Comments on the Election Outcome

I never made a big deal over whom I might endorse in this now resolved election.  In fact, I don’t think I even mentioned a preference.  I did express some concerns about the whole procedure in how the candidates were selected, particularly the total ignorance and abandon of Article Six of our Constitution.  If no one knows what that means, it clearly states, “…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”  What that means is the candidates’ religion should never have been an issue—but it was…and a big one.  They both had to prove their Christianity.  It upset me, and it would have upset the Founders who put great thought and a lifetime of study behind everything they wrote into the document, not the least of which was a well defined separation of church and state.

Having expressed that particular misgiving one more time, I am glad the whole thing is over and hopeful about the results.  With that I have a couple of end-of-game impressions to share.

When it began, McCain had valid credentials as a heroic American and real experience in the business of the federal government; Palin was a much too ambitious politician and ignorant dimwit from nowhere with a husband who had the look of a scheming would-be power behind the throne.  To offer a kind word on behalf of the Republican crowd, they seem to come to realize the problems with the Palin choice over time despite their initial enchantment with the lady’s well rehearsed down-home, Fargoesque, folksy delivery of a favorably constructed speech rendered by professional writers who worked on her characterization like Hollywood script doctors.

When it was over, after delivering a truly eloquent speech to a crowd of 125,000 joyfully celebrating supporters with hope in their hearts and many with tears in their eyes, Obama was as solemn as a statesman ought to be as the center of such an historical and splendorous event; Bidden was grinning like a happy politician, but at least he didn’t have to say anything.

George W. Bush had a few kind words of congratulation to say, but seemed to remain weirdly indifferent to his own part in the whole drama.  I find it unbelievable that he has no human conscience that wracks what exists of his mind and spirit for not only bringing the entire country to fearful desperation and depression, but for almost single-handedly ruining the Republican Party, which isn’t really all that bad.

The most significant event of all was the emotion that swelled at Grand Park when Obama gave yet another of his incredibly inspirational speeches.  Once the scene of political discontent and police violence during the 1968 Democratic Convention, it became the center of joyful hope and optimism, almost beyond belief, for a whole new generation of Americans and the regeneration of America and the American spirit.  It really was all about being an American again…and feeling good about it with renewed conviction.

The Redistribution of Wealth

In 1895 the U.S. Supreme Court declared income tax was unconstitutional.  The first two cases of taxing income in this country were to pay for war, specifically the War of 1812 and the Civil War.  In 1913 the Sixteenth Amendment was passed granting Congress the right to tax income.  It was a graduated income tax scale, meaning the more someone made, the higher the percentage of income they paid.  Like Prohibition and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment (essentially outlawing gay marriage nationally), the income tax took an amendment to the Constitution because any attempt to enforce it would otherwise be unconstitutional.  (Personally, I always felt amendments should increase our rights, not limit them or take them away.  The intention of our Founders when writing the Constitution was to limit the federal government’s rights, not the rights of the people.)

Taxation in general is intended to raise funds to support the functions and expenditures of government at any level.  Schools, police, fire departments, street cleaning, public lighting, traffic controls, public transportation, parks and so on are all supported by taxation, meaning funds collected from certain individuals, particularly property owners, to be used for the benefit of all individuals.  Taxes are, always have been, and always will be the redistribution of wealth.

In the legendary days of Robin Hood, although for real, the poor were taxed to support the wealthy landowners and nobles, a case of the redistribution of wealth.  Robin Hood, although fictional, has since become the symbol of reversing the practice, meaning taking from the rich to give to the poor, or, in effect, another form of the redistribution of wealth.  It was a concept used to its fullest by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal, and was made possible by the greatest increase in the income tax scale ever.  (The original highest bracket was 7%, it is presently 35%; during FDR’s time it was 92%.)  It is credited with pulling us out of the Great Depression, but it can be argued that it was actually WWII.  It can also be argued that it was radio advertising--which was innovative during that period--that reinvigorated our capitalist/consumer economy and actually created jobs and income.  Whatever it was, it redistributed the wealth more evenly among the American public and raised the whole of the economy and general prosperity. 

When we collect Social Security from the present work force to pay those who have retired and collecting Social Security, it is the redistribution of wealth.

When Sarah Palin hit the Alaskan oil companies with a windfall profit tax and then gave every man, woman and child in Alaska a check for $1200, she was, without any argument, redistributing the wealth.

When our President and both parties of both houses of Congress put together a $700 billion bailout for banks, all at the expense of we the taxpayers, it was a massive and overt act of redistributing the wealth.  They took our money and gave it to banks, which are now planning to use much of it to acquire other banks, thus increasing their wealth and power.

When we the taxpayers go into debt our kids and grandkids are going to inherit so that George W. Bush can spent $12 billion a month in Iraq, much of it going to war profiteers such as Halliburton, General Dynamics, Bechtel and others, plus tens of thousands of mercenaries, some employed by companies that actually supply mercenary fighters, it is the redistribution of wealth.  Taxing the people to pay for war and its profiteers (and there are always war profiteers) is nothing new in the way of the redistribution of wealth.  It was Eisenhower who warned us about the Industrial/Military Complex, but as usual, we ignored all such warnings.

The redistribution of wealth has been around a long time.  It is nothing new.  Taxing the more wealthy to the benefit of everyone else is not only not new, but is what was intended by the graduated income tax scale.

Taxing the working class to give it to huge banks and lending corporations is something else—but still the redistribution of wealth.

The point is that the redistribution of wealth is nothing new nor is it always such a frightful thing as some would make it out to be.  The only valid consideration is where the money ends up, in whose hands, and who was plundered, legally, to put it there.

Whom do they represent?

It looks like there are 133 “maverick” Republicans in the House.  That must be kind of embarrassing for a self-acclaimed “maverick” when he is backing the administration’s demands for yet another urgent piece of legislation, something that must be passed right now without thinking about it, kind of like the Patriot Act and the war on Iraq.

But it isn’t just one party.  It seems that all those representatives who voted against this monstrous bailout are simply complying with what their constituents wanted; that is to say that two-thirds of the American public are against it.  That sort of brings a whole new meaning to the word “representative.”  Isn’t it customary to represent those big special interests with all the high-paid lobbyists and all that campaign donation money?  It seems both candidates are disappointed that their party members actually represented the voting public for once.  But that will probably change and things will return to business as usual.  I hope everyone finds that reassuring.

Confronting our Government

I could write endlessly on the presidential candidates and their running mates, everything from demonstrable facts to common rumors to my opinion and commentary, but I doubt I’d say anything that hasn’t been said a million times by all the high-profile, self-acclaimed experts.  I could even tell you which one to vote for or, more easily, which one not to and why not…in my opinion, of course.  That’s an unnecessary exercise, however.

The next president isn’t going to make much difference.  The powers that be will not change.  Everything is in place and it is not going anywhere.  Good intentions, earnest or not, don’t cut it…never did; and we all know the value of political promises—at least we should.  Lobbyists aren’t going away, and corporations will continue to accumulate power and wealth with total support of the government, and we will continue to exalt the nation state above individuality.  One candidate says “Country First” as a poster slogan and speaks endlessly of self-sacrifice and serving a cause greater than oneself, which, righteous as it sounds, is a sales pitch for what exactly?  The other speaks of endless government assistance dependant upon the individual’s self-sacrifice and an established period of fulltime commitment of service to one’s community and/or country to be given first, putting military service on the top of the partial list of identified obligatory servitudes; this is in return for a government reward of $4000 toward a college education.  Perhaps he hasn’t priced the cost of college lately.  And where, exactly, would this money come from?  Politicians love to talk as if the government has endless bucks and it’s all there just for us.  The truth is they don’t have a dime, it all comes from us, and the cost of it getting back to us, or the cost of government itself, is always greater than the actual reward we get for our money.  They do not operate efficiently; as a business they would have gone broke a very long time ago.  In other words, all those promises and campaign slogans all sounds quite righteous, but it is not individual freedom and endeavor as proposed by this nation’s Founders or even enlightened self-interest without enforced-by-contract altruism.  It is a sellout of individuality to an exalted nation state.  In fact, it rather reminds me of Heinlein’s book (and the movie) Starship Troopers, wherein citizenship depended upon military service.  The story was a great example of a certain form of government that people ought to find unwanted but still tend to become enchanted with, probably because it promises order and security; they just fail to ask at what price.

There used to be a word for that kind of government, a government that is in bed with corporate wealth and power; that demands service and devotion to one’s country above and beyond everything else including self and family; that limits its people’s freedoms and liberties and spies upon them without good cause or warrant; that snatches and detains without legitimate warrant and even tortures its prisoners; that practices authoritarian rule at home and imperialism and hegemony around the world, particularly in the interest of those corporations it’s in bed with; and that puts the state first, with grandiose hyperbole, as a greater cause than the cause of individuality and personal liberty.  That word used to be “fascism.”  Unfortunately, the word itself has become virtually meaningless by overuse as a casual insult directed not only at governments—be they fascist or not—but at anyone or anything that seems to disagree with one’s viewpoint, like one’s sixth-grade teacher or mother-in-law.  (There actually is a “Fascist” party in the United States, The United Fascist Union, with a Jackson Grimes running for president.  He is an actor by profession and once played Hitler on a Star Trek episode.  His stand on issues did not strike me as particularly fascist, however, at least not in the “classic” sense of the word.  His name and the party can be Googled.)

Here is the definition according Wikipedia:

Fascism is a term used to describe totalitarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting most commonly the nation state but in some cases the race, and promoting unity, strength and cultural renewal.^{[1][2][3][4][5]}

Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, corporativism, militarism, totalitarianism, populism, collectivism, statism, dictatorship, and economic planning. Fascism opposes communism, democracy, liberalism, and conservatism (taking into account that fascists made alliances with conservatives more often than other groups).^{[6][2][1][7][8][9][10]} [Clicking on these links will give the reader the Wikipedia definition of each word.]

Some authors reject broad usage of the term or exclude certain parties and regimes.^[11] Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, there have been few self-proclaimed fascist groups and individuals. In contemporary political discourse, the term fascist is often used by adherents of some ideologies as a pejorative description of their opponents.

It is a word that gets kicked around a lot, as indicated throughout the Wikipedia article, and is, indeed, grossly misused to the point of losing any real meaning.  But it should be noted that there are defined elements, which are characteristic of fascism as it was practiced by those who actually called it their form of government, elements that can be identified in practice without much difficulty. 

The most common misuse is its application as a pejorative against one’s political opponents, but please note I’ve not applied it to either of the major parties but to the whole of government which is a product of both parties (and I have a particular personal disapproval of our present president, George W. Bush).  Having said that, it is still the people who must take responsibility, having let it happen (we are, if only in theory, a government of the people).  Somehow there seems to be a popular appeal in fascism to the masses in general, particularly their tendency to fault the well educated or what some call “book learnin’,” always pegging them as the “elite” (a derogatory word in great use today), and generally sustaining a culture of anti-intellectualism, as if ignorance and general mediocrity were a democratic virtue, almost a new kind of political correctness.  Although nationalism, militarism, and economic planning are probably the elements of fascism most applicable to our present government, the preceding sentence on ignorance and mediocrity should, in part, help explain the populism part of the greater definition.  We elected a president who appeared to us as a “regular guy,” a C student, not too bright but who read the sports page, not philosophy or classic literature, one the voter would like to have a beer with (although I submit they’ve had a few too many).

The real substance of the argument is found in the second paragraph of Wikipedia’s definition in these words: “nationalism, corporativism, militarism, totalitarianism, populism, collectivism, statism, dictatorship, and economic planning.”  One might particularly consider the elements of “nationalism, corporativism, militarism, statism and economic planning.  The test is finding these elements already in action in either or both parties, most specifically in the whole of government as it is presently operating in this country under the regime of George W. Bush and a Democratic controlled Congress.

Beginning with nationalism, here is a snip from a George Orwell essay:  By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By ‘patriotism’ I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality.  (Inasmuch as Orwell was outlawed in the old Soviet Union, it is now copyright free in Russia and most of what he has written is available at that website in both English and Russian.)

There are also quotes from a few thinking people that see nationalism for what it really is.  In most cases, however, the term patriotism is used, although I would accept Orwell’s distinction as quoted above.  It is easy to confuse the two or even guise nationalism in the righteous sounding word “patriotism.”  The following quotes, I believe, better fit the definition of nationalism than patriotism.

Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism - how passionately I hate them! -- Albert Einstein

Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons. -- Bertrand Russell

To me, it seems a dreadful indignity to have a soul controlled by geography. -- George Santayana

It is lamentable, that to be a good patriot one must become the enemy of the rest of mankind. – Voltaire

Returning to Orwell’s essay on Nationalism, here is another aspect of what the word may mean: “It does not necessarily mean loyalty to a government or a country, still less to one's own country, and it is not even strictly necessary that the units in which it deals should actually exist. To name a few obvious examples, Jewry, Islam, Christendom, the Proletariat and the White Race are all of them objects of passionate nationalistic feeling: but their existence can be seriously questioned, and there is no definition of any one of them that would be universally accepted.”  In other words one’s nationalistic passions may not be for a country but for some other group, or “unit,” as Orwell would call it, such as a political party or belief, or one’s religion, for instance.

In that sense we can also tag our political candidates—and their fervent followers—with deeply invested emotion, as opposed to reason, in some other system of belief other than just the nation state.  Each has his party, of course, but that’s to be expected, I suppose.  In both cases, however, as mentioned in my last article (which preceded this one but will read next in this blog), they are both devoted Christians, expressing that devotion almost to the point of making it a religious test, which, of course, would be in conflict with the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution.  It also tends to violate the First Amendment separation of church and state, particularly since one has had to defend his Christianity against accusations of being Muslim, which constitutionally (if nothing else) shouldn’t be an issue.  For the sake of redundancy, if a candidate has to prove his Christianity, we have demanded an religious test, which demonstrates that his opponents, the media, and we as a people do not know and/or understand our own Constitution.  If anything is to be held sacred in this country, it should be our Constitution.

As is generally the case, because one finds fault with one concept or philosophy, such as nationalism, they tend toward its opposite, in this case globalization or, in a broader sense, cosmopolitanism.  (Cosmopolitanism has yet another opposite in communitarianism, which in turn opposes individualism, which is further opposed by collectivism; but that’s a whole other story.)  As is also generally the case, opposites tend to be as extreme as the concept to which they are opposed.  That is how I see the opposites in this case.  I am not a believer in a happy medium as such, nor do I consider myself a “moderate,” whatever the hell that is supposed to be, but I do believe there are always alternatives, not necessarily opposites, and if they cannot be found or otherwise recognized, then they must be newly conceived and brought into the scheme of things.  As a side thought on the subject, maybe the real problem is in the suffix “ism.”  Individuality, for instance, seems an unarguably positive sort of utterance, while the word “individualism” has the ring of an adherence to some contrived order.

Speaking of “isms,” I have never been an advocate of socialism, but not absolutely; by that I mean such as fire and police protection, among a few other services, work best as public institutions.  I also tend to lean toward health care, although, like every advocate in the country, I cannot tell you where the money will come from without giving up some other dire necessity put upon the taxpayer, such as a war on Iraq. 

To digress a bit, we sure do value our wars, no matter the cost…well, up to a point.  They are so righteous.  We are actually taken in by the belief that the war on Iraq is, in fact, a matter of self-defense and national security, as if Saddam Hussein really would have invaded us with all those “weapons of mass destruction” we were lied to about and actually believed.  Worse than that, we still believe that killing all those people in Iraq (and our president, according to Bob Woodward, gauges military success by enemy body count) is a matter of national security because the country is full of terrorists who in reality were never there before we invaded.  What’s more they are all radical fundamentalist Muslims, which brings out our most virtuous of all nationalistic passions, our belief in the absolutely most righteous of all religious beliefs, Christianity.  And inasmuch as our present military is tending strongly toward an exclusively fundamentalist Christian establishment (Google military fundamentalist—it’s all about both Islam and the American military) it seems we are about to embark on an all-out holy war. 

Beyond war, and getting back to socialism, at the time of this writing, there is also a massive bailout of financial institutes at the public expense, which, if nothing else, rather leaves universal health care out of the picture, although I suspect just the mention of it will be used to get a few votes even though it ought to be clear we can no longer afford military invasions and occupations, billions in social welfare for millionaires and billionaires, and still treat the sick and injured who cannot afford insurance.  In other words, this government of the people will have to make some decisions about how their Congress spends their money if they want all that government help, which is not really a gift of government but a redistribution of their own money.  But health care is another issue.

The big issue at this time, strangely under the heading of “socialism,” is that bailout and what it actually means.  In this case we are talking about socialism for the extremely wealthy because their extreme wealth seems to be in jeopardy.  Forget that the modest wealth of the average working taxpayer is also in jeopardy.  Worst of all, that is besides the cost, is the fact that it would put all that money, at present a proposed 700 billion dollars, in the hands of one man and one federal agency, meaning Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, a presidential cabinet post, depositing even more control of the people—this time their economy—into the hands of the executive branch, which further fits the dictatorship, and economic planning part of the definition of fascism.

It should also be asked why we could not find the money to improve our infrastructure, such as roads and bridges, or why we could never finance health care or any number of such political promises never honored, but now, suddenly, we have the bucks to bail out multibillionaire crooks and the institutions they used to plunder a multitude of our apparently lesser citizens, meaning the rest of us.

Beyond that, this particular action would be the product of proposed legislation actually written by the Secretary himself and then presented to Congress with the expectation it will be passed into law without question or changes or even evaluation, and with great haste.  One of its provisions is that none of the Secretaries actions can be reviews, not by a court or anyone else.  This administration really thinks we’ll fall for that.  That is the executive branch’s expectation of Congress.  The President himself has addressed the nation and spoken to the need for haste, not caution and thorough evaluation.  But one cannot blame him for his expectations; that is how he got us into Iraq and had such civil-liberties-undermining actions as the Patriot Act imposed upon our freedoms and our pocketbooks.  He is used to expecting Congress to roll over for him.  We have an administration that uses ever crisis that comes along to scare the general public into accepting all it proposes urgently without question.  It is an executive branch grab for absolute power, employing fear mongering as a tactic, defying our founding principles of a balance of powers among the three branches of government, and a certain path to a total dictatorship (if not this administration, one real soon) should we continue to allow it to happen. 

I submit we are becoming a fascist state and no one is willing to confront it and call it for what it is.

Critical Thinking

I should be writing more about politics at this time, but the spirit just doesn't move me much anymore.  Politics is critical at this time, and people need to know that.  To be honest, I'd rather be writing another movie commentary, or working on fiction, and that means I'm forcing myself here.  My problem is, however, that all I seem capable of when it comes to the subject is a bunch of incoherent cussing and blather.  I do believe that the irrationality of the whole political scene has become so idiotic that any attempt to insert a word or two of sense and meaning simply leaves one blabbering like the baboons running the whole show.  If you need further examples of what I mean, observe the Democratic Party and its illustrious leader, Howard Dean.  I'm sure there was a time in his life when what he had to say made sense and had meaning.  But, all things considered, it simply cannot happen anymore.  It's like someone took the Democratic Party, buttered it lightly all over the political scene, then dropped it in the cat's sandbox, buttered side down, now no one will touch it…and you can hardly blame them.

I wrote that about three years ago-- http://wm-monje.com/politicalblog/archives/45-Self-Government-Is-About-Not-KnowingIt-Seems.ht  In fact I wrote a lot of stuff back then, and most of it offended people because I questioned their critical thinking, if not legitimacy in their attempts at self-government.  What’s more, I still question it.  At that time, three years ago, I was questioning the American public’s unwillingness to question or even acknowledge cronyism in high places and their total ignorance of such institutions as the World Bank and the power over all the people of the planet being achieved by multinational corporations and the handful of individuals who will ultimately control the whole shooting match…stuff like that.  At present there seems to be yet another variation on our overall failure in critical thinking.

Critical thinking can be defined, at least in part, as an intellectual process of perception, analysis, evaluation, logic, experience, reasoning and credibility.  It is an extensive mental procedure, but one which much also recognize one’s own proclivity toward bias or prejudice, particularly when influenced by an indoctrination of belief systems imposed by external and coercive forces.   It must also practice a high degree of intellectual honesty and humility, specifically a willingness to admit to one’s errors in judgment and past convictions when evidence may prove one wrong.  The art of persuasion, especially as practiced by salespersons, politicians and religious leaders, I would say, is a deliberate assault upon an individual’s ability to think critically.  When one is asked to trust or have faith, particularly where the word “sacrifice” is used as some sort of glorious human virtue, and when one has bought into that line, one has relinquished their critical thinking and been enticed into intellectual surrender and mental captivity.

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. -- John Adams

If ever there was a war this country fought that was truly righteous, it was the Revolutionary War.  All others may have been perpetrated under the guise of “national defense,” but beyond that virtuous sounding characterization of mass death and destruction made possible by an ignorant, gullible and nationalistic people’s sacrifice of life and fortune, it all amounts, in the long run, to imperialism in the form of multinational corporations who serve their bottom line.  It was not all so noble as we have been led to believe.  We have served the stockholders of Halliburton well and made the world safe for Monsanto, Boeing, and General Electric.  To quote a line from the Australian movie The Coca-Cola Kid, "The world will not be truly free until Coke is available everywhere."  It is the end result that matters, and the end result is a kind of international corporate feudal system.  The corporate elite are the new lords and ladies of our time, and we their surfs and servants.  What’s more, we consider it our good fortune to belong to their fiefdom.   

The John Adams quote above was appropriate at the time.  It is no longer applicable in reference to future generations.  We are the future generations for whom he studied war and politics (although, in fact, he did have a classical education as well, as did virtually all of our founding fathers).  The great interest in higher education today seems to be the MBA, the Master of Business Administration, which includes the ultimate academic achievement of our present president.  It is a degree of variable time and effort conceived in the USA for the sole purpose of teaching the youth of the nation how to perform in business.  This is not the pursuit of any particular business, not a business of personal interest and youthful aspiration, just business in general.  That is a significant issue.  I think it says a lot about the degree of personal enthusiasm, or lack thereof, in learning a distinctive profession that stimulates the ambition of natural and inherent talents that have excited the souls of inspired and creative young people down through the ages.  Today, it seems, the pursuit of an indeterminate and nameless business, for the sake of mastering the business of business, has replaced the time-honored aspirations of the hopeful and gifted youth of our nation. 

Where can such indifference toward intellectual and cultural values lead us as a nation?  Whatever happened to art, literature, drama, history, philosophy and all the studies in all the humanities?  Perhaps they have little to offer in an increasingly mind-numbing, anti-intellectual, corporate society where the cold, hard, and sometimes deadly teachings of war, politics and business seem to be the only way to succeed, if not simply survive.  There seems to be a growing absence of learning that might appeal to our nobler dreams, a tendency toward the dulling of the mind and imagination and a conformity to the mundane and commonplace with profit the only remaining motivating goal of the human spirit. 

Beyond the type of education one pursues there is also the significant difference between an education received and what one has actually learned.  I have known, for instance, persons with masters degrees in theology who do not know what a scientific theory is, who have a dearth in classical literature and art appreciation, and not only don’t have a clue about higher math but can’t balance a checkbook.  We’re talking about an individual who has been highly educated with the evidence to prove it on paper.  Theology, of course, is in a class by itself when it comes to an absence of factual material and an inadequacy in the confrontation of reality.  When it comes to religious studies, however, there are big differences between whether one is studying the historical and social aspects of comparative religions, such as a course by someone like Joseph Campbell, or if one is studying the mythology of someone’s bible as if it were actual history complete with an absolute moral code as decreed by God himself and enforced with horrific penalties.

The blind belief in those stories, particularly in the Old and New Testaments of the Christian Bible we so cherish as the first, last and only word on the absolute truth, is, without a doubt, one of, if not the greatest failings and sticking points to attaining rational, realistic, logical, critical, and just plan grownup thinking this country has ever suffered.  What we have here is a Bronze Age document, written in the words and concepts of the superstitious fears and dreadful unrealities from a primitive time of gross ignorance and blind sacrifice to unseen powers. 

They did not know the earth was round, so it had four corners with a sun that came and went; they did not know the earth was several billion years old, so it calculates out at about 6,000 years if you rely on historical record as found only in the Bible; they had no concept of the origin and development of the universe, the planet or the life thereon, so it was created by a super being in six days; and they did not know what was “up there,” so they designated it “Heaven,” and they did not know what was “down there,” so they designated it “Hell.”  Today we know, for the most part, the reality of these ancient myths, beliefs and misconceptions.  We have been “up there,” and we know it is not Heaven, just space and other planets.  We have drilled to great depths, and using sophisticated equipment and procedures have otherwise determined what is “down there,” and it is not Hell.  Even so these superstitions continue into our present society to the point they infringe on rational thinking, even in high places.

In the Bible we have a day the sun stood still; a snake that not only talked but corrupted mankind from that day forward in so doing; several generations of the first men on earth who lived for hundreds of years; a man who lived for a time in the belly of a large fish (usually referred to as a whale); a sea that parted so a fleeing people could conveniently cross; an ark that carried two of all living animals for forty days and forty nights and then some, plus many more such tales of totally unbelievable and impossible happenings.  Ultimately we are to believe that in the final chapter everyone who ever lived, died and decayed, will be physically resurrected and judged on the basis of whether or not he or she believed in another man who lived, died and was resurrected, evidently before he rotted.  All this we must believe as the literal truth or end up “down there.”  At the same time we have no doubt that fairy tales, zombie movies, and other people’s myths (such as the Hopi legends, for instance) are all make believe.  If nothing else, I think it incredibly arrogant to believe that only our fanciful myths are real events and everyone else is being childish.

We’re talking now about Twenty-first Century people here—two of which are running for President of the United States.  First of all—the matter of church and state aside (for the moment)—we have two guys who freely admit they are “imperfect” and have moral failings, but—and it’s a big “but”—they believe in Jesus, therefore they are forgiven and saved.  It’s as simple as that.  No sweat.  McCain: “It means I'm saved and forgiven.”  Obama: “As a starting point, it means I believe in -- that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him.”  These are two men trying to qualify themselves to a multitude of people of many religions.  This is a nation of many religions that are not Christian, and a nation whose Bill of Rights begins with the statement, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”  These are two guys, running for President of the United States who seem to believe their Christian beliefs are a necessary qualification for that office.  How did that happen?  This has never been an issue nor should it ever be.

In the words of McCain, “I have attended North Phoenix Baptist Church for many years, and the most important thing is that I'm a Christian."  The emphasis is mine.  It says a lot.  His religion, being Christian, that is, is the most important thing.  It means it is a good thing he is not of some other religion or none at all.  In other words, despite Article Six of our Constitution, he has declared he has passed a religious test…in his opinion.  The way it looked to me—and you can say it was just me—we had a whole program devoted to the passage of a religious test by both presidential candidates.  I’m sure no one else, or very few if any, saw it as such.  But then, I might wager, very few know Article Six of the Constitution either.  And that, again, is one of our great failings as a self-governing people.

Then you have to wonder how the Founding Fathers viewed religion, especially when we seem to be advancing the argument that this is and always has been a Christian nation.  What exactly were their hopes or even predictions as regards Christianity, belief in the Holy Bible, and religion in general? 

Here’s a few quotes about the Bible by Thomas Paine:

I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book.

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book.

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

And here’s a quote by James Madison, our fourth President, on the clergy:

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

On the matter of state-supported chaplains in Congress, he said:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.

And then there was Jefferson, third President and author of the Declaration of Independence, who had a great deal to say:

I have ever judged of the religion of others by their lives.... It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest. The artificial structures they have built on the purest of all moral systems, for the purpose of deriving from it pence and power, revolt those who think for themselves, and who read in that system only what is really there.

On the Bible and its primitive if not childish wording and, most of all, its priesthood:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.

Speaking of ridicule, Bill Maher has had a few things to say about the Bible:

"I'm not an atheist. There's a really big difference between an atheist and someone who just doesn't believe in religion. Religion to me is a bureaucracy between man and God that I don't need. But I'm not an atheist, no. I believe there's some force. If you want to call it God... I don't believe God is a single parent who writes books. I think that the people who think God wrote a book called The Bible are just childish. Religion is so childish. What they're fighting about in the Middle East, it's so childish. These myths, these silly little stories that they believe in fundamentally, that they take over this little space in Jerusalem where one guy flew up to heaven…no, no, this guy performed a sacrifice here a thousand million years ago. It's like, ‘Who cares? What does that have to do with spirituality, where you're really trying to get, as a human being and as a soul moving in the universe?’ But I do believe in a God, yes.”

Although not an atheist (and I personally understand and appreciate his point of view), he makes it quite clear his objection is the Bible itself, its childish stories of impossible events, and most of all the foolishness of those who believe it literally.  One of his favorite lines seems to be about the “talking snake,” a reference to the Book of Genesis and the Garden of Eden when Eve was tempted by a serpent.  (It is difficult to say “talking snake” with a straight face, I’ve noticed.)  The greater matter is, no doubt, the still existing idea that this particular myth is literal truth and thus invalidates the whole of the theory of evolution.  In that one matter alone, the Garden of Eden versus evolution, we have one of the most outstanding and outrageous examples of Twenty-first Century, presumably educated human beings, failing utterly at critical thinking.  They have simply abandoned all rational and realistic concepts to perpetuate a Bronze Age fairy tale in the hopes of going “up there” when they die.  If there is a God, and if he will pass judgment, I suspect he will say to these true believers, “How fucking stupid can you get?”  Then they will stand judged…finally.

Scott McClellan’s Book

Has anyone noticed that CNN seems to be so highly critical of Scott McClellan’s newly released so-called “tell-all” book that they appear to be driving him to admit some sort of shame and remorse?  Regarding the fact that McClellan was defending the Administration while he was press secretary, which everyone should think was his job, and is now revealing the truth, or as otherwise stated, his impressions and opinions, Wolf Blitzer asks: “Are you sorry? Do you want to say you're sorry to the American people? Do you want to apologize?”  It is one in a long list of accusatory questions presented only as numbnuts Wolf can manage in what should have been an otherwise enlightening interview about this goddamn Administration that thinking people have come to realize cannot be trusted.

It is easy to find critics of the book, and CNN (I’m not sure about other networks, but would bet they are similar) has gone out of their way to dig them all up and have them repeat their condemnations redundantly, which is typical of most news networks.  One condemnation is that he is “cashing in” on the position he held by writing the book now.  Granted, he must be making some good bucks.  So what?  I do not find that nearly as offensive as this Administration, and its cronies, who are cashing in on the couple of trillion bucks of our tax dollars spent on a long, seemingly endless, bloody, destructive and meaningless war.  How come CNN isn’t questioning that degree of “cashing in”?  Nobody goes after anyone in high places anymore, just us poor slobs who don’t advertise on big network news shows.  (Have you noticed who sponsors these big news shows on CNN?  Coal, oil and natural gas companies, for instance, not to mention Lockheed Martin, Boeing and so on.)

The odd thing is that none of McClellan’s critics has yet accused him of lying or deceit in any manner.  In other words there’s no denying what he has to say about the President and his henchmen is true.  What he has been accused of is betrayal of and disloyalty to an Administration that itself has been deceitful and untruthful with the public.  It seems McClellan’s real motivation is discovering, somewhere along the way, that he was being used and that his “loyalty” was being betrayed.

But hey, if nothing else, it’s one hell of an advertising campaign for his book.

Money, Banking, and Lending

Part One: The Situation We’re In Today

I’ve never been a fan of Alexander Hamilton (which I’ll elaborate on some in the next paragraph).  In fact on occasion I have had an impulse to start an article, maybe even a story, portraying Aaron Burr as the hero he really was.  (Burr did have an impressive background and potential, but I’ll resist that digression at this time.)  The point I wanted to make is that we can thank Hamilton for our national debt, the Fed, the non-government issue and control of money despite the Constitution, banks bleeding the public with usury, the ever-growing cost of a standing army, and most forms of federal spending…among other irksome institutions.  They were all his idea originally. 

In fact I’ve seen the HBO series John Adams and am pleased to see they have portrayed Hamilton as the nerdy, scheming, trouble-making, underhanded, militaristic, social-climbing, sneaky, ill-tempered jerk he really was.  And they didn’t even mention the Whiskey Rebellion and the federalized army of tax collectors, which the ATF credits as its origin.  The attitude toward Hamilton in John Adams is actually quite unusual in such dramatizations.  As a rule he is just another Founding Father and is religiously respected as such.  Fortunately this is not a debate board as I realize there are some who think more highly of Hamilton than I do.  I’ll admit he did have his virtues too…kind of.

Hamilton believed that a national debt was some kind of international distinction if not recognition.  Everybody had one…or something like that.  (I’m guessing at his reasoning here.)  What that led to, regardless of his reasoning, is that we as a nation and a free and independent people were obliged to borrow money from private bankers, be charged interest rates set by those lenders, which future generations will continue to pay eternally until it become the biggest item in the whole of our budget thus displacing more worthy projects, and ultimately making it necessary to keep on borrowing and borrowing and borrowing until we as a nation are broke.  (We tend to do that as individuals too, in case no one has noticed.)  The alternative could have been for the government to issue its own money—our own money—as the Constitution demands.  Interest could have been unnecessary if the supply had not been for profit.  When someone makes a $2500 house payment, and about $2200 is interest, consider what could have been done with all that money, or how quickly the house could have been paid off thus actually making someone the owner.

In the beginning we actually did that.  As Benjamin Franklin put it when asked by the Brits how there could be no poor and no unemployed in the Colonies, he replied: "It is because, in the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. We call it Colonial Script, and we issue only enough to move all goods freely from the producers to the Consumers; and as we create our money, we control the purchasing power of money, and have no interest to pay."

Now we have the Federal Reserve, which issues money, sets interest rates, and operates through privately owned banks.  Our money is not our money.  It is not issued by Congress as the Constitution demands.  Today the almighty dollar is becoming worthless.  Some call that inflation.  I call it losing value.  Gold was $35 an ounce at one time (which is a story in itself, which I’ll skip at this point); not long ago oil was going at ten or twelve bucks a barrow.  Today oil is about a hundred and twenty bucks, and gold is up around a thousand bucks an ounce.  At the pumps gas is $4 a gallon and rising; and asparagus is $4 dollars a pound.  The dollar is tanking.  Oil producers around the world are beginning to prefer the euro.  That didn’t just happen to us by chance.  It is the product of greed, corruption in very high places, and just plain ignorance on the part of everyone from the lowliest voter to all those economists and other experts who couldn’t see it coming, and when it did, made all the wrong choices.  Wherever you find yourself, it is a matter of choices you made along the way—that includes voting.

Of all the bullshit going down in this current political campaign, there was only one candidate who tried to make the right call.  Those who supported him were quite earnest while it lasted, but the media and others thought he was foolish.  In my opinion his supporters were also a bit more intelligent than your average voter, which may have been his real downfall.  This candidate wanted to get rid of the Federal Reserve.  That was Ron Paul.  Had he accomplished that goal, he would have been in some pretty good company when it comes to wanting to get private banks out of the people’s business of issuing their own money.  By that I mean presidents like Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy.  There were others along the way too, but those are pretty vivid examples for most people; and the facts of the matter are a matter of history, specifically the “greenback” and the “silver certificate,” respectively.  Also they were both assassinated, an unfortunate “coincidence”…if you believe in coincidence.  (Don’t be surprised if I mention that a few more times.)

First of all there is Jefferson, our third President, who tried to warn us.

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and the corporations which grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.--Thomas Jefferson

Somehow that seems rather timely today, particularly the part about ending up homeless when we have all these big corporate lenders foreclosing on people’s homes all over the country.  The big question is, I suppose, where did these lenders come from and how did we allow this situation to happen?  The answer is probably disputable, but I do have my own take on it all.  It’s a long story, as I see it, with several elements to it, but a big factor is the gross misinterpretation of the Constitution wherein the Supreme Court found in the Fourteenth Amendment “personhood” for corporations, with all the rights of human individuals.  I have written considerably on the subject, particularly in Part One of my Blog, most specifically in an article on the interpretation of original intent in the Constitution.  I’m not going into detail on that aspect here, but this is a good coverage of its history: http://wm-monje.com/blognew/main.php?file=article14.htm .  That much is only one factor in the whole of the problem, however.  The element approached in this writing is money itself, how it became a commodity, meaning the product in the business of lending, and how money can create more money, who controls it and how and why.  I also hope to review as best I can where it came from and how it developed over time.  In that endeavor I’ll also try to work in a bit of American history as it relates to the issuance of money.

"I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt." -- Thomas Jefferson

There are two major areas of indebtedness: One is our national debt; the other is our own personal and private debt.  Unless you have a mortgage to pay, credit cards are probably the nation’s greatest personal indebtedness.  Some have both, and most people are making some kind of car payment.  Keep in mind I am not talking so much about what may be owed to keep a body alive these days, I am addressing the extremes of the added cost of interest payments…and frequently late payments as well.  It is the money people don’t actually count as what they still owe.