“How Far Must the Dow Plunge Before Confidence Is Restored?

Spending too much time "ducking" the old things? Spending not enough time dreaming about the new things?

These days hold only cold comfort for the timid.

The newspaper headline titling this post betrays what may be an unexamined paradox. The sensation of "confidence" is an allegedly rational one which may be insinuated by past history, but probably not the past history being cited in the discussions of this moment. Likewise, the "restore" idea is visiting every area of pain in the present economy. There are the dreamy desires of those who would like the declining value (market price?) of their real estate "restored" to the figures of a year or two ago. There are those who feel that economic recovery implies that the stocks they purchased in the past might be "restored" not only to their previous trading values, but also in their vivacity and mobility with respect to potential profits or losses demarcated in the "numbers and the systems of the past."

Folks who are entertaining this expectation for the "recovery" are not founding their ideas on circumstances which enjoy much of a chance to materialize in reality.

The less lofty have ambitions for a stable floor to the decline where, although the numerical "prices" of monetary assets would be defined by lower numerical values, the relative values would become, once more, as promising as they had been before. Perhaps even the wage earners are gradually becoming adjusted to the idea that their "restored" wages, although not bearing the same figures as on the old paychecks, might have a "restored" purchasing power or offer an investment opportunity equivalent to the ones on those old stubs.

The economic pedestrian has only a slightly more realistic view of the possibilities at hand. He, at least, has the common sense necessary to envision an economic solution which is not the "restoration" of his previous conditions, but something of a hybrid, located between full "recovery" or "restoration" and some intermediate state where his comfort level is comparable to what it was before.

Likewise, the critics and cynics (uh, that would be the hillbillies, Senate bigots and other free market criminals) seize on the predictable, codependent opportunity of establishing that true "recovery" or "restoration" can be nothing less than a sterile return to the artificial successes previously derived from the avarice of the recent past. They would, foolishly, like to establish that vision as the only possible outcome which might legitimatize Obama's desperate efforts ideologically. The public opinion attraction to that insistent approach is waning rapidly, most likely, as was the tragic case with "confidence," another victim of “common sense” on the main street.

My advice? Quit dreaming of the past. Quit trying to measure the possibilities and challenges of the near future by the currency of the past. All those “restorations” require more than a duplicated economic flow of factors and equations. Frankly, they all depend on more than a resurgence of familiar numbers on the Wall Street trading boards. They also, in a way as subtle as the “elephant in the living room,” also depend upon the resurrection of all sorts of imaginary asset values, labor rates, real estate ambitions and even international trade relations. There is no part of the economic stimulus plan which can re-materialize these old, opium dreams. They cannot be “restored,” because they were never material in the first place.

We can join the wailing of the Wall Streeters and the bankers and the quiet, arrogant ultra-rich with their effected accents if we like, but all the old deceptions of this crowd have evaporated just as concretely as the sale price of the duplex next door. All the illicit advantages they promoted as “sharp business practices” for the last dozen decades have been exposed now. Worse, their dreams of the precise value of such deceptions have also been smashed. They sold them to us once, and that worked out well for them. But now, those balloons have popped -- perhaps largely in the very faces of these “pretend Captains of Industry.”

No one can still reasonably hope that those “balloons” of theirs can be “restored.” Further, citizens of both the United States and the rest of the world where their extractive schemes have reached, seem to have a new, much more informed style of awareness of exactly what had been done before. The hordes of what had previously been “easy marks” have now entered a period of renewed understanding of what the responsibility of “self-interest” actually means. An understanding which excludes the necessity of supporting these parasites in the style and luxury of the past.

Obama gets this. One wonders how many familiars of the old White House have appeared once again with “offers he can’t refuse.” One wonders what was on their deflated faces when he did, in fact, refuse.

Without the hordes of the sleeping, the mistaken certainties of the past are beginning to rot on the vine. Mistaken certainties? The sanctity of the free market as the ultimate director of the economy. The acceptability of the well (and not so well) disguised, noncompetitive subterfuge, whether a no bid contract for billions or some doo-dad added to a House bill at the last minute making new profits an automatic reality for some crony.

But wait. No matter how refreshing it might be, a modern correction of these sorts of things amounts to little more than a tweeking to the system. Such a development might turn out to be the final result of this economic melt-down, but there are others -- developments which can hardly be defined as a “tweeking.” In any event, it looks constantly less likely to be a mere “restoration.”

The economy is not experiencing a little difficulty, it is evaporating before our very eyes. We have heard fifteen thousand reasons why this is happening, but what seems the most logical conclusion at this point is that no one has either any complete or rational explanation of precisely why this is happening or how far down it will go. All the old reasons are approaching a region of logical discontinuity far too similar to what might be encountered on a classic Riemann Equation’s first surface. We have probably left explanations or their possible comfort somewhere behind us.

The classical parameters which used to drive everything have ceased functioning. What was successful “tweeking” in the past system no longer produces any effect at all.

So, where does it go?

It “goes” through the discontinuity, and we go with it. The hilarious threats of creeping Socialism or nationalization or Fascism or vacant promises of capitalism or free marketism or a “restored” hegemony are all now parked in the "used car lot" history of the past, in our memories, in our dreams. That old currency fills the entire stage, constructs all the sets and writes all the play. We can make no new play which requires parts other than those old familiar ones. Our imagination has beached itself on the remnants of our fears.

The choices for the face of the future system will not be variations of the faces of the past. What has begun as an economic aberration has become an ideological meat grinder, and its product may well arrive without so much as a reasoned hint or even a wild speculation from the past.

The “new thing” approaches.

It won’t be all bad, either, but these last few months before its arrival will be terrifying -- especially for those who were able to prosper in the false world of the false values of the past. Still, we must prepare ourselves for a new system. It arrives just as the widower's new wife. The recipes and the bedroom, although quite satisfying, can never "restore" what has passed before. We have no firm ideas about what the new system will require of us or what new opportunities it may present, of course, but we do know one thing. We prepare ourselves by watching for its arrival with hope, not dread.

Adjusting our ideas of “necessity” and “comfort” might help a little. Experimenting with values which have evolved beyond imposed scarcity and insatiable greed and impossible security is probably a good idea, even if such a discipline hasn’t ever been reasonable in the past. We must clear our road weary slate of ancient false priorities, thrash out the cobwebs and steel ourselves for a new day.

As humans, we are now stranded with the frightening necessity of charting our way forward. We find the press of events has cast us not as survivors, but as designers.

The “new thing” approaches.

Obama's "Frightening" Nominations

First, a recap of recent market gains in fear futures... 71

Reflecting, not on the passing government, but on ourselves and our own part in the dismal events of the Bush years, we arrive at some unavoidable conclusions. As citizens we had become so softened by years of prosperous security before his terms that we were vulnerable to manipulation by most of his shallow, fabricated new fears.

We were officially frightened by Osama bin Laden after 911, and his imaginary accomplice, Sadam Hussein shortly after that. We were not frightened by Indian and Pakistani H-bomb tests. Perhaps that fright was reserved for later, that is, for some inevitable future moment when it could be exploited with greater results.

We were frightened by North Korea’s H-bomb test. It enjoyed the serendipity of being at just the right moment, maybe a moment when our fear was subsiding to levels no longer blindly supporting some scheme made politically possible only by our manipulation.

We responded well to Iran’s understandable ambition to arm itself. At any time that fear faltered, we increased our not so subtle threats, making some fiery response a virtual certainty, a reaffirmed asset for domestic consumption here and, of course, a good investment of hate.

We weren’t particularly frightened by Katrina, a deadly but largely unusable source of fear due to its lack of a “bomb-able” adversary. The Russians presented a reliable threat, but they apparently frightened our government in return. They were somewhat less usable, perhaps because they could actually “bite back.”

The point? We, unaccustomed to being threatened after such a long hegemony -- real or imagined, were gradually groomed to be frightened on demand. The neo-cons accurately and successfully managed to convince us that leadership required a threat. In the more rational examination of such leadership, that is, when it was examined without the convenient hysteria of the latest calamity, its appearance might become dangerously lack luster.

The "new frighteners."

Now, these weary “old frighteners” are on their way out of town. Troubling "new frighteners” have arrived with the ambition of taking over the franchise. These "new frighteners” are not neo-cons at all. This new batch is from the other end of the spectrum. We seem to be entering into a period of being frightened by the left.

What are the threats being employed? After all, the left has demonstrated an irritable kind of allergic avoidance to the use of foreign machinations to frighten us. The newest, post election tool is, instead, an interesting innuendo indicting the “progressive purity” of Obama's nominations for places of power in the new government.

There was the momentary mention of the “testing” of the new President, but that was no more than a sickening remnant of the old scheme of threats, one based on the same tired ideology of being hopelessly terrified by foreign adversaries, that is, a tiresome repeat of the one used before. These more contemporary “frighteners” are intent on revealing threats to us about cabinet appointments and the possibilities that our accomplishments in the last election would be undercut with a result of reverting the government back to the numbing failure of its predecessor. They seem to have developed an appetite for questioning the new President’s character even after supporting him only a few weeks or months ago.

The threat they endeavor to manufacture now is one of deception and conspiracy. They imply that the changes we sought have not turned out to be changes at all. These folks would like to take up the mantle of being the "new threateners" with their endless assertion that we, as voters, have been deceived. Again.

Clearly, they consider any fear and fright of this sort that they can incite in us to be a valuable asset to prop up their languishing authority as critics and pundits. They believe that these unexamined doubts they might cause will become very useful foundations for later tirades and tantrums which might have, otherwise, been too obviously shallow to provide the impact they crave. Their future dream is to say, credibly, of course, “I told you so.” “I was the one who cried out the early warning, so believe me now!”

If you’re waiting for the next form of being scared, you may be disappointed. You may have to learn a new trick. The world as previously presented as one of endless, hopeless, despair is going to become one of challenges and opportunities. Instead of groveling and trying to simply survive, we will be required to stand up with our eyes forward. Rather than cowering in a sterile ideological wasteland, lamenting on how things should have been, we will now be required to begin all our thoughts with where things are and where we intend to go.

Domestically, Senatorial bigots and military throwbacks have invested heavily in sponsoring our hatred and fear of each other. Their practiced incompetence was the real conspiracy as they trotted out fabricated alternatives with every choice equally depressing and unpalatable. Their old paradigm of no choices other than dominating or surviving the world is becoming the new, brighter question of successfully living in it.

These aging knee jerkers are now exposed much like the new thought-limiting left. Neither group has earned the right to express their foolish purity. Neither group has ever been willing to pay the honest wage of embracing leadership. The wage? To follow, of course. To trust a little. To think of the country beyond one’s immediate personal ambitions.

These "new frighteners” from the left would like for us to faint before the “hodge podge” of conflicting influences in the new government. They would prefer that we were, well, more hopelessly stoic given the rather raw abilities of these nominations by Obama. These "new frighteners” would prefer that we be pessimists about whether or not he can lead with all these conflicting influences. “Who will be in charge?” they wonder.

I predict that none of us will wonder about this for long.

We have elected a leader with, I suspect, a lethal, pragmatic competence coupled with more idealism that most of us think we can afford right now. Of course we are a bit uncomfortable with what we’ve done, but we can certainly claim that we were at our bravest and our best when we did it, inebriated with new hope.

By the way, that hope isn’t all in him. The important part of that hope is in us.

Leadership, after the wasteland we’ve endured, may seem to be measured by astounding solutions to intractable problems. It isn’t. It’s much more like paint, permanently changing the hue of everything it touches.

Get used to it.

No more being directed by fear. The leader we’ve found won’t amount to much without Americans to follow him.

For a very unusual point of view, sample this link:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/lust-in-paradise/200811/obamas-ancient-leadership-style

Some Part of the First Amendment

I received a nice email from one of the regular visitors to this blog site. She asked me about the little numbers by the titles of the Short Current Essays. For example, the most recent post, "Pretending It's Just More Politics" has the number "70" at the end of its sub-herald. She compared that "70" to the Blog Archive count of "57," and inquired about the missing posts.

She was, indeed, quite correct about the little "70." I put those numbers on things in my giant blog file (on this end, you know, in the computer) to keep track of everything.

Her question was, also, well founded. There are a number of posts in that file which haven't reached Short Current Essays, yet.

Yeah, Obama won the election.

Yeah, the scoundrels are getting run out of town.

However, there is still the minor problem of a 1st Amendment that isn't yet restored to its full potency. There are still a number of American citizens in prisons without benefit of due process, charges, lawyers, trials or habeas corpus. Yuck. There are probably American citizens in similar straits behind bars in Georgebuckistan waiting for extraordinary rendition.

Maybe when things are a little better those other thirteen posts can emerge. Until then, I suspect I've been as free with this speech as I dare.

Did you figure I was stupid?

Hypocrisy Hunting in the New Obama Cabinet

Undercutting New Possibilities With Old Ideas? 68

The predictable complaints of hypocrisy, or at least, inconsistency, are now rolling in from any ambitious pundit with a microphone. How could such an idealist as Barrack Obama, that is, someone so highly dedicated to changing the government, announce that he intended to do business with Tom Daschle, Hillary Clinton or even John McCain?

By “do business” we mean “give authority and trust.”

The neo-con purists (yes, they still imagine themselves purists after all the soiled things their man committed in the last two terms...) claim that Clinton Cabinet politicos contaminate Obama’s claim to the “high road.” Other hungry commentators dredge relentlessly for contradictions in past positions to compare with what they present as present positions required to fill Obama’s government and support his political philosophy.

Let’s indulge in a fable at this point.

You are a remarkably progressive and idealistic King in a medieval country. You set out to rectify some grave injustices by a military campaign. When it’s time to select generals to conduct this thing you seem to have two choices.

On one side, there is the Abbot, your spiritual advisor, a man with unshakably good, decent ideas about how to improve matters. On the other side, there is General Smith, a ruthlessly successful medieval military strategist with a checkered history of brutality and effectiveness.

If you intend to prevail in this struggle, that is, if you intend to over power the rather impressive and well established enemy who has sponsored these atrocities you find so deplorable, you will select General Smith. Issues such as collateral damage and war crimes associated with the Abbot might be much more palatable than the likely results of General Smith’s campaign, but the results would probably be disappointing.

If you are determined to prevail and advance your cause of decency, General Smith will be your man. First, the war must be won, then your plans can become material. In the meantime, that is, during the conduct of the war, you can insist that General Smith be more decent than he would be normally or than he has been previously, but the necessity of results dictates that you employ his expertise to deliver the possibility of conditions for your own intention.

This progressive King is more armored by his Divine Right than the trust of those who might ultimately benefit from his ideals, but, unlike recent leaders, he will have to trust himself! We have no King. Obama is armored by the trust of those who sent him into this difficult place. His leadership is qualified by his spiritual solidity of trusting himself.

Obama needs a cabinet capable of surviving the inevitable, paralytic aggression of the Republicans. He needs a cabinet which can deliver in Washington politics. The work of these mindless reactionaries has left us a disaster so grave that excuses or near victories, especially when precipitated by the stupid, inexperienced or ineffective application of power, are not an option.

Yes, incorporating individuals with alternative political philosophies may help a little, but the reactionary forces, inflamed as usual by the low road sabotage of hate radio and anti-American Congressional throw backs, have no interest in any solution to our difficult problems. Their cynical interests have nothing to do with America’s future. The entire focus of their babble is directed at maximizing the number of voters in their districts that can they deceive, lie to or frighten into sustaining their offices, reinvigorating their opportunities for looting.

Obama’s ideals will, in fact, make the difference we need. Ideals belong at the top of the pyramid when the ground level is violently contested by well financed cynics and other criminals. Obama’s “ground war” will be conducted by the best he can find, some of the Clinton legacy and other new, competent faces, the 21st century equivalent of that old King’s General Smith.

We trust his idealism, his cabinet selections, his competence, his intellect and his spirit. These vociferous tantrums are to be expected. Neo-cons are allergic to leadership.

Sheer Paranoia: Outrageous but Entertaining

A Meeting in the back room of the White House. 60

Karl Rove barks at the administrative attendant (A G-12 Civil Servant): “Hey, boob queen! Fetch me another cup of coffee! Now!”

Treasury Secretary Paulson hurriedly enters and seats himself at the table, still completely consumed reading the papers he carried into the room. He looks frightened.

The Chief of Staff is placing copies of the agenda around the conference table. Two or three other Presidential Advisors are speaking secretively in the background.

Suddenly, the door is opened again. Two Secret Service agents quickly take their places on either side, suspiciously glancing around the meeting room. One, holding the door open, states in a loud voice, “The Vice President.” Dick Cheney skulks into the room to take his seat. It is suddenly silent.

“Where the hell is Georgie boy? Get his ass in here. We’ve got some work for him to do -- some stuff for him to say. I haven’t got all day!” Cheney grouches. A staff member rushes frantically out of the room, reappearing moments later with a disheveled George Bush.

“This is your chair, Mr. President.” the staffer offers politely as he pulls out the President’s seat.

“Hey! Texas! Are you tellin’ me that you don’t have time to get to my meeting on schedule? What a loser! God!” Cheney booms at the President, disgusted.

Addressing everyone at the table, the Vice President begins. “Okay. It’s no surprise, but we’re dumping old what’s-his-name. Hasn’t got a chance. Recoup all the money we can out of his campaign coffers.” glaring at Josh Bolton, the Chief of Staff. “You got that?”

“Yes, sir. I’ll get people right on it, sir.” The Chief of Staff makes a note in his day planner.

The President, seeming confused, interrupts Cheney. “Uh, does that mean I won’t get to give more speeches? You know, campaign stuff for McCain?”

Cheney fires back. “Just do as you’re told. If they tell you to give a speech, give one. Now, shut up. We’ve got important business here.”

The Vice President turns to Henry Paulson, Secretary of the Treasure. “Hank, how far down are you today with your Goldman Sachs' paper?”

Paulson, still looking bewildered, mumbles, “Another 55 million, Dick. This sucks. I thought the market wasn’t supposed to tank until just after the election!” He continued, “I’m getting phone calls. The one percenters don’t like this. They don’t like this one damned bit! You know what that means.”

Cheney booms back. “Don’t threaten me, you bookie! It’s your job to keep the billionaires happy! You can just get your ass on the phone and quiet ‘em down.” The Vice President glares at the National Security Advisor, then turns to Karl Rove. “You said you had a new plan. Something about the Treasury.”

Karl Rove stood, organizing a few sheets of notes in his hands. “We can still turn this disaster to our advantage. This place is going to be crawling with Democrats in another couple of months, so if we’re going to strike back, we need to do it now.”

“Yeah, we’re going to be sliding out of power, but there’s still time to gut this bastard before we lose George Bush’s legal cover.” He turns to Attorney General Mukasey. “I assume that the Justice Department is still with us? I sent you a list of Republican nobodies you can prosecute if you have to prosecute someone.”

“Dick is right when he says we may as well dump McCain. That whole campaign is self-destructing as we watch. But that means we have to walk away from all the schemes we had for the next four years, no more no-bid contracts and K Street is going to get castrated by these populist do-gooders. That means no more free money for favors.”

“We’ve got to get what we can while the gettin’ is good. That’s where my plan comes in. We can resurrect the same ‘scare team’ we used for Iraq, only this time the new threat will be another Great Depression. I think if we hammer the public into a state of terror for a couple of weeks while Congress is paralyzed, we can ramrod a huge bail out scheme through and be done with it before the election.”

Secretary of Defense Gates offered to help. “I can stop all the expenditures for new military procurement. That will leave a few billion in the defense budget for a snack.”

Cheney responds in a short tone. “Yeah, yeah. Tidbits like that are okay, but we have to think big. We’re going to have to last through the next term on what we can get right now. A few billion defense dollars would normally be interesting, but we have to go for the big one this time.”

President Bush looked more and more confused, but remained silent.

Rove continues. “We can jam a $700 billion dollar bail out through in a couple of weeks. We’ll keep going public with the idea that the details are too complicated to explain, ratchet up the fear card with Depression talk ‘till the public is crazy. We can even throw in some patriotism crap or something. We can contract the Wall Streeters to administer the whole thing. They will be able to loot enough dough from that to stay loyal to us until we’re ready to come back.”

“Plus, this plan has another bonus. If we bankrupt the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, that Democrat son-of-a-bitch won’t have any cash to pay for all of his promises.”

“Face it, gentlemen. We have lost power. We can either stand here and let the poor people get all this money for their goddamned roads and schools and crap or we can funnel it into some pockets that know how to help us later, pockets with good memories of who gave them what.” Rove pauses for effect.

“Dick has decided that we’re going to do this. He expects all of you to tow the line. Yes, there is a little risk once the Democrats have a new Attorney General, but, if everything goes according to plan, we'll be sitting somewhere else with our take before they can do anything about it.”

“Page six of the agenda is a list of countries without extradition agreements along with the names of some banks. I suggest that you make arrangements for travel and moving right away, get your families ready.” He went on, joking. “Don’t steal any famous art, either!”

“This doesn’t have to be the beginning of the end for us. Dick and I like to think that this will be the end of the beginning.”

“President Bush. Anything to add?” Rove turned, condescending, to face the President.

Cheney suddenly stands, gathering his notes as he prepares to leave. The Secret Service agents, still at their stations, swing open the conference room door for his departure.

An H-Bomb Love Sonnet: Part II

How to Quit Worrying and Love the Bomb
Part Two: H-Bombs as a Response to a Rotten Economy - A Bargain at Twice the Price! 24

It is no secret that the engine which makes it possible for a great state to fight wars, legitimate or not, is always its inherent wealth. With enough money we can create a military might suitable for any imaginable capability. The last Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill was for $108 Billion. What if we couldn’t borrow the cash to make such an appropriation?

If that were to be the case, we would have to determine just how essential such a war actually was to our national interests. Perhaps we could sell Alaska back to those recently prosperous Russians for enough money to continue our fight for another year! Is Iraq that essential to our national interests?

What is happening to our economy might very well turn out to be no more than a semiserious recession. On the other hand, there is a suspicious odor about this particular “collapse,” “correction” or “adjustment.” It might easily turn out to be a bit more severe than our memories of generally painless “stagflation,” “inflation” or “recessions” in the past.

No problem. We can rest assured that our Chinese bankers will be happy to reconfigure our debt payments, restructure our interest or, at least, give us a break until things improve a little. Those Chinese are famous for that sort of compassionate lending laxity. Maybe they would like to buy Alaska! A great idea, especially if they can be convinced to pay for it with something other than our dollars.

The financial burden of a great military, especially one with an appetite for irrelevant and expensive assets, is, simply enough, that it costs a lot of money. Unhappily, we have been “hollowing” out all the equity of our economy and turning it over to our billionaires in a brave act of unbridled capitalism (best termed national socialism). We have to suspect that these stalwart American billionaires might be a little reluctant when it comes to financing our extravagant and illogical military should an actual threat to national security arise.

Here we should consider a comparison to the Roman model during the times of that empire. The division of wealth was almost total. The rich, noble families held immense assets (Africa, Spain, Gaul) as a standing form of incentive to assure their loyalty to Caesar. Unlike today when such fortunes must be shielded from the public eye by apologies and deceptions, those Roman folks considered them to be strategic assets!

The compensation was very great for these noble families. They could and did finance their own armies and successfully pursued all sorts of expeditions to enlarge the empire. Of course, the looting involved in such military victories also enhanced their wealth, and to some extent, the wealth of the common Roman. Looking over all the territory, slaves and plunder, they would inevitably say “See, everybody wins!”

Our situation is a little different. First, we can rest assured that no matter how grave the insult to our physical country, these billionaires will continue to do just swell. Their view of our current economy is that profits will be handled capitalistically (15% capital gains tax) and losses will be handled socialistically (Bear Sterns bailout).

However, we must, here, recall that our expensive military is paid for by taxes on “earned income” while the wealth of the billionaires is generated by “unearned income.” Not only is the source stream of these separate types of tax revenues different, the destination of the tax money collected may as well also be considered separate.

As a consequence of this, we might experience a fiscal necessity to start lowering the expense, and hence the military capacity, of our armed forces. This is not to say that we would cease the purchase of all sorts of expensive, irrelevant equipment right away (a precipitous withdrawal). That sort of picky shopping might reduce some of our billionaires to the drudgery of the “earned income” category.

What such a change in policy would suggest is that we would have a continuously smaller and less potent military. Fewer tax dollars means fewer soldiers (but probably not fewer wars).

Here we come, once more, to the H-bombs. Oh yes, we wasted five trillion on stars wars, but we finally paid for those old ICBMs from the 1960’s! We now own them, free and clear! They are like roads and bridges and dams. Of course, the billionaires enjoy the nebulous advantage of the security they provide along with the rest of us “earned income” types, but they don’t own them.

Are the ICBMs really the right weapon to fight “The Global War on Terrorism?” Well, probably not, but they are a weapon we can afford, especially since they are already paid for, and Lord knows, we have plenty of them. And, “You have to go to war with the weapons you have, not the weapons you want.”

Get it?

Thanks for the Education, George!

Blog doc 17 How Much Reconstruction?

Soon there may be a legitimate President in the White House, one which has honestly won an election, one which has campaigned with some sort of implied promise to purge not only the fiscal effects of criminal looting from our economy, but also the wild psychology of the adolescents who have looted our national resolve with their puerile fear mongering.

The cleansing of Abramhoff, DeLay and others of their ilk was a mere scratch on the surface. Granted, each of these minor abrasions revealed more and more of the incredible “classism” of a spoiled draft dodger with the ambitions of an eight year old. As American people, we are cynically adapted to the idea that we will be robbed by “a thousand cuts” no matter who has reached power [Similar to “Being nibbled to death by ducks.”]. However, this time even our long suffering numbness has been insulted by crassness and savage incompetence as we have patiently watched ourselves being robbed.

Civility has been a problem. Any public American has been reluctant to openly and brazenly refer to the executives of the country as “criminals,” or “liars,” or even “corrupt fear manipulators.” No public speech has stood to say clearly that we are foolish and cowardly victims of our own fears, that we are presently suffering the consequences of our failure to stand up as adults when it was the moment for us to face our challenges.

It may be time to reconsider our classical past. Can we reasonably suspect that the Roman Senators would have been so sheepish in either speech or action given the general historical image of their ambitions? Of course, there were limits within such a body, some imposed directly by fear of the consequences of being too blunt or overly suggestive of acts of political competition. Still, we have to assume that even the “low bar” of Roman Senatorial speech in such a place was significantly more direct and specific than the mouse-like drivel of our day, oration filled with obfuscation, blurry generalities and innuendoes.

We must now consider whether or not our blurry, modern concept of oration will ever possibly be direct enough to be a foundation for the correction of the improprieties which have been foisted upon us by our present autocrat. George Bush’s puerile, adolescent attacks on American Constitutional Law have been neither sophisticated, that is, of such a complex and subtle nature as to not manifest themselves in concrete absolutes of criminality, nor hidden away beneath layers of conditional possibilities which might sustain any question about their seriousness. Very little effort has been made in an attempt to present these crimes as confoundingly complex, to establish a continuing idea in our thoughts as citizens that perhaps, “We wouldn’t be so upset if we actually knew more about these matters.”

It is clear, now, that neither our educated and critical opinions nor even our unbiased intuitions have been given any weight in the autocrat’s concerns. He has simply acted, in the behavior of a young boy, to consolidate any advantage he perceives possible, regardless of the appearance of such an act to us. This may represent a greater affront to the citizen than the actual substance of such crimes. Of course, the scandalous actions of his government and his cronies constitute a direct and material loss to us, but his willingness to act in these ways without an accompanying attempt, no matter how mediocre, to at least confuse our perception of such crimes is nothing less than an arrogant and magnificent insult.

In the first case, we might, when our government has become reestablished after the election, launch out in a revolutionary frenzy to expose every tiny instance of his record. Every lie, every cheap manipulation through false fears, every instance of greed and looting, every corrupt redistribution of power, every grotesque “religious” ambition, and every other destruction of our cultural heritage -- legal, economic, social and in spirit -- might be revealed. Once the perpetrators and the abettors and the benefactors have been identified, the next phase of such a reconstructive undertaking might reasonably be a Stalin-esque purge of these parasites.

If this response were selected, the most notable of these self-descriptive elitists should experience the horror of the prisons they like so much, that is, not the “tennis-court” incarceration always mysteriously provided for the careless criminal nobility of the past, but the “real thing” inhabited by the victims of their own inspired, self-righteous laws. It would present them with another, so-far unexplored, opportunity to not only flesh out their claims to populist ideology, but also to establish an environment for them to learn new and exciting lessons about life in hopeless, endless terror. You know, Iraqi civilian style.

The alternative would be one extracted from a more Sunday School response to these attacks we have suffered. Because we will be so occupied with new challenges necessary to “get America moving again,” we might, in the shade of reconciliation and economy, just let these things go, just think of the future, just let the past die its own death.

Pursuing this alternate path, we might feel certain that the rest of the world would be quite reassured to notice that Americans are not vindictive, that they really only care about such luxuries as justice and honor when The Great Economy disregards past infractions and directs itself toward brighter days in the future. These foreigners, after all, might need to understand that our dedication to the Constitution can be reasonably mitigated, that is, we can tolerate such violations and move on, when the time and effort to pursue them would inconvenience our traditional, pragmatic interest in progress and growth.

Such a presumption might be more destructive to our international perception than all the ill conceived nonsense of the autocrat we will discard. We will simply consider the comparative down side of such an image as it is balanced by our previous “faith based” disaster relief, abstinence based AIDS relief and free-market ideology and “faith-based” designs for national reconstruction (after our “shock and awe” approach to “faith-based” regime change and its inevitable, “faith-based” post-bombing house cleaning).

The world might, finally, comprehend. The phrase, “Oh those Americans! No matter. Boys will be boys.” might be the seed for a new, more positive world view of our culture, but, unhappily, the disastrous opposite might more likely be the case. Can we, as a nation, dare to continue our insipid claim that “Gee, it seemed like a good thing for us to do at the time.” as a panacea for all these tragedies of our past greed and our past fear?

We might need to think a bit more seriously. We might find ourselves formulating a new message to our leaders.

“If your plan involves handing our tax money over to your cronies so they will support your campaigns, if your plan involves dropping bombs from the planes we citizens have paid for, if your plan requires holding people for years without lawyers, trials or charges, if your plan defines the cunning required to prepare the electorate to vote against its own interests as a result of your deceptions, we are not interested in your plan.”

“Please be advised. We have become a little more testy about being made into patsies. Many thousands of us have graduated from the Bush School with advance degrees and the scars from our long painful studies.”

The Terror of the Moment

BLOG 3 Fear: How Much Is Enough? November 19,2007

When the cave bear approached brave Homo Erectus, the full range of available risk aversion balanced his odds of outrunning the creature or, perhaps less appealing to him, winning or losing a fight with it. Our central question rests firmly on comparing our odds on the “Law of Accidents” which placed the bear threateningly close and whether or not the fears we face today have the same mercurial origin.

Fear translates to control. The presence of the bear, at that moment, completely controlled the cave man, given his attachment to the 2nd Planetary Imperative, that is, the general axiom of all life: “Don’t die if you don't have to!” That aspect of fear seems to exist perpetually where there is life. (Refer to “Personal Possibilities” website for more information on planetary imperatives.)

All but the suicidal few agree, notwithstanding certain lines in our cinema scripts such as “I don’t care if he/they/it kills me. I’m going in anyway!” How often do we hear that when it is really meant?

The most potent fear of all is the death fear making it The Fear with the possibility for the greatest control, at least for human beings. The religionists got to this fear first, compounding it into their mythologies of unfortunate reincarnations, lakes of burning fire and every other tree in the orchard of modern Zoroastrian dualistic terrors. Once the incorporation of this fear was complete and available to every appetite or necessity for control, the continuous telescoping the phenomenon into every variety of cheap comic book and dirty shirt preacher with a frightening story roared into action.

The only other resource required by the benefactors of these issues of control was some program of mitigation. “Only if you follow me or him or us will you escape. We have convinced you that your position, whatever it might be, is quite, shall we say, either hopeless of at the very least quite vulnerable. Now, do as we say and think as we think. Make your own ‘movie’ from our story to sustain your terror and obedience.”

With the cosmic application of the death fear monopolized by this mischief, what is left for the ambitious politician in his sleazy quest for his own ration of influence and control? Well, well. It seems there are still a few neglected morsels left unnoticed on the floor beneath this religious feast. In any event, he will have to deal only with his uniquely constructed “cave bear” at the kitchen door, not some messy high maintenance soul business.

In contrast to the work of the religionists, the politician, and that is a ‘politician of any stripe, autocrat, dictator, party boss or simple clever liar who has already accumulated sufficient strength to have everyone’s attention,’ must take care with the thread of his story. Inconsistency for the pious can always be discounted as alternative dogma or heresy. The same “loose ends” for the ambitious autocrat can easily metabolize into dangerous suspicion. A terrified constituency, in this case, is a “happy face.” A suspicious constituency will be no more fun than a lingering toothache. Especially when the current news of his endeavor to protect them is not “roses, simply roses.”

So what is there remaining for his use? The death fear of the religionists is, generally, a risky nightmare with an onset perhaps no more than an instant after death. Our autocrat will require one based more on earthly sensations, one lasting from a few moments, say, close to the mushroom cloud, or one more durable, perhaps one not close enough to be measured in moments.

You know. The one that the Vice President mentioned. Of course, the children heard him. What an excellent investment for the future! What a nice man!

Nerve gas and fine tuned bacteria would last for various times. All these must be no more than a fleeting aside in the speech. He say too little and none will notice that he said it. Too much and that good old fighting spirit will be reduced to abject, hopeless fatalism. It must be just right. And it must be just right when repeated by other voices, voices which can also command attention.

These short quips, aside from seeming to have been nonchalant, routine reminders, must still be delivered with an air of long suffering courage if not outright bravado. This long suffering servant of our survival will require great measures of support, silent agreement, patriotism, as it is defined by his crisis, and cash. Especially cash. It’s sources and future consequences mean nothing so long as it is here today.

After all, we struggle for our survival.

And there will be blood in the dust. Not too much to fear a little, perhaps even more than a little. Even this can be managed to an advantage if it can be delivered with callous glory. Somehow, even the theatrical use of terms such as “our kids over there,” the careful delineation of “soldiers and marines,” and the most awful and fearful of all, “ultimate sacrifice.”

Once past the initial faint complaints about the allocated money, there can be further threats uttered about our homeland economy. No enemy can have suitable credentials without threatening our economy. A toothless enemy who does not threaten our economy would be almost useless as a fear generator. Even so, as with Homo Erectus and the cave bear, it will be far more fearful to take the odds of picking up the spear than building solar panels.

Real men have oil hegemony. Spears are for girls.

A wonderful and productive fear can be based on the idea that this enemy might force a change on the homeland. Perhaps an invasion, an immigration or some incompatible new idea that might damage our imaginary status quo while solving our conflict, all quite fearsome. To manage these torments, our autocrat will need phrases. “The founding fathers.” “When I was young.” “The good old days.” All sorts of things that we fear losing, each one a separate dream with an individual meaning and threat for every listener.

There are always a few inevitable social and cultural rashes in the rise of an autocrat. Managed correctly we feel them little more than the bite of an unseen mosquito on our back, but later it begins to itch. And, the itch of an innocent mosquito varies not one bit from the itch of “Malaria Mama!” The head men vary between leaders and incompetents in many possible qualities. There may be fear in the land during the time of either type.

Leaders lead. The others try to run on top of the water in a river of fear without getting damp. When the drought comes, the leaders still lead. Those of us who walk on the earth down below them may feel foolish, embarrassed, but we learn to be afraid far more carefully.

Perhaps we become a little braver.

"The evil of the day is sufficient." (Unknown Origin)