A Few Questions For the GOP

President Obama is making his big speech tonight to a joint session of Congress to put forth his new jobs ideas. Naturally, the Republicans have responded ahead of time and have all but said they’re not interested. This is really helpful.

I have a few questions, though, for the Republicans ahead of time, some things that have been bugging me for a while.

According to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, “we need to stop doing what we’ve been doing.” He goes on to enumerate those things. Stop spending, stop threatening tax increases, and roll back the “big wet blanket of this explosion of regulation” on the private sector. Nothing new here, it’s standard by now. Pull the string on a Republican’s back and you hear the same litany.

Cut spending, reduce taxes, eliminate regulation. Yadda yadda yadda.

Here’s my first question.

If you’re running a business and you’re faced with shrinking revenues, does it make sense to cut the price of your product?

Okay, I know there’s an answer to this that makes sense. If you see a trend toward reduced revenues, cutting the price can make the product more attractive and theoretically increase the volume of sales. You can make up the difference then by quantity.

That only works if the slide isn’t too severe. If you cut the price below your costs and volume doesn’t increase, then to continue that policy is a guarantee of bankruptcy.

So…?

Hm. Okay, regulation. Is everyone’s memory so short that we can’t remember back in 2008 when the financial markets crashed and burned and everyone knew it was because we had deregulated the industry so much that bubbles were allowed to grow uncontrolled and firms were pillaging their customers’ accounts on risky ventures that ought to have been illegal? It was the consistent roll back of regulations that put us in that position. So how is deregulating further supposed to be good for us?

Oh, they mentioned environmental regulations, right. Like it makes sense to use the environment as a toilet just to increase jobs. I forget, the GOP keeps expecting industry to behave morally if they take off the regulations. I would like to see evidence of that ever having worked.

What’s that? No answer?

Okay, then, tax cuts. Here we go again. We have to lower taxes on business in order to get them to…

What? Spend more money on reinvestment and hire more people?

We have been cutting taxes on business and wealth since Reagan was in office. There has been a steady decline in the corporate income tax rate for 30 years. The result has been the wholesale shipping of jobs overseas. Why? Because it’s cheaper and taxes have nothing to do with it. There is no quid pro quo. We have cut their taxes, they have promised to do more for the country, and less has been done.

I would like to know what you intend to do to make sure that the increased revenues business will enjoy as a result of those cuts will be spent here. How are you going to guarantee that cutting the taxes on, say, Exxon or Monsanto or GM or any of them will become reinvestment in this country and not simply go to increase the dividend payments of shareholders while the companies themselves build another new plant in Indonesia or India or somewhere else where labor goes for a dollar a day and no money is set aside for pensions or health care?

My simple questions are essentially the same ones Mitch McConnell is asking the president. Why are you still beating these dead horses and expecting a different outcome? There is clearly a disconnect. You’ve been passing legislation for 30 years now to benefit business and America has been gradually stripped of middle class jobs and the capacity to renew itself. But you keep harping on that same theme.

Not that what Obama has been proposing is much better, but at least his spending is aimed at Americans and not corporate entities. Well, some of it anyway, and it just seems that all GOP efforts are aimed at helping out business.

Excuse me? The Republicans are talking about citizens, too? Sorry, then explain to me the reversal of someone like Senator Lugar, who nine months ago was a big supporter of the payroll tax rollback but now is condemning is as a short term do nothing solution? Perhaps I am jaded, but when I hear that it sounds like he’s saying “But this tax cut doesn’t benefit the people who put me in office, it’s just…just…people.”

The Great Depression ended because of massively increased federal spending. There are no two ways about it. FDR spent and spent and spent and the economy sluggishly responded. It didn’t end until WWII started—but hey, all that money was federal spending. We were at war, we organized to win it, and the Depression ended. The sluggish recovery got supercharged. But it was still federal spending.

Because here’s the reality—there is a lot of money in the accounts of large businesses. They’ve pretty much recovered and we have helped them do that. Right or wrong, we bailed them out and now they’re whole. But they’re not spending any of it! So my last question.

If you take off all the regulations and end all the taxes on these entities, what makes you think they’ll spend that money here? There’s no law demanding that they do. What makes you think they won’t continue to do what they’ve been doing?

I’m just curious.

Revenge Porn

There is probably no way for me to write this without tripping over some bloodthirsty reactionary’s sensibilities, but you know, I don’t really give a damn.

In my home town, too.

A St. Louis publishing company has released a 9/11 coloring book.  There is a reaction to it here.  Wonderful cover.

 

Very patriotic.  Nothing violent on the cover itself, but there are the twin towers and, I think, the proposed memorial tower.

Oh yes, and a cross.  This is, after all, commemorating the assault by Muslims against Christians.

The subtitle is interesting: A Graphic Coloring Novel on the Events of September 11, 2001.

A novel.

Hmm.

Well, it is rated PG, I suppose that’s something.

 

One of the inside images has been getting a great deal of press as an example of what can be found inside.

Yes, indeed.  A depiction of a SEAL shooting Osama Bin Laden, through one of his wives.  They even made sure you could see the bullet.  They have also depicted Bin Laden as something of a coward—he’s clearly cringing behind the brave woman set to take the shot for him.

This is about as bad as the Easter Baskets Walmart offered one year full of missiles and bombs.

Let me be clear here:  I do not mourn Osama Bin Laden.  I feel he was a hateful man who did terrible things and has left the world a much more dangerous place than it was before.  I might have certain moral quibbles about the manner of his demise, but one of my overwhelming feelings is that this is how it ought to have been done back in 2001 and 2002.  The excessive eruption of American military response that has left us with depleted moral force in a world that was already ambivalent about us, mired in two wars that should have been over long ago had they not been disastrously mishandled (and which, according to a recent study, has cost us close to 60 billion in funds stolen by contractors in Iraq alone), and with a hair-trigger police-state mentality that has crippled us in actual problem-solving, much higher energy costs, and a political landscape that will require a combination of Solomon, George Washington, and Albert Einstein to untangle was the most egregious example of vengeance-seeking since Johnson’s refusal to get out of Vietnam.  Had we concentrated on finding Bin Laden and sending special teams to go get him, we would have accomplished much m0re.

But that would have meant a trial, probably, and a stage on which he might have aired his complaints.  And after all we had a president with something to prove and a vice president whose lust for power is rarely found outside of a bad novel.

So we now have a coloring book to do more damage by covering up the farce that the last decade has been in the eyes of children who will come of age learning the official version, reinforced by the simple activity of filling in between the lines the pictures in a novel that is basically about revenge.

I suppose it would be a hard thing to sell if it told the truth, which is that basically in the aftermath of 9/11 America enjoyed more absolute global sympathy than at any time since WWII and we squandered it by acting stupidly.  All this know-how—and we have a lot of that, really—ignored, misused, pissed away.

It’s possible to characterize almost every war, especially since the end of the 19th Century, as a means by which industry has made more money.  There’s a component of that to every conflict, even WWII, which really was about evil in the world.  But I can’t think of one that has been more nakedly so than Iraq.  With the revelation of the graft and corruption and the outright theft and the complete lack of accountability, it is impossible not to see it as having been instigated for the sole benefit of multinationals, Halliburton being first and foremost.

But we can’t tell kids that.  Can’t have them grow up thinking the people who run their country can ever be stupid, or greedy, or vain, or misguided, or duped, or simply wrong.  Can’t have that.

So let’s dress it up like another excusable example of John Wayne diplomacy.

Shit.

 

Republicans, Rent Boys, and Rhetoric

Another outspoken advocate of Public Morals has been caught with a hand slipping into the cookie jar of Craig’s List sex.  Yes, he’s loudly anti-gay and, yes, he’s a Republican.

Now, I don’t for a second believe being a Republican has anything to do with this, any more than I believe being Catholic has anything to do with pedophilic priests.  I think we largely have the cart turned ’round the wrong way.  I think there is something about both organizations that attract such people, and while you can lay full blame on the Catholic Church for coddling these criminals, you can’t really blame them for creating them.  They came pre-flawed, as it were, and merely found a place to flourish.

There are theories.  Heavens, there are theories!

In this particular instance, I’ll go along with a combination of two.  One is the self-loathing of the deeply-closeted gay.  Publicly declaring it perversion, privately unable to keep it under control, and then doing the dumb bit of soliciting for sex via venues that have in the past proved their potential for public exposure.  It’s as if subconsciously they’re crying out “Help me!  Catch me so I can be humiliated into a cure!”  Of course, it doesn’t work that way, but who ever credited one’s subconscious with logic?

The other part is more sinister and has thousands of years of history to back it up and that has to do with the privileges of power.  The assumption that high status comes, automatically, with perks denied ordinary mortals.

Or should be denied them.  Which brings the perversion into it.  Not sexual perversion, but the perversion of presumed status.

See, the powerful have always had access to whatever they wanted, regardless of what the law says.  (Margaret Atwood chronicled this in The Handmaid’s Tale with the visit to the private party where the high mucky-mucks of Gilead get to party down with all the vices they have publicly denied everyone else.  Privilege.

Now I can get with the idea that status confers perks.  I can.  You work your ass off to achieve position, there should be some things open to you that ordinarily wouldn’t be.

But not of the illegal variety.  I’m talking about no waiting at the best restaurants, preferred seating at theaters, powerful people willing to take your call with no fuss, that sort of stuff.

Not crazy sex with rent boys or call girls, which (a) shouldn’t be illegal to begin with and (b) shouldn’t be denied as illicit and perverse.

But I think one of the things about power is this whole “access to the forbidden” aspect that makes what ought to be available to all something to be denied the general public, put in a box of legislative occlusion, and then indulged behind the most closed of doors, because getting away with it is half the thrill.

It seems the loudest proponents of so-called Family Values are the ones most often caught in such hypocrisies.  But if you look at it from the angle of privilege seeking to maintain something solely for itself, then you can look at all of history to make sense of it.  Popes and priests with mistresses, even while condemning the whole notion of adultery and fornication for the unwashed masses.  Aristocrats indulging their every whim, kings keeping courtesans, and let’s not even get into the misuse of young boys.

I do not say that such things never and do not continue to happen at every level of society, but no one pays attention to someone making minimum wage when they bitch about immorality even while they’re fucking their best friend’s wife or diddling their brother’s kids.  Except to put them in jail when they’re caught, at least in the latter instance.  Such people have no ability to effectively shield their behavior.

What to make of all these Republicans who keep getting caught in blatant hypocrisies?  Is it a Republican disease?  Surely not.  Democrats get outed in pecadilloes.  There is a significant difference, though, in the ideologies.  The Republicans have allied themselves to this whole puritanical anti-sex faction and it is often the worst of them in terms of oppressive legislation and rhetoric that get caught doing almost exactly what they condemn.  Not so much with the Democrats.  I don’t necessarily excuse the behavior, but there’s a considerable difference in the level of hypocrisy.

I think there is a fundamental pathology involved with people who so publicly seek to condemn sexual activities and an even deeper one in those who condemn what they themselves indulge.  There’s an obsession with sex that, contrary to the rhetoric, is far deeper than any norm one might acknowledge.  People who condemn it with such stridency are probably so obsessed with it that their public stance can only be seen as that of an addict who wants everyone else to take care of his problem for him.  If it is rendered unavailable to everyone, removed from access, then he (or she, but it seems a condition more of males than females—that may be just an aberration of reporting or maybe the women are more careful, and possibly less hypocritical) won’t be able to indulge, temptation removed.

This is making one’s incapacity to control one’s self everyone else’s problem.

Which is particularly annoying when it shouldn’t be a problem in the first place.

What I suspect some of these loudmouthed moralists would be should they be propositioned by a mature, healthy person who just wants a roll in the sack, is rendered impotent.  Normal consensual sex?  How dare you suggest such a thing!  I think without the flavor of the illicit (and how much better if it were also illegal) it would be…threatening.  There’s no power to wield, this person is here willingly, there’s no way to guarantee control.  And it would be done with a presumption that it’s—gasp!—okay.

I’m remembering Jim Bakker, whose impropriety now is fading into the mists of ancient history, but as head of the PTL indulged himself regularly, but (apparently, and at least in one instance) through the use of ruffies or their equivalent.  When Jessica Hahn, one of his parishioners, dropped the dime on him with the full story, two things happened that I found interesting.  First, all Bakker’s followers blamed Hahn, even though she had been drugged.  Secondly, Hahn apparently discovered that she couldn’t live with the hypocrisy—she liked sex and doing it under the cloak of sinful, illicit ignominy just didn’t play.  (What she subsequently did with her career may be of questionable taste, but she never apologized for it or tried to make herself out to be anything other than herself.)  But as a by-product of the first thing, Bakker was able to receive a public “cleansing” by admitting his sins and “being forgiven”, which I now believe added a layer of thrill.  You can’t experience that thrill if you don’t do anything wrong, so…

Run down the line of such preachers and you see the same pathology as I described with these moralizing politicians. The ultimate was Jimmy Swaggart, whose weeping performance before his followers was disturbing on so many levels—but if seen as part of the thrill may make perfect sense.

I’m not sure the genie will ever be put back in the bottle, and for that I’m glad.  But these folks keep trying.  Unless sex is dirty, I’m guessing, it just isn’t as much fun.

Nor is it a perk.  If everyone can do it, without guilt, freely and consensually, where’s the special privileges for becoming powerful?

I think we would all do well to stop voting for people who run for office on any kind of sexual morality platform.  Public health is different, but these folks aren’t combining the two.  If anything they’re making it worse, with their jihad against contraception and this nonsensical abstinence only education, which has been repeatedly shown to not work.  They are doing the country a disservice.

Besides, it’s getting boring.  Utterly predictable, and as boring as the evolution/creationism debate.  Which, oddly enough, the same people seem to be involved in…

 

Our Dreams Are Sleeping

Neil DeGrasse Tyson is my favorite science pop star. He is right up there with Stephen Jay Gould and Carl Sagan in terms of ability and scope and style when it comes to explaining science to the public. I’ve heard that a follow-up mini-series to Sagan’s superb Cosmos is in the works with Tyson as the narrator.

After this, I have to say, I love this guy:

Back in the Seventies, Robert A. Heinlein testified before congress about the benefits of the space program—the ones people don’t generally know about. Among some of them was the surprising fact that suicides among seniors was sharply down since the Gemini program and the announcement of the Apollo program. Years later I noted that suicides were back up after several cancellations.

We do not pay enough attention to dreams anymore. I don’t know what happened to us. Even in the dark days of McCarthyism we dreamed big dreams. What, have we suffered exhaustion? Possibly. But the more we gut the things that make people give a damn about getting up tomorrow, the worse everything is going to be. It is not all about money, as some would have us believe. Money is a tool. What are we doing with it? One part of our society seems bent on destroying the mechanisms of improvement for the average American while the other part seems unable to make a stand and say stop the carnage. One part has convinced another part that the problem is all about government redistribution of wealth and we should end entitlements and cut out all this useless spending and let private enterprise do everything. As far as I can see, right now, all private enterprise is interested in doing is building more casinos and feeding larger dividends to people who don’t want to pay taxes to support the dreams of the country.

It might help, though, if we actually had some dreams again. Time to wake them up and let them play. Before we forget how.

Independence Day

It’s the Fourth of July.  I’ve been pondering whether or not to write something politically pithy or culturally au courant and here it is, almost noon, and I’ve made no decision.  I think I pretty much said what I had to say about my feelings about this country a few posts back for Memorial Day, so I don’t think I’ll revisit that.

Last night we sat on our front porch while the pre-Fourth fireworks went off in the surrounding neighborhood.  Folks nearby spend an unconscionable amount of money on things that blow up and look pretty and we benefit from the show.  Neither of us like large crowds, so going down to the St. Louis riverfront for the big explosion is just not an option.  The older I get the less inclined I am to squeeze myself into the midst of so much anonymous humanity.

We’ll likely go to bed early tonight after watching the rest of our neighborhood go up in brilliance, starbursts, and smoke.

I suppose the only thing I’d like to say politically is a not very original observation about how so many people seem to misidentify the pertinent document in our history.  The Declaration of Independence is often seen as more important than the Constitution and this is an error, one which leads us into these absurd cul-de-sacs of debate over the religious nature of our Founding.  Because of the reference to Our Creator, people with a particular agenda seem to take that as indicative that this was founded as a christian nation.  Creator is a fairly broad, nondenominational label that encompasses any and all descriptions of gods or nature, but I won’t argue the idea that the men who wrote it were, if anything, more or less christians.  It’s a statement, though, that is intended not to establish that there is a god or that we are beholden to such a thing, but that there are some birthrights we all share that no mortal can blithely assume we don’t possess.  The only thing at the time higher than a king was a god, so, when you read the rest of the Declaration, it is clear that the intended meaning is that a power transcending kings grants us these rights.  They had not yet hit upon establishing a representative democracy, not insofar as every official was to be elected—they may have intended that a constitutional monarchy be used as a model, and Britain already had a history of putting constraints on its monarchs.  But to make the point absolutely clear that no monarch had the authority to take certain rights away, the went one step up.  The use of the term Creator is sufficiently vague and universal that any formulation of Natural Law is covered, even and including a Spinozan construction that makes Nature and God one and the same thing.  Essentially, the fact that people are here, part of the world, should automatically accord them certain status and rights that no one has a legal right to remove.

But it is a document of intent, namely intent to separate one people politically from another.  The form of the new republic is not addressed in the Declaration.  That work was left for the Constitution, and the way it was originally formulated there was not one mention of god or churches.  It dealt entirely with a secular formulation and I do not believe that was unintentional.  The Bill of Rights was included later, as a deal-making document that certain states insisted on before they would ratify the Constitution, and that’s where you find the establishment clause.

But the Constitution is a complex, legal document.  There are fine passages in the Bill of Rights, but in the body of the Constitution itself there are few phrases even close to the poetic heights of the Declaration.  The Preamble has some nice things, but we can perhaps understand why most people actually don’t know what’s in the Constitution.

A shame, really, because it would make things clearer to most folks if they did.  Why are things run the way they are is not explained by the grand polemical declarations of the Fourth of July document, but in the closely-reasoned blueprint of the Constitution.  There is also a reason soldiers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution—not the Declaration—and likewise why politicians are sworn in the same way.

Namely, it is because we have dedicated ourselves to an Idea.

Not a person or persons, but an Idea, and this ought to put paid to all this nonsense we’re about to hear about how this country is a christian nation dedicated to god.  It is not.  It is a nation dedicated to the idea that we are free to choose.  And sometimes what our neighbors will choose will run counter to what we may think is right or appropriate or pleasant or…but it’s their choice, just as it is ours to believe as we wish.

The Constitution is first and foremost a framework antithetical to cults of personality.  You want to see what cults of personality do to a nation?  Look at the old Soviet Union.  Or look at Libya.  Or North Korea.

I don’t give a damn what kind of “character” my representatives possess—I want to know that they will obey the law and do their jobs.  That’s all.  If they do that, they can be a bland or odious as they may.  If they don’t, I could care less what their character is like or their personal qualities.

Okay, so maybe I did have a few things to say of a political nature.  Must be in the air.  It is, after all, the Fourth.

Be safe.

Teach the Controversy (!)

I wasn’t sure I’d do this, but I’m really pissed off.

This morning I opened my front door to find a flier lying on the porch.  I thought it was another local contractor ad or announcement of a barbecue-and-rummage sale, so I scooped it up to glance at it before dropping it in the recycle hopper.  Instead, I find in my hand a vile piece of unconscionable poison.  And it seemed like it would be such a nice day!

I’m not going to dignify this crap by citing the source.  The header of the two-side sheet reads: The Holocaust Controversy  The Case For Open Debate.  What follows is a putrid example of revisionist nonsense designed to suggest that six million Jews were not systematically slaughtered by the Third Reich.  In tone, it is reasonable.  It does not make many strident claims with exclamation points, just calmly asserts one bullshit “fact” after another (plus a photograph of an open pit containing the skeletonized remains of concentration camp victims labeling it a photo of typhus victims) to lay the groundwork for the claim that the Holocaust didn’t happen, that it is all a Big Lie assembled by a Zionist conspiracy to advance the cause of sympathy for stateless Jews in order to get them a state.

I will cite one piece of twisty nonsense from the flier.  In one paragraph, the calim is made that in 1990 the Auschwitz State Museum revised the old claim of four million murdered down to one million.  It then goes on with a list of (uncited) claims of further numeric reductions, not by the Auschwitz Museum, but by “a French scholar” and “another mainstream Holocaust scholar” all the way down to half a million.  The wording is slippery.  I advise you to go to the link provided, which is directly to the museum, and read the detailed history.  The paragraph I mention in the flier leaves off with the suggestion that only a half million people were “actually” killed in total.

The Nazis murdered eleven million people, systematically, with calculation.  Nearly six million were Jews (the number vary above and below by a few tens of thousands, but they come from testimony given at Nuremberg, from eye-witness accounts, estimates of populations before and after the war, and many other methods of tabulations, not through “best guesses,” which is what the sheet of propaganda left on my porch would have one believe), but there were five million others—gypies, homosexuals, slavs of various nationalities, and political undesirables such as communists, socialists, social democrats, as well as Jehovah’s Witnesses, and people accused of being “asocial” or of “socially deviant type.”

This is not disputed by any credible authority.

Nor is Hitler’s obsession with the Jews, nor is the history of virulent antisemitism in Europe, nor are the claims made by various members of the Nazi regime, nor is the physical evidence of the camps.

Over a million Jews were murdered at Auschwitz.  It was a large camp and has become the symbol for all the others.  But bear one fact in mind before you quibble over numbers or intent: the Nazis built 20,000 of these camps.

Not all have ovens, not all had gas chambers, but all of them were forced labor camps and all of them were in the business of killing the inmates.  Conservatively, all you would need is a hundred deaths per camp to bring it up to two million.  Five hundred per camp and you get ten million.

People were worked endlessly, underfed, disease ran rampant, mass graves were common.  We have seen this kind of barbarism in our recent history, in Cambodia, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia.  And yes, Stalin killed millions more.

The offensiveness of this shit is profound.  Yet here is this scrap of paper suggesting that, like the nonsense over evolution, we should “teach the controversy.”

Fine.  Here is the controversy I would teach.  The controversy of denial, that people would try so hard to say this never happened or, as is more likely of late, that it wasn’t “as bad” as has been stated.  The controversy that continually puts Jews under the spotlight, which is the same germinal thinking that resulted in this horrific bit of substantiated history.

I’ve had lengthy conversations with people who believe this.  The hallmark of them is that they managed never to directly address any evidence put before them.  Direct them to the Nuremberg transcripts, they say something about not having found “those” records.  Direct them to eyewitness testimony, they haven’t had a chance to validate it.  The snake-slithers of obfuscation and refusal to confront is incredible to behold, but the question that boggles my mind is this:

To what end do you wish to exonerate Hitler and the Third Reich?

Is it that you can’t imagine Europeans doing this?  Look what we did to the Indians.  Is it that you simply cannot bring yourselves to believe the word of anyone not a Christian?  Look at the lies spread in the name of Christ, up to and including the abuse of children by priest (and the fact that in Rwanda there were Catholic priests leading the charge in some areas to slaughter).  Is it that you can’t believe people could be that evil for no reason?  I can see that as a problem, because if they could do something like that, then so could you.

Here’s the ugly truth—circumstances permitting, most people can be that evil.  Just look at Rwanda.  That was over religion, birth rates, and water tables.  Cambodia was over ideology.

Oh, but those weren’t white people?  Europeanized, educated, civilized whites?  How could the home of Kant and Beethoven, Goethe and Mann harbor such vileness?

That’s the controversy.  The fragility of the thin veneer of civilization that keeps us “above it all.”  How easily is it stripped, broken, thrown away if we feel threatened.  (We just extended the Patriot Act another four years, a rather blatant violation of Constitutional liberties, and all just so we’ll feel “safe.”)

I shouldn’t have been surprised.  There are Nazis in my neighborhood.  But it does shock me, every time I find it.  Turn over a rock you always thought was harmless and even pretty and there are the maggots of the soul…

Holocaust Revisionism is evil.  It may be on par with the Holocaust itself.  “Oh, don’t pay attention to the screams behind that curtain—it’s not what you think.  Besides, isn’t it a fine curtain?  Do you really think the people capable of creating such a lovely curtain could be monsters?”

Got one word for you:  Wagner.

Have a nice weekend.

Memory Day

It’s Memorial Day.  Lot’s of flags flying around the neighborhood, most of them made in China.  Barbecues will permeate the air with the hunger-inducing aroma of charcoal and burning meat, the pop-spritz of cans opening will mingle with the sounds of conversation, laughter, and portable stereos pumping out classic rock or C & W quasi-patriotic gunk.

We bought a push mower this morning from Home Depot.  Go green.

I would like to take a few moments to tell you what I feel and have felt about this country.

bought-flags-may-2011.jpg

I grew up on a steady diet of John Wayne and wanting very much to make my dad proud.  He’s very much a patriot, in his own way, although he’s also a fair man who tries to understand other points of view, something I didn’t quite realize when I was a kid.  This made little difference until I entered high school.

I was 14 in 1968, one of the most contentious years America has ever experienced.  Literally everything America stood for was called into question that year.  Our involvement in Vietnam and the fall-out from the Civil Rights movements culminated in riots, the breakdown of social order, rampant anti-authoritarianism, and rifts opening at dinner tables.  I was affected in what now seems a peculiar way, because I went into high school very much my father’s son.

I wanted to write.  The logical thing to do was to join the school paper, which I did.  What I found was a collection of students who had more or less fully embraced the various left wing political agendas of the day, which made me the odd one out because I came into this group espousing the conservative viewpoint.  I stood out because I was in a very singular minority.  I thought what we were doing in Vietnam was just (because we were fighting communism); I thought hippies were scuzzy, soft-headed losers and like many people failed to differentiate them from the anti-war movement, who I considered a bunch of cowards; I bought the Love It Or Leave It ethos of blue-collar America; and I thought we were the greatest country on Earth.  Ever.

People who know me now may be very surprised by all this.  I look at that list now and I’m surprised.

Very quickly I acquired a reputation and a nickname from the assorted long-locked lefties of the Roosevelt Rough Rider—-the neo-nazi Polish warmonger.   (After a couple of years of being quite visibly without a girlfriend, the label “frigid” was added to it.)  After years of being bullied in grade school, I came out of my victimhood with a do-or-die attitude that pretty much embraced the Fuck You ethic of resistance to ridicule, so I basked resplendent in my isolation as the lone Right Winger in a coven of communist-leaning radicals.  At assembly, when the Pledge of Allegiance was recited, I was the only one of the bunch who stood up and put my hand on my heart and spoke the words.

The clarity of my thinking!

But, you see, I was very much my father’s son then.  It was not so much that I believed all the America The Beautiful stuff I spat back at the others, but that he did, and night after night we talked about it, and I did not till later realize that I actually missed the whole point of his nightly Socratic engagements.  I was taking his views to school and loading them into my rifle and shooting them at the pigeons who kept flying up in front of me with what I now understand as far more thoughtful and considered arguments than mine.

On my eighteenth birthday I had to register for the draft.  This was 1972 and Nixon was about to be re-elected and he had promised to wind down the fighting in Vietnam.  I didn’t give it a lot of thought.  I didn’t particularly like the idea of being drafted, but if I were I would pack my stuff and go and be a good soldier.  The only lottery I was in, though, my number was very high and shortly thereafter the draft ended, so I never had to go.

Other things caught my attention and pulled me along, so it never occurred to me to enlist.  But something was changing by then.

I’d worked on enough stories with the others on the Rough Rider and had enough conversations with them and done research for history classes (especially world history, which was a nightmare, but made me work harder than I’d ever worked before in a class because the teacher hated me) that some rather uncomfortable notions had begun floating around in my skull.

When I finally looked into the full history of the Vietnam Conflict, I could not maintain the illusion that we were justified being there.  It was a civil war.  Before that it had been a war of independence, a French colony that wanted its own identity back, and try as I might I could not continue to ignore that direct parallels with our own revolution and desire for independence.  It still took years before I could sit across from my father and say “No, we were wrong.  We should not have been there.  It was an immoral war.”

But I certainly didn’t learn that in school.

What I did learn in school, most vividly, in my freshman year, was that speaking the truth can get you in serious trouble.  My American history teacher, Mr. Maurer—a kind, sincere man with tremendous affection for his students, who had not yet been soured on the idea of public education and believed in open discourse—let a discussion go on in his classroom about the true nature of the American Civil War in which a strong argument was presented that it had nothing to do with the slaves, because Lincoln himself had said if he could preserve the Union and maintain slavery, he would do it.  (We did finally conclude that the War had been about slavery but not necessarily about the slaves, a view I still more or less hold.)  It got contentious, but for that week we were an engaged classroom.

Unfortunately, during that week, one of the administrators came, twice, to listen, and suddenly Mr. Maurer was in trouble for not following the syllabus and for causing disruption in his class.  Basically, the line was that you stick to the text and don’t bring in anything that might call into question the program—like facts not in the book.  It was a profoundly chilling lesson for us to see a much-chastened Jack Maurer return and shut down the whole discussion on the Civil War and then by-pass Reconstruction altogether and go on to the Gilded Age.

When you look at the reality of America’s wars, you find they don’t conform to the image we like to believe.  They don’t.  I’m sorry, but we have not as a nation been very nice.  The Revolution was what it was and in the end we should feel proud of that.  But the War of 1812 was a picked fight that we nearly lost because we wanted a piece of Canada and possibly cut Britain out of the Caribbean.  The slave trade was being interfered with and certain Southern interests supported a war with the idea of pushing British warships out of the trade lanes.  There were other reasons, but the stated reasons—unwarranted impressment, harrasment of American shipping, and the vestiges of an alliance with France—were being settled diplomatically.

The Mexican-American War was a simple land grab on our part.  We refused to control our borders, Mexico complained, started doing something to eliminate the presence of illegal immigrants (us) and we went in and took Texas and New Mexico and California.

The Civil War was a political war that resulted from a unpleasant compromise at the Founding.

The Spanish-American War was pure imperialism and you don’t even have do any creative interpreting to understand that, they stated it right up front.  The European powers all had colonies, we ought to have some, too, and we picked a fight with Spain.

World War I was a pointless exercise that undermined American credibility at Versailles and led directly to World War II.

World War II has been called the Good War, and it’s almost impossible to argue that we had no choice and that we were really fighting true evil.

The Korean War was in support of treaty promises and to support the infant United Nations.  We should feel okay about that one, though it is often overlooked.

Vietnam was a thorough-going debacle.  We were suckered in by France, kept there by a combination of Catholic interest and cultural misunderstanding, and hoist on the petard of our sense of being the World’s Policemen.

Oh, and the ongoing Indian Wars—almost completely an exercise in imperialism and genocide.  We wanted their land.  This becomes obvious when you look at such things as the Cherokee migration of the 1830s as a result of the Indian Removal Act.  We had said for decades that if the Indians would settle down and stop being nomads and hunters and develop their land according to our practices, then everything would be fine.  The Cherokee nation did that and were removed anyway.  We wanted the land.  Period.

I won’t even get into our current messes.

The mistake made in the contentious Sixties was spitting on the troops.  It was not their fault.  The idealists of the anti-war movement expected them to abandon everything they believed in, break their word, and refuse to fight.  There is a very tangled culture in this country of keeping reality out of patriotic discourse.  Be that as it may, a soldier gives over a promise to serve those duly elected who are obligated then not to abuse or misuse their sacrifice—which has happened more often than my conservative mindset in high school could comfortably absorb.

I said my father is fair and tries to understand other viewpoints.  Years later, after I had decided that my politics in high school had been bankrupt and ill-considered and I had more or less become sympathetic to the Left, we revisited the arguments of the Vietnam era.  He did not understand me when I told him that had I been drafted, I would have gone, not because of my patriotism, but because it would have been easier.  Go along to get along.  Belonging is a powerful inducement to deny principle sometimes.  But he declared that had I run to Canada, which many did at the time, he would have hunted me down.

“What good would that have done?” I asked.

“That’s just the way I am.  You don’t run away.”  And before I could say another word, he added.  “If you believed the war was wrong, you stay and fight—I’d have paid for the lawyers.”

My head spun around at that and I realized my whole perception of his attitude was skewed and he just skewed it again.

You don’t run away.

So from all that, I can say what it is I believe is good and worth preserving about America.  It is all in the Bill of Rights, but often we misconstrue the point of that document.  We assume (and technically this is correct, but it’s more than this) that these are principles laid down to restrict and constrain government.  We forget that they are also principles to live up to, that this reflects who we want to be.  We want to be tolerant, we want to be able to conduct our own lives, we want to be honest and unashamed, we want to treat our fellow human beings with dignity.  That the history of this country is one battle after another to convince many of us to live up to these standards does not diminish them, nor does it detract from the idea of America that we have to continually press the argument.

We don’t run away.

Right now we are in a period of uncertainty, where what it means to be American is a mix of guilt and pride and misdirected zeal.  We are being bought by sides in an fight that goes back to the Founding and sometimes it looks like we’re losing.  People don’t vote because they think it does no good.  People support mouthpieces who try to tell them this or that is unAmerican because many of us don’t understand the difference between change and chains.  People let pundits make up their minds for them because it’s easy, especially when the pundits validate our anger and give us an excuse for our uncertainty.  We have been letting ideologues divide us over solutions that, if implemented, would cost some corporation market share, and we have swallowed the idea handed us by Reagan that American means market share.

But we don’t run away.  We stand and fight it out and come to a consensus and do something that may work better—and if not, we try something else.

I stopped pledging allegiance to a flag.  It’s a piece of cloth and the idea that we should have a law protecting a piece of cloth is silly.  I do believe in the idea of America—that individuals, regardless of social status, bank account, ethnicity, religious conviction, or political persuasion, are the primary purpose of our institutions, that preserving the rights of the declarative “I” in the face of sectionalism, bigotry, fashions and fads is the whole point of the experiment—and that’s something I’ll defend.  That supporting that idea does not mean abandoning others to die wallowing in despair because they don’t have the wherewithal to pay for membership in the club and no individual has the right to blight others in the name of a false status.  And the idea of defending America, the idea of America, is embodied in the oath administered to soldiers, who pledge to defend the Constitution.  That’s where our identity lies, in the structural document that, along with determining how we shall govern ourselves, also includes a series of proclamations about who we want to be. Part of that is to live in a country where you should not have to prove it to anyone what you believe and who you are.  I have always mistrusted people who wear their affiliations on their sleeves—little American flag lapel pins or a baker’s dozen of them spread on the front lawn—because it would never occur to me to doubt that they’re who they are.  But by displaying it like that, they make it a challenge to everyone else—“I’m an American, are you?”  That’s not my country.  That’s not how I live, that’s not what makes being here worthwhile.  Being an American should mean being the best human being you can.  It means treating people decently because we believe that’s how people should be treated, and they shouldn’t be made to pass a test to deserve it.  I’ll back that.

I was a pretty stupid kid in high school.  But I grew up and got over it.  And I’m thankful that I live in a place where I could do that and not have to explain myself or apologize, either for believing one way back then or for changing my mind now.

Have a good day.  Remember.

Rapture Ready

This weekend, it’s supposed to be all over.  Harold Camping of the Family Radio evangelist organization has announced the Rapture for May 21st—at six P.M.

In my own little patch of interest, the SFWA Nebula Awards will be given out this weekend.  If Mr. Camping is right, this will be the last of these.  Going out in grand style, that.

I don’t have a lot to say about this other than it’s silly.  It’s one more reason that makes me wonder about the people who follow this kind of nonsense.  I can’t help but think that, beneath all the sanctimony and babble, a lot of these folks are just, well, unfortunate.  Wishing for it all the Be Over so they don’t have to deal with reality anymore.  Unfair, perhaps, but from my encounters with folks like them over the years I’ll stand by it.  This is the ultimate “grass being greener” thinking and I no longer get angry at the absurdity but feel sad at the wonders they pass up spending so much time anticipating the end of wonder.

On the other hand, I have a pile of work that will take me a lot longer than the next three days to get done.  It would be pleasant, at least for a short while, not to have to worry about it.  But at some point I’d start to resent the interruption.

I asked some Jehovah’s Witnesses once if they ever thanked Zoroaster for the very idea of the Apocalypse and they returned blank stares.  What?  Zoro-who?  After all, they keep coming up with new predictions for something which, according to their founder, Charles T. Russel, should have happened back in 1914.  (This was his final guess after previously predicting Christ’s return for 1874, 1878, 1881, and 1910.)  They got that one wrong, but Russel’s successor, Joseph Franklin Rutherford (who gave the movement the name Jehovah’s Witnesses) revised the date to 1916.  Later it was moved up to 1918, 1925, 1941, 1975, 1984, and 1994. 

William Miller, founder of the Seventh Day Adventists, had predicted the Rapture for 1843 using a complicated bit of figuring based on Daniel.  He revised it to 1844 when the January 1st rolled around and everyone was still here.

More recently, Edgar Whisenant, a former NASA engineer and self-taught Biblical scholar, published a little book, 88 Reasons Why The Rapture Will Be In 1988.  He gave 300,000 copies away for free, but sold 4.5 million.

There were dueling predictions about 1994, one from Pastor John Hinkle of Christ Church in L.A., who claimed June 9th.  Our Mr. Camping held out for September 6.  Obviously he’s revised that estimate.

Still, the one to bet on by virtue of it having been figured by a true mathematical genius remains Sir Isaac Newton’s prediction that 2060 is the year.  No sooner than, Newton claimed.

But then there are the words of Mr. Whisenant to keep in mind: “Only if the Bible is in error will I be proved wrong.”  Might turn out to be that he was the shrewdest of the bunch—unless some of them play the stock market and contrive to short stocks that might fall as Rapture approaches.  For myself, this Saturday is another coffee house at which I’ll be playing music and indulging a different kind of rapture.  Oh, and it will be in a church, in case you’re wondering.  The once-monthly event takes place in a Methodist church in the neighborhood.  So if it comes, I’ll be doing something I love, and that wouldn’t be a bad way to go.

Atavistic Pleasure

Since hearing the news this morning I’ve been trying to find a calm space wherein reason and judgment will allow for a rational response, but for the time being I can’t help it.

Osama Bin Laden is dead.

I can’t help feeling glad about that.  There is an atavistic part of me responds to this kind of thing.

I have a number of other thoughts—for instance, where they finally found him is suggestive of a whole bunch of negative assessments about out “allies” and the uses to which historical fulcrums are put—and there will doubtless be backlash over this, but done is done and I cannot find it in me to feel in the least sorry.  He seemed to have become the ultimate in revolutionary narcissists and chose to believe his “wisdom” trumped the lives of all his victims.  There has been and is much that is wrong in our relationships with the Middle East, but slaughter frees no one, and where clear heads and earnest consideration are needed to solve problems, terror guarantees their absence.

Burying him at sea was a clever move—there will be no grave to be turned into a new shrine.  In the end, he harmed his own people far more than he hurt us, and the last thing this planet needs is another monster elevated to the status of demigod.

What we need to do now is take those sentiments to heart—slaughter frees no one, terror banishes reason—and stop reacting like offended adolescents.  We must be careful that we ourselves don’t fill the void left by Bin Laden’s death with our own self-justified nationalism and continue what we know to be bad policy.

But for now, I’m a little more pleased by this than not.

That’s the way I feel.  I’ll have a more rational response some time down the road.

The Future of Space Commercials (or is that Commercial Space…?)

This is very cool.  This is the promo video for the next generation of privately-built low-earth orbit heavy lifters, the Falcon Heavy from SpaceX.  What I like about this is, basically, it’s a commercial for a spaceship.  Appropriately weighty music track, great imaging, and the brag lines are like any other commercial for any other industrial product.

When I was a kid reading stories about the future of space travel, it didn’t occur to very many of the authors that there would have to be advertising to go along with their services.  One of the many things not quite gotten right.  Also, many of them were pretty vague about who was actually running the space lines.  Oh, some of them alluded to luxury cruises, which implied a Cunard-style commercial firm behind them, but it was not often put front and center, so you could be forgiven for believing it would all be government-run, financed, built, etc.

Well, one of the basic ideas behind NASA was always that it should be a research and development program to create the technologies that one day folks like Virgin and SpaceX would use to create private enterprises.  It looked for a long time like that was never going to happen.  Space travel is really damn expensive and the pay-back on investment is really long-term.  In the quarterly-statement cycle into which most businesses are locked these days, it seemed unlikely any visionaries would scrape together the funding to, you know, build it.  But that’s happening now, although sometimes it feels like a snail’s pace.  But it’s happening.  Who knows?  It might be less than a decade before a commercial shuttle starts docking at the ISS.

The commercials, though—that’s where NASA really dropped the ball back when they were a force to be reckoned with.  Heinlein chewed them out for not having a decent PR department and I still believe part of the reason they get so little support is that during the whole moon-landing decade, everything you saw on tv was boring.  (It’s unfair, I know, but consider it from the average 12-year-old’s viewpoint comparing the endless, static “simulations” of the Gemini and Apollo vehicles in orbit to any then-current SF show, like…Star Trek…?  What would you rather watch?  NASA bored themselves out of popular support.)

But it didn’t die and it’s still doing great cutting-edge stuff, but now it’s fulfilling the high-end expectations of its purpose and we’re getting cool stuff like SpaceX, Virgin Intergalactic, and others.  Ad Astra!