Red Dirt Talk - Part 4, the Conclusions

Choices to Make:

Ok, we've set the stage, How does it play out for the presumptive candidates?

Obama

For BHO, this is The Land of Dreams Come True. He can function pretty much as the king he imagines himself to be: commanding by fiat and having his wishes transformed into law. Surrounded by coteries of adoring acolytes and wizened viziers wishpering into his ear.

With the expected congressional gains the Democrats are likely to make and given their propensity to grovel, a rubber stamp congress for BHO is pretty much a done deal. If we had HRC in the executive we might actually see some groundbreaking legislation and the enactment of a number of sorely needed reforms. With BHO in the saddle we're much more likely to see a repeat of the current farce. Largely this kind of administration is reflective of the nature of the person who is POTUS. We've just been through a seven year example of how this can go horribly wrong. BHO's nature, both the revealed and the still hidden aspects - gives plenty of cause for alarm: narcissistic, solipsistic, arrogant, ignorant and truculent, he is a walking poster for exactly what to avoid when looking to fill an executive position with unlimited power.


McCain

For McCain, the picture is not quite so rosy, in fact, he's more likely to be a caretaker president, given the majority the Democrats will hold in both houses.

There will be few initiatives from the Executive branch. McCain doesn't have many new ideas, there may be some movement on campaign spending reform but certainly nothing on healthcare. With a Democratic congress there will not be any Supreme Court nominations even if all the sitting justices tripped on the steps and fell on their heads.

On the other hand, there are some good points to a McCain presidency: first, there would not be an Obama presidency - I can't stress enough how desirable this is. Next, he's not GWB - repeat that please: he's not GWB. No more idiots in the White House, what a relief. Further, McCain is regarded as an honorable man and we could sure use someone honorable to represent us to the world again. BHO already show deficits in that regard. Last, we survived seven years of GWB, I think we can survive four years of McCain but I really question whether our country can survive a BHO cult takeover.



...And another choice we could make:

I'm going to push the Red Dirt metaphor a little bit here. With PUMA and JustSayNoDeal out there stirring things up, I'm thinking that there may be another way onward. The goal is to get some leverage in the political game they play in Washington. We've been a two party system for some time because, among other reasons, the parties field full slates for all offices, including POTUS. Even the smaller parties like the Libertarians and the Conservatives are always running a Ron Paul or Bob Barr. It's pretty pointless, really, they're never going to get elected - sure it's an ego boost to say 'I ran for POTUS' but so did Lyndon LaRouche and Harold Stassen (many times each). It also feeds into the myth we have developed that 'anyone can run for POTUS', it's really useful for the two major parties because it bleeds off the anger a lot of people like us feel about having been hosed, yet again, by the party of our choice. We get all fired up and run around pushing our 'pet rock' for the highest office in the land... and when the inevitable happens, we turn back into pumpkins serene in the knowledge that we've participated in the 'democratic process'. But we haven't really accomplished anything (Red Dirt Talk, remember?) and deep down, we know it.


What about focusing on some real power? If the Democrats pick up 15 seats in the House they will have a 248 to 187 advantage over the Republicans, pretty much tromping rights on everything.


What If some interested people were to begin building a political party organization - call it the True Democratic Party, for example, with a clear focus on the 2010 elections. Traditionally the party in power loses some seats in the off-year election, given BHO's track record to date I would expect serious 'buyer's remorse' if he should get elected, certainly McCain would not be likely to still be a crowd pleaser. Moreover, the seething anger that many of us feel toward the Gang of Four (Pelosi, Dean, Reid and Brazile - with a sly reference to their Maoist forebears) will, no doubt, be exacerbated by the time the 2010 elections roll around. The purpose of the True Democratic Party would be to pick the 50 most vulnerable Congressional districts and work to take at least 36 away from the Democrats. This would bring the Democratic House seat count to 212, that is 1 vote shy of a majority. Even half that many seats would scare the bejeebers out of the Gang of Four and would very likely lead to a significant amount of attention paid to the needs of True Democratic Party members by both major parties. This is called 'leverage', it is also what they call the "dish best served cold."


For myself, I will not ever vote for Obama. When he is installed as the official nominee of the Democratic Party, I will leave the Democratic Party - after 40 years. If necessary, that is if the election looks to be close enough so it might actually matter, I will (figuratively) hold my nose and vote for McCain. I can see that there is a path forward, certainly not one I ever expected to take. I think our democracy needs some critical thinking, some untypical action and, desperately, some different results than we have seen so far.


Repressing competency for magical thinking is a sign of a culture in deep trouble. Reagan and Bush were both that kind of sign, I had hoped the sickness was limited to the Reaganauts and the Bushies but it appears to have spread to the Democratic party as well. This essay is an attempt to deal with the reality of a deeply flawed process and candidate. The issues are of coequal importance with the character of the candidate and integrity of the process; when one is degraded, the other two can determine the balance, when two parts are deficient there is no good solution.


Think, think long and deeply, consider well your options and remember: You get whatever you choose.

The Pledge

Preamble

When you read the I Own My Vote Pledge, keep in mind that the demands it contains are not admissions of defeat, nor are they conditions precedent to your vote. Hillary's campaign is only suspended, not ended. And only you can decide when your vote has been earned. Whether you are a PUMA activist, a WomenCountPAC donor, a Just Say No Deal blogger, a Clinton Democrat for McCain, a yellow dog Democrat for VoteBoth, or simply a Hillary Clinton supporter who feels like the Party leaders and their presumptive nominee are ignoring everything that you value, the most powerful statement you can make right now is that YOU OWN YOUR VOTE. Only in finding that common ground will we be counted, for only in that common ground will we be able to count ourselves.
* * * * *
On Saturday, June 7, 2008, Hillary Clinton suspended her historic campaign for President. To her 18 million voters, it may have seemed like an end, but I pledge to make it a beginning … a beginning of a movement to achieve the democratic and just country that Hillary has envisioned for America.

I stand together with Hillary Clinton’s 18 million voters to demand that Senator Obama and the Democratic Party:

• Bring us together by seating 100% of the Florida and Michigan delegations in Denver with 100% of their votes, allocated in accordance with the popular vote of each state.
  
• Bring us together by adopting policies on the Platform Committee that Hillary Clinton has championed.
  
• Bring us together through reform of the primary and caucus system to reflect the basic principle of one person/one vote.
  
• Bring us together through outspoken denunciation of all gender bias, racism and other forms of discrimination.
  
• Bring us together by fairly and respectfully including Hillary and her supporters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver by, among other things, placing her name in nomination for President, conducting a roll call vote, and providing her a prominent speaking role during prime time on August 26th, the 88th anniversary of women’s suffrage.

I own my vote. It does not belong to any party. It does not belong to any candidate. It does not belong to any mob that would impose its will on me. Only I can decide how to use my vote, and I can decide based on any criteria I choose. Therefore I pledge not to give my vote to anyone who does not earn it.

Click here to sign the pledge: http://iownmyvote.com/

Letter to Hillary, No. 2

Dear Hillary:


There are rumors going around that you intend to campaign with Mr. Obama and encourage donors to give money to his campaign. Please, please do not do this. I am asking you not to for several reasons; first, we who have supported you throughout the primary season have learned just what kind of man Barack Obama is - and it's not a pretty picture. While you may be 'impervious' the 'slings and arrows' - we are not. We have been deeply harmed and we have not forgotten.


Second, if you move to actively support Mr. Obama, it will be seen by many of us as a betrayal - both a personal betrayal and a betrayal in the context of principle. If this is to be a democracy then the contest for leadership must conform to those principles of democracy we stand for. Packing caucuses with thugs, stealing delegates, disenfranchising voters and race-baiting may be acceptable political tactics somewhere on the globe but not in this country and not for the highest position in the land. Mr. Obama's campaign tactics are, prima facie, evidence of his unfitness for the office. If you now go out and actively support him, you implicitly accept his despicable campaign tactics and condone his racist strategy. Such action will severely damage your own hard-won credibility as the seasoned, principled leader we know you to be.


Third, practically speaking, supporting Mr. Obama will avail you nothing. He is now infamous for imperiously accepting obeisance from those he has threatened and/or muscled into acquiescence and immediately throwing them under the bus the moment there appears to be the slightest political advantage to do so.


Last, as time goes on Mr. Obama begins to show his true agenda, it becomes more and more clear that this is a man without any interest in democracy whatsoever. Much like George W Bush before him, he has little interest in the outside world, the minutiae of making things work, nor even of the broad policies that guide the work. This is a man who cannot clean his desk, who will 'hire some people who know a bunch of stuff' who does not know that Iran and Afghanistan are not Arab nations. This is a man wants to rule by fiat, who is inarticulate to the point of idiocy without a teleprompter script in front of him... this is not just a fool - this is an arrogant, selfish fool.


Do you really want to help put him on the phone at 3AM, with the 'Button' in his hand?


There is no winning strategy here for you - though there may be other strategies to win, this is not one of them. Resist those who tell you to give in and help the party - they are not your friends. Resist those who hammer on you to stay silent and keep in line - they are not your friends.


We are your friends, there are 18 million of us - please listen.


Thank you,

Craig Della Penna

Speaking with Dragons

When speaking with dragons, it is wise to know the names of things. True names have great power and if you know the dragon's name...


I've been sitting back, these last few days, watching the dust settle and seeing all the old song and dance routines, the familiar pressures brought to bear in the name of party 'unity' for the Democrats. The slow, grinding, patronizing "there, there, now, now" susurrus meant to lull all the plebes back to sleep.

You shouldn't have woken us up...

"There, there," they say, "this will all be over soon, like a bad dream and you can go back to your little lives, we'll take care of everything." And they are, the maneuvering to neutralize Hillary's supporters goes on. Maybe they'll have to give her the VP slot just to shut her up, I'm sure they'll avoid that if they possibly can - after all, then they'd have to hire a food taster for Obama, wouldn't they?

...because we're not going away now...

The point of all the posturing and faux unity nonsense is not to provide a place for the actual winner of the primaries, no, it's to provide a plausible pretext for saying - to all the 'bitter' people: "See? It's all better now, come home and we'll talk about it; there, there, now, now." smooth as butter, "Just walk with us for a little while - until November - and then you can rest." the sound of unruffled feathers fills the room ...

...we have looked behind the curtain...

They'll play on all the buttons: the "Party Unity" button - "Come on now, Hils, you've been a good little Democrat for goin' on, what now? Forty years? Done what you're told, toed the line - except for these last few months - but what the heck: forgive and forget, right? Just reel in your white racists, er , uh, disaffected Democrats for us and we'll give you a big present, mebbe pay off your campaign debts - oh, don't you worry about that legal stuff, Obama'll fix that as soon as he takes over. Mebbe, we'll even make you the VP, eh? How'd you like that? You could snooze all day over at the Naval Observatory, cut ribbons at mini-malls, go to parties, hold a bake sale - anything you want!"

...we have seen through your mask, we know your true name now...

The "Little Lady" button: "Aw, don't be like that, Hils. You know we didn't really mean it when we said you an' Chelsea were whores - that's just politics, you know nobody means anything they say out there, it's just BS to rile up the voters so they'll do what they're told... well, sure, maybe you meant it but... Sweetie, why don't you just simmer down and let the menfolk handle things, hmmm? Don't you worry your pretty little head about it anymore, all right?"

...and you have had so many names through the ages, haven't you?...

The "Patriotism" button: "You have to swallow your pride now, Hillary, it's for the good of the country. After all, we let you go on and on through the whole, entire, useless primary season, didn't we? Even though you knew you we were never going to give it you, right? So now it's time to step back in line and be a good little soldier for Obama. After all you wouldn't want that other guy to win, right? So just get your stupid supporters to shut up and do what they're told and everything will be all right."

...some names come from the old days: Alcibiades, Dionysius of Syracuse, Caligula, Attila...

After the 'sweeting' ploys are done, the bouquets scattered on the ground, the courtship over, we'll begin to see the plan unfold. The disingenuous attacks on patriotism, the false claims of moral superiority, the demonization of the 'other'. All the classic ploys that each side will now use, identical tactics and strangely similar messages - because there is now no difference between them. The Republican fanatics we have all reviled in past contests for their lies, smears and blatant racism - will now be matched filth for filth by home-grown Democratic thugs.

...some have more recent provenance: Lenin, Beria and Stalin from Russia, Mao from China, Hitler and Goebbels from Germany, Pol Pot from Cambodia, Tojo from Japan...

The grandiose proclamations, like the one today: "no lobbyist money allowed" while the lobbyists' lawyers sit on all the advisory boards and the money flows, unimpeded. Obama will, no doubt, be 'shocked, shocked' to discover that "K Street" money has somehow appeared in his coffers.

...oh, and there are others, so many, many others...

The blatant racism that pervades the Obama organization has been subject to a peculiar wrinkle in the fabric of space/time: everyone (the Obamabots, the political world and the media) has agreed to ignore it, rationalize it, invert it - to the point that, if it is ever even mentioned, the transgressor is immediately accused of racism themselves. It will be interesting to see how that strategy works when Michelle's words with Mrs. Farrakhan are 'leaked'. They may not remember, but we will.

...they come in all shapes and sizes and colors, they come as ministers or as wise men with words as seductive as a summer dusk; they come as firebrands, burning with passion, keepers of a secret flame; they come as bearers of glad tidings, eager to spread the good, good news...

The themes of the potent demagogue, riding high on the surge of his own rhetoric are legion in our culture. Hubris is the word the Greeks invented to describe the fault: overweening pride and arrogance, sufficient to make the gods take notice and intervene. Calling yourself 'transformative' might qualify, comparing yourself to Kennedy, to Lincoln, to... well, who's next? That might qualify as well.

...so many shifting shapes, so many thin disguises, a veil for every taste, a coin for every sleight of hand...

The dance goes on and on, the steps are set, lines learned, lights on... let the beguiling begin.

...but we know you now, whatever your disguise, despite your soporific words - the sound of silk on silk - the warmth of a mother's kiss...

Like all the empty men before you, you seek to fill the void inside with the empathy and energy of your acolytes, that is why there is no surcease, no surfeit; there are never enough new followers to fill your need and there never will be. They hear in you the echo of their thoughts because you have no center, all is reflection and refraction, their hopes and dreams meet your event horizon and fall past remembrance into your dark center from which nothing escapes.

...we know what you want, the only thing you want - our grasp released, our embers banked, our brow lowered, eyes unfocused, hands folded - our acquiescence...

The unending cycle now repeats, in a slow chaconne: step - don't worry, I'll take care of you, step - give me your allegiance, step - don't bother with the details, step - I'll do the thinking for you, step - sign here and then forget, step - now you can sleep again.

...you will not wrest it from us this time, you will have to tread the great wheel again, to another time, another imagining, finding other victims in other dreams of power...

Some, of course, will not collaborate, for any price. The proud who require honor and respect, the stubborn who demand to know the details, the critical thinkers who want positions defined and defended, the questioners who want their questions answered. We who are not satiated with soaring rhetoric (we can do that, too, we're not impressed) . We who want to know the 'what' of what is it you're planning, the 'how' of how you plan to do it, the 'why' of why it is you think we should. We have hinted and implied, we have asked and requested, required and demanded and your response has been...silence, eloquent in its quiet thunder... so be it. Now we will answer you.

...for now we know your name, we have no need to speak it, you are already robbed of your power over us. The time has come for you to hear our name - so you will know we mark you, we who will never give in, never forget, never forgive.

Our name is: Nemesis.

Just sent a letter to the Hillary campaign

Dear Hillary:

Well thought, well said, well fought... over the past several months it has become plain that the Democratic Party doesn't want you or Bill anymore... we do, however. Perhaps it's time for you to take a leap of faith - in us.

The Democratic Party is now on a journey of self-concerned, self-involved, self-immolation. Neither you nor any of us can save our erstwhile party from destruction. The best thing that we and you can do for our country now is to create a third party.

We will follow you there, all 18 million strong and more.
Please do not squander your energy and talent on the dregs of the Democratic Party. They no longer deserve you, but we do and we will dare if you will.
Yes, we can.

Regards,
Craig Della Penna

The Covenant They Made

Hmmm… let’s see if I understand this:

The Democratic Party is just sick of li’l ol Iowa and New Hampshire stealing the spotlight for all those months of pre-primary campaigning. After all, these puny states have only a relatively few delegates between them and their population is only tiny percentage of the Democratic voters.

So, the DNC decides that they’re gonna put a stop to this nonsense in 2008 and they’ve got just the hombre to do it Howard “YeeHaw” Dean. Dean, with the help of some other interested parties – Brazile, Dashielle, Pelosi, etc; Obama partisans all, curiously enough – come up with a plan. They’ll declare that no state Democratic Party can hold a primary/caucus before an arbitrary day in February. There! That’ll do it!, they thought, none of those states would dare to defy our orders.

“Surprise, surprise, surprise!” as Gomer Pyle used to say. It turned out that Iowa, New Hampshire and several other states thought that they might want to get in on the early bird spotlight and through a series of negotiations Michigan decided to represent these other states in a protest against the arbitrariness of the DNC rules committee… so to discourage these miscreants the DNC decided that they would allow Iowa and New Hampshire (who were going to do what they wanted anyway) to hold their primaries/caucuses as they wanted … but the DNC would add a couple of other states to the early draw to – what? – oh yeah, to balance the demographics… yeah, that makes sense, right?

They decided to add Nevada (WTF?) which was a caucus state, mebbe that was it (?) and South Carolina as the primary state. Huh? What the heck is the logic about South Carolina? Oh wait… we really needed to let the african-american voters show their love - and did they ever.

Let’s pause a minute here to entertain a conspiracy theory: What if… Donna Brazile and a bunch of other Democrat loser, ebbing-craft, slipping-power, Pooh-Bahs (Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Dashielle, Kerry, etc, etc) had decided, after the Kerry debacle, that they wanted their very own sock-puppet to dangle just like Cheney-Rove had dangled GWB for six long years. Where would they find an idiot/naife ? Well, who better that the psychologically-damaged, conveniently mulatto, man-child, Obama? He of the stirring, though curiously content-free, speeches – this waif could be used with impunity, after all he had no provenance, no actual real world experience, no basis upon which to judge their proffers of ‘power’. How could he/they resist?

And they had learned their lesson well – the despicable lineage of Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes and Karl Rove had founded a new Madrasah. Willing acolyte David Axelrod and his ilk had studied well – and as well had studied the original craftsmen of deceit and dishonor: Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Beria, Gobbles, Mao and Goering.

How to deceive the rubes? How to convert the concupiscent? Why use the rule of opposites… if your client-puppet is a black racist: accuse his opponents of being white racists! If your opponent is a woman, let your representatives heap scorn and humiliation, make tawdry jokes, name her a bitch, call her a whore… if you have no policies, no program other than your own overweening pride; whatthehell, elide any questions, avoid any actual substantive debate, concentrate on your feelings, her personality, your cuteness, her reported stony façade. Emphasize her stiffness, her wonkiness, her ‘likeable enough’ quotient. After all that’s what’s really important here: you’re cute and she’s… old, really old…

Not to worry, thought the Democratic ‘leaders’, Obama’s legions of brain-dead zombies will carry us forward as far as we wish to go…

So, they formulated their plan and suborned the primary process through subversion of the votes, complicity with the cross-over Republican voters, intimidation in the caucuses, threats, intimidation of the delegates – all the classic Bolshevik/Rovian strategies – culminating in the blatant, naked takeover of the DNC rules committee which stole delegates from primary voters and awarded them to the hijackers.

The transparent, despicable posturing of the DNC in yesterday’s exercise in Marxist double-speak, was indicative of the direction the - now dead - Democratic Party wishes to go. This is no longer the party of labor, workers, citizens (vs business). This new radical leftist/fascist party is now a cult of personality, dedicated to the vapid, festered guidance of a single, pathological entity. Their every action dedicated to his consecration, their every thought consecrated to his ascension, their very will offered in sacrifice to his accretion of power.

Fanaticism, requires no prima facie, it asks no perception from its adherents, it abjures critical thought and strives to eliminate: questions, reflection, - thought itself. Fanaticism such as the New Obamaist Democrats want only your blind obedience, your thoughtless, mindless acquiescence to whatever the Obama high command generates as the thought for the day.

So, the “Democrats” had to rationalize their machinations (not for the benefit of the cadres – they don’t care how they win , so long as they win) but for the despised, but vitally necessary ‘bitter’ Democrats – the white-trash democrats, the Hillary supporters who they hated but who are absolutely necessary for the anticipated Bolshevik victory in November.

How to mollify, persuade – deceive – those stomach-churning, useful fools – the Hillary supporters? What about faking a proposal to – kinda, sorta – make believe that we support the (stupid) voters in Florida and Michigan? After all, we don’t have to really listen to these idiots, we just have to get them to sign on to the Obama Democratic Party for November, after that – who cares?

That’s the ‘secret’ plan surfacing in these troubled waters, revealed almost by accident in yesterday’s pageant. I watched the first 40 minutes of the charade and concluded, rightly as it turned out, that the fix was in and that the only thing they really had left to do was to fight for table space close to The Anointed One… and make sure to show the Clintons where the servants exit door was.

This was the covenant they made those many months ago, achieve the nomination by any means necessary: lie, cheat, steal, intimidate, suborn the vote, disenfranchise legitimate votes that don’t go your way. Bribe some delegates with puerile promises of influence and power, intimidate the ones you can’t bribe, threaten their careers, murmur sweet nothings in their ears about what might happen if they don’t acquiesce, comply… submit. This is the covenant they will live by going forward, anyone no longer useful will be thrown under the bus (I see The Anointed One’s church is no longer useful) or pushed back into the closet until white-trash relatives come to visit - they’ve pulled Joe Biden out of the closet and dusted him off to show that Obama knows how to spell ‘foreign policy’. The propaganda tsunami rolls on, the main stream press mouthpieces are stacked in maintenance mode until The Anointed One needs them to savage McCain. This is the covenant they seek to make for our future.

This will not stand. There will be repercussions. The contempt of the Obamaites for the rest of us and their blind assumption that we white-trash ‘bitter’ people will do what we’re told; that will be the rock upon which they founder.

As I read and communicate with others in the politically active community of the internet I have seen a new movement of the masses. More and more often I see and hear and read from people who have heretofore been silent, content to let the world of politics wend its way; confident that, in the end, the right choice would be obvious to all… no longer. They have seen the light at the end of this tunnel and they know it for the oncoming train it is. The Obama Party thinks they have the nomination/election wrapped up, they assume that all those old union members, white-trash ‘bitter’ people, creepy old people, frumpy housewives, low class, blue collar worker bees – will all come back to the fold (after all, where do they have to go?)

Not this time. Not for this vapid, senseless, stupid crew of thugs. They can stand in the smoking ruins of a party they chose to incinerate. They can reap the whirlwind of the viciousness and enmity they have sown. To paraphrase Shakespeare:

The Obama Party is but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets its hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

But we who remain and can think, may choose another path.

The Moment of Truth

Dear Hillary... and Bill:

I have written to you before and I post regularly on my journal: The Heraclitan Fire and at No Quarter

It seems to me that the fix is in, I think that Mr. Obama has already been chosen by the Democratic party 'elders' as their nominee. You know that this will be a disaster for the Democrats in November and will likely lead to John McCain's election.

I know you both are lifelong Democrats and I know your first instinct is to help the Democrats , no matter how badly you have been abused. I am writing to you to ask you to consider another option.

The Democratic spinelessness and cowardice in regards to the Iraq war is spectacularly evident and Democrats are disgusted by the performance of Pelosi & Co. From what I am seeing and hearing there is a tremendous groundswell for creating a third party in this country. The time is right and you two are the perfect political team to do this.

I know you are hesitant about abandoning the Democrats but consider that they have been co-opted by Bill Ayers’ and Barack Obama’s New Bolshevik cadres. In fact there is no Democratic party any longer. What is left is a cult very similar to the cults that followed Hitler, Lenin and Mao.

Perhaps that seems a bit too far, yet we have all seen the skillful use of propaganda to camouflage lies, the selection of a scapegoat to blame all failures on, the incantations to belief that permeates the Obama ‘movement’ [sic].

The combination of power starved, ineffectual party ‘leaders’ – who have all envied your actual accomplishments, while they were never able to do anything; and the hijacking of the caucuses, the party apparatus and the threats and intimidation of party delegates; should all be indicators that something very, very bad is going on.

Indeed, I submit to you that the die is cast: the so-called Democratic party has been taken over by a group of far leftist/fascist radicals who are determined to foist their version of ‘democracy’ on the entire country.

You may think that I am being paranoid – and perhaps I am, nevertheless what is true is that the Democratic party no longer has a place for anyone named “Clinton”.

However, we who understand that, in the long run, substance trumps style; we who have waited – forever – it seems, for a candidate/party/zeitgeist that truly represents our fervent dreams. For us now is the moment, now is the time to rise up and declare ourselves, now is the point in the space-time continuum when we can grab hold of Archimedes' lever and move the earth.

I would say that this is a “once in a generation opportunity” but it is not, this chance only comes along once in a hundred years or more.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton – you have the intelligence, you have the experience, you have the political knowledge, you have the influence, you have the organization and you have the will of the people.

I know it will be hard, I know it will take time you could be using for your own private lives, I know it will take treasure and dedication and fierce resolve… I know it will take much, much more than you ever expected to be asked for… but, nevertheless, I am asking – and millions of Americans are asking: Take us away from these false ‘democrats’ help us create, organize and grow a new, truly, democratic party. A party for people with brains and guts and sense – a party for Americans not fanatics, for Americans not bigots, for Americans not cowards.

We’re ready – we’re more than ready, only say the word and we are there.

Craig Della Penna

China – and what to do about her, Part 1

I was recently put in touch with John Kusumi China Support Net by the good folks at, No Quarter. John is working hard to support freedom and democracy in China (and I urge everyone who reads this to support him). John had read some of my writings and was interested in my reaction to his writings on the subject. This is my response.

Disclaimer: The following are my thoughts, speculations and opinions; based upon many and varied readings and research over a long period of time. I do not claim to speak for anyone else but I do claim that these writings represent a valid position in today’s world. It is possible that some of these writings may be in error – if so, I am open to correction, but absent proof of error, I am willing to debate and defend my positions vigorously.

A Bit of History


In order to think cogently about China, you have to know a little of her history. That's not to say that we need to start with the Five Immortal Emperors and the Monkey King or dally with Genghis Khan or with the Ming Dynasty. However the ancient history of China shows a repeating story of resistance, invasion, conquest and absorption. The alien enemy, the plundering hordes, the invading savages conquer all and reap the reward of their struggle – the Dragon Throne – and one by one, they all become seduced and absorbed into the ongoing dream of the Middle Kingdom (Zhongguo – the Chinese name for China)…

Why does this pattern repeat over and over again across the millennia? Is it perhaps a reflection of the process we have seen in western civilization (or are we the reflection?) If so, what makes the outcome different from ours? It is not enough to cite the rise of science in the west nor to credit the difference to the rise of the Athens and democratic sensibility. Something more elemental was at work in the east – Taoism and Confucius.


The Tao of Confucius


OK, to begin with, this discussion must be a simplified, truncated, even bowdlerized version of some of the most extremely complex thought systems ever dreamed up by man (or Zhuangzi) – I apologize beforehand for this short treatment and I urge anyone who is reading this to explore these philosophies further – you will be rewarded. In addition, we are here attempting to express the dreams and desires of one of the most sophisticated societies ever developed, with a people who were used to a level of nuanced thought unfathomable by our ‘frontal assault’ approach to life in the west (see Tang and Song Dynasty poetry). To start…
Taoism is and was a system of philosophy that encourages a serene and accepting approach to the world and its travails, similar in some ways to the Stoics in the west. But Taoism prefers to think in terms of harmony with the world around one emphasizing compassion, moderation and humility in everyday actions. This philosophy permeated all Chinese life in the various empires, and, along with Confucianism, made a very curious mixture.

Confucius was a scholar, minor court functionary and philosopher who lived about 2,500 years ago during the Zhou dynasty. His works on the moral responsibility of the ruler to the ruled, and the obligation of the citizen to improve themselves, morally, by dint of constant self-improvement and the development of superior judgment.

By contrast, in the west, at this time, Thales was ordering the world by means of natural, replicable explanations rather than relying on supernatural intercession; Pericles, Socrates and Aristotle were not yet born.

Confucianism has been called, erroneously, in the west, the foundation of bureaucracy – that honor, I believe belongs more properly to Hammurabi. Nevertheless, there was a strange and unfortunate affect when Taoism and Confucianism were combined in the Middle Kingdom.
The problem arose from the combination of a strict hierarchical government form, with the military power to back it up, and the introduction of Taoist passivity and Confucian respect for authority and moral value. The royal class was able to make a distinction between themselves and the lower levels of society. The essentially feudal nature of politico/economics then prevalent in China en toto meant that a strong, secure, stable, ossified culture extended for over a thousand years. Even several invasions were not able to subvert this monolithic system – the invaders were accepted, beguiled, seduced and… absorbed. But China did not change.


The Oppression of the West and the Opium Wars


The legendary Chinese dynasties of Han, Tang and Song were succeeded by the Mongol and Manchu invasions – which were subsumed into the Yuan and Qing dynasties. The Qing lasted until 1912 but now without serious civil strife. The advent of the western powers in the 19th century coincided with the outbreak of various insurrections and served to weaken central authority. This, along with the British and American policies of encouraging opium addiction (and thus the very lucrative opium trade) among the Chinese led to the aptly-named Opium Wars, which China lost. Beachheads and trade concessions were demanded by the victors and accede to by the Dowager Empress (who had little choice in the matter). Even the popular uprising called the Boxer Rebellion failed to do anything but further weaken the Dragon Throne.


The Kuomintang, the CPC and WWII


Finally, in 1913 the Nationalist Party (Kuomintang) led by the legendary Sun Yat-sen and his protégé, Chiang Kai-shek took control and attempted to establish a representative (though only one party rule) Chinese government. There were hindered by the activities of the powerful groups of warlords who had accrued great power over the long decline of the empire and the various internecine wars. They were also openly opposed by the Chinese Communist Party (CPC) led by the firebrand Mao Zedong.

During WWII, both the Kuomintang and the CPC fought together against the Japanese Empire. Hatred of the Japanese trumped their rivalry for the time being (see the Rape of Nanking, for an example of why). But as soon as that war was over, the battle for power began in earnest. The Kuomintang appealed to the nationalist sentiment among the Chinese people but the same old ruling elite were the leaders. The CPC promised the peasants power over their own lives (falsely of course) and a new way of distributing the wealth – the great communist mantra: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” – a phrase so very useful when convincing the downtrodden to hand over control of their lives to you.


Mao on the Dragon Throne


Eventually, four years later. Mao and the CPC prevailed and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was born. The Kuomintang was forced off the mainland to Formosa (Taiwan) where they have remained in noisy exile ever since. This was not without cost, however, the final slaughterhouse bill for Mao Zedong, including the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution (about which the less said the better) was close to 100 million lives. This makes Mao Zedong the greatest mass murderer in history, easily eclipsing the second place (Stalin at 50 million) and third place (Hitler at a paltry 30 million) contenders. No one else even comes close to these three beauties.
The nature of Mao (“Political power comes from the barrel of a gun.”) Zedong predicted the nature of the so-called Chinese Communist Party. There was no communism at all and functionally it was not a party but a means to exercise control. It was, however, very Chinese, in fact, it was almost indistinguishable from the previous 2,500 years of homegrown Chinese political structure: it was an empire and Mao was on the Dragon Throne.



Deng and the Counter Revolution


Mao had a problem, a very big problem. China was very obviously falling behind the rest of the world in about every quantifiable way. Mao was far too steeped in his ideology (see the Cultural Revolution) and was incapable of leveraging the country into another, more profitable path. His death in 1976 was a relief to the politburo who had been chafing to get some reforms underway. Deng Xiaoping rose to power (after an attempt by the Gang of Four – including Mao’s wife – to grab power). Deng was a canny politician. He saw what democracy was like in the west, and he didn’t much like it. He also saw what capitalism was doing for the west, and he liked that very much. He also saw what we apparently don’t: that democracy and capitalism are not the same thing. Deng thought that if the Chinese people were given a shot at western-style capitalism so they could become rich, they wouldn’t much give a damn about political or personal freedom (they’d never had it so they wouldn’t miss it). So Deng pushed the idea of opening up the Chinese system to allow people to ‘own’ stuff. The Chinese, not being stupid, thought this was a great idea (after all if you have enough money you can buy a kind of freedom) and became capitalists with a vengeance. The Chinese economy took off like a rocket – and it’s still going strong.


Parts 2 & 3 to come...

To the Hillary campaign:

I don't know if you are listening anymore but I have to try anyway:

First, some background. I have been a lifelong Democrat and as such I can say that I have never been truly represented (I came to like Bill but I disagreed with a lot of his more conservative initiatives). Yet I have held on, hoping that, someday, the time/person would be in sync so we could do some good in our country, in the world. As you can imagine, the last seven years have been painful for me (as were the Reagan years) but I have held on...

This time, however, it's different. I have been appalled by the spinelessness of the Democrats in the 110th Congress and even more aghast at the candidacy of Senator Obama (see my journal at Not Now, Not Ever for a more detailed look at this). Contrary to popular opinion, I regard Senator Obama as a disaster waiting to happen.

During this campaign I have argued vigorously for Hillary, written in journals and been published in the blogosphere (No Quarter), donated to her campaign and worked the phones here in Oregon. I have felt her pain and relished her victories. I have tremendous respect for her intelligence, dedication and perseverance but my patience with the Democrats is running out.

So, here is my cri du coeur: Hillary - please do not, do not, do not have anything to do with an Obama ticket. Do not support Obama in the general election and certainly do not agree to be his VP. Frankly, as I say in my journal, I think the time is ripe for a third party and I think that you and Bill would be the perfect headliners for that effort. But Obama is another Bush-sized catastrophe for America - you know this, probably better than most, please do not be complicit in foisting this disaster on us.

That said, I realize that Hillary is a lifelong Democrat and I expect that she will work her butt off for the Democrats even if they follow their current stupidity and nominate Obama.

However, I have had it. If Obama is nominated I will not support him, even if Hillary is on the ticket with him. In addition, I will leave the Democratic Party and, if it looks like a close election in the Fall... I will hold my nose and vote for McCain.

Well, you may say, what's one disaffected voter among millions? I urge you not to dismiss this lightly, I have come to find that there are many, many people who feel this way - we will not be coming together to get behind the party nominee, not this time.

Sincerely,
Craig Della Penna

The Oregon - Kentucky Axis of People

The voting will soon be complete in both our states with what looks like quite different results. We, in Oregon, have fought a rearguard action, trying to counter the Obamaite propaganda and open minds to rational thought. The trends are going our way and with another week we might have pulled it out for Hillary but today is the day.


Kentucky and Oregon have similar reputations as places on the frontier, with a fierce streak of contrariness and an ornery independence. Both our states have small african-american populations and roughly similar overall populations. So, why the big difference in the vote? I think the cause may be in the Willamette Valley corridor as a self-contained political entity. Oregon politics seems to have been a constant battle between the, mostly very conservative, loggers, farmers and ranchers in the south and east parts of Oregon vs the Portland-Eugene-Salem left-tilted political pole. I often say, half jokingly, that I live in the People's Republic of Portland - Hawthorne Soviet. The truth is that we live in an area of political passions and contradictions: who else would have both Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith as senators? Not to speak of Wayne Morse, Mark Hatfield and the utterly ridiculous Bob Packwood...


The one good thing that will come out of the Oregon vote is that it spike's Obama's claim of white racism as an excuse for the trouncing he will get in Kentucky. If the whites are all against him - how come he won Oregon?


That being said, I will regard the Kentucky vote not as a mirror of the past but as a harbinger of the future - where citizens have watched and listened to both the candidates and their various supporters; heard the bias of the press and recognized it for the sham it is; and come to their own conclusions about who is competent, capable and truly representative of the interests of the citizens of this country.


Never give up.

Not now, not ever – A repudiation of Obama and the New Bolsheviks and an Interesting Possibility

When Obama first burst forth upon the political scene lo these many months ago, my gut reaction was: "he's not ready", now I have to add "and he never will be". The fact that people don't see his poisonous combination of arrogance and naiveté, intellectual ignorance and disinterest, his viciousness and contempt for others has been a consistent source of amazement for me. I can only explain it by referring to a religious/cult model. As I recently discussed in my journal on creationism (http://theheraclitanfire.blogspot.com/2007/12/some-thoughts-on-creationist-movement.html), Obama on the one hand is curiously apathetic about any actual prescriptions for the body politic. His position on any particular subject is not even apparent until someone with substance (Hillary, for example) publishes her position, then, within a few days, Obama comes out with a copy of that proposal (with a few insignificant changes) and trumpets it as a breakthrough, ‘transformational’ event.

And let me pause here for a moment of personal outrage: You do not get to name yourself 'transformational', to do so is the absolute height of hubris, the kind of stuff that prompts Zeus to turn you into a smoking crater in the ground. Long after you are gone from the stage, if you have actually done anything worthy of the term, some unbiased observer may call you 'transformational', that's the only way it happens, period.

Back to the subject: Obama as a cult figure is very interesting on a number of levels. First, his obvious proactive participation in the scheme, the cadenced, content-free, 'revival' speeches - all sound and fury signifying nothing. The constant self-reverent, self-referent, narcissistic, messianic comments. Originally, I thought this was some kind of self-mocking sardonic commentary - alas, I've come to see that Obama isn't capable of that level of introspection (or any level of introspection for that matter). His is a true pathology, much like that of George W. Bush, remarkably similar in fact. Obama and GWB also have much in common with other historical tyrants: complete and adamantine belief in their ability to surmount any obstacle, appease any enemy, attain any objective without the slightest knowledge of the subject and in the absence of a plan of any kind. This is magical thinking of the worst sort and always, always ends in catastrophe for any who are unlucky enough to be in their wake.

While Obama as a cult figure is bad enough, the worse problem is his followers. Who are these legions of hollow-eyed zombies? Do they issue from great vats in the slums of strategic cities? Has a viral plague been released on to the voter rolls? Are they actually the remnants of human beings? Sadly, they are (or were) people just like us, tired, yearning, despondent, fervid, frustrated – but in their desperate search for a way out of the awful moral devastation that is the administration of GWB and his associates, they had the misfortune to meet an appealing sociopath (aren’t they always appealing?) and they made a fateful decision: “Ah!”, they said to themselves, “ I don’t have to think anymore, Obama will think for me. What a relief!” and they laid down their most precious possession - their minds - before the Golden Calf.

So the hordes that support Obama have made their choice but we who are left behind can still muster a thought or two among us, we can look at these cadres and dissect their structure, examine their provenance and from this research, try to discern their true purpose.

The Obamaites can be broken down into their several constituencies:

The Useful Fools

These are the fading power brokers of the Democratic Party. The Kennedy, Kerry, Pelosi, Dean crowd, etc. First off, they hate the Clintons, not so much because of the (very successful) right wingnut 20-year propaganda onslaught (although that counts as well) but because they can't stand the fact that the Clintons actually managed to do something (prosperity, peace, balanced budget, reduction of national debt) in eight short, insanely contentious years, whereas in all that time and in all the rest of their careers, they have done, well - nothing. So they have invested in Obama because they think he is a sock puppet like GWB (but their very own this time) not knowing that sociopathy looks very much like malleability to the ignorant. Seeing the loss of power precipice ahead of them, they are clawing for one last lingering draught of the only thing that matters to them. Blinded by their lust, they don't even see how Obama sucks them up, one by one, drains them dry and throws them over the side (anyone remember Bill Richardson?) Their power fantasies will crash and burn, should Obama ascend the throne, because other, much more ruthless partisans (see The New Bolsheviks below) have plans of their own.

The Rabelaisians

These are the smallest and most innocuous group of Obamaites. Closer in spirit to the political satirists and theater groups before them: Voltaire, Swift, the Yippies, Dario Fo, they participate as anarchists and don't really care that Obama is essentially a hollow man. In fact, they prefer it. If Obama were to attain power, they can count on an even more intense level of governmental dissociative behavior and a more nihilistic and oppressed populace - fertile ground for machination by interested parties (see The New Bolsheviks below).

The True Believers

The most populous and the most easily manipulated are the True Believers. Their adulation has no basis in reason or responsibility, admits of no error, brooks no question and answers no call but from "The One". In a paroxysm of religious fervor, they have given over their essential humanity and their capability of choice to their master: Obama.

Demagogues like Obama just love these folks, they are the cannon fodder for the revolution, completely disposable and completely invisible. They have absolutely no influence on events and exist only to serve as 'the masses'. Obama's model for this group is the North Korean populace - they starve to death for the "Dear Leader" because they have ceased to think, ergo, they no longer deserve the honorific "human".

The New Bolsheviks

This is the last, most dangerous group of so-called Obamaites. In actuality they are not his followers, nor do they have any interest in him, his policies (whatever they might be) or his plans. This group has been looking for a way to take over a puissant political organization for decades - now they are on the verge of success. They are not easily identifiable by their persons (with the exception of those such as Bill Ayers) nor are they easily defined by their political philosophy since they don't really have one. There is something they want, however: power.

One only has to go over the Obama political operation to see the hand of V.I. Lenin in action: the mass busloads of professionals arriving at every caucus station, beefy 6'4" aggressive males and/or screeching Obamaharpies intimidating caucus-goers into either leaving or shutting up.

Another side note here: who was the idiot who thought that a caucus was a more democratic way to get out the vote? Completely unregulated, totally open to any and all kinds of intimidation and fundamentally divorced from the founding principle of American democracy: "one man, one vote".

Oh wait... it was Howard "IamanObamaman" Dean... nevermind...

And of course, there is the defining Obama political maneuver - a racist political campaign designed to stir up the african-american vote by accusing his opponents of racism - nice work in a strictly political sense, it worked brilliantly, Obama got every black voter in America to cast their vote for him (this is - by definition - racism) on the theory that Bill and Hillary Clinton were white racists. Karl Rove must be spinning in his grave, oh wait...

The capper of this strategy: ever since his first tiniest success (after Iowa) there has been the constant clarion call for Hillary to step as aside as the Anointed One approaches his coronation. Without rhyme or reason, against every principle of democratic process, understandable only in the context of the naked, mindless, lust for power.

Back to the New Bolsheviks. The crowning of Obama is actually a sideshow for the NBs. Their intent is to take over the Democratic party organization, remove anyone who is actually democratic (can't have that) and replace them with hard core ideologues (sound familiar? it's exactly what the Bushies did to the Republican party). Note the current edict to Obama donors: put all donations to the DNC through the Obama organization… can you spell co-opt? Next, on the assumption that they manage to bamboozle the American public into voting for another incompetent narcissist - apparently not too much of a stretch these days - they will sweep out the old fanatics and replace them with shiny, brand new fanatics.

Oh please, you say, these are Democrats and they will only help restore the halcyon days of true representation and concerted government action on behalf of all the people (... pause... wait for it... cue: hysterical laughter until sides hurt).

The problem with ideologues is that, left or right, red or blue, fascist or communist, in the end they are all the same because they are interested in one thing and one thing only: absolute control over - you.

They are not interested in your problems or how to solve them, they are not interested in your children or how to raise them, they are not interested in your health or your happiness in your safety or your aspirations or your dreams - they are not interested in doing anything for you. They are only interested in what you can do for them, today and tomorrow and ever and anon.

V.I. Lenin knew what he was doing in 1917, the Duma (Russian parliament) was fractured and in disarray, Kerensky was a weak leader, the country was struggling in an unpopular war and the populace was deeply dissatisfied (sound familiar). As the leader of the minority party in the opposition he was in a lousy position to exert any influence so he called his faction the Bolshevik faction (the majority faction ) even though it wasn't and by using party thugs to intimidate and suppress his enemies, as well as co-opting armed workers in several strategic factories, he took over the party apparatus and staged a coup on the government.

A similar coup is being attempted right here, right now. The New Bolsheviks have co-opted the caucuses and, by threat and intimidation, have sequestered the votes of millions of people they are not entitled to. They have rigged the Democratic party delegate process in a systematic manner to the point where, even in states where she has won the primary, Hillary has been denied proportional representation. Superdelegates have been threatened and intimidated and the Democratic party itself has been threatened with "blood in the streets" in Denver if they do not declare Obama the winner before the convention.

That last is, itself, very interesting: if no winner is declared and the candidates go to a vote, there will be no winner on the first vote (assuming the superdelegates split more or less evenly) this means that all delegates are then released from their commitment to a candidate. Democracy ensues! ...can't have that, can we?

The Gathering Storm

Several scenarios suggest themselves when reviewing the previous information. They all have one thing in common; the Democratic Party will not survive this election. I was stunned when I realized this, I had assumed that the Republican party was about to disintegrate into its natural constituencies (the Corporate Fascist Party, the Christian Theocratic Party and the Southern White Racist Party) but it now appears that the Democrats are going to beat them to it.

The Hillary Wins Scenario

If the Democratic party actually pulls its collective head out of its posterior and decides to try to win the general election, they will nominate Hillary. If Hillary wins the nomination, the Obamaites will run around in circles with their hair on fire and scream about how the coronation was stolen from them by the hated Clintonistas. They may bolt from the party as a faction, more likely they will try to damage the Democrats as much as possible to ‘prove’ their point that without “The One” the Democrats are lost. Certainly they will not vote for her in November. This is not quite the catastrophe that it may seem, the Obama-fanatics are neither as numerous as they might appear (remember all those cross-over Republicans and independents?) and frankly, I don’t have great confidence that they’ll show up in expected numbers come election day.

The ‘Anointed One’ Wins Scenario

If Clinton is denied the nomination by the New Bolsheviks with the support of the power-ghoul party secretariat, the Democrats can count on a huge proportion of the Clinton constituency turning their backs and exiting the party. I know that most of the professional political corps pooh-poohs this as fire-breathing partisan hype but I have witnessed a level of fury about this that is absolutely unprecedented in all my political experience. This is not hot-blooded, blowhard posturing, this is cold, hard, grim resolve – and I’m seeing it from all quarters – it’s very, very real. And it means that Obama doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of winning in the fall, the Republicans have not even begun to train their howitzers on him and he’s such an easy target: I whipped up a classic Republican commercial in about ten seconds. A simple static picture of Obama with Rev. Wright’s voice in the background screaming: “God damn America!” over and over and over…

The upshot is: no matter what course the Democratic party takes, the result will be an unbridgeable schism. Personally, I would hope and recommend that the Democrats try to win the Presidency this fall and nominate Hillary. In the best of all worlds I would hope for Obama to accept the VP spot on her ticket. It’s possible that after 8 years of watching how a pro does it, he might be capable of taking the reins himself – I doubt it, but I’ve been wrong before. I don’t think that will happen for a number of reasons, first, I don’t think that Hillary would want someone as VP whose only aim would be to do her as much damage as possible. Second, I’m pretty sure that Obama’s overweening pride would prevent him from taking second place to woman. Third, he really would be only a heartbeat away from the presidency – and that’s a scary thought.

The other variant scenario is that the Dems will force him to accept her as his VP. This would be great for him and pretty bad for the rest of us. First, if she, trooper that she is, pitches in wholeheartedly, the Dems just might squeak out a victory in the fall. This would present us with a dilemma: Obama would think this is great – he can go on eating waffles while someone who actually knows what she’s doing would do all the work… for which he could take all the credit, a perfect solution for him. We would know that the so-called Obama presidency would be yet another Obama scam-sham but we’d have Hillary there to do the work that desperately needs doing.

Frankly, in the event that he secures the nomination, I hope he refuses to accept her (I’m pretty sure he will refuse – that arrogance/pride thing again and besides, can you see Michelle bein’ down with that?).

So again, trooper that she is, Hillary will probably work her butt off trying to bring the Dems together and put The Anointed One in the White House… but, what if?...

The Crazy/Beautiful Scenario

OK, it gets a little ‘Area 51’ here so be warned. What if Hillary (and Bill) thought to themselves: “Why am I busting my ass for the Democrats? They’ve made it perfectly obvious that they hate my guts and resent everything I’ve done for the party for the past 30-odd years. We could have had a universal health plan in 1994 if the Democrats hadn’t voted against it… what the hell am I doing here?”

I’ve been saying for years that we need a viable third (and fourth and fifth) party. Ralph Nader wasn’t wrong when he said that the Republicans and the Democrats are almost indistinguishable (yeah, I know: he apparently couldn’t see the difference between the village idiot and the class valedictorian either). The wretched, pusillanimous, politically inept, spineless performance of Nancy “Impeachment is Off the Table” Pelosi and the rest of the contemptible, so-called Democratic ‘leadership’ just proves the point, the train has left the station and we, the people are not on it.

What if, in an act of staggering political courage and brilliance, Bill and Hillary formed the “Centerline Party” (just a suggestion)? Formed for people who are sick of the ideologues on both sides, who want practical solutions to real problems, who want corporations to live up to their responsibilities to the people who made them great and powerful, who believe that government can be a great agent for change which benefits us all, who know that we truly are all in this together.

We could probably get most of the moderate Republicans, y’know the old-time true conservatives who actually want to ‘conserve’ things, the vast majority of Democrats – let’s call them the ‘Big Dog’ Democrats – who want to use government the way it should be used, repair infrastructure, set realistic policies on the economy (such as raise CAFE standards), ecology (get off Oil and on to Hydrogen), conservation. Stop stupid wars before they begin and restore America’s original luster as the “City on the Hill”.

This is a unique opportunity: the most talented politicians of their generation with proven track records and substantial backing by the public, vast worldwide connections, experience and respect; who better to create a new national political organization that actually could be revolutionize, revitalize and re-form American politics for generations ahead?

Like I said, Area 51, but to quote Rabbi Hillel, ”If not now, when? If not us, who?”

Some Thoughts on the Creationist Movement

I saw the Maryland Intelligent Design trial reenactment on PBS the other night, curious to see what I might glean from hearing the testimony of all the participants, both laymen and experts.

What happened was very interesting. I have always been puzzled about why in the world the Creationists would attack Darwin directly when they have always had, from their point of view, the perfect capping argument: “Darwin? Evolution? Yes, isn’t it amazing how God set up that whole process for Darwin to find?” Of course, to get there you would have to get by the fact that God wrote the Bible himself, word for word – apparently in English – just for King James I… and included some handy genealogical tables that conclude that the Earth was created some 6,007 years ago, on October 23rd at 9:00AM. But this should be an easy task for any capable preacher – perhaps God was writing in ‘angel time’, I think that’s 1,000 years to the ‘day’ quoted in the Bible, that should get them within the ballpark. That actually works out to 2,192,555,000 regular years – close enough for evolution.

But as the program wore on, listening to ignoramuses and pet ‘experts’ on the side of the angels and to earnest and exasperated scientists on the reality side, I began to think I was seeing something deeper.
This isn’t just about self-righteous religious outrage that intellectuals are denying the word of God – this is outright hatred of science and, by proxy, hatred of thought itself. They have a blind assumption that they can babble on and on and eventually, because of the number of words they have spoken, win the argument.

They are not interested in placing Creationism or Intelligent Design alongside Evolution theory – they want to replace Evolution altogether. And, in fact, they want to end all scientific inquiry, they are no different from the Taleban.

Mitt Romney tries to brand secularism as just another religious sect (like Mormonism, one supposes). Huckabee immediately starts trotting his anti-christ rhetoric. They cannot see the world in any other way than that of endless war of (their) one true faith against all the apostates, heretics and pagans everywhere.

This all brings up the very legitimate questions: “So, what makes Darwin and by extension, all of science, different from creationism and by extension, all of religion?” and “Why do you think science is better?”

To answer this I’m going to refer a few times to a remarkable book by Dr. Len Smolin, a theoretical physicist, called “The Trouble with Physics”. In his book Dr. Smolin undertakes to explain the major theories and schisms in the post-Einsteinian world of physics. Along the way he discovered that he had to explore beyond the boundaries of his discipline and ask very broad questions, like: “What is science?” “How do we ‘do’ science?”. The answers he found are illuminating and somewhat unexpected, chief among them is this statement: “Science is a collection of crafts and practices that serve to uncover truth.”

I really like this statement for what it does not say and for what it implies. What it does not say is that: science is the formalized, intellectual tower of learning, populated with lofty beings of surpassing intelligence looking down upon the feeble-minded masses and, from time to time, bestowing the fruits of their knowledge upon us - as the demagogues would have us believe.

No, science is still pretty much what it was when it developed into its present form during the Enlightenment. And what Dr. Smolin’s statement implies is that science is done by people, very smart people, but people nonetheless, who are subject to the same frailties as the rest of us: passion, vanity, jealousy, altruism, honesty, dishonesty – but all engaged in a transparent enterprise that seeks to uncover truth.

The second great statement that Dr. Smolin makes is that scientists are part of an ethical community that comes to its decisions by cooperation and consensus. Ostensibly, religions are ethical communities as well but are ordered in hierarchical fashion, that is, decisions are made at the top and applied downward by fiat.

This illustrates what I think is the difference between science and its antagonists:
Science seeks to reveal truth, through questioning, testing and proving.

Religion seeks to gain submission to already revealed ‘truth’ which admits of no questioning, no testing and offers no proof.
The difference is profound, unbridgeable and final. No religionist can ever admit to the validity of science and no one of science can ever submit to the tyranny of religion.

This is not to say that religion has no place in the world, although that is an argument which can (and I would) make, what I do say is that religion has no place in science. The religious imperative to enforce orthodoxy and crush dissent is antithetical to the existence of science at its core.

More benignly, I would say the leap of faith religion requires of its adherents changes the believer’s a prioris so that they are incapable of critical thought on the subject. As it stands, I have no quarrel with anyone’s religious opinion – so long as they do not try to impose it on me.

Flag Burn Me

Flag Burn Me

I watched him come closer

step by step

in hallowed tradition

as the sky fell

I didn’t want his gift

proffered in honor

buried below the ground

I took it still

burning my hands

I clasped it close to me

“Burn,” I thought,

“Burn me too.”

An open letter to Senator Obama:

Dear Senator Obama:

I'm very upset by recent statements you have made about funding education by "postponing" elements of the space program. Let me tell you why this is a very ill-advised position.

1. It makes you look like an idiot.

If you do indeed postpone Orion by five years, you have effectively killed it. The project will lose its knowledgeable personnel, its production schedule will be canceled and there will then be no replacement for the 40 year old shuttle fleet. The Russians (and perhaps by then, the Chinese) will be the only nations with manned access to the ISS and to space.

2. It makes you look like an idiot.

The entire space program soaks up about 0.15 % of the federal budget, the DoD currently consumes about 31% of the federal budget (when you include the costs of our several wars). As president you could extract the entire NASA budget from the DoD budget and they wouldn’t even know it was gone, it’s a rounding error. In addition, the space program is the only government program in our nation’s history which can be shown to have paid for itself – in terms of fiscal and medical benefits derived from cutting edge technology which NASA either invented or sponsored.

3. It makes you look like an idiot.

Every self-serving, tub-thumping, ill-informed, moronic, blowhard political hack in the past fifty years has attacked NASA to herd the ‘proles’ to his side. By pandering to the Luddite, anti-intellectualism rampant in American society, they hope to send a message to the masses: “I’m one of you, I hate smart people too.” This is certainly not hopeful, nor audacious, it’s just old-time political quackery.

4. It makes you look like an idiot.

American education isn’t just about “readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmetic” so you can go out and make great gobs of money. There must be goals – great ones, dreams far larger than rolling up a nice, fat 401K. In order to meld us together as a nation, we need aspirations that demand greatness from us. Young people need to see that there is opportunity to actually accomplish their dreams and a purpose larger than earning a living.

Fools and madmen use our fear to conjure threats, precipitate useless wars and make cowards of us all. Do not be this kind of politician, we have more than enough already.

Leaders address the best that is in us, qualities we didn’t know we had and demand that we rise to meet those expectations because we can rise and we can create something new, beautiful and bold.

The space program represents those qualities of aspiration, expectation and accomplishment that we must embrace as a nation if we are to prosper and live long.

The choice you currently espouse leads, inevitably, downward, stifling creativity and handing the future to others. It is also intellectually lazy and can easily be shown to be massively counterproductive both economically and scientifically - and, it makes you look like an idiot.

You still have the chance to reverse yourself and reject the foolish counsel that proposes to cut off our future in order to make political points with fools.

It’s your choice as to what company you will keep – what will you do?

Cordially,

Craig Della Penna

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