Some Talk about Abortion Issues

During the last couple of days, I have had a discussion on Facebook with a "friend" regarding abortion issues. The friend wants to use some rather new high-tech visions of egg-fertilization as arguments for his (I think) extreme view that personhood begins at fertilization of the female ovum. He holds to this view so strongly that he is willing to condemn abortions in even cases of incest or rape. While he hasn't mentioned it, I am sure that he would also condemn the so-called "morning-after pill."

What I want to discuss here is the assertion that the biology of egg fertilization is even relevant to the social issues of abortion. Since this particular anti-abortion argument rests on claiming that a "person" is present in the womb immediately after fertilization of an ovum is successful, my assertion is equivalent to saying that biology is not relevant to determining that a person is present in the womb. The abortion argument is still more complicated, of course, because it also requires us to believe that a "person" in any stage of development has the right to protection of its life. Even if one were to admit that the fertilized ovum is a person, it would not be true necessarily, in our society, that such a person is granted the right to protection of its life. The 14th Amendment to our Constitution defines the rights of citizenship in the following way: "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (my emphasis). The right to protection of life does not follow the word 'person' wherever we want to carry it; indeed, only persons who are "born" fall within this protection. Framers of the Constitution and their heirs obviously never foresaw the possibility that fetal development would be protected under the 14th Amendment.

However, let's get back to the issue of whether biology informs us of anything relevant to this debate. There are different levels of discourse within the field of biology. Microbiology works with various chemicals (mainly macromolecules) and rises to the identification of genes. Taxonomy, on the other hand, observes and classifies the objects in our world that we understand to fall within the domain of biology, namely, living organisms. Biology assumes no differences between humans (homo sapiens sapiens) and other animal species. Indeed, biology sees humans as evolving over a long period of time out of more primitive animal species. Nor is there any inherent reason why microbiology would distinguish anything different in the human division of animal life. In biology, we can talk about an individual human (homo sapiens sapiens) but there is no word 'person' in the biology vocabulary. Up to the time of birth (or artificial separation) the developing fertilized ovum is simply called a 'fetus'. 

What is going on here is what the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein called playing language games. One of the big errors that people frequently make is that of believing that all language is somehow continuous and inter-connected. But Wittgenstein observed that language is actually divided up into many independent systems of definitions. Thus, if I choose to play the "biology language game," I am constrained to use the vocabulary and systematic relationships of meaning in that game. I cannot meaningfully carry other words into a discussion of biology.

Thus, if I want to use words like 'person' and 'rights', I must begin by determining the language game in which these are meaningful. Discussion of the abortion issue seems to occur mainly in what we might call the "legal language game." In that game, various rights have been attributed to persons and persons have traditionally been understood as human members of the society in which laws and rights are defined. At the time of the framing of our Constitution, the word 'person' was attributed to white male adults. If female adults were viewed as persons, they were not persons with the robust collection of rights possessed by men. African slaves were not viewed as whole persons, nor were children of any color. While I am no expert on this, my impression is that both the meaning of 'person' and the availability of rights began to change in various ways throughout the 19th Century. While children would not possess all rights and would be looked upon as subordinate persons until "coming of age," they were increasingly seen as having the right of protection by society. Hence, in the movement toward wide-ranging public education in the early 19th Century, a child's right to mental development was protected. In the child labor laws of the late 19th Century, a child's health, safety, and education were protected. Still, children today do not possess all the rights possessed by adults of our society. 

Pro-life advocates are really arguing within the legal language game of our particular society and are actually arguing two separate points. First, they are arguing that we should extend the meaning of the word 'person' to include what biologists call the human fetus. A woman who has become pregnant should really be referred to as being "with person." Second, they are arguing that certain rights possessed by persons should follow this extension of meaning into the woman's body. As seen in the previous discussion, not all rights apply to every person. But the argument here is that the right of certain protections should apply. In particular, the protection of life should apply. But, if this is the case, we should note that the protection of the person's development toward a happy normal life might also be insisted upon. In other words, if we view a fetus as a person, then we might be obligating our society to assure that the fetus will be well cared for in all respects. Women who smoke or drink alcohol or take drugs during pregnancy might be liable for arrest and punishment. Indeed, since the woman's body is now the living quarter of an official person, society may have made itself responsible for the health, nutrition, and safety of those "quarters." 

What interests me --- and I will end here --- is that pro-lifers are so desperate to save the life of the fetus they want to call a person, but they really have no concern about protecting the well-being of the life they have saved. I say that because most of the people who are pro-life are also very antagonistic toward government intrusion into our lives and are largely opposed to social services such as welfare.

Occupy What?

I am really getting tired of people who look at the Occupy Wall Street protestors and just call them deadbeats and tell them to go out and get jobs. While I am fairly confident that there probably are some deadbeats in the mix, I am equally confident that there are many who are simply fed up with the American situation and need to do something (whatever seems possible at present) about it. It is ridiculous to scream at people that they should get jobs and work when the jobs simply do not exist. 

All of this yelling, it seems to me, is a device for ignoring the point of the protests --- and maybe an excuse for not joining them. The American economic system is badly broken and it is not going to repair itself. On one side, the 1% has successfully waged a "class war" over the last thirty years or so in which they have cornered most of the wealth in the country. They have done that by buying off the government --- Federal and state both --- and reducing their tax contributions to all time lows. They have also done this by elevating salaries and bonuses for executives like themselves to ridiculous amounts. The 1% lives by a simple truth; they have the power so they take the money.

The meaning of "economy" in Greek was essentially "household management." In modern times "economy" applies to communities or commonwealths  and is the way in which the production and distribution of goods and services is organized. When the system was based on barter, there was a clear understanding of who has produced what and how the distribution proceeds. When barter is replaced by a system of money exchange, however, the accumulation of wealth becomes possible. Then, all one needs is a system of protecting wealth. Kings and nobles amassed armies. Modern governments a la John Locke instituted laws and administered enforcement. In modern times the feudal system of kings, church, and serfs has been replaced by a modern system of "corporate feudalism" in which the corporation owns everything, the government protects corporate interests, and the people work to maintain what they can in the margin. Doubtless that corporate feudalism is just as much a "system" as was household management; but there is one enormous difference. In the household there were social (moral) relations between husband, wife, children, and slaves. Corporate (capitalism) feudalism today functions under no sense of relationship, no moral bond; it simply pursues the accumulation of more wealth. The name of the game is purely Greed. 

In the 19th Century, Marx clearly and convincingly described the situation of uncontrolled capitalism. Motivated by greed, the capitalist will always attempt to extract the maximum amount of work from labor and pay as little as is possible. Since no "social consciousness" is involved, the worker's plight is left to a losing fight to make ends meet. The proletariat class is created and it expands. Marx concluded that the proletariat would eventually be forced to rebel or simply starve. 

Interestingly, Lenin realized that the major Western economies were headed in a different direction. Through the system of Imperialism they could export the proletariat class to what we have come to call the Third World. By a system of economic colonization, the Western states obtained their raw materials from the Third World and they paid higher wages to their own workers so as to create a friendly and cooperative "middle class." The middle class, being modestly well off, would not rebel and the foreign proletariat would be too far away.

This system worked effectively through the middle of the 20th Century and then it started to come apart. It has been coming apart ever since. What is interesting (in an academic sort of way) is that the system came apart not only because the colonies began to rebel and declare independence, but that capitalists decided to join the program. Advanced transportation and communication technologies now allowed corporations to move production facilities off-shore and, hence, to cut off the American worker completely. The same technologies allowed corporations to move their wealth off-shore as well --- which they have done under the flag of "globalization". In short, the whole idea of the middle class has been abandoned in America. So as the ranks of the proletariat come together again in the American economy, we have to ask where this will take us. But what we face is something different than we might have faced in the 19th Century. We face corporations that still remain in control of the government over us but have also rendered themselves less vulnerable to rebellion by being largely absentee holders of American wealth. 

The Occupy movement may not be articulating all of this but I do believe that they are an early vanguard of something quite important in the evolution of an American political economy.

Where Is the Problem?

50% of American voters, more or less, vote for Republican candidates. However, Republican candidates who are elected tenaciously underwrite the interests of the 1% most wealthy Americans and very frequently act against the interests of the other 49% who voted for them. Frankly, I don't get it. Why do the 49%ers consistently vote against their own interests?

In a recent conversation about this, my wife suggested that it is all about the social agenda. While people may claim that the economy is their biggest issue, today, they still vote according to the social issues as they see them. And Republicans have consistently and successfully built their case on the social issues. Look at their voting record in the House, this last fall. They have spent far more time voting up ridiculous social agenda items that will never pass the Senate or escape a Presidential veto, far more than any sensible approach to the economy. Why? Because it is in their best interest to keep the 49% thinking they are represented on their favorite social issues.

So what are these issues? Life should be defined as beginning with conception after proper insemination --- preferably in the "missionary position." Abortions of any kind, therefore, should be absolutely illegal no matter what the conditions are. Sexuality should be permitted only after age 18 between racially paired males and females only. Sexuality of any other form and at any other age is a perversion. Hence, of course, marriage is not to be permitted for lesbians and gays. Well, let's see what else. Oh, education should be guided by local government counsels. History texts should be censored and rewritten so as to indicate the excellence of the Reagan and Bush years and the corruptions of Democratic administrations in any form. Science teaching should be restricted to the faithful discussion of Creationism only and reference to evolution, Darwin, etc should be eliminated. Current scientists should be looked upon with the greatest suspicion, especially when they attempt to fill their pockets with huge research grants relating to fabrications about "climate change" and "atmospheric warming." Muslims should all be banished from the US and English should be the only and official language of this country --- speak English or get out.

This is the "short list" on the social agenda; I could go on. What is somewhat odd about this list is the fact that the 49ers, so to speak, see themselves as detesting government and worshipping freedom. Yet their entire social agenda requires a more pervasive government presence in order to repress those behaviors that they dislike and they have no respect for the freedom of people other than themselves. 

So I guess that is the problem and it's not a problem that can be easily solved. 

Occupy Wall Street and Global Calls for Economic Justice

It is good to see that people around the world are finally beginning to understand the situation and are trying to make themselves heard. The problem, unfortunately, is that the powerful 1% do not listen and, even if they listen, do not believe or even understand. In fact, the 1% could care less. They live in their very own insulated world.

What this means, I'm afraid to say, is that we will see nothing happen as a result of the protests. Most likely, as a matter of fact, the protestors will begin to dwindle as cold weather begins to set in. And probably there will be fewer and fewer genuine protestors and more and more homeless and schizophrenics who just want a free lunch. Since that is what the 1% think this is all about anyway, the end game does not look good for our side.

It seems to me that the 1% will budge only after the 99% begin to achieve something that hurts. On one extreme, there could be random assassinations of the rich&powerful. This is the traditional road of revolutionaries, and it can be effective. On the other extreme, we can continue with pacifist demonstrations of discontent. This has been effective in the past in certain situations but it requires leadership and imagination. Simply camping out in cities across the country has no hurtful impact on the 1%. Someone needs to imagine a way in which this social power can be channeled in a way that hurts. During the civil rights movement of the '60s there were some very effective suspensions of work or consumption, for instance. Begin to deny services to the rich&powerful. Another tactic would be to show very publicly all of the channels through which the 1% manipulate and control local, state, and Federal governments. Embarrass the hell out of our wonderful "law makers." 

The 1% will, of course, begin to retaliate in every way they can. That, and only that, will be an indication of success. Thus far, there is no real retaliation, just the usual reactions of poorly informed and ill trained police departments. 

Baseball

We have watched a great deal of baseball this year. I like baseball. I consider it the best sport around. It is complex and intellectual.

But there is one big problem with baseball these days. It's the spitting. Why do baseball players have to spit so much? It's constant and annoying, and it makes you wonder what the dugout looks like after a game. They might as well put a big trough right in front of that fence!

No other sport that I know involves spitting at the frequency and volume of baseball. I haven't seen it in soccer, football, hockey, or hurling. What would boxing be like if the fighters were spitting like that. The ring would become too slick to prance in.

Maybe all of this was OK once upon a time, but now that we have High Definition TV cameras that can bring up head shots from across the field we need the spitting to stop.

The Anti-Occupy-Wall-Street Blog

I just came across a Web Site called "We're the 53%" at http://the53.tumblr.com/

It's full of wonderful stories about people who have worked hard, kept their employment, and are proud of it. Much of it is devoted to telling the Occupy Wall Street people to shut up, stop complaining, and do what they did. 

The sad thing about these "53%" people is that, like most Conservatives (so called), they do not look around. They look straight ahead and they look at themselves and they have no sense whatsoever of the world that other people face. If they really are 53% or more of Americans, then America is a thoroughly selfish society. These are people who would flee from a burning airplane and then tell reporters, "We all got out fine, just used the exits and shoots," when in fact 40% of the passengers died in flames. 

Occupy Wall Street

A lot of us have been wondering how long Americans would remain unconcerned and unquestioning about the economy and issues of social justice in this country. But now a movement has actually started. The only question is where will it (can it) go from here. 

It is unfortunate that the movement took the name "Occupy Wall Street" since there is nothing inherently evil about Wall Street and, in fact, Wall Street serves an important role in the functioning of our economy. If they literally took down Wall Street, they would cause enormous damage to the economy and to themselves; and I don't know what they would put in its place. The real issue here is how the Great Recession of 2007, from which we still suffer, was caused by individual and corporate greed miss-using not only Wall Street but also the entire banking and lending system. On top of that, and running over a much longer period of time, is the way in which the political system has been miss-used in order to favor the production of extreme wealth for a very small number of people at the expense of most people. It is this very chasm of wealth that cripples the nation now since the residual buying power of the 99% is so small that it cannot possibly stimulate investment and job creation. 

I hope that the Occupy movement will begin to take a position of political power. So long as Congress (as well as state houses across the country)  is owned by the 1%, there will be no basic changes in the situation. They will refuse to tax wealth and they will do nothing to promote job creation. They will, instead, waste their time on legislation aimed at taking abortion rights away from women and jeopardizing women's health. The Republicans, at this point, do not want to do anything constructive toward solving our economic problems since they hope that voters will blame everything on Obama in November 2012. That means Americans will be held hostage by the Republicans for more than one more year! But we can't say that they didn't tell us so. Remember in 2010 when they swept into power how they all declared that their primary goal was making Obama a one-term president? Wouldn't it be nice, though, if the Republicans could see service to the people as part of their political obligations?

From Belfast to Palestine

It is hard to estimate the terrible damage that England has brought to the world over the many years of their so-called empire. But, right now, Belfast and Palestine stand out to me as similar atrocities. The English in their cocky and unquestioning royalist views of the world have moved into every imaginable space on earth inhabited by those whom they viewed as "lesser peoples" and treated as though they were not people at all. 

For seven hundred years or so the English took possession of Ireland, pushed the native Irish aside, gave the land to Englishmen, constructed an English government, suppressed and almost destroyed Irish Catholicism. But in the north, they did as they have done in so many places in the world; they colonized. They moved Scotch and English Protestant immigrants into the north of Ireland, gave them the land, secured them in political power by completely disregarding the native Catholic Irish, and that was that. When the English were finally discouraged from their rule of Ireland, they agreed to the Irish Free State only under terms of protecting their colonies in the north --- hence, Northern Ireland, that sad residue of English terrorism that has existed ever since the 1920s.

Why does Palestine look so familiar to me? Once again, it was the English who took command of the region in the east of the Mediterranean which included the area known then as Palestine. What was then Palestine was the whole of what we now call Israel plus the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The population was predominately arab and there was only a minority of Jewish people. However, England, in their inimitable blind way, determined that they would make Palestine into a haven for European Jews. Mind you, I have no problem with the Jewish people as such; it is the English that I am talking about here. At any rate, by the late '40s, Jewish people had successfully colonized Palestine and had successfully pushed the Arab Palestinians into the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. At that point, the dear English grew tired of administering the mess they had created and announced their intention to withdraw. Interestingly, the Jewish people went to the United Nations and requested recognition as the State of Israel. Does that sound familiar? Palestine --- for the Arab inhabitants, that is --- was reduced to those two small territories which were never recognized as a separate state. So now, rather than allowing Palestine to appeal to the UN for statehood, we demand that they settle their status with, you guessed it, Israel. And, believe it or not, the Unites States continues to cover for English idiocy by protecting Israeli interests around the Middle East. 

Class Warfare

Well, the Republicans ought to know class warfare when they see it since they have been waging it against the middle class and the lower class for the last thirty years. Whatever "spin doctor" came up with the present "response" to Obama's tax speech must be an idiot.

Why should 5% of Americans possess the majority of wealth in America? Well, I suppose the practical answer is that they have been aggressive enough and sufficiently well positioned so that they could --- and did.

Why should 5% of Americans --- our wealthiest citizens --- pay taxes at a lower rate than most of the other 95%? Well, the practical answer is that they own the government and possess a Congress that is unwilling to raise their taxes under any circumstances.

Whether or not the first question has a moral answer is, I suppose, debatable. It depends upon what social justice means to you and it also depends upon what being in a community or commonwealth means to you.

But the second question has a much stronger moral and political dimension to it. Taxation is based on the idea that everyone should pay their fair share to keep government functioning. In spite of what the most wealthy would like to tell us, you do not get wealthy completely on your own. The level of support for wealth-production in this country is phenomenal. In fact, the government is possessed by developing and deploying means for supporting business, investment, etc. If you really look into it, the most wealthy people owe an enormous debt to government and should be paying this back in taxes.

Government and Self Reliance

Libertarians seem to pride themselves on being self reliant. They don't want government mucking around in their affairs. But if we take that argument to the extreme, we go back to John Locke's State of Nature and its consequent a State of War. A State of Nature is that situation in which every individual struggles in his own behalf. It seems to me that the Libertarian must argue that the State of Nature does not necessarily lead to a State of War. 

Locke's analysis was heavily based on the protection of property. If I must defend my own property at all times, then I will not have the freedom to leave my home to work toward the accumulation of more property. Hence, the advantage of the Social Contract. When certain protections are institutionalized, we achieve the freedom to act in the social world. But of course we get these benefits at the cost of surrendering some of our self reliance. 

The big question in the final stage of this argument is how far the Social Contract can or must go. What should Commonwealth ultimately mean? When we look to our Declaration of Independence, we find that "[we] are endowed by [our] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." The Constitution, some years later, suggests that it is created to "secure the general welfare" among other things. Thus, the Founding Fathers saw much beyond the mere protection of individual property. One could probably say that they desired a commonwealth in which life can flourish. But there was that other nagging expression in the Declaration --- "that all men are created equal." So "flourishing" cannot just mean that we are a place where the most aggressive and privileged get to flourish. In some way, all men are supposed to be able to share the benefits of commonwealth.

It's fine to elevate self reliance as a virtue. But it is sheer stupidity to assume that everyone is in the position to be self reliant in our world. Hence, being part of a common wealth means sacrificing certain things so that the weaker citizens are elevated and made more a part of the whole. Being a common-wealth, means that the state of the whole is more important than the state of any individual.

Trade Unions

The following arguments depend somewhat on whether you value the existence of a "Middle Class" in America. I say this because the rise of trade unions in America is certainly one significant way in which a strong Middle Class was historically established. Personally, I believe that a strong Middle Class is economically essential because these are the people who have sufficient disposable income to purchase products, and purchasing power is essential to a healthy economy. As Robert Reich argues, the extremely rich do very little for the economy on the grand scale because, while they have enormous purchasing power, they do not use it in helpful ways. While those in the middle class (perhaps 85% of Americans) spend almost 100% of their income in the marketplace, wealthy people (perhaps 5% of Americans) can't come anywhere close to that. Thus, a shift in wealth from the Middle Class to the Upper Class has the direct effect of removing a huge amount of purchasing power from the marketplace. That's what has been happening for the last three decades. Little wonder that small businesses are pessimistic about opening or expanding their businesses. 

Why did trade unions arise? The history of unionization in the late 19th Century and early 20th Century is striking. Communities were very often dominated by one or a few big employers. Laborers were paid whatever the employer wanted, usually as low a wage as possible, still keeping the laborers healthy enough to work. If pay was insufficient to meet family needs, the laborer had no chance of improving his position. Basically, he could quit and find some other job. But where? When groups of laborers attempted to unite and fight for higher wages, better working conditions, or health benefits, they were often beaten down by police or murdered by thugs. So long as the wage "negotiation" was between the industry and the individual laborer, the individual didn't have a chance.

Unionization meant that laborers had significant power to negotiate with employers in order to improve their situation. But this usually meant creating a "union shop" where all laborers had to participate and pay dues. This is where the inevitable long argument of the libertarian begins, that no one should be forced to do anything they do not want to do. Of course, the counter-argument here is that laborers who choose not to belong nevertheless reap the benefits of the union's collective bargaining without helping or paying for it. It can be argued that majority rules. If the majority want a union to represent them, then everyone has to participate. This principle runs throughout our society, yet it seems to be something that no libertarian will ever agree to.

The attack on unions today threatens not only the welfare of laborers but also the very existence of a middle class. In that sense, while it seems to make sense to Conservatives and Libertarians, it makes no sense for the health of our economy.

Our National Debt

Here's a link to a very interesting summary of our national debt. http://www.businessinsider.com/to-whom-does-the-us-government-really-owe-money-2011-3 The heart of this article is the pie chart showing to whom the debt is owed.

 Notice first that 68% of the debt is owed to Americans in one form or another. The largest category by far is American individual and institutional investment in America. Much of this investment is through private retirement funds.

But one of the most interesting figures is the 17.9% owed to the Social Security Trust Fund. That fund is fed by the Social Security taxes levied against American incomes. Why should the US owe money to that Fund. The answer, of course, is that the Bush Administration borrowed from the Fund in order to finance wars. So is Social Security really the problem? Basically, the money was stolen from you and I and now the conservative side of our government doesn't want to pay it back.

For Those Who Hate the Federal Government

First of all, it's just way too easy to blame all our problems on the Federal government. It's the one big thing out there that you can easily throw stones at. But if you succeed in shrinking it to oblivion, will you be happy? I doubt it very much.

One of the oft-sited reasons is just wanting government off our backs. We want to do things ourselves. All of that is very dubious however. Do we really have the time (ourselves) to supervise drug and food safety, to help states finance highways and bridges, to monitor aircraft? The true answer must be that we just don't want any of these things done. 

If we do want things like this done, the haters of Federal government always turn to the idea that the states would do a better job. By what evidence do we really believe the states would do a better job? Every state I have lived in has embodied the age-old conflicts between rural interests and urban interests. It's the same old situation, government on top of us, dictating what will be done. Fleeing to the states is not the answer.

Fleeing to the states is the answer in only one important way for some haters of Federal power. It means that in their specific state environment they will be able to get more of what they want. If you hate the EPA, then you can hope that your own state will have nothing to do with environmental protection. Or you can hope that your own state will look the other way when it comes to your company's production of toxic chemicals for agricultural use. Or you can hope that your own state will have no interest in civil rights for minorities. If these people get their way (and they seem to be making remarkable progress), there will be nothing left of what we might call a national identity. Forget about seamlessly traveling from one state to another. You will have to be aware of every state's disposition toward A, B, or C. Kinda makes you want to stay at home.

Our Poor Economy

Politicians, especially so-called conservative ones, love to talk about the national economy as though it were just a giant version of "Mom and Pop" back home. It makes great political talk because it's something everyone understands. Unfortunately, it is just a fraud. National economics has nothing to do with Mom-and-Pop economics.

Along with this foolish comparison goes the myth that Mom-and-Pop always operate on a balanced budget. Perhaps some do, but the majority of Americans have been living on increasingly high levels of debt for the last three decades. That's what hit us in the face in 2007; credit dried up.

The national economy is very complex. Contrary to the Mom-and-Pop economy, the delicate relations of employment and distribution of wealth lie within the national economy, played out by different factions of the population. Business opportunities and job creation absolutely depend upon a large population of people who have money and want to consume. When the distribution of wealth tips largely in favor of a small portion of the population, the remaining population is left with little money to spend (and no availability of credit). There is no point in businesses expanding and creating new jobs. It doesn't matter how many tax breaks or other benefits the Republicans give their rich friends, there is no point in creating jobs when the bulk of Americans have no ability to consume!

Ironically, in the situation where the majority of Americans have little money for consumption, government spending is the one factor that can stimulate consumption and lead to job creation. This, of course, means going further into debt and is precisely what our conservative Republican wizards are not inclined to do. They would rather cut government spending --- i.e., put thousands of government employees out of work to further reduce employment and reduce money available for consumption --- and balance the budget. 

Of course, taxing the super wealthy is the last thing we would want to do even though that might balance the budget and put more buying power in the hands of the majority of Americans. This is supposedly all because they are the honored entrepreneurs who will create jobs for us. But the brutal fact (if Republican politicians would only look at it) is that these same honored entrepreneurs would far prefer to expand business and create jobs off-shore where wages are lower, resources are cheeper, and people are still able to consume. They know the situation in America and they know that the meager share of wealth they have left the poor slobs in 95% of the population is not enough to stimulate thriving businesses. 

The Republican Solution

Gosh, the Republicans do have a plan to create jobs in America. All we have to do is reduce taxes on corporations and the most wealthy citizens to 0%, end all oversight, throw away all regulations on business, and then just stand back and watch the jobs bubble up from the muck.

Does anyone really believe this bullshit? There is no empirical evidence for it at all. The eight year Bush era, which was a wild-and-crazy period for doing just this sort of thing, did nothing for jobs.

Meanwhile, the Republicans want to butcher government spending and that means, in effect, throwing all kinds of people out of work --- thousands more jobless. Do they ever think any of this stuff through?!

But, of course, their real agenda items are to end abortions, bash gays and lesbians, and put the church back into the state. Funny, Republicans are all against government intervention except when it comes to pushing off their "morality" on the rest of us.

Having a National Character

The problem with the current Republican position on the Federal government --- which is a position that would reduce the Federal government to something quite minor --- is the question of whether we have "national interests" or not. The Federal government is how we come together as a national people to address our national interests. If we accept the idea of reducing the Federal government to nothing, or at least to something quite small and impotent, then it seems to me that we are claiming that there are no essential national interests. Protecting the boundaries and perhaps collecting tariffs seem to be the only interests that Republicans respect.

For example, it is appropriate to ask whether civil rights is a national interest, something that defines us as a people and, hence, something that does not vary from region to region, or state to state. If Federal oversight on civili rights is eliminated or hog-tied by budget cuts, then local interests and prejudices can take control. Civil rights would become a regional disposition and we can only imagine the regions in which conditions would change radically. Respect for civil rights would no longer be a matter of national character.

Another example we might consider is the Food and Drug Administration. Is it a matter a nation interest to oversee the commercial distribution of foods and drugs? If we declare this as a regional responsibility, will the states pursue oversight with similar standards or will regional producers successfully avoid true oversight? If protecting one's health becomes an individual responsibility, what resources will be available, especially if only regional standards are maintained and interstate commerce is unrestricted?

The fact of the matter, it seems to me, is that we have a great many national interests today and, consequently, we need a Federal government through which we function as a nation to address these issues. These are not issues that we can afford to be decided on regional bases; and they are issues that define a national character --- that is, what it means to be an American.

What is Government About?

Herewith a few comments for anarchists, libertarians, and right-wing conservatives.

There is a common thread within these groups even though they may not think so. That common thread is, at the very least, the destruction of the Federal government. On the right wing, the arguments are principally fiscal; they don't like paying taxes and the government spends too much for their taste. Cut Federal programs and everything will be fine! But there is a complete unwillingness or ignorance about where that leads us. Libertarians and anarchists, on the other hand, are unblushing in their desire to eliminate government. So self-reliance is the message, one way or another.

The big question that looms in my mind is what self-reliance actually means, as a practical day-to-day system, for these people. Once government as such is gone, where do we all go from there?

Personally, I can attempt to grow more vegetables in my back yard and I suppose that I could put in some chickens and rabbits. It's doubtful, though, that the water company will continue to exist and I'm not sure where I'll get the water for irrigation. Since banks will undoubtedly fail or just default on what they owe us, we'll be pretty unlucky about buying anything. We've trusted the financial system all these years and don't happen to have gold bricks under our mattresses. It'll be pointless to have automobiles since the black-market price of gas will be way out of sight and the roads will not be maintained anyway. Guess that wipes out our vacation plans. God, real freedom is wonderful isn't it! That is freedom to stay at home and guard what little we have left with my shotgun.

But some of my libertarian friends will say this is all wrong. The people will arrange to do what they need to do by way of their collective action. That's great. But isn't that what government was in the first place! Government was the way in which we came together collectively to do what we all have a need to do. We needed a system of legislation, or decision making, to guide us and we needed taxation in order to make sure that everyone contributed.

Gosh, is that what government was about? Too bad we threw it away!

Why?

With Easter coming along, I cannot resist commenting on some thoughts I always have when I see people wearing crosses.

What if Jesus had lived in France in the late 18th Century? Would women be wearing miniature guillotines around their necks? Would every Christian church along the 210 freeway have a huge pillar bearing a massive guillotine? What if Jesus had been stabbed to death or hung? Would we have daggers in our windows and large hangman's nooses above the alters?

The issue is why do we take the cross as the icon for Christ? The cross was a vicious and cruel device for putting people to death slowly. What, indeed, does it say about Christianity that this icon of suffering and death seems to be the only way we can remember the life of Jesus? People have largely forgotten what that life was about, in terms of rebellion against the powerful and service to the oppressed. Instead, we remember his ugly death for the narcissistic reason that we hang our own hopes for immortality on it. Clearly, we could care less for his real message.

So, Happy Easter to all you Christians out there.

The Budget

Well, Congress almost closed down the Federal government this week. And this is just the first wave of arguments over the Federal budget. The whole experience has brought out a number of interesting points.

First, let's take the overall "theory" behind the Republican love of reducing Federal spending. The idea is that reduced spending will put more money in the hands of wealthy entrepreneurs who will then (of course) create jobs, thus stimulating the economy. No matter that this has never ever been demonstrated true to reality! The interesting thing about this theoretical vision is that it completely ignores the quality or character of the jobs that are involved. The Federal jobs that are mostly likely to be cut by Republicans are jobs in social services --- inspection of foods, protection of the environment, monitoring of fair labor practices, teaching children, giving aid to the poor and unhealthy. But when the entrepreneurs come forward with their new job opportunities, do they create jobs in the same fields? Of course not. We're talking about making new jobs in the manufacture of plastic buckets or new tanning sprays. The Federal government is good at creating jobs for the welfare of society; entrepreneurs are good at creating jobs for their own profit in popular consumer fields.

In the last few weeks, we've heard nothing but the Republican mantra that they only want to reduce Federal spending. We should ignore HOW they want to reduce spending. In fact, the Federal budget reflects the face of our government; it is how we spend our money. Any reduction in the budget, consequently, is an alteration of the government's face. Neither Democrats nor Republicans should be surprised by that. So the last minute fight over women's health care and NPR and public television was no accident. These are Federal programs that Republicans want to destroy and they will continue to try to destroy them so long as they have the strength to do so.

So how do Republicans think the Federal government should look? That is, what should be left after they have successfully destroyed Federal programs for the social good? Basically, Republicans want to protect our borders and maintain a military presence around the world. They never consider lowering military spending. Too many of their buddies in the manufacture of military goodies would suffer. Yet that's where the real spending is. No other country maintains military bases all around the world. The United States is more militarist than the Third Reich but nobody complains about it, not even the Democrats. While we're throwing away lunches for under-privileged children and mammograms for women, we are waging three different wars in Africa and the Middle East. But nobody is talking about how these are the activities that have caused our huge deficits. Why? Because our militarism is not something we are willing to look at. We don't want to admit it as fact. Isn't that pretty much the same as the German people of the 1930s? No one wanted to admit the dark side of where they were going.

The Republican Attack on NPR and Public Television

Republicans love to suggest that they are in a political contest with liberals. The notion of what constitutes a "liberal" is somewhat like a diseased soul --- morally degenerate, whimperingly sympathetic to the poor, employers of illegal immigrants, and probably drug addicts. To admit that you are a liberal is to emerge from the primal slime of the vegetative earth. How can anyone admit to it? I don't see how Republicans get away with this crap, frankly; except they do.

But nothing really highlights the center of this contest more than the present Republican attack against NPR and Public Television. What is the problem? NPR and Public Television are intelligent media. It is intelligence that offends the Republicans. Those liberal creeps all went to big public universities and took higher degrees. They want the media to be truly critical and to organize genuine discussions. Ridiculous! How can you make a decent buck in a world where people are actually able to ask real intelligent questions about what you are actually doing? Preposterous!

The sad truth of our world is that we are not locked in a two-party political conflict but rather in a vicious and uncompromising war between ignorance and intelligence. Major issues --- healthcare for example --- are fought out in almost complete ignorance, in terms of ridiculous notions and assumptions about death panels and loss of personal choice. No one will listen to an intelligent argument --- that is, to first understanding what the legislation provides and then asking why and what alternatives might be. You might find some of those discussions on NPR --- but not for long if the Republicans have their way.

Why are Republicans so afraid of intelligent discussion? Because it is in their interest to have an ignorant and impoverished population.

The Internet and Democracy

Back in the '90s when the internet was just developing and way before the invention of Facebook and proliferation of incredibly compact and powerful cell phones, techies used to dream about what the internet would do for democracy. I participated in any number of discussions where the "democratizing power" of the internet was boasted upon. And some of that was actually true. The internet does put the power of information into people's hands. You don't even have to own a computer and have a DSL line; you can walk into the public library.

Of course, one of the costs of voluminous free public information is that not everything you find on the internet is true to facts, nor is everything as neutral of secret aims and motives as one might first like to assume. Nor is it always easy to track down the origin and authenticity of materials you'll find there. So what we have is the following problem. If you want intelligent inquiry and reporting, you have to educate and employ teachers and journalists; and that means that not everyone will have access to their wisdom because it will only be available in reputable institutions and publications with limited distribution or access. If you want free universal access to information regardless of origin, authenticity, etc., then the internet is what you want but you are left to decide in some way what is informative and worthy. That turns out to be a daunting task.

Now, we are witnessing a new feature of the democratizing power of the internet. Facebook and wireless communications are being used in Africa and the Middle East to rally masses of people into protests. Egyptians unseated their president, and Lybians have started a civil war. But if this is democracy, where is it leading? The rule of the whole is desirable so long as the whole (that is, everyone in a society) is well informed, intelligent, and responsible. But this is not always the case, as Rousseau observed in his "Social Contract." The ability of a society to be governed by a particular constitution will always depend upon the level of cultural maturity in the society. So we have to ask whether the Egyptians are ready for democracy or whether will simply lead to something worse. Ditto Tunisia, Lybia, etc.

But what if this were America? Would we be happy if mobs of Americans, spirited into action through the internet and wireless communications, succeeded in bringing down our government? The Tea Party and other extremist movements are already way too close to this. Is this democracy or mob rule? The political situation in this country today suggests an extreme lack of cultural maturity. The Republican Party is incapable of thinking about anything except winning elections, hence, winning power. They spent the entire eight years of Clinton's administration trying to unseat him and now they are clearly trying to do the same with Obama. It is not about ruling or governing or serving the people, with the Republicans, it is all about pure hunger for power. After the latest elections, the Republican leadership made it clear that they are only interested in closing off Obama to a single term. But what about the people, the economy, jobs, etc? Apparently they could care less. Is this democracy in action? Well, it's raw power expressed by the majority but there would seem to be other important criteria that ought to be in play to make democracy work well. And that, I think, is something that the internet has not dealt with effectively.

The Middle East and Democracy

George Bush supposedly wanted to build democracies all over the Middle East and that's something that Americans love to hear. I suppose that we love to hear the people's cry for democracy because we assume, naively, that they will turn into something very much like us. That, of course, is never obvious. Consider, for example, the Palestinian elections in which people freely chose to be represented by the extreme --- Hamas. Also, consider where democracy in Iraq is likely to go. "Oh, no, that's not what we had in mind!"

The most recent event, of course, is the 18-day victory of Egyptians in removing Mubarak from office. But are they on their way to democracy or what else? And, after all, is it really democracy that people are after or something else?

If you mean by "democracy" that people make all the decisions with regard to their collective problems, then America is no democracy and never has been. What we have is a so-called "representative democracy" or "democratic republic." We follow a general rule of majority decision in choosing those who will represent us, and they follow a general rule of majority decision in acting and making law. But the great stabilizing feature of our government is its anchorage in a constitution, held as "fundamental law" and protected by a system of "checks and balances." If that is what Egyptians aspire to, more power to them, and good luck. Even in America, it is not at all clear that the system works well.

Why is America not exactly a great example? Mainly because wealth always seems to come to the forefront and take command. It has an ingenious way of using the law to advance its own interests. So America is actually more like an "oligarchic republic" --- that is, a constitutionally sanctioned rule of wealth. Consider the great difficulty that we have had in providing health care to Americans. We have been trying for decades without any success whatsoever. Now, for the first time, the Obama administration has succeeded in providing something. But, wait. The first business of the new Republican House is to vote to demolish it. Why? In whose interest is our government working? In the interests of wealthy insurance companies and over-priced physicians and hospitals, of course. Health care is BIG business. We can't let the government interfere in that. Of course, that's not the end of it. Republicans also want to demolish National Public Radio, the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Oh, and by the way, isn't it obvious that "global warming" is just a fraud concocted by money-hungry scientists? Do Republicans ever look outside their little world of profit and greed to see what the rest of the world is thinking and doing?

Well, back to the Middle East. Like others, I am thrilled by their desire to free themselves from the rule of dictators. But they will need more than 18 days and crowds of young people to turn their governments into systems that work for freedom and justice and that avoid immediate collapse into corruption.

A Comment on the Church

I've lost much of my interest in politics so I think I will discuss religion for a while. I was thinking about this while I walked downtown to coffee this morning. I suppose my mind was joggled by the weekly message on a little church I pass --- something to the effect that "Jesus saved us from our sins." Sin is a very strange concept but it has been enormously successful in trapping huge numbers of people for over centuries. It is doubtless to me that there are certain things we can do that are wrong to do. There are grounds for judging "right and wrong." But this does not mean that wrong things are sins. The notion of sin is actually quite unrelated to the issue of right and wrong acts. Christian theology wants to have us believe that we begin life "in sin." Even the baby is mortally encumbered by sin far before he/she can do anything that has moral scope. It seems to me that this is more-or-less equivalent to saying that life itself is viewed as evil. If we believe that, then there is no hope for us except what's offered by the church.

Christian theology has the formula for saving us from evil and stepping beyond sin. What is the formula? Being faithful to their theology of course. What this is, in my mind, is nothing related to the existence of a deity but rather a crass political usurpation of power over vast populations of people. It has been very successful. What better way to make people cower at your feet than to convince them that they have been created evil and impure and that their only path to redemption is to do everything that you tell them.

That, of course, is not all. At some point in the beginning, theologians realized that the one impulse in humans more powerful than even the need to eat is sexuality. Hence, all forms of sexuality had to be brought under church control. Now, even if people are a little hesitant about admitting sin in the abstract, they can become mortified by their own instinctual desires. And the Catholic (the traditional Christian) is not permitted sex in any circumstance but one in which conception of a child is possible, even intended. Joyce's "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" gives us a vivid picture of mortification-onto-damnation in the life of a young believer. I won't even bother to consider what this principle has done to world populations and how it maintains people in poverty. What interests me at the moment is what a shrewd political move it was to capture sexuality in this way before people felt free to own it themselves.

And if that isn't enough, Christianity was built on the foundation of yet another Achilles heal, the dread of death. If the physical body is desiring sex, the spiritual mind is anxious about death. The mind, too, must be imprisoned. Thus, Christian theology promises life-after-death and adds the quaint picture of hellfire versus heaven. It's a very scary road, life, and only the Church can guide you through so long as you are obedient and generous.

All of this is theology --- which is pretty much raw politics --- and has nothing to do with Jesus. I don't find any of this in Jesus' teaching, which is actually rather socialist in its leanings. As Nietzsche said, "There has been only one true Christian, and he died on the cross."

What will they do?

The interesting thing about politics, these days, is that, now that the Republicans have full power in the House, the whole question is what will they do with their new-found power. There are certain things that Americans want their government to do, but it is not at all clear that the Republicans are tuned into those wishes. Instead, they seem to be reaching out to achieve certain fantasies of what the American people want --- like re-defining "rape," throwing out the entire healthcare legislation, etc. And, of course, in spite of their heroic need to follow the Constitution to the letter, they spent their first three days violating the Constitution right and left.

The simple fact remains that Republicans hate government so much that they are terrible governors when they hold the power. All they want to do is tear things down, and the more they can give out to their rich corporate friends in the process, the better. After complaining about the failure of bipartisanship for the last two years, now is the time for the Republicans to demonstrate how they can work with Independents and Democrats to solve some of the urgent problems we face.

Economies and How They Work

The world's biggest nightmare, these days, is "the economy," but what is it.

Generally speaking, the economy is a system of production and consumption, but there are different systems. There are, for instance, regulated economies and unregulated economies, planned and unplanned. If we include ownership as part of the system, then Communist economies involve ownership of the means of production by the community; Socialist economies involve ownership of major production by the political system; and Capitalist economies involve ownership of production by individuals. Communist economies tend to be planned and regulated; Socialist economies tend to be regulated at least; and Capitalist economies tend to be unplanned and unregulated.

One way or another, a system of economy ought to be for the mutual benefit of the people. Everyone contributes through production of what they can manage and everyone has an opportunity to consume what they need for their livelihood. Unfortunately most systems break down. Even Communist systems that supposedly embrace the "mutual benefit" notion in principle tend to fail because of the difficulty involved in planning. Capitalist economies don't even try to embrace the "mutual benefit" notion but, rather, rest their faith on the bizarre idea that everything will work out OK if you just leave it alone (Adam Smith).

That is pretty much the picture of where we are today. America is such a super-inflated Capitalist system that it would vastly prefer to destroy itself in a mire of individual greed rather than look anything like even a regulated Socialism. Under the theme of "globalization" our Capitalists (owners of our production capacities) are moving Capital into the rest of the world where they can produce with lower obligations to the labor forces and at lower costs of most resources. Under the theme of "free trade agreements" they can then turn around and export/import their products for American consumption. But what's left out of this picture? The American worker of course! When Capitalists perform their productivity in a way that excludes the mutual benefit of allowing their own countrymen to share in the production, the "system" is broken. Americans have to produce in order to consume.

Right now, Americans seem to believe that politicians must create jobs for them. They ignore the fact that it is Capitalists who create jobs by hiring workers to engage with the means of production they own. What can politicians do? They could hire Americans to do government jobs, but the same American voters do not want "big government"! They could regulate the behavior of Capitalists so that the system works for American workers. But the same American voters are opposed to government regulation!

All I can say to the newly seated Republican House-of-Representatives is Good Luck. They will certainly need it. So far as I can see there is only one way, given these political preferences, in which the Capitalist system in American will be "healed." Capitalists will have to be lured back onto the mainland and that will only happen when American labor and resources are sufficiently cheap to meet the Capitalist's greedy expectations. That means re-making the American Dream into a vision of a Third-World Country. How proud will we be then?