The Smoking Argus

We at the Smoking Argus are currently looking for politically astute bloggers to add to “The Smoking Argus” stock of contributors. We care not about someone’s political philosophy or ideology, liberal, conservative, libertarian, etcetera. Our only requirements are that you can articulate your opinion concisely, source your articles if needed, and contribute a minimum of two times per week.

If you are interested, please use the “Contact” form and select “Becoming a Contributor” on the drop down menu.

—###—

The Smoking Argus

Allison Bricker

CNBC
Attention: Dennis Kneale, host
900 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632
(201) 735-2622 Office
(201) 735-3200 Fax

Re: The Blogosphere and the True State of the Economy

Dear Mr. Dennis Kneale:

Recently, you attempted to discredit the entire new-media/blogosphere based on several individual vitriolic blog posts criticizing your Keynesian analysis whereby you stated:

“the Great Recession is over.”

Dennis Kneale
CNBC
June 25th, 2009

In a subsequent display wholly unbecoming of a journalist, regardless of medium, and in lieu of offering further research to buttress your original statement, you opted to stoop to their logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem and referred to your critics as “digital dickweeds”. Additionally, you then further attempted to construct a straw man by directing your ire towards the anonymity offered by the internet, when the crux of the matter is your analysis, not the benefit or detriment of anonymity.

Therefore, should you be open to an actual discussion regarding the causation, length, and the fundamental flaws of your economic philosophy, I would be happy to oblige. Moreover, my name and the legal names of all contributors to “The Smoking Argus Daily” have and shall remain in full view righteously pegged to their individual reports and editorials.

Admittedly, we may share a general dislike of anonymous blog posts; however, our nation has a rich history of pen names and anonymously penned editorials. One only need to think of the founding generation’s use during the time leading up to the ratification of the Constitution, as well as Mark Twain, to understand that anonymity is not solely the tool of those with low moral fortitude.

Respectfully,

Allison Bricker

P.S. If you would like me to fax over a copy of my driver’s license in order to prove the factualness of my name in order to avoid your condescending use of air quotes, just let me know.

Joseph Marohl

France’s conservative president Nicolas Sarkozy¹ has publicly stated that he backs a coalition of French legislators expressing “concerns” over the increase in burqa wearing among Muslim women in France:

“The issue of the burqa is not a religious issue, it is a question of freedom and of women’s dignity.”

“The burqa is not a religious sign, it is a sign of the subjugation, of the submission of women. I want to say solemnly that it will not be welcome on our territory.”

“We cannot accept that some women in our country are prisoners behind a grille, cut off from social life, deprived of their identity.”

Nobody has said anything (yet) about “banning” burqas, though it is worth remembering that, as of 2004, French law prohibits the wearing of overt religious symbols (including crucifixes, headscarves, and yarmulkes) in secular state institutions, including state-operated schools².

President Sarkozy’s words “not welcome,” which grate in American ears, are part of the government’s century-old attempt to define and preserve an idea of French culture in a mobile and diverse society. As such, President Sarkozy’s speech is consistent with the French concept of laïcité and an effort to preserve a level of peace and order in public institutions at a time when religion can be compared to gang membership in the minds of many, many of both secular and religious mindsets.

Laïcité is a uniquely French concept, only somewhat comparable to America’s separation of church and state—which, in case you haven’t noticed, are hardly ever actually separate in this country.

French secularism was a nineteenth-century innovation to separate education, traditionally a Catholic system (all the medieval universities, for instance, were arms of the Church), from the control of the clergy. More strictly, then, than in the United States, France has kept government out of religion and religion out of government—no oaths on the Bible, no “one nation under God,” no crèches at city hall, no politicians crowding the pulpits.

Further, laïcité is as much a concept of French culture as it is of French law. French secularism does not deny the value of faith and spirituality. It does, however, separate it from the public sphere, viewing religion as a distinctly “private” matter, not to be meddled with in public and not to be allowed to meddle in matters of importance to the common collective good of the French people, of whatever creeds or none.

Still, it is hard not to hear President Sarkozy’s words in the context of the conservative European backlash against immigrants, especially Arab immigrants, since 2001 and the rise of the “demographic winter” conspiracy scenarios currently popping up around the continent—diluted in mainstream films like Children of Men and fortified in far right religionist to neo-Nazi propaganda blaming feminists, gays, and abortion clinics for the shrinking numbers of white Christian babies.

His [Sarkozy] stated concern—women’s freedom and dignity—, though, is clearly not anti-feminist or strongly sectarian. The question remains whether the statement truly reflects his and the legislators’ intent—because we Americans may remember how neoconservatives opportunistically embraced feminism (for a few days) to justify wars, not so very long ago.

French laïcité has been criticized as an attempt to homogenize French culture. And in the burqa controversy, President Sarkozy’s stance could backfire, as fundamentalist Muslims might then refuse wives and daughters the liberty to go out in public at all, not to mention draw fire from Islamists for whom there is no such thing as the secular.

Are burqas a sign of religious freedom or an emblem of the subjugation of women? In America, such matters are usually left alone—rightly or wrongly designated as matters of religious choice and therefore protected under the First Amendment. In exceptional cases, such as when parents refuse needed medical care for their child in the belief that medical science denies faith in God’s healing powers, sometimes the state intervenes—but, even then, usually to some controversy.

I, for one, applaud France’s efforts to define a society based on secular values, while protecting religion as a privacy issue. I think America could do more to assert, protect, and enforce a secular culture that still maintains individuals’ right to worship (or not) as they please. Such a culture is essential to a society that values both individual freedom and the common good of its citizens.

Despite well-choreographed propaganda, the word “secular” does not and never really has meant the same thing as “anti-religious.” Some American religious zealots are comfortable persecuting others, while claiming martyrs’ crowns for themselves. For example, in my state (North Carolina), the biggest impediment to the just-passed anti-bullying law was not original-intent Constitutionalists, with their technical legal concerns, but church groups claiming that the inclusion of “real and perceived sexual orientation” as a protected category was an assault on their fundamental values, which hold that some types of children deserve all the bullying they get.

I cannot claim a great deal of sensitivity towards religion these days (I was brought up a fundamentalist Baptist) or much knowledge at all of Muslim practices. But purely from an outsider’s point of view, the burqa does, yes, look to me like the subjugation of women—even though I do realize that many women gladly and voluntarily don these heavy, forbidding coverings … mass self-subjugation is no less an affront on the human spirit than external constraints, lest we forget that many slaves claimed to love their masters, prided themselves in their faithful servitude, and would never have dreamt of trying to escape.

Definitely, I would feel different if in some Middle Eastern countries women who refuse to cover their heads in public had not been beaten and stoned in recent years. Under other circumstances, in a different historical context, I would tolerate the burqa as one more alien and sexist quirk of fashion—of which haute couture has seen plenty just as alien and just as sexist. But women in Paris are not physically attacked for refusing to wear Chanel or Franck Sorbier.

We live in a multicultural world. We have to live and let live. If we do not, we will divide and destroy ourselves.

But tolerance does not mean toleration of the patent degradation of whole groups. If burqas were merely offensive to my scruples or tastes, I would have nothing to say about them here. If burqa wearing was clearly a matter of personal preference and choice, I would have nothing to say against it.  If I could hear a reasonable, liberal, and (yes) secular defense of the burqa, I could still change my mind about it.

But, in my admitted ignorance of the custom, the burqa looks degrading, and degradation of the human spirit is un-democratic. It is also un-French, if not yet (sadly) altogether un-American.

Source(s): ¹Reuters “Sarkozy says burqas have no place in France” by Estelle Shirbo, published Monday, June 22nd, 2009 • ²French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools (English Translation by BabelFish)

Allison Bricker

This past Thursday and Friday, Bob Schulz, Chairman of the “We the People Foundation” held a two-day gathering of pro-liberty activists off the coast of Georgia on Jekyll Island. Students of history, those with an interest in modern money mechanics, and political junkies will recall that Jekyll Island was the birthplace of the banker-crafted legislation, originally entitled the “Aldrich Plan”, which led to the rise of the 3rd Central Bank of the United States, more commonly known as the FEDERAL RESERVE.

One purpose of the meeting sought to retrace the steps of the original 1910 trip, which resulted in the greatest swindle and Constitutional usurpation in our history. In addition to the sheer historical significance, the ad hoc meeting’s main purpose was to try to hammer out the numerous logistical and practical problems plaguing the organization’s upcoming “Continental Congress”.

My initial interview with Mr. Schulz regarding his organization’s plans for a Continental Congress occurred on January 20th of this year. During that interview, Mr. Schulz indicated he had already been forced to reschedule the date of the meeting twice and was now looking towards July as the date in which formal proceedings would commence. The third shift in dates according to Mr. Schulz stemmed from the overall complexity of the event and the fact that his original venue of choice, the National Constitution Center, revoked the contract at the last minute. The National Park Service denies his claim in its entirety.

Fellow readers, it has been a struggle for me since speaking with Mr. Schulz and those in his employ last Tuesday by telephone whether to unleash my blistering criticism upon both an organization and endeavor of whose efforts initially had my support. However, in the end, my loyalty lies with the Constitution, reporting of the facts, a desire to see this Republic restored, and human liberty expanded, not to an organization. Moreover, many of those who attended have my utmost respect both for their own tireless work towards the pursuit of liberty and for the sacrifices for which they have endured up to this point.

Nevertheless and contrary to our January interview, whereby Mr. Schulz impressed upon me the importance of and his dedication to total transparency regarding his organization’s endeavor, the Jekyll Island caucus was closed to all press coverage, video and print, during the actual substantive meetings. Upon inquiring about this complete reversal regarding his previously stated principle, Mr. Schulz put me in contact with the Media Director for the event, Mr. Todd McGreevy. When asked about the reasoning behind the media blackout during the actual meeting, he replied almost instantaneously:

“It’s insider business, that’s why. Mr. Schulz wants it that way”
Todd McGreevy
Media Director

Hardly a satisfactory answer, perhaps he has taken lessons from the current crop of politicians and press secretaries whose modus operandi seems to be to obfuscate and dismiss any question they do not feel obliged to answer, ergo Gibbs, Fleischer & Company.

Therefore, and let me make this plainly clear. It is not my desire to exchange one secretive organization, vis-à-vis the Bilderberg Group who also mandates media blackouts regarding their actual proceedings, for another group, regardless of stated intent.

For this reason, acts in pursuit of liberty are not planned under the darkness and cover of secrecy. Those with pure intent are conducted under the Sunshine of openness and transparency. Please correct me if the facts are to the contrary, but this meeting, nor the upcoming Continental Congress are not tasked with the planning or implementation of declaring war on our current corrupt trough of plutocratic oligarchs. Again, according to the original motivations expressed by Mr. Schulz, the whole point is merely to draft a formal Redress of Grievances, ala “The Olive Branch Petition”. Have we not had enough of the philosophy and justification thereof the misguided sentiment of state-secrets?

Fortunately, as of today, we have had the pleasure of speaking with several individual attendees to the meetings. Some of whom have expressed a desire to remain anonymous in order to retain the ability to report the facts of future committee proceedings should Mr. Schulz choose not to rescind the media blackout.

As such, we can report that for the fourth time in less than a year, the call to order of the Continental Congress has been pushed back until November 2009. The meeting is now scheduled to begin on November 9th and adjourn two days prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. This provides organizers just under twenty-four weeks to move plans out of committee regarding finalizing a location at the head of the holiday season, conducting and ratifying delegate nominations from fifty separate states, conducting fundraising for delegate offset expense packages, reserving and negotiating lodging accommodations, etcetera.

As it relates to the offset expense packages, our sources confirmed the existence of a pay package for delegates to offset the estimated $7,000.00 in expenses incurred per delegate. Thereby bringing the estimated price tag for each state delegation to $30,000 resulting in a grand total of $1.5 Million Dollars in delegate offset packages alone. Our sources inside also indicated that the expense offset package proposal came as a hedge against electing delegates that either were all independently wealthy or unemployed “deadbeats”. As such, with the hefty price tag coupled with the relatively short time span, the group needs to raise at a minimum $62,500 Dollars per week. Perhaps wagering as to when the fifth delay in the call to order will be announced would be the safer bet at this point.

Likewise, if the hope was to see a cross-section of average Americans; what percentage of potential delegates have the ability to up and leave their place of employment or turn over their small business for a period of at least three weeks in this ever-weakening economy regardless of an offset of expenses directly related to the trip? The idea of assembling in person seems rather cost prohibitive with such a small planning window. Let alone the added logistics of determining whom, how and where the money will be deposited prior to disbursement to delegates.

Nonetheless, it is this blogger’s opinion that there is perhaps more to be gleaned by those who either turned down due to scheduling conflicts or were wholly omitted from receiving an invitation, than merely reporting on the efforts of those in attendance.

It is a sign of continual disorganization or at worst utter disregard, to have scheduled the Jekyll Island event capitalizing upon the renewed and growing interest in the FEDERAL RESERVE, i.e. H.R. 1207 and monetary policy in direct conflict with the widely publicized Campaign for Liberty Seattle conference. As a result, excluding the Champion of the Constitution and perhaps the greatest voice of the last thirty years regarding the outright failings of central banking practices and a wholly fiat currency, Dr. Ron Paul.

Additionally, the remaining list of those unable to attend due to such short-notice reads like a who’s who of the liberty movement and includes:

• Lew Rockwell – Chairman Ludwig von Mises Institute
• Thomas E. Woods Jr. – Author, Historical Scholar
• Peter Schiff – President Euro Pacific Capital, economic commentator
• Andrew Napolitano – former Judge, Author, Judicial Commentator
• Dr. Edwin Vieira – Constitutional Attorney, Author

Likewise, those completely left off the invitation only event include:

• Russell Means – Activist, Actor, Author, Humanitarian
• Gerald Celente – Trends Researcher, Director of Trends Research Institute
• Naomi Wolf -  Activist, Author of “The End of America” and “Give Me Liberty”
• Kevin Jackson – Talk Radio Host, author

Consequently, according to Catherine Bleisch whom attended, the group has broken off into several committees and plans to reach out to the “left”. One then has to wonder how successful this endeavor will be if the “Welcome Wagon” exists overwhelmingly of older white gentlemen?

Please do not misconstrue my intentions as no one is calling for an “affirmative-action” delegate selection program, however one needs not be a genius to understand the dynamics of modern day America. We are a diverse nation and as illustrated above by those wholly omitted from invitation, it seems the group is content to leave appearances as pancake battered as possible.

Case in point, the 2nd Continental Congress convened in May of 1775 and the “Committee of Five” was formed to begin drafting the formal Declaration of Independence. The committee knew one of the largest obstacles they faced in winning a wide swath of both domestic and international support for independence was one of appearances. The committee was acutely aware that the cause was doomed to fail if the document they drafted played into the Loyalist claim whatsoever of being nothing more than a group of disaffected wealthy colonists with an axe to grind against the king personally.

Therefore, Mr. Jefferson purposefully and carefully created the Declaration based solely on the actions, or long train of abuses, implemented by the king and British Parliament. Thereby steering clear of attacks on the king’s personality or character traits. This fact leads many historians to agree that this deliberate construction of the document succeeded in not only unifying large numbers of previously ambivalent colonists, but also helped rally French sentiment towards the cause for independence.

Similarly, the liberty movement must acknowledge and accept that regardless of the actual facts, the perception of our movement is white and male. Therefore, it behooves those attempting to rally as much of the American public as possible to the honorable cause of individual liberty and the Constitution, to guard against accusations of a being nothing more than a “good-ole boys club”.

On the whole, it is my feeling that the liberty movement is at a critical juncture of breaking through the false left/right paradigm, the abuses endured, and the unlawful loss of liberties at the hands of the corrupt central authority. For this reason, if an endeavor as momentous as the Continental Congress is to succeed, it must be planned more carefully and deliberately. The haphazard organization by the “We the People Foundation” coupled with unrealistic fundraising timetables does not leave one with a feeling of confidence. Even more so since Mr. Schulz’s organization has seen fit to claim the title of self-appointed “leader” of the liberty movement.

Allison Bricker

As someone who did not vote for President Obama, (my vote went to Thomas Jefferson as a write-in) never did my imagination fathom that he would move so quickly in continuing the unConstitutional “Bushian” expansion of the Executive Branch. Case in point, President Obama gave a speech this past Thursday filled with enough doublespeak as it relates to the rule of law and torture to make Mr. O’Brien proud.

Thus proving yet again, holding a degree in Constitutional Law does not necessarily equate to a love or respect for the Constitution. Unfortunately, it seems at least in this case, only to serve as a road map to its circumvention. However, the fact that Ms. Maddow of “The Rachel Maddow Show” rakes him over the coals for such intellectual dishonesty provides further substantiation that the false left/right paradigm’s facade continues to crumble as more and more Americans are awakening. It is becoming plain that regardless of party label/mascot,  a politician’s sole motivation is the retention and expansion of power unto themselves via the bloated state apparatus.

Long Live the Republic, as the answer to 1984 is still 1776.

Joseph Marohl

I’m getting a new look at The Wizard of Oz. Right now, a fair-sized section of “hope you can believe in” has been pulled back to reveal the old quack Professor Marvel, who was hidden there all along—torture, surveillance, high finance, and (despite a recent epistolary assurance to the contrary) the same old same old in health care reform. (I don’t make predictions, but my guess is a good chunk of “reform” change will wind up in the pockets of insurance companies and big pharma—mind you, just a guess.)

I wouldn’t go so far as to deny that Obama has brought some Technicolor rays to our black-and-white world.

Sure, as far as same-sex marriage is concerned, we see some encouraging changes—on the state level (not federal)—from which, shamefully, in my opinion, the new wizard is holding himself just as aloof as the old wizard, under whose watch these state legislative and judicial reforms emerged. And, to be fair, the religious right no longer feel quite as empowered as they did a year ago in resisting these changes, despite a monstrous, shocking victory in California six months ago.

(It is good news indeed that my gay sisters and brothers who want to get married are increasingly enabled to do so—though, I should add, I personally have no desire to get married, and legal and economic inequities towards single people—gay or straight—remain unopposed.)

And while not having quite gotten around to dumping “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”—and even continuing to enforce it (ask Lt. Dan Choi!)—Obama still promises further inroads on gay rights … “some time.”

And, sure, the Guantanamo prison-slash-interrogation center is scheduled for closure in just eight months. Fantastic news for those of us with a feeling for human rights fresher than the year 1215! But, at present, closure of the infamous (and barely legal) detention center has no funding.

On the other hand, we have seen a proposed 15% cap on credit card interests defeated this week 60-33 in the Senate—denying indebted consumers the type of safety nets Washington is shitting itself to give to failing banks and other lending institutions. Twenty-one (21!) of the nay votes were Democrats; five more Democrats did not vote at all.

Not to suggest that, for one minute, I placed much confidence in the Democratic Party to stand up for the people against big capital … much less to Republican bullies and loudmouths.

Now, just like Bush, Obama is trying to block disclosure of photographs of Americans’ torture of detainees, on the understandable grounds that they may “inflame anti-American sentiment” (but only just as understandable now as when the Bush White House made the same argument). Meanwhile, the nation engaged this week in the “single deadliest US airstrike” on Afghanistan since 2001—one of a series of attacks designed ostensibly to weaken al-Qaeda while politically proving Obama’s commander-in-chief cojones. So 100 civilian lives have no anti-American propaganda potential?

Also out from behind the curtain is Obama’s indifference to US and international conventions in choosing not to go after the high-level members of the previous administration who blighted America’s global reputation and moral integrity by promoting and condoning inhuman and ineffective techniques of torture (including Cheney and Bush—as well as culpable Democrats).

The media, meanwhile, have responded to these revelations with little heart, brains, or courage … with the continues-to-amaze exception of stand-up comics!

Obama—God help me, I still like him (and do not in fact believe in God)—needs to put some ruby slippers on his rhetoric. And fast!

I admire the man’s style, manners, and his political savvy. But only what he says appeases the left; what he does appeases the right. In trying to show he’s no “socialist,” he panders to war-mongering, corporate capitalist interests. He panders with a great deal of dignity and wit, I have to admit, but it’s time for him to make direct and deliberate domestic and international policy changes of substance.

I can’t help but worry that Obama is squandering the window of opportunity he has had since February. The good news is that, for now, the far right and religious right are in shambles—but they are regrouping … fast … and with a vengeance.

My worst fear (hopefully groundless) is that their present whining over socialism, terrorist threats, higher taxes (after a tax cut, no less), teleprompters, and Dijon mustard will turn the tide entirely back to the dark ages many of us were hoping to escape.

The wicked witch could still use a good bucket of water—and the flying monkeys need a good talking to. Americans are ready for change, equality, liberation, hope, whatever you want to call it. But it (none of it) will come by following the same road we’ve been on for decades now already.

Joseph Marohl

The Greek myth of King Midas concerns a man whose wish to turn everything he touches to gold is granted by the gods. At first, everything is OK. He has a palace made of gold now, gold dinnerware, formerly marble statuary, now all pure and precious gold. Then things go wrong. Gold potato chips—uh-uh. Solid gold socks—no good in cold weather. Gold kitty cat—oops. Finally, he turns his daughter to gold.

So.

A couple of weeks ago I bawled my eyes out watching frumpy Susan Boyle sing “I Dreamed a Dream” and the jaded audience forced to swallow their sneers and condescension. It was a glorious television moment—an example of the way TV can take an ordinary person, give her an extraordinary opportunity, and, with the aid of some backstage cheerleading and artful crosscutting between audience and singer, create a gem-like encomium to working-class women and men.

Further, YouTube made this little moment available for all the world to see, even those of us who don’t get Britain’s Got Talent on TV. Long live YouTube.

But, of course, this wasn’t the end of the story. Boyle popped up on American TV via CBS’s Early Show the next week—along with Access Hollywood, etc., etc., etc.

Then she got a makeover—unruly eyebrows be gone, enter hair dye and more fashionable clothes. OK, fine, the girl deserves a makeover, if that’s what she wants.

Then, of course, there had to be commentary on the same—Before the makeover, NPR’s Talk of the Nation debated whether she ought to have one.

Of course, the debates have proliferated since then: Had she had the makeover before her TV appearance, would she have hit the same emotional chords with viewers? What are the various imperfections of her lovely voice? Had she really, truly never been kissed? Did a 12-year-old Welsh boy blow her out of the water with his rendition of “Who’s Loving You?” Was she really all that nice and cheerful anyway? Everything but (though it’s on its way, I’m telling you) Just who the hell does this bitch think she is?

Last week, on NPR, again, somebody expressed how absolutely shocked he was that nobody, nobody, was making any money off the Boyle phenomenon—not the makers of Britain’s Got Talent, not YouTube, not even (unsurprisingly last on the list) Susan Boyle! It was almost as if to say: If all my tears are not making somebody rich, what was the fucking point?

All this supports my contention that mass media’s Midas touch is also its Achilles’ heel.

Television can show us the Rodney King beating, the collapse of the Twin Towers, and stranded New Orleans citizens on their rooftops in the middle of a flood—and charge our emotions with poignant moments we may never have visualized on our own.

Yet television also has the tendency to run anything it touches into the ground. The bright new face we cheered for a year ago becomes, through a process of tireless reiteration, the jerk you can’t get rid of, no matter which channel you turn to.

The repetition of emotionally charged images has two effects, usually in tandem: exaltation of feelings as ends to themselves and desensitization leading to devaluation.

I’ve long argued that the sex and violence people complain of on television does not hold a candle to the sex and violence of Sophocles’ Oedipus the King. What differs, obviously, is television’s mechanical reduplication and near incessant replay of that sex and violence. I dare say that, in just eighteen years, more people have seen Rodney King get the shit beat out of him than ever contemplated, in over 2,400 years, Oedipus gouging his eyeballs out with his mother’s brooch.

In Greek society, Oedipus’ blinding was performed offstage, but described in chilling grisly detail by a messenger. And how many times did Athenians witness this appalling carnage? Probably only once … in a lifetime.

But, thanks to television and the Internet, nothing has to be “once in a lifetime” again. No tender, inspirational moment escapes their gaze or, in a matter of 200 or so replays, their transformation of it from gold back to dross. “Nothing gold can stay”? Think again, Robert Frost. It can stay and stay and stay, until you’re sick the hell of it.

In all this, I mean no criticism of Boyle, or of her sincerity, talent, or appearance. I hope she records an album and (at last!) makes some money off all her recent attention. It’s only a matter of time, though, before the publicity cloys.

We live in a consumerist culture, so chewing things up and spitting them out has become second nature to many of even the best of us.

I kind of hope Boyle takes a lesson from Jessica Lynch six years ago (remember her?) and the grieving student body of Virginia Tech two years ago (remember them?), who—in different ways, of course—firmly yet politely asked that the spotlight be turned away from them, so that they could go on with their lives.

Joseph Marohl

Tax day (April 15th) is over, and we have been once again reminded that we Americans pay taxes, that we would rather not have to pay taxes, and that we would rather keep our own to look after our own—assuming our own is enough to do so.

I wish there were some way to have government services without paying government taxes—but my guess is that privateers in charge of police work and the monitoring of food and drug safety would be (though perhaps more efficient than the government) more expensive—and perhaps more susceptible to bribes and serving the interests of the wealthy over the common good. I say “more susceptible” because, obviously, there is some corruption already among law enforcement officers and government inspectors, though invariably bribes come from somewhere, usually from (surprise!) the private sector.

And the government has not usually been a good steward of our tax dollars or our trust. Unlike those who blame “special interests” such as welfare moms, tree-hugging environmentalists, and warm and fuzzy-thinking liberals everywhere, I tend to blame special interests like the corporate world, Wall Street, and, most especially, the war profiteers.

To be sure, World War II, the good war against fascism and genocide, made America the rich and powerful nation that it was for the remainder of the twentieth century. But unlike the present wars, started by Bush and his Republican and Democratic supporters, the Second World War was a war of cooperation between the people and the government. For instance, during the war 85 million Americans bought $185.7 billion in war bonds. Women and men unable to serve in uniform relocated to parts of the country they had never seen before in order to do office and factory work vacated by enlistees—my mother was one such person—and my father (of German heritage, who didn’t even speak English until the first grade) was quick to enlist in the U.S. Army. (Don’t even start the “real Americans” bullshit around me.)

(On the other hand, some American firms, even those active in building the “Arsenal of Democracy,” such as Ford Motors, General Motors, and Chase Manhattan Bank, had worked with the Nazis before the war and maintained operations in Germany even during the war.)

When the war ended, President Truman’s late 1946 executive order transferred the Manhattan Project’s research and facilities to private ownership—all to maintain the principle (I would say “fetish”) of free enterprise in the United States—while the U.S. federal government has continued sponsoring research in the private sectors ever since, and then buying back products for use in the military and other government sectors, often paying many times what such products would usually garner in the free market alone.

Nuclear energy has spawned growth in virtually every area of technology and science in the six decades since Truman. The profits of this one technology alone—had the American taxpayers been allowed to hold on to its patent, after huge wartime sacrifices by the people to fund this research—could perhaps reduce if not entirely erase the need for income taxes today.

Apart from the apocalyptic discoveries of the Manhattan Project, research in NASA, the U.S. military, and state university systems has contributed much to the prosperity of the nation. Costs of research failures have been swallowed by the government—and its taxpayers (“pork”). The successes, however, have been divvied out to private corporations—who, on top of receiving the fruits of research paid for by the taxpayers, pay a substantially lower tax rate than ordinary citizens, sometimes reduced to zero through tax loopholes and charitable deductions and the like.

In 1958, the federal creation of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) created, through the Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO), the computer networking design that became, after it was commercialized in 1988, the World-Wide Web or the Internet. Only recently Time-Warner Cable planned to charge Internet users based on the amount of use—American Internet users, the ones who paid for the goddamned thing’s invention. Due to public and political outcry, Time-Warner backed down just this week.

NASA has financed the creation of new metal and glass alloys and spawned such spin-off merchandise as scratch-resistant lenses, wireless communications, freeze-dried foods, athletic shoes, virtual reality, microcomputers, laser technology, sports bras, hang gliders, quartz crystal timing, solar energy, digital imaging, the electric car, and a wide array of other useful and high-profit items.

Imagine if the American people, who financed this research through their taxes, also received at least some of the benefits of the worldwide marketing of the products stemming from this government-funded research.

Entertainment and organized crime have been the most profitable aspects of the free market not to be propped up with taxpayers’ money. And if I decided to be extra-cynical, I could add that one could make a pretty good argument that the obscenely profitable drug trade owes a debt to us taxpayers as well, through CIA operations in South America, the Vietnam war, and, most recently, Afghanistan, regaining its lead as the top producer of heroin just one year after the U.S. military deposed the Taliban.

So it seems to me that nationalization of industries directly indebted to government research and tax funding in the first place could be one way, along with more prudent budgeting by government leaders and more oversight by aware citizens, to reduce and perhaps even eliminate income taxes altogether.

Un-American. I know.

Kelly

Whose fault is it when a man shoots another man? Or in the case of Richard Poplawski, whose fault is it that he shot and killed three Pittsburgh police officers? Do we blame the actions of Richard Poplawski for the deaths of these officers, or are we going to put the right-wing propaganda machine and so-called conspiracy theories on trial?  Because, by the tone and accusations thrown about by the liberal blogosphere, it seems that the latter is more-so the case.

In article after article, Richard Paplawski is labeled  as a conspiracy nut, an avid Fox News absorber, and a tin foil hat wearing, Alex Jones following young man who apparently let the crazy out of the bag.  And according to David Neiwert at Crooks and Liars, the media ought to be embarrassed for the important role they play in “whipping up the far-right crazies out there.”  Neiwert goes on to say that,

Because not only did Richard Poplawski avidly participate in white-supremacist online forums and right-wing conspiracy-theory sites, he also avidly consumed mainstream conservative media, particularly Fox.

I am reading this correctly?  To paraphrase, not only did Poplawski engage in white-supremacist online forums, because that is bad enough, but to top in off, Poplawski couldn’t get enough of conservative media, mainly the Fox News machine.  Now, I’m not interested in the least bit to defend any white-supremacist group or forum.  I do not support their whacked out ideas or their very blatant racism, however I do support their inherent right to the freedom of speech.  I am not aware of any online forum that coerces people to join, which leads me to understand that Poplawski likely sought out the forum based on his own beliefs.  Fox News, on the other hand, no one can escape them, right?

Laughable, nonetheless, and yet Media Matters has attempted to seriously postulate to its readers that Alex Jones’ appearance on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s Freedom Watch is just the sort of hyperbolic act that people like Poplawski will use as a launch pad for violence and death.  Eric Boehlert writes,

Jones also noted with excitement that Fox News’ Glenn Beck had recently begun warning about the looming New World Order on his show, just like Jones had for years. “It is great!” cheered the conspiracist. (Like Jones, Beck recently warned viewers that “the Second Amendment is under fire.”) Concluding the interview, Fox News’ Napolitano announced “it’s absolutely been a pleasure” listening to Jones’ insights.

We don’t know if Poplawski tuned in to watch Jones’ star turn for Fox News last month. But is there any doubt that Fox News is playing an increasingly erratic and dangerous game by embracing the type of paranoid insurrection rhetoric that people like Poplawski are now acting on? By stoking dark fears about the ominous ruins that await an Obama America, by ratcheting up irresponsible back-to-the-wall scenarios, Fox News has waded into a territory that no other news organization has ever dared to exploit.

Well, yes, I would say there is plenty of doubt that “people like Poplawski” are becoming cop-killers as a result of too much Fox News programming, Alex Jones or not.  And interestingly, that type of accusation is much akin the “Marilyn Manson caused Columbine” ridiculousness that typically comes out of the mouths of the right wing nuts to begin with.

But, most important is what is truly at stake here.  And what’s very telling is that since the right wing lost its mojo when George W exited the stage, they have found a way to leech on to the momentum of the liberty movement, while distorting it the way only the spin masters of Fox can do.  And while the lefties want to feel secure in their Obama win, they do not, and as they too feel threatened by liberty and tea parties, they have in turn exploited themselves and their enemies at Fox.

Rest assured, and to use the term so well coined by Alex Jones, the “left/right paradigm” is not only unraveling, but exposing itself more now than ever.

Joseph Marohl

Limited as my skills in small talk are, one of the hardest challenges people routinely face me with is one most people find easy: “How was your day?” “What’s going on in your life now?” “Tell me about what you’ve been up to.”

The problem is that, as a college instructor, I lead an eventful but fairly repetitive life. For me, the news is papers to grade, committee meetings to attend, and lectures to prepare. Then repeat.

And a community college faculty’s salary, after rent, utilities, debts, and groceries, leaves little left over for those wild nights on the Sunset Strip I sometimes like to imagine for myself.

My life is boring.

The year before he died, Nobel-prize-winning poet Joseph Brodsky published his essay “In Praise of Boredom,” to which Andrew Sullivan’s blog recently drew my attention.

In this essay, composed as a commencement address, Brodsky recommends,

“When hit by boredom, let yourself be crushed by it; submerge, hit bottom. In general, with things unpleasant, the rule is: The sooner you hit bottom, the faster you surface.”

My first thought is, Is this generalization true? It seems to be so to me, based, unscientifically, on my own life, which contains not only lulls but a wide range of other “things unpleasant.”

My second thought is, from the vantage of our present crises, Wouldn’t it be better, then, just to let the economy, the system, the government, the environment, the whole infrastructure of the nation and the world simply to fail? Won’t the rebound be a lot quicker if we simply give up on padding the fall?

Even if bottoming out is good for the individual soul, a further question is whether the same will work for societies. About this I have some doubts, but, on the whole, most aspects of the economy, system, government, etc., strike me as hopelessly corrupt, and perhaps (perhaps!) starting from scratch could not be much worse than what we have.

The macrocosms of the natural world and the long stretch of human history seem at least as resilient as the microcosm of the individual soul. Of course, when governments and environments bottom out, the situation is generally known as a cataclysm—and the benefits of cataclysm, evolutionarily sound though they are, might be a difficult sell right now.

But back to boredom, relatively benign in the face of cataclysm.

Brodsky continues: “The idea here is to exact a full look at the worst. The reason boredom deserves such scrutiny is that it represents pure, undiluted time in all its repetitive, redundant, monotonous splendor.”

Now this is the pessimistic embrace of the worst I admire in Russian writers. Despite a persistent but usually negligible sentimental streak, I am the Anti-Pollyanna. With Bertrand Russell, I say, “The secret to a happy life is to face the fact that the world is horrible.” On the whole my mindset has made me more contented than my hopeful, positive-thinking, and can-do acquaintances.

But what Brodsky touches on here is the spiritual quality of boredom—the zen of the doldrums—the perception of the vastness of time as a pure concept—the existential insight that there are just too many diems to carpe.

He goes on to say, “Boredom is your window on the properties of time that one tends to ignore to the likely peril of one’s mental equilibrium. It is your window on time’s infinity. Once this window opens, don’t try to shut it; on the contrary, throw it wide open. For boredom speaks the language of time, and it teaches you the most valuable lesson of your life: the lesson of your utter insignificance.”

My utter insignificance. Here we are along with the Latin satirist Juvenal—and his Enlightenment admirers who meditated on the “vanity of human wishes”—long before Dr. Norman Vincent Peale added Enthusiasm to the trinity of virtues: Faith, Hope, and Love.

The idea that, in the huge scheme of things, my individual actions are futile and, with apologies to It’s a Wonderful Life, my existence of no importance whatsoever, and that, as a system of personal faith, cause-and-effect is fallible, if not outright fallacious, is invigorating and weirdly reassuring.

Perhaps, after all, we do children a disservice by constantly assuring them of their special-ness, affirming their self-confidence, stoking their ambitions, and enumerating their entitlements. Given a couple of decades of such hype administered through mass entertainments, assertiveness training, doting adults, glimmering (though touched-up) role models, and catchy jingles, no wonder that, as we mature, even after we shed ourselves of belief in the tooth fairy, Santa, and perhaps even God, it’s such a stunning shock to us to face our own mediocrity.

The hard truth is that nothing new stays new—and taking nothing away from the pleasures of newness, it is unreasonable to expect the new car smell or whatever to last long, much less permeate every moment of our lives. How wonderful, then, that life offers us boredom as a corrective to our unreasonably high expectations.

Again, I find myself musing on my dog, Tom Ripley, as my guru and mentor. How many hours of the day does he stay cooped up in my one-bedroom apartment, doing nothing, occasionally sniffing the dusty corners of rooms, rubbing his back against the furniture, and cuddling up next to my leg to look out the window at the March winds blowing through tree limbs? Yet a more generally cheerful creature I have never met.

He doesn’t buy a new outfit every week. He doesn’t watch TV, much less complain about there being nothing on. He has no career path whatsoever, no vacation plans, no ambitions beyond his daily kibble and hopes of frequent contacts with other sentient beings, canine or other. Clocks and calendars mean nothing to him. The Sunset Strip means nothing to him.

Nature blesses animals with no need for boredom. We civilized humans, however, need boredom as a sort of reality check—a purgative to our inflated sense of self.

Life is precious, though often routine, seldom dramatic (even more seldom dramatic “in a good way”), hardly ever epic or even truly tragic (in the strict classical sense).

Life is more typically light comedy—but mostly, unsurprisingly, it’s just slice-of-life.

Let’s face it: there’s probably a good reason more sentences end in periods and question marks than in exclamation points.

“As music to your ears, this, of course, may not count,” Brodsky states; “yet the sense of futility, of the limited significance of even your best, most ardent actions, is better than the illusion of their consequences and the attendant self-aggrandizement.”

What’s new? Not much. Nice, isn’t it?