Lets Talk about Guns

Well, it always takes a tragedy of some kind for the whole discussion of access to firearms to come up. Too bad, but it has to come up somehow. I will grant that Obama has a lot on his plate, at the moment, but I hope that he will not put off discussion of gun controls for too much longer. Obama is in a strong position. He cannot have another term in office anyway, and whatever he does is not going to hurt another candidate badly in 2016.

The NRA of course is adamantly against any regulation and they own well more than half of the Congress. But dramatic events like the massacre of 20 children in Connecticut may embarrass enough of those Congressmen and women who are otherwise owned by the NRA to allow them to vote for controls. There is the 2nd Amendment, of course, but its meaning needs to be interpreted realistically in terms of the modern concept of "militia" and whether or not modern militias (i.e., the National Guard, etc) require citizens to furnish their own firearms. The answer is obvious, but the Supreme Court may not be ideologically available (at the moment) to understanding that.

Then, of course, there are the truly insane people who just argue that the answer is to arm the teachers. Good grief! Can you imagine the chaos created by school staff and teachers all going for their guns in the event of an attack. How many more fatalities do these people want? There is, indeed, a whole group of people who think the country would be a safer place if we were all "packing heat." I think that's pretty much what the old West was all about and it wasn't really a great formula for civilized society.

Personally, I do not believe that many people want to prevent citizens from owning shotguns and deer rifles so that they can hunt. I have been a hunter myself; and I believe in hunting. Handguns are a little different but I can see some reasons for people owning handguns for hobbies or for self-defense. (Though I must say that shooting a home invader with a handgun or rifle is dangerous because of the weapon's long range. I have always been told that a shotgun is more appropriate, given its relatively short range of effectiveness.) But let's face it. People really do not need to have automatic and assault weapons with large clips of ammunition. Hopefully, we can legislate some controls over these weapons.

Of course, the fact of the matter is that incidents like the most recent massacre in Connecticut are not just about guns. They are also about mental health and how we choose to handle or choose NOT to handle mental health issues. People need to recognize how very dangerous mental health issues can be and, consequently, they need to take them seriously. Unfortunately, the very conservative gun congressmen are also the ones who would like to cut social spending and cripple mental health counseling. What a combination.

Here is an additional idea. Quite consistently with the Second Amendment, we could make the owners of military-style weapons enter their local National Guard units. After all, that's what "justifies" the ownership of these weapons. Of course, from that time onward, the weapons would be housed at the local armories. The new Guard members could visit their weapons and practice with them in the Guard shooting ranges. We could even offer instruction and award marksmanship medals. Result: these weapons are off the street but still ready for Second-Amendment use. Come on guys!

Compromise and Democracy

While I am enormously pleased that the majority of American voters (that is to say, those who actually voted) decided to re-elect President Obama, there is no doubt in my mind that the country still faces a terrible situation. In fact, the country remains split down the very middle in a 50/50 division of beliefs concerning just about everything --- how to handle finances, when life begins, who should marry, what to do in the world that surrounds us, and even who should vote. We cannot afford to remain so desperately divided. Democracy requires the ability to compromise; democratic people must be able to understand each other's needs and respond to them.

Right now, for example, we are facing the "fiscal cliff" over which the country cannot afford to fall. Yet, two days after the election the Republican leadership was once again announcing their refusal to compromise on fundamental economic issues. If the parties cannot begin to work together and discover or create common ground, we will move ahead only by being presented with one deep crisis after another. There is only a month and a half left to us to avoid this particular disaster!

The National Debt is one of the big sore points between parties; and one of the great myths of this controversy is that we have sold our country to the Chinese. Yet 68.1% of the National Debt is owed to Americans as opposed to 9.5% owed to the Chinese. The Chinese, indeed, hold only 31% of the total debt owed to foreign nations. Actual graphs of National Debt clearly demonstrate that Republicans have been the villains when it comes to adding to debt; Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II all increased the debt by large amounts, while Clinton actually reduced it. Unfortunately, Obama inherited the huge debt accumulated by Bush II and has been crippled by the interest owed and the Republican's refusal to raise revenue. 

The Republican answer to dealing with debt is to reduce spending and they accuse Obama of being the biggest spender ever. Unfortunately, that is simply a lie (which, more unfortunately, they seem to believe anyway); annual budget facts demonstrate that Federal spending by the Obama Administration has been the lowest since Eisenhower. The issue behind all of this is really the Republicans' desire to cut spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid --- a long term desire on their part, no matter what the fiscal or electoral realities are. Another linchpin in their plan is reducing Federal government to impotence so that government regulations cannot be enforced. 

The question for Democrats is whether compromise with this kind of agenda is possible. I have to confess that it's very difficult to see.

The God Industry

The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that "God is dead" in his book "Froeliche Wissenschaft" and continued with that theme in his next book "Also Sprach Zarathustra". What Nietzsche meant was that belief in the Christian god had become "unbelievable" in a 19th Century swept away by scientific rationality. Almost a century later, the French philosopher and author, Albert Camus, pointed out that the hopeless fairy tales of a god, divine creation, heavenly host, and life after death had created an absurd contradiction with realities of the human condition. Yet throughout the election campaigning of 2011 through 2012, we have heard pronouncements from Republican candidates who not only believe that god wills raped women to have babies but who also believe that the earth was created in six days while god rested on the seventh day --- never mind that there was nothing to mark days and nights until god, supposedly, created the sun and moon. It is probably no surprise to anyone that the very same politicians who are such fundamental Christians disbelieve in the last four centuries of scientific work, especially the theory of evolution and any evidence suggesting human involvement in global warming and its consequent, climate change. What is truly appalling is that contemporary supposedly intelligent people can believe and broadcast this nonsense; but what is even more appalling is that we allow this sort of garbage to enter the political theater at all. The very same politicians who introduce bills in state legislatures to prohibit Sharia Law are eager to submit Americans to Christian Law! And when it comes to dealing with women's lives they are not really that far different.

Now Nietzsche warned us that the news of god's death would be slow to make its way throughout the world but we've had almost 150 years to get it right. So what is the problem here? I've been thinking about this a lot, lately, and I've come to the conclusion that the central problem is the "God Industry." It is, in Western history, an enormous industry; and while it seems to be declining slowly in present time, it remains truly enormous today. Consider as an historic example the power of the churches in Medieval Europe; bishops and archbishops were as powerful as kings, perhaps more powerful. Consider the enormous wealth accumulated by religious institutions in order to build the huge cathedrals that we tour throughout Europe. In America we have our cathedrals as well; and every town has enough churches to service a variety of belief systems. The God Industry is everywhere and, most important, it employs large numbers of people. Needless to say, it cannot afford to allow people to go their own way in deciding belief or unbelief. 

Of course, there is also a large amount of fear associated with this issue, fear that we have learned since childhood. If god and the heavenly host do not exist, then what is there to give meaning to human life? If god doesn't regulate behavior, then the world will go mad. If there is no life after death, no heaven where we will meet our Aunt Millies, then that means a fall into Nothingness, the Abyss. In their weird ways, these fears are the greatest nihilistic forces in all of life --- one of Nietzsche's main points --- because they drain all value out of normal existence and thrust everything into an other-worldy paradise. Simply living our lives has meaning to us and does not require other worlds. 

Personally, I am sick and tired of baseball players who motion to god or Jesus when they round first base; if there were a god, I'm sure that she would have something better to attend to. I am also sick and tired of politicians proclaiming their faith, especially the ones who corrupt scientific judgment or try to control women's lives. And finally, if god were something worthy of belief, I don't think he would urge nations to go to war and grind young men and women into useless and forlorn pulp.

Save Big Bird

What's so important about Big Bird? Well, if you look at the amount of money involved, it is obviously not how much of the deficit problem Romney might solve by killing Big Bird. Public radio and television support is something like 0.01% of the problem. 

What is really going on behind the attack on Big Bird is a "bucket list" item with the whole Conservative gang. They have been trying to get rid of public radio and television anyway they can for years now. The deficit is just an easy excuse for accomplishing their longtime objective.

And what's wrong with public radio and television? It's outside the direct control of corporate wealth. The Conservative agenda is to maintain absolute control of the media. Americans should hear and see only what the wealthy 1% want them to hear and see. That is really what is at issue here. Freedom of speech and assembly are wonderful ideals, but do they really mean anything at a practical level when all the media are maintained by corporate power? These media have already successfully reduced the idea of "news" to "entertainment." And, of course, all Americans get for "news" is what the media think will entertain them. Talk about dumbing down!

Better Off

Republicans ask us whether we are better off today than we were four years ago. How can they dare ask such a question? The answer, of course, is "We're a whole lot better off than we were four years ago!"

September 2008 --- It was the end of the Bush era and a complete disaster with little outlook for improvement. The Dow was teetering at 11400 and was at 8000 by the time Obama took office. People were losing their jobs and their homes. It looked like we were heading into the worst depression since the Great One and that this one might actually be as great. We were bogged down in two foreign wars. And the national debt had already climbed to ridiculous levels. 

Obama's first year was a continuation of the Bush budget and a continuation of the slide toward disaster. However, Obama's policies had turned many of these factors around by his second year. He could have done more, perhaps, if the Senate had not been hostage to the 60/40 rule for passing anything significant. Then, by the time the Republicans gained control of the House in 2010, they made it clear they were not going to cooperate with Obama and were going to make him a one-term president by sacrificing the people of the nation. In spite of all that, employment has risen steadily throughout the last three years, housing has been somewhat dealt with, and the Dow is back to 13500. We are out of Iraq and there is a plan to leave Afganistan.

We are clearly better off than we had a right to think we might be. No one is entirely happy with where we are. There is much more to be done, but a return to Republican economics is the last thing in the world that might make things better.

While we're at it, let's consider the National Debt. Republicans constantly harangue Obama about increasing the debt. But if you actually look at the debt graph for the last fifty years, what you find is huge increases in the debt under Reagan (the god of Republican economics) getting even worse under the first Bush. Clinton actually managed to bring the debt under some degree of control and then the second Bush shot it upwards remarkably. Obama inherited a $9 trillion debt with interest in a time when debt reduction would have created an even worse economic condition. 

No Shame

Republicans heralded the speech given by Paul Ryan as a great contribution to their convention strategy. Yet, at the same time, Washington Post, CNN, NBC, and even one of the Fox journalists were demonstrating that Ryan had engaged in a major campaign of lying and deception. Is this really what the Founding Fathers had in mind? Just lie, cheat, and steal so long as you win power. The Republicans have been on this path every since Obama was elected. They have no concern for the nation, for the economy, etc. Their sole interest is power. And when they have it --- what then?

The Actual Referendum

In 1964 Richard Hofstadter won the Pulitzer Prize for his new book "Anti-intellectualism in American Life." Forty eight years later, Americans are having a referendum on the intellect or, perhaps more accurately, on intelligence. It's not just the parade of republican politicians who seem to be holding a contest on who can publicly say the dumbest things; it's the heavy weight of public opinion stacked up behind them that not only doesn't care about intelligence but actually seems to admire the reverse. In Texas schools, they refuse to teach critical thinking on the grounds that it will undermine "the authority of the family." One is reminded that the first thing new militarist governments usually do is arrest all the professors and shoot their students. They can't tolerate criticism and the last thing they want is new ideas.

Economics is an interesting example. Academic economists have been studying the "business cycle" ever since the Great Depression and have developed an understanding of economic downturns as well as sensible policies for stimulating re-growth. Republicans, on the other hand, think the great geniuses of the "economy" are the richest businessmen --- "surely all that money says something about them!" ---  and want to run the national economy like a business. Of course, the national economy is not a business any more than it is a household budget. Of course, in all of this, we are asked to ignore the fact that it is businesses that get us into "business cycles" precisely by doing business as usual. Ignore whatever the academics say!

A century ago, the Spanish philosopher, Jose Ortega y Gasset, wrote "Revolt of the Masses" in which he described the evolution of "mass man" in modern times. One of the principal traits of mass man is that he completely loses sight of how modern times were developed out of science, literature, and the arts and begins to think of them as natural gifts, hence nothing that requires effort or sacrifice. Of course, Ortega was ignored as just another elitist intellectual.

The New/Old Republican Paradise

Mit Romney, as well as most other Republican "leaders", says that the economy will be fine and all kinds of new jobs will be created if we just lower the tax burden on the super wealthy, dispense with environmental protection, strip away regulations that monitor and control industry, and return to the golden days of all-American health care. Oh yes, we should also deport millions of "illegal immigrants", deny women their Constitutional right to choose an abortion, make it increasingly difficult for women to obtain contraception, and exclude as many poor people from voting as possible. While we are at it, we should break apart as many unions as possible and deny collective bargaining rights to as many workers as we can. 

This vision of paradise is, of course, nothing new. It is a perfect model of how the country ran in the 1890s and early 1900s. Unfortunately, being five or more generations away from those wonderful times, few Americans understand why we have unions and collective bargaining and why the vote is such a precious possession. Women did not have the right to vote until the 1920s; 18-year-old soldiers did not have the right to vote until the 1960s; and massive numbers of people were disenfranchised because they could not read or recite passages from the Constitution. 

One of the most admirable features of uncontrolled corporate Capitalism was the "company town." The corporation offered almost all available jobs, owned all of the housing, and ran most of the services (like food stores). Wages were kept so low that virtually nothing was left over after rents were paid, clothes were purchased, and children fed. Hours of labor were often six days per week for up to 12 hours per day. Children frequently had to work in the factories or mines just to keep the family going. The only restraint on corporations was to pay enough so that workers did not die in massive numbers. Meanwhile, few safety precautions were taken and workers died in accidents on a daily basis. 

This was not only a system with no regulation of industry; it was a system in which government supported industry. Workers who threatened to rebel or strike were taken out by police or military and either shot dead or put up for trial in judicial systems that were heavily oriented toward the corporations. Corporations simply owned government --- local, state, and Federal. Today, as we watch billionaires literally gushing money into support of Romney, it is easy to believe that we are headed back to the good old days in which business owns government and 99% of other people pay for it with their lives. 

What continues to boggle the imagination is why 50% of Americans will continue to vote for something like this when it is so enormously contrary to their own interests. I can only think that the reason for Republican success is their ability to hide behind the weird mask of "social issues" --- anti-abortion, anti-sex-education, anti-evolution, anti-science, and anti-gay-rights --- so that people don't look beyond to that paradise of starvation-level employment, social impotence, and child labor.

Some lessons gained in Wisconsin

Scott Walker and his ilk can win no matter how outrageous he behaves so long as he can out-spend his adversaries 8-to-1. And where did all that money come from? Certainly not from Wisconsin. There are super-rich people out there (like the Koch brothers) who are buying up political power all over the country.

But money doesn't do everything. Unions have over-stretched their demands and power and now people are down on them. That's a shame because history well documents the fact that unions are necessary in order to give workers a fighting chance against raw Capitalism. Unfortunately, we seem to be in a position of re-living history every century or so because most people do not learn history anymore. Probably half the people alive today were born after the Vietnam War. There is no memory of how labor was treated back in the late 19th Century.

Another fact is that wealthy conservatives are buying up political power in the states. They have not given up on the Federal government but they have realized that they can do a great deal of their damage through control of the states. Look at what has been happening to women's issues around the country, especially in Southern states where this strategy has been successful.

In an odd sort of way, what is happening now is a violation of the old conservative principle of "states rights." Except that it is not the Federal government that is intervening in self-determination of the states. It is big money from out-of-state. What would have happened in Wisconsin had the people of the state been able to exercise their own political choice without the intervention of foreign economic and political power?

Lying in Public

Why do people (so-called journalists) in the media allow politicians to make complete lies in their interviews? In effect, members of the media become accessories to this lying by allowing it to go through without question. Are they supporters of the lying camp? really, not always.

I think the answer is that they know they won't get more interviews if they call candidates out on lying. So they let it pass. Their reputations depend on landing the interviews with big candidates and politicians. So they sell their souls to advance themselves. And, meanwhile, the listening/watching public gets nothing but falsehoods and no intelligent criticism. 

That's really evil. How can democracy survive in a system like this?

Another One for the "Birthers"

After all this time, the "birthers" are still alive and well (if you can call anyone of that persuasion "well"). I know because one of my friends is one of them and he recently informed me that one of his kind had discovered an obscure Supreme Court decision that absolutely proved that Obama lacks the qualifications to be President. 

The decision in question is Minor v. Happersett (1875). It is actually a very interesting case in which Mrs. Minor, a native born US citizen and resident of Missouri, sued Mr. Happersett, a registrar of voters, for not allowing her to register to vote because she was a woman. Attorneys for Minor argued that she had a right to vote guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. But the Supreme Court argued that the US Constitution, even as amended, does not prohibit states from denying suffrage to women. Indeed, it was not until the 19th Amendment (1920) that Federal law prohibited states from discriminating on the basis of sex in determining the right to vote.

Since the 14th Amendment deals with citizenship and states that "no State shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," the Court dealt first with Minor's citizenship rights as such. The birthers claim that language in the Minor v. Happersett ruling defines the class of "natural-born citizens" in such a way that Obama could not qualify. In fact, if this were true, large numbers of people would not qualify as natural born citizens, including John McCain, Mitt Romney, and my own step-daughter.

What the 14th Amendment says is that "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." This is surely true; however, what this statement does not do is define the class of natural-born citizens. The class of citizens under the 14th Amendment includes persons born in the US of foreign citizens or visitors --- something the birthers do not like --- and excludes persons born outside of the US even though at least one parent is a US citizen. So the birthers cannot depend on the 14th Amendment for their ammunition and, instead, look to the language of the 1875 decision.

So here is the first part of the paragraph that the birthers like. "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." This, the birthers claim, defines the class of "natural-born citizens." Of course, what it actually says is merely that no one ever doubted that children born in the US of US parents belonged in that class. That does not define the class; it merely designates an undoubted member of the class. 

What is interesting is that the same paragraph continues: "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens." In other words, the Court acknowledged that there are other routes to membership in the class of "natural-born citizens" but saw no need to argue those issues since Mrs. Minor was clearly a citizen without going into any of those other arguments. 

Further into the opinion, it states that legislation "as early as 1790, . . . the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens." The generally accepted membership of the class of "natural-born citizens" is indeed children born in the US (and certain territories) to US citizens, children born in the US to foreign citizens (excluding diplomats), and children born outside of the US to at least one US-citizen parent. Admittedly some people argue with one or another of these members, but the opinion of Minor v. Happersett does not make any judgment about such arguments.

The American Dream

We hear a great deal about "the American dream" and I know pretty well what people these days mean by that. However, I am equally unsure what "the American dream" really means. What dream and whose dream are we talking about? If we are talking about the original immigrants or colonizers of America, I suppose that the dream was life without religious persecution and land that was free for settlement. They did, of course, begin to persecute themselves; and there was the little matter of clearing off indigenous people in order to settle. Not too clear in retrospect how virtuous any of that really was. 

Perhaps the first great vision of an "American dream" was Jefferson's vision of a nation of landed citizens. Democracy made sense in that situation even though I am skeptical that real democracy ever existed in the US. Anyway, the Industrial Revolution removed people from the land. The US Census does not even track the population of small farmers anymore; the number is too tiny compared to the general population (less than 1%). Even farming is industrialized today. What that means is that no one has a natural path to survival anymore. Everyone must "work the system" in some way in order to survive. So, in a Capitalist world, that means that almost everyone is a "surf" in the new system of "corporate capitalism." You take the wages that you can get and you make do with what you have.

So I suppose that, having been dropped into a struggle for survival off the land or without any other free supporting body, we imagine "the American dream" to be this: that everybody has a reasonable chance at succeeding if they apply themselves. But this is where we encounter the great rift in American political thought. Those of a Democratic persuasion focus on "everybody has a reasonable chance" and those of a Republican persuasion focus on "apply themselves." Thus, for Democrats the failure of the American dream is the fact that only a few have a reasonable chance while many have no chance at all. For Republicans, on the other hand, the failure is the fact that people are lazy and just do not apply themselves. Democrats tend to ignore the fact that many people really are lazy and or conniving and take advantage of gifts. Republicans tend to ignore the improbability of reasonable chances. But since no one is willing to talk intelligently across this ideological divide, there is little chance of moderating the rift. Elections stack up to being almost 50/50 match-ups between diametrically opposite tendencies. There is, of course, one other important dimension to this rift. Democrats believe that government is uniquely situated to help the people achieve the dream, and Republicans do not want government to interfere. Taxation is theft and the government should be stripped of most of its powers. What Capitalists want is protection of property --- hence, a police presence and large military budget.

As we work our way toward the election of 2012, the real issue before us is what kind of society we want. When it comes down to basics, that is what government is really about. Government is the way in which a people (commonwealth) exercises its collective power to shape its own destiny. The choices before us are in stark contrast to each other. Democrats believe that part of the aim of government is to "promote the general welfare" of society as expressed in the Constitution ("We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."). In this respect, they believe that parents should be given aid in rearing their children to become good citizens, that young people should be provided the benefits of education, that workers should receive reasonable compensation for their labors, and that everyone should have the benefits of adequate health care.

What Republicans seem to want is a tax policy that enormously favors extreme wealth and withdraws all Federal programs for promoting the general welfare. I confess that I do not understand what this means as a "vision of a desirable society" except that it would seem we should simply watch people starve and die in our cities and ignore the whole thing as much as we can. If this is not the Republican ideal, then how do they really see this policy working out?

The Price of Gas

Well, as expected, the Republicans are now blaming the price of gas on Obama. The real question, though, is whether anyone wants to explore the facts about why gas prices are where they are.

First of all, the Federal government does not own gas production. In our thoroughly revered system of free-market capitalism, the production of gas is owned by hugely wealthy oil capitalists. (Actually, these are the people who probably own the Federal government rather than vice versa.)

Second, the price of crude oil is largely controlled by the world market and the market, presently, is dominated by major speculation about the supply of oil coming out of the Middle East. Without much control, the major producers of gasoline will have to set prices based on the price of crude oil, speculation or not. The US is far from the only consumer in the marketplace. China and other countries are becoming aggressive consumers of oil.

Third, US producers of crude oil (oil pumped out of US territories) are currently exporting part of their production. Get it? US both imports and exports oil. The gas price has nothing to do with the current supply in the US and, hence, nothing to do with more drilling on and off shore. (But they are always eager to use any excuse to push us to allow more drilling!!) "Drill baby drill" will do nothing to gasoline prices in the US.

What nobody wants to talk about is the fact that if the US producers who presently export crude were to sell their oil in the US and, consequently, elevate the supply in the US, the price of gas would drop. But, naturally, the wealthy owners of our oil production have no interest in dropping the price of gas in the US when they can sell to countries where the price of gas is $5 or even $6 per gallon. Our revered capitalists simply have no interest in lowering American gas prices. As always, their great interest lies in making as much money as possible.

More War??

One of the most frustrating things about American government today is that it really does not matter which party is in office when it comes to our compulsive war mongering. We are just out of the mess in Iraq and we are only just beginning to talk about maybe being willing to leave Afganistan, and now we are waving our rifles and bombs in the air in threatening motions toward Iran. Meanwhile, we blame the whole national economic crisis on Big Government and totally ignore the bizarre reality that America spends more on its military than all other countries of the world combined! Why? Is this what Eisenhower meant when he told us to "beware the military-industrial complex?"

Well, today, we are told that Israel may well attack Iran this spring. Oh, great. Where will we stand on that? We will, of course, get totally sucked into that war so there we will be, fighting yet another war in the Middle East. We will not, of course, reflect upon the expense of lives (either ours or theirs) nor will we bother to reflect upon the expense of yet billions more dollars. When it comes to our war machine, we really don't care how much we spend or where the money comes from. (Debt, what is that?)

Is there any rationality connected with this militarism at all? Actually, I think not. What is the track record for actually "winning" wars? Well, in some sense we "won" the Second World War in both Europe and the Pacific. We did, of course, manage to withdraw from both regions and we wound up realizing that we had to re-build both enemies in order to secure any meaningful peace. In Korea, the war is actually still on. We just agreed to stop shooting at each other. In Vietnam, we foolishly decided to take over a failed French colonial policy and look what happened. We lost that war because it was an un-win-able war. Exercising some intelligence could have saved us, but we are short on intelligence when it comes to our military engagements.

In 1991 we pushed the Iraqis out of Kuwait. As we all said back then, we probably would never have bothered if the chief product of Kuwait had been broccoli. The elder Bush stopped the military from going all the way to Bagdad so, later on, his wild son Bush II had to spend billions of American dollars and destroy thousands of lives to show off to his daddy that he could face down Saddam Hussein. Who ever thought that we could wage a war on Iraq and do what? We're going to change Iraq? Ridiculous. So now we have finally left (more or less) and nothing has really changed. It's the same society and it will go its own way.

Afganistan! Did we ever bother to study what happened to the Russians in Afganistan? Why did we believe that the results would be any different? For that matter, why do we seem to believe that we can storm into any country, bomb the shit out of their population, land our forces in their towns and farmlands, and utter things about forming democratic governments, and expect that change will occur? If some country did that to us, we would be in the streets and alleys fighting tooth-and-nail. We would be planting IUDs, car bombs, etc. We don't seem to understand that what we face is just plain human nature.

So now we are waiving our weapons in front of Iran. Why? Well, largely to protect Israel. Yes, this time (and for the last many decades) we are picking up on a failed British colonial problem. Why do we seem compelled to solve European failures?

Ah, election year!

Well, it is 2012 and it is the year of national elections. The media will blast us with commentaries, predictions, interviews, and debates. But how much truth will come to us versus out-and-out falsehoods?

Barak Obama will be blamed for everything wrong with the economy and will be painted as a wild-eyed Socialist and (probably) a Muslim who wants to convert us all to Sharia Law. No problem that almost everything wrong with the economy began with --- and was caused by --- George W. Bush. Democrats, like me, certainly wish that Obama had been able to do more to solve our economic problems in his first three years, but I don't think anyone else could have done better. Then, look what he has been up against in the last year!

To me, the most depressing part of the political spectacle that we will be witnessing during the coming year is how antithetical it is to the spirit of democracy. Sound contradictory? Isn't the right to vote what democracy means? Well, no. The issue about voting is that we have genuine choices. Then, we need to be well and truthfully informed about the choices we are making. And finally, we need to have honest follow-up to see what our elected officials are doing with our votes.

Instead, our government is founded on money --- significant money. Candidates with significant money behind them get in front of the people and get elected. The critical issues that might make a real difference in the country's future are so protected by money that they never find a voice. Money-laiden candidates invent a variety of shallow issues to offer the appearance of choice. After election, the big donors who financed the candidates take over the governing process. This is happening in both parties so no one really offers much of a choice.

So sit back and watch, but you won't see much that really connects with reality.