|
|
Not Your Father's GOP
So
many times in history we've promised, "never again." The Holocaust...
"never again." Yet it happens daily in places like Darfur, and no
one stops it. Still we believe we mean it when we say "never again." Even in the face of millions of dead, we stubbornly maintain we really, really mean, it... "never again."
And when we
defeated fascism in Europe 63-years ago, we promised we'd never allow
such a political monstrosity to rule another nation. We said we learned
the dangers in the methods employed by the fascist state and fascist
politicians. The lies, the smears, the strong-arm tactics, the rule of
ignorance and prejudice over intelligence, reason and liberal social
policies. Our parent's generation saw fascism for what it was, defeated
it and pledged, "never again."
And we still say, "never again," even as once again we see it, or at very least, it's footprints, all around us.
Nevertheless, it's dangerous for any serious commentator to even
suggest that fascism has made a comeback -- not in Europe, but here in
the good ole US of A. A few commentators have taken the risk and been
promptly and unceremoniously relegated to the wilderness along with UFO
enthusiasts and 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
We don't like seeing
ourselves in that light. We like to believe that, unlike the German
people of 70-years ago, we are not gullible enough to fall for fascist
clap trap and propaganda. So anyone who suggests otherwise is packed
off to nut-land and forgotten.
Well, I'm packed and ready for that trip. What pushed me over the edge was a five chapter guide written in 1933 entitled, "Propaganda and National Power: The Organization of Public Opinion and National Politics."
As
I read this remarkably disturbing document I couldn't help but imagine
that Karl Rove must have used it as blue print in 2000 and 2004. And,
that the Republican Party has now so internalized these principles they
no longer know how to run a campaign the old fashioned way -- you know,
by highlighting real issues, and comparing and contrasting honest
differences of opinion without demonizing, smearing and outright lying
about their opponents.
Actually, as
you read the excerpts from that book below, you will probably come to
the conclusion, as I did, that all this actually did not begin with
Karl Rove and George W. Bush, but with Newt Gingrich and his so-called
"Contract with America." Maybe it began earlier with those Willie
Horton ads.
In any case the GOP seems to be following the 1933 how-to
document below down to its finest points. Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, surrender
Democrats who would rather lose a war to win an election, Obama as a
secret Muslim, on and on, down and down into a political milieu Goebbels
would have found all too familiar.
Today's GOP would make Ike throw up.
Anyway,
enough from me. After all, I'm toast now. Take it from the original
(fascist) horse's mouth. Maybe I'm wrong about all this. But there sure
is a lot in what follows you will find unsettlingly familiar. Just keep
all this in mind as you watch and listen to how the GOP operates during
this election. They you decide. Is it still "never again?" Or is just "again.?
(My annotations - few and blessedly short - are in red.)
Propaganda and National Power:
The Organization of Public Opinion for National Politics
by Eugen Hadamovsky: Pub: 1933
Dedication
To the master of political propaganda, Dr. Joseph Goebbels
under whose brilliant leadership the neglected weapon of German politics became a creative art
- Liberalism
and its offspring, Marxism, are intellectually and organically
finished... If the nation is to live, liberal phrases must also die.
Attempts to establish liberalism's principle of universal freedom have
endangered everyone's life. Its dogmas about "public opinion" produced
division and weakness in the national will.. But now the end has come.
...The slogan of the freedom of public opinion must be buried without
tears.
- Historical
and contemporary examples show that the means of public opinion can
endanger or destroy national unity if they are improperly used or
controlled by the enemy. ...Propaganda is the will to power; it is
always subsidiary to an idea. If the idea is missing, the whole
artificial structure collapses. Idea, propaganda, and power are
inseparably connected.
- Propaganda
is not instituted at the height of political or military actions. It
is, rather, to be used as an extensive and wide-ranging preparation for
them.
Misuse of Language
- The word is apparently the original element of human thought, and therefore of human genius. ...
Applicability
to truth and falsehood is characteristic of the word; man alone decides
which use he will make of it...Believe completely in your cause, do not
shrink from powerful emotions, unceasingly hammer the same thoughts
into the minds of the masses.
- The
average man, and more certainly the masses, succumbs almost infallibly
to the power of the word, unconcerned with its inherent truth. The
inherent truth in words is not enough to combat spoken lies, but rather
only a new word (Islamo-fascist, narco-terrorists, war on terror, homeland security,)
which can be set against the old. In order for this new word to be
believed, the people and masses must hear and understand it. It must
come to them and speak their language; its power must be greater than
that of the old.
-
Creative language will occasionally make wide departures from the
natural and aesthetic. That has no harmful effect on the masses, whom
we must today consider a political reality, even if it does violence at
times to the German language. One generally has to be careful when
applying the so-called aesthetic yardstick to politics, as it gives no
hint of possible outcomes.
-
Freedom, equality, brotherhood, capitalism, socialism, communism,
profit, surplus value, output, international economy, Soviet Germany,
nationalism, blood, land, race, self sufficiency, (liberals, tax & spend liberals. weak-on-defense Democrats)
-- each of these is its own slogan, encompassing the inferences and
doctrines of worldview. They assault the enemy, hammer at him, raise
doubt, fear, resistance, and agreement.
- The number
of such words is legion. Each is propaganda by its very existence, each
a form of intellectual bondage. Their very names require agreement or
opposition, excite storms of the will, determine our actions.
- Creative
language in political propaganda uses phrases and slogans to establish
control. This is not new. The campaign slogans of a movement are and
always have been the best propaganda. Christianity conquered the world
with its slogan "love thy neighbor as thyself."
- The phrase “whims of the prima donna” (elitist) applies
not only to capricious women, but to many politicians as well. Examples
are Julius Caesar whom the Romans called “regina” in mocking verse, and
Napoleon, whose womanly breast drove doctors to distraction. His whims
were the despair of those around him.
- The
ignorance of intellectuals in politics has shown itself throughout
history. When Napoleon entered an academic competition in
Lyon with an essay on human ideals, it did not win the prize that the
poor lieutenant had longed for. Instead, it was scornfully judged to be
"not worth looking at." The same thing happens with many intellectually
superior soldiers and politicians. (Obama's positions are too "nuanced.")
- In the
popular criticism of today, no leading politicians fails to appear, in
enemy propaganda, to be a perfect idiot, a coward, or a mere terrorist
whose intelligence is so low that he must be secretly controlled from
elsewhere... Material intended for the masses is not so-called
objective writing, but rather such hate-filled pamphlets and
caricatures. Caricature, (elitist) misrepresentation, (Obama is a secret Muslim) and one-sidedness (Democrats are weak on national defense) belong in propaganda.
- When an
intellectual criticizes someone’s propaganda, his first point is not
its simple, often vulgar language. .. His greatest complaint concerns
the perpetual repetition of certain goals, slogans, and catchwords. He
thinks assumed limitations are actual limitations, and says pityingly,
"Well, he is after all only a propagandist…"
On Maintaining Power after Attaining Power
- Power
built only on propaganda is fleeting, and can disintegrate from one day
to the next unless the power of organization is added to propaganda. (Compromising the independence of the Dept. of Justice, internal spying.)
The use of such strength of power is reflected at all levels of human
life, from the strong bond of the family which brings two people
together as a simple matter of personal choice to the powerful bonds of
peoples and nations.
- Propaganda
and power, however, are never entirely opposed to one another. The use
of force can be a part of propaganda. (Renditions, torture)
Between them lie different degrees of effective influence over people
and masses. The range extends from the sudden exciting of attention or
the friendly persuasion of the individual to incessant mass propaganda,
from the loose organizing of proselytes to the creation of state or
semi-state institutions, (federally-funded faith-based organizations)
from individual to mass terror, from authorized use of the might of the
strong, of position, class, or government, to the military enforcement
of obedience and discipline by means of martial law. (Gitmo)
- German
public opinion could not be led colorlessly, but rather it required
indivisible political will and character. It is indicative of the
disintegration of our internal position that a conflict could result (The Iraq war) about whether the War Press Office (Pentagon press operations)
was seeking "political influence!" It is really so naive that one must
wonder what those engaged in the argument thought of as the tasks of
the War Press Office..... Politics, military leadership, and public
opinion must be unified to secure success. Those who direct a war must
at the same time direct politics and public opinion.
-
(Propagandizing) is not only preaching; it is action and organization
as well. It must breed the type that compels others to accommodate it,
or be strong enough to lead them.
- Public
opinion does not spring up by itself, nor does it correspond to true
public feeling. Otherwise public opinion would reflect decisions on
important political affairs before anyone else, and would thus predict
such things as election results. (Electronic voting, Florida 2000, Ohio 2004)
- What we
today call "the masses" develops not from just any group of people but
from one characterized so strongly by instability, pliability, and
explosiveness that the individual is no longer tangible... Propaganda
and the use of differing degrees of power must therefore cooperate in
exceptionally clever ways. They must use the organizations of the
masses (NASCAR, churches, veteran groups)
if they are to achieve definite success. A practical rule for the state
is thus: One does not scatter those who are organized, rather one
organizes them oneself.
- While
governmental propaganda strongly and consistently pursues its clear and
vital goals and while the exercise of governmental power makes any
active or passive attempt at obstruction impossible, the entire public
organizational apparatus will be used to make possible an organized
variety of vigorous individual interests alongside the unity of the
mass propaganda line. (Support the troops. Off-shore drilling, abortion, gay marriage.)
- All
propaganda is preparation for political action. Life is constantly
moving, so a properly expanding propaganda that properly understands
its task can never stand still, but must always hurry along. It always
has to guide preparations for the necessities of the future so as to be
able to use all of its means in the psychologically best way. (9-11 to WMD to Iran's nuclear programs.)
- It is an
essential characteristic of propaganda that the preparatory work in the
masses can from time to time be started by a single individual. (Jerome Corsi) The individual can influence schools, newspapers, and the radio; he can use them spiritually, guide them, and prepare.
- A movement
or government which has to defend itself against everyone can never
rely on the faulty principle of compromise that originated in the days
of routine parliamentary politics. Rather, it must always be
uncompromising in its propaganda. (Never admit a mistake)
- A
propaganda technique is only a means to an end. In this it resembles
diplomacy. The content can change to meet the day's tactical
situations. The mission is the nationalization of the masses. The goal,
however, cannot be designated with a general slogan or an arbitrary
form. It should be concrete. It should not be a rather fixed and
fanciful point in a program, but rather it should create a reality. (Drill here. Drill NOW.)
- Our life
is politics. Our task today is to create a new political type who, as
soldier or politician, will be equal to the tasks of the present and
the future, possessing unfailing political instinct. (Gingrich's "permanent Republican majority.")
If this political type is to preserve the existence of our people and
our culture in the future, it is obvious that all other goals of public
life must be subordinated to this one goal. Thus, the principle of
creating this type becomes the guiding idea not only for the training
of politicians, but also for the entire nation.
- Political
propaganda preaches faith; it exists for no other reason. Our
people long for the inner meaning of political life. It wants a
political creed, and is prepared to adopt one eagerly. German
intellectuals are a part of our people, the leaders of the German
mind. But they are still discussing arguments and
counter-arguments, pros and cons, without ever reaching a conclusion. (All those pesky 'nuances" again.)
The German intellectual may no longer stand aside. He must place
himself in the service of nationalization and at the head of our
people; he must first and foremost serve the faith. The nation
can exist only when there is a unity of intellect and faith. If
the intellect battles the faith, it will not defeat the faith but will
itself be defeated.
Leveraging Mass Media
- The real
effect of a word or sound carried by radio is much deeper than that,
say of a newspaper or other piece of writing that must be interpreted
before it is understood. Radio broadcasting (right-wing talk radio)
works directly, without that bridge of thought, and has, therefore,
greater effectiveness than the printed page. This is common knowledge.
Everyone knows that our most important sense, after vision, is hearing.
- Some also
believe that crude sensationalism must be avoided. If we would accept
that as a guiding principle in radio programming, we would rob the
radio of its most important and vigorous element. (Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage.)
One has only to think of the deep effect of an infectious mass meeting
with all its noise, tumult, and excitement, and of what the foregoing
principle would set in their place! The identification of the real with
the visual is merely theoretical; the denial of real effect from
nonvisual events is untenable.
- The radio
probably has a superficial effect on the masses and it may well satisfy
a mass need, but it still stands apart from the masses... The radio
itself does not determine the effect, but rather what is
transmitted...Those who want individualism can encourage it through the
radio. Those who want collectivism. or who think some other task
necessary, also have that freedom of the form and means. (FOX News)
- The
question is no longer one of where the essential nature of the radio
must lead, but rather it can be replaced by asking to what ends it
should lead. The radio, which is supported by all and which is
politically and culturally connected with everything, should serve the
tasks of the entire nation. It is not an instrument to arouse
collective mass psychosis, nor is it to be used for intellectual
acrobatics. It should not be a substitute for other means of
information to be used by specialists, sectarians, and outcasts. The
esoteric (as in politicians who indulge in nuance) thrives in the quiet seclusion of a like-minded circle, and is thus unsuited to radio.
- Radio (and now TV and the Internet)
can work like a newspaper, but with more immediacy, versatility, depth,
and impressiveness as a result of the aesthetic element inherent in it.
Newspapers and radio speak the language of the people. For the first
time in history, radio gives us the chance to reach millions of people
with daily and hourly influences. The old and young, workers, farmers,
soldiers, and officers, men and women, sit before the apparatus,
listening. The loudspeaker resounds over sports fields, squares,
streets, and public places in large cities, and in factories and
barracks. An entire people listens.
- What
statesman would want liberal individualism that endangers the unity of
national thought and desire, things more precious than gold? Freedom of
choice ends here, not for reasons inherent in radio, but for reasons of
responsibility to the nation and community. Their life is more
important than the freedom of the individual.
- Radio
shall serve this life. Its mission is the formation of national
will. Its mission can only be by the conscious construction of a
political type which will personify and safeguard the unity and
strength of the nation. (FOX News)
- Problems
of style, program format, and effect were talked of and discussed. No
one, however, knew how to set a goal. They paid no attention to the
instincts of the masses. On the radio, the masses are without the
intellectual basis necessary to understand mass movements, unification,
and the creation of a type. Types do not spring up from a desk, but
rather they grow out of the masses. The masses built up listener
organizations, (Ditto Heads)
powerful factors that soon unite men of certain views, of a certain
political type. The strongest binding force was that feeling of
identity that they wanted to express over the radio or with which they
wanted to defend themselves against foreign influences on the
radio.(FOX News)
- The
central problem seems to be this: the listener instinctively
understands that he has no control over the transmissions that come to
him through the aether. He does not know their source, their bias,
their truth or falsity.
- As long as
he is politically, culturally, or artistically informed through a
newspaper or through the printed page and picture, he can check the
truth in other newspapers. If he learns that his newspaper lies to him,
that newspaper loses him and he moves to another paper. It is different
with the radio. He has no choice with the German radio, no really
satisfying control. That which his radio, newspaper, or magazine tells
him either before or after the program lacks the topicality,
timeliness, and urgency of the radio program. It comes either too early
— for what the listener actually experiences — or too late. (No WMD after all, Judy Miller)
- The
intellectual opponents of radio organizations have not generally
understood the real significance of these proceedings. They mostly
raised questions of taste, or intellectual arguments. The most trivial
matters are discussed, the most important shouted to death. It moreover
appears that the intellectual circle stays away from such gatherings
and that only the shouters supporting the shallowest programs ask to
speak. Truth and falsehood are mixed in these views. The
question, however, is not one of taste, but rather something more
important --namely the unity of spirit and nation.
- Should the
government apply the principle of lazisse faire, lassier aller as it
does with the press and allow the strongest instrument of public
opinion -- radio --to fall into enemy hands, only to add grist to their
mill by subsequent prohibitions?
-
Press “impartiality" is a danger for people of weak character
because it tempts them to hold it as more important than life... Those
who want to be "impartial" or "objective" forget that one can be so
only when he serves a great cause. The press is not a cause in itself,
only an instrument.
- If one wants to label working correspondents and the press as "objective," he does so against better advice. (Beware the "liberal media.") If
any large part of the press seriously worries about "objectivity"
without serving a living political goal, it will decay into a comedy of
objective objectivism that glorifies itself, and leads not to
impartiality but to insipidness.
- The
opposition (to Fascism) of four thousand German newspapers, having the
entire nation as their readership, was indeed a powerful stimulus for
the Hitler movement to establish its own press --(Washington Times, FOX News, Robert Novak)
and to take up the battle against general ostricization by means of the
press. In the fourteen years of growth, the hundred National Socialist
newspapers and magazines that emerged certainly contributed to the
success of the movement, but not decisively so. Our success came as a
result of living propaganda and organization.
- The
printed page is unable to excite or control mass impulses. If one calls
the press a great power, as does the liberal slogan has it, one must
realize that its star is fading. More correctly, perhaps, one should
realize that it does not generally depend on its own power but it is
rather a means and tool of a power, namely financial and industrial
liberalism, that has secretly controlled public opinion for one hundred
and fifty years in this comfortable way. (That "liberal media" again.)
- The kind
of journalism these men have developed (they call it free, independent,
neutral, nonpartisan, above party, and objective — ever and again
objective) must be replaced or Germany will disappear. There is but one
objective worthy of the full effort of the press — the nation. And the
only justifiable objectivity is that which serves the cause of the
nation. (Like FOX News)
- Until the
Fascist legislation, absolute freedom of the press prevailed. It began
to change the organization of the press with the law of 8 July 1924. In
the following years, press legislation was passed that attacked the
plague of too many "nonpartisan" newspapers by encouraging
consolidation and reduction in numbers. The honor of journalists is
well protected, and their number limited and controlled by the state.
This is done in such a way that the governmentally approved
professional associations themselves exercise the control, and have
disciplinary and supervisory powers over their members.
On Leveraging Religion
- When we
consider the question of a constructive, creative, and critical
intellectualism and the problem of faith, it is necessary to consider
that most powerful belief factor, the church. The church is the
organized strength of religious faith, and as such does not reject or
replace political faith, but rather deepens it. When schools
churches, and national propaganda build a unity, the greatest possible
strength of internal forces and will results. (Prayer in public schools, faith-based this and that.)
Since they are based in faith, knowledge, and intellect, they can only
provide further support and foundation for faith, resulting in a total
unity of all spiritual forces in the nation. This should be begun
earlier so as to reach even the youngest children.
- One might also consider the insistent evangelical radio listening groups... These are widespread.
- The
Evangelical Union for Radio [Evangelische Arbeitsgemeinschaft für
Rundfunk] under Hinderer's leadership, works in this manner... It sees
its tasks as the transmission "by radio of our movement and work, and
the provision of qualified persons from our circle for the various
programs. We are ready to cooperate.
- He who
speaks of the relations between church and state or of religion and the
nation in Germany runs the risk of being used as a witness by both
sides of our religiously divided people. This is not a discussion
of religious problems or ecclesiastical politics, but rather of the
unity of all devout German men and women regardless of whether they are
Protestant or Catholic.
- German
religious groups must have equal rights, and must enjoy the same
support from the state. Whether this will occur in the form of
concordants or through national and regional churches is a question of
historical development. It is, however, certain that neither of
these large churches stands outside the national interests, and it is
just as certain that the overwhelming majority of their members affirm
national interests. This goes to show the vital interest the
government has in its leading religious bodies.
But Remember, "My Friends"
Secure the Evidence
NOW !
The
Bush administration's days are numbered. That's both a good and bad
news story.
The good news is we are now less than six months away from
the end of America's longest nightmare.
The
bad news
is we have less than six months for congress and the courts to insure
that, when these guys leave Washington on Jan 21, 2009, they
leave behind an accurate and complete historical record.
George W.
Bush, unpopular now in the extreme, comforts himself with the oft
repeated hope that "history will vindicate our policies."
Well,
history can only vindicate -- or condemn -- if it has a complete
historical record to work from. And as the days tick down to the end of
this administration's reign, it has become increasingly obvious that
there's a lot they have not wanted us to know, have not allowed us to
know and are highly unlikely to let us know -- unless the evidence is secured
before it can be hidden behind the walls of a yet-to-be built Bush
Library, spirited away by individual administration officials or --
most likely -- simply deleted or shredded. (I know because I've been here before,)
I'm not
going to waste the reader's time listing all the high crimes and
misdemeanors this bunch is now suspected of having committed over it's
eight years in power. (Here's an excellent list though) Suffice it to say that they have made the Nixon
administrations look like choir boys and girls by comparison. But at
least in case of the Nixon gang, Congress and the Supreme Court secured
the relevant evidence, including the all-revealing Oval Office tapes.
And believe me,
the Bushies noticed what happens when the evidence of crimes is left laying around rather than
destroyed. Nixon later said his greatest regret was not destroying
those tapes when he had the chance.
Who knows
... maybe all us finger-pointers and accusers have been wrong
all along. Maybe the Bush folk actually didn't break laws at all. Who knows... anything is possible. And, if that
can be proven, I will be the first one to admit I was wrong.
But before
I -- or history -- can reach such a conclusion, we need a
complete historical record.
Unfortunately
this Democratic-controlled congress is so steeped in political
game-playing aimed at November elections, they are not about to
engage in anything that even approaches fulfilling their constitutional
obligations, vis a vie impeachment or real hearings.
But one
thing Congress could and should do, and do immediately, is compile a
detailed list of every document the administration has refused to turn
over on the grounds of executive privilege. Then issue individual
subpoenas for each document as well as blanket subpoenas for all
documents "disclosed and undisclosed," covering specific areas of
investigation; the war, the politicization of Dept. of Justice, energy
policy meetings, Katrina response, etc.
Of
course,
if we've learned anything over the past couple of years it's that we
cannot depend on the Democrats in Congress to show much backbone. Which
is why the courts need to get involved, and fast. Public interest legal
groups, on both the right and left, have an obligation to their own
principles and to history to turn their full attentions to preserving
the complete documentary history of this administration.
Groups
usually on the opposite sides of issues, should join forces on this
one. They should get to federal court and make the case that this
administration's public record of either refusing to turn over
documents, and refusing to testify under oath and of even destroying electronic
documents (such as five million White House emails) establishes a prima
facia case in favor of a court injunction against the destruction or
removal from government offices of the following records be they
physical or virtual:
All:
- - schedules,
- - meetings and meeting notes.
- - official memos,
- - official files,
- - official emails sent and/or received from any domain.
- - logs, including but not limited to, phone logs, visitor logs, Secret Service logs and official aircraft logs.
- - employment records, including interview notes and internal memos on would-be hires.
- - contracts, no bid and otherwise, including, but not limited to, all related notes, memos and emails
This federal court injunction must apply, not only to the White House, but to all and each
cabinet-level agencies as well as the CIA, NSA, Office of Special
Operations. (And, since it is public knowledge that Vice President,
Dick Cheney, maintains his own secure document trove in his office,
this injunction should make particular note of that safe as well. )
Sure, I know
there are already laws against public officials removing or destroying
official documents. But relying on those laws would be a serious
mistake. This administration has shown many times that when an existing
law or regulation gets in the way of their agenda, needs or schemes,
the President simply issues an executive order that neuters the
troublesome rule or law.
In this case all Bush would have do come early
January is issue an executive order directing "all Executive Branch offices, agencies and employees to clear your files of any extraneous materials." Such an order would provide all the legal cover needed for wholesale document destruction.
Federal
court injunctions ordering all executive branch employees, including
the President and Vice President, to secure all documents, would add a
layer of legal risk -- obstruction of justice -- that George could not
simply wipe away with a stroke of the Presidential pen.
Look, I
understand none of this legal-beagle activity is as satisfying or as
sexy as a juicy public impeachment. But, barring George or Dick being
caught red-handed waterboarding Nancy Pelosi on the floor of the House,
impeachment is simply not going to happen.
So, unless
something else is done to secure the 8-year documentary record of this
administration -- or at least what's left of it -- Bush, Cheney
and their army of sycophant accomplices will leave office,
having wiped their fingerprints clean from the longest list of
suspected crimes in office in American history.
From now on
when you close your eyes at night, listen and you can almost imagine
you hear that sound of hundreds of industrial-strength shredders
warming up. It's up to us to assure they are not used to between now
and January to destroy the evidence needed to prove, or disprove, the
suspicion that the Bush administration has been the most subversive and
lawless in American history.
(Permalink for this post)
Keeping it Simple
Stupid!
I'm a simple
man. And as such I have a lot of simple solutions to problems others
seem intent on making so complicated they can't possibly work... and
then don't work.
Right now
there's three things Congress is fiddling over, each of which I figure
could be solved on a single sheet of one of those legal yellow notepads:
- Offshore oil drilling
- America's reoccurring financial crisis'
- The so-called "war on terror."
Let's take them in that order.
Offshore Drilling
Republicans
want to open more offshore tracts for drilling. Democrats want to move
away from our dependence on oil and encourage development of clean,
renewable energy sources.
If only Republicans (and their oil company supporters) get their way,
the price of oil could fall again thereby making alternatives, like
solar and wind, uncompetitive once again, thereby once again killing
those babies in their cribs.
(NOTE:
I don't buy GOP claims that opening more offshore areas to drilling
could or would actually reduce the price of gas at the pump any time
soon. But I also understand that Exxon and the Saudis can lower the
price of gas anytime they figure it's serves their purposes. And under
"purposes" read, "competition from alternative energy sources.")
But here's
how both sides can get what they want. and the nation needs, while also
insuring that ten years from now we are not having this same discussion
again:
1)
Lease the oil companies all the offshore tracts they can stomach --
excepting, of course, areas designated as sensitive marine sanctuaries.
2)
But, as part of this legislation Congress must set a firm price floor
under oil that does not allow the price of gas at the pump to fall
below $3.50 a gallon. If the price of oil goes up the price of gas can
go up with it. But, if the
price of oil goes down resulting in lower market prices for gasoline,
gasoline at the pump cannot fall below $3.50 a gallon.
(WHY:
Without such a price floor, oil producing countries and big oil
companies will, as they have so many times before, temporarily flood
the market with cheap oil, thereby smoothering still-fragile clean,
renewable sources of energy, such as wind and solar. They've done it
before, and they'll do it again, unless a floor is set for oil that
keeps gasoline at levels that encourage both conservation and forces
changes in consumer preferences for transportation.)
3)
If, at some point, oil and gas prices fall due to increased production
-- as Republicans claim they would -- the price of gasoline would still
not fall below below $3.50. For example, say oil prices decline enough
to force the price of gasoline at the pump down to $2.99 a gallon. In
that case consumers would continue paying $3.50 gallon at the pump. But
the difference, 51 cents/gallon, wouldn't go to oil companies but
rather into a new Federal Alternative Energy Fund.
That money would be used to for clean/renewable R&D and to
temporarily subsidize emerging energy alternatives such as solar and
wind.
Republicans
will diss this price floor as a "tax on consumers," and Democrats will
scream bloody murder about offshore drilling. Both of them need to put
a sock in it and realize that there really is no free lunch. First ,
consumers are already paying that tax, but they are paying it to Exxon,
and not getting a thing back in return for it. At least with the
Federal Alternative Energy Fund consumers will get some news, clean
energy to run their consumer products on down the road.
And as for the additional oil that can be recovered offshore, well,
however all this plays out over time, we will conitnue to need oil for
the foreseeable future. Some folks don't seem to realize that oil
doesn't just fuel cars, it goes into all kinds things, including
fertilizers for growing food. We can eventually cut our need for the
stuff down to a trickle, but we'll always need that trickle. So
developing offshore sources will pay dividends a decade or two downt
the road. And by then we won't have to buy the stuff from the Saudis. America
can stop sending $700 billion a year to countries run by people who
like to fly commercial airliners into our skyscrapers and treat their
women like livestock.
Bubbles and Financial Meltdowns
No,
you're not imagining things. We really do seem to have a full-scale
financial meltdown about every 8- to 10-years. And every time one of
these financial bubbles burst you hear the same noises out of
Washington;
"Where were the regulators?" And, "Where were the accountants?"
Well I know where the were -- and still are.
Federal
regulators have been knee-capped by Congress and whoever was (is) in
the White House at the time, at the "request" of their well-helled
financial services contributors. Those contributors don't like to
have to show their books to humorless, picky, green-eye-shaded federal
regulators.
Ah, but you
wonder, even if federal regulators have been politically neutered,
companies must still hire "outside" accounting firms to provide
federally-required "independent" audits. Wouldn't they catch any
wrong-doing?
The "quotes"
are no accident. because the "outside" accounting firms are
hand-selected by, and then paid by the very same companies they are
supposed to tattle on if they discoverer wrong doing during an audit.
When it
comes the relationship between auditor and auditee it's a "what a bear
does in the woods" relationship, really. I mean what do we expect of a
for-profit accounting firm when their own very fat-paycheck client asks
that they "look the other way on that particular deal," or to give them
cover by valuing a particularly worthless asset on their books with an
interpretation of accounting rules that stretch credulity -- and
mathematics -- beyond all known cosmic dimensions. You know what they
do. They do what bears do in the woods.. only they do it on
shareholders and taxpayers.
Current
accounting rules have failed shareholders and taxpayers so many times
I've stopped counting. It's a moral hazard, built atop a mountain of
moral hazards. Accounting firms take care of those who feed them first,
shareholders next and taxpayers last -- if at all. (Need I mention Freddie and Fannie? They had a small army of outside accountants and their own federal regulator, OFHEO.)
So, how do
we fix this accident waiting to happen before another one happens?
Again, the solution is so simple it boggles the mind why it has not
been adopted.
1)
Change the rules so that publicly traded companies and
federally-insured financial institutions (including Feddie and Fannie)
so they are no longer required to hire outside accounting firms.
2) Instead
such firms would be required to purchase "audit insurance." Such
policies would be priced based on the amount of risk the insurance
company determines it is assuming. The lower a company's risk
profile, the lower their audit insurance premiums. (That's called "market forces" you Republicans out there.)
3) Audit
insurance would insure the company/institution against claims by
shareholders or government regulators if they've cooked their books or
otherwise broke accounting/SEC rules regulating their particular
industry's financial dealings.
4) There
would still be plenty of work for accountants under this plan. But
rather than companies hiring their own auditors, the insurance
companies would hire and pay them. After all, the insurace
company would be on the hook for any legitimate claims, so they
would want auditors who had the insurance company's best interests at
heart. As a side benefit of no small import, that self interest on the
part of the insurance companies would also serve to protect
shareholders and taxpayers as well.
Such a
change would not only create an entirely new business opportunity for
insurance companies, but would remove the inherent conflicts of
interest under current rules which have repeatedly -- and expensively
-- failed shareholders and taxpayers. (See Accounting Scandals in US History)
Rather than companies and banks hiring accountants to check their
books, the insurance company would do so. And, since the accountants
would be working for the insurance company that's on the hook
financially for any "mistakes" you can bet your sweet bippy audits
would be complete and accurate. Because if insurance companies hate
anything it's paying on claims.
You see,
that's how "free markets" are supposed to work, at least that's what
all those free-market Republicans keep telling us -- you know, how
free-markets can regulate themselves when risk and incentives are in
balance.
So let's
balance those risks and incentives where it really counts -- at the
audit level. And then next time something goes sideways in the
financial markets we won't have to ask, "where were the accountants,"
but rather, "what's the phone number for the audit insurance claims
department?"
The "War on Terror"
This one's really easy. People who purposely crash cars into other people and/or buildings are arrested and put in
jail. Why? Because they're criminals, and that's how society reacts to
such anti-social behavior. If they violently resist arrest they get
shot, and maybe killed.
Something like 40,000 Americans are killed each year in auto accidents,
but we don't have a "War on Automobilies," do we? No. We try our best
to manage the carnage by putting cops on the highway to catch reckless
and drunken drivers. Is it a 100% effective? Obviously not. But we
still don't dispatch the National Guard to patrol our highways and
streets. We don't bomb Chrysler or occupy Toyota plants in Japan.
All of which tells me we have a pretty amazing tolerance for
selfinflicted carnage. Would that we showed the same restraint after
9/11.
(Oh,
and as the RAND folks suggested, drop the "War of Terror" slogan.
Because the only thing that's made it a war is the Yosemite Sams in
this administration.)
Just this week, the Pentagon's favorite right wing think tank, the Rand Corporation, released a study
showing that only 7% of the world's terrorist groups have been defeated
militarily. The other 93% who were defeated either negotiated a
political settlement or were arrested or killed by the police.
So.
1) As for domestic security turn the job over to the nation's cops, FBI, and America's Most Wanted.
Yes I know they failed us on the lead up to 9/11. But interagency
cooperation and intelligence-sharing has since been greatly improved.
Improve it more. Make sure the channels of communication between local
and federal law enforcement are unencumbered by turf nonsense and that
local authorities have the information, tools and authority to act
independently and quickly. The idea that somehow the Pentagon and NSA
can protect folks in San Francisco's financial district is absurd in
the extreme. No one knows their own community, and the people in it,
than local cops.
2) But what about Islamic nations that continue supporting and/or harboring terrorists? We
won a much more potentially dangerous war, the Cold War, by containing
our would-be enemies. Containment worked then and it can work here
again. Remove our troops from the entire region. Let the countries
involved that we will have nothing to
do with them until they get a handle on things within their own
borders. That means no military aid, no humanitarian aid, no food aid,
no World Bank loans, nothing, nada. (Oh, and yes, that includes
the Saudis. In fact they would be the first ones on our list of
countries to isolate, if we weren't hooked on their oil. Which brings
us back to the first part of this post... put a floor under the price
of gas, then choke the Saudis off where it really hurts, the palace
pocketbook.)
3) But what if we are attacked by terrorists from one of those countries anyway? That's
what all that expensive, high-tech stand-off weaponry we keep paying to
develope is for. Any attack traced to terrorists from a particular
country or countries, would be responded to with a punishing round of
cruise missiles. But let's not waste these expensive dodads on
terrorist mud huts. Instead target that nation's expensive
infrastructure; bridges, dams, power grids, stuff that cost money and
takes time to replace. (As you can tell, I'm not a turn-the-other-cheerker. I'm Sicilian.) I call it my "Just Don't Do That"
defense policy. When a troublesome nation gets tired of replacing all
that expensive infrastructure they'll have to decide if they want to
keep replacing it or if maybe it wouldn't be cheaper to just get rid of
of the terrorists. If not, and it happens again, we do it again. After
all, it's no skin off our nose since we won't have our own troops in
harm's way.
There. Now
will someone in Washington just get this stuff done. I pay taxes so I
don't have to get involved in this kind of nitty gritty, day to day
operations of government. That's what we pay you guys and gals up there
to do. So for Christ sake do it, will ya?
Oh, and do try to keep it simple -- stupid!
(Permalink for this post)
The Excuses Administration
Amazing, isn't it? We've now lived through seven and half years of
goose-stepping arrogance married with utterly breathtaking
incompetence, and have six more months of it yet to play out.
While most Americans have long since realized that this administration
will go down in history as America's worst, administration arrogance remains
undiminished.
They are no longer taken seriously by nearly anyone
here or abroad. But in their defense, it is terribly difficult to strut
one's stuff amid the smoking rubble of their own making.
When they took office in January 2001 they set about to straighten out
a nation they believed liberals had sissified. And they set out to
prove to a world that appeared increasingly wanting to go it's own way,
that Uncle Sam still mattered and was still armed and dangerous.
While the evidence that their mission failed, not just a little, but
monumentally, they claim history will vindicate them. History, of
course, more often than not, does just the opposite when handed the
kind of archival evidence this administration will leave in its wake.
Nevertheless, none of what's gone wrong over the last seven and half
years is their fault. None of it. This is an administration quick to
accept praise, even if it has to come from within, and slow to
accept blame, even when it clings to them like a stain on a blue dress.
Let us count the stains:
1) It began with in secret meetings between
VP Dick Cheney and fellow energy company executives. Together they
mapped out a plan -- a plan that remains secret -- for America's energy
future. Not surprisingly those energy executives eschewed, even mocked,
conservation or investments in new, renewable energy sources. Instead
they advised, and Cheney apparently agreed, we should expand support
for more of the kind of stuff their companies already sell --
particularly oil and coal. The only changes they apparently counseled
involved price.
Fast forward and we have $4 gas and a looming heating oil crisis come this winter.
Their Excuse: Not
our fault. It's all the fault of Democrats for blocking offshore
drilling and drilling Alaska. And never mind all that nonsense
about "the environment" and "pollution" and "peak oil." All liberal
lies. Why, you ask? Because liberals hate low energy prices. That's why.
2) Then, after less than a year in office, their own administration failed to heed warnings left for them by
the previous administration that America faced the risk of an
"immanent" attack by al Qaida, "involving the use of commercial
aircraft." The result was the the 9/11 attacks.
Their Excuse:
Not our fault. Whose fault was it? Bill Clinton's fault. He should have
fixed this before we got here. So clearly 9/11 was Clinton's fault, not
ours. Sure it happened on our watch, not his. But we weren't watching.
We thought that memo left for us by the Clinton folks was a trick.
After all, they did steal all the "W's" off White House computer
keyboards when they left, so those liberals are capable of anything. So
we had a good laugh over that memo when we I found it on my desk on day
one. I said to Condi, "Nice try guys, but we're not falling for that
old 'your zipper's down" trick. Like, 'made you look, ha ha.'"
3) Then
they invaded Afghanistan. Our troops did a fabulous job chasing the
Taliban and al Qaida out of most of the country and penning them into the
boxed canyons of Tora Bora. Victory was within our grasp. But right
then, something shinny caught caught their eye -- Iraq. They decided
they were on a winning streak so, while we had all those troops in the
neighborhood, why not invade Iraq as well -- and teach those uppity
Arabs a lesson they won't soon forget.
But rather than finishing off al Qaida and the Taliban, they turned the
Pentagon's attention to Iraq and left the job of finishing off Enemy
Number One to Afghanistan's notoriously undependable tribesmen, who
promptly proved themselves to be - - well, undependable. Al Qaida and their leader, bin Laden, escaped to fight another day, another month, another year, another decade.
Their Excuse:
Not our fault. We had to invade Iraq immediately because Iraq was
"suspected" of possessing weapons of mass destruction. Okay, so they
didn't. But that's not our fault either. The guy running the CIA
screwed up by providing us bad intelligence. So we asked him to retire,
thanked him for his wonderful service to the country and gave him the
highest civilian honor, the Medal of Freedom.
3) The invasion of Iraq went off without a hitch. Once again our troops did what they were asked to do and did
with skill and great dispatch. The rubble had hardly stopped vibrating
in Iraq when our cocky Commander-in-Chief -- himself an
"undistinguished" former Air National Guard pilot -- shamelessly played
dress-up in a navy flight suit to declare "mission accomplished" in
Iraq. (It was as if Forrest Gump had had an evil twin and there he was,
on the deck of one of our aircraft carriers, dressed to kill.
One big problem -- within weeks it was abundantly clear that the
mission was far from accomplished. While the administration basked in
the warm glow of self-proclaimed victory, their own lack of planning
and intelligence had thrust the then decapitated Iraq into chaos.
Who knew that Iraq was a nation made up of three eternally warring
tribes? Ah, well, anyone who had even a passing knowledge of the region
knew that. But that was one of those nagging "nuances" the know-it-alls
of this administration brushed aside with contempt.
And so six years later the mission in Iraq remains unaccomplished.
Their Excuse: Not
our fault. Everything was going swimmingly until al Qaida decided to
make Iraq the "central front in the war on terror." Yeah, yeah, yeah,
we know there was only one member of al Qaida in Iraq before we
destabilized the place. And yeah, yeah, yeah, we know that the al Qaida
fighters who showed up in Iraq later were only there because we'd let
them get away in Afghanistan. But that's looking backward. We want to
look ahead. So shut up about Tora Bora. Just get over it, okay?
(Why do you liberals hate our brave troops?)
4) Meanwhile,
back in Washington, the administration had been busy making the country
safe for businesses and the people who run them. The first order of
business was the slash taxes on folks who make a lot of money.
That mission was accomplished. Tax cuts amounting to nearly $2 trillion
were proposed and approved by a Republican congress -- with more than a
little help from intimidated -- spineless -- Democrats. GOP bully
boys had the Dems cowering in their cloakroom, terrified they'd be
slapped around with worn, but time-tested, brick bats like, "tax and
spend liberals," So, when the bully boys said "jump" the Democrats
gathered up their skirts and jumped. (And, even after all this, Democrats in congress are still jumping when ordered to do so. Remember the FISA vote earlier this month? Yikes. What more can I say than yikes?)
Six years later the Bush tax cuts have resulted in a yawning national deficit. Together with war spending the next president will inherit a half trillion dollar "shortfall."
Their Excuse:
Not our fault. It all would have worked as planned had we not been
attacked on 9/11. So, the US deficit is al Qaida's fault. Those tax
cuts would have "trickled down" to average Americans if we had not had
to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Those wars are costing us $12
billion a month, man. So give us break on that. --- What? What do you mean we didn't have to go to war in Iraq? And if we hadn't we'd be about a trillion bucks ahead
of the game by now. That's not true! And anyone who says
otherwise is not supporting the troops. How dare you diss the brave
soldiers we've put into harm's way! Shame on you! Why do liberals
hate America?
5) If there's anything these guys hate more than liberals it's federal regulators.
They saw them as a bunch of nagging liberal nannies whose only job
appeared to be hobbling business with a lot of expensive Sadie-Safety
rules and regulations. If businesses were simply allowed to get on with
what they do everything would be so much cheaper, like it is in China.
Those so-called clean air rules, clean water rules and rules holding
back Wall Street and banking were just a bunch of job-killing
nonsense. So, they knee-capped regulators and gutted the
regulatory apparatus of government.
Mission accomplished here too. The cat was caged and the mice -- and
rats -- played. Which brings us to the so-called "sub-prime" and
"credit-crunch" crisis. The economy is not just in the tank today, but
that tank seems to have no bottom this time -- or at very least, we
can't see it yet.
Their Excuse: Not
our fault! It may have happened on our watch, but it's still not our
fault. It's the fault of high energy prices. And no, you still can't
see the minutes of Dick Cheney's 2001 meetings with the heads of the
world's largest energy producers. Why? Because, they are none of your
business, that's why. And don't ask again, damn it! How do you
expect us to govern if we have to tell you what we're up to all the
time? Anyway, all this "accountability" stuff is highly over-rated.
6) When
they took office seven and half years ago, reorganizing the
Department of Justice was high on their list. Over the decades
they believed liberals had too often used the DOJ to push "the liberal
agenda," aided and abetted by liberal "activist" judges. This was
serious business. Over the past few decades the DOJ had been used to
investigate and -- God forbid -- even prosecute corporate interests,
such as big tobacco and big oil and big manufacturing. Time and again
"activist judges" had ruled against companies and in favor of
unproductive interests such as "the environment," and "consumers."
So they proceeded to stack the DOJ from top to bottom with conservative/fundamentalist Christian sycophants, dim witted, but malleable and obedient as only true-believes can be.
Another mission accomplished. With the DOJ on board the
administration's most arrogant thugs got a legal green light for just
about anything they wanted to do, at home or abroad. Because after all,
it's not torture when we do it for the reasons we say we need to do
it. They says so because their hand-picked lawyers at the DOJ assured them so.
Their Excuse: Sure we fired people who we thought were not "loyal Bushies."
But in this town all appointments are "political." So what's the big
deal? We may not like liberal "activists" so we replaced them with
fundamentalist conservative activists. What's the problem? It was
our turn, right?
Besides,
once we had those folks in place they confirmed our belief we
could do stuff those activist liberal appointees wouldn't have touched
with a ten-foot vaccinated crow bar. You know, like invading another
country that had not directly threatened the US, and water boarding
people we figured knew useful stuff, and secret prisons, domestic
spying and Gitmo. Those good Christian, Pat Robertson-trained lawyers gave us a clean bill of health on all that stuff.
So, if we can't rely on our own lawyer's legal advice, what can we rely
on? The Constitution? That old thing? Quaint, but, like, so out of date -- so 18th-19th-century.
7) While all this was going on the worst hurricane in decades just about wiped out the city of New Orleans. But
the bully boys were busy enjoying a well-earned rest at the time and
the people of New Orleans were left to fend for themselves. Instead of
marshaling the enormous resources at their disposal, instead they sent
FEMA, headed by a former show-horse association official, Michael
Brown, and the rest is history -- along with most the 9th Ward.
Their Excuse:
We had no idea those levies would break. Besides, hurricanes are "an
act of God." Even insurance companies are let off the hook for acts of
God, so get off our back about that whole Katrina business. Besides,
as my Mom said, those black folk who were relocated to Houston "never
had it so good," -- though she is annoyed that many of them haven't
returned to New Orleans.
Barbara Bush: "What
I’m hearing is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so
overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena
here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she
chuckles slightly) is working very well for them." (Source)
And so, my friends (as Sen. John McSame likes to say) you can see, none
of what's vexing the world and the nation today is the fault of the
people who have been in charge for the last seven and half years.
- After six years of war, the future of Iraq remains up for grabs among it's three waring
tribes and neighboring Iran.
- Afghanistan has descended back into chaos and the Taliban now control more than half the country again.
- While the Taliban try to reinstate themselves in Afghanistan, al
Qaida (et al) are busily destablizing Pakistan, which now has dozens of
training camps, ala pre-invastion Afghanistan and is rapidly heading in
the same fundamentalist direction - only with nuclear weapons.
- America's fiscal condition has never in its history been worse,
deficits never larger, the national debt has exploded from $4.5
trillion to nearly $10 trillion on their watch.
- The knock-on effect of America's financial meltdown is precipitating
an international financial crisis of proportions not seen since the
dawn of the industrial revolution.
- America will now be listed in history as a nation that once employed
and sanctioned torture, violated human rights, eschewed the rule of law
in favor of the rule of expediency and remained, to it's final days in
office, unrepentant.
None of it is the fault of the people who've been in charge of nearly
everything for the past seven and a half years. Just ask them.
Which is why we MUST pursue them once they leave office and can no longer
destroy evidence, stonewall inquiries or manipulated the levers of
justice.
That was supposed be the job of Congress. But they failed us
as well. Shame. Shame.
So, it's up to us from here. Do they get away with these high-crimes and misdeamenors, or not?
Scene: Crawford, Texas
When: Sometime in 2009
|
English Majors: Watch where
you step
|
|
