Joseph Marohl

Six days after the inauguration—six days after Pastor Rick Warren, looking like a reupholstered Jerry Falwell, bestows his blessings on America and Barack Obama’s Presidency—the Chinese New Year begins.

It will be the Year of the Ox. Oxen, as you probably know, are castrated bulls.

Lacking a true gift for superstition, I assign little real importance to this fact. But as horoscopy goes, Chinese astrology has always served me better than the Western version. Under the latter, I am an Aries, therefore, stubborn, egoistic, combative, impulsive to the point of foolhardiness, all moral sense subjugated to raging lust. Fair enough. Under the former, I am a Snake, therefore, carnal, sensuous, intellectual, artistic, unforgiving with a preternaturally long memory for grudges. Bull’s eye.

The United States is in deeper debt to China—$585 billion—than to any other nation, only another reason to believe our collective futures lie in Chinese hands. So let me peer into my weathered, brittle paperbound edition of Theodora Lau’s The Handbook of Chinese Horoscopes, copyright 1980, to see what the new year holds in store.

Lau opens her section on The Year of the Ox with the statement: “We will feel the yoke of responsibility coming down on us this year.” Okay, so after 2008, we could all see this one coming, though Lau pegged it 28 years ago. She follows with “The trials and tribulations the Ox year brings will be mainly on the home front. It is a good time to settle domestic affairs and put your house in order.” Henry Paulson should only have been this prescient.

After stating that the Ox views politics and diplomacy, along with frivolities of every sort, with indifference, Lau begins to sound like my dad: “No work, no pay! … The Spartan influence of the Ox will be a constantly cracking whip over our heads. [T]he year of the Ox favors discipline. … This is no time for tricky shortcuts.”

Just so I get her point, Lau aims a closing shot directly at me: “For the rebels, it may be worthwhile to point out that although the stoical Ox is soft-spoken, he carries a big stick, and this is his year.”

In particular, the year 2009 will be the year of the “Earth” Ox—not a nod to environmentalism, though no doubt cleaning up the mess we’ve made of the planet is part of the work cut out for us. The Earth Ox favors duty over creativity, practicality over idealism, stability over progress, sense over sensibility, endurance over complaint, and determination over cynicism.

On a happier note, children born next year can be expected to whine less (“This child will not be a crybaby”), value privacy more, and exhibit patience, perseverance, and responsibility. Ox-people thrive on discipline and order (Richard Nixon, the Emperor Hirohito and Adolph Hitler were all Ox-people, but, happily, so were Walt Disney, Vincent Van Gogh, and Charlie Chaplin).

Astrology aside, it seems clear to me that we have work to do in the coming year. Given the work’s immense importance—to our pocketbooks, to peace, to justice, to life, to the preservation of what it means to be human—it’s important that we look at the tasks ahead with all the optimism we can humanly muster. We must persevere to survive.

We must not panic, and we must contain our worries and sense of dread. We need to gain or regain a sense of the common good—set aside our private interests, if necessary, even perhaps our high ideals (at least the ones so high we can’t actually see the tops of)—and pitch in to make things better than they are.

Even without lunar insights, I can pretty well assure you that we will not entirely solve the mess we’re in—and are about to slip into deeper—even with God’s and Obama’s help. But we can take a point or two from the stoical Ox, and whine and moan a little less, however Mad Max the world becomes, and temper the cynicism we’ve so carefully cultivated since our freshmen years at college with a little kindness and humane understanding.

One certainty I subscribe to, which all forms of astrology support: Things will change.

Allison Bricker

With the Christmas Season in full swing, we invite you to check out some of the truly talented people we have been fortunate to come across in our blogging travels…

1. Rick Williams, a practicing attorney, former Deacon and one of the Founding Partners of Break The Matrix hosts his show daily starting at 7:00pm Central Standard Time.  There is also an interactive chat where Mr. Williams fields questions, so be sure to drop by and participate in the lively discussion.




2. Aimee Allen is a self-made musician whose songs have appeared on major motion picture soundtracks such as the Grammy nominated ”Hairspray” and whose “Ron Paul Revolution” video went viral this past Summer on YouTube. Her website also offers free MP3 downloads of some of her recent and past works for your listening enjoyment.
   




3. Jordan Page an independent musician with a talent for writing Dillionesque lyrics backed by soulful guitar. He offers up his brand of thoughtful and passionate protest songs geared towards restoring the Constitution and the reclamation of lost liberties.
   

Joseph Marohl

I’m hard pressed to find much to distinguish what director Gus Van Sant accomplishes in his biopic Milk that was not already accomplished in the Academy Award-winning 1984 documentary The Times of Harvey Milk, directed by Rob Epstein.

Both are excellent films. Both use archival footage to chronicle the life and times of America’s first openly gay public official. Both use Milk’s taped last will—recorded in the event of his assassination—as the thread upon which to construct the plot. Both regard their central figure as both a devious politician and a true American idealist.

What most obviously distinguishes the more recent film is the bravura performance (another one) by Sean Penn as Milk. Penn breaks my heart in this. Not just because of his character’s fate, which, like the Epstein documentary, opens the film, so that the imminence of death is felt at every step, but mostly because Penn captures Milk’s magnetism and mannerisms, along with, more profoundly, merely human moments—like the thrill of falling in love or fighting for a great, just cause.

Van Sant’s film covers Milk’s life from 1970 to his death in 1978 and appropriately reduces the events subsequent to Dan White’s assassination of Milk and Mayor George Moscone to a brief captioned epilogue.

Instead, it provides deeper insight to Milk’s loving relationships with Scott Smith (James Franco) and Jack Lira (Diego Luna). Van Sant is able to use these relationships to portray a more complex picture of gay life—not pleading for tolerance and equality, as did the documentary—but showing how the personal and the political can converge and clash and presenting us the audience with a fuller panoply of gay characters than we usually get to see at the movies.

Josh Brolin’s nuanced performance as Dan White is also remarkable. Whereas Epstein’s film mainly presents White as the iceberg that would eventually sink Milk’s Titanic, Van Sant’s film shows the pressures of maintaining and upholding hetero-normativity as a political issue and the toll of staking too much of one’s self-identity on one’s being “normal.”

What makes the new film in many ways a more (or differently) elegant film than its predecessor is its attempt to show how, over and over, Milk and White attempt and fail to reach out to each other—especially in a realistic scene of White’s drunkenly pathetic exchange with Milk at the latter’s birthday party—and this is the tragic heart of the film.

Joseph Marohl

Perhaps it would be easy to overestimate the importance of Barack Obama’s invitation to Rick Warren to speak at the 2009 Inauguration. Warren is the bestselling author of The Purpose Driven® Life, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, and outspoken critic of gay rights and same-sex marriage,.

It’s not as if Warren’s been asked to join the President’s Cabinet, after all. And, besides, the Lesbian and Gay Band Association is invited to march in the Presidential Inaugural Parade, having played only on the sidelines for the two Clinton Inaugurations.

Warren compares homosexuality to incest, polygamy, and adultery. He makes false claims, such as that marriage between one man and one woman has been the model of all religions for five thousand years (polygamy, for instance, has routinely reoccurred as an element of religious observance, and revered patriarchs such as Jacob, Moses, and Solomon practiced it, and even today a number of religious groups and Christian denominations accept same-sex marriage).

Still, Rick Warren is not Fred Phelps—Warren, like former governor and current Fox News commentator Mike Huckabee, presents a friendlier, even-tempered, and apple-cheeked face to bigotry.

It’s fairly clear to me what Obama is trying to do—reach out to social conservatives and evangelical Christians who have, as Warren supposedly has, expressed an interest in dialogue with those who do not share their views.

But Warren has not been open to such dialogue, particularly with gays. What Warren wants, like many evangelicals and conservatives, is a platform for criticizing other people’s lifestyles, while claiming to be persecuted if his own life choices and opinions are criticized or even questioned.

What Obama fails to recognize is that sitting down to dialogue is one thing, but it’s something else entirely to give a platform to a man who calls for the continued political disenfranchisement of a small but significant part of Obama’s base. Obama did the same thing back in October 2007, when he led a “gospel tour” on the South Carolina leg of his Presidential campaign, fronted by Donnie McClurkin, who wrapped up every show with a 15-minute “prayer” thanking God for delivering him from the debasement of homosexuality. When GLBT activists objected, Obama’s people used the “dialogue” defense and then told the GLBTs to pipe down and stop being “divisive.” Some dialogue.

Undoubtedly one reason gay people don’t get much respect from political candidates or representatives in government is that we’re a minority—representing perhaps less than the proverbial 10 percent of the total population. On top of that, we are one of the merely two or three minorities (off the top of my head, I can’t think of another one, though) one can safely ridicule and denounce in sweeping blanket generalizations—not to mention find defenders for physically assaulting, even killing. In fact, when gay people simply complain that they are mistreated, they are accused of being politically divisive and small minded, endangering children, and persecuting Christians.

Part of the problem, too, has been sloppy strategizing by gay rights activists. The whole issue of whether gays are born gay or choose to be gay is irrelevant to whether gays deserve the same rights as any other citizen or human being. Did biological determinism do anything really to speed up women’s and blacks’ struggles for justice and equality? If one could choose to be black, would such a choice justify discriminatory practices against that person? Even if God can and does “cure” the habit of gossip or the desire to eat shellfish (both condemned in the Bible), would such miracles justify passing laws and amendments that forbid basic legal privileges to shrimp-loving blabbermouths?

It’s also a bit insensitive for Obama to ask a vocal supporter of California’s Proposition 8 to speak, since, for many lesbians and gays, it rehashes and confirms the conflicted feelings of elation and insult that the November victories of Obama and 8 evoked. If Obama sympathizes with gay people’s struggle for equal treatment under the law, as he claims, why is he insensitive and/or indifferent to their concerns and interests?

Sometimes I have to wonder whether Democrats choose to be hypocrites or whether they’re just born that way.

Allison Bricker

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18th, 1787, as Mr. Benjamin Franklin emerged from “Independence Hall”, a Mrs. Powell approached and asked, “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Dr. Franklin quickly replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Unfortunately fellow readers, we did not heed Dr. Franklin’s warning, and in the distracted haste of modern life, we lost our beloved Republic to the plutocratic oligarchs and their brand of corporatist democracy.

It is not difficult to look around and conclude that we are living through some very strange and troubling times. We have become a nation that allowed President Bush & Company to successfully legalize torture¹. A nation which gave little to no pause as the Federal government expanded the surveillance apparatus, wholly gutting the remnants of the 4th Amendment². Moreover, by abdicating our responsibility to demand both a Declaration of War, and justification thereof, we have become a nation willing to embrace the perverse notion of preemptive war vis-a-vi, the Bush Doctrine³.

With every opening bell on Wall Street, we see a continuous line of failed pseudo-capitalists all too eager to stick their corrupt slime ridden hands into the T.A.R.P. bailout money. Money coerced from the paychecks of ‘We the People’, doled out as corporate welfare to the politically connected. We are bearing witness to the dawn of another economic depression, caused wholly by mismanagement of monetary policy and governance by the central planners of state.

However, even with the hand of oppression attempting to asphyxiate the natural sustenance of liberty, the answer my fellow readers is not anarchy. Both tyranny and anarchy are extreme belief structures residing on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Whereby tyrannical oligarchs demand absolute rule and control over every aspect of the people, anarchy proves to be no less tyrannical in its end result. Throughout history the ensuing chaos brought on by revolutionary anarchists always leads to the emergence of a new tyrant.

For example, immediately following the French Revolution, the lawlessness that ensued birthed what became to be known as “The Reign of Terror”. During this time between 20,000 and 40,000 French citizens were executed as “enemies of the revolution”. The bulk of the executions were exacted upon the working class, with many found guilty of hoarding food and supplies.⁴

As a secondary example, we can look to the Russian Revolutions of 1917. The first began in March of 1917, which saw Czar Nicolas the II resign after massive civil unrest. Shortly thereafter anarchy ensued, but by Summer the anarchists had formed factions and in turn set up a provisional government. However being self-appointed, power struggles between the factions led to continued violence. By October of the same year, the Bolshevik faction called for an open revolt, and again violence spread across Russia. The Bolsheviks emerged as the successful faction and with Lenin as their leader, immediately began implementing their philosophy of socialist communism on all of the people of Russia.⁵

It could also be said, that our own Republic, had it not been under the wise guidance of the Founding Fathers, could have easily disintegrated into anarchy following the Revolution. The debate which took place in Philadelphia during the sweltering Summer of 1787 resulted in the creation of a system of delicate checks and balances. A system of governance divided amongst a weak central authority and the constituent political units, i.e. the several states. The Founders knew all too well the natural tendency of government was to gain and encroach upon liberty, but they also knew that leaving the tenuous union under the sole guidance of the Articles of Confederation, would lead to disparate factions. Which in the end stood the good chance of wholly squandering the principles of the American Revolution.

We need not reinvent the wheel to save our country. We need not jettison the sacrifices of the Founding generation for utter lawlessness, only to then teeter-totter back into tyrannical despotism.  We need only restore the Constitution to its foundation upon Federalism, in order to set our Republic back onto the path towards a more perfect union.

Thus in conclusion, it can be said that anarchy is simply an antithetic knee jerk reaction to tyrannical oppression; or perhaps a transitional bridge from one dictator to another, but it cannot and should not be said to be a legitimate solution.

Source(s): ¹Working Group Report on Detainee Interrogations in the Global War on Terrorism: Assessment of Legal, Historical, Policy, and Operational Considerations • ² Washington Post “Obama Defends Compromise on New FISA Bill” • ³ New York Times “Editorial Observer; President Bush and the Middle East Axis of Ambiguity” • ⁴ “Reign of Terror - 1793-1794″ by: Wilfred Brenton Kerr (1985) London: Porcupine Press • ⁵ “The Class Struggle” Vol.I, No.4, November-December 1917

Joseph Marohl

I embrace the label “atheist” reluctantly because it smells of militant reaction to the monotheistic religions that long ago turned militaristic and, somewhat more recently, reactionary. The word sounds angry, when I’d much prefer that it sound simply bored and uninterested. So, usually, I use the word “irreligious” to describe myself.

Of course, there are matters I am angry about—homophobia, imperialism, wage slavery, subjugation of women’s bodies, destruction of the environment (on oh so many levels), child abuse (also on oh so many levels), war, torture, terror—matters on which Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have, at their best, looked with blithe, big-hearted condescension and, at their (usual) worst, have sided with, inspired, inflamed, and offered comfort to the oppressors.

Christians complain that “Christ” has been taken out of “Christmas.” This is more or less the bottom of the barrel as far as martyrdoms go, and Christians have been scraping this wood for a long time (1). It almost hurts to have to tell them, as they nail their hands to their Christmas trees, that Christians stole the holiday from the pagans (2)—and that their puritanical and more fundamentalist brothers have banned celebrating Christmas altogether (3).

I like Christmas well enough. It’s some days off work—and God knows the greedy capitalists would have us at the grindstone 24/7/365 if they could. And, now that both my parents are dead—and I have no brothers or sisters, no husband or wife, no children, I am relatively unburdened by the family sniping and the burden of obligatory gift giving that others (with good reason) so often complain about.

For the past five years, I celebrate Christmas the first Saturday of every December. I invite some friends over and we eat crab cakes, drink wine (and sometimes absinthe), get high, and bake cookies—either following recipes (the orthodox wing) or freestyle mixing shit together (the heretics)—the heretics have more fun, but orthodox cookies are generally edible (4).

I also buy the guests some small tokens of the season—ornaments, hard candies and mints, holiday music, dreidls, DVDs of Bad Santa and It’s a Wonderful Life. It’s a “small, good thing,” to cite Raymond Carver, to share like this with people I enjoy—no burden or obligation at all.

Generally I am in favor of gift giving, not to help or save the economy, but to express some measure of transcendent connection with the people I care about. (I am even a bigger fan of birthdays than Christmas.)

Gifts are—or should be—symbols for sharing oneself. Gifting should not be competitive, expected, obligatory, or too deeply read into. Gifts should be selected on the basis of one’s feelings or hopes for the gifted. They should be wrapped, if possible, because wrapping can suggest the mystery of our fellow feeling, and unwrapping can suggest the opening up of the self to others.

I like the word “Christmas.” It does not too heavily intone Christianity for me, as an atheist—no more than “Thursday” reminds me of the Norse god Thor or “Saturday,” of the Roman god Saturn. As I am not a Christian, I don’t object to “Xmas,” and as I am not an idiot, I recognize that “Xmas” is simply an abbreviation of “Christmas,” “X” long being an abbreviation for “Christ” among monks and scholars, either to save time or to show reverence (like the ancient Jews and the later Muslims who eschew naming or portraying their God).

Atheist Christmas seems so much richer and dreamily loving than Christian Christmas. Still, I enjoy nativity scenes and “Silent Night,” in pretty much the same way (and to pretty much the same extent) as I do The Nutcracker and Peter Pan, with a willing suspension of disbelief to provide only the finest, lightest crystals of magical thinking to dust and sweeten the long, dark nights of winter and the long, dark night of humanity’s intolerance, self-righteousness, cruelty, ignorance, and greed.

***

(1) Think of the outrage many Christians felt when Phyllis Burgess, 69 and Christian, protesting against gay marriage at a pro-gay marriage rally, had a Styrofoam cross yanked from her hands by fire-breathing homos and saw it broken and dashed to the ground. This was no spiritual release from the heavy burden of Styrofoam; this was, of course, anti-Christian persecution—which, as Mike Huckabee instructed the women on The View, is analogous to the pistol-whipping of Matthew Shepard (and the beatings and deaths of many, many others—unavoidably linked with Christendom) or the merely mischievous exclusion of thousands of queer Americans from the legal, civil privileges of marriage.

(2) Namely Pope Julius 1 in the fourth century—Isis worship, Saturnalia, and Yule all have earlier claims to December 25—and the Druidic custom of worshipping nature by decorating trees and logs was ripped off somewhat later in history. Julius also squashed the Arians, who opposed the worship of Jesus (as, apparently, did Jesus—John 14.28; John 17.20-26—and possibly the apostle Paul—1 Cor. 8.5-6).

(3) Reed, Kevin. “Christmas: An Historical Survey Regarding Its Origins and Opposition to It.” 1995. Still Waters Revival Books.

(4) I belong to the orthodox wing, but with liberal tendencies, permitting myself to substitute walnuts for pecans or dark for milk chocolate. My Bible is Betty Crocker’s Cooky Book (1963; Old Testament) and the 2005 Martha Stewart Holiday Cookies magazine (New).

Joseph Marohl

1. Children are no better than adults. Some kids are great, but the vast majority are just so-so, which is okay since the supply of so-so adults will then never trickle away to nothing. No one’s to blame here, because, since a child is evolutionarily designed to tug at heartstrings of adults capable of protecting him or her from natural predators, adults understandably tend to overestimate the value and potential of every child they meet.

2. Superficial stuff (like youth and beauty) matters. Yeah, a good soul is nice to have, but try picking up somebody at the bar with the goodness of your soul. Wisdom, honesty, dependability, and creativity are less likely to get you laid (or gainfully employed) than clear skin, a full head of hair, big but not monstrous muscles or big but not monstrous boobs, and bright, even teeth.

3. Eat as healthy, local, and macrobiotic as you care to, but you are still gonna die, probably after a long, uncomfortable illness that some asshole you know will peg to your past life-style choices. I strongly recommend taking care of your body; just don’t fool yourself into believing that passing up French fries or coconut cake significantly improves your chances of being here in fifty years.

4. Nobody in politics gives a rat’s ass about you—unless you’re a person with more clout and power than he or she has. Sure, we little guys make the votes, but the face you will have to look at for the next four years on CNN does not have to return the favor. Welcome to the anonymous masses. Your chances are better for screwing the American Idol contestant you voted for than getting a special favor from your senator.

5. Your last opportunity to do something wonderful and exciting in life was probably your last opportunity to do that particular wonderful and exciting thing … ever. Potential adventures are nothing to turn your nose up at. They are rare and crop up unpredictably and often inconveniently. The word “yes” always has a sell-by date, sooner than later, but “no” can sit on the shelf till the day you die.

6. Whining doesn’t work. I once was told that 80% of the people you complain to don’t care one way or the other, and the other 20% think you’re getting exactly what you deserve. Sure, it feels good to vent—sometimes the urge is irresistible—but being a victim is something you feel inside which hardly ever translates well when expressed out loud or in print.

Allison Bricker

NOTE: This is the fourth part in a 4 part series. Your questions and commentary are both welcomed and appreciated.

• Part 1 - How to Save the Republic
• Part 2 - Abolish the Income Tax
• Part 3 - Repeal the Direct Election of Senators
• Part 4 - Similarities Between the Great Depression and Our Current Crisis

As the Dow Jones Industrial average continues its most volatile sessions in recent times, up 700 points one day, down 400 the next, the United States government continues its pointless scramble to prop up the debt based house-of-cards it built itself upon. It is most assuredly eerie when one dives down into the annals of history; back to our Republic’s last great economic calamity, the Great Depression. Upon further inspection, we see the same type of centralized planning and grossly negligent monetary policy going on today is exactly what brought Americans to their knees leading up to and throughout the Great Depression.

After the FEDERAL RESERVE Act of 1913, “fractional reserve banking”¹ now became the law of the land. Fractional reserve banking allows that for every $100 Dollars deposited into a bank, $900 Dollars of “new loans” (debt) can be created out of thin air and thus issued by said bank¹. The system accomplishes this by clinging to the principle that no more than a small minority of depositors will ever seek to withdraw their money at one time. Operating under this hedge of the fractional reserve system dictated by the FEDERAL RESERVE, debt soared throughout the 1920’s. This new massive influx of debt was of course on top of the massive debt in the form of bonds borrowed from the FEDERAL RESERVE in order to finance World War I.

With banks lending at a record pace for the new gadgets of the decade and a new need for housing, it was not long before many Americans began plunging themselves into debt. In these exuberant times and with easy access to “credit”, real estate prices began to soar. The apex of this bubble came in 1925, soon there after people began defaulting on their over leveraged loans at an escalating rate². Foreclosures began to rise as the defaults continued to pile up which in turn led to bank failures due to over exposure in the housing market.

Additionally, the new automated technology which once had employed thousands from its initial creation, now began to replace these same workers en mass as the efficiency gains of the new machinery made them obsolete. President Hoover, who as Secretary of Commerce under President Coolidge, birthed unemployment benefits, believing that “depressions were caused by “low wages”, now called for a massive “bailout” of the economy by a gigantic expansion of public works programs, price controls, subsidies, and the creation of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation just to name a few.

Four short years later in October of 1929, over a period of five days, a market built on imaginary wealth felt the full force of a debt based economy and collapsed with the Dow Jones Industrial Average closing 25% down from its high. Thus signaling the beginning of a decade’s long economic depression which would see the market lose 85% of its value and not trade at pre-crash levels again until January of 1951.³

As the depression took hold, the RFC dispersed billions of Dollars to state and local governments, made loans to banks, railroads, farm mortgage associations, and other businesses in an attempt to “fix” the economy. Interestingly, President Herbert Hoover is often blamed for “doing nothing”, however during the 1932 campaign for President, then candidate Franklin Delano Roosevelt said:⁴

Candidate Roosevelt promised Americans throughout the campaign that he would seek immediate and drastic reductions of all public expenditures, abolish useless commissions and offices, consolidate bureaus and eliminate [government] extravagances. He went on to imply specifically targeted tax cuts, and promised to retain a sound currency at all hazards. All of his campaign promises were also approved planks of the Democratic Party Platform of that same year.⁵

However, when Roosevelt took office after defeating Hoover, his promises and the party planks fell by the wayside. Apparently Roosevelt thought of himself as the Godlike man he spoke of during the campaign and instead went on to expand Hoover’s meddling and interventionism into the economy, offering the American people a “New Deal”. Even though the government school history books credit FDR with the New Deal and saving the economy, Rexford Guy Tugwell a Roosevelt aide said years later, “We didn’t admit it at the time, but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started.”⁸

Even with President Roosevelt’s meddling, the economy never recovered during his Presidency and only exacerbated the situation. Finally after emerging victorious from World War II and after FDR’s death, the American economy was able to drag itself out of the Great Depression.

In fact a recent study from 2004 by UCLA economists, Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian found that:

“Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump,” said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA’s Department of Economics. “We found that a relapse isn’t likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies.“⁶

Further, just six short years ago, current Chairman of the FEDERAL RESERVE, Ben Bernake, said during a speech at Milton Freidman’s 90th birthday that Mr. Friedman was right, the government’s intervention caused/prolonged the Great Depression.⁷

Thus, as we sit here today with our Hoover; President Bush, and the 2nd coming of FDR; President-Elect Obama, the same cycle is on track to repeat itself all over again. We have a housing crisis created and fostered by the Federal government via the “Community Reinvestment Act”, which mandated mortgage loans by banks to wholly unqualified loan applicants. A mismanaged monetary policy by the same culprits, ergo the FEDERAL RESERVE, which prevented the recession after the “Tech Bubble” burst. The TARP fund bailout in homage to the RFC, and an incoming President who thinks nationalization of industries, price and wage controls coupled with massive government construction projects will fix what the bankers and plutocrats created in the first place.

In conclusion, there are some notable exceptions which should not be ignored; for one, we no longer have any semblance of a sound currency as we did in 1929 and two, the creditors to all this debt are no longer domestic, as the majority of our government’s financing comes from over seas.

Souce(s): ¹Modern Money Mechanics, FEDERAL RESERVE Bank of CHICAGO • ² Lessons from the Great American Real Estate Bubble:Florida 1926, National Bureau of Economic Research & Rutgers Univ, July 2008 • ³ The Economist, “Economics focus: The Great Depression” September, 17th 1998 • ⁴ Ralph de Toledano, INSIGHT, “Democrats Don’t Recall FDR’s ‘Promises’• ⁵ The American Presidency Project, University of California, Santa Barbara • ⁶ FDR’s policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate, UCLA newsroom • ⁷ Remarks by Governor Ben S. Bernanke At the Conference to Honor Milton Friedman, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, November 8, 2002, FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD • ⁸ Paul Johnson, “A History of the American People” - New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1997, p. 74

Joseph Marohl

Eating at an elegant, yet inexpensive restaurant in Prague last week (my first trip to the Czech Republic, attending a wedding of friends), two women at the table with me observed that the men there were hot.

One woman wondered out loud why it was that the men in Prague were, in general, more poised, well dressed, and sexier than their American counterparts … again, in general.

It was a question that occurred to me, too, on my first and so far only visit to Madrid 13 years ago. Madrileños were square shouldered and masculine, yet they wore their machismo easily—no attitude, no swagger—well spoken (when they spoke the one language I can understand) and polite.

What I thought then and was reminded of at the restaurant last week was that in the United States men tend to follow two archetypes—they are boys or slobs.

The slobs stereotypically express their masculinity through disgust—often being disgusting, deliberately for effect, and belching out their disgust at everything that does not revolve around sports, fucking, and themselves.

The boys, on the other hand, repress their masculinity—perhaps the only way they can think of to avoid looking and acting like wife beaters (the worst of the slobs). Adult boys perpetually reenact the role of grinning little brother or Mommy’s little do-gooder, especially around women, by whom they are usually intimidated.

The slobs, too, may be intimidated by women, therefore preferring to hang out with “the guys” or bearing chips on their shoulders when interacting with women.

I know a few American men who don’t fall into either category. As I said, I am generalizing, but, as we have all probably heard, stereotypes bear a grain of truth.

And I also have to say that, like a lot of gay men, I have a soft spot (if that could conceivably be the right word) for American jocks—more often than not the chrysalis-stage of slob-hood.

But what happens to these Abercrombie and Fitch Adonises to turn them into leering, inarticulate bums in middle age? I hate to admit it, but, in their youth, George W. Bush and John McCain looked kinda hot—but today they look dull and bloated as bulls lumbering towards the Golden Corral.

The men in Prague and Madrid were, on the whole, men—not guys. They looked like they could handle situations—whether it be defending themselves with their fists or picking the right wine for dinner. Their manner towards women looked suave and considerate—comfortably so, not like they were afraid of getting their heads bitten off if they took a wrong step.

The deer-in-headlights glaze junior-high boys affect on their first dates atrophies into the sluggish, slump-shouldered daze of a good 80% of married American men of a certain age escorting their wives round the shopping mall.

I don’t think it’s the women’s fault—though American mothers should probably be less exasperated by their sons. And, perhaps, less doting on their young sons would help. If anything, I blame America’s larger issues with sexuality. American popular culture, including a preponderance of the mass media, makes acute homosexual panic inevitable for young males—a trauma reconciled by either rejection of manners altogether (as too “sissy”) or sheepishness and abject servility.

The truth is that American parents watch over their sons with dread and dismal expectations.

Thus, for the past 100 years or so, America has failed to permit intimacy in boys—for fear of turning them gay or encouraging effeminacy. In the nineteenth century, young American men, Harvard undergrads and cowboys alike, held hands with their pals, slept in bed with each other, and exchanged affectionate words with their friends and family. Butt slapping on the football field or rough-housing at summer camp is about the full extent of physical camaraderie permitted to boys age 6 through 21 today.

Most American males do not fully grow up—at least not in their social attitudes—frozen in fear lest their every move be interpreted as inappropriately erotic—unsure of their abilities to control their bodies and unacquainted with the graces of mental and spiritual intimacy.

I dare say, few today even experience much romance, even secondhand in tales of chivalry and knightly derring-do—instead, superheroes provide over-the-top standards of masculinity and accomplishment, further emasculating the typical male.

They may grow up to be fussy and nervous, but rarely elegant and self-assured. They may grow up to be opinionated, but often unable to hold their own in a serious conversation, much less a polite argument.

As I said, there are exceptions—George Clooney springs to mind (at least his public persona)—but 9 out of 10 straight American men refuse to dance with, romance, or politely listen to their female friends—probably have never learned how to—and, apart from obsessive working out and insecurity over body odor, few American males know much about grooming, fashion, or (that highly distrusted word) etiquette.

By contrast, American girls are still allowed more romantic friendships and encouraged to learn the arts of intimacy with their girlfriends—though perhaps this situation is changing as the culture slips further into eroto-phobia. I’m of the opinion that the situation won’t change until America adopts more reasonable attitudes about sexuality—more specifically, homosexuality.

Kelly

As of September, the number of people using food-stamps grew to a record number of 31.5 million, up 17% from just last year.¹ Not surprising when you combine the expanding unemployment and foreclosure rates with the Washington crew taught philosophy that when the going gets tough, the government is the answer. After spending upwards of 3, 4, 5, trillion dollars on the bailout of every good ol’ boy on Wall Street, the public trough of food-stamps looks more and more like a dog dish. I say this, because though I am no cheerleader for entitlement programs, it becomes increasingly difficult to pick a bone with food-stamps when you compare the amount of money borrowed, printed, and created out of thin air that is being strewn about to shore up the base of the elite.

As Henry Paulson and Ben Bernake decide which CEO’s can line their pockets with corporate welfare, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid will decide how much to increase the economic stimulus by so that the 1in 10 American families can purchase more soda. It is a disease, from the top to the bottom. And our so-called leaders are determined to keep everyone it their perspective roles.

The problem is that ‘we the people’ have become nothing more than ‘we the taxpayers’ and the bottom line-we, our children, and our grandchildren (those not yet born) are becoming more and more enslaved with each and every dollar spent.

The bailouts need to end, but we have less and less control over that at this point. What we do have control over now and forever is the mindset that we as Americans have adopted, that tells us we are entitled to anything and everything that we want. Understanding that the talk of “loosening credit” so that we can buy more Ford tough trucks and 46 inch wide screen televisions only adds to problem, putting us further and further in debt. It is as if our only job in life is to consume. Mindless consumers, you can bet that is exactly how they see us. And this same consumption of products extends to the food we consume.

Cases of Pepsi products, and bags of Frito Lay products (also under Pepsi) is always in the grocery cart of a food-stamp customer. Priorities? And they call the food-stamp programs anti-hunger. Because there is nothing like a can of Mountain Dew and a bag of Cheetos to satisfy those hunger pains. I speak from experience on this subject, not from assumption. I work in a grocery store and I am shocked every time I see this-$40 on cases of soda, bags of chips, boxes of doughnuts, and the list goes on and on. It would seem to me that if this is what one requires food-stamps for, then the need is not so great. Bread, meat, milk, vegetables, and fruit can all be had at a local food pantry. But, junk food as necessity can only be had through food-stamps.

This illustrates a complete reinforcement of adding debt to debt so that Americans can keep the consumption train on track. Allow me to reiterate- this is a disease, from the top to the bottom. And our so-called leaders are determined to keep everyone it their perspective roles.

Source: ¹http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE4B28CB20081203?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews