Can Common Sense and Bravery Fix Our Economy?

When we begin with the basic idea that "there's is simply nothing to be done" as we consider the terrible debt we face as a nation, too many political gizmos spring into action before the problem can even become well defined.  There is no shortage of both hyperbole and resignation prepared to instantly flood the discussion, sending it reeling back into its habitual state of stasis.

MeanMesa suspects that the GOP actually printed an immense mountain of  campaign literature touting tax cuts and less spending some decades ago, and since then, has only returned to the warehouse for more at each election cycle.  For the same decades, Democrats have never again found the focus of effort which made some previous reformers so successful.

At this point, MeanMesa is also not convinced that irresolute spending must continue to re-start the economy after the Great Republican Recession of 2007.  The general idea may have serious merit, but the hordes of budgetary peccadillos now firmly ensconced in the Federal budget -- each one well protected by its own special guard -- seem more than capable of permanently deflecting any attempt at quick fixes.

Each one becomes an issue of "whose ox is to be gored."

So, shall we simply surrender, keep borrowing money until the well is dry, then face our final fate in a desolate, bankrupt wasteland?  Maybe not.

MeanMesa would like to present a plan.

The Dysfunctional Senate, The New Yorker, Aug. 6, 2010 (image source)

The Warning

We can begin by delaying action for a pre-determined period to be announced at the very outset.  The most recent mantra of the conservatives has had everything to do with predictability, so by announcing the time line early, all the players can enjoy the inevitable prediction that the change is coming.

Further, the first elements of the change can accompany the announcement.  That change will be a blanket reduction in every Federal check for anything, under any circumstances, regardless of political sponsorship.  The reduction should start at around 2%.  This figure will become the base reduction, and it will apply to the price of blood in operating rooms in equal measure to the most deceptive style of oil industry subsidy.

2% minimum.  Period.

The "Menu" for the Congress

Once the postponement has passed, the Congress should cancel its vacations for a term or two and get busy with some real cost cutting.

The CBO can prepare a simplified, educational form which presents the entire US Federal budget in understandable terms.  The actual budget being used by the House in its typical spending plans is upwards of a thousand pages -- even in a good year.  When the "snakes are home," it gets even longer than that.

Instead of a legalese "chart of accounts" ranging into the thousands, this version of the budget will have a pre-determined number of such division, say 500.  This "upper limit" will be important because it will set the scope of the task to be undertaken.  For those masochists among the public interested in even more detail, an explanatory pamphlet can be provided for each of the 500 categories.

This means that each of the 500 categories will, even in its shorter form, have a total.  The sum of those totals will, of course, equal the Federal budget.  Of course, we would be dreaming if we didn't assume that significant voices would begin whining at once, claiming that some specific part of one of the 500 actually belonged in another part.

Oh well.  Totals are totals.

The Meat Grinder

At this point, the House of Representatives will begin preparing a series of bills, 500 to be exact.  Considering the accounts one at a time, they can debate how much more than the 2% base they wish to cut from each total.  This debate will not be particularly one concerning the "pros and cons" of the "value" of the specific expense, but rather a discussion centered solely on whether or not -- and how much -- the respective totals are to be lowered.


After all, every part of this stuff was, apparently, critically necessary at some point in the past.  Why resurrect all that debate when the focus is on the totals?


At the moment the House began this deliberation, nothing in the entire Federal budget was funded.  As the debate proceeds, each of the 500 accounts will be funded under the budget bill created for each account.  This means that there will be 500 individual bills forwarded to the Senate and later, to the President.


In each of the 500 debates, the American people can watch their Representatives make the hard decisions about the, uh, "ox goring."  In each case, the voters can see where the cuts were limited to the 2% base and where they were increased.  The voters can also watch to see just who voted for which spending cuts, making the next election somewhat livelier than usual, at least, given the number of oxen to be gored, somewhat bloodier.


Of course, the first inclination of the Legislature would be to mire the process in a terminal bog with procedural delays -- some actual, but probably most, strategic -- which would promise to extend the task for decades.  The idea here is that the entire body would, at the beginning, agree to handle all 500 bills before the term expired.  Any Legislator voting against that would do so at his own peril.


No amount of Citizens United money would be able to protect such a miscreant during the next election.  The same fate would await those in the Senate who took advantage of the arcane rules of that body to attempt the same delays.  The government will either act to solve this problem or not.  If the answer is "not," we voters should have a chance to elect a new government.


The majority of Americans, made desperate now by the inability to act in the government, would not tolerate any more maneuvering on such an important duty.  MeanMesa does not categorize this presumption as "wishful thinking," either.


There would be "no place to hide" for Congressman, Senator or President.  One bill after another would begin its journey through a chastened government.  The decisions for budget cutting would each carry an intrinsic threat, not particularly based on the nature of the cuts so much as on the dictate of cooperation demanded by the citizens.


Endless media deceptions, inflammatory rhetoric and breathless pundits would be gratefully endured.  Somewhere around the 100th bill, these "marginally patriotic" sponsors of confusion and division would probably run out of gas.  Perhaps an unanticipated benefit for the country would arise from a dwindling interest in these "nose bleed" peddlers.

The Publicity

The abbreviated form of the budget categories would be widely publicised in preparation of the Congressional review.  At this point, we could anticipate  the early "screaming stage" where every line item in the mix would become something between a desperate necessity, a sacred cow or an outrageous waste.

Once the budget review began, perhaps the media could be enticed to cover the proceedings.  In any case, most of the events driving the usual trash news from Washington would be swallowed up in the process.  Citizens could keep "score cards" which would record how much had been cut from the budget, haw such decisions had been reached and who had voted to cooperate with the program and who hadn't.

Much effort has been directed at convincing Americans that they could not possibly understand the complexities of our national budget, that is was a ghostly, mysterious matter which could only be fully comprehended by economic experts.  Considered in this way, the national budget audit would present a continuing part of President Obama's goal of revitalizing interest in the things which really matter to us as country.  The interest in politics has certainly been revitalized already, and this effort would do the same for our budget.

All kinds of useful changes might emerge from the task, too.  For one, many of the obstacles currently paralyzing any effort to reform tax policy might lose some of their sting.  Uninformed, mindless bitching about the hopeless nature of our economic woes might be replaced by more involved attitudes which were more inclined toward action than doleful resignation.  The misinformation campaigns so intent on polarizing the country with imaginary threats and opportunities might finally begin to actually touch the earth below their "feet of clay."

Finally, we have to ask ourselves the question:  "Is this too much to expect from the ones we've elected?"

The answer to that has to be "no."

Watching Codependents Argue Politics

Does the Elephant in the Living Room Add A Voice To Our Political Discourse?
What else could we expect from a codependent social culture? 61

The Cliff’s Notes version of codependency’s definition deals with a crazy appetite for control, a stark dislike of confrontation and, at least, a conceptual foundation bricked up with these two features supporting various mechanisms of projecting authority. Apparently, a dismal lack of confidence might be added to the list.

No matter of concern for the successful self-delusionist. Any honest personal examination of these traits can be avoided with a psycho-narcotic dose of implied judgments not particularly burdened with risky original propositions.

Now to politics.

All about us there is a perpetual hue and cry for a discussion of the issues. No venom is too cruel for all the posturing and speeches intended to provide trust, understanding and identification with the candidates. If one were to accept this endless diatribe about the “avoiding of issues,” he would find himself enduring an equivalent airtime of cage wrestling brutality which never strayed from red meat discussions of direct arguments about almost everything. For example, say, nuclear war with Russia, the total destruction of North Korea, and so on.

There would be nervous breakdowns, suicides, domestic violence, drug addiction and alcoholism running rampant. It seems that we are too willing to simply forget that we are hiring these people to take care of all this stuff. We’re too busy taking care of our own pressing decisions.

Let’s add codependency to the mix.

Rather than indulging in “blogosphere” psychotherapy, we can extract a few phenomena which might illuminate this peculiar argument. What signs of codependency are we talking about, anyway?

1. We would like to know exactly what is going to happen.

A central feature of the qualified candidate is to know ahead of time just what challenges might arise. We have always granted great acclaim to prophecy realized. When some terrible development slides into our reality, our first interest rests with who saw it approaching first, not what can we do about it.

Now that we face some sort of economic meltdown, for example, the candidates appear much more interested in staking out the ground of the earliest warning about it than presenting any innovative counter to the threat itself. The specific nature of the calamity -- and its gravity -- quickly fades into a research project of just exactly who frightened us about it first.

The predictable result of this approach is that every politician feels compelled to frighten us quite frequently about all sorts of things, placing his timely fear marker on our poker table. Should any of these dire predictions materialize, he will be able to exude at least the implication of his own insight and thoughtfulness. His solution, although a reality we will probably end up living through, will be a secondary matter compared to his foresight.

Codependents value early warnings much more than good solutions. It is a convenient underpinning of their sensation for having control.

2. We would prefer a very specific promise from these candidates of ours as to exactly what they would do in all manner of hypothetical situations.

As we listen to campaign explanations of a candidate’s proffered response to various opportunities and calamities, one would suspect that we live in an absolute dictatorship. No matter the plan presented, there is always the matter of a recalcitrant congress, an economy with sufficient strength and a durable popular support. The voting public has a history of being rather fickle. Yes, the President will have a bully pulpit. No, his proposals will never enjoy so much as a single moment of peace before the counter arguments arise.

Further, conditions change. Along with the evolutionary shift brought by a new President, many other things also evolve. International affairs germinate, sprout and blossom on heavily unpredictable schedules. Foundations of domestic political support ebb and rise with rather shocking new political ambitions from all quarters. No matter the controlling complexity of hypotheticals, no matter how finely they are resolved into clusters of imagined details, they will never offer a rational measure which might absolutely and accurately predict the behavior of the man we might elect President.

For the codependent with a demanding insistence on knowing outcomes beforehand, this dynamic essence of the moment becomes a worrisome menagerie of alternate possibilities. Threats and opportunities arising in spontaneous moments are equally disturbing. (Troublesome spontaneous moments are those which have eluded the hypotheticals.)


3. We would really rather not have to risk trusting our own intuition or judgment.

If we were exercise this sort of intuition or judgment, it would present itself as a rather subjective insight. Based on what we gradually came to assume about a candidate’s character, background, reliability and so forth, we would venture forth into those rough seas and simply say “As far as I can tell, this one is the guy we want.”

Risky? Of course. This choice may really not be the guy we want. We may have been fooled, or worse yet, successfully deceived. Lied to! What fools we would be! Or worse, what fools we would appear to be! “Just imagine! I voted for that guy!”

Our alternate approach is to scurry about stacking up incredible amounts of evidence supporting our decision. Here, the difficulty lies in the obvious. There is no existential source for supporting evidence for hypothetical propositions. If there were, it would, again, be the utter, infallible voice of prophecy! If such evidence were to precisely match the conditions arising later, an election choice would amount to little more than diligent research.

Unhappily, we are inevitably confronted with the problem of selecting evidence derived from non prophetic estimates of the future. The details are, somehow, unavoidably mismatched, inaccurate or suspiciously motivated. (All those Biblical prophets fared so well chiefly due to their elevation to that status after the prophesied events or something similar actually occurred. Rather detail-free prognostications didn’t hurt their ascent too much, either.)

Codependents find extremely greater comfort in pitting contradictory research against all other evidence rather than in the bravado of outright speculation based on their own intuition and confidence. We find ourselves waging a war of conflicting information and considering it to be waging a war of ideas and issues. Just so long as someone else -- almost anyone else -- said something, it qualifies as a legitimate position.

At this point, these lengthy extractions and quotations are filling the web memory with literally gigabytes of storage as they are trotted out over and over. The debate centers on conflicts of raw data rather than on an individual's thought propositions based on such quotations. Only what is cited does battle. Conclusions drawn from such material and presented as arguments, that is, presented as products of confident, original thought, fill sparse, hard starved kilobytes of that same storage.

Little quality, much quantity. A wrenching poverty of conclusions from those who cite and a mindless, thundering maelstrom of insinuations from those cited. When the tangible discrepancies become too ponderous, the authority of the authors of those cited works becomes the battleground. No ideas -- too risky. Maybe even more endless text from someone else will finally be persuasive! Has winning the argument surpassed supporting good solutions?

“To hell with the prospects of the candidate. I must prevail over this mindless debate!”

4. We insist on a spectacular absence of hypocrisy, real or imagined.

What sort of treasures are sought in all these unending, quoted presentations? The most highly valued of all would be a revelation of hypocrisy. Oh yes, all the jurors will anxiously commence a public contest to see who is more outraged, but each will remember his own transgressions as he struts and spouts the depth of his dire injuries. Hypocrisy is usually either too complicated (One must read all this stuff first, as preparation, of course.) or simply centered on some topic without any particular interest. Alter boys in the closet, it isn’t.

The election of saints would always be a bad idea if it were ever actually true, but, aside from the case of those satisfied Iranians, such dreamy idealism is almost always a fraud. A temporary one. Hypocrisy is as common as wallpaper and as provocative as paint. Beige paint. The only tangible product of paying so much attention to hypocrisy is the creation a horde of self-protective politicians so adept at omitting details that their painfully generalized policy positions gradually become monotonously mud-like. When presented with such tortured propositions we, naturally, become a bit frustrated.

Breaking loose: “Why not zany?”

If our scrutiny of these statements and positions becomes energized enough, we may resort to consulting dictionaries, compendia and other authorities to enable our “debating.” Hogwash!

If you wish to use a word in a meaning other than the dictionary’s, go ahead! Present yourself. Explain yourself. Defend yourself. Place that idea of yours out in the world where it can either flourish or wither. The price of that “withering” has been unreasonably exaggerated! It has become an unexamined phobia! The penalty we imagine as we accept this notion of “paying too high a price” for expressing ideas of ours that never “connect” is a deception. A codependent deception! Our well groomed temerity has produced a swamp devoid of life sustaining innovation or sparks, a wasteland of endlessly restructured quotations with such a dismal, ponderous homogeneity that we begin to suspect that there really isn’t even a possibility of anything new, much less anything new and relevant.

Too often that conclusion suggests that there aren’t any possible answers or solutions. Not too far below that idea is hopelessness, a startling invitation to more attempts to extract control during a plummet to calamity. Yuck.

An endless "snipe hunt" searching for hypocrisy or someone to agree with can hardly be considered our best effort at objective mentation. The stakes are frighteningly high. Is this the best we chose to offer? Is offering something better simply too risky?

If you wish to present an argument of your own, go ahead! A bit of research to explain your thoughts might be nice, but to insist on finding some other statement which is similar is utterly unnecessary. And, disgustingly codependent. Good, new, innovative ideas find little comfort in the imagined security of the “safety in numbers” myth.

Being involved hardly requires cover from external authorities. Each of us is endowed with a mind and a mouth. Confidence comes from our own work on ourselves, from our unbending determination to exercise our precious lives to the fullest. Confidence comes from our insistence that our own personal, individual effort at life be always at its maximum.

Speak up.

Just Show Me You Care, and I'll Vote You In

Blog doc 15 Fundamentals of American Politics: Part Eleven - Purchasing an Office

There is a running deception which begins in the numbing experience of high school civics, matures in a grotesque way and finally appears in place in our government. This would be little more than an interesting socio-cultural phenomenon in any environment other than the focused power of our government. There, the expenditure of $150,000,000 is a very reasonable cost to lubricate the transfer of power from old administrations to new ones. That will be the rough cost of shepherding a Democratic candidate into the White House, even in a year when the election is essentially without a contest, no matter who will be the choice.

Why goodness gracious! In an ideal world we could lament about just how many tractors, irrigation projects, water wells, schools or clinics might be built with cash like that. In a more pragmatic world we might consider that money sufficient for a single fifth generation fighter bomber. At least an economy model with no arm rests. In fact, $150,000,000 is actually enough money to “support the troops” in Iraq for a little less than one hour and thirty minutes, now that the monthly bill has been economized to $12 billion.

Why is it so expensive to “schmooze” the electorate into such a decision? After all, it has taken time to convince a voter that he has been somehow disenfranchised if he is not bombarded by irritating television commercials. Aside from making certain that every voter has an opportunity for some new, exciting explanation of the “Vision, Justice, Change” idea, there is still the matter of “name recognition,” or even, “electability.”

During the Cold War when the Russians were contemplating a first strike against us, we can be sure that all those Russian Generals were sizing up their chances based on the “name recognition” and “electability” of the President they were to be going against. When the single mother is trying to keep her hungry baby warm in a cold apartment, she will be able to take a great comfort from the nation’s leadership’s “electability” and “name recognition.” After all, we didn’t elect just anybody.

That $150,000,000 successful election effort is required to win. It is absolutely necessary to wall paper the psyche of every voter with enough televised “Vision, Change and Direction” messages, regardless of what they are, to generate the needed cloud of “name recognition” and “electability.” If there are too few such commercials for any given candidate, it will be damning evidence indeed that the votes in one’s county, village or city are not valued enough by some ambitious fellow on his (or her) way to the top of the heap.

Cash-wise, we need also remember that eight or ten losers all invested $149,000,000 each to the same effort. By the way, what exactly would my share of that have been if, instead of those ridiculous commercials, I had received a simple, honest bribe? Perhaps this is too much of ancient Rome’s process, too cynical. America is way ahead of that old “wine and circuses” idea.

There is a modern “Tower of Babel” which must be revealed, then explained if one is determined to win. The American model has everything to do with “gut feelings” and “intuition” about an individual. Every issue with merit is illuminated only through the lens of a candidate’s personality. The natural result is a concentration on the individual standing there in the light. The appalling second thought is whether some candidate seems to be winning. Then we voters join in with the same mental clarity as can be found in a dog fight. And the same unbending intent. We simply must elect one of them!

Selecting an individual from the field based on a carefully tailored image of personality is abysmally complicated. And risky. It inevitably asks an ill prepared and ill informed electorate to connect the number of divorces to the quality of economic policy, the religion of childhood to the level of cynicism in plans to fight crime or the suitability of an affected accent to the nuances of international relations.

This process we have spent such energy perfecting is a rolling paradox. We cannot choose the individual without the maddening proliferation of the positions on things, hypocritically word smithed positions on things which are promised to be exactly the “burning question of the day” even when they seem, well, a little off, somehow. Likewise, when we focus on these special, selected “issues,” we can view them only through our unconfident and threateningly incomplete guess about the implementing process of the candidate which seems to have become associated with them. Nothing is certain. Unless it is a very good year, nothing is even probable. Listening to more of their impassioned drivel about “change,” “vision,” “hope,” “direction,” “progress,” “freedom” or even “justice” only makes the mental nosebleed worse than before.

There is no refuge to be had by selecting a party. In fact, no one can remember what these organizations were designed to provide when they were first created, while they still had some discernible purpose. All the facts are submerged by the recollected memories of this President from this party or that President from the other party and his alleged behavior which was, somehow, an indication of his Party’s philosophy. By far the most educational feature of our modern parties will be the elephant and the horse, each presented as an updated caricature every several years as a testament to modernity.

It is so nebulous, we don’t even know if we’ve been tricked even after it is over! Was this President true to his party’s ideology? Tough question when we don’t know and never knew what that is alleged to be. Did he keep his promises? Were there promises, hidden somewhere amid the “change” and the “vision” and the new “direction?” If we isolated one of these complicated, ethereal things could we even tell if it was kept after the House, Senate and Supreme Court were finished savaging it for the interests of their friends? Or his friends?

It is, in fact, a relatively simple dichotomy. One side is ever so slightly liberal. The other, equally conservative. Of course, there are the myriad of vagaries inescapably attached to each, but perhaps there does exist some thread of motive to separate them into understandable choices, each carefully laundered into a form reflecting sincerity, occasional honesty and enlightened pragmatism.

Without the “laundry,” cynicism wins, and the cynic also wins -- a trip to Homeland Security for rendering. Without a lawyer. Or a trial. No matter, the “tapes” of the confession have been destroyed, but the evidence would still count if there ever were to be a trial. This might be “vision,” “change” or “justice.”

Both choices must be arranged with the promise of a high agenda, one motivated by the best interests of, of course, the country. A clear description of this liberal and this conservative will be necessary.

Liberals place the highest priority on the advancement of the common people, and in pursuing this, they argue, will inevitably advance the nation. Conservatives, on the other hand, place their highest priority on the advancement of the nation and, as they pursue this goal, they believe their course will inevitably advance the common citizen.

Welcome to England. Is there any possibility that we could simplify the message? Any hope that these political parties might actually mean something to a voter? Is there any future in somehow separating candidates from ideology, a chance that these issues might be considered separately? Is it reasonable to chose a political future based on some kind of coherent and comprehensible position? You know, something parliamentary.

Quit Complaining about Politics and Be Happy

BLOGdoc 8 Disgusted with Politics

Any discussion of historical forms of societal leadership can either be short and sweet or some kind of endless Western Civ. nightmare, that is, the kind of Western Civ. that seems to go on for nineteen semesters. Around the time we were first establishing this country there was a very intellectual class, some espoused extremely innovative plans, some focused on subtle but enlightened variations of systems already in place. We should assume that some were only in it for the girls and the glory, the lectures and the luncheons. Some thought that continually war was humanity’s highest calling.

If we were completely objective in our analysis of the successes and failures that litter history, we might conclude a alarmingly well distributed list of origins of culture originating from each of the above.

We, notwithstanding all the fine essays contemporary with the start of our Democratic Republic, pretty much drifted into a corner. In order to satisfy everyone in that now famous corner, we married politics. Politics would become the “energy source,” “think tank,” “primary roadblock” and “sacred symbol,” whatever that means, for the fledgling country.

Once having established the Democratic Republic guided by the vagaries of the political selection of leaders, each with his own unique ideas about what was desirable, detestable, un-American or bad for business, we found ourselves, finally, prepared to criticize the process, past governments, present governments and a dozen elusive forms of essence definitions of exactly what our future dreams should be according either to the shaky record of the rules of the founding fathers or unavoidable changes in the same which have become cruelly necessary.

You know. Changes necessary for our survival, honor or prosperity which visit us thanks to unfair foreign mechanizations or other general uncertainties in the world around us. All but the most extreme domestic schemes were awkwardly protected under our policy of freedom. Of the remainder, the few which are prosecuted fell under our policy of treason.

The founders did not select oligarchy, theocracy, monarchy or mob rule. At least they did not agree to an overwhelming system comprised of a homogenous construction of any of these. They hammered out a new system which, they hoped, would incorporate just the right bit of each flavor. It was their hope that all the citizens would be equally disheartened and optimistically satisfied. In the sense of history, that would mean that all the rifles stayed in the closets.

So, here we stand, complaining about both the process and results of politics. Complaining continuously. We are always shocked by how low the tactics have become, how dishonorable and corrupt all the choices are.
We bemoan the fact that the voting population seems to repay campaigns that spend the most to woo them, never mind the message. After all, the stakes have grown higher every year we prosper more than the last year.

Amid the criticism we fall upon specific peccadilloes served up to us as scandals, overlooking others not selected for our scrutiny. We are uniformly horrified at the cost of campaigns, but we are still flattered when we remember how these people must value our vote. We tax all of their campaign creativity until they are left with little else to say other than “911,” “new direction” or, simply, “change.”

It rebounds a little when they finally start attacking each other. The more like a desperate football game it becomes, the more we like it. Or, hate it. Or both.

The founding fathers said very little about the nature of the process they selected for us beyond “be honest or don’t get caught.” It is an ignoble, dastardly pragmatic business. We all pretend that we know the right way to do it. The modernity of politics might surprise the founding fathers and some of those in that old intellectual class, but all of them would accept it as being the very thing they had in mind.

They would accept it as a Dionysian festival where all the accelerator pedals are welded to the floorboards. Probably the only way to disappoint all these dead dreamers would be to stop complaining.

Thanks for the Steadfastness of Progressive Radio

BLOGdoc 4 Dad Comes To Visit November 20, 2007

“Hey! How are ya’ doin’ kiddo?”

“Dad! I’m doin’ pretty well, at least as well as can be expected. Its great to see you!”

“What do you mean, ‘as well as can be expected?’ This is a darned beautiful day!”

“Gosh, dad. Don’t you ever get tuned into the news? There is a lot of trouble running around. I mean its trouble out in the world, but, you know, its the kind of trouble that can be right here in no time.”

“Hold it right there, son. I’ve seen this attitude creeping up on you for some time. So has your mom. She’s worried about this, too. In my day we were raised to, well, fit into America. We were taught by our parents, your grandparents, and our church goin’ that we could have happy, productive lives if we spent our time payin’ attention to our own business, not roaming around the whole world lookin’ for trouble. Why, when I was your age, I just concentrated on my family. None of us were out borrowin’ trouble, and that made us, well, satisfied. You know, calm. We were optimistic because we knew that we were living in the greatest nation ever made.”

“Since you’ve got me started, I’m just gonna go on ahead and tell you some things that have been on my mind for a while, now. See, maybe you didn’t notice, but I’ve been in your house when you were listening to that Air America on your radio. Your mom has heard it, too. She didn’t know what to think of it, but I did. There she was in our kitchen, asking me about what she heard.”

“Your mom didn’t know stuff like that was on the radio. That’s why she asked me about it. Since we’re talking about your bad attitude, I guess its time to tell you what I told her.”

“See, a radio station like that wants to convince you that there are millions of people listening to it. You know, millions of people hearing that stuff and believing what they hear. Yeah, that radio station wants to trick everybody listening to it into thinking that there are millions of other people who agree with that stuff. Those people are brainwashing everybody who listens to them.”

“Dad, they aren’t just guessing that many people are listening to them. They take the count the same way all the other networks do it.”

“Well, they might be doing that, but most of the people they get on the phone while they are out there counting listeners, most of those so called listeners just tuned in by mistake. They were just getting ready to look for something better when they called. Lots of the others are people in old folks homes who just sit around and listen to the radio without even knowing what’s on it. Nurses and people like that who are liberals tune in those radios to Air America on purpose because they know the old people won’t change the station.”

“There might be one or two thousand people who actually listen to that Air America, but the rest of the million listeners they claim to have are nothin’ more than accidents and old people. I’d figure that the other two million listeners they claim to have are just plain lies and payoffs.”

“Your mom and I always hoped that it was just some clumsy accident that tuned your radio into that station, but after we kept hearing it when we visited, we finally figured out that your were tuning it in on purpose. Normally, we wouldn’t have anything to say about it, but neither one of us can stand by while you play that stuff with the little one around where he can hear it. That’s our grandson we’re talking about. We can’t let that go on. See, he doesn’t understand the price he’s going to have to pay for being a liberal when he grows up.”

“Your mom’s already worried about her bridge partners findin’ out about you and your wife. That’s not to even mention what would happen if that ever got to her church friends. Do you even realize that Father Diaz talks about Air America from the pulpit? Warns us about the danger of lettin’ stuff like that get into us, you know, gettin’ into our souls and stuff like that.”

“Father Diaz warns us about those people. They’re broadcasting poison, and the more of that poison you hear the more you believe it, the more you want. They’re like the Moslems. They hate America. They hate our freedom! Those Air America radio people are trying to make you forget just how valuable our freedom is here in the United States.”

“They’re taking everyday news and turning it into half-truths and inflammatory deceptions of all sorts. I’ve never heard it, but I trust Father Diaz -- and my neighbor, you know, George. George and me have always been able to talk to each other in private when there’s trouble. George has read stuff in his magazines about Air America.”

“Those magazines he reads are about deep truth, stuff that’s too complicated to be in the newspaper. See, if Air America was as important as those people claim, there would be stuff about it in the newspaper or the tv news shows. I’m telling you. It doesn’t matter what kind of lies they’re telling about how many dirty little radicals they claim are listening to ‘em. If they amounted to anything important, they’d be all over the news.”

“See, they’re trying to trick you. They want you to turn into some kind of a whining liberal loser, then, when the truth finally comes out, you’re going to be stuck. You’re gonna’ be a liberal when everyone else in America is still on track. Then where will you be? And not just you but also your whole family. You haven’t been thinking about what might be good for them, have you?”

“George knows about this stuff. He’s read about what happens to people who get hooked on Air America. That bunch makes everyone who listens to ‘em sick on a steady diet of environment stuff. Those Air American liberals are always playing trick recordings about stuff Republicans have said and then laughing at them. Those people think they are so smart that it is okay for them to make fun of anyone who doesn’t agree with ‘em.”

“Son, if you have a shred of patriotism left in you after all that, you’re going to cancel that button on your radio that tunes in Air America. You need to get with the program. Because we live in America, we have to freedom to listen to anyone we like, and that American freedom I’m talking about has provided us with some of the best free press choices in the world.”

“Its good that you are interested in the news and everything, but you’ve got to take advantage of some better quality media. If you just try this, I’ll bet you’ll really like it. You won’t notice it all of a sudden, but you will start being more positive. You know, the stuff going on the world isn’t nearly so depressing if you just get a hold of the true story.”

“Hell, face it. Once you get away from those liberal wimps, your sex life will probably get better. I’m not saying that you need to listen to the radio while you’re having sex. If you fill yourself up in the daytime listening to real men, real Americans, it’ll last over into the night if you know what I mean.”

“You’ll sleep better if you start getting your news from the regular channels. Even if you don’t start sleeping better, those ABC, NBC, CBS channels all show commercials about the newest cutting edge drugs. In fact, that’s where your mother got the idea for her Xanterdrobe. She saw it on a commercial during the news and went right down to her female doctor and demanded it.”

“You’re never gonna’ hear about new stuff like that on Air America.”

“See, you’ve got a choice to make. You can go on poisoning yourself with PBS and Air America drivel or you can tune into to some of the good stuff. Its all over the radio, you know. Shows like the ones I listen to, you know, Rush and Hannidy, not only give you good solid news, but they’re funny. They’ll make you feel better. Why not just jump into the mainstream? Just try it. Tune into Savage and O’Riley. Join the human race the way millions of Americans do everyday. These guys are literally all over the radio they’re so popular. And, they wouldn’t be all over the radio if people didn’t listen to, and people wouldn’t listen to ‘em if they weren’t right. Put some good grown-up entertainment into your life. You’ll like it!”

“I’m glad I finally got all this off my mind.”

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)