Our last three Presidents smoked marijuana (and probably still do), but they advocate prison for today's users. If Clinton, Bush and Obama had been clapped in prison for puffing weed in their youth, none would have become President. But now they are willing to ruin the lives of others.
The hypocrisy is contemptible.
Back in the 1960s, some police officers in Buffalo confiscated a pound of marijuana from a kid and then began to roll joints and light up. "This stuff is good," they explained to a friend of mine, "Too good for hippies."
The federal attorney general has issued a threat to the voters of California: if they pass Proposition 19, legalizing marijuana, the feds will crack down on the state. It's hard to know what to make of this. It might be a ruse designed to enrage California voters and ensure passage of Prop 19. Or, the only real alternative, it might be the same bluff that was tried when medical marijuana went to a vote. You might recall the result of that threat: nada, nothing, nil. We have medical marijuana. Anyone in California who wants dope can get it. No one cares. The feds are quiet. Washington isn't quite stupid enough to make open war on the voters of California.
I intend to vote yes on Proposition 19 and make marijuana legal, safe and taxable.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
The Compromised
At the moment I think of the Left as consisting of three factions. The first (and smallest) consists of those who support dictators--many dictator-supporters mean well but have a loose grip on reality.
Moving on quickly, we find a larger group of activists whose heroes are writers. These voters follow Amy Goodman, Molly Ivans, Studs Terkel, Malcolm X, Alice Walker and Howard Zinn. So far, so good. The problem with following writers is that they are ineffective leaders. In the cases of Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader, they can be worse than ineffective. The writers are insightful, entertaining, informative and well-fed, but they don't get much done. They don't know how. They don't hold office; They can't get elected.
The largest group of voters on the Left takes its inspiration from pragmatic leaders who actually lower themselves to participate in making hard decisions: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Hillary Clinton, the Obamas, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer. These leaders master the skills needed to run for public office and the skills needed to govern and work for progressive goals. They really get real laws passed. Real laws, of course, are compromises. Effective office holders are always compromised. Even Lynn Woolsey compromises--and gets denounced by vocal parts of the Left.
Moving on quickly, we find a larger group of activists whose heroes are writers. These voters follow Amy Goodman, Molly Ivans, Studs Terkel, Malcolm X, Alice Walker and Howard Zinn. So far, so good. The problem with following writers is that they are ineffective leaders. In the cases of Noam Chomsky and Ralph Nader, they can be worse than ineffective. The writers are insightful, entertaining, informative and well-fed, but they don't get much done. They don't know how. They don't hold office; They can't get elected.
The largest group of voters on the Left takes its inspiration from pragmatic leaders who actually lower themselves to participate in making hard decisions: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, FDR, Hillary Clinton, the Obamas, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer. These leaders master the skills needed to run for public office and the skills needed to govern and work for progressive goals. They really get real laws passed. Real laws, of course, are compromises. Effective office holders are always compromised. Even Lynn Woolsey compromises--and gets denounced by vocal parts of the Left.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Prop 23
Proposition 23 is an effort by oil companies to roll back a law that limits greenshouse gas emissions. Giant multinational oil corporations make the usual Republican claim, which is that limiting greenhouse gas emissions is anti-business and will cost California jobs.
Multinational corporations could not care less about jobs in California. In fact, a war on greenhouse gas emissions will create jobs in the clean technology industry.
What is of more interest are the greed-driven people who run these oil corporations. They are enormously rich but unsatisfied: they want to own everything that exists. They want to own your house and rent you the shoes on your feet. If it's needed to reach their goal, they are quite willing to make the planet uninhabitable for humans, including themselves. Oil Corporations are staffed by the insane.
I guess I will vote no on Proposition 23.
Multinational corporations could not care less about jobs in California. In fact, a war on greenhouse gas emissions will create jobs in the clean technology industry.
What is of more interest are the greed-driven people who run these oil corporations. They are enormously rich but unsatisfied: they want to own everything that exists. They want to own your house and rent you the shoes on your feet. If it's needed to reach their goal, they are quite willing to make the planet uninhabitable for humans, including themselves. Oil Corporations are staffed by the insane.
I guess I will vote no on Proposition 23.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Is Obama a Human Being?
According to about 24% of GOP voters, President Obama is not a human being. He is, instead, the Anti-Christ.
What GOP insanity calls to my mind is that we are one month away from an election that might put the Tea Party in control of Congress. Yet some on the Left are attacking the Democrats. They have reasons, and they have the right to tell us that it makes no difference if Gore or Bush/Cheney becomes President or if the Insane Party or the Democrats chair key committees in Congress.
Maybe because I grew in a working class family, I vote more pragmatically. I sort out the two or three candidates who have a chance to win, and then I vote for the one who will do the least harm. In 2000, for example, I saw that either Gore or Bush would be the next President. I asked myself which one was more apt to kill ordinary people in bunches? Which one will more strongly support Social Security?
American elections are about how much pain will be inflicted on real people, the poor, the middle class, the defenseless around the world. Make your choices.
What GOP insanity calls to my mind is that we are one month away from an election that might put the Tea Party in control of Congress. Yet some on the Left are attacking the Democrats. They have reasons, and they have the right to tell us that it makes no difference if Gore or Bush/Cheney becomes President or if the Insane Party or the Democrats chair key committees in Congress.
Maybe because I grew in a working class family, I vote more pragmatically. I sort out the two or three candidates who have a chance to win, and then I vote for the one who will do the least harm. In 2000, for example, I saw that either Gore or Bush would be the next President. I asked myself which one was more apt to kill ordinary people in bunches? Which one will more strongly support Social Security?
American elections are about how much pain will be inflicted on real people, the poor, the middle class, the defenseless around the world. Make your choices.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Willys
I'm back from cycling in Oregon. Maybe the most memorable moment happened in a parking lot along the Columbia Gorge (which is impossibly beautiful). A young father brought his two small children over to examine a jeep parked next to my van. "Isn't that interesting," he told his children. "Of course it isn't a real jeep. It's an imitation. See here, it has 'Willys' marked on it."
(Maybe I should translate--Willys was the once famous company that made the World War II jeep.)
(Maybe I should translate--Willys was the once famous company that made the World War II jeep.)
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
The Permanent Anger Class
What would satisfy the Super Rich? What is it they want?
"Everything."
Civilization started about 7,000 years ago in China and the Middle East. In the last 3% of that 7,000 years, wealthy white men won the right to vote, followed by the remaining white men, then black men, then women. Ordinary people became the owners of land, not just tenants of a king or nation state. Social security and universal medical care were pioneered in Europe. Today gay people are winning equal rights in the United States.
These gains by ordinary people constitute a threat to the Rich owning everything. To reverse the gains, the Rich don't express anger--they fund the mobilization of a permanent Anger Class to express vulgar fears and rage for them.
On television we watch Tea Party paranoids attacking the Democrats and centrist Republicans of Nambypambytown. Teabaggers are stirred to act by Republican leaders like the former Speaker of the House who recently claimed that Obama was channeling his long dead Kenyan father (whom he barely knew) and taking revenge for the way the British had treated black Africans. No charge is too idiotic. There is little that is new in this--it's American politics as usual.
Presidents are typically attacked viciously. The Rich funded an attempt to use the Anger Class to take the government from FDR by force. Truman was labeled a pinko traitor. Eisenhower was called a communist. JFK supposedly intended to build a tunnel under the Atlantic so he could get his orders directly from the Pope. The Clintons murdered Vince Foster, the Republicans said.
The claims that President Obama was born in Kenya or that he is a Muslim fit the same pattern. The Super Rich fund movements designed to stir up the Anger Class whenever a Democrat or centrist Republican gets elected President.
Consider the history of the Liberty League and the John Birch Society. There will always be 2% or 3% of the public with heads of knuckle. With a little planning and a lot of cash, the Anger Class can be set in motion by the Super Rich, and they will gather friends and allies as they storm ahead.
The Super Rich have not gone after President Obama because his father was black, although that adds a tool useful for their purposes. The Super Rich aren't racists--they hire walking tubes of meat to do the racism. The Super Rich probably like Obama, but he has slowed their acquisitions a bit. From their perspective, the Democrats have to go in November.
What would satisfy the Super Rich? What is it they want?
"Everything."
"Everything."
Civilization started about 7,000 years ago in China and the Middle East. In the last 3% of that 7,000 years, wealthy white men won the right to vote, followed by the remaining white men, then black men, then women. Ordinary people became the owners of land, not just tenants of a king or nation state. Social security and universal medical care were pioneered in Europe. Today gay people are winning equal rights in the United States.
These gains by ordinary people constitute a threat to the Rich owning everything. To reverse the gains, the Rich don't express anger--they fund the mobilization of a permanent Anger Class to express vulgar fears and rage for them.
On television we watch Tea Party paranoids attacking the Democrats and centrist Republicans of Nambypambytown. Teabaggers are stirred to act by Republican leaders like the former Speaker of the House who recently claimed that Obama was channeling his long dead Kenyan father (whom he barely knew) and taking revenge for the way the British had treated black Africans. No charge is too idiotic. There is little that is new in this--it's American politics as usual.
Presidents are typically attacked viciously. The Rich funded an attempt to use the Anger Class to take the government from FDR by force. Truman was labeled a pinko traitor. Eisenhower was called a communist. JFK supposedly intended to build a tunnel under the Atlantic so he could get his orders directly from the Pope. The Clintons murdered Vince Foster, the Republicans said.
The claims that President Obama was born in Kenya or that he is a Muslim fit the same pattern. The Super Rich fund movements designed to stir up the Anger Class whenever a Democrat or centrist Republican gets elected President.
Consider the history of the Liberty League and the John Birch Society. There will always be 2% or 3% of the public with heads of knuckle. With a little planning and a lot of cash, the Anger Class can be set in motion by the Super Rich, and they will gather friends and allies as they storm ahead.
The Super Rich have not gone after President Obama because his father was black, although that adds a tool useful for their purposes. The Super Rich aren't racists--they hire walking tubes of meat to do the racism. The Super Rich probably like Obama, but he has slowed their acquisitions a bit. From their perspective, the Democrats have to go in November.
What would satisfy the Super Rich? What is it they want?
"Everything."
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Who Owns the World?
My oldest friend and his wife live in Canada, where Queen Elizabeth owns their house. That makes them fortunate on a planet in which only 15% of the people own land. In Europe, less than 6% of the people own 59% of the arable land. And these enormously wealthy folks get subsidies from the European Union to farm it. That's a good deal.
The world's richest person, far richer than Bill Gates, is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, who owns Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In fact, she owns lands totalling about three times the size of the United States. The humans who live on her land have two forms of tenure: freehold (a type of tenancy) and leasehold.
This situation is, of course, a continuation of feudalism. A labor parliament passed the Human Rights Act, which offers protection for inferior owners (the Queen is called the superior owner), but any future parliament has the power to repeal this protection. The injustice is not a technicality. During World War II, the British government seized eleven million acres of land while paying little or no compensation.
About 26 kings, emirs, etc., own 20% of the earth's surface. Most of the rest is owned by governments. Every inch of China, for example, is owned by the state, which leases some of it back to the people. The Cuban government owns Cuba. In Ireland, all land is owned by the nation, which took over the British Crown's feudal ownership. And so on.
The first country to encourage ordinary citizens to own land was the United States.
In many countries today written constitutions have built protections for inferior owners. It is unlikely that Queen Elizabeth will actually take control of my friends' home in Canada. What is most curious about the history of landowning-- a history of nearly everyone on earth renting living space from some king--is how, for many thousands of years, we stooped and kissed the whip of superior owners (and still do). What does that say about us?
. . . . read WHO OWNS THE WORLD by Keven Cahill
The world's richest person, far richer than Bill Gates, is Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, who owns Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc. In fact, she owns lands totalling about three times the size of the United States. The humans who live on her land have two forms of tenure: freehold (a type of tenancy) and leasehold.
This situation is, of course, a continuation of feudalism. A labor parliament passed the Human Rights Act, which offers protection for inferior owners (the Queen is called the superior owner), but any future parliament has the power to repeal this protection. The injustice is not a technicality. During World War II, the British government seized eleven million acres of land while paying little or no compensation.
About 26 kings, emirs, etc., own 20% of the earth's surface. Most of the rest is owned by governments. Every inch of China, for example, is owned by the state, which leases some of it back to the people. The Cuban government owns Cuba. In Ireland, all land is owned by the nation, which took over the British Crown's feudal ownership. And so on.
The first country to encourage ordinary citizens to own land was the United States.
In many countries today written constitutions have built protections for inferior owners. It is unlikely that Queen Elizabeth will actually take control of my friends' home in Canada. What is most curious about the history of landowning-- a history of nearly everyone on earth renting living space from some king--is how, for many thousands of years, we stooped and kissed the whip of superior owners (and still do). What does that say about us?
. . . . read WHO OWNS THE WORLD by Keven Cahill
Friday, September 3, 2010
Manly Men
It occurred to me the other day that patriarchy has been a disappointment.
A case in point was President Obama's pledge during his campaign two years ago to wind down the pointless war against Iraq and build up the useless war against Afghanistan. Why would someone as thoughtful as Obama promise to fight a useless war? The answer: he wanted to get elected.
In a patriarchy nobody wins the highest office by pledging to end two wars at once with no victory. Obama had to promise to fight at least one war or go back to the senate. (This resembles a history story from Ancient Greece.)
Once elected, President Obama began to withdraw troops from Iraq, bringing home about 100,000 Americans. The last 50,000 are scheduled to leave by the end of his term in office. So far, he's getting away with that part of his plan. According to internet sources, Obama is secretly funding 150,000 mercenaries at triple the pay to replace the departing troops, but that would be insane.
I understand that recent Presidents have been senile or clowns or burned out substance abusers, but I'm not ready to agree that Obama is insane.
Meanwhile, despite his campaign promises, Obama has said he plans to wind down the war against Afghanistan and start bringing home troops before the end of next year. That's not manly at all. Maybe Obama plans to run for reelection wearing a dress.
If he does, I'll vote for him.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Delusions
In the September HARPER'S, Garret Keizer commented, in an interesting essay, on the delusion of our society, "not so much its materialism as its faux spiritualism . . . in which the elect live everlastingly and communicate telepathically while flying in disembodied splendor above the heads of the Mexicans mowing the lawn." This idea, unsurprisingly, has a long pedigree. We should focus on making this material world a better place.
Some disagree about our main delusion. I recall a French officer sent to help in the American Revolution, who reported back that "these people worship money." That sums up a lot of our recent history.
I doubt if the spiritualist delusion is our worst. About 20% of Americans believe that the Sun travels around the Earth. A third of all Americans, including members of congress, believe that the Constitution protects freedom of religion only for religions that are well liked by the majority.
Among the most deluded are the members of the Tea Party who worship, more or less, our Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution deliberately designed to frustrate Tea Party types (and most of the rest of us, for that matter). The Founding Fathers had a distrust of direct democracy that was based, I suppose, on their knowledge of the conflicts in ancient Athens, their sense of the people around them, and their studies of philosophers like Plato and Socrates, who were totalitarians.
The Constitution the Fathers adopted divided sovereignty into many parts (states vs. federal government, President vs. House, House vs. Senate, voters vs. the Supreme Court, etc.) The effect of this was to slow the pace of possible change to a crawl. That is our frustrating system.
There is much that the Founders did not see coming. They did not expect multinational corporations to take on the funding of our major political parties, assuming control over our financial lives. They granted ordinary citizens the right to bear one-shot rifles that took a minute to reload, not expecting the rise of machine guns. But they did get the Tea Party right. The Tea Party will be stopped by the muddling devices for slowing things down in Constitution they think they support.
We are faced now with an election in which the Republicans of all sorts are going to make gains. It is up to us to get out and limit those short term gains if we can.
Gary Goss
Some disagree about our main delusion. I recall a French officer sent to help in the American Revolution, who reported back that "these people worship money." That sums up a lot of our recent history.
I doubt if the spiritualist delusion is our worst. About 20% of Americans believe that the Sun travels around the Earth. A third of all Americans, including members of congress, believe that the Constitution protects freedom of religion only for religions that are well liked by the majority.
Among the most deluded are the members of the Tea Party who worship, more or less, our Constitution. In fact, the Founding Fathers wrote a Constitution deliberately designed to frustrate Tea Party types (and most of the rest of us, for that matter). The Founding Fathers had a distrust of direct democracy that was based, I suppose, on their knowledge of the conflicts in ancient Athens, their sense of the people around them, and their studies of philosophers like Plato and Socrates, who were totalitarians.
The Constitution the Fathers adopted divided sovereignty into many parts (states vs. federal government, President vs. House, House vs. Senate, voters vs. the Supreme Court, etc.) The effect of this was to slow the pace of possible change to a crawl. That is our frustrating system.
There is much that the Founders did not see coming. They did not expect multinational corporations to take on the funding of our major political parties, assuming control over our financial lives. They granted ordinary citizens the right to bear one-shot rifles that took a minute to reload, not expecting the rise of machine guns. But they did get the Tea Party right. The Tea Party will be stopped by the muddling devices for slowing things down in Constitution they think they support.
We are faced now with an election in which the Republicans of all sorts are going to make gains. It is up to us to get out and limit those short term gains if we can.
Gary Goss
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)