separation: religions persecuting religions, sects persecuting sects all armed with the power of the state and all in the name of ‘god’. They said, “No thanks.” and wrote it in to our constitution. They were a bunch of very smart fellows, we are wise when we listen to them.

Personal/Character

You’ve complained that here isn’t any character anymore, no honor, virtue, conscience, courage or sense of duty. The implication is that this is in apposition to a time when these values were prevalent, given our ages I assume you are talking about the 1940s/50s. These are the only halcyon days we have any direct experience of. These are also the days when we had a common experience of shared sacrifice (the Depression, WWII).

I would propose that we institute National Service. As soon as you graduate high school or reach the age of 18 (whichever comes first) you go into National Service, everyone, without exception. No, you don’t have to pick up a gun, you can pick up a shovel instead, go into the armed services, or plant trees in National Forests, fill potholes, do childcare, build shelters, teach English, etc., etc., for two years (you may have different ideas about how to use the young folks – go ahead, we’ve got plenty). This would get kids out of their parents’ houses and give them a taste of life on their own (at this point they’re sick of their parents and their parents are sick of them as well). And at the end of your service: you get your voting card.

Many countries do this now (Israel and Switzerland come to mind) but they mandate military service and don’t make it required for voting rights. I think this has a lot of merit: a huge unskilled workforce ready to do all the projects that promote the common good but that no one has found a way to make money on, so they don’t get done. A ‘rite of passage’ that will ‘build character’ and make enfranchisement a prized honor instead of a forgotten afterthought (we have by far the lowest political participation of all the industrialized democracies).

This one idea won’t solve all our problems but it will give folks a stake in the proceedings and something to protect in the outcomes.

Political/Economic

This one’s more complicated: we have to find innovative ways to open up the process, reduce the oligarchs’ political power, improve the people’s access to government and control over their money – all without trashing our basic structure of a representative republic…

Representation

Right now, we’re a nation of some 300,000,000 people, and still growing (mostly because of immigration). We’ve got 435 people in the House of Representatives, that’s 689,655 constituents per Rep...

no wonder you can’t get your Congressman on the line.

Let’s triple the size of the House to 1,305 Reps (229,885 to one Rep, still quite a bunch but much more manageable and a lot more accessible). More trouble and expense for the lobbyists and more accountability to the voters (best listen to Billy Bob, he’s got a lot of relatives and they could make trouble next year), I say it’s a ‘win-win’.

Forget changing the Senate right now, 100’s a good number and the states are still the states, frankly I think it’s good that Delaware and California have the same amount of Senators – shrinks hat sizes all around, but…

Ditch the Electoral College, long past due, we’re not gentlemen farmers anymore (with apologies to Jefferson), the demos has prevailed. This would make political campaigns much more interesting as well.

Campaign Reform

Last of the strictly political reforms (you’re gonna love this one): what the heck are we going to do about the tsunamis of cash we shovel out the door in political campaigns? Multi-million dollar House and Senate races, billion dollar presidential sweepstakes? A House member has to raise $10K/week from day one if he/she wants to get re-elected. You can’t plug up the inflow; limit direct contributions… it goes into PACs, limit PACs… it goes into 527s…etc., etc.

What about the outflow? 90%+ of campaign funds are spent on television ads (because they work). I spent 20 years in and around the ad business in New York, working with some of the best professionals in the business. Let me tell you something: they know exactly what they’re doing. Advertising is not meant to proffer truth, to discuss, to enlighten. Advertising in meant to persuade, to obfuscate, to deceive. It’s spectacularly effective – let’s outlaw it.

Just like we did with liquor and cigarette advertising, bad for your health, it’s out.

Then watch the political hacks run around with their hair on fire, it’ll be fun. Let them try to spend $200 million dollars on… lawn signs and bumper stickers and straw hats. You can do anything you want with the money: buy an hour of prime time from all three networks, plaster the highways with signs from the Red Ball Garage to the Santa Monica Pier, offer $100 per vote (just kidding), you just can’t run TV ads.

You want true campaign reform? This is the only way it’ll happen.

Oh, and BTW. Let’s fix the voting machines. I’m in the software business but even if I weren’t, the claim from Diebold and Sierra, et al, that it’s too hard to provide a paper trail…is transparently pure, Class A bullshit. Your local supermarket provides a paper trail for every transaction, one for you and a copy for the store. I, among many others, wrote to Diebold offering to personally provide the four lines of code necessary to make their software run a check register receipt machine. Until such time as we do this our elections are completely compromised.

Taxes, Tariffs and Trade (oh, my!)

Taxes

Here’s where the rubber meets the road: the interface between politics and economics. Let’s start with taxes.

Fact: No one understands the tax codes, the book weighs a bazillion pounds, Bob Packwood was able to chase skirts around his desk for 25 years out of the fact that he had actually read the thing in its entirety, everybody (and I mean everybody) hates it – screw it.

First Option (Best One): Dump the income tax and replace it with a flat sales tax. Yeah, I know this is supposed to be liberal anathema, it’s regressive, it unfairly lands on poor people, it lets the rich get away with murder (like they don’t anyway). I don’t care. I want simplicity and clarity here, I want this issue off the table, forever. Plus we get to dissolve the secret police, er, sorry, the IRS.

Second Option: OK, so if the Flat Sales Tax won’t fly, then I recommend the Flat Income Tax (same squeals of outrage from the left… and some from the right as well). Same arguments as above, here’s the twist:

With either option, once a year you get your tax information: with the Sales Tax you get a receipt showing your average contribution that year, with the Income Tax you get your tax form, plus:

You get your ‘Citizen Appropriations Selection Form”. This form shows all of the money that Uncle Sugar collected last year (kinda like an annual report) and what the projections are for this year. Then it shows, in percentage, how much of the federal dollar is already committed to: pensions, ongoing programs, interest payment on the national debt, etc., all the things we have already committed to and can’t get out of. It also shows how much, if any, extra money Congress borrowed above the income line in order to fund things the citizens wouldn’t and who voted for these items. Next, it shows the programs which are up for funding and here…the citizen gets to put down what percentage of his/her tax dollar he/she would like to spend on these programs: you could choose 100% for the Space Program, for instance, or 2% for Medicare (or none) and 98% for the VA, etc., etc. (Purse Power to the People! [raised fist in the air holding handbag]) I hear screams of outrage (from the right this time) What? Let the riffraff get their hands on the money, sacrilege! Actually, this ought to piss off a lot of people, left and right, which means I’ve done good work here.

Tariffs

We’ve got a problem (in River City) we indulge in ‘magical’ thinking on both sides of the aisle. The culprits this time are the supposedly hard-nosed ‘free’ marketers. They have this fantasy that because they say ‘free trade’ and wave their arms about, that every one else will queue up and play by the same book. Look at the current trade wars going on between the US and the EU or the US and China or the US and just about anyone… we’re constantly at a disadvantage because we insist on ‘free’ trade, this is nuts. There’s no such thing as ‘free’ trade, there never will be, it’s a complete fantasy and we can’t get there. What we can get is: fair trade. We can get it and we can enforce it. Don’t want to let our trade goods in (EU)? Fine, your wares just lost their trade status with us. Want to charge 50% tariffs on our import cars (Japan)? Fine, all your cars (even if made in the USA) just got the same tariff. Reciprocal action on a one-to-one basis.

We can adjust this to promote trade with underdeveloped countries (or not) or even to enforce strategic policies, the only problem is that we will have to act fairly as well. (remember the trans-nationals? They won’t like this at all… which means, of course, that we’re doing good work here).

Trade

Leading in from the last topic: we’re the largest market in the world, by far. We have clout and we should use it but we’ve got to be smart here. This is one of the main things the trans-nationals fear: the economic power of particular nation-states. That’s why they dreamed up NAFTA and CAFTA and GATT (oh, my!). These treaties are more disturbing the more you look into them, essentially they seek to bind the signatories to perpetual contracts where they lose control over their workforce, their laws and their borders… and it leads to exactly what you’re thinking: World Government, but not by the UN; by Exxon and Wal-Mart and McDonald's. This activity needs to be opposed.

Last Heading: Enlightened Capitalist

This may be a misnomer or perhaps even an oxymoron, but this is where we are going… eventually. We’re in a condition where the second richest man in the world (Warren Buffet) has so little connection to the world around him that the only thing he can think to do with his money is to give it to… the richest man in the world. Gates is such a twit that he had to marry his PR lady to think for him about what to do with all his money… WTF?

What kind of a society do we live in where this is considered acceptable behaviour? And it’s not new (remember the Robber Barons?) we’ve got a deep down problem that’s not going to go away until we start re-examining some fundamentals. And the means trouble with a capital “C” and that means Capitalism. I know you don’t like this, I know it hurts… but you (I/we/us) have to start looking at this and have to start acting smart, because if we don’t we will perish as a society and then as a nation. No, I’m not recommending or advocating any “-ism”, I’m saying we have to do better, because this isn’t working. (See transfer of wealth to the richest 1% over the past 20 years)

Look around and ask yourself which societies really don’t work: Iran (unless you like theocracies, then be my guest), any African dictatorship at random, etc. Look around and ask yourself which societies seem to work pretty well: Canada, Sweden, etc. Where would you rather live?

This knocks on the door of your spiritual questions as well: “Virtue, duty, honor, character, conscience, courage, and patriotism” these are all very personal characteristics, individually arrived at, not painted with a broad brush. These qualities you prize are antithetical to the tenets of capitalism: virtue is a fool’s errand, duty is only to yourself, honor is non-existent, character is a façade, conscience is a fairytale told to children, courage is a joke and patriotism is simply outside the basic reference point. What kind of society can you envision where the dog-eat-dog world of lassiez-faire capitalism rules? How can anyone get out? This vision isn’t a Maxfield Parrish painting of halcyon days gone bye, it’s a starkly terrifying look into hell.

We have to do better because we can do better. We can question the paradigm, we can apply another, newer, better yardstick, we can ask more of ourselves and of others. We can refuse to accept the idea that this is as good as we can get.

Regards,

Craig Della Penna

Notes on the Gonzales Nomination

Now that we begin to see the direction of the Bush II 2^nd non-term. It looks like black is no longer the 'in' color. With Condi taking a back seat now that the election nonsense is over with, the nomination if Alfredo “It Ain't Torture if it Don't Show” Gonzales for Attorney General brings up an intriguing possibility.

We know that Colin Powell is on the way out, having passed at the chance for greatness back in 1999 (the GOP nomination was his for the taking), and having failed miserably as Sec State (sold his soul for a mess of yellowcake), he is, and I quote from a 'close source': “tired and embittered”... poor baby. He wants out to write his memoirs, no doubt.

But this gives Shrub an golden opportunity: let's see, we need an Hispanic, with extensive political connections, a worldwide reputation, experience as an entrepreneur, and in government, military experience would be good, as would detailed knowledge of the global drug trade, he should be current on international terrorism and able to mix with all levels of society. Ideally he would be available at the present time, oh, and if it were possible, this candidate should enable Shrub to cock-a-snoot at 'Pappy' Bush...

May I present our next Secretary of State:

Manuel Noriega

An open letter to Ron Wyden

As you all probably know by now, I live in Oregon, one of the Free states. We have a pretty good senator here (and a pretty bad one too) . I wrote to the good one...

Dear Senator Wyden: November 7, 2004

I am a constituent and supporter writing to you about the next four difficult years. I have waited until today partly because I wanted to get past my depression after the election debacle and partly because I wanted to be sure that my words were thoughtful rather than merely plaintive.

There are three parts to this letter:



• Analysis of the political campaign

• Observations on the DNC

• Suggestions for fighting against the darkness

Analysis of the campaign

I'm a smart guy, you're a smart guy and there are a lot of other smart guys out there in this world... it's just that none of them seem to have been involved the Democratic party during the 2004 presidential race. The only thing that keeps this race from going down as the most inept in Democratic party history, is the fact that the 'honor' has already been taken by the 2000 Democratic presidential campaign.

I worked for 20 years in and around the New York advertising community, these are another bunch of smart guys: they spend hundreds of millions of dollars a year on the ads that we all make fun of. They laugh too, all the way to the bank. Those stupid advertising campaigns... work and they work really, really well. Karl Rove knows this, Roger Ailes knows this, Ralph Reed knows this. How come no one in the entire DNC seems to have a clue about this?

Everyone is going on and on about how the Republicans turned out the evangelical vote and how they energized the base and how they did some other political maneuver: bullshit. They won because they understood and used the basic rules of advertising: keep it really simple and keep on repeating it. It doesn't matter if it doesn't fit the facts, it doesn't matter if it isn't true; if it's simple and you keep repeating it, people will believe you. I won't go into the history of this kind of propaganda, you probably know it as well or better than I, suffice it to say that a significant portion of the American electorate (and a huge majority of Republicans) believe to this day that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the destruction of the WTC.

If the Democrats actually want to win anything ever again they must learn this lesson, and the next one as well.

Observations on the DNC

I could rail on against Terry MacAuliffe and the others who 'ran' this campaign, I could question their policies, their commitment, their competency. Indeed, they are seriously at fault in all these areas but that misses the real point. The DNC and Democrats as a group need to recognize that this is not politics as usual. We really are in the middle of a clash of civilizations here... and I'm not talking about Iraq.

If you compare the 2004 electoral college map of the US with a map of pre-Civil War map of the 'free' vs 'slave' states and territories, you will see that they are functionally identical.

Over the past thirty years we have seen several congruent trends; the gradual change of the 'Dixiecrats' to the Republican party, the swing of the southern states, in fact the entire old Confederacy to the Republican party, the ascendance of the 'Southern Strategy' which pretty much says that if you aren't from the South, you can't be President. The takeover of the Republican party by Christian right-wing zealots and the gradual revelation of a plan to fundamentally change the nature of the American Republic. Again, I'm sure I don't have to go into chapter and verse here, you are politically astute and are probably more aware of these trends than I am.

The point I am making here is: the Democratic Party does not seem to be aware that these fanatics are out there determined to turn the US into a Christian version of Iran. Otherwise they would surely be fighting these people tooth and nail.

Here's the point:

We can't be nice anymore, we can't see the other point of view, we can't make compromises, we can't take the high road, we can't sit at the table, we can't decry the partisanship all around us, we can't give an inch.

Because every time we do... we lose.

We lose because they are our enemies: they understand that and we don't.

We lose because they know they are at war with us and we don't.

We lose because we want to include them with us and they don't.

...because they understand the it's them or us... and we don't.

Until we truly 'get' that this really is a fight for survival, we will continue to lose.

I don't know what your standing is within the party, though it must be stronger now by the sheer fact of having survived the 2004 debacle. I hope you will consider the points I have made above, perhaps you already hold some of these positions yourself, and will press for the fundamental changes needed if the Democratic party is to remain a viable choice for the electorate.

Suggestions for fighting against the darkness

I don't envy you the next four years, it's likely to be grueling and frustrating. I know it's presumptuous of me to make these suggestions but being an arrogant SOB I'll offer them anyway:

Pick your battles, I imagine you'll win some procedural battles but the only really effective weapon/threat you have is the filibuster, save it for the really important things.

The way I see it, we're going to lose on most things: Social Security, Medicare, more tax cuts, school prayer, bigotry against gays, and a host of others. Yes, of course, you vote against these changes but they aren't the important ones (mostly because they can be reversed once we get the chance).

The important things, as I see it are: more wars and Supreme Court nominees.

I think it's really important that we don't invade Iran, Syria, North Korea or any other tinpot dictatorship we disapprove of. They don't benefit from it and we surely don't need any more crazed Muslim fanatics (or any other fanatics for that matter) screaming “Death to America” and throwing bombs at us.

Given the propaganda skills of the administration and the gullibility of the electorate, even that will probably be a losing proposition.

The most important fights are going to take place around the Supreme Court. The consequences of confirming bad nominees are momentous, as you well know. The current court has been exceptional only for it's willingness to participate in the coup d'etat of 2000, otherwise it's been pretty undistinguished. No one expected Rehnquist to be another Earl Warren and he sure wasn't. But he's going, soon and there are likely two or even three more close behind him. This will be the battleground on which to make a stand. Nothing will have more lasting impact on the future of our country than the next few Supreme Court members.

The damage that the Republicans can inflict on us legislatively is correctable in a few years or a few election cycles. The damage the Supreme Court can do lasts for generations.

If you have political capital left, this is the place to spend it. If you want a place to filibuster, this is the place.

I don't know whether you actually see letters any more, I hope so but the vast numbers of constituents these days pretty much precludes that, I know. Perhaps my eloquence will get me through...(LOL).

In any event, good luck to you, these next few years aren't going to be a party. If there's any way in which I can help. Feel free to contact me (no, I don't have a lot of spare cash at the moment but that may change).

You've done good work in the past, I am confident you will continue to do so in the future.

With thanks for your time, I am;

...well you all know it's: Kriedigan...

P.S.: I am hoping you'll actually read this. I'm going to try to hand deliver this to your Portland HQ, or use snailmail if I have to. If this just goes onto the 'slushpile', please don't waste the stamp on a standard reply letter.

An Exchange of Views

What follows is an email exchange between me and 'Don' over the past few days. I found it interesting on several levels but ultimately frustrating, as you will see.

Here is Don's original message broadcast to me, among many others. It includes a rather vicious screed against Kerry that you don't need to read to appreciate the dialogue between Don and me.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Interesting view from Britain
Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 22:43:57 EDT
From: Jamhar To: undisclosed-recipients: ;

Subject: Interesting view from Britain

From Sue Pollard


Some of you may be familiar with the eminent British historian, Paul Johnson.. I was surprised to see a piece that he wrote about our forthcoming election, and I recommend it as a view from an "outsider". It is not written by a columnist from the Weekly Standard, The Nation, or by any conservative or liberal "talking head", or by some obscure blogger, but from a student of history.
Some may disagree, but I seriously doubt that they can argue the points that Johnson makes.

To save looking, here it is:
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite simply, Kerry must be stopped; and Bush must win
By Paul Johnson

The great issue in the 2004 election-it seems to me as an Englishman-is, How seriously does the United States take its role as a world leader, and how far will it make sacrifices, and risk unpopularity, to discharge this duty with success and honor? In short, this is an election of the greatest significance, for Americans and all the rest of us. It will redefine what kind of a country the United States is, and how far the rest of the world can rely upon her to preserve the general safety and protect our civilization.

When George W. Bush was first elected, he stirred none of these feelings, at home or abroad. He seems to have sought the presidency more for dynastic than for any other reasons. September 11 changed all that dramatically. It gave his presidency a purpose and a theme, and imposed on him a mission. Now, we can all criticize the way he has pursued that mission. He has certainly made mistakes in detail, notably in underestimating the problems that have inevitably followed the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, and overestimating the ability of U.S. forces to tackle them. On the other hand, he has been absolutely right in estimating the seriousness of the threat international terrorism poses to the entire world and on the need for the United States to meet this threat with all the means at its disposal and for as long as may be necessary. Equally, he has placed these considerations rig ht at the center of his policies and continued to do so with total consistency, adamantine determination, and remarkable courage, despite sneers and jeers, ridicule and venomous opposition, and much unpopularity.

There is something grimly admirable about his stoicism in the face of reverses, which reminds me of other moments in history: the dark winter Washington faced in 1777-78, a time to "try men's souls," as Thomas Paine put it, and the long succession of military failures Lincoln had to bear and explain before he found a commander who could take the cause to victory. There is nothing glamorous about the Bush presidency and nothing exhilarating. It is all hard pounding, as Wellington said of Waterloo, adding: "Let us see who can pound the hardest." Mastering terrorism fired by a religious fanaticism straight from the Dark Ages requires hard pounding of the dullest, most repetitious kind, in which spectacular victories are not to be looked for, and all we can expect are "blood, toil, tears, and sweat." However, something persuades me that Bush- with his grimness and doggedness, his lack of sparkle but his enviable concentration on the central issue-is the president America needs at this difficult time.

He has, it seems to me, the moral right to ask American voters to give him the mandate to finish the job he has started.

This impression is abundantly confirmed, indeed made overwhelming, when we look at the alternative. Senator Kerry has not made much of an impression in Europe, or indeed, I gather, in America. Many on the Continent support him, because they hate Bush, not because of any positive qualities Kerry possesses. Indeed we know of none, and there are six good reasons that he should be mistrusted. First, and perhaps most important, he seems to have no strong convictions about what he would do if given office and power. The content and emphasis of his campaign on terrorism, Iraq, and related issues have varied from week to week. But they seem always to be determined by what his advisers, analyzing the polls and other evidence, recommend, rather than by his own judgment and convictions. In other words, he is saying, in effect: "I do not know what to do but I will do what you, the voters, want." This may be an acceptable strategy, on some issues and at certain times. It is one way you can interpret democracy.

But in a time of crisis, and on an issue involving the security of the world, what is needed is leadership. Kerry is abdicating that duty and proposing, instead, that the voters should lead and he will follow. Second, Kerry's personal character has, so far, appeared in a bad light. He has always presented himself, for the purpose of Massachusetts vote-getting, as a Boston Catholic of presumably Irish origins. This side of Kerry is fundamentally dishonest. He does not follow Catholic teachings, certainly in his views on such issues as abortion-especially when he feels additional votes are to be won by rejecting Catholic doctrine. This is bad enough. But since the campaign began it has emerged that Kerry's origins are not in the Boston-Irish community but in Germanic Judaism. Kerry knew this all along, and deliberately concealed it for political purposes. If a man will mislead about such matters, he will mislead about anything.

There is, thirdly, Kerry's long record of contradictions and uncertainties as a senator and his apparent inability to pursue a consistent policy on major issues.

Fourth is his posturing over his military record, highlighted by his embarrassing pseudo-military salute when accepting the nomination. Fifth is his disturbing lifestyle, combining liberal-even radical-politics with being the husband, in succession, of two heiresses, one worth $300 million and the other $1 billion. The Kerrys have five palatial homes and a personal jet, wealth buttressed by the usual team of lawyers and financial advi sers to
provide the best methods of tax-avoidance. Sixth and last is the Kerry team: who seem to combine considerable skills in electioneering with a variety of opinions on all key issues. Indeed, it is when one looks at Kerry's closest associates that one's doubts about his suitability become certainties. Kerry may dislike his running-mate, and those feelings may be reciprocated-but that does not mean a great deal. More important is that the man Kerry would have as his vice president is an ambulance chasing lawyer of precisely the kind the American system has spawned in recent decades, to its great loss and peril, and that is already establishing a foothold in Britain and other European countries. This aggressive legalism-what in England we call "vexatious litigation"- is surely a characteristic America does not want at the top of its constitutional system.

Of Kerry's backers, maybe the most prominent is George Soros, a man who made his billions through the kind of unscrupulous manipulations that (in Marxist folklore) characterize "finance capitalism." This is the man who did everything in his power to wreck the currency of Britain, America's principal ally, during the EU exchange-rate crisis-not out of conviction but simply to make vast sums of money. He has also used his immense resources to interfere in the domestic affairs of half a dozen other countries, some of them small enough for serious meddling to be hard to resist. One has to ask: Why is a man like Soros so eager to see Kerry in the White House? The question is especially pertinent since he is not alone among the superrich wishing to see Bush beaten. There are several other huge fortunes backing Kerry.

Among the wide spectrum of prominent Bush-haters there is the normal clutter of Hollywood performers and showbiz self-advertisers. That is to be expected. More noticeable, this time, are the large numbers of novelists, playwrights, and moviemakers who have lined up to discharge venomous salvos at the incumbent.

I don't recall any occasion, certainly not since the age of FDR, when so much partisan election material has been produced by intellectuals of the Left, not only in the United States but in Europe, especially in Britain, France, and Germany. These intellectuals-many of them with long and lugubrious records of supporting lost left-wing causes, from the Soviet empire to Castro's aggressive adventures in Africa, and who have in their time backed Mengistu in Ethiopia, Qaddafi in Libya, Pol Pot in Cambodia, and the Sandinistas in Nicaragua-seem to have a personal hatred of Bush that defies rational analysis.

Behind this front line of articulate Bushicides (one left-wing columnist in Britain actually offered a large sum of money to anyone who would assassinate the president) there is the usual cast of Continental suspects, led by Chirac in France and the superbureaucrats of Brussels. As one who regularly reads Le Monde, I find it hard to convey the intensity of the desire of official France to replace Bush with Kerry. Anti- Americanism has seldom been stronger in Continental Europe, and Bush seems to personify in his simple, uncomplicated self all the things these people most hate about America-precisely because he is so American. Anti-Americanism, like anti-Semitism, is not, of course, a rational reflex. It is, rather, a mental disease, and the Continentals are currently suffering from a virulent spasm of the infection, as always happens when America exerts strong and unbending leadership.

Behind this second line of adversaries there is a far more sinister third. All the elements of anarchy and unrest in the Middle East and Muslim Asia and Africa are clamoring and praying for a Kerry victory. The mullahs and the imams, the gunmen and their arms suppliers and paymasters, all those who stand to profit-politically, financially, and emotionally-from the total breakdown of order, the eclipse of democracy, and the defeat of the rule of law, want to see Bush replaced. His defeat on November 2 will be greeted, in Arab capitals, by shouts of triumph from fundamentalist mobs of exactly the kind that greeted the news that the Twin Towers had collapsed and their occupants been exterminated.

I cannot recall any election when the enemies of America all over the world have been so unanimous in hoping for the victory of one candidate. That is the overwhelming reason that John Kerry must be defeated, heavily and comprehensively.

Here's my first reply:

Don:

I don't want to offend you, but I would guess that we are 180 degrees apart politically. I could foam at the mouth for hours, but let me just be brief: I think that G W Bush is probably the worst president we have ever had, his stupidity, intransigence and arrogance have put our country in the gravest danger both internally and externally. It will take, quite literally, generations to undo the damage he has done to us.

If you wish, I will be glad to take apart Mr. Johnson's essay, point by point. I will also be glad to discuss my opinions with you, should you so desire. I must say that my experience with backers of Mr. Bush has been that their faith in him precludes any critical examination of the facts and functionally protects them from the intrusion of reality.

Let me know if you would like to continue this dialogue.

Craig Della Penna

NB: I would like to add that I do not generally impose my political views on others, as you may have gathered, I am quite opinionated. But I also do not regard politics as affecting other business relations, I am quite content to live and let live.

...and Don's reply

Dear Craig,

I understand your emotional response to a candidate. I have equal ...if not more severe .... reaction to Kerry. Democrates Against Kerry and Anybody But Kerry are two organizations I fully support. I think to have a closet Communist as a candidate, a man who has never held an executive position, a man who has never had to meet a payroll, a man whose campaign plans and promises are 1980 degrees from what his record proves he has stood for in 20 years in Washington, a man who uses his "religion as a crutch but who does not abide by any of his church's foundations ... and on and on .... is the most scary time in American history. As people of Massachusetts have shown their ignorance over the years with Kennedy and Kerry representing them, now we have a cadre of people who also have bought into that stupidity with the excuse they "don't like Bush".

Anyway, it is good to have differing positions. I only think that of all the candidates running for President, Bush is the only one who can keep Kerry from totally destroying our nation and all it has stood for though it's founding and history.

Don

...I thought I saw an opening in the armor:

Don:

Yeah, I thought we were diametrically opposed. my problem with your position is manifold.

First, I think that Mr. Bush has already gone a long way towards "totally destroying our nation and all it has stood for though it's founding and history", frankly I think we need to reverse course, since it is empirically evident that this one is not working.

Second, pardon my suspicious nature, but it seems to me that you would find similar spurious objections to anyone who stood in opposition to Mr. Bush. Canards against Mr. Kerry aren't worth your time to write, or mine to read. Kerry's just a good man who served his country and then spoke his mind... as is his right. I could pound on Mr. Bush for pages, but I won't. Instead I'll voice my objections to his followers:

I object to the cult like following so evident in Mr. Bush's retinue, I object to their expropriation of patriotism, I object to their presumption of righteousness, I object to their selfishness and venality, I object to their viciousness and cruelty, I object to their credo: "Might makes right", "The ends justifies the means." and the infamous three-card-monte routine: "Don't look at me, it's not my fault". For an administration that touts its moral superiority to anyone and everyone, I have never seen a single one of them accept responsibility for anything... truly sickening.

Setting aside my moral outrage and my clear partisanship: the presidency is just not that difficult a job, anyone with an average degree of intelligence can do it, I could, you could. The fact of the matter is that whoever is president is surrounded (or should be) by the brightest minds our nation can produce, with vast informational resources and the ability to call upon experts in any conceivable field at a moment's notice. When I see where we came from: peace and prosperity to where we are: economy in tatters and endless war. The answer is quite simple: these people are incompetent and need to be shown the door.

...as I said, I could go on and on, the fact that you've written back is encouraging, it raises the hope that you might see through the nest of charlatans and scoundrels who have hijacked the GOP (Lincoln must be spinning in his grave). Let me know if you want to continue.

Craig

...and got disappointed, yet again:

Dear Craig,

Thanks for such a rapid response. Impressive.

No, there is little reason to continue. I have never found it productive to dialogue with profound and adulterated hate. Reason never is or will be heard or considered .. let alone accepted.

Don

...so I signed off:

Don:

This is the last one, I promise, but I did not want to let this go with misperceptions of my position unchallenged;

This is not "profound and adulterated hate" (though I think you meant 'unadulterated'). I do not hate Mr. Bush... I am terrified of him. Let me put it in perspective: I hated Nixon, virulently, puissantly, but I was never afraid when he was president because I knew that, in the end, he was too smart to do anything truly stupid as far as the country was concerned (he saved that dumbness for himself).

When Bush was 'elected' I sucked it in and said to myself, "Well, the Supreme Court has spoken and besides there were at least six things Gore should have done and we wouldn't be here." In addition, I thought; he's got Powell, honorable and a sound thinker, Cheney, venal but not stupid, Rumsfeld, arrogant but experienced and smart...how bad could it be?

Well a lot of things happened that I didn't like much and thought were ill-advised, to say the least, but we've stumbled through worse as a nation and, I thought, we'll get through this as well.

Then 9/11 happened. Now, I lived in New York for 30 years and I know people who worked in the towers, I hope they jumped rather than waiting for the flames to get them, I've never inquired.

Well, I thought, here's an opportunity for Mr. Bush to make up for the contemptuous way he's treated the majority of folks who actually did not vote for him. And, for a time, it seemed to work that way. I did not object to the war on the Taliban, nor to the attempt to nail Mr. Bin laden, I thought they were proportional, focused and morally justifiable. Most of the world agreed, including 90% of the Muslim nations.

You can imagine my dismay when I saw the march to Baghdad begin, fiction upon fiction, lie upon lie. Idiotic fantasies about troop numbers and capabilities. No hint of a plan for 'afterward'.

And the reality was even worse, just about every conceivable nightmare about fighting a nationwide guerrilla war, provoking fundamentalist fanatics, Americans - Americans! - torturing prisoners. The respect and admiration of the entire world that we worked to engender for decades, the sympathy and friendship we found after 9/11 even from countries not usually our friends... all squandered in a vainglorious and unnecessary war against a tinpot dictator who was only capable of harming his own people.

What a waste, a waste of goodwill, a waste of treasure, a waste of lives.

I don't hate him, Don. I'm terrified of what he'll do to us with four more years.

Before I go I want to recommend that you do some research on the people who have hijacked your party;

Find out who Richard Melon Scaife is and ask yourself what his interest is, why he has financed, among other things, the ten-year war on Mr. Clinton. Get some information on Grover Norquist and ask yourself why he wants to gut Social Security and reduce the US government to penury Hint: he calls it 'Starving the Beast'. Why do you think he calls it that? Investigate Rupert Murdoch, the Australian who owns a significant portion of the broadcast and printed media in United States, including Fox (known in my circles as the new Pravda) .

Basically, be honest and take a look at ideological underpinnings of the new Republican Party and as always: follow the money. Ask yourself who benefits from these tax cuts? Who is doing well in this wartime economy? (Tax cuts during wartime?... but that's another story).

I remember the GOP of Estes Kefauver, Bob Taft, Everett Dirksen, Sam Ervin, honorable men all. They wouldn't recognize this bunch of poltroons.

You accuse me of hatred and unreason, this is not the case. I am terrified of the abuse of power I see committed in the name of the American people every day by these dishonorable men. My capacity to reason has forced me to see through the deception.

My perception is that you have been deceived by crowd of cowards and liars who are not worthy of your loyalty.

Regards,
Craig

A Proposal for an Experiment...

This is the land of opportunity, right? We are engaged in a 'democratic experiment" right?

We have 50 little laboratories where we conduct variations on the grand American experiment.

I'd like to propose that we do an experiment, to allow the right wing all their fondest fantasies: laissez-faire capitalism in its raw form. Here are some of the things I've thought of:

No intrusive government regulations telling business what to do, who to hire, what to pay them, what, if any, benefits to provide.

No unions, all 'right-to-work'. No burdensome restrictions on banks, like caps on interest rates.

No punitive legal awards, only compensatory damages.

No judicial sentencing latitude, fixed prison terms for all offenses, no plea bargaining.

No property taxes, income taxes or business taxes (the Constitution only mandates imposts [duty] and excise [manufacture, sale or consumption] taxes)

No public schools or libraries. Schooling would be provided by private charter-type schools or schools run by religious organizations. Libraries, likewise, could be provided by private organizaitons if they so choose. Also, no subsidized public transportation all existing mass transit would be privatized and priced according to the market.

No government support or subsidies for arts, parks, sports or any other superfluous activities. Police services would be absorbed into the general militia which would be empowered to ensure order.

Of course, there would also be no welfare, no social security, no medicare or medicaid.

In respect of our culture's heritage Judeo-Christian moral values and scriptural documents would be honored and respected at all official events: prayers for divine guidance would be mandatory at all government functions.

All citizens would be required to obtain valid identification papers and to carry them at all times for presentation upon demand.

All citizens would be required to at least two years active service in the armed forces and be subject to recall to duty from then on.

I think that we should select a state with significant resources and a history of indpendence so that no one can say we stacked the deck against them. I propose Texas.

I have no doubt that you all have some interesting contributions to make, please let us know about it.

The second part of the exercise would be to set up a prediction pool, my questions:

1. How long before chaos and panic take hold?

2. How long after that before some strongman stages a coup?

3. How long after that before some group or other starts up a socialist/communist insurrection?

A response to Nicholas Kristof's NYT column of june 30th

Mr. Kristof:

Normally, I find your columns perceptive and edifying. But I think you have gone a bit off course on your column of June 30th.

First, I think you underestimate the anger that has been brewing over the treatment of President Clinton. I had no particular brief for the man but the right wing ferocity and mendacity forced me firmly in his camp. I, and many like me, have not forgotten that he was impeached over chasing Ms. Lewinsky around the Oval Office and lying about it. The use of impeachment for this trivial offense showed us that the right has declared war on the left in this country... there is no longer any gray area ..and let's not forget that the 2000 election is viewed by many as a coup d'etat by the right with the collusion of the Supreme Court. I don't think I will ever forget the news shots of right wing thugs breaking into the voting offices to stop the recount, they might as well have been wearing brown shirts.

Second, you are correct in stating that there is a consensus on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest. This dishonest attitude permeates his administration in every way. From out and out lies (yellowcake from Niger) to the 'public relations' bills with no funding such as "No Child Left Behind' (and I'm particularly irked by the slimy sanctimonious names these bills have) to the not so subtle drumbeat attacks on individual freedom: Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, CAPS, CAPS II, Mr. Ashcroft's 'request' for all records of women who have had abortions... this list goes on and on. This is, without doubt, the most corrupt administration we have ever had in control of all three branches of government... and I haven't even begun to mention the appalling crossover corruption of megabusiness and the superrich in regards to this administration.

Third, and most disturbing, these people really are zealots. They have a plan which they have articulated and stuck to for 30 years, they intend to take over this country and turn it into a one party state... for ever. This is the statement that usually gets the laughs and snickers of 'another vast right wing conspiracy, eh?' I've always found it interesting that, as the clear statements and the resultant evidence gets more an more obvious, the reaction seems to be 'if I don't admit it's there, then it doesn't exist'

Way back in the 1980's the Republican party and the Christian Coalition made statements as to how they intended to proceed. They would get their members on school boards, into city councils and in state legislatures by whatever means necessary including hiding their affiliation with right wing and religious groups. At that point, they thought it would be possible to take over state governments and begin their attempt to consolidate control over the country entirely.

So far this plan has worked brilliantly.

Another point to remember is that the right wing regards this process as their entitlement, for example they resent the fact that Bill Clinton was elected at all, the thinking being that, if not for Ross Perot, there would be an unbroken line of Republicans in the White House as far as the eye can see.

Tom Delay, that astoundingly corrupt man, has made no secret of his intent to create a permanent Republican majority in both houses of congress. His tactics in Texas resulted in the gain of seven congressional seats for the Republicans at the trivial cost of overturning Texas law on redistricting.

There has been an unbroken stream of political manipulation of the federal judiciary in an attempt (again very successful) to pack the federal bench, at all levels, with right wing ideologues, not just conservative thinkers: Pickering is only one egregious example.

There are also the behind-the-scenes operations: eminence grise Grover Norquist
continues to formulate and fund policies intended to 'starve the beast'. This phrase, as I'm sure you know, means to eliminate the capacity of the federal government to function by means of drastically reducing and/or eliminating taxes. The plan here is to force the federal government to eliminate social programs (medicare, medicaid and social security) entirely for lack of funding, eliminate business and income taxes (for the rich) and eliminate any government oversight of business. Mr. Norquist believes that a true laisse faire economy will result in a cornucopia of benefits for all.
Richard Mellon Scaife, the man who funded the endless Clinton investigations (until congress colluded with them and put Mr. Starr on the case). Is another furtive character who prefers to stay in the background whilst supporting such noble ventures as The American Spectator.

In addition, there is the religious right wing element apparent as far back as the Reagan era with the Moral Majority. Remember Jerry Falwell? He's still around and still working for his vision of a Christian America, where, to paraphrase from his graduation speech at Liberty College, he “Looks forward to the day when the public school system in this country is shut down and replaced by Christian schools”. Let's also not forget about Ralph Reed, formerly head of the Christian Coalition, now head of the Georgia Republican Party and de facto head of the Republican southern regional political operation. These guys have not gone away, they are here and they are zealots and they are effective.

Now I'd like to talk about the saturation of the media, your bailiwick: so far as i can see, the right have, essentially, taken over the mass media. Still voicing shrill cries of 'liberal bias' they now own radio, have the pretty much co-opted television and have managed to relegate most major newspapers to 'so what' status.

Allow me to explain. As to radio, I think no one will argue that this is a right wing wasteland, with the minor exception of Air America, the entire country is blanketed by a never-ending stream of right wing propaganda. Jim Hightower couldn't get himself arrested, even Howard Stern found the going getting tougher as soon as he turned on Bush. So forget radio.

Television, now that's interesting, Fox, of course, is a creature of Rupert Murdoch, yet another of the right wing zealots doing their best for the cause. Fox is almost comic opera, one would think that no one took it seriously yet polls consistently show that Fox is way over the top in size of audience and influence. This has had the inevitable effect of skewing television news media en masse. In their fever to compete with Fox, CNN, MSNBC (parse that acronym) CNBC, ABC, CBS, et al have charged bravely to the right. As a result, spectacularly good reporters like Christianne Ammanpour cannot get airtime. We do not get 'discouraging words', we are fed the pablum you see everywhere. This is why Michael Moore seems so outrageous.
Recently, Tucker Carlson managed to parlay his snide participation on Crossfire into a slot on PBS, riding the horse of 'liberal bias'. His first show featured an hour long guest appearance by... wait for it... Ken Starr. The beat goes on...

On to the print media, the 'gray lady' notwithstanding, I can name fewer than a dozen newspapers in this country that have room for a 'liberal' point of view, not to mention a 'liberal' bias. Can you name more? And it doesn't help that the NYT has shot itself in the foot repeatedly over the past couple of years. Shoddy reporting, nonexistent supervision... what the hell is going on there?

Nevermind, what's happened is that the entire debate has been shifted by the efforts of the right wing. We no longer talk about liberal/progressive issues: extended social benefits, universal health care, living wages. We talk/speak/think only about right wing issues now. We have shifted to center right versus far right.

I could go on and on and on... if you're still reading even now. The real point is that we cannot continue to fool ourselves about the right wing's intentions anymore. To do so would be folly of the worst sort, we must recognize that these people are quite serious, they mean to fundamentally change our form of government in very much the same way as the loathsome theocratic despotisms we see in the middle east. The only difference is that here it will be under a christian rubric.

You have a voice, an important voice even. Please do not underestimate the commitment of the right wing in this country, nor mistake their ultimate intent. They are not friends of freedom and they must be resisted.

Thanks for your time,
Craig Della Penna