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.