L.S./M.F.T.

Some of our nation's young people still act as though it will take immeasurably longer for their brain's development to catch up with their over-all physical development, than others in their peer group.

It's as though we have spoiled six-year olds inhabiting adult bodies, but, unlike six-year olds who're physically limited, these mental juveniles can plan, organize, and otherwise use their adult cunning to challenge cops, damage and destroy public and private property--all the while giving the proverbial finger to parents, whom, I trust, would disapprove of this type of behavior, and a protruding tongue to the quality of their rearing, or lack thereof.

Having reached the limits of their prodigious patience, some cities are preparing to fight back:

PHILADELPHIA — It started innocently enough seven years ago as an act of performance art where people linked through social-networking Web sites and text messaging suddenly gathered on the streets for impromptu pillow fights in New York, group disco routines in London, and even a huge snowball fight in Washington.

But these so-called flash mobs have taken a more aggressive and raucous turn here as hundreds of teenagers have been converging downtown for a ritual that is part bullying, part running of the bulls: sprinting down the block, the teenagers sometimes pause to brawl with one another, assault pedestrians or vandalize property.

On Wednesday, the police here said that they had had enough. They announced plans to step up enforcement of a curfew already on the books, and to tighten it if there is another incident.

They added that they planned to hold parents legally responsible for their children’s actions. They are also considering making free transit passes for students invalid after 4 p.m., instead of 7 p.m., to limit teenagers’ ability to ride downtown.

Lucky Strike, now more often referred to as "Luckies," introduced a message on its cigarette packs in 1917.

It was: L.S.M.F.T. (Luck Strike Means Fine Tobacco).

Now what does all this, a brand of cigarettes, "Luckies," have to do with the topic at hand. Well, not much.

Just this: A book I read years ago said that Lucky Strike's popular message could be used as a mnemonic device to remember something more important than a cigarette message; the initials of the message representing something infinitely more valuable--a key to understanding human behavior, and a reminder of a methodology that would allow one to respond in a way that could defuse a human interaction gone awry.

It is this: Low Self-esteem Means Friction and Trouble (L.S.M.F.T).

This little bit of knowledge has served me well over the years, and have extricated me from some rather sticky situations that could have spiraled out of control, but for it.

For all the laboriously slow methods available to us to win fame and success (college, starting a business), we seem to be living now in an era of instant gratification. And, too, quite aptly, we have been called the "throw away society," and that, too, may also be true. We, as a society, it seems, don't value anything as much as we used to.

Now we want things quickly without resorting to the tried and true methods of the past--hard work, elbow grease, true grit, or moxie.

For better or for worse, we're living during a time, thanks to the Internet, and a twenty-four hour news cycle, and cameras and cellphones everywhere, as ubiquitous as portable transistor radios used to be, where the average Joe or Jane can now become a celebrity over night.

Consider the 'Barefoot bandit' with a cult following on Facebook of around 60,000 fans, and a reputation rivaling that of Bonnie and Clyde, and the sudden success and fame of a homeless man caught on camera folding an American flag, military style, that had come unmoored from it's mooring during a storm.

Now captured in the Bahamas, there's talk of the existence of a possible movie deal for the "Barefoot bandit," and most likely a book deal, as well, and that the homeless man is receiving job offers, and other outpouring of largesse from grateful strangers around our usually jaded nation that were moved by his uncommon display of patriotism.

Reality T.V. shows, often featuring the common man and common woman, who, in past years, would have been dubbed "Everyman," can now garner a following to equal that of movie stars.

Jon & Kate Plus 8 is one of those shows, that, at its peak, attracted as many as 9.8 million viewers.

With all this allurement of instant fame and monetary success just a video away, or a Reality T.V. show away, or a foolish stunt away, or an eluding of the cops away--who needs to work hard, study hard, and sacrifice time, and energy to bring one's self-esteem up, and launch it into the stratosphere of public acclaim, and monetary rewards.

Instead, all that is now needed is luck, a gimmick, and a good agent.

TrUSt?

Our latest spy caper, now all the rave--comprised of ten Russian citizens--is not your usual cloak and dagger escapade.

It's certainly all of these--invisible ink, secret code words, fake names--and it's also this: quiet family time in the burb, hot dogs and hamburgers on the grill, and other concessions to American culture to allow these Russian spies to blend in. One person has described one husband-wife team as a "nice couple."

That's us: "Nice."

"'They’re such a nice couple,' Susan Coke, a real estate agent who sold a home in Montclair, N.J. to two of the suspects — who called themselves Richard and Cynthia Murphy — told The New Jersey Star-Ledger. 'I just hope the FBI got it wrong.'

"Prosecutors say that for the past decade the alleged Russian spies, while passing as everyday people in suburbia and elsewhere, engaged in secret global travel with false passports, secret code words, fake names, invisible ink and encrypted radio messages." More here.

What does these arrests on espionage charges say about governments' ability to forge understandings--treaties, and other international agreements--when they don't trust each other?

And if governments don't trust each other, what does that say to a people who place their trust in governments so that they may have their common defense, and their common welfare secured?

I say: Take your lead from governments around the world. These governments are actively engaged in knowing what the other is about using surreptitious means, if necessary, to do so.

We don't have to go that far, however, but it behooves a people to use whatever democratic means that are at their disposal to maintain those checks and balances to which the founding fathers were so partial.

And staying informed--our becoming a knowledgeable electorate--should be an indispensable part of holding governments accountable. If the Russian government is willing to go to such great pain, to such amazing lengths, as to insert spies in our midst to stay informed about our government's intentions, and to gather sensitive information, how much more us, the people, the one's who'll suffer the most for government's missteps.

Wikileaks is one of those organizations that is on the frontline of that information gathering, and a young Army private, one Bradley Manning, faces "an Article 32 Hearing, which is similar to a grand jury" because of an alleged leak to Wikileaks which it promptly brought before the American people.

The U.S. has formally pressed criminal charges against Army Private Bradley Manning for allegedly leaking secret military files to Wikileaks, including the hugely controversial video of U.S. helicopters killing civilians in Iraq. Manning faces several charges, including espionage, that could carry a sentence of up to 52 years in prison. These charges, however, raise more than they resolve about the complicated case. Here's what we still don't know.

Private Manning charged with disclosing iraq-slaughter video. Trigger happy Apache crew remain uncharged. More here.

How far the people should be willing to go to gather information on government activities, and coverups, will always be debatable, but what is not debatable is the role of the people: We the people should be the final arbiters, the ultimate checks and balances to counter the potential tyranny that's always inherent in power, and within the confines of government, because of the power that it wields in our names.

Be certain of one thing: Government will not always work in the best interest of the people it claims to serve. It will always exercise power that's not in the interest of the people--from illegal wiretaps, to a financial reform bill that still leaves the country exposed to rapacious Wall Street bankers, to a laxity of regulatory policing of Big Oil (to name a few), who will still seek to drill in environmentally sensitive areas, without appropriate safeguards, or the means to respond responsibly, and adequately, to catastrophes when they occur.

And they will surely occur.

Just as other countries spend millions watching what other governments are doing that may be inimical to their welfare, it behooves us to do the same with equal enthusiasm.

The news media is often seen as the fourth branch of government, but there's a fifth branch that's often overlooked, and--for all its usual diminished positioning--is the most important when it comes to buttressing our democratic superstructure: the American people.

As citizens of this country we have a duty to perform--a duty that's more important than the duty of government. That duty is to be vigilant. That duty is to insist that government works on behalf of the people, and not just on behalf of other societal entities, whether they're corporate special interests, or non-corporate special interests.

We the people--our interests--should always come first, and not last, which is too often the case in our current political climate.

It's when we take our eye off of government, and allow it to operate in secrecy, striking deals behind closed doors--just as Cheney did with Big Oil, and Obama with Big Pharma--that our democracy is put at risk.

Further, we need to take a proactive role in our own governance. Always we should insist that government is responsive to the people, and beholding to us. At the end of the day, it is us, the people, that will either succeed or fail when government succeeds or fails.

Where there's trust--real trust--governments don't need spies to guarantee that trust. Where there's trust--real trust--the people can relax their vigilance. But that day isn't yet upon us.

Until that time, as Jefferson warned, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." It's also the hallmark of a democracy.

Watching the Byrd-ie!

The passing of Senator Byrd plunges the Black Blogosphere into a morass of mourning. Well, I exaggerate. Actually, I'm exaggerating a lot.

The senator's passing is, however, being marked by black bloggers, in much the same way that James (Strom) Thurmond's passing was marked, with a looking back over the lives of those who, at some point in their lives, supported a way of life that made life a living hell for many.

The thought comes to mind: The good die young, while evil live long, and from life the last drop is wrung, before we can truly say they're finally gone.

Tupac looked at this phenomenon of the young dying young, as did Billie Joel, Joel's lyrical observations speaking seductively of postponing sexual gratification, and Tupac speaking regrettably about the vicissitudes of life.

I'm reminded, too, about a famous passage from one of Shakespeare's plays, delivered by one Mark Anthony:

Mark Antony:
Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;
I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him;
The evil that men do lives after them,
The good is oft interred with their bones,
So let it be with Caesar ...

This, too, will probably be true for Senator Robert C. Byrd.

I'm not sure what Byrd's legacy will be--what will stand out, whether it'll be his political legacy, or his racial legacy, or both. Many in the press and the media marked his passing, if not with flourishes of praise, certainly not with damning criticism. Several noted his evolutionary, transformational progress--from that of a former Klansman to one who opposed the war in Iraq, and had several civil rights voting achievements under his belt.

For my part, I'll let Byrd's life speak for itself--those long and short passages with which he elevated his life, and those with which he plumbed the depths of racial animus. At one point in his life, Byrd is quoted as saying:

"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side…Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

I left the following observations at another blog. I debated whether I should include them here, even though it seemed appropriate. I rarely discuss my encounters with racism, and the incidents that follow will be familiar to whites and blacks, alike, but these examples are "tip of the iceberg" instances, and I could have, just as easily, presented more horrific examples. Although, over my life, I've become rather adept at spotting racism, I rarely dwell on the subject.

Here's the black reality as I have lived it, and continue to do so:

In this country, even before we're accused of anything, we're guilty of something: We're guilty of being black.

We're told in our legal system: We're Innocent until proven guilty.

For blacks the reverse is too often true: We're guilty until proven innocent, or until we can prove our innocence.

We were born guilty. We grow to manhood, and womanhood, guilty, and, for many us, we die guilty.

That's why we're followed around in stores by white store clerks. It's because we're guilty.

That's why whites cross the street, rather than come within an unsafe distance of us. It's because we're guilty.

That's why whites yell out the invective, Nigga, when they drive by. It's because we're guilty.

That's why the job we're seeking, and is qualified to do, is given to somebody white, instead, who is not as qualified as we are. It's because we're guilty.

That's why the customer service to which we're entitled, oftentimes comes up grossly lacking. It's because we're guilty.

If, for years, whites treat a people as though they're guilty for existing, they shouldn't expect a "thank you" for it, black cooperation for it, or an adoption of their white value system, or ideals, for it--just because they, and other blacks, say it's good for them.

Living guilty is hard to live down.

####

If you think that the incidents I cited above happened in yesteryears, you'd be wrong. Most of them happen periodically, several within the last year, and a couple within the last month.

No, I don't live in the Deep South. I live within a liberal stronghold, an area in which you'd think racial enlightenment has come. No, not all my encounters are racist. Many whites with whom I have contact, give respect, and show civility. But there is an element that's still waiting for the memo from the front office.

There is a white supremacist gang in my area that's at war with the police department, and have done damage to police property, setting booby traps to inflict bodily harm, but it has been my good fortune not to meet up personally with the group.

Frankly, I'm mostly inured to these behaviors, and actions. And those whose purpose it is to demoralize me, fail miserably.

I'm long past the times, however, when these racial and racist taunts and behavior can disturb my spirit, other than evoke the deepest of pity, and my concern for the future of our country, and the flagging outlook for humankind.

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.