Corruption: The Explosive Earth's Perpetual Blasting Cap

A New, Larger Picture of Corruption

MeanMesa has taken aim on specific corruption issues in the past -- plenty of times.  Some have been national and international "nasties," and some have been the bumbling, amateurish catastrophes exposed here in New Mexico.  However, this post, in a way consistent with MeanMesa's questionable humility of scale, is about corruption -- corruption in all forms with all manner of various perpetrators, different histories, different locations and even different mechanisms.

When anyone is still stinging from an encounter with corruption, it is effortlessly easy to lunge directly at that "injustice" or "outrage" -- the engine driving such an emotional response is churning just below the ribs.  This is the immediate perception of unfairness.  We have all been there.

However, each day we may "hear the news about" some distant corruption.  We may agree that the matter reported was, indeed, the result of corruption -- we may even feel an equally distant empathy for the loser, the injured, the denied or whatever other victim.  Doing this, we acknowledge that we, ourselves, would be hard pressed to simply accept what had been imposed on others.

This introduces the point of this post.  When we gaze at the activities of humans on the whole planet, we see that corruption, in a thousand forms, is the incendiary "touch" which transforms otherwise, more or less, passive situations into bloody, hate filled, vengeful episodes of "correction" or destruction.  Regardless of the specific details which "paint the picture," the inevitable resentment and fear springing forth almost immediately become agonizingly durable.

Aggregated -- when considered very, very frankly -- into what appear as a "news worthy" events, the consequences of corruption's impact on the human "record" will continue on even long after the last barricade fire is quenched or the final shells are fired.  Decades or generations after the grass has finally covered all the graves, the bitter, incendiary spark will continue to lurk, patiently waiting to intervene in the affairs of men -- again.

It might be tempting to simply sigh, delegating the matter to a hackneyed slide into irrelevance, dolefully remarking "it's just human nature" in hopes of restoring one's artificial peace of mind as quickly as possible.  Well, it is human nature -- both with respect to those perpetrating corruption and those responding to its pain.

This didn't just show up suddenly when the sun set yesterday evening.  Let's have a look at some of the recent mischief corruption has injected into our world, and, even more importantly, let's dare to think of a means to end it.  Everywhere.  For good.

Amazingly, while we -- as a species of homo sapiens -- haven't spent much time pondering such solutions,  MeanMesa's stoicism isn't great enough to resign ourselves and passively accept our condition as a continuing, miserable, unchangeable inevitability.

A Couple of Quick Definitions

We should pause to define a couple of useful items and a couple of useful processes.  First, we can turn to WIKI for an over view. [Visit the entire WIKI article here. ]

Corruption

In philosophical, theological, or moral discussions, corruption is spiritual or moral impurity or deviation from an ideal. Corruption may include many activities including bribery and embezzlement. Government, or 'political', corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain.

The word corrupt when used as an adjective literally means "utterly broken." The word was first used by Aristotle and later by Cicero who added the terms bribe and abandonment of good habits. According to Morris, corruption is described as the illegitimate use of public power to benefit a private interest.

WIKI continues with a description of what are termed "scales of corruption."

Scales of corruption

Corruption can occur on different scales. There is corruption that occurs as small favours between a small number of people (petty corruption), corruption that affects the government on a large scale (grand corruption), and corruption that is so prevalent that it is part of the every day structure of society, including corruption as one of the symptoms of organized crime (systemic corruption).

Petty corruption occurs at a smaller scale and within established social frameworks and governing norms. Examples include the exchange of small improper gifts or use of personal connections to obtain favors. This form of corruption is particularly common in developing countries and where public servants are significantly underpaid.

Grand corruption is defined as corruption occurring at the highest levels of government in a way that requires significant subversion of the political, legal and economic systems. Such corruption is commonly found in countries with authoritarian or dictatorial governments but also in those without adequate policing of corruption.

The government system in many countries is divided into the legislative, executive and judiciary branches in an attempt to provide independent services that are less prone to corruption due to their independence.

Systemic corruption (or endemic corruption) is corruption which is primarily due to the weaknesses of an organization or process. It can be contrasted with individual officials or agents who act corruptly within the system.

Factors which encourage systemic corruption include conflicting incentives, discretionary powers; monopolistic powers; lack of transparency; low pay; and a culture of impunity. Specific acts of corruption include "bribery, extortion, and embezzlement" in a system where "corruption becomes the rule rather than the exception." Scholars distinguish between centralized and decentralized systemic corruption, depending on which level of state or government corruption takes place; in countries such as the Post-Soviet states both types occur.

For ease in this discussion MeanMesa will also propose two additional new terms.  First, the word "corrupt," itself, is typically an adjective -- a corrupt politician, a corrupt government, a corrupt judge, corrupt practices, and so on. So, rather than repeatedly drag a specifying noun into the discussion, let's just settle on the newly invented term: "corrupter."  With that convenience in hand, it won't really matter much what the precise role or action the "corrupting" influence might have occupied or taken.

Second, in just the same vein we have all manner of a similar variety of victims which correspond to specific types of corruption.  So, rather than constantly needing to articulate all these variations, let's settle on the second newly invented term: "corruptee."  A "corruptee" is anyone who would, in a more normal situation have done fairly well, but in a "corrupt" situation has suffered because of the corruption.

More likely an innocently looking closed door

Finally, it will clearly be important to establish a few guidelines about just what is and what isn't "corruption."  In this case MeanMesa will retreat to the conveniently undefined, hence, tried and true proposition that there really is a possible, "primitive platform" of, for lack of a better term, "values" which calibrate the state of "non-corruption" in a workable way.

When there is "corruption," these "reasonable expectations" are not fulfilled, but worse, these "reasonable expectations" become an existential null set -- without hope of realization.  Ever -- at least so long as the conditions sustained by the corruption continue.

When there is no "corruption," these "reasonable expectations" are "roughly, occasionally, more or less, or -- even in a grumpy, grumbling manner, at least sort of" satisfied.  We can immediately careen into all sorts of imponderables about the common sense "legitimacy" of those "reasonable expectations," and even a pretty unsettling debate about even the meaning of "reasonable."

Happily, for this post at least, we'll walk right by all those complications.  We can quite logically take this step, although it might require a little "loosening" of some of these awkward definitions, by simply looking at what the "corruptees" are doing.  

After all, the precise explanation of calling these folks by that bizarre name relies on the fact that these same folks, with these "reasonable expectations" of theirs, have become "so pissed off" with what they've been getting and how they've been treated that they "stand out" in a way which identifies them amid the folks who are relatively satisfied with what they've gotten and how they've been treated.

Recent Events Seen Through the Lens of Corruption

From the comfort of American living rooms there is the constant temptation to attribute distant violence to such over worn causes as "seeking freedom," "fighting for religious equality" or "resisting some repressive ideology."  All these comforting conclusions might be "roughly" accurate ways to appraise the causes of violence and unrest, but in just about every case, the "tip of the spear" is revealed as the perception of injustices suffered by the "corruptees" enduring the vicissitudes of the particular situation.

Once the blood begins to flow, these other considerations are rapidly lost in the smoke of the strife torn streets. Yet, on American televisions these same simple catch phrases become a delightfully simplifying narcotic which, once introduced, offers a three word, easy to digest and repeat, "complete statement of absolutely everything possibly involved."  Rather than the messy job of "trying to relate" to a father who hasn't seen his children with a full stomach "since the regime took over," [or whatever form the corruptors might take...] these distant, removed observers are obliged to understand only that very handy snippet of the carefully groomed catch phrase.

With this in hand, every one of these now "well informed Americans" is fully equipped to appear at the famous American water fountain to engage a very thoughtful, insightful, up to the minute debate with his office worker peers -- who are also equipped with that convenient catch phrase. Almost none of them has ever spent more than thirty minutes helplessly watching his child's hunger, let alone a month or a year or a lifetime.

Such explanations might emerge in a "news interview" about the "cause" of the strife in those comfortably distant streets, but the specific motivations which transformed "quietly grumbling at home" into an incendiary "this ends here" are the scars of what corruption has inflicted on the flesh -- not insults to ideas. Almost immediately new injustices are typically introduced to quell or suppress this reaction to the old ones.

Once the complicating specifics of modern world conflicts are set aside in search of the role played by the, more or less, "pure corruption" element in each one, the violent pattern emerges.

Iraq, Ukraine, China, India, US, Pakistan, Greece, Afghanistan, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Thailand, Turkey, Brazil  -- violence initiated by corruption in these countries and more have appeared recently on US domestic media.  The entire planet seems to be infected with this problem -- it can be viewed in the same light as a plague or epidemic.

A Collection of Fascinating Graphics

MeanMesa has "discovered" an international research organization which calibrates and compares corruption in countries across the globe.  A few of these are presented here. [Note: MeanMesa didn't actually "discover" all this information.  Just a minimum effort researching the topic on GOOGLE delivered these great results.]

The charts (above) were retrieved from various sources, but all of them and more are derived from Transparency International research work.  Importantly, the charts and data present the perception of corruption.

While grinding out the details of the evidence that corruption violates established law, those who suffer see the possibility of relief. Rather than judicial evidence, it is usually the far "lower bar" of casual perception which serves to incite the destructive violence.  Naturally, folks bruised by corruption are interested in verdicts and the like, but the spark which puts these same people on the streets is the perception.

While there remains the prospect of a verdict, the perception remains more or less passive.  When there is no -- or even little -- prospect of a remedy by verdict in the future, we see abundantly less reluctance.

[You can link to the home page of Transparency International - http://www.transparency-usa.org/.  The group's "archive" page links at - http://archive.transparency.org/.  MeanMesa suggests visitors here take a moment to review what the organization is providing.  Anyone wishing to donate a few dollars can do that here - http://www.transparency-usa.org/involved/donate.html ]

A Few "Fleeting" Suggestions for a Solution

Because of the incredible trouble this corruption is inciting all around the planet, it would be positively delightful if, at this point, MeanMesa just "popped up" with a brilliant solution.  Sorry.

However, as "Earth citizens" we can begin to consider just what might be required to permanently decrease this scourge.  Even if we never get anywhere, we'll all possibly feel just a little better about it.

To start we'll need to "generalize" our criteria for deciding what's corruption and what's not.  We realize that the variety of social cultures accommodate the practice in different ways.  Further, the expectation which defines "not corruption" may be equally disparate in its forms.  Tangible elements such as "social contracts" certainly matter, but the specifics which express those contracts and their conditions are the "details" where the "devil" is.

There are plenty of instances where most folks would be quite comfortable with sentences containing "everyone knows" something or other is "right" or "fair."  There is the US where, although gifted with an impressive Constitution, vast mobs of disgruntled citizens are completely comfortable with sentences containing "that's not Constitutional" although they have never actually read the document.  So, is there an axiomatic approach for defining this important concept?

There might be, but that solution is unlikely to be one derived from traditional social processes. Further, if there is, actually, such a solution, we shouldn't expect any part of it to be easy.

Given the wild disparity among the planet's multitudes, that definition can simply not possibly be a hundred thousand pages long and based on some specific economic, judicial or philosophical heritage -- or, for that matter, even some carefully synthesized combination, either.

Instead, in MeanMesa's "dream world" that definition task might be approached from the other end. Perhaps a block of questions -- in some sense universally addressing the "corruption" or "not corruption" definition -- might be resolved in a plebiscite or even a series of them.  Granted, most of this people on this planet have no access to such a plebiscite, and even if they did, there would remain the conflicts of local definitions in litigative matters which crossed borders.

That block of questions might -- possibly. occasionally -- motivate those who are either suffering from corruption or fabricating such insults for whatever other reasons to such a state of, say, bravery that they will finally lay out the details by which they can be satisfied.  Of course, this would only be a beginning, but the world must start somewhere.








unsustainable wealth inequality

Albuquerque 2014: Living in the "Kill Zone"

 Bloody Pictures - "The Quick and the Dead"

A "high desert killing field"

With A Tale of Two Cities Dickens captivated his world as he portrayed the almost paralyzing fracture of common thought -- the deep alienation -- separating London and Paris in the days before the French Revolution. It was almost as if different creatures inhabited different realities on different planets. Even the same observations yielded wildly disparate conclusions.

If he were to author a new novel, Dickens' literary cunning could play well in Albuquerque. Although sadly, not many in Albuquerque are inclined -- or even able -- to read such a book.  But so far as the alienation is concerned, all the other essential components are present.

MeanMesa has watched, fascinated, as the brutalizing scandal has unfolded, and public awareness -- again, only to the extent such a commodity can reasonably be expected from the citizens of Albuquerque -- has exploded at a quite uncomfortable, correspondingly explosive rate. Around here, it is a story with tentacles so invasive that no one has been able to simply "set it aside" in preparation for a spring afternoon's siesta.

A "justified incident" in the East Mountains [image source]

Further, when MeanMesa refers to "a tale of two cities," there is no suggestion that the city is torn between citizens who think the killing is "just fine" and those who consider it horrible.  There may be a few, barely detectable, "high desert" nuances at play out there somewhere, but not nearly enough to satisfactorily "buffer" the tale's unpleasant starkness.

The distinguishing feature between the "two bloody pictures" is, instead, one based on the depth and scope.  To pursue this distinction, MeanMesa will section this post into two discussions:  "The Small Picture" and "The Big Picture."

The US Department of Justice Visits Albuquerque

For the benefit of MeanMesa's international visitors, a collection of short, hopefully objective historical account of the events prompting all of this will be provided first.  A link is provided in each case for further reading and quotation attribution.  Additional links are provided to various articles of news coverage concerning different aspects of the story.

It is not the intention of MeanMesa to recount all available information in this post.  It is not so much about the story itself as it is about the local public response.

The New York Times

Justice Dept. Accuses Albuquerque Police of Excessive Force

By FERNANDA SANTOS, APRIL 10, 2014

[excerpts]

ALBUQUERQUE — At least 37 times in the last four years, police officers here have responded to threats with bullets, killing 23 people and wounding 14 others. On Thursday, the Justice Department weighed in with a scathing assessment, accusing the Albuquerque Police Department of a “pattern or practice of use of excessive force” that routinely violated people’s constitutional rights.

The changes called for by the Justice Department — 44 remedies in all — included extensive revisions to the department’s use-of-force policies. The term “force” would be more clearly defined, and officers would have to report to superiors when they used various tactics: choke holds, kicks, leg sweeps and tackles. Under the recommendations, officers would be trained to rely more on verbal warnings and less on stun guns, and new recruits would be required to undergo psychological, medical and polygraph examinations to assess their fitness for the job.

Also recommended: clearer procedures for handling people with mental illnesses and minimizing the use of unnecessary force against them, as well as an expansion of the number of officers trained to work with them. 

[link to original article NY Times - here.]

Daily KOS

Breaking: Brutally Frank DoJ Report Says Albuquerque Police Use Unjustified Deadly Force.

jpmassar

THU APR 10, 2014 AT 09:14 AM PDT

A 46-page report on unjustified police violence in Albuquerque, New Mexico, was just released by the Department of Justice at a highly anticipated press conference in the wake of the execution of James Boyd, a mentally ill man, by APD last month and the release of a graphic video. A few key points:

Officers too often use deadly force...
Officers use tasers on people who are non-threatening or unable to comply...
Officers use too much force on people who are mentally ill too often.

From the [DOJ] report:

We reviewed all fatal shootings by officers between 2009 and 2012 and found that officers were not justified under federal law in using deadly force in the majority of those incidents.

We have reasonable cause to believe that officers of the Albuquerque Police Department engage in a pattern or practice of use of excessive force, including unreasonable deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and Section 14141. A significant amount of the force we reviewed was used against persons with mental illness and in crisis. APD’s policies, training, and supervision are insufficient to ensure that officers encountering people with mental illness or in distress do so in a manner that is safe and respects their rights. The use of excessive force by APD officers is not isolated or sporadic. The pattern or practice of excessive force stems from systemic deficiencies in oversight, training, and policy. Chief among these deficiencies is the department’s failure to implement an objective and rigorous internal accountability system. Force incidents are not properly investigated, documented, or addressed with corrective measures. Other deficiencies relate to the department’s inadequate tactical deployments and incoherent implementation of community policing principles.

We find that the Albuquerque Police Department engages in a pattern or practice of unreasonable use of deadly force in officers’ use of firearms. We reviewed all fatal shootings by officers between 2009 and 201221 and found that officers were not justified under federal law in using deadly force in the majority of those incidents. This level of unjustified, deadly force by the police poses unacceptable risks to the Albuquerque community.

[link to original article Daily KOS here.]

Additional links:

ALIBI: [local press] about the Boyd shooting - ALIBI here.

DOJ Investigation Report - Provided by Albuquerque Journal: Findings, US Department of Justice

CBS News: (caution: contains lapel camera video) - CBS article and video

There are plenty of articles from differing points of view available in a GOOGLE search.  

"Low Hanging Fruit" - The Small Picture

Details, Outrage and Outrageous Details

The Boyd killing represented a number of things, "low hanging fruit-wise."  The deadly encounter was captured on an unavoidable, inescapable video by a lapel camera on one of the officers.  This visibility immediately moved the matter into the media, always anxious to broadcast stories that didn't require any particular journalistic reporting.  The killing was also a monument to "the straw that broke the camel's back."

The dutiful liberal side of Albuquerque's population went to the streets. [FOX reported this as a "race riot."]  There were a number of protests, a few with some violence.  Emotions were high. The Albuquerque police sent to control the protests enjoyed the unenviable position of being precisely the people the protesters were protesting.

City officials rushed to the handy microphones to pronounce the killing as "justified," citing a predictable plethora of "department regulations."  This was nothing new.  The same script, the same justifications and the same department regulations had been before that camera plenty of times in the past.  The local Mayor, Police Chief, District Attorney and a few of their familiars marched lock step into this most recent "completely routine" repetition of "We're always sorry, but we don't intend to do anything any differently."

The Mayor and his Police Chief [image source]

MeanMesa watched local television report as both of these men stated that police department protocols had been followed -- then MeanMesa watched both of them back track after the citizen protests began.

About this time the family and friends of the other corpses left behind by the APD began to speak. While it turns out that hardly anyone knew Boyd personally, dozens of the other victims had living, breathing, surviving relatives who had plenty to say.

Flying in "out of the blue," however, was the DOJ investigation findings.  This process had begun months before, and, typical for the DOJ, had been so ominously silent that no one here expected much from it.  Either by pre-arranged schedule [most likely the case], by a portentous coincidental calamity or by an "administrative nudge," the DOJ's findings were a bombshell.  Once the DOJ had "shown its hand," the corporate national media lurched into action.

Remarkably, the Albuquerque story held its own for a few news cycles amid the lost Malaysian airliner and Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Why does MeanMesa consider all of this to be "low hanging fruit?"

First, when MeanMesa uses that term, it should not be interpreted as any criticism whatsoever of the fellow citizens who stepped forth to raise hell.  No part of the effort was unimportant or unnecessary.  Every event mentioned above powered this outrage to its correct volume.

Instead, MeanMesa wants to emphasize that just about everything that "happened" on the street, in the local news casts, in the Mayor's office, at the Police Department's briefing and so on, was very much "detail oriented."  The protesters were not "standing forth" on general issues of ideology, individual preference or philosophy. There was no confusion.  An interview with any one of them would have revealed that he or she knew exactly what they were protesting and why.

Even the DOJ findings were quite detailed.  The 46 page report ran through one APD killing after the next, reaching a similar conclusion about the lack of "justification" for almost all of them. The "details" went even further.  The DOJ findings included four dozen or so "remedial" requirements for police training, use of lethal equipment and so forth.

All of this is as it should be.  The attraction of citizens to specific complaints and specific changes is completely understandable and necessary.

But, does this effort rise to "full consummation" when all the details have been noted, and all the specific changes enacted?  All that work could certainly go along way to "patch up" the tatters of  officer behavior and civilian-police department relations, but what if the essence of the problem is even more fundamental than any collection of "details" like these?

MeanMesa suspects this is the case.

It's time for the "big picture."

The "Big Picture"

Is all this violence really "just in our blood?"

MeanMesa will be the first to acknowledge that Albuquerque is in a state of "armed conflict."  Of course, this old geezer is somewhat unsettled by the prospect of taking a round in a "justifiable police shooting," now that we have all seen what that's like.  So, what's to be done?  Pack a pistol on this belt next to my cell phone?

Yes, like most people in Albuquerque, MeanMesa is armed, but the household rule is that the pistol must not be taken outside the front door.  That pistol has been cocked and chambered only once while MeanMesa's Galactic Headquarters has been resident in the city, and on that occasion, thankfully, it got "un-cocked" and "unloaded" a few minutes later.  There was an uninvited "somebody" ready to climb up the stairs in this apartment -- somebody who left with the sound of that pistol "cocking."

If you are prowling around in Galactic Headquarters uninvited, and you hear a pistol cocking, you should consider leaving.

Also, it really isn't just the police who are performing all this mayhem.  If that were the case, the problem would be far simpler to solve.  There are regions in this small city where gun fire is fairly common, mostly fellow citizens shooting at each other, but infrequently, shooting at the police or being shot by the police. There almost certainly a dull, drunken story unfolding with every sound of that distant gunfire.

None of that is particularly unique among American cities, larger or smaller than Albuquerque. However, when there is the equivalent of a mass grave being patiently filled with the grisly remains of "justified police shootings," that "uniqueness" falters.

How did we get here?

In fact, where is "here?"

"Here" is the place where we see the disgusting testimony of men driven by morals instead of men driven by conscience.  Around this particular "here," those men have guns.

Let's take a look at a few "suspicious features" of Albuquerque's "gentle drift" to growing violence.  There are plenty of issues, but for this post a general model may suffice.  We actually see evidence of a nasty pattern followed by the social culture as it slides from a reasonably settled community to an unreasonably violent one.  As is usually the case while observing such patterns, it is also both interesting and necessary to "drill down" in search of the parties most likely to benefit from the growing mayhem.

The cycle is hardly obscured, and events in Albuquerque are a sickeningly transparent copy. Similar "benefiting parties" hope to benefit from mayhem in Albuquerque in roughly the same manner as such "parties" hope to benefit from mayhem elsewhere.

If you wanted a growing distrust of government and a continuously increasing stoic acceptance for the "legitimacy" or "inevitability" of social brutality, a consistently more violent relation between citizens and police would be a great way to accomplish it.  What began as a a citizen or police shooting here or there has been transformed into the equivalent of a military combat arena.

All the associated personal relation responsibilities traditionally inherent in wearing a badge have been set aside, exchanged for far more convenient matters of fire power and the application of lethal force. The city and its police force did not migrate overnight from what had previously been a fairly traditional relationship to the militarized nightmare we have now.

That ugly transformation was a slow, steady, reciprocal process.  As the police became steadily more violent, the criminals provided by the city matched the pattern.  As the predictable likelihood of facing opposition grew more and more inclined to respond violently during police contacts, the police responded with even more violent tactics.

This bounced back and forth like a ping pong game where both players anxiously returned the ball more and more violently each time.

Now, under more normal conditions rational players -- probably on both sides -- would have consciously or unconsciously decided to "put on the brakes" at some point.  Not in Albuquerque's case.

The picture isn't complete until we add a "little something" about the phenomenal psychology which was also a necessary element of the explanation.

The Psychology of Murder and Mayhem

Behind every trigger finger, there is a mind.

We can speculate about the psychology we might have expected to encounter in what might be considered "traditional police officers."  These would be the bossy, yet approachable, authority figure types we were accustomed to four or five decades ago.  Anyone the age of MeanMesa knew policemen like this.  They were the police who rounded us up when we were being too drunk and too wild. They were the ones who were absolute experts at "reading us the riot act" as a very intentional, very memorable threat to induce us to "change our ways."

These were the police who reluctantly pitched us into the drunk tank to sober up as they were conveniently neglecting to write out a criminal complaint.  These were the ones who told us to shut up and then slammed the door so our adolescent rants wouldn't interrupt their late night gin rummy game at the station.  Then, that "riot act" was delivered quite forcefully amid the haze of our morning hang overs.

These police were definitely not afraid of us, but they didn't hate us -- although they probably got tired of repeatedly dealing with our antics.  They probably had conversations with each other which began with "I just don't know what's wrong with these kids today."

They didn't shoot us. They only very rarely ever shot anybody. They didn't scream "get on the ground."  They didn't automatically reach to un-holster their side arms.  The result was that things were pretty peaceful -- at least, compared to now.

Those old style police went to work every morning in pretty much the same state of mind as the baker or the plumber.  Not any more.  That's where the strange psychology comes into the picture.

MeanMesa has some rather troubling suspicions about the state of mind one might encounter with these new police.

The APD sends a silent message about this.  It seems as if they head out to work totally juiced up with reactionary media, ankle deep in a subconscious obsession with "manning up" to stop a hostile, destructive world intending to crush everything of value.  They don't see their role as that of law enforcement so much as being burdened with a terribly unjust responsibility of defending some ill defined geo-political end game.

What were previously merely violations of the laws are now seen as dangerous incursions on the fabric of society.  You know.  The kind one might hear in the relentless dark eschatology painted by the FOX pundits.  That kind of "media" has quietly coerced all sorts of self-esteem challenged folks with otherwise relatively pleasant lives into the synthetic mind set that they are "oppressed."

When that toxin penetrates a structure such as the APD, the healthy men with guns and badges actually begin to consider themselves "victims."  They become infatuated with the now highly embellished idea that "their lives are on the line" every second of every minute that they are on duty, an unexamined psychology which begins to "justify" just about anything.

In 2014 even the commercials indulge this same fear soaked dread.  It sells expensive cars that protect from a crash.  It sells services that protect from identity theft. It sells medicine that protects from all manner of infirmities.  Ours has become a culture of the tragically insecure, desperately seeking protection, refuge, certainty, control and authority from all the wrong places.

This is the "food" for the modern police, but it's not very nutritious food.

An equivalent sickness has infested those in control of the police.  MeanMesa has even more troubling suspicions about them, too.  The city's politicians and police chief must assume that the only folks they must satisfy are quaking and quivering in the six digit houses with fences and gates. There are a lot more people in Albuquerque than the ones who invite these "notables" for luncheon and cocktails, but when these other faces are never a part of any picture, the already tattered rights of the masses continue to evaporate.

Peering even deeper into the abyss, we see the dark absolute determinism of the evangelicals.  We see this in the mayor's office, the police chief, the district attorney and far too many of the men with badges on the street.  That toxic religious mind set erases the personal necessity of weighing the conscience behind that trigger or at the news conference where "things are justified" -- at least so long as the "department protocol" is firmly in hand, handy to replace any troublesome pangs of conscience.

Conclusions, Conclusions

Most of the audible rhetoric on this subject includes something or other about "restoring trust." That could, probably, be accomplished given sufficient time, but the "fly in the ointment" emerges when the plan to "restore trust" is only a minute departure from the plan which "destroyed trust" in the fist place. Untrustworthy people tend to remain untrustworthy. Administrative tweeking with the addition of a few palliative new protocols might establish a sort of "cease fire," but the tax paying citizens don't seem likely to have much appetite for minor corrections.

The topic came up in a conversation between MeanMesa and a quite civilized, relatively normal young Albuquerque teen.  His comment was chilling.

"The police act like that because they don't think anybody will ever shoot back."

2014: Lighting Up the Clown Car's Check Book

Sizing Up the 2014 Mid-Term

The past few weeks have seen a fascinating mayhem settle into the oligarch party's back rooms. What had undoubtedly been planned as an "ObamaCare Horror Festival" designed to usher even more hill billies and bigots -- puppets -- into the Congress, evaporated with the reassuringly material news of the ACA's successes.  While this, itself, may be have been a riveting development for many of us, perhaps the more interesting side of the story is the carefully obscured chaos now lodged in the fractured GOP's tactical branch as it confronts the "topic vacuum."

Patiently running along side of the relief providied by the ACA announcement have been mildly promising, potential focus points for the Democrats.  When the oxygen slowly re-entered the room after the ACA hate frenzy ground to a halt, we have seen glimpses of 2014 mid-term election issues being timidly trotted out for "traction checks."

The President has been touting the minimum wage proposal.  The Attorney General has been fiddling with the possibility of doing something about the anti-democracy, voter suppression in the red states.  The DOJ has finally emerged from its "corpse like" stagnation to execute a few "fly-bys" at the egregious corporate pollution and state government complicity way down in bright red "cracker country."

There have been even fainter "rumors" about issues such as immigration, renewable energy and climate change.

All of this is evidence of the Democratic Party's "fishing expedition."  The "fish" the Party is frantically courting is the "fish" which might, possibly, inspire the politically exhausted Democratic voters to actually quit complaining and visit the polls this November.  Granted, the voice of the Democratic Party is barely audible through the well lubricated obedient screaming of a wholly owned corporate media, but the hope is, clearly, that some vestige of "traction" within the Democratic Party's traditional base might stumble into the light somewhere.

This not particularly optimistic vision MeanMesa sees in those reflective moments when the geezer is speculating about the rapidly approaching mid-term.  However, this post wants to propose something rather arcane which might "inject a little life" into what, frankly, is beginning to look like just another round of "more oatmeal."

Assisting Every Democratic Candidate 

Running for Anything, Anywhere

Discovering a great new "fishing hole"

Continuing with the general description of the "political world of the day" begun in the section above, there is something very interesting out there -- something which seems to presently suffer from being very inaccurately considered, a political possibility which could make a very large difference once it is stripped of its "mis-definition."

We have to look a little "more coldly" at this idea of "traction." After all, it is the "holy grail" floating around in those rooms behind the glitzy offices of the think tanks and the political campaigns. If the tacticians, cronies, "powers behind the throne" or even the idealists can cook up a political PR gambit which can excite voters, electoral success is "just around the corner."

All the items mentioned in the introduction to this post have been ceremoniously dragged through the murky waters of the 2014 political environment like triple cleft hooks looking for halibut.  The "amounts of traction" generated by any specific "bait" has been depressingly modest at best with the possible exception of the minimum wage proposal, but even that one, while promising, has not proved to be a potential "barn burner."

So, what political issue might possibly fill this void?

Even before we dive into that question, we should also, probably, acknowledge the unavoidable reality that "traction issues" are almost always the incendiary consequence of media coverage. Gazing back into the wreckage of the recent past, the tea bags have been "carrying the day" on this count for years.

Hence, the irony.

Further, this "irony" is not some complicated academic mousetrap, either.  The irony here derives from precisely the same issue which is the foundation of all those "tea bag" successes.  If you are a Neo-Republican oligarch, the inescapable "bite" of this irony arises from the fact that it has taken residence in your lap.

Hundreds of millions of dollars has flowed painlessly from the oligarch billionaires into every empty cavity of the political discourse. A million dollars per week has "mysteriously appeared" to buy corporate media time to discredit the ACA -- every week since the "debate" started five years ago.  Millions of dollars have oozed from the "McDuck Money Bins" into the personal coffers of the most famous of the FOX "mouth junk" experts and other wing nut, opportunistic miscreants.

The new White House where the old democracy is stored. [image source]

Freedom Works, Heritage Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, ALEC and a rancid collection of dozens of others have been awash in billionaire cash while cravenly duping American hill billies out of a few bucks a week from their SSI checks.  Threats of "cash tsunamis" lurk in the shadows behind the raunchy bigots in ties infesting the US House, terrifying them with primaries so expensive that their continued obedience is as solid as the pad lock on a cast iron cell.

So, what political issue might possibly fill the "traction" void?

Filling the 2014 "Traction Void"

With billionaire cash!

MeanMesa has always been fascinated with the startling credibility of organizations such as REAL CLEAR POLITICS and MEDIA MATTERS [Get acquainted by visiting the home pages of these two at these links: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ and http://mediamatters.org/] However, these two examples are cited here only to represent a "defining guide" about what will be proposed.  The quality, objectivity and accuracy of organizations such as these will "round out" MeanMesa's vision for what comes next.

So, what's the plan?

Another new organization must be constructed with all the redeeming qualities of the examples cited, but one with a slightly different mission. Indulge MeanMesa for just a few more lines in this post, energized by the promise that everything will be "laid out clear as a bell" very shortly.

American voters, even the information challenged bunch, have a growing suspicion that the uber rich have been manipulating them.  The designers of that well financed "manipulation" had promised their anti-democracy masters that this "suspicion" would remain manageable long enough for the "money boys" to permanently plant themselves as the new American nobility before the "little people" would even think about grumbling.

However, those craven manipulation schemes have run into a bit of overly "shallow water" down there in the cess pool as of late, and -- predictably -- that troublesome "suspicion" has begun some "free range wandering."  Even the famously mild mannered President has been repeated harping about the "election crimes" division of the GOP's ambitious little sold out governors.

Elsewhere, some of the outrages the oligarchs have dreamed of inflicting on unsuspecting Americans -- that would be "suspicion-free" Americans -- have unfolded rather awkwardly "ahead of schedule."

Exploding unregulated fertilizer factories, leaking coal ash pits, crimes committed by crazies carrying guns in the vacuum of back ground checks, revelations that giant, profitable corporations pay no income taxes and tens of millions of uninsured poor people gazing longingly across their state borders are just a few of the more illuminating examples.  The oligarchs wanted all this, but they didn't want it until their political power had become undeniably permanent.

Well, there is one other "little matter" the oligarchs didn't want splashed on the front page of Raccoon Holler's weekly newspaper, one other "little matter" that is, actually, beginning to appear there.

That "little matter" has to do with the castrated efforts of the Duke Energy governor smooshing the coal ash problem; that the little Texan Governor saying that the other 45 wooden fertilizer plants "didn't need no regulatun';" that Senator McConnell's arrogant presumption that "ObamaCare hatin' 'mericuns" in Kentucky would rather eat live frogs than have health insurance. 

That "little matter" accumulated even more road rash after Rachael Maddow -- not to mention the New Jersey State Assembly and a handful of ambitious Federal Prosecutors -- gleefully eviscerated GOP Golden Boy, Christie, over screamingly crooked "business deals" apparently all across New Jersey.  Worse, even the hill billies, watching the scene unfold on the tv's in their American Legion beer halls, "got thet funny feelin'" as Republican Presidential wanna-be's dutifully kissed the giant diamond glittering on Sheldon Adelson's Las Vegas pinky ring.

Oooops. Someone "let the stink out" way before the scheme planned to "let the stink out."

This "suspicion" which has manifested itself in such an unexpected growing presence among voters is, as is usually the case, not yet driven by specifics.  It is what Jimmy Carter called a "malaise."  Yet, "death by a thousand cuts" is still death.  The reckless behavior of the oligarchs as they slide into a very visible blood frenzy has been exposing too much -- way too much.

This is where the new "traction" comes into play, and this is where MeanMesa's proposition becomes -- at least for the oligarchs -- delightfully dangerous.

MeanMesa's Plan for a Happy 2014

If it's not a halibut, what is it?

We've been thinking about a new version of Real Clear Politics or Media Matters, so we should probably start right off with a catchy name.  Just for a convenient suggestion, let's consider CASH TRACK.  But, what would CASH TRACK actually do?

CASH TRACK would be a "research organization" capable of doing the heavy lifting with respect to determining the source of the cash which was flowing into a candidate's war chest. Every candidate with a "mysteriously generous" amount of cash to spend or who has "deeply concerned friends" who are anxiously purchasing massive amounts of "ad time" to torpedo his electoral opponent would be a target.

As CASH TRACK's research moved along in these investigations, a careful record of what was found and where it was found would be maintained.  When the investigation had reached a state of "mature fertility," the entire record could be placed in the hands of the political opponent who had been suffering from the well financed attack campaign up to that point.

The fact is that many quite acceptable candidates simply lack the resources to undertake such a search on their own.  Many of them, although quite well-intentioned and quite determined, don't enjoy the in-house expertise or financial resources. CASH TRACK could put a very nice package of credible information into the mix, already verifiable and prepared for a counter attack campaign.

MeanMesa realizes that the oligarchs have already ordered the Supreme Court to protect the origin of all this stinky anonymous money.  It's not a secret that secret PAC's are running loose in the alley behind ever bank and brokerage house in the country as a result.  Also, secretive billionaires such as Adelson and the Koch brothers are simply handing out six-digit checks as they pursue their own futures at everyone else's expense.

Not even the most resourceful, seasoned investigator is going to be able to penetrate this carefully engineered fog completely, so there will inevitably be plenty of money that not even CASH TRACK could track.  However, even if CASH TRACK's "tracking" penetrated as far as it could before hitting a blind alley, much more information would become accessible to voters with respect to "who was financing whom."

Americans of all political persuasions are growing increasingly suspicious that their elections have been "bought and paid for."  The fascinating aspect of this is that is truly represents a "non-issue" issue.  As a voter, you needn't be a liberal, evangelical, rancher or union boss to feel the "bite" of this one.  While such a variety of folks might disagree on practically everything else, they might agree that it would be nice if their vote actually counted.

This proposal would not remove the cash from our broken electoral system, but it would shine a light on it.

A very, very bright light.

Kiev: Meeting the Next Referendum "Head On"

When the Russian Bear Dreams of Canned Tuna

Even though Vladimir Putin has very ostentatiously donned his "I can handle anything" face at the Kremlin window, MeanMesa suspects that there really is a limit to how long the brave Soviet "wanna-be" can endure the screams coming from clutches of bleeding Russian Federation oligarchs.  Both the RF President AND the oligarchs still have a "cultural memory" of what it feels like to be awkward, isolated, bombastic Soviet no-bodies.

For a Russian oligarch the vision of those grey, bitter days of the Cold War might have grown a "little distant" from that bowl of caviar sitting in the parlor of his $300 million dollar yacht, but the unpleasant fantasy just doesn't enjoy enough historical separation to have become comfortably "unthinkable" just yet.

In fact MeanMesa suspects that the eerie shade of what the Russian economy looked like during the days of Lyndon Johnson and Leonid Brezhnev remains a stubbornly durable, ghostly presence in those St. Petersburg mansions -- and in those London dachas, too.  There is, indeed, the inevitable exhilaration of heartily flexed, sweaty Russian muscle. but there is also the future "toothache" phase which should make even the obscenely rich nervous.

Sanctions - Russian style [CNN]

Owning a mansion could become much more challenging in what still remains an essentially rural economy -- made worse by a huge, unsold oil and gas surplus, no customers and a rapacious mad man at the helm ready to sacrifice everything for a return to the nightmarish dream of past "Soviet glory."

If the thing actually still has any "brakes," the guy at the wheel hasn't touched them -- yet. However, that doesn't mean that the unwilling passengers haven't already been screaming at him from the back seat.

Grabbing A Quick Lunch At the Mousetrap

Making peace is inevitably both the most difficult and the most spectacularly promising at the portentous moment when the odds are horrible and the necessity overwhelming. Kiev's adversary now is the obsessive remnant of its own old ideas even more than the Russian troops across the Eastern border.  

The old ideas of a century ago are dangerous enough, but the bitterness and brutality of events of this year are the issues which must be dispatched to clear the way.  Futures are seldom founded on revenge, illusions of refuge or smoldering resentments, and that is the case for Ukraine, the nation, now in this perilous moment.

Kiev needs an immediate dose of "quiet time."  The path ahead requires clear heads -- and high ambitions.  At least for the time being, all this will be more similar to a chess game than to the triumph of Moses leading his tattered flock to the promised land.

If the East is clamoring for a "referendum," there must be an alternative proposal to counter the blind slide into the Russian Federation.  This is hardly "breaking news."  There must be another side on that ballot.

Further, that "other side" in this contest must have depth and weight -- sufficient to spur hope in those teetering at the brink with such a decision.  It must be credible and persuasive, but most importantly, it must be possible.

Everything done now must be consistent with a single question:  "How does Ukraine win?"

There really are promises to be made but not manipulative promises already crippled by austere conditions or flamboyant excess.  Those in the East are suspicious.

Step one will be to steel in Kiev's reality that there exists the model for a future Ukraine which will resolve this -- with the Russians, with the East and with the incendiary packs infiltrating Kiev.  The moment this existential possibility falters, the wolves will advance.

The "Hope" Crisis

The very best Kiev can propose to the East is an offer appealing to common sense, nationalism and self interest, but that gambit is hardly one of desperation.  Challenging?  Yes.  Servile?  No.

The spark which can once again solidify the present chaos is hope.  When the picture paints a window through which success can be glimpsed, all Ukrainians will be "interested." This motivates them far more than undefined false promises or ideology.

However, for those in Kiev that picture must light its way through all the mud installed by Putin's propaganda. That picture must honestly [and credibly...] explain what's to be done with the fascists in the West, what the economy will look like, how rule of law and peace will be accomplished and the rest.

Most of this is still Ukraine [image]

Desperate hopelessness is a Russian thing.  Don't be Russians -- be Ukrainians.  Be statesmen. Be strong and sensible. Be trusting -- trust Ukrainians.  Be trustworthy -- the burden may be heavy, but so is gold.

Make a plan -- a good one.  Invite all Ukrainians to join; invite all Ukrainians to improve the plan. Then, do it -- together.

The Russians have already used up all the cheap tricks.  Nothing remains to be placed on the table but things which can flourish in a clear sky.  New things. Concrete things.  Hopeful things. Common sense things.

God speed.

The Lamentations of the Prophet Charles [Koch]: A Collectivism Primer

MeanMesa's "Primer" Apologia

When MeanMesa offers up a post with a title including "primer," it heralds a collection of disparate bits of information which might otherwise not be presented together as a package with logical connections.  The reason such a thing might appear on this little blog is that, considered together, all these "loose ends" might provide an insight not found elsewhere.

Think of it as "connecting the dots," or at least, "connecting a few dots."

It is MeanMesa's sincere hope that such a combination will provide a robust and satisfying addition to understanding to the important issues covered here.

In this theme Charles Koch's absolutely amazing op-ed, obediently published in the tattered news paper owned by his dear friend, Australian fascist, Rupert Murdoch, handed up an irresistible temptation for another one of these famous MeanMesa primers.  Just think of it as the editorial equivalent of an absolutely free, no charge, "cheap sex and heroin sandwich" which comes with  a coupon for a complete refund if you're not totally satisfied.

Complaints With A Foundation in the Bronze Age

The Book of Lamentations

Nestled quietly in the depths of the Old Testament between Jeremiah's screechy, deific castigation of Jerusalem's "backsliding Bronze Age Jewish sinners" and Ezekiel's personal observations of "flying saucers," we find the short Book of Lamentations.  Obviously, both Jeremiah and Ezekiel were blessed by "times with lots of material."

The Babylonians had conquered Jerusalem, "deporting" most of the survivors to Babylon, and the contemporary "holy men" of all ilks and definitions naturally seized the opportunity to explain this misfortune in ways which, shall we say, reaffirmed their already centuries old patriarchal authority.  Having positioned themselves as the only folks around to whom God spoke directly, their prophetic explanations conveniently "offered up" the "official version" concerning the calamitous "difficulties" with the Babylonians.

The biblical Book of Lamentations was a quite necessary description of "just how horrible" the fall of Jerusalem [586 BC] had been, an especially pungent account very effectively book marked between Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  For a long time after the initial canonization of biblical content it was assumed that Lamentations had been written by Jeremiah, but more modern biblical "scholars" are now inclined to attribute the authorship of each of the five chapters found there to different first person observers.

MeanMesa offers this brief review of the biblical side of this post's title only as an introduction to the rather soiled 21st Century emulation discussed below.  [For MeanMesa visitors who have never read The Book of Lamentations, this link provides an on-line copy. The Book of Lamentations It's fascinating.]

Now, we can move on to a few of the things provided by The GOOGLE concerning the topic of this post.

 Senate Majority Leader Reid: The First Voice

Publicly Addressing the Koch brothers' scheme

Because this post is advertised as a "primer," MeanMesa has no hesitation in posting this excerpt from Huffington Post which detail Majority Leader Reid's "broad side attack" on the oligarchs and the nationwide political and PR machinations so eagerly funded by their invisible billions.

Huffington Post

[Read the original article  here.]

Breaking Down Harry Reid's Latest Koch Brothers Rant

Sam Stein

04/01/2014

 

WASHINGTON -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) took to the Senate floor Tuesday morning to rip into the political machinations of Charles and David Koch, the wealthy industrialists who have heavily funded conservative causes and campaigns.

Reid has routinely bemoaned the endless series of anti-Obamacare ads that groups associated with the brothers have financed in various Senate races. He's gone so far as to call the Koch brothers' actions "un-American" and accused Republicans of being "addicted to Koch.

Maybe Reid was just taking a certain delight in the morning's news that a reported 7 million Americans have chosen health plans through the Obamacare exchanges. Or maybe he was trying to pre-frame the House GOP budget -- which he called a "Koch budget" -- that was being unveiled shortly after he finished speaking. Either way, a certain gleeful antagonism was apparent throughout his speech. The Huffington Post broke down the transcript below:

The various ways Reid described the Koch brothers:

• "Moguls" (twice)
• "Oil barons" (three times)

The various ways Reid described the Koch brothers' political network:

• "Puppet organizations"
• "Kochtopia" (twice)

The various ways Reid described the Koch brothers' actions:

• "unscrupulous acts"
• "false, misleading, fear-mongering ways"
• "everything they do is so selfish, so self-centered"
• "the gall of these two brothers is staggering"
• "brainwash"
• "Attempt[ing] to rig democracy and hand it over to a couple of power-hungry tycoons"

Keep in mind, this all happened in less than 10 minutes, and Reid is a bit of a slow talker.

MeanMesa's compliments to the Senate Majority Leader.

The Painful, Tragic Life of a Typical American Billionaire

Oh, the horror of it all...

Now, Charles was, of course, already "locked into" being a billionaire before he donned his very first satin diapers. Although little is known of the plutocrat's childhood, we can assume that his early education did not deprive the snot nosed "little darling" of the all important lessons about 1. "how permanently entitled he was," and 2. "how to be mean to the 'little people' in order to remain, well, entitled."

While there have been plenty of extremely well to do leaders in various roles in the United States, we have, quite recently, come to a far more robust understanding of just "what you get" when perpetually over privileged plutocratic progeny have clawed and scratched their way into positions of power.  [i.e. -- George w.].

Poor, poor little Charles,

alone and afraid,

in a world he never made

or managed to buy -- yet.

It seems, at least -- it seems to MeanMesa, that Charles could just as easily have "selected" himself for a position such as President or, shudder, Vice President had he been so inclined.  The time consuming burden of managing all the moving parts of his vast inherited wealth could have been allocated to responsible servants while he basked in the FOX studio lights, luxuriating in a string of carefully orchestrated "soft ball" questions from obediently scraping, corporate pundits.

Instead, rather than lurching into the political fray, breeding dancing horses [Mitt's favorite], mastering badminton or painting water colors of mountains and trees [Charles couldn't actually even see much of Earth's nature from the atmospheric elevation of the veranda there on the Ivory Tower...], Charles decided to dedicate his life to the very hard work of "philosophy."

Of course, there were hundreds or thousands of possible choices open to Charles, "philosophy-wise," so he bravely began "snooping around" until he could locate one which would be comfortably consistent with his nature.  In no time at all Charles' search started "paying dividends."

He "discovered" Ayn Rand.  Now, this is not simply added here as a snarky aside.  MeanMesa understands this infatuation with Ms. Rand's famous "non-contradiction" liturgy.  Yes, MeanMesa was similarly swept away with the romantic ideal fantasies of Dagny Taggart and Hank Rearden. However, unlike Charles' experience, all that occurred in the seventh grade, and all of it had drifted slowly into an abiding disinterest by legal "beer drinking age."

This is added here as an introduction to the next section of this post.  We will find the term "collectivism" abundantly sprinkled through Charles' now famous Lamentation.  Rather than the old Persians who had tormented Jeremiah's Jews so brutally, Charles' "brutal tormentors" are given the name "collectivists."

Further, those wretched "collectivist" tormentors so bemoaned by the victim, Charles Koch, are not only not Persians, they are, in fact, everyone else who even so much as "slightly" disagrees with the proposition that Charles and his brother should, thanks again to their noble blood line and their great inherited wealth, be quite reasonably chosen to be in charge of everything.

Because Charles extracted the "collectivist" label from the bowels of Ms. Rand's Objectivism, it is only prudent that we take a look at just what Charles found so appealing "down in those bowels."

Collectivism

If John Galt had to paint a fence, he would chose this color.

[You can visit the "lexicon" of Ayn's sayings: Ayn Rand Lexicon]

Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

“The Only Path to Tomorrow,”

Reader’s Digest, Jan, 1944, 8.

Collectivism holds that, in human affairs, the collective—society, the community, the nation, the proletariat, the race, etc.—is the unit of reality and the standard of value. On this view, the individual has reality only as part of the group, and value only insofar as he serves it.

Leonard Peikoff,

The Ominous Parallels, 17

Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism.

“Racism,”

The Virtue of Selfishness, 128

Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory . . . both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.

“‘Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,”

Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 180

The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals—a view which implies that man’s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality. Collectivism maintains that an elite endowed with special mystic insight should rule men—which implies the existence of an elite source of knowledge, a fund of revelations inaccessible to logic and transcending the mind. Collectivism denies that men should deal with one another by voluntary means, settling their disputes by a process of rational persuasion; it declares that men should live under the reign of physical force (as wielded by the dictator of the omnipotent state)—a position which jettisons reason as the guide and arbiter of human relationships.

From every aspect, the theory of collectivism points to the same conclusion: collectivism and the advocacy of reason are philosophically antithetical; it is one or the other.

Leonard Peikoff, “Nazism vs. Reason,”

The Objectivist, Oct. 1969, 1

Ayn Rand had a terrible time with Communists during her childhood during the Russian Revolution.  MeanMesa suspects that all those negative experiences "congealed" to expand her distaste from simple Communism to all sorts of things only tediously connected with Marxist ideology when she began using the term "collectivist" so frequently in her novels.

However, it's clear that Charles became quite taken with the "collectivist" idea during his indoctrination into Objectivist style, oligarchic Libertarianism.  His awkward use of the term repeatedly in his Wall Street Journal "Lamentations" betrays its deep penetration into his thought process. Further, once the Cold War finally stumbled to a halt, the public was finished -- exhausted -- with the depersonalized "Communist ogres" of the McCarthy days propaganda, so "collectivism,"  a "more sophisticated," "more academic" term was adopted in the hope of being much less likely to "date" the speaker back into the 1940's and 50's.

A quick review of the publications dates of the material quoted above suggests that Charles, apparently, preferred the 1960's.

The Lamentations of Charles Koch

MeanMesa has "taken the liberty" of high lighting a few phrases in the body of Charles' Lamentations.  In each case a "reference number" has been provided which will lead the reader to a few comments in the next section of this post.

Wall Street Journal

Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society

By 

CHARLES G. KOCH

April 2, 2014 

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government.  [1] That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

Charles Koch -$40,000,000,000 worth of Libertarian "Freedom" [image source]

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. [2] This is the essence of big government and collectivism.

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) [3] This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company:

Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies."

Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement.

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished. [4]

Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. [5] This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal.

If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way [6], our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too.

Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries.

Now, let's take a second look at a few selected excerpts.

Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. [1] 

This "proclamation" should be considered through the lens of what influence Koch money is currently attempting to effect on American culture and politics. The "Koch network" is illustrated in this Washington Post article. Every aspect of this outrage is designed to amplify the political influence and prerogatives of the Koch brothers in excess of that enjoyed by citizens who are not billionaires.

"Dignity, respect equality" - Koch style [image source]

[Visit the site to read the entire article at Washington Post blog]

A central element of "dignity" imbued on American citizens by the US Constitution is the dignity of equal access to this country's representation democracy. Any departure from this basic foundation of democracy amounts to a reduction of that "dignity."

The issue of "respect" is specious.

The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. [2] 

Both the semantics and vocabulary of statements such as this one betray the heavy influence of the incendiary propaganda "peddlers" found throughout the right wing media. Specifically, the term "disrespect" is an especially used to emphasize the idea of oppression -- a primary issue of propaganda directed to further aggravate the low self-esteem denizens.

The second sentence in this quote is embarrassingly structured directly from the Herman Goebbels play book.

While the White House is unquestionably running on "policy," Charles effortlessly cites "central belief" as the force representing the guiding principle of the Obama Administration.This subtle implication is quite salable to the low information audience Charles is addressing. That demographic is much more comfortable with the "explanation" of government policy as manifest "belief" than as the more complicated "explanation" involving what's remaining of Congressional debate, legislation creation and implementation following laws passed in the Congress.

Charles' audience. lost and confused deep in FOX world, has been convinced that the nation is governed entirely by the fickle whimsy of demonic President.

In the thinly disguised racism of this particular billionaire, the next term: "fatal conceit," drops quickly into an effortlessly modified "Ayn Randism." 

Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.”

The remainder of this last sentence is presumptive.  There is nothing factual which suggests its validity -- there is no supportive argument or evidence.  Charles plunges ahead to re-state an additional "Randism collectivism" premise.

The philosophy of collectivism upholds the existence of a mystic (and unperceivable) social organism, while denying the reality of perceived individuals—a view which implies that man’s senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality.

...you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you.

The "collectivist" philosophy supports the view that a man's senses are not a valid instrument for perceiving reality?  MeanMesa supposes this may be a reasonable explanation for the inability of Charles Koch's "party" to win fair elections.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) [3]

Charles would clearly wish that the "matter covered in his editorial" really amounts only to a debate in which contradictory academic and hypothetical arguments might be debated and resolved. Charles is probably quite uncomfortable with the general vision of Americans who are not billionaires that what has been proposed here is not a debate.

It amounts to the public response to an oligarchic economic coup d'etat attempt.

Once again, Charles opinions are not an popular and attractive alternative to the Constitutional basis which has traditionally defined an individual citizen's interplay with the US government.

Charles' counter argument will never suffice as an intellectual position in some sort of a debate or anything similar to one.

"Collectivists" -- remember, that amounts to almost everyone else here -- are not "striving to discredit" arrogant elitists such as Charles.  They are only days away from building the barricades they saw in Kiev.  Americans have little interest in "discrediting" Charles Koch. 

They are interested in stopping him.

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished. [4]

Charles denies "rigging" the economic system because he "opposes cronyism." However, all the nasty items on the list of his virtuous disclaimers are economic, while the general complaint concerning his extremely self-serving political take-over attempt includes only as a "later consequence" reaping the "hard won profits" made possible by controlling Congress.

First priority: control the government by controlling elections and candidates [financing the campaigns of the compliant while financing primary contests for all who resist..]. Second priority: shoe horn the government's inability to interfere -- including environmental regulation, "free range" political parties which can't be extorted, regulation of cash driven political influence [Citizens United, McCutcheon, 501C4's, etc.] -- into a a new, unregulated, more profitable business environment.

There are simply not enough alternative definitions of "cronyism" to make Charles' self-righteous position something anyone else could swallow.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. [5] 

Pay special attention to the idea expressed as Charles rattles off the justification for his obsessively false elevation of self-reliance: "...destroys value..." This phrase is revisited as a counter concept in the quote cited below: [6] "...creates real value..."

Remember, regardless of his eagerness to cite the principle, Charles has never faced the necessity of self-reliance for a single millisecond since his birth. This is something that "billionaires by inheritance" never do.

While the "raises costs" idea might have traction if it were to ever escape the walls of FOX world in tact, it lacks both of the argumentative elements usually found in a noun and a predicate. Charles names "the system" with which America is saddled as the perpetrator and "millions of citizens" relegated "to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness" as the victims.

MeanMesa agrees, at least a little.  There are millions of victims.  They didn't used to be victims, but after the nation's economy was utterly looted, they became victims.  Thanks to the rapacious machinations of billionaires like Charles Koch, that state may be a perpetual one this time.

Charles' head is still ringing from the last time he read John Galt's hundred page rambling manifesto in Atlas Shrugged.  Dripping, maudlin dramatics are not economic policy.

They are nothing more than narcotic, incendiary manipulations, tragically directed at those lacking the rational capacity to actually consider what they reading or hearing.

If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way [6]...

This issue of "real value" is a curious one. The distinction between "value which isn't actually real" and the "real stuff" is clearly considered by Charles to hold a very persuasive meaning. Given the constant reference to "lives controlled by government" and "lives lived in liberty" [i.e. lived not controlled by government...], we can presume that the "value reality" question is somehow connected to the origin of the "real value" of things a citizen might access.

If that "origin" can be tracked down to the action of a representative government providing things paid for with the tax money from the citizens, can what's been provided still be considered to have "real value?"  Does the origin of that thing "destroy value" if it has come from the government?

Further, if the collective will of represented citizens is to spend their own tax money to provide something that some or all of them need or want, is there something "unprincipled" about the "way" that was done?

Here, we must remember that Charles got everything he ever got from the same origin -- his inherited billions.  Also, it's not a secret that Charles considers the relation between the "origin" of something that someone gets and the person who gets that something to amount to an issue of "control."  In Charles' model, if someone or something ever "gives" you anything under any circumstances, that someone or something then "controls" you.

MeanMesa suspects that whenever that sort of transaction might occur, Charles would  also consider that "someone had gotten something" in an "unprincipled way."

Randi Rhodes [The Randi Rhodes Show, weekdays 4 PM to 7 PM, AM 1350, KABQ, Albuquerque] offers a very interesting explanation for the awkwardly grotesque hatred the billionaires have for the Affordable Care Act -- an explanation which fits in here nicely.  It is her view that the billionaires are horrified at the possibility of common citizens, that is, citizens without lobbyists,  ever getting the benefits of a tax subsidy -- any tax subsidy for any reason.

This may reveal the "dark heart" of Charles Koch's concept of "an unprincipled way."

Thanks for visiting.