MoreAtorium

The latest update from the Gulf is a bit disheartening, but not surprising.

I reported within my last blog entry the existence of a growing opposition to the six months oil-drilling moratorium imposed by the Obama administration. It seems a Federal judge has lifted it.

"A judge has blocked the offshore drilling moratorium imposed by the Obama administration after the devastating Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

"The six-month moratorium halted the approval of any new permits for deepwater drilling, and suspended drilling at 33 existing exploratory wells in the Gulf of Mexico and in the Pacific."

This block makes a salient point even more salient: When safety concerns and bread-and-butter issues clash, you quickly learn which side of the bread is buttered--bread-and-butter issues will invariably win out.

Those workers in opposition to the moratorium work on oil rigs, or service oil rigs in some way or another, and their livelihoods were being threatened, but to no greater degree than those who make their living in the oyster, shrimping, fisheries, hotel, motel, and restaurant businesses.

I understand that people need to work. I understand that food, clothing, and shelter are important, but so is safety, the environment, and our long-term survival.

In a sane world, we'd pay these workers to suspend work while safety issues are examined, and assurances are given that the rigs are safe enough for drilling to continue.

But ours is not a sane world.

What we've learned is that bread-and-butter issues trump safety; bread-and-butter issues trump the environment. If that's not the case: Why else would Mineral Management Service (MMS) permit BP to drill in the Gulf of Mexico, 5000 feet down, without provable, demonstrated means to prevent a catastrophic blowout of the magnitude that's taken 11 lives, and will soon leave our marshes, estuaries, and beaches awashed with the smelly goo we say we can't live without.

The Deep Water Horizonoil rig blow-out preventer (BOP), we've now learned, was riddled with "critical flaws".

Here's a brief summary. The previous link provides a more detailed accounting:

"Oil wells both on and offshore have contraptions called blowout preventers.
Those iconic old images of oil well gushers? The blowout preventer stops that
from happening, saving much cleanup and money given all the oil that used to
spew randomly all over the place before it could be brought under control.
According to BP's CEO Tony Hayward, the blowout preventer should have kicked in
the day that the explosion occurred, but failed to do so. They don't seem to know why."

Since that time, when BP's CEO Tony Hayward feigned ignorance, much has come to light about the cause, or causes:

"BP,Transocean, and Halliburton avoided standard tests and inspectionson the blow out preventer stack. The stack apparently does not have a top-kill mechanism, forcing the crews to improvise on the battered BOP stack on the sea floor. We also learned that three days before the disaster, the crews took an economic short cut by pumping free seawater instead of expensive, man-made drilling mud into the well to try to close it. The crews apparently knew, or should have known, that the seawater was not countering the pressure in the well. The crew knew for at least an hour before the explosion that the blow out preventer was failing. This much we know, even before the formal investigation ordered by the White House gets going."

I support Life. This position represents my philosophy, and my politics. It's a principle that I adhere to, but not blindly, since, on occasions, other concerns may take precedence.

I distrust principled stances that are so rigid that they violate commonsense, and the exigencies of the moment.

Further, I don't believe we're locked into a future where the options are as narrow as they are currently presented. If we don't "drill baby drill," they tell us, we may lose our American way of life, we'll take a backward step in lifestyle, and we'll assure for ourselves a bleak future.

What's missing in our future is a lack of will. Why call for sacrifices when things are going so swimmingly--our cars run, our houses are lighted, and our ranges and ovens heat and cook our food.

The fossil fuel industry (oil, coal, gas) would like nothing better than to lock us into a future where the only energy options we have are theirs. But that's no option at all, and it's becoming clearer, that on the energy front, we'll continue to rob Peter to pay Paul.

The evidence is mounting, our dependence on fossil fuels--which emits carbon dioxide (CO2) into our environment--is responsible for the weather-altering phenomenon referred to as global warming, and climate change.

I'm convinced that the "change" can be placed at the feet of humankind, at the feet of developed countries, and developing countries.

When asked what we can do, I wrote elsewhere:

First, we have to stop believing that the threat isn't real--that all of this is going to go away.

Second, we have to stop lying to ourselves. We have 2% of the world's resources
while using 20%. This American lifestyle, which we mistakenly call the American Dream, is not sustainable, nor is it fair to the rest of the world's people to use up gluttonously that which belongs to all.

The naysayers of the world, and this nation, have to be pushed aside. We have to
replace these agents of propaganda, and delusions, with proponents of truth, facts, and a strong tower of realism.

If we continue in the direction we're going, all is lost. And it's not just the energy crisis, and the lack of an energy vision of which I speak.

This world is on a collision course with a hell of its own making.

Third, those of us of a like mind, must mobilize, and agitate for the future we wish to create.

I learned today that BP has leases in the Arctic, and is preparing to drill there in the near future. How many disasters does BP get to create at the expense of the world, and humanity, just so we may continue to drive gas guzzlers, and spew more carbon dioxides into the air, a gas generated by fossil fuels.

If we don't drown out the voices of naysayers, by presenting alternatives to their clear and present push to keep the status quo, and augment it, then we have no future--at least not one that we'll recognize.

Make no mistake: This is war. We're fighting for democracy, and for the future of humankind[Our democracy is degrading as the political strength of corporations grow exponentially, thanks to the Supreme court, and a bribed congress.].

We can continue to allow our pursuit of livelihoods, and the amassing of great fossil-fuel fortunes to be our focus, but we do so at great risk to the planet, and to our quality of life here.

There are other potential catastrophic events looming on the horizon, but this one is now a visible and present danger--and we still lack the collective will do anything about it.

Bread and butter, anyone?


Image used courtesy of : Free Images - Free Stock Photos

Hard Pill, Heavy Spill, Halting Will

Disillusionment can be a hard pill to swallow.

The president is being tarred and feathered over the Gulf oil spill: He's either doing too little, or too much.

The Brits are up in arms because they see President Obama as being too passionate, unfairly attacking their favorite-son company, British Petroleum.

Some in Parliament are urging the Prime Minister to scold our president, to tell him to put a sock in it. If British Petroleum was an American company called U.S. Petroleum, and the English coastline was the first line of defense against an oil spill of the magnitude we're experience here, I don't think that our congress would be urging our president to tell the Brits to tone it down. Further, I don't think that the American people would be jingoistically attacking the Brits, just because an American company was single-handedly destroying their fragile coastline.

I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

Ironically, the president, here at home, is seen as too dispassionate over the oil spill. He's not showing enough emotions .

Many pundits see this oil spill disaster as part and parcel of a Bush-Cheney oil policy, their cavorting with Big Oil, a frolicking that President Obama was more than willing to join--although in a limited fashion--an acquiescence to offshore drilling, coming a mere few weeks prior to this oil-spill disaster, now calculated as the worse in our nation's history.

President Obama's presidency will be judged as much by his cleaning up the mess that Bush-Cheny-Republicans had a hand in making--two wars, torture, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, Iran's nuclear bomb ambitions, a faltering energy policy, an economy teetering on a depression, a deteriorating national image around the world--as by his cleaning up of another mess, the Gulf oil spill that's threatening livelihoods, a fragile ecosystem, and is poised to be put additional strain on an economy already struggling to rebound.

Along with the tar balls rolling up on coastal beaches, we're now seeing an all too familiar picture of the damage to wildlife that and oil spill can produce--our fine-feathered friends drenched in the sticky goo that's preventing flight, restraining movement, and destroying their natural food source.

Figuratively tarred and feathered, the president is fighting the political fight of his life, as he takes full responsibility for this oil-spill disaster--and it's becoming clearer, that there's little that he and congress can do, but appoint a commission, and hold hearings.

But the tarring and feathering doesn't end there. A recent article, by Dorothy Rabinowitz, for the Wall Street Journal, is casting the president as not quintessentially American--going so far as to calling him an "alien," one who is "wanting in certain qualities citizens have until now taken for granted in their presidents. Namely, a tone and presence that said: This is the Americans' leader, a man of them, for them, the nation's voice and champion."

Frankly, blacks have always been seen by most in the majority as "alien," and not quintessentially American. Americanness was peculiar to whites, and not even native Americans could share in that Americanness, a sense and presence that came into existence upon the formation of this nation, but were seen as something to be dealt with, something to be cast out, or thrown away.

Because, I, to this day, after living in this country all my life, continue to feel outside of the American mainstream, in exile, as it were, I don't fly the American flag, and only say that part of the Pledge of Allegiance that I feel is relevant, and leave out the other. Lest you see me as not patriotic, let me disavow you of that notion--because you'd be sorely mistaken.

I'm ultra-patriotic, a true son of this Republic. I believe in the Constitution, perhaps more than those who do wave their flags, and give lip-service to their allegiance. I believe in "liberty and justice for all." I believe in the American Dream, the dream that the founding fathers dared dream, when they formed this country, and declared their independence from England and the Crown, with these words:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Yet, how many times have we seen red-blooded Americans, so-called "real patriots," and true Americans, flout these "unalienable Rights"?

These were the things I used to believe that America stood for. I don't anymore. And although for many years I was deprived of these things, and because of that deprivation prized them more, I've learned that these Rights aren't the things that this country value most, not at the heart of her, not deep within her bosom, the locus where patriotic fervor live, flourish and flow, where the heart and soul of this country reside, within a collective body, multiracial, multicolored--with many colored plumes of cultures representing most of the cultures of the world.

I say, I used to think so. But not anymore.

Whether we all did once, I can't say. But here's what I can say:

At some point we lost our way. We began to put money ahead of everything--our conscience, our integrity, and our American values of "liberty and justice for all." And to add insult to injury, we used the people's money to bail out wall street. We learned later, that certain financial institutions had become too big to fail, and that their failure would have brought down the whole economy; at least that's what we were told, and I've no reason to believe otherwise. What we got in return was something called TARP. TARP sounds a lot like the word, "tar," those tar balls that waves are washing up on our Gulf coast beaches. TARP. Toxic (or Troubled) Assets Relief Program.

Let me ask you a question: Do you know what those toxic assets are? How forthcoming was our government in telling us what "relief" was provided with our money, and the nature of that relief? Here's a list of those companies that received TARP, and how much, but we still don't know the specifics: How many malls did we take possession of? How many office buildings, and where are they located?

We know why we did it (the bail out), and we know how and why we fell in this economic sinkhole we call a recession, but what is our Federal Government doing about it now, now that those toxic assets that blew up in its face much like the Deep-water Horizon, and toxic assets washed up upon our national shores, much like the oil in the Gulf?

Well, the fear is that congress won't do much about it at all. The problems that created the problem will be allowed to remain, much like the oil gushing in the Gulf and the carcasses of wildlife.

Follow the Financial Reform Bill here, U.S. Congress : Financial Reform Watch, as it works its way through the congress.

Just as BP had no real response to deal with a catastrophic explosion upon its deep-water platform, or know how to repair a blow-out preventer that failed, our congress is crafting an economic response that fails to address the problems that precipitated the economic crisis--a lack of transparency, too big to fail (this nation's six largest banks control assets equivalent to about 60 percent of our gross national product), and the derivative market (a shadow banking system valued at around 600 trillion dollars, an amount larger than the collective GNPs of all the world's nations, including our own).

Are you beginning to see a pattern here. We have a government colluding (by not regulating, or failing to regulate various industries) in order to keep business thriving, corporations sound, oil companies drilling, and coal companies digging, notwithstanding the cost to taxpayers, the ecosystem, or the toll in human lives.

It's not by happenstance that, in recent years, we've seen our august Supreme Court take a mostly pro-business, pro-corporation stance in its rulings, placing corporations either above the people, or on an equal footing with.

It's not by happenstance that lobbyists with the most influence on Capitol Hill are those with the most money--and, that too, spells corporations.

It's not by happenstance that congress repealed laws, and created new ones to enable the economic fleecing of America--and won't do what it takes to prevent another economic collapse, a collapse similar to the one that we're now witnessing.

It's not by happenstance that the oil-drilling moratorium established by President Obama has met with stiff resistance by effected businesses along the coast, and by their workers--those whose livelihoods depend on Gulf-oil drilling, deep-water or otherwise. So, as complaints pile up, and dwellers along the coast tear out their hair, and rend their clothes over this oil-spill disaster, others are ripping Obama for the moratorium. I've seen Catch-22s, but this has to be the pappy of them all.

It's not by happenstance that green energy projects are slow to take hold, and even slower to be embraced, when so many of us are dependent on the money that comes to us by way of the coal and oil industries.

Here's the thrust of it, the hard, but indisputable truth: Money, the pursuit of prosperity, as though it and happiness are one and the same, money, that green lubricant of industry--and I bet you thought it was American ingenuity--is the real oil that greases the wheels of our giant industrial machine, our vast industrial complex. Money greases the palms of congress. It greases the palms of just about everyone. And anything that prevents the flow of that money--moratoriums, for example--will meet with an untimely demise, whether it's drilling for oil, developing businesses that provide jobs, or supporting those governments you believe belong to you.

Money owns the government. Money calls the shots. Money makes the decisions, sets the agendas, establishes the policies, and enforces them. Money owns us. We dare not complain, or do what's necessary to stop the flow of that green stuff, or stop digging for it. We dare not regulate. We dare not pass laws that are too draconian, that actually address the problem, for fear that the problem will grow worse--and businesses, and corporations will fail, people will lose their jobs, capital will become scarce, governments will founder, and America will lose her greatness.

Disillusionment can be a hard pill to swallow.


Pill image courtesy of: Free Images - Free Stock Photos

Are You Living The American Dream?

This topic came up on another blog. The piece discussed what the American dream is not, without being too definitive about what it is. That's when I dropped my post in the midst of the discussion, hoping that it would force a new examination of these oft-repeated words.

It got one comment. The comment followed my statement, and was positive. The host responded briefly, but it was clear that my comment received little more than a perfunctory glance.

I'm not angry.

It's a good blog, but the locust have descended upon it, threatening to strip it of the verdant growth of thoughtful comments, fresh ideas, intellectual banter, the vastly different, but interesting perspectives, and the treasure-trove of information we've come to expect and appreciate--all that the blog used to be before the coming of the locusts: the ideologues, the trolls, and the malcontents.

Five regulars make up roughly 72% of the posts. The remaining 28% often conceal a few nuggets of gold, and a gem or two, but the nuggets and the gems are becoming rarer.

And that's a shame.

I read a blog as much for the content, as for the comments, and see them both as an intricate part of the overall experience I've come to expect from frequenting a blog.

In case you're curious, and didn't see it: Here's the post I left:

What, in fact, is the American dream, and when do you know that you have it?

Does it come on like a cold, with symptoms so clear that you can't mistake it for anything else, like say the flu?

Does it creep up behind you in the night, and snatch your purse, or your wallet, and leave you glad that you didn't lose more, like say your life.

I'm thinking about all those lottery winners who won millions. If you had asked them right after their sudden win, if they're living the American dream, I believe to a man or a woman that they would have grinned broadly and said, "Yes."

Are they living the American dream? Hard to say, too often these mega-millions winners end up dead, or as impoverished as before they won, or meet with some other ignominious end.

What is the America dream, then? Is it material wealth? Or is it something else?

I'm thinking about all those starlets, and other celebrities of stage, and screen, and courts, and fields, and courses, and tracks.

Are they living the American dream? Hard to say, too often they're caught up in scandals--sex scandals, drug scandals, and ripoff scandals.

What is the American dream, then? Is it fame and public acclaim? Or is it something else?

Martin Luther King defined what he thought the American dream to be, and immortalized it in a speech, of which most of us are familiar, his, I Have A Dream, speech.

Upon close examination of the speech, you're struck by how often King used the words "free," "liberty" and "freedom," or some other similar reference:

"Emancipation Proclamation," and "a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity," and "the solid rock of brotherhood."

What is the America dream, then? Is it freedom? Or is it something else?

Our founding fathers conceptualized it by encapsulating it with these words from our Declaration Of Independence, ostensibly to enumerate a deficiency in governance to which they rebelled:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Now this brief passage is open to endless interpretations, and have been so subjected.

But what's remarkable about it, is that man's "unalienable Rights," which are "self-evident," come not from government, but from God ("their Creator"), suggesting that it's government's role to assure that these Rights aren't trampled by the whims of men, or tyrants.

If this is the American dream, then it's nothing more than a Gift from God, and not man. And the government that governs best, is not the one that governs least, but the one that seeks to protect those "unalienable Rights."

We might quibble over how best to do that, and when we have done that, but the charge is unmistakable:

Government is entrusted with the solemn duty to protect what God has given to each equally--an endowment, a Gift of "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So, is this the American dream--a Gift from God, and a government charged with the protection of that Gift?

I like to think so.

So, to answer the question posed in the title of this piece, "Are You Living The American Dream?", let me say it depends, and answer it this way: You live and experience the American dream in direct proportion to how well government protects the Gift with which God has endowed us all--"Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Rush to the Rescue!

I'm going to quote Rush Limbaugh here a couple of times, but trust me: this entry is not about Rush Limbaugh. It's about the gullibility of those millions that listen to him daily, that drink in his every word (Rush-Ade), believing that his is the voice of Zeus, and, therefore, infallible.

I have a theory, as to why, but I'll save that for later. First, let me introduce the quotes and get that over with. The quotes are disgusting enough in their own right, so, to use them as teasers, only serves to make them more disgusting. By now, you've probably heard them. They have been used several times as lead-ins on cable news programs, with the hosts wide-eyed with disbelief at the utter insanity tucked away in the words.

Rush is many things, but he's not insane, not in the classical sense. Nutty, perhaps, but he's been a nutbar almost from the beginning, his audience growing exponentially, as the number of radio stations that picked him up grew, all wishing to cash in on the Rush phenomenon that was sweeping the nation.

Words have consequences. But don't tell that to this conservative "entertainer":

"The amount of seepage, seepage is what it is, not a gusher, but seepage. Throughout the world oil from subterranean deposits leaks out and it never reaches the surface because it's eaten up and destroyed by the ocean. So let's not panic here, folks. If there's plumes of oil ten miles wide under there it's probably not going to be nearly as bad as all the doomsayers say. It never is as bad as the doomsayers say, is it? Global warming is not as bad as they say. In fact, it's a hoax. So why not have a little common sense, a little reason attached to this, but you can't do that because then you stall the advancement of the left's agenda, then you have Juan Williams, "Oh, yeah, well, let's just go pour some oil in there, let's do that, yeah, ocean will take care of it," and these guys said, "Who said that?" Nobody is saying that. Nobody, not one person that I know of has ever said let's just go dump some oil in the ocean. So it's just fascinating to watch this. And again, the environmentalist wackos, I think this oil spill is a lot on you. I really do."

You see where he's going with this, right? He's shifting the blame for this environmental disaster, this oil-rig explosion that killed 11, sinking the oil platform, and with it, not the future of British Petroleum, but the efforts of "environmentalists" who have fought long against such risky and potentially disastrous enterprises.

Here's Rush's other inane quote:

"When do we ask the Sierra Club to pick up the tab for this leak? Everybody's focus is on BP and Halliburton and Transocean. Let me connect the dots here for you. The greeniacs have been driving our oil producers off the land from offshore to way offshore to way, way, way out there offshore, from low risk to high risk, to higher risk. We are now forced to drill. One mile under sea, that's 5,000 feet. Obviously it's going to be a much more expensive problematic proposition to get oil from that depth than elsewhere and yet that is what has been forced on everybody here."

That's it. I promise. No more Rush Limbaugh quotes, at least for this blog entry. I'm not sure if I can take more.

With his words above, Rush is laying the groundwork for future discussions of who's to blame for this impending ecological disaster. Note, it's not BP, Halliburton, or Transocean who are at fault, it's those pesky "environmental wackos," the Sierra Club by name. He's saying, essentially, if you're going to be mad at anybody, don't go after those poor souls who're actually responsible for this disaster, go after those "wackos" who petitioned the government to stop oil drilling on land, and forced the oil industry to do what they clearly didn't want to do--risk life, and capital drilling in inhospitable environs, miles out into the Gulf, and a mile down--to extract the lifeblood of this economy: Oil! Oil! Oil!

I'm not going to link to articles detailing the severity and magnitude of this oil spill, and who's to blame for the growing threat in the Gulf to coastal wetlands, fisheries, aquatic wildlife, tourism, and the livelihoods of thousands--having an economic impact in the billions of dollars, not only to locals, but to the nation.

Yet, is it not conservatives, and Republicans in particular, who wax eloquently about personal responsibility? And, yet, we have Rush Limbaugh flouting this major tenet of conservatism, and the battle cry of Republicanism.

We know why Rush is protecting Big Oil, we have only to look at his garish Internet site, and its naked appeal for his slavish listeners to buy something, to understand why.

But why do people listen to Rush's insanity? And this is not the first time he's said something this close to the edge. Why are millions tuned in to his daily claptrap, believing that, if Rush says it's so, it must be so? They aren't called "dittoheads" for nothing. If you've ever listened to his show (I did when he first appeared on the airwaves.), you know Rush rarely allows on the air a listener who disagrees with his position. From time to time, a few deceivers get through, but his scrupulous screening process is designed to keep undesirables out, and dittoheads in--Rush doesn't handle dissent very well.

As I was saying: The callers who do manage an audience with Rush invariably begin their spiel with a "ditto, Rush" before proceeding.

I'm no psychologist, but I'd like to take a stab as to why. But before I do, I'm going to break a promise. I'm going to quote Rush one last time. It's not a quote, exactly, but a description of The Rush Limbaugh Show. It's a short one, so I'll need only feel a small pang of contrition for breaking a vow. I wanted you to read how Rush describes himself, and his show. Don't read this just after eating, or on an empty stomach. Let your food settle, first.

"The Rush Limbaugh Show is the most listened to radio talk show in America, broadcast on over 600 radio stations nationwide. It is hosted by America's Anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, also known as: America's Truth Detector; the Doctor of Democracy; the Most Dangerous Man in America; the All-Knowing, All-Sensing, All-Everything Maha Rushie; defender of motherhood, protector of fatherhood and an all-around good guy.

"There is a 'consensus' among the American people, who have made this the most listened to program, that it is also the most accurate, most right, and most correct.

"People who disagree with this are Rush Deniers."

This statement is as bloated as Rush, but offers important insight into the man, and how he sees him role as a "radio entertainer." I use the term, "radio entertainer," facetiously, because Rush is no "entertainer," as many on the Right would have us believe. A rabble-rouser, to be sure. An opportunist, undeniably. A self-serving, money-focused, take-no-prisoners showman, indubitably.

I confess, I have a penchant: I exalt rationality, introspection, and critical thinking, and abhor groupthink, and mass appeal. In addition, I avoid organizations built around personalities who surround themselves with cultish-like followers who express an "obsessive, especially faddish, devotion to, or veneration for, a person, principle, or thing."

From Rush, his followers can expect certain predictable, but indispensable outputs: a daily dose of confirmations, a daily dose of reinforcements, and a daily dose of acceptance of beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors that differ dramatically from the mainstream, but which he enthrones.

Rush gives his slavish listeners all they need to maintain their narrow worldview. Rush reinforces bigotry. Rush confirms biases. And Rush tolerates and accepts irrationality. Rush reinforces these things with the sheen of respectability, a respectability that comes from having a nationwide, radio talk show, and an army of "dittoheads" that generally agrees with his harebrained positions, beliefs, and attitudes--and his demonization of all things liberal, and progressive.

Rush gets paid amply to give legitimacy to bigotry, biases, and irrationality, and then call it conservatism.

To call Obama's presidency a regime, with the connotations that that word elicits, and have it "dittoed" by millions of Americans, seemingly without thinking about the implications of such usage, gives this country a black eye, mocks our democracy, and calls into question the inviolability of our constitution.

conTEAmptuous!

Newt Gingrich see an evolving role for the Tea Party, as the " militant wing" of the Republican Party.

He makes that observation with a certitude befitting the groups recent activities.

The dominance of the two party system almost certainly puts the Tea Party in the Republican camp, given their conservative bent, and their obvious distaste for everything Obama.

A recent poll confirms Newt's prescience regarding the group:

"The 18 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Tea Party supporters tend to be Republican, white, male, married and older than 45."

Also, according to the same poll, these white males aren't hayseeds, poverty-stricken, or likely to be, and neither are they grade-school dropouts.

"Tea Party supporters are wealthier and more well-educated than the general public, and are no more or less afraid of falling into a lower socioeconomic class...."

Assuming the accuracy of the poll, these aren't the typical malcontents, the usual suspects we might find protesting the size of government, or its overreaching ambitions to usurp state powers.

These aren't your "bitter" white men clinging to their "guns or religion." Obama captures this group with deft words, but is later skewered for it:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

"And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

We have a new breed: These are "bigoted" white men, clinging to their 401(K)'s and the religion of non-governmental interference in free-market activities.

It doesn't matter that this selfsame market and its unscrupulous adherents nearly brought our economy to near collapse. What's important is that it remains "free".

And this is the mantra that emanates from this movement.

Liberals, with their misguided efforts to address society's deficiencies, and ills, are perpetrating the greatest crime, the unforgivable offense: They're depriving Americans of their constitutionally protected freedom.

The freedom to participate, or not to participate.

It doesn't matter that that freedom was a myth, almost from the inception of this Republic, Tea Partiers are intent on resurrecting that myth, and expanding the mythology.

They distance themselves from regular, run-of-the-mill Republicans by holding "more conservative views on a range of issues than Republicans generally. They are also more likely to describe themselves as 'very conservative' and President Obama as 'very liberal.'"

And Tea Partiers are "angry," more angry than their fellow conservatives:

"And while most Republicans say they are “dissatisfied” with Washington, Tea Party supporters are more likely to classify themselves as 'angry.'"

Given the movement's emphasis on a "smaller government," you wouldn't expect it to give thumbs up to Social Security and Medicare. Yet, it does.

Even more telling is the group seeming antipathy for the poor:

"Tea Party supporters’ fierce animosity toward Washington, and the president in particular, is rooted in deep pessimism about the direction of the country and the conviction that the policies of the Obama administration are disproportionately directed at helping the poor rather than the middle class or the rich."

I suppose Tea Partiers see Obama as some modern-day Robin Hood, who takes from the rich and gives to the poor.

Were that the case! For decades we've seen just the opposite: The rich get richer, and the poor, poorer.

Take a look at what has happened to our automotive industry, and the once proud City of Detroit, and why a bailout of General Motors (condemned by Tea Partiers) may have kept the city from becoming as bankrupt as the car manufacturer itself.

Investment bankers have rigged the game to favor themselves, even if it means the collapse of our economy in their pursuit of more and more wealth, and the means of maintaining that wealth, using "too big to fail" as their edge in the game, all but insuring their survival while their less-powerful competition falls by the wayside.

And the most telling aspect of the poll is this revelation:

"They are more likely than the general public, and Republicans, to say that too much has been made of the problems facing black people."

At the risk of painting this group with a broad brush, they have shown themselves to be ultra-conservative to the point of dismissing the poor, and the concerns of blacks, regardless of their merit.

The Tea Party folks are showing what may be the true face of America, a face that I'm all too familiar with.

How do we measure our greatness as a nation? Do we measure it by how many of our people have health care, or by the exceptional quality of our health care system; by the quality education extended to all, or by the state of our educational system for those who can afford it; by the number of people on welfare, or the number who don't require it at all; by the opportunities afforded to all regardless of social status, or race, or the number who are privileged with it from birth by virtue of color?

We're only as great as the number of us who have access to that greatness, the number of us who can rise as high as our talent, skills, and intellect will carry us, without, first, having to throw off the weight of social stigma, and racial inequalities.

Who's Minding the Mines

The tragic West Virginia mining accident (It's hard to call a thing an accident that could have easily been prevented.) that took the lives of 25 coal miners, landing two in the hospital, and stranding four* deep within the earth (those four with a slim chance of survival, even if a rescue team can reach them once the methane gas has been pumped out) is emblematic of our economy as a whole--a microcosm of what's wrong with our country, when the virtues of capitalism are taken to an absurd extreme.

Here are the findings on the mine disaster that were submitted to congress:

"Parts or all of the mine where at least 25 workers died were ordered closed 61 times in the past 15 months, according to information from the Mine Safety and Health Administration.

"The information was provided in a summary to several congressional lawmakers after the accident at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia. The summary has not been made public but was provided to NBC News.

"Despite what experts said is an alarming number of so-called withdrawal orders, a total of more than 100 since 2000, federal regulators never took stepped-up action to cite the mine for a "pattern of violations" even though the mine met the criteria."

As with the financial sector, oversight of the delinquent mine, the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia--owned by Massey Energy Company--suffered as a result of regulators too cozy relationship with mine owners, and a governmental structure that favored the interest of mine owners over that of mine workers who risked their lives daily for a paycheck that put millions of dollars in the pockets of owners; and not to forget bankers, who turned to the government and taxpayers to bail them out when their financial woes threatened to bring down their greed-built empires; and, again, thanks to taxpayers who shouldered the risk, these bankers were able, over time, to hand out to themselves billions of dollars in bonuses.

Because taxpayers assumed some of the toxic assets of banks, but not all (a huge shift of risk), certain banks were allowed to remain solvent. Here, too, regulators failed, more eager to protect the interest of bankers, than the public, while the likes of Alan Greenspan (Chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board of Governors, 1987-2006) enabled bankers to borrow federal reserve dollars at such low rates, that they tripped over themselves to loan and invest it--most of the time not too wisely.

But who cares, if the money is so cheap and you're "too big to fail."

With the nation's economy on life support, and many Americans having suffered an economic mortal wound--foreclosures on their homes, bankruptcy, maxed out on their credit cards, and credit scores lower than perhaps at anytime in their lives--it seems that it will take a miracle to resurrect the corpus delicti, if it comes to that.

In the same way as owners of this non-union mine, bankers used every trick at their disposal, especially large donations to politicians, for one, to dissuade legislation and ensuing regulations that would have compelled greater responsibility on behalf of bankers and miners, and would have provided targeted oversight from regulators with power to actually do something about abuse--something other than warnings and fines.

In the same way, bankers put profits above people, almost always a sure recipe for disaster: For those who work in mines, injury, and a possible loss of life, and for John and Jane Citizen, an economy on crutches, and a loss of wages as a limping economy sheds jobs faster than it creates them.

In the same way as the owners of this mine, bankers are unrepentant. Even now, both bankers and this reckless mining company are resisting reforms that would have assured the lives of these luckless mine workers, and the continued health of our economy.

These persistent economic conditions--regulators too chummy with those they should be regulating, a governmental structure that favors corporations over the working stiff, incessant bowing, and toadying, to those who create capital, and employ people, and a government that facilitates, and enables abuses, further strengthening the hand of corporations so that they may unconscionably elevate profits above the welfare of people, and do it with impunity--are the Holy Grail of capitalism.

I'm not opposed to capitalism, but I rather doubt if we have truly seen it in actual practice in this country. What we have is some chimerical version of it, a voracious beast made of many parts, not all of which may be easily identified, or easily niched.

Consider for example, derivatives: "Securities that derive their value from other financial instruments that are used by the insurance company to hedge its bets on which direction the market is moving."

What in the hell does that have to do with the creation of capital? Wealth? Tangible assets? Goods and resources?

Capitalism is to "free market" what greed is to unrestricted.


*I have learned, since writing this piece, that the four missing miners were found, but found dead. This brings the total of mine workers dead to 29. We'd have to go back to the year, 1970, to find a disaster of similar magnitude. I have also learned that has offered to pay for the burial of the mine workers. This should bring comfort to the families--and I'm certain that Massey will receive all the attention that's coming to it, for this most beneficent of acts.

Happy?

I haven't blogged here for somtime. I have posted on other blogs, and just in case you may have missed them, I'm reproducing a couple of those posts here.

To the question, Who decides who makes you happy?, I left the following response and expanded on the notion brought up in the comments section that "selfishness" and "self-centereness" spoil many realtionships where "happiness" is sought:

You are the single most important person in the world, indeed, the universe.

And if you're having trouble with that statement, read on.

If you're not having trouble with that statement, read on.

If you're that self-assured--as to believe that you're the single most important person in the universe--then the elevation of the self comes pretty easy, a walk in the park, falling off the proverbial log.

It's okay to be selfish. To be self-centered. I know: some may get this twisted. What comes to mind readily are some of the comments upthread that equates "selfishness" and "self-centeredness" with the pursuit of one's own needs, whether sexually, or emotionally, at the expense of others.

That's not the kind of selfishness and self-centeredness of which I speak. That kind is not truly self-centered, or that kind wouldn't be seeking outside of his or herself that which only the self can provide.

I hope what I'm going to say next will surprise or even shock: You shouldn't need anyone. You shouldn't need anyone to love you, to cherish you, or to make you happy.

As someone upthread has suggested, and I state plainly: No one outside of yourself can make you happy. It's impossible.

And if you turn to others, a mate, friends, your family, or strangers on a plane, to make you happy, you'll be sorely disappointed.

They don't have the power to do so. And many marriages, and other relationships suffer drastically, because one or the other in the relationship is looking to the relationship to provide what is missing in one or the other.

No one. And I mean no one can give you what is missing in you, or what you think is missing in you. No one has that power.

And even if you find someone who you believe is giving you what is missing in you, he or she will resent you for it, because you will make unreasonable demands for it, and blame him or her if those demands aren't met.

You may not see it as such, but a need is an addiction. And like any addiction, we're always, at least most of the time, in need of a "fix," and when we don't get it, or in sufficient quantities to suppress the craving, we languish miserably within our world, and within our universe, bitterly blaming those we look to--to provide the fix--for failing us. (and those others may show up en masse or serially).

Disillusioned, you may eventually fall back on the person who created the need, and who can offer the fix to remedy the need. You. Yourself.

Here's what you need to know: Within is where all your supposed needs may be met. In time, you may come to realize that you have within all that you have sought to find without. Love in abundance. Self-acceptance in abundance. Self-forgiveness in abundance. Joy. Happiness. Peace. All in abundance.

You merely have to turn to the self in earnest, and do what many on this thread has suggested: Love yourself. Forgive yourself.

Perhaps then you'll find that decisions have power. You can decide to be happy, notwithstanding the seeming absence of conditions to evoke it; decide to be joyful, notwithstanding the seeming appearance of a joyless surrounding.

Does that mean, then, that relationships are no longer important, of whatever kind? No. They become more important than ever!

But now you enter them, not seeking something, wishing for something, desiring something from the other. You enter them for a much grander reason.

Further, you will easily know those others (They will now stand out!) who are seeking, and entering relationships for the purpose of fulfilling, satisfying, a need that they perceive within themselves.

You will pass them up, not because they're inferior in some way, but because you don't have what they're seeking, what they're needing.

You will seek out those like yourself. Those who have turned within and found a treasure trove of fullness, and completeness.

And you, with them, will use the relationship to celebrate your completeness, and celebrate your fullness.

There's no other reason to establish a relationship, than to harmonize your life with that of another.

Out of your fullness and completeness, do you share the essence of who you are.

Responding to my comment, one commenter observed:

"I never quite got how one could be happy without the actualization of some dream or desire being fulfilled or interaction with others."

I followed-up with this:

Let me attempt a response. Happiness is not about what you're doing, it's about what you're being.

Otherwise, you set yourself up to fail at the outset, if doing, or having, or interacting dictate your state of mind, or state of being.

It's what you're being why you're doing what you're doing that should be your goal.

But even then, people confuse the two. Oftentimes, you hear the saying, "I was happiest while pursuing my goal. Now that I've achieved my goal, my happiness has dropped considerably."

It dropped because they believed that the doing brought the joy, and not the other way around--that their joy (which they brought forth at their behest) attended the doing.

Your state of mind belongs exclusively to you, and is always yours to do with as you choose.

Were it otherwise, our dreams, desires, and external fulfillments would be at the mercy of life's many vagaries, which, oftentimes, would place our dreams and desires outside of the control of most of us.

It doesn't have to be that way, but that discussion is outside the scope of this one.

Let me illustrate:

If it's your desire and dream to be an astronaut, and that dream and desire is thwarted because of a heart so severely damaged that it disqualifies you--forever ending your hope of attaining what you may have worked your whole life toward--you may choose to be unhappy, or you may choose to remain untouched by the loss of the dream.

You see: The choice is not outside of you. Your state of mind is still yours to control, is still yours to command.

It's the same with interactions, and with relationships. If we put our happiness in the hands of others, then we're forever at their mercy. If they withhold that which we say makes us happy, or don't deliver it in sufficient quantities, then the outcome is predetermined.

We experience unhappiness.

We become emotionally dependent, when what we should be aiming for is independence, where we call the shots as to our state of mind, and not others; where we decide how we will feel about a thing, and not others.

Don't take this to mean that all dreams, desires, and interactions should be abandoned.

They shouldn't be.

What should be abandoned is the power we give them to shape our state of mind, to tell us whether we shall experience joy or sadness, a sense of fulfillment or loss.

Ruyard Kipling in a poem entitled "IF" states it best:

If you can dream - and not make dreams your master;
If you can think - and not make thoughts your aim;
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

We're always at choice.