Hartford, Connecticut * Gadfly Bites from Stephen Fournier * steve at stepfour dot see oh em
Open Door Party
|July 1, 2020|
Welcome to the party, dude, and please do come right in!
We'll have some yuks, collect some bucks and do what it takes to win.
We're the new improved brand Democrat, so let's get on the bus.
If Donald Trump's brand makes you jumpy, you've no choice but us.
But seriously, folks, we've never had an opponent as vulnerable as Donald Trump, and we can make plans now for a Dem majority. Everbody's in line to get something, and the party's buzzing in consequence.
Except for the left, they're anti-Amaerican and anti-Semitic and we don't need them. Bernie, to his credit, did get out there for us and tried his best to recruit from the anarchist crowd--he inadvertently organized a left wing cult and almost created a monster--but that's behind us now and we're writing it off as futile.
No big loss. The lefties are Putin-Assad apologists who want America taken down a peg and think four more years of Trump might make that happen. We can win without them. We did it with Clinton--talking about the popular vote here--and we'll do it with Biden.
Think about it. When was the last time Democrats could say, "If you don't support our guy, you're helping the Russkis" or "If you vote Green or write in Mickey Mouse, you love Donald Trump and want to cripple women and people of color."? Not since 2016 has Donald Trump been this unpopular. As for the none-of-the-above butt-sitters, we're forcing their hand, doubling down on them and calling their bluff.
Don't forget, too, that we've never before had a chance to elect somebody so unelectable. If you're Black and he gets the Black vote, he owes you. And if you're a woman, and he's sure to get the womens' vote, he owes you. Every minority gets something. Within reason and if it's not too expensive.
On the theory that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and conceding that in the elections industry, you stretch out with strange bedfellows, we'll be introducing you to some new friends. Say "Yo" to George W. Bush and John Bolton. They hate Trump almost as much as you do.
Diversity notwithstanding, we Dems are promising opportunity, well-paid employment, equality, peace at home, responsible government, justice and security, all under most of the current leadership of industry, politics, science, and entertainment (including journalism) and all without discernible changes in our social institutions. As transformations go, it promises to be unprecendented.
Don't worry that Joe Biden may not be up to the task of taking over a failed nation, paralyzed by war, debt, domestic disorder and pestilence. He has plenty of trusted advisors to tell him what to do, good people from business and politics, many of them straddling both industries. They'll know what's best for us. So far, they don't seem to be saying, but everybody loves a surprise.
And, please, no moralistic lectures. Trump must be defeated at all costs. We don't want to hear that you never voted for a sexual predator before and don't want to start now. And just because Joe's personally endorsed mass Black imprisonment, war, and Israeli apartheid, among other difficult policy issues, that doesn't mean he's still for all that stuff. If principle is standing in your way, think of the election returns, and the tears you will shed if we don't win.
Plus, you probably have voted for sex fiends before. You just don't know exactly who they were.
Why We Fight
|June 28, 2020|
Some people probably still favor union. "Union" used to be the watchword of republican government. In our constitution we don't refer to the USA as a nation but as a union. Lincoln waged war with other Americans to save the union. But today, we break unions. The American Federation of Labor, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Yugoslavia, all busted by the USA. Iraq, Syria, China: let's break them up, too.
As for unity here in the states, there's not much to unite us. People who earn enough to get by don't seem much concerned about the plight of people who don't. The people who polluted the planet incessantly for the last 40 years, knowing it was dangerous, aren't issuing any apologies to their offspring, who are expected to clean up their lethal mess. Leaders and would-be leaders like Trump and Biden amplify enmities, usually for material advantage, and ordinary people are forced to play along.
Union is definitely in decline. We still have a "State of the Union" speech every year, but the title is mere lip service. Congress, to whom the speech is addressed, does not favor union. United, we people gain the power to resist corrupt authority, and members of Congress aren't permitted to tolerate that sort of thing.
As seems to be evident from recent events, there is, despite widespread dissapproval of unifying forces, a growing dissident movement whose strength lies in its apparent unity. It's a union of young and old, light-skinned and dark-skinned, poor and comfortable, all organized around opposition to what our opinion leaders call "white supremacy" or "systemic racism." Feminists, environmentalists, consumer advocates, pacifists, and general-pupose activists must be shaking their heads, even as they march against racism, wondering why the hell they can't raise a decent-sized mob.
It's probably true that most feminists are deeply concerned about sudden climate change, and most cosumer advocates would concede that we live under the dominion of light skinned people and are the beneficiaries of generations of slave-holders and colonizers and invaders. But those concerns and concessions don't bring us union. We're so much weaker than we could be if feminists and environmentalists and victims of bigotry and unemployed workers and other discarded people could all unite behind a unifying principle.
The problem may be purely semantic. It may be that what is missing is a phrase. A single, consensual description of what it is that all of us want and don't want. "Freedom" used to work, and before that, "Liberty." But freedom allows the owner of the Washington Post--one guy--to be so rich that he controls the lives of more people than any emperor in the history of the world ever has. "Justice" may be an approximation of what we want, but it's difficult to see how it can be achieved. It's an aspiration, not an end or a means to an end. And demanding justice doesn't really define a target. After all, it's grievance that motivates this protest and every protest, and justice is an objective that only indirectly targets the grievance.
In the protesters' classic call and response, the shout, "What do we want?" is heard over and over. That could be the wrong question. "What don't we want?" might come closer to a unifying call. Because there is one thing all of us don't want. If we think about it, the grievance of today's human rights protesters, as well as faminists, enviromentalists, poor people, pacifists, even conspiracy theorists and meat-eaters and gun collectors, is corrupt authority. Corrupt authority promotes racial division and discrimination, violence, male supremacy, pollution, material inequality, war, waste, curtailment of human rights, unsafe food, oligarchy and bad taste, among other human failings. Without corrupt authority, it's difficult to sustain any of these social problems for long.
It's corrupt authority that empowers police to kill with impunity. Corrupt authority in business, the media and politics makes it possible for sexually predatory men to be elevated to the highest offices in the land. Corrupt authority in business, the media and politics sustains a permanent state of warfare for no other reason than to enrich those who supply the bombs and bullets. It's corrupt authority in business, the media and politics that used an epidemic of contagious disease to put trillions of dollars into the hands of repacious gamblers to make capital appear sound. It is corrupt authority in business, the media, and government that has kept people from understanding the lethal consequences of environmental pollution. In one recent, covered-up scandal, corrupt authority allowed Boeing and airlines all over the world to fly a defective airplane, costing hundreds of lives. Without corrupt authority there could be no Donald Trump or Joseph Biden or Wolf Blitzer or Jeffrey Bezos.
Whether or not you want to "defund" the police or rename Jackson Street, it's a near certainty that you want to hold corruption at bay and bring corrupt officials to account. If there is a single focus that could unite hundreds of millions of us, it may not be "Black Lives Matter" or "Me Too" or "Green New Deal" or "Occupy" or "BDS," but something that focuses on the struggle against corrupt authority. By any means necessary.
With most property now in the control of a tiny minority of rich people, property damage in the course of the struggle isn't much of a worry. The property, after all, is likely to have been acquired with the help of corrupt authority. If it's violence against persons that worries us, at least we can be assured that the struggle is legitimate and the enemy pretty clearly defined. If it's the prospect of defeat in the face of a heavily armed and ruthless enemy, fear and loathing could spur us to adapt our tactics and strategies to take optimum advantage of our numbers.
There is a dissident movement growing among us, and it has the potential to update the social contract. We've created circumstances that are sure to hinder our kids and grandkids in their pursuit of happiness. We can adapt, but not without conquering corrupt authority, and that task may be the force that unifies and strengthens our movement.
"Give Us Trump!"
|June 14, 2020|
If real-life current events were unfolding as a work of fiction, the aggrieved masses would be demanding retribution. With cops assaulting dark-skinned young people in front of recording devices and bodies hanging from trees in various parts the country, the people's cries for an accounting would resonate. Reform measures--budget reductions, extensions of legal liability, armament cutbacks--would be far lower on their agenda. Some would be demanding police lives by way of rough justice.
If real life were a work of fiction, there would be a widespread conviction among the citizenry that the sociopathic president of the fictional nation depicted had incited and sanctioned the violence of officers toward dark-skinned people. Above the law in the fictional account as in real life, the leader would see mobs gathered outside his residence. They would come every day to denounce him and demand retribution. After some days, they would defy curfews and conduct round-the-clock vigils. They would accuse him of being responsible for murder.
Protesters would be removed and jailed, but there would be new arrivals every hour of every day to take their places. There would be speeches and spectacle. With each new report of police brutality, the mob's demands would mount.
It wouldn't be long before the leader would fall into panic over the prospect of violence directed at him personally. There would be intense pressure on the people around him--bodyguards, advisors, family members--to honor their legal obligations and abandon him. A time would come when the mob would resolve to indict the leader himself, put him on trial and put him to death following his conviction.
The case against the leader would be as compelling in the fictional account as it is in real life. The media would resist efforts to bring them into the lynch mob, but they would eventually have to concede that justice should prevail. A gallows would be erected within view of the leader's residence.
Of course, none of this can happen in real life. Retributive justice is not popular with us, even in the case of villains who are above the law. Don't hold your breath waiting for a crowd to chant, "Give us Trump."
The Guillotine Channel
|April 25, 2020|
Isolate a person like me from society for a month, and you'll see a descent into morbid imaginings. Lately, I've been considering the idea of a guillotine channel. It would consist of a weekly or daily animated feature that culminates in an execution. Regular beheadings, hangings, drawings, quarterings, dunkings, and even electrocutions would bring justice--altogether simulated--to the unpunished. Cartoon characters depicting real people, predators all, get what's coming to them.
Since Nixon escaped a fair accounting 40 years ago, we've known that the traditional heads-on-pikes era of political succession had drawn to a close. The pike-making industry had gone the way of horseshoe-nail manufacture, and finding a crew to erect a gallows could be nearly impossible in most communities. It's the social cost of technology, but even as anachronisitic industries are disappearing, new fields are opening up. Like animated cartooning, which has progressed to the point that even a talentless geek can now produce a movie. Why not use the technology in pursuit of retributive justice, even if it's not real? After all, there have been times when the execution of malfeasant authority figures was made a public spectacle; the guillotine channel would bring that back, but without any actual death or bloodshed.
A list of unpunished American felons might begin with the names of the last six presidents of the USA, along with their highest-ranking cabinet secretaries, aides and advisors. Imagine Hillary and Donald on the same bill, ascending the scaffold, dispensing with the traditional ladies-before-gentlemen convention for this one special occasion. Each episode would begin with man-on-the-street encounters involving made-up animated characters. As in dramatized depictions of public executions, there would be street buskers, food hawkers, pickpockets, ragamuffins, debaters and orators, rational and irrational, all assembled for that celebratory feeling we get when vengeance is ours.
As a visionary whose visions are all in the form of cartoons, I may be going out on a limb with this idea. It's not that the bloodshed will put people off. Reruns of "Gunsmoke" are aired daily, and violent retribution seems to be the predominant theme of life in Dodge City. Rather, my fear is that people will become bored. I have an abnormally low amusement threshhold. Things that hold my attention might not hold yours. I can run the guillotine channel in my own head without having the inflict it on anybody else, and that's probably what I ought to do. I may be ahead of my time, but, if so, it's only by a couple of weeks.
Noam? Don't Know'm
|April 22, 2020|
I've been instructed by Noam Chomsky and others that if I fail to support the Democrats' nominee for president, I will be casting a vote for the Fascist government of the most dangerous man in human history, Donald Trump. Chomsky is convinced--or at least he argues strenuously--that, to a certainty, the nation will fare worse under Trump than under a Democrat, presumably, the prior vice-president Joseph Biden.
Lots of people, including me, have been in agreement with most of what Chomsky has said about events and conditions, mindful always of our obligation to act in consonance with principle. Conviction may be the only value that unites all Chomsky acolytes. That's why his advice won't have much practical effect on us. For most, a vote for Biden is an offense against principle.
Biden's problem is sociopathy. His personal conduct and his record on matters of public policy tell us he is conscienceless. Dishonest, ambitious, self-serving, vain, and predatory, he projects as villainous a public image as any stereotype of fiction. On questions of war and peace, social justice, and business regulation, he has repeatedly taken the side of profiteers and dismissed the concerns of the general public.
Biden's case is exemplary. Some might say he has risen to exalted positions of authority despite his disposition to lie and cheat. More likely is that his facility with lying and cheating helped him rise. If we ask what characteristics and personal advantages contribute to political success, two qualities stand out: the ability to tell people what they want to hear and a desire for power over others. Politics is something felons can do instead of street crime. Personal integrity is a burden few political figures bear for long.
Biden is the model for Democrats, just as Trump is the model for Republicans. If the latest voice vote on the six-trillion-dollar transfer payment to rich people is any guide, our central government is a racketeering outfit, and every senator, every representative, every aide, every bureaucrat, every lobbyist, and every political reporter is culpable. That may be why Biden garners so much support among public officials and the press. Buck the authority figures in this racket, and you will pay a price. Just ask any Sanders voter.
Does Chomsky really believe what he's saying? He knows it's fatuous to predict disaster or its opposite or anything in between. He can't be certain a Trump victory won't energize the forces of social justice and bring about a quicker resolution of the property question: who owns what. Biden might be able to buy time for the USA to continue trashing the rest of the world, while Trump's re-election could prompt a worldwide rejection of US hegemony. Neither Trump nor Biden (nor any other political figure, for that matter) is capable of managing the chaos that is now driving private enterprise and public policy. With Trump in charge, maybe for life, might the rest of the world decide to unload dollars and cause an interruption of the international cash flow to rich people?
Chomsky must know that when your entire organization is run by mobsters, it makes little difference which mobster sits at the head of the table, and that's why his advice is silly. Certainly, there are differences between one crime family and another, but, in this case, neither is capable of responsible government. The entire structure, legislative, judicial, executive and commercial, is corrupt to the core. Chomsky should concede that the greater of two evils may be preferable in this case, because the greater evil is more likely to get knocked off.
Chomsky's dream of a mass movement toward peace and social justice can't be realized by people who follow his electoral advice. Principle, after all, may be the only bond uniting any such movement, and we abandon principle if we allow ourselves to be terrorized by Democrats and Noam Chomsky.
|April 14, 2020|
He: Yeah, no. I'm positive.
She: How can you be so sure?
He: I got tested.
She: How'd you manage that?
He: I know somebody. It cost me.
She: Really. I imagine your tester will have to report you to someone.
He: You'd think. But no.
She: So you're self-quarantined then.
He: Yup. You won't be seeing me for awhile.
She: I'll survive. You're working from home?
He: Yeah. How's your grocery situation?
She: Good. I'm getting them delivered. Toilet paper's holding up. Your father goes through two rolls a week. Single-handed, you might say. Did I recite my poem for you?
News about corona's driving everybody nuts:
Universal panic over nasty, unwiped butts.
People hawking toilet paper right out in the street:
Ten bucks for a roll, or 15 cents per two-ply sheet.
He: I'm laughing. Pandemic profiteering. I'm sure somebody could find ways to make money off the epidemic. How about Corona Cruise Lines?
She: I don't see how you make anything off that.
He: Well you sign up for a cruise where you're guaranteed to get the virus. You get off the boat immune and virus-free.
She: Or zipped into a bag.
He: No, no. The ship is overstocked with doctors, ventilators, nurses. There's an ICU. How about this idea? The ventilator in the ICU? We call it ICU-lator. Because we get off the ship alive and immune, we do see you later, ready to return to normal life. You can't take the cruise if you're over 70 or have breathing issues. That last cruise ship that had an outbreak, I think only one person died and he was over 80.
She: I'll go. When do we shove off?
He: Pack a body bag. No, yeah, we'll get a crew of immune people. Test says I have the bug. Now what am I supposed to do with it?
She: Isolation, right?
He: Maybe not. I mean, I could visit Richard.
She: And kill him?
He: Or make him immune. Didn't he say that he was making your kids his heirs?
She: That's what he claims. You and your sisters. I'm not sure he's ready to die yet, though.
He: They say you get sick for two or three days, then, you know. It could be merciful.
She: I think he has his heart set on dying of cancer. You were there when Bill was whining about getting senile?
He: No, but I heard he was worried about his memory.
She: He was going through his brain troubles with Richard. You know, you come into a room and forget why you're there. Searching for some lost thing and then forget what you're looking for. Not being able to spell a name or know what day of the week it is. He's worried that in a year or two, he won't know who he is, where he is, or who we are. Richard says, "I got all those symptoms, but I don't worry about it. I got lucky. I got cancer."
He: So he's not exactly looking forward to a visit from me.
She: Not so much, but betcha somebody is infecting a rich uncle at this very moment, somewhere.
He: Okay, well, it won't be me. My inheritance can wait. But if the lockdown continues for long, youth are going to get restive, I predict.
She: I can see that. I mean here's a highly contagious illness--almost as contagious as measles, which everybody used to get--that's basically a bad cold, except people my age can get fatal pneumonia from it. Talk about catching your death.
He: They say we're only as safe as the least safe among us.
She: So a lot of people who exist in close quarters to each other--refugees, for instance, or homeless or people who have to go to work--they're going to get infected before the rest of us. We'll all be in lockdown to keep from getting exposed. And the fittest among the infected won't get very sick, and just about all the young ones will get better and be able to go to work and socialize without risk, while the surviving old folks are still confined to our rooms.
He: Sounds like the generation gap could get serious. Suppose large numbers of twenty-somethings decided to get exposed and then fanned out. Millions of Republicans would die. Almost all the infectors would be fine in a week, but the toll on the economy and on the pension crowd could be revolutionary.
She: Intentional infection. Joke going around that Trump hired infected people to get close to Fauci.
He: They'll be dancing in the streets if Trump gets it.
She: This must look a little like justice to your kids' crowd.
He: No, they're worried about Grandma and Grandpa. They don't connect the condition of the planet to the activities of the old folks. But some of their schoolmates do. And who knows what might happen if they suddenly come to power because of the expiration of a whole lot of longtime voters?
She: People who know they've been exposed but have no symptoms--somebody at work came down with it, say--those people could really do some damage if they were organized. Imagine if they had a protest in Washington. March of the infected. Do you think rich people will still be rich after this?
He: They'll be richer.
She: You know, the billionaire's claim of ownership is nothing but words and numbers on paper. Their property right could be as fragile as an Arab's right not to have a missile come through his window. In the blink of an eye, everything could change, and an epidemic is just the sort of catalyst that changes history.
He: As long as it doesn't make anybody I know history. I'm staying in. I'm not sick yet, but I'm plenty expectant.
She: I'll make you some soup. I'll fax it to you.
|March 28, 2020|
Youth may have noticed that the pandemic gives them an unprecedented opportunity to change the course of history and possibly ensure humanity's survival for another several generations. Nobody is saying so, but many young people must be thinking that there's an element of divine retribution in this epidemic. Here's a highly contagious disease that can kill older, less healthy people but is like a bad cold for others. Some might look at it as a culling of the herd by the elimination of individuals who have passed their expiration date. Not only that, but the vulnerable population is an age group that might justifiably be regarded as having squandered its kids' legacy.
You might have heard about the greatest generation, my parents' age group, who won a war. My age group, who made war incessantly and won not a single one, might be reckoned the worst generation. As my age-mates and I come up on 75, we can't be feeling good about leaving the world a better place than we found it. As a people, we've done almost nothing right. If retribution were ever deserved, we deserve it. And, if the epidemiologists' predictions hold, some of us are going to get it.
Among Greta Thunberg's contemporaries, this must look a lot like justice. Sellouts reaping what we sowed. It's win-win for the survivors. Less consumption and shorter lines, plus, with the interruptions to commerce, a reduction in polluting emissions and the potential for a comprehensive shift of political power from the formerly rich to the furious masses.
It's pretty obvious how this can work to the advantage of young people. "Social distancing" instructions notwithstanding, they may think it in their interest, individually and as an age-group, to contract the virus, recover from it, and resume their usual activities. Young, healthy people might choose to heed warnings from media and government--thoroughly discredited institutions among critical thinkers--but there's simply no reason to believe they'll comply for very long. We can hope they'll keep a respectable distance from vulnerables.
In the first place, youth are about to get screwed if they shelter in place. The latest sellout--huge government subsidies to mitigate the failure of private enterprise--is going on their tab. It's a tactic that's been tried unsuccessfully in other countries, but our people don't seem to be heeding the lessons debtors in those countries are now learning. If the pandemic kills off the eldest of the middle class in the midst of this desperate spending spree, is that really such a bad thing? Government officials, who show no disposition to initiate mass testing that could prevent many deaths among the old and infirm,seem to be ambivalent about and maybe even in favor of the "haircut" we're about to get.
Now add a Biden-Trump election to this mess. The elders are about to give youth a choice between two bullying narcissists, both of whom are pledged to keep Americans consuming, wasting, and polluting at current levels. They're also both notorious sexual predators who deserve to be punched in the nose by at least one brother, father or husband. The age group least likely to be inconvenienced by the epidemic will be deprived by the epidemic of any democratic means of preventing the installation of either of these lechers. Young, infected individuals may be the only people in America able to take to the streets safely to protest.
We Americans like to see our enemies eliminated. Democrats and Republicans alike giggled when Saddam Hussein swung and Qadaffi bled out and Bin Laden got dropped in the ocean. We seventy-somethings have, in the aggregate, done more injury to our kids and grandkids than that trio of Arab despots could ever hope to inflict on us. Will our survivors--who don't talk about this but who are enraged--will they grieve long for us? We can only hope that on Grave Defilement Day some years from now, somebody will say, "Don't pee on Grandpa. He tried."
|March 16, 2020|
Any reprobate will tell you that prospects for rehabilitation, recovery and redemption improve markedly when rock-bottom is reached. Your average substance-abuser has to go through delirium tremens, withdrawal, blackouts, and overdose before he's ready to kick whatever is holding him and amend his life. His dissipation is a process of self-destruction, reversible only when destruction is imminent.
The USA has been pursuing such a process over the last 40 years or so, dumbing its people down, degrading standards of every kind, indulging in endless, aggressive state violence, concentrating capital and power in a coven of rapacious predators, strutting the world stage in camouflage fatigues, and otherwise abusing its privileged status. Our economy--which is fueled by debt and controlled by bankers and their greediest debtors (who are also our creditors, loaning us money they borrow from us at zero interest)--had been waiting for a precipitant to fail catastrophically. The epidemic, coupled with irresponsible public policy, brought about the collapse we're witnessing today.
With the election and official vindication of Donald Trump, it looked a lot like we'd hit rock-bottom, but we don't seem to be there yet. First, we have an election to get through. Conditions recorded so far suggest this set of events will oblige us to plunge further. That's unfortunate, because rehabilitation is imperative, and we're working to a deadline now. We don't know exactly when our time expires, but we know untoward events are a certainty if we stay on the current course. The election, no matter how it turns out, is almost certain to commit us to four more years on the current course.
Forget about Sanders, whose capitulation is all but complete. It appears that Democrats tolerated him because they thought he might deliver votes from the left of the political spectrum. That's not going to happen, but Crats probably don't need this crowd now, considering the damage Trump has sustained. As for Sanders, he obviously doesn't want to win the election. With the failure of the economy, there's no way he can accomplish any of what he's promised. Imagine having to police the debris of this disaster. It would probably kill the old geezer within a year.
And that's without sabotage. And sabotage is a certainty if the left ever gains power. Rich people hold us all hostage, in case anybody hasn't figured that out yet. In 2007 they threatened to destroy the economy if we didn't make up their losses--about 10 percent--so we complied, and they're richer and more powerful now than they ever were. This time, with the assent of Trump and his accomplices in the media and in both political parties, they didn't even have to ask. The Federal Reserve pumped a few millions of millions of dollars into their grasping paws to gamble with. They lost. Our stake.
Biden's a long shot, of course, but his party's OK with that. Trump is a gold-mine for people who make their living in Democratic politics, and news-mongers feature him above all other subjects as the backdrop for the food, drug and cosmetic ads that pay their salaries. There may never have been a national leader as ugly as this guy, making him a very hot commodity. He's good for the press and great for the losers that oppose him politically. If he goes, it's going to cost them.
It may be that the pandemic and its aftermath will mark the end of Trump, but if it's possible for a Democrat to lose the election, Biden's the guy to do it. Not only is he mentally deficient, he's a Republican. He loves war, lives off rich people, cheats and lies as a matter of course, and has opposed every social justice initiative that's come before him. You might as well put McConnell in a rumpled suit and call him Ralph Nader as pretend this jerk is capable of governing responsibly.
But don't despair, because it's not all bad news. Keep in mind that Trump--a reactionary--could be the principal catalyst for radical change. Does anybody doubt that we have him to thank for the surge of the left? The strength of the erstwhile Sanders movement is directly attributable to the misconduct of the ruling class, which Trump personifies. Is it likely that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her squad would be in Congress if the Clintons held the White House now? Because of Trump and his acolytes and sponsors, lefties have managed to put a scare in the rich, who understand that it's going to cost them money if we ever gain political power. We're probably not ever going to prevail in a big election--we almost never win--and Sanders is certainly not up to the role we've cast him in, but the existence of the movement gives some faint hope of recovery. Four more years of decline could fuel a serious rebellion.
It would be nice if there were a way to prepare for what's coming. Maybe corona will chart a course for us. If it infects six out of every ten of us, and if it kills three out of every hundred infected people, and if the dead are mostly in my age group, and if commerce is seriously curtailed for six months or longer, Americans could be looking at a culling, not only of the population, but also of major sources of profligate consumption and waste. But that's the good news.
Stranded and Abandoned in Taji
|March 14, 2020|
You probably aren't acquainted with anybody who has a close relative stranded in Iraq, surrounded by a hostile local population. Only about one in a thousand of us is currently serving in uniform, and the Iraq outpost accounts for a tiny fraction of the soldiers, sailors and flyers reporting for duty here and abroad. It's unlikely that anybody reading this is plagued by worry over the young Americans stationed there and exposed to the rockets' red glare on all sides. If the recruits serving in Iraq feel abandoned, we've given them good reason, as their families will attest.
The biggest problem for both soldiers and their families is the quality of leadership. How would you feel if your life depended on the decisions of a commander-in-chief like Donald Trump or anybody he might name to command you? If your daughter was braving bombs and bullets to "protect" Iraqi oil fields miles away? If the only news you ever got about your boy's war came from his letters home? If nobody around you seemed to care about the danger and bloodshed in your kids' lives or even to be aware that atrocities were happening all around them?
If there's any mention at all in your local paper of the latest rocket attack, it's not on the front page, and it tells you almost nothing about the mission and the people performing it. It's a very rare occasion when NPR lets us hear from a soldier below the rank of general, and such reports never tell us what the soldier thinks we ought to know. You may notice how careful the reporter is to thank the veteran for his service; don't mistake this for respect or concern. NPR reporters and their commercial colleagues routinely report what they're fed by government officials, even when they know they're being lied to. Their corrections and apologies are few and far between.
News-mongers never acknowledge how demoralizing their own neglect of duty is to GI's, their families and older veterans. Conscripts of past armies experience self-destructive rage out of frustration with the poor quality of reports from war zones. Most reporters don't even seem to know where their soldiers are engaged, much less how and why. There is almost no veteran alive today who didn't experience feelings of abandonment by the civilian world and outrage at their ignorance of the facts of war. We get those feelings again vicariously when new generations of soldiers and their families have to tolerate such malfeasance.
|March 3, 2020|
Emergency measures have been put into effect to deal with the outbreak of a new, contagious, potentially lethal respiratory illness. To manage the crisis, the Federal Reserve just voted to lower its interest rate by half a percent. It's not going to cure or immunize anybody or protect anybody from infection, but it should cushion any consequences to financial markets, and it could keep Wall Street from crashing.
Business people are already experiencing disruptions to economic activity caused by widespread illness and voluntary quarantines among the uninfected. There's less travel, less regular attendance at work and school, less socializing, less recreation, less everything. NPR describes the resulting ten percent contraction in share prices as "devastating," and so we probably shouldn't be surprised to see markets in panic mode. Never mind that stock indexes are still 150% of what than they were five years ago.
Rich people don't tolerate interruptions when it comes to the appreciation of assets. When they mob the Federal Reserve, vault doors swing open. You and I can't borrow, but people with money can, and they use the leverage to increase their holdings. When their money-mill fails to function properly, as can happen when there's a worldwide epidemic, they demand aid, and we always comply. It's not the death toll of the epidemic that's supposed to worry us so much as the effect on the value of rich people's portfolios.
We can suspect that the "donor class," as they like to call themselves, is actually worried about a much bigger problem than the modest losses they've suffered so far. Our government, our people, our businesses, our institutions are currently burdened with debts of unprecedented, astronomical proportions. Some scholars suggest that the U. S. economy is as fragile as a house of cards, and this epidemic could bring about a collapse. Our leaders tell us there's nothing to worry about, but history is punctuated with collapses, and the panic now gradually overspreading Wall Street tends to confirm the lessons of the past.
Federal public health authorities, unlike the Federal Reserve, seem to be quiescent, even as they concede that many of us are going to get sick, and some of us are going to die. If this is a public health emergency for the USA, you wouldn't know it to listen to our leaders. Some people are going to perish, yes, but there's nothing we can do about that. Free universal health care might have been helpful, but we don't have that, and so we'll just have to make the best of our indisposition. Thoughts and prayers will go out to the grieving masses in abundance, even as the rich are rescued from the dire commercial consequences of mass infection.
Good thing, too, because, if they're harmed, they're just going to take it out on us.
Dems Quake Before Pitchfork-wielding Radicals
|February 15, 2020|
Red-baiting Democrats are attacking me when they ambush Bernie Sanders. I'm not sure even now if I'll be able to vote Democrat if he's the nominee, but it's a sure thing I won't be casting a vote for that party if he isn't. And don't wait for me to apologize for demanding social justice and castigating uncooperative Democrats.
The Republican party, I concede, is a collection of human rubbish, but sellout Democrats--the Red-baiting crowd--are just unctuous Republicans. When it comes to war, predatory commerce, and self-dealing, there's not much to distinguish leaders of the two parties. In the eyes of many of us, McConnell and Schumer represent competing crime families, and even Bernie's going to have to maintain some distance between himself and them to gain our support. Democrats seem to think they can win without us. Hope springs eternal.
I like the image of what they call moderate Democrats shaking with fear at the prospect of people like me--free-health care/free tuition fanatics--forcing our will on people like them, the contented and comfortable. You might think I want to confiscate private property, or something, which I do. It wouldn't be their property, but it might be the property of the people who pay them, and we don't want to make that crowd mad, do we?
In 2020, I won't be voting for any candidate who won't make them mad. I'm not looking for somebody to unite my cause with that of bankers, polluters, pitchmen and heirs and heiresses; they're my enemies, and I demand a leader who can begin the process of dismantling their empires.
Your average billionaire controls more lives today than any monarch of the middle ages ever did. What would you do with a billion dollars? You couldn't spend it. Even if you spent a hundred thousand a day, it would take you a couple of decades to exhaust your supply. What you would do is control other people. You could buy a thousand liquor stores and a manufacturing plant in the Far East and a plot of farmland in Wisconsin, and your decisions would affect all the people working in your stores and plants and fields and all the people in the towns they live in, and, for all intents and purposes, you would own those people.
Your average billionaire added substantially to his wealth last year. And the year before. And the year before that. This doesn't surprise us, because we take it for granted that billionaires will use their money to make more. They don't even have to take any risks. They can borrow money for almost nothing, and then loan it out, often to governments, at usurious rates. Rich people own Greece now because of some bad debts that nation's government took out to enrich private parties. We probably shouldn't expect billionaires to use their money to make life better for the people whose wages they pay and whose land, water and air they pollute.
Your average billionaire is a billionaire because he's not the sort of person to sacrifice profit to eleemosynary pursuits. He must use his money to make more. It's a rule of thumb, and it implies that many of us--maybe all--are ruled by the decisions of billionaires in the pursuit of personal profit. That doesn't sound like public policy in the public interest, because it isn't.
Bernard Sanders pledges to confront the force of the rich and somehow initiate government in the public interest, and millions have lined up behind him. We don't know if he can succeed, but he's the only one promising to try this. The other Democrats, along with NPR and the commercial media, have capitulated to the people who fund them.
If they're frightened, good.
|February 6, 2020|
Contrary to the neojournalistic consensus, the digital recording of 250,000 votes from a few thousand voting districts is not complicated or difficult. A trained tenth-grader could, in short order, devise and test a program to record and report Iowa caucus data reliably and promptly. The delay in reporting the numbers is not the result of technological failure but rather of deliberate sabotage, probably baked into the processing application to deal with a Sanders plurality. Early sampling predicting a Sanders win could trigger the data entry interface to shut down and disable the emergency phone reporting utility. It's the simplest and most plausible explanation for Monday's "debacle," to use the misleading metaphor of journalese, the universal language of our esteemed and unanimous free press.
There's irony in the Iowa scam. Just as Crats were wrapping up their case of election tampering against the Pubs and their president, they got caught rigging an election themselves. The embedded mass media are treating the discredited caucus as an episode of "botching," but voters must know better by now than to trust that corrupt institution, which routinely dispenses gossip, government disinformation and paid promotions as news. People who cast a vote in Iowa on Monday, not to mention those across the country who threw a few bucks into Sanders' campaign treasury, are smelling the same stink that arose from the Crats' nominating process four years ago. This was not error or malfunction or glitch, but crime, and it wasn't Putin who did it.
If you wanted to lose another election, you couldn't do better than the Clinton/Schumer/Pelosi party has done. Bring out a team of lightweights to prosecute the incumbent over misconduct that looks like routine political manipulation to most Americans. Don't go after him for war crimes or self-enrichment, and don't pick your best lawyers to make the case. To ensure failure, populate your prosecution team with a couple of members who refused, the last time they had the chance, to hold a president of their own party accountable for documented abuses of power. Top it all off by hiring a Clinton/Schumer/Pelosi company to count votes in Iowa in February, so that you can nominate your weakest candidate to run against the Antichrist in November.
If I were advising Sanders, I'd suggest that he put some distance between himself and the party of Pelosi. He has enough volunteers and money to launch an independent campaign, and he'll be taking a huge risk if he doesn't do that. Democrats are tainted, and most people seem to be finding it difficult to decide who's worse, Trump or his neighbor Schumer. On issues of war and peace, social justice, and maldistribution of wealth, Crats and Pubs are on the same side, and it ain't close to where the Sanders crowd stands. Sanders' association with this political party will cause some of that crowd--critics of both political parties--to peel off, and that will be the end of Sanders.
As I wrote four years ago, "his offer has been to lead a revolution, a task that he and only he is qualified to undertake. With the possible exception of George Washington, no other person has ever risen to power in the USA along the path he's followed, strictly on strength of character . . . He has been selling social justice throughout his adult life, and he has built a political movement around an agenda that, 60 years ago, could have landed him in prison as a Communist. Courage of conviction doesn't often get a candidate elected, but he's used it to win elections against Republicans and Democrats combined, the only senator who can claim that distinction. He has stood alone, on principle, time and time again. Struggling against the political tide is widely considered a disqualification for high office, but Sanders has somehow managed to overcome conventional wisdom. Nobody has won tougher elections than Sanders, and, in living memory, none has done it by dedication to social justice . . . (T)he USA is not likely to get an opportunity like this again: a principled social justice advocate who knows how to win elections steps forward to lead." Can he win election as a Democrat? Maybe not.
|January 31, 2020|
The proper move in the prosecution of Donald Trump is to organize the senate minority to refuse to attend until the trial is resumed with the admission of testimony and documentary evidence, according to law. The proceeding is incomplete, and the senate should be considered disabled to deliberate guilt or innocence and illegitimate for its abandonment of constitutional principle.
The first article of our constitution requires that a majority of the senators be present to transact business. The minority that unsuccessfully sought testimony and documents numbers nearly half the senate, and so there are enough of them to make life very difficult for that body. Judicial or cabinet appointments could be delayed. International agreements could be endangered. Bills might languish for months.
The disabling of the senate is not only justified, it is demanded by the unique circumstances of this day. The senators who voted to alter the meaning of the word "trial" by barring witnesses made themselves accessories to bribery and extortion and acknowledged themselves enemies of constitutional government. Because they hold a majority of seats in the senate, they are beyond accountability, except in the regard of their senate colleagues. By refusing to take their seats and thereby withdrawing recognition of the entire body, the minority would be taking the only measure available to bring the senate to account.
The damage to the senate by its majority may be so deep as to be irreparable, but a reversal of course could at least mitigate some liability. As things stand, that legislative body has been turned into a racketeering outfit, and the majority have organized as grievous a conspiracy of official misonduct as has ever been recorded. If they escape prosecution it will be because of a dysfunctional legal system and not because they deserve vindication.
It was unfortunate that the prosecution had to include some of the same members who, years ago, leaped to the defense of a president of their own party, when he was shown to have used the office for personal gain, in his case, to engage in clandestine sexual predation. They had to trash the constitution to vindicate that president, and their hypocrisy has come back to bite them in this proceeding.
The bigotry of the accusers didn't escape notice, either. Between references to corrupt Ukrainians and bullying Russians, the prosecutors' anti-Slavic outbursts reminded some of us of the Red-baiting Commie-hunters of yesteryear. The idea that American weapons were somehow going to intimidate Russia in its relations with Ukraine was a bit silly and weakened the case against Trump.
Even with the deficiencies in the prosecution's strategy and advocacy, the case was open-and-shut, and, if it were not for the total abrogation of the rule of law in connection with these offenses, people would be going to jail.
|January 16, 2020|
Trump has four days to produce an answer to the impeachment articles now pending in the Senate. The Chief Justice got sworn in, the senators took an oath of impartiality, and deadlines were set. The charges seem to be well supported by evidence, and they are serious enough to require removal from office. Trump withheld money meant for a foreign government, offering to release the funds if the country's leader would investigate the son of Joseph Biden, who wants to run against Trump.
Since nobody's likely to believe any denial Trump might make, I'm suggesting a defense along somewhat different lines: not the voice of learned defense counsel, but a first-person plea:
Did I pressure Ukraine to gain a political advantage? Yes. Was there anything wrong with that? No. It was a corrupt practice, but my willingness to engage in corrupt practice is one of the reasons I was elected. Not just me, but a succession of corrupt administrations has led this country for a generation. I would not be doing my job properly if I did not exploit every possible political advantage, as my predecessors have done, without regard to artificial rules of conduct. The people who elected me expect this of me, and I am obliged to deliver.
Corrupt practice is not punishable in our system when it's indispensable to the performance of official duties, as it is in the case of my office. It's not as if I made any secret of my predisposition to defy rules. With the grabbing pussy and the shooting on Fifth Avenue, you maybe could see where I was going. I defy authority as a sacred duty. I do it because I can. I do it for the good of the republic. You can't give me a job that requires me to trash rules and standards and then fire me for violating a rule or standard.
For instance, you hand me a government at war in half a dozen countries, and you instruct me to tell the people that we're winning, when a 20-year engagement is pretty much an acknowledgement of humiliating failure and defeat. No way to carry on that costly enterprise without some corrupt practice. Then you have the government lending money at zero interest to rich people, allowing them to bid up assets and double their money every year, while working people pay usury on their insignificant debts. Try justifying that without sharp practice.
The mass media are shocked, shocked at my aggressiveness toward my accusers. That's funny, because I have been encouraged by my sponsors in the mass media to seem capricious and dictatorial, and I have always obliged. The mass media love to hate me, but they still hang on my every word. They made me a national celebrity, and my sociopathic stage presence must be maintained to keep me in good graces with them. Everyone knows this, and the nation is strengthened by my resolve.
As for my accusers in Congress, each and every one of them will take full advantage of the occasion of my trial to curry favor with their patrons, benefactors and supporters. Much money will be donated to promote my removal and equal amounts will be spent to prevent it. If that's not corrupt practice, with a trial pending, I don't know what is.
Corruption caused the failure of the economy in 2007. People who got rich on the losses paid no price. Corrupt practice got the US into war after war. No price paid. Corrupt practice keeps millions of sick people from proper health care. And don't get me started on 9/11. The richest people among us have more power, each and every one, than any monarch in history has ever had. And you whine about what I did?
What I did was trivial political manipulation. It was expected of me and amounted to a duty of my office. You got a hell of a nerve criticizing me for doing the job you assigned me.
Licensed to Kill
|January 3, 2020|
Reports in the embedded mass media of "Iran-backed militias" attacking the US embassy in Baghdad gave the federal government a license to assassinate a popular Iranian general and his entourage as the party was leaving the Baghdad airport. We can only guess whether the killings would have occurred if the media had made any sort of critical examination of the "Iran-backed" characterization.
Reporters and editors might have asked, for instance, whether there is any such thing as an unarmed militia. Millions of viewers saw live video of the crowd assembled outside the embassy. Nobody was armed. There was some stone-throwing, and there were some soldiers in fatigues, but they weren't carrying weapons. What we saw was a crowd of men, mostly young, waving flags and vandalizing the building, something like the crowds of what the embedded mass media call pro-democracy demonstrators in Hong Kong.
As for Iran's part in the protests, that nation's government denies involvement, and reporters are offering no evidence to support the US government's accusations. In view of the record of the US government for dishonesty--see recent coverage of the lies told to maintain the state of war in Afghanistan, lies systematically fed to us by our media--news-consumers are entitled to some provenance for the imprecise, even misleading charge of "Iran-backed." If there is no support for such an allegation, a responsible news editor should say so.
News-mongers aren't telling us where they got the "Iran-backed militias" phrase, but it's universal jargon among them, suggesting a common source. Also universal was the acceptance of the phrase as truthful. That would put it in the same category as Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons, imminent victory in Afghanistan, Syria's repeated poison gas attacks, Putin's influence over US elections, and Jeffrey Epstein's suicide, among other widely publicized untrue assertions.
There's been some criticism of the Baghdad assassinations, but not on legal, ethical or factual grounds. Rather, all the criticism has centered on the danger created by the killings. It's not that it was wrong or illegal or a rush to judgment to kill ten people 7,000 miles away, but rather that it will increase ill will toward the USA and make certain parts of the world inimical to Americans. From the standpoint of the people who initiated the group assassination, the media coverage guarantees that none of them will be held accountable. News-consumers, if we knew the truth, might expect to pay some price ourselves for our leaders' malfeasance, but it will be a nice surprise for us all when it comes, thanks to our cherished free press.
|December 31, 2019|
I'm pretty sure there are people looking forward to my funeral. Not because they want me dead, but because they expect a good turnout and an interesting assembly. Affiliative, occasionally ingratiating, I've managed more than my fair share of bonding, and the bonds take in people who don't know each other but could.
The reason I mention this is that I attended a couple of memorial gatherings for some friends of mine, both a few years older than me and popular, and the events were reunion-like and a bit joyful for the fellowship. It boosted the families, and it enlivened the other survivors. many already beyond their sell-by date.
A time comes around age 70 when you start to worry that you're eating some useful person's food and consuming his toilet paper. My age group, the dead and pre-dead, is huge and gets bigger every year, as post-war babies reach 75. People my age who read the obituaries every day see friends and acquaintances all the time. There's a consciousness of mortality in the air we're so fortuitously allowed to breathe, and the elders see that the mortality is going to be impressive and could contribute to a popular mood swing. The survivors of the next decade or so are going to have to get used to grieving or find some other gainful adaptation.
My assumption has always been that a day would arrive when the survivors, fully conscious of the ruin left for them by the dead, would repudiate us all, maybe with annual or monthly observances of Grave Defilement Day, when stinking memorials of various kinds would be left to decorate the markers. Forget about grief.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Think back to the death of, say, Robin Williams. On that day, a lot of people of every conceivable description shared a feeling of sad appreciation for moments when he made them laugh. A reflection like that is always beneficial for the survivor, and when masses reflect, it's potentially unifying. We may not be aware of it, but we exploit these occasions for mass reflection when we turn up for events like the ones I attended. As you leave, you can hardly help thanking the dead guy.
The media are always telling us how divided, atomized, at odds, and in constant conflict we are as a people. Not so much when we share feelings over a death. And so I've revised my prediction. The survivors of the next decade will adapt to the death epidemic rationally and dispense with grief, not by grave defilement, but by marking the day as an occasion for fellowship and bonding, with undeserved gratitude to the dead for bringing everybody together. None of my predictions ever comes to pass, but this one may already be in progress.
Is there a lawyer in the house?
|December 20, 2019|
If there exists among Federal prosecutors or judicial authorities a person with a commitment to the rule of law, somebody out there will put together an indictment against Donald Trump and others on the charges detailed by the House of Representatives in its impeachment proceedings. He and some high-ranking officials in our government conspired to commit bribery and extortion, federal crimes that earn long prison sentences. They also obstructed justice by defying duly issued summonses to testify. The case against them is open-and-shut. They are subject to removal from office, but the body with the power to remove them is controlled by the miscreants' own political allies. The case screams for a prosecuting attorney or judicial intervention.
There is an impediment to Trump's prosecution, in the form of a justice department policy prohibiting the indictment of a sitting president. There is no statutory or constitutional basis for this prohibition. On the contrary, the canon that no person is above the law renders it null and void. It's never been tested in court, and there's never been a better time to challenge it. As for Trump's acolytes, they have no privilege, and yet we hear nothing from pundits, politicians or prosecutors about their criminal liability. Current events suggest that the political branches and their mouthpieces in the mass media are so disabled by their own corruption that they can't hold these thugs accountable, but that doesn't give anybody a license to walk.
Meddle of Honor
|December 18, 2019|
The central theme accompanying the impeachment of Donald Trump argues that there is a grave danger of "foreign interference" in our "cherished democratic institutions." This is a very weak proposition, provably untrue from several standpoints.
In the first place, our constitution welcomes foreigners to participate in debates and discussions of public policy, including our choice of leaders. Freedom of speech, we call it. Even Putin is allowed to express a preference. If he wants to, he can take out a full-page ad in the Hartford Courant promoting the candidacy of Donald Trump or Mayor Bronin or criticizing our wonderful criminal justice system. What our leaders call meddling is precisely what our constitution protects as free speech.
In the second place, our cherished democratic institutions are so totally corrupted by rich people that any influence a foreign power might wield would be of trivial effect. We live in a country in which the requirements of rich people take precedence over the public will. If they don't get richer, we don't work, we don't eat, we don't get by, and so we allow ourselves to be ruled by competing crime families, elected by tiny minorities of bought constituencies. The one variable that is most closely linked to electoral success is the number of dollars in the candidate's campaign treasury, and most of those dollars come from Americans who have money to spare.
In the third place, nearly half of the eligible electorate repudiates the electoral process and stays home while the rest of us are voting. That's a democracy in trouble, and not because of foreign meddling. You have to go back a couple of generations to find an election in which a presidential candidate's vote count exceeded the number who didn't vote. Clinton and Trump together barely matched the total of self-excused. If you really wanted to sabotage the electoral process, you would nominate cheats and liars as candidates, ensuring that most people would find nobody to vote for. That's what our two political parties do every year, and they don't need foreign influence to do it.
Finally, our elections are managed and dominated by our mass media. They decide who will run--mainly on the basis of how much is spent with them on advertising--and they generate incessant chatter predicting who will win. Protected by the bill of rights, they use their power to manipulate us. They don't simply record history. They drive the events that shape history, elections most prominently.
There's good and sufficient reason to remove Donald Trump, and we don't need to resort to the tactics of Joseph McCarthy to do it. We hear that Trump's removal will reverse the results of an election. Duh! Fact is that Trump voters knew he was a thug when they voted for him. To judge from the audiences he attracts, they support him because he's a narcissistic, greed-driven sociopath and not in spite of that fact. His impeachment was a foreseeable risk. Too bad our congressional representatives can't make a strong and coherent case for removal.
Department of Caprice
|November 25, 2019|
The rule of law should be understood as an anachronism, a discredited notion that formerly involved the systematic regulation of conduct. Scholars may study law as an intellectual exercise, but they can only pretend that it is now anything more than words on paper.
People who have sat for the law school aptitude test may remember items requiring the test-taker to deduce a rule from the outcome of individual cases. In fact, a rule is just that: a set of cases. Two men carry out a crime. One is sentenced to prison, and other is not. The prisoner was convicted by a jury after a trial. The free man pleaded guilty, and so the rule seems to be that people who plead guilty get lighter sentences. It's a simple exercise when you can make up your own hypothetical cases, but it doesn't work in real life.
Take the case of Donald Trump. He is charged with bribery. As a public official he offered specific benefits to another head of state--a face-to-face meeting and millions of dollars worth of weapons--if his counterpart agreed to commence a prosecution against the son of a political rival. The legal definition of bribery--seldom mentioned and almost never analyzed by news-reporters--is the offer of something of value to influence a public official in the performance of an official act. Trump's offer fits the definition, twice: since the transaction involves two public officials exchanging official acts, Trump is both the bribe-offeror and the bribe-taker. He's guilty, in other words. In fact, according to multiple witnesses, he conspired to commit bribery with the Sccretary of State and at least a half-dozen other people in and out of government. They're all guilty. One even bragged about it and suggested that people should "get over it." It's open-and-shut.
If Trump and others are clearly guilty of a conspiracy to commit bribery, how can there be any doubt whether or not to convict him and remove him from office and prosecute all the conspirators? And yet there is doubt. Not only are we expected to doubt whether Trump will be removed, but we're also denied any consideration of the culpability of others. It appears that reporters are taking it for granted that there is no rule of law.
There seems to be consensus among reporters that the Senate, which will act as jury in Trump's bribery trial, will, for political reasons, ignore the laws against bribery, disregard the evidence we have all heard, and exonerate Donald Trump. None of the conspirators will be penalized. Cops who accept a free lunch might be disciplined, but this particular bribery scheme will be excused. The bias of the jury will be flashed in our faces. News-mongers are unanimous in the view that this will be the outcome, upsetting as it may be to the law of bribery, and we news-consumers must be left to conclude that there is no rule of law. If a jury of senators can't convict Trump, can any jury convict anyone? If bribery laws are not obligatory, should anybody obey the speed limits or refrain from cheating the tax collector? Don't ask, and don't wait for newsmen to ask.
The Trump inquiry is a cavalcade of lawlessness. The inquisitors may be as corrupt as their target. We try in vain to deduce a system of rules from their words and actions. Why were some people compelled to appear, when others were excused? Next time you're served with a legal summons, try ignoring it. You'll be in trouble. Unless you're the President's personal counsel or the Secretary of State. The Trump inquiry announces to the public, worldwide, that there is no law here. Goddamn Putin!
If you try to distinguish signs of obligatory rules in the actions of your government, you will fail. Agents of government can hold you or take your property or even kill you without legal process, and the decisions they make about whom to target follow no rational standard. It's not a system of justice but a system of capricious resolution. Some rules will be binding sometimes on some people, and some will be optional sometimes for others, and justice will be done if we concede that this is justice.
|November 10, 2019|
I have a legislative agenda for the coming year. It's a list of things government--state, local, national--could do in the public interest, but can't do without upsetting the sponsors. They're items for inclusion in a fictional political platform. As far as I know, no candidate for any office advocates any of my intiatives.
We should have a law requiring retailers to itemize the cost of packaging. Toilet paper doesn't get double-wrapped in plastic without any cost to the customer, and it doesn't get wrapped that way for the convenience of the customer, either. You're paying for shrink wrap and styrofoam, and you deserve to be reminded of that. This law could be extended to cover disposable items other than packaging. How much did you pay for what you threw away when the fuel or the ink ran out? Maybe if people discover how much that plastic bottle is costing them, I'll be able someday to put coins in a dispenser and fill my own milk bottle or coffee can.
We should have a law that forbids courts from imposing "gag" rules on settlements of cases involving misconduct. It's routine today in the settlement of damage lawsuits to impose on the victim, as a condition of payment, limits on what he or she can say about the award. The point is to keep the public from knowing the extent of the damage done by offending parties. This is particularly useful for serial offenders (like sexual predators, for instance), and it guarantees that such settlements won't deter future misconduct, one of the functions of justice as we know it.
This country needs quorum democracy. I would support a law requiring voters to turn out on election day or forfeit the right to choose their representatives. In districts that failed to turn out at a specified threshold, members from districts that met the threshhold would choose their representatives for them.
Can't we slap a tax on advertising? In my state, we're taxed on every purchase, including purchases of some services, but not advertising. This is a shame because it's everywhere and it's one of the most annoying features of modern life. Most advertising is so crass as to border on vice. There has to be a considerable cash stream to tap into here. Let's start with robocalls. I'd make it possible for numbers on the so-called "do-not-call registry" to collect a fine for unwanted solicitations and let government take a piece of the fine by way of tax. A tax on TV advertising seems way overdue.
Free public ground transportation would solve a lot of problems. The subsidies required would be a tiny fraction of what we now spend on war, and the savings in fuel and environmental damage would be huge.
I would consider supporting a law allowing a defense to a charge of homicide if the person killed was above the law and exercising lethal force. Call it justifiable assassination, and add it to the list of legal justifications for taking a life. Historians tell of an event in 1944 in which a group of German army officers conspired to assassinate Hitler and almost succeeded. Many lives might have been spared if the despot had died that day. Under our laws, such an assassination would be a crime. Maybe it shouldn't be. I'd like to think there was a deterrent for people like Hitler, and this might be just the thing.
We need more laws allowing public sector industry to compete with private business. California recently adopted a law that will permit government entities to engage in banking, and several presidential candidates are talking about replacing private health insurance with government guarantees. Let's take back what's been privatized--corrections, education, public administration--and extend the movement to cover car insurance, health care, food distribution, electric utilities, and other industries, as needed.
Crusading lawyers might appreciate a law allowing courts to take property used irresponsibly into receivership. There is no logical reason why offending businesses couldn't be managed in the public interest--and even profitably--by people other than their owners. Public agencies are occasionally taken into receivership, and bankrupt parties are often forced to submit to management by creditors. This is not all that radical, and it could form the foundation for a system to facilitate and finance takeover of private business by employees, customers, neighbors and combinations thereof.
We desperately need compulsory adult education. The dumbing-down has cost us. It's given us inferior products, incompetent leadership, bad music and art, mass illiteracy and a decline in standards, across the board. I'm not sure how we get people on a path to self-improvement, but I suspect any move in that direction would be welcome in most places.
I won't be disappointed if none of these agenda items is ever given consideration. My expectations are low, and so my disappointment threshold is high.
Also, pick up a copy of my book Current Invective: A Crank's Chronology, $16 from Amazon. Two hundred sixty rants--400 pages--from 2007 to now. It's a book that can be read backwards.