An Economic Patriot Act?

After watching the events of Washington/Wall Street for the past few weeks, I've been stumped by the lack of the WHY things are going south.

Now I'll admit that with my lack of formal education in economics it would be unwise to trust me with matters financial. Give me a few years and I'd probably cause an economic meltdown due to my ignorance. Oh. Wait. Somebody from Yale or Harvard beat me to it.

This so-called "rescue" plan of Treasury Henry Paulson is emitting a disturbing resemblance to the Patriot Act. Or I should say, the passage of the Patriot Act. Basically it is this: there is no TIME to review it. Pass it. NOW. IMMEDIATELY. Ask your questions later, but uh, by the way, you won't be able to ask questions afterwards because the law will prohibit it. Just do it. The world will end if you don't.

And another thing: take that Constitution and shove it. We don't need no stinkin' Constitution. Sorry for the series of emergencies the past 8 years, but we've got practice at this. There's a fire here people, so just shut up and pass the gasoline.

Let's take a little sidetrip to the 1920's. The "roaring 20's." The name for the decade was derived from the economic "boom," particularly in the stock market. Along came FDR in 1933 and started saving capitalism from its own excesses, and fought every inch by the "investing" class. It wasn't until the advent of World War II that Americans started making money...I mean a LOT of Americans. It produced the solid middle class that endured for 30 years.

Looking back with 20/20 vision, many economists realized that the 1920's weren't so "roaring" after all...at least for farmers and in particular, industrial workers. You see, productivity skyrocketed. A single worker on average was producing double or triple every few years what he or she was producing the year before.

But...but...where did those productivity savings go? To the top. It boiled down to the relatively simple observation that those producing goods and services were not being paid enough to purchase those same goods and services. Post World War II this problem did not exist. The middle class expanded and everyone got fat, dumb, and Republican.

Take a look, particularly in this decade, where productivity gains have gone. It's the same as the 1920's and has been so for several decades. Perhaps the subprime mortgage collapse came about more from underpaid workers than anything else. That is because Wall Street, with its golden blinders on, convinced itself that while Americans stretched their work hours, went deeper and deeper in debt, and saw their real wages fall while productivity increased...that this was as it should be.

The ultimate in chutzpah is Wall Street, over the weekend, devising a new myriad of schemes to profit even further from their galactic gambling. The last two investment banks got the Fed to agree to allow them to become holding companies. That way they can take deposits and pretend to be like a real bank. I remember what Will Rogers said in the 1930's.." A holding company is a thing where you hand an accomplice the goods while the policeman searches you. "

The is the ultimate Bush legacy: a Thelma and Louise, sans Constitution, flying off a cliff.

And we, fellow citizens, are locked in the trunk.

The Hurricane Ike Election

In the year 1900, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan fought for the presidency. McKinley, the Republican, beat Bryan in that election. At one campagin stop in West Virginia, Bryan was cussed out on the train platform by my great-grandfather. Bluntness runs in the family I guess.

But then, my great-grandfather had two brothers who fought in the Civil War, and being the only state formed because of that Civil War, it was reasonable to assume no Democrat was going to get a warm welcome in that state. The scars from the Civil War still ran deep forty years after the firing upon Ft. Sumter.

Also in 1900, the city of Galveston was destroyed by a hurricane. Not damaged, but destroyed, along with over 6,000 people. It was the worst loss of life in U.S. History. The scars and memories from that ran very deep.

But scars heal and sometimes fade a bit. People forget things, or memories of one generation fail to get passed on to another. Not to sound like a prig, but that is what history is for; it lets us travel the future with references from the past.

So I'm a little taken aback by those in Galveston who ignored dire warnings, and decided to "tough it out" while Hurricane Ike chewed up the Texas coast. Anyone who has lived through a hurricane knows that you don't "tough it out." You boogey, and then some.

Yet thousands didn't, and now await rescuers out risking their own lives needlessly. Despite all the technology available to warn people, these foolish souls decided to ignore what Galveston had gone through a century earlier.

I thought there is an anology here. It's why there is such a "buzz" about a former P.O.W. turned bald-faced liar and a neophyte neocon sycophant running for national office. The American electorate (or at least a sizable portion) are fascinated by the soap-opera aspect of this. It's fun, and let's just not get bogged down in details. Details like, oh, maybe at least four more years of policies (or non-policies) inflicted on those who adhere to Einstein's observation that insanity is doing the same thing over and over yet expecting different results.

2008 is the year Americans actually vote on a hurricane. Oddly, instead of wanting it to go away and let the damage control begin, there is this narcotic effect luring people to ask for a hurricane's return. It's insane, but let's try the same way just one more time.

Indeed.

JOHN MCCAIN RATTED OUT FELLOW POW'S WHILE CAPTIVE!!!

There is someone I've known for many years who, while totally opposite my views on most things, is at least consistent in her approach. Should I put forth the observation that I question Barack Obama's ability to keep his promises, she agrees. If I question Joe Biden's temperment, or ability to compromise, she agrees. But, that is not enough. Much more follows in the form of those "talking points," whereby one recites that which is pushed daily. There is no questioning these things; they are repeated without question or thought.

For example, she will volunteer, in hushed tones, that Obama is not really American; that he is secretly a Muslim; that he's a pervert wanting to teach kindergartners about sex. And so on. And on. And on.

So, I thought...why not join 'em if I can't 'beat 'em? Why not let the McCain campaign thugs (separate, in my mind, from decent Republicans) have fun fending off something?

JOHN MCCAIN RATTED OUT HIS FELLOW POW'S WHILE IN THE HANOI HILTON.

MCCAIN TRIED TO HELP MANUEL NORIEGA ESCAPE U.S. TROOPS IN PANAMA.....BECAUSE MCCAIN, LIKE NORIEGA, WAS BORN IN PANAMA, NOT THE U.S.

JOHN MCCAIN ROLLED A WAR PROTESTER DOWN 3 FLIGHTS OF STAIRS....IN HER WHEELCHAIR!!!

Are the above lies? Of course. But what difference does that make this year? All you have to do is keep repeating them. Like symantic fatigue, you just drone them over and over until you don't really CARE what you're saying any more.

Please note: you will not hear anything about healthcare, a few pesky wars going on and what new ones may be rolled out in the future, the ridiculous state of our energy non-policy, home ownership (or the increasing lack thereof).

No, because all that boring stuff involves governing, and we don't do that now. No, now we win, and winning is all that matters.

Is there honor in this? Absolutely not, but what has honor got to do with being president these days? Opportunity is the key: use every opportunity to do whatever you want.

Lying has reached new heights in politics. It's not an art form, because lying repeatedly and with malice requires no imagination nor character. It's perfect for the Rovian Rule of Deceit.

It does, if you think about it, show an awfully deep contempt for people in general.

And so does the "governing" that follows.

Election 2008: Will The Center Hold?

"This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable that
this Administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty to
so co-operate with the President elect, as to save the Union between
the election and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election
on such ground that he cannot possibly save it afterwards."



----Abraham Lincoln, prior to the election of 1864.



The above quote is apt at present, for while there is not a raging Civil War as in Mr. Lincoln's time, we are a house divided.



Even worse, we are not two sections of one nation at war, but rather hundreds, if not thousands, of factions fighting for the absolute in a world gone immeasurably gray. On the one hand, the Left finally gained some say-so at the 1968 Democratic Convention. This was the blossoming of political correctness; the era of identity politics whereby one's skin color, religion, or sexual orientation DID matter more than one's citizenship.



Coincidentally, Richard Nixon used his "Southern Strategy" that year. It was a veiled appeal to the racism being fanned by federal court orders and forced school busing. Over the years such things have not, to say the least, appealed to the better angels of our nature.



No, the lowest common denominator is the highest form of "discourse." For discourse it is not. It is McCarthyite warfare with no prisoners taken. It is a constant barrage of sound bites and perfumed insults. It has begged the question in my mind as to what the end result of all this is going to be? Other than scalping all my enemies, what am I voting towards? Not for, but towards. There is a future in there somewhere; a goal that is better than our present and also better than ourselves.



To secure that future, two questions must be addressed: Are we going to continue on the path towards a land where a few live splendidly while the vast majority accept squalor, albeit with TV and sports? The other is: will the future executive recognize the Constitution as something worth following, no matter how inconvenient to any particular agenda?

Using the past and present as a guide, I can't say I'm too optimistic about either of those questions. The reference to our country being polarized is highly inaccurate. We have become more like the U.S. of the 1850's. Those in favor of eliminating slavery and those opposing said elimination, found plenty of fire to toss at each other. There were other issues involved in our Civil War, but too-simply put, a lot of blood was spilled in order to resolve what kind of nation it was going to be.

However, even that period falls short of the present when it comes to invective. What is happening now is beyond insults. It is a divide and conquer mentality that not only questions opposing viewpoints (which is fair enough), but the patriotism, the American-ness of those who are not with the program. I have listened to "talk radio" in my area, which is 100% "conservative," when in fact it's not. It's reactionary. There is nothing accomplished for the nation to use the airwaves to claim one needs a bath by being around Democrats. Or that Democrats (who somehow are all part of a liberal monolith) are simply not "real" Americans.

What is most disheartening is that John McCain has co-oped (or been co-opted by) the Rovian Right of politics. With a minimum of thought one should see that there is a huge gap between successful campaigning and successful government. Senator McCain cannot win this election through the technique of destruction and then come along post-election and talk about "uniting" the nation. We've all been there, done that, and bought the T-shirts this decade.

At the moment, there is still enough of the America others in the past have built to salvage. One more term; one more exercise in bringing the campaign drones into government is going to ensure a wasteland.

And Senator McCain, whatever honorable motives he has, will not be of any use in the wasteland he is helping to create.

Ms. Hitler Wants To Go To Washington

I have watched two speeches in their entirety so far. One was Barack Obama's at the closing of the Democratic Convention. The other was that of Sarah Palin.

Obama's was less lifting than instructive. He rebutted some points but at the same time made precise declarations of what his goals are. His economic plan obviously begs the question as to how all this is going to be paid for. It's a fair question, no doubt. But, the key to his speech was in the direction he wants to take this country.

Palin's speech last night was instructive also, but not anywhere near Obama's. If one were to methodically go through her words (or whoever's words they were) there are 3 points that stuck with me.

1: The McCain/Palin ticket is going to go to Washington and clean up "the mess." This is an 8-year-old ploy to convince people with a flash that Bill Clinton's 16 year run in the White House is coming to an end; that George W. Bush never left Crawfor and this "mess" can only be mopped up by the very people who have been in charge for 8 years now.

2: The purpose of public service is to "leave the country better off than how we found it." Ditto on the previous paragraph, except to say that if on January 19th 2009 you feel the nation is better off (not you, but the nation) then you belong in that glaringly all-white asylum in St. Paul. By the way, the cameras kept panning the audience and repeatedly zeroed in on a black man. Perhaps he was the only black in the place.

3: That John McCain's POW experience somehow places him as the spokesman for all prisoners of war; that his character and mettle are what entitles him to speak for those whose suffering and perseverence speaks to the durability of the human spirit, NOT any political party.

Sarah Palin's family, while "off limits" to questioning, were flashed and spoken of and used as props. Short of Abraham offering up Isaac to God for sacrifice, I don't know what more they could have done. The display did not paint her as an ordinary Jane, but rather a user; one whose goals are far more important than means.

But the most strking thing was her demeanor. Deliberatly repeating the big lie about "no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere (not mentioning that the state of Alaska got the funding anyway) she failed to note that Alaska never gave the money back. The speech was Rovian all the way but given with such relish that I think Gov. Palin could have improved it with her own fire and brimstone. It could be said that Karl Rove actually would exert a restraining influence on this candidate.

There was sarcasm, derision, with a face that invites any challenges. Yet challenges are not on the agenda. Palin will be bunkered as well as Dick Cheney has been. Other than popping out of a hole from time to time in order to guttersnipe, she will not be "available" to the miscreants in the press who have a question or two. She splendidly solidified the Republican "base." Much like the adoring members of Hitler's Reichstag, they applauded with everything except their feet. This year the Republican Party is particularly insulted that the Democrats might actually pick up a cudgel or two, unlike previous elections. One of the hallmarks of bullies is that screaming indignation when someone gives them a dose of their own medicine.

But Sarah Palin's insta-qualification based upon this speech is misleading to say the least. She painted herself as another Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. She's a "maverick," and "new star." She may be, but it's with a very old, tried and true formula. Rail against the very things you do yourself. Promise order out of chaos. Promise strength while weakening the fabric of the society you claim to love so much.

The most revealing revelation about Sarah Palin came out the other day. It's not as interesting as her daughter's pregnancy, or her husband's DUI over twenty years ago. Nor was it the emerging details of her firing of the Wasilla police chief.

Running close was her putting a political knife in the back of her own mother in law when it was her turn to run for mayor. Todd Palin's mom, you see, is pro-choice. And family, my friends, is nothing compared to ideology.

First runner up might be Palin's affiliation with the Alaska Independence Party. Actually entertaining "states rights" and secession are remarkable to say the least. Perhaps the party of Lincoln (of all people) has nominated Jane C. Calhoun. In 1861 James Petigru described his state of South Carolina as too small to be a sovereign nation but too big to be an insane asylum. Maybe Alaska is big enough to be a sovereign state. As for the insane asylum...well, Sarah speaks; you decide.

But the top one; the one revelation that should make any sane person perk up, is how as mayor of Wasille, Sarah Palin put the screws to the local librarian to have certain books banned. You can get bogged down in the details of Evangelical Christians versus everybody else.....or you can recognize a clear authoritarian streak that runs contrary to what used to be the Republican Party. Or the United States, for that matter.

Since she likes to evoke memories of Harry Truman, I thought of one during her speech. In the 1948 election, Truman told crowds that if they voted for Republicans, then they were dumber than he thought and deserved just what they were going to get.

If the American electorate wants another "decider," then so be it. To hunker in a bunker is not governing. People are funny that way; they like to question the people who work for them.

Not the other way around.

Sarah Palin & The 80%

Why would someone write about Sarah Palin but place an image of Marie Antoinette in the article?

Because Marie Antoinette was the quintessential "compassionate conservative." When informed that the people of Paris had no bread to eat, the empress is reported to have replied, "Then let them eat cake." The phrase has lingered in our language for several centuries now. And why? Because it's a perfect example of someone being completely out of touch.

Not out of touch with those within her "world," but those outside of her economic and social orbit. For someone enjoying the fruits of a fuedal-style form of life (at least on the rich side of it), keeping one's bearings is dependent soley upon checking the references of all those who live in nearby castles. The empress, if anything, understood her base.

The United States has had presidents who, although born into and raised with great wealth, fashioned a credible and sincere form of sympathy for the masses. Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy are two who come to mind. However, America has swung mightily towards the worship of wealth to the exclusion of government. The masses (as Coke Roberts likes to refer to us) don't exist. Oh, wait. Yes, at election time. But not at governing time.

Currently there is great swirl about Gov. Palin. The public conversation revolves around her inexperience, behavior as governor of Alaska, her NRA membership, her views on abortion, her physical appearance, et cetera......

What I haven't heard is that little "governing bit," which the Republicans still can't get the hang of in this century. It's not "the economy, stupid," but "economics, stupid." You don't have to have a professorship in the subject, just a decent grasp on reality. One needs to ask two important (actually critical) questions:

1: Who writes the rules for how we live in this nation?
2: Who enforces those rules?

Answer: The Congress. They write them....or their lobbyists do. And whatever president in power at the time enforces them. According the Constitution. If you believe in it.....ha ha ha. (hat tip to George W.)

Those said rules have changed...slowly but perceptively towards an America that is rich in both riches and poverty. At the current rate, each generation is going to have to accept lowered expectations than the generation before. That is, for the bottom 80%; those who don't really "count" to those accustomed to a plutacracy. A Kingdom of the wealthy unbeholden to anyone who is not.

During the Saddleback rodeo, John McCain jokingly answered a question as to what his definition of rich is by saying that anyone making $5 million a year or more. It is revealing...that sarcastic dismissal of what to me was the most important question asked.

John McCain has a similar approach to the healthcare of veterans. His plan is simple (as all "great" ones are): when you leave the service, find somebody really rich and marry them. By turning his back on his "comrades" McCain has proven in vote after vote that they were never comrades at all.

It is the votes that count. And how Gov. Palin approaches the subject of the general welfare is more important than any other topic that will be covered. Sadly, promoting the general wefare was a phrase used several centuries ago...and nowadays will be twisted by the Republicans (again) into a clarion alarm for getting deadbeats off the government teat.

Unless you're on acid and working at The Weekly Standard, you might figure out that the general welfare of the republic invovles everyone, not the top 20%.

There has not been enough sunshine in America for years. This election is either going to open the door to a new sunrise, or lead us into the shadows of twilight. Again.

Onto the stage of Karl Rove's Thousand Year Reich comes Sarah Palin. While charming, she does not appear to be deflected from the same banana republic agenda of the status quo. And if we should (God forbid) enter that economic darkness; should a President Palin ever be told that Americans don't have any bread, expect the predictable:

"Let them eat moose."