Rich Bond, former Republican Party Chair admitted that they created the myth of the "liberal biased media" in an attempt to, as they say in sports, "work the ref". Basically, create an over-dramatic objection to the other side and the unfair difference in treatment of both sides, in hopes that you will get concessions from the referee. In this analogy, the "ref" is the public. This strategic development, worked on tirelessly by the political right-wing in America created the false impression that the media was a cheer-leading team for the political left. This created the justification of the creation of Fox News, a Conservative version of the "liberal media" for supposed balance. The problem is this. Who is the liberal media? MSNBC? They are new, and only took on the Liberal mantle recently. Is CNN part of the liberal media? Hardly. CNN is like Fox light. And who is the "Mainstream Media"? The largest Media group in the United States, and second larges in the world is News Corp, FOX's parent company. FOX is as big as, if not bigger than any of the "Big Three"; ABC, CBS and NBC. And even if these are called "liberally biased", no one can ever seem to reference specific examples of actual bias, not until recent years that is. Whereas looking for conservative bias in the media, one can name dozens of names from Fox, CNN and New Radio as well as citing numerous examples from stories and quotes. Not to mention the obvious direct conflict of interests between the founders and top people at FOX whom have all had long careers in Politics directly, specifically in Republican administrations. Roger Ailes, President of FOX and director of programming, notorious for sending out daily memos telling everyone what to report and how to report it, including what words to use (eg "job creators" instead of "rich") was media consultant for 3 Republican Presidential administrations as well as many other Republican offices. You can't get more blatant than that.
The first thing a cult does is convince you that everyone else is lying to you, thus implying that they are the only ones that can be trusted. And it works. FOX does this. No other media outlet in the world constantly claims to be the only media outlet that can be trusted. Incidentally, who's more likely to be the liar, the guy who's constantly saying "trust me, everyone is lying to you except for me" or "everyone else"? It should be obvious. And one can take a step further as well. Ask, who stands to gain, and what from these conflicting sides? Look at the climate change debate. It is either a complete mystery why this is so controversial, or it is obvious. In the former, we have it as it is presented by conservatives. The "left" along with 98% of the scientific community invented a false crisis in order to... well, yea, it's unclear their motives. The implication is that there is something evil and pernicious about trying to take care of the environment. This makes little sense. As for if it were a fair and balanced debate, it would still be weird that we are having it. If the people proposing that climate change is happening and it's man made or at least affected by man (forgetting for the moment the weight of the scientific evidence on the matter) are right, then we should do something, and quick. If they are wrong, then what? It would be evil and wrong to start recycling more, and lowering carbon emissions for "no reason"? That doesn't make much sense does it? And what of the motivation to deceive the world into thinking climate change exists if it doesn't? So there's the other side, if they're right and we do nothing, it doesn't matter. But if they are wrong and we do nothing, the consequences are disastrous on a global scale. And their motivation to deceive? Oh yea, FOX, Republican politicians, and 2% of the scientific community just happen to be bank rolled by businesses that are making record profits because they don't have to be concerned about the environment, and if they did have to do something about it they would be cutting into their profits. That makes more sense. This is how they (the right-wing media) approach every argument: Ginned up outrage at the insinuation that the people bankrolling them (the right-wing) are trying to intentionally deceive people for their own profits, followed by the accusation that the conspiracy is actually on the other side, with either an unknown or inexplicable motive.
I just heard a rant from an average FOX watcher. He was complaining about how he and his family had been treated unfairly by the tax code. As a working class family he thought he had an unfair portion of the tax burden. I agreed with him. But then he instantly went into defense mode of the rich. Complaining about the "anarchists" in the "Occupy" movement, and the "Liberal-Media" how they wanted to "tax the rich" and how they were responsible for him being taxed, because he was the "rich" they were talking about. And then he explained how the "media" had brain-washed an entire nation. To that I agreed as well. But I was thinking how FOX had brainwashed him into thinking that the people who were making the same complaint as him, "unfairness of the tax code" were actually the ones responsible for the unfairness somehow. Even though neither the media, nor the protests are writing the tax-code, especially retroactively. It would be like saying the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s was somehow responsible for slavery and racism over the last few centuries, or that the women's suffrage movement of the early 1900s was the real cause the misogyny in human culture over the history of civilization. It's amazing to me, that someone can be so programmed to complain about how they have been treated unfair, and then simultaneously blame the others who are also complaining, while defending those that caused, and benefited from that unfairness as though they were the real victims.
Blaming the victim is one feat. Getting the victim to blame themselves, now that's truley impressive.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
He's Running For Office, For Pete's Sake.
Give poor Mitt Romney a break already. After all, he's running for office for Pete's sake. Also, you know how it is, Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line, and as was clear from the start, it's Mitts turn. You're a Republican, you don't have to love him, just get in behind him anyway. Besides, the only respectable challenge was when John Huntsman called Romney on his "100% anti-Obama line no matter what just because it's good for the GOP policy and my chances of getting elected," and the electorate tipped their hats to Huntsman for it just before sending him home packing. The rest of the contenders are practicing a political form of public self-immolation. As a quick reminder, this is in reference to the exchange between Huntsman and Romney in which Romney criticized the former for putting his country first (taking the job as the Ambassador to China under Obama, a job which he was most likely the most qualified American for, being a respectable choice by Obama), doubling down on the notion that serving his country was a bad thing if the president was part of the opposition party. Huntsman also referenced his two sons serving in the Navy, implying the question "should my sons not serve their duty because of the political party of the President they serve under?", a question he should have made directly and forced his opponents to respond to. They would have changed the subject no doubt, but it would have gone less unnoticed. Had someone been forced to address it they would have had two options, either back down and say "okay, serving your country is respectable even if you don't agree 100% with the president," or hold their ground and say "no, sorry Obama=bad and as long as Obama is the president we should set this place on fire and make it burn until he's out of office. And your sons should refuse to serve their country until he is out of office." That policy, by the way, is the policy of nearly all of the far right Republican party, and it's been their mission since Obama was elected, even before he swore into office, like a child who hasn't got his way, so instead of accepting it, he sticks his fingers in his ears, closes his eyes and chants "la la la, not listening" until the whole thing has passed. Look at the Republican congress. You know, the one with a single digit approval rating. Under John Boehner's leadership(?) they swore to stop the President from accomplishing anything, from day one, essentially saying to the American people "We don't like who you chose for president, so we are going to do everything in our power, including shutting down the government if we have to, to subvert your will." And they have been partially successful. Now they are standing up saying "This President hasn't accomplished much, so you should replace him." Why hasn't he accomplished much? "Because we stopped him!" they exclaim whilst patting themselves on the back. Okay, so which is it? The President hasn't accomplished very much so he's bad and should be replaced. But you are the reason he hasn't accomplished anything, so you're good and should keep your job? You can't have it both ways. It's reminiscent of Newt Gingrich's accusation that Bill Clinton was responsible for the attacks on September 11th because he didn't do enough to prevent it. Were that to even be considered true, it would have to at least be a partially shared blame on Bush as well for continuing to not do enough for 9 months, but that is, for the moment, neither here nor there. When pressed about his accusation and asked "Why do you think Clinton didn't do enough to prevent the attacks" Gingrich twisted a smile like contortion of his maw and proudly stated "he was distracted at the time," referring of course to the carnival de charade that was the Lewinsky affair. Impeaching the president for lying to a grand jury about his private life. A 2 year waste of tax payer time and money orchestrated by the Speaker of the House. The interviewer should have pressed and asked Gingrich if he was, through the transitive property, accepting responsibility himself for the attacks of Tuesday the 11th of September by proxy in his admission. That would have been a hell of statement: 'I, Newt Gingrich, former disgraced Speaker of the House of Representatives, do claim responsibility for the attacks on America in the 11th day of September 2001, for having distracted the country and the nation by abusing the power of my position with my obsessive crusade to embarrass the President of the United States, a distraction which resulted in our lack of preparedness to prevent the aforementioned attacks. Thank you.' The same could be said for the Republican held house. If they think the President should be removed from his job for not accomplishing anything, and they claim responsibility for that, then they should be the ones removed from office, not the President.
But I digress. We were talking about the near human look-a-like known as Mitt Romney. He's a business man from a business world. A world in which the only virtue is beating out other people for money. And all things, morals and logic alike, apply only in this context. We've all heard the phrase "it's just good business." That is a panacea to any criticism. Did your actions result in the death and or harm of innocent people, the economic collapse of a community, the destruction of property, and or the ruin of natural habitat? Maybe, maybe not, but if you made a lot of money while doing it, then it's okay. Because in Capitalism, the only virtue is profit. That's why when Romney speaks, and says things in a clear and unmistakable way, he's confused that people can't connect with him. He talks to people the way a businessman talks to other businessmen. "I can't have illegals working for me, I'm running for office for Pete's sake." That makes perfect sense to a businessman. Why can't you get behind a statement like that? Because most of us are more than morally bankrupt business-people. If the question is "why shouldn't you have illegal workers working for you?" there are many answers. First of all, quite simply stated, it's illegal. It's also taking advantage of a undocumented worker probably so that you can pay them less, and not provide the basic rights that documented workers have. Also, that means you are possibly denying one of our citizens a job. Exploitation, greed, dishonesty, all of those are good and possibly the "right" answer to that question. But what is Romney's answer? "Because it would hurt my chances to be President." That's the wrong answer. But this is how a successful businessman thinks, via the shortest and clearest path to his goals and how these things around him affect him and his bottom line alone. At least he's not trying sincerely to convince us he's anything other than that, no doubt to the distress of his handlers. I feel sorry for the poor writer hired to make him sound poetic with the line about the "trees being the right height." I for one was not so nearly put off by this attempt at poetic humanization. I see where the person who wrote that was going and do appreciate it for it's simple, if kitsch-like sentiment. I can see someone poetically reminiscing about home, and talking about how the simple day to day things that go unnoticed can make one feel at home. The height of trees may not be as poetic as the taste of the air you breathed as a child that only exists in the park by where you grew up, but as before, I can see where they were going with that.
So what is so appalling about Mitt Romney to the Republicans anyway? One would think him appealing instead. He's every bit the epitome of the business-minded fiscal conservative that they wish to define their party as (ironically, he's the first one they've ever had). Trickle down economics, free enterprise, emotional detachment from everything including the family dog with nothing but an eye on the horizon and the money there is to be made there, how is this anything but Freedman and Rand's dream of unbridled capitalism in spring, come hell or high water? He just doesn't pretend not to be the greedy selfish bastard that the rest of them are hiding. Look in the mirror and tell us what you see. It should look something like Mitt.
But I digress. We were talking about the near human look-a-like known as Mitt Romney. He's a business man from a business world. A world in which the only virtue is beating out other people for money. And all things, morals and logic alike, apply only in this context. We've all heard the phrase "it's just good business." That is a panacea to any criticism. Did your actions result in the death and or harm of innocent people, the economic collapse of a community, the destruction of property, and or the ruin of natural habitat? Maybe, maybe not, but if you made a lot of money while doing it, then it's okay. Because in Capitalism, the only virtue is profit. That's why when Romney speaks, and says things in a clear and unmistakable way, he's confused that people can't connect with him. He talks to people the way a businessman talks to other businessmen. "I can't have illegals working for me, I'm running for office for Pete's sake." That makes perfect sense to a businessman. Why can't you get behind a statement like that? Because most of us are more than morally bankrupt business-people. If the question is "why shouldn't you have illegal workers working for you?" there are many answers. First of all, quite simply stated, it's illegal. It's also taking advantage of a undocumented worker probably so that you can pay them less, and not provide the basic rights that documented workers have. Also, that means you are possibly denying one of our citizens a job. Exploitation, greed, dishonesty, all of those are good and possibly the "right" answer to that question. But what is Romney's answer? "Because it would hurt my chances to be President." That's the wrong answer. But this is how a successful businessman thinks, via the shortest and clearest path to his goals and how these things around him affect him and his bottom line alone. At least he's not trying sincerely to convince us he's anything other than that, no doubt to the distress of his handlers. I feel sorry for the poor writer hired to make him sound poetic with the line about the "trees being the right height." I for one was not so nearly put off by this attempt at poetic humanization. I see where the person who wrote that was going and do appreciate it for it's simple, if kitsch-like sentiment. I can see someone poetically reminiscing about home, and talking about how the simple day to day things that go unnoticed can make one feel at home. The height of trees may not be as poetic as the taste of the air you breathed as a child that only exists in the park by where you grew up, but as before, I can see where they were going with that.
So what is so appalling about Mitt Romney to the Republicans anyway? One would think him appealing instead. He's every bit the epitome of the business-minded fiscal conservative that they wish to define their party as (ironically, he's the first one they've ever had). Trickle down economics, free enterprise, emotional detachment from everything including the family dog with nothing but an eye on the horizon and the money there is to be made there, how is this anything but Freedman and Rand's dream of unbridled capitalism in spring, come hell or high water? He just doesn't pretend not to be the greedy selfish bastard that the rest of them are hiding. Look in the mirror and tell us what you see. It should look something like Mitt.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Voodoo Economics
And so it is, once again, we hear the ideas of the free market economists of Freedman and his Chicago Boys explaining it all. The opposition party to the President of the United States knows what's wrong. There are, fundamentally, only two things that could ever be wrong in the world. The wealthy corporations are over regulated and over-taxed. Or so we hear every second from those vying for the Republican party's nominee. The idea is that you don't have to regulate a company, because it will do the right thing without the burdensome regulations to force it to do so. If it does the wrong thing, it will only hurt itself and it will, as such, pay the consequences itself. Tell that to the families of the 11 crewmen on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig that lost their lives when the explosion that was caused by careless and reckless lack of safety standards allowed by the aggressive deregulation of the oil industry by Bush Administration. Does anyone think that if only the oil industry had been less regulated and less taxed (the Center For American Progress showed that Exxon Mobil, for example, paid zero in taxes in 2009) that disaster would have been averted? Of course not.
But that's what they would have us believe. That the economic collapse we all not only witnessed but felt, in every way shape and form, was caused by, oh who was it again? Oh that's right, worker's unions, teacher's, police and firefighter's unions, and pesky regulation of Wallstreet. Had only we denied workers teachers, police and firemen rights (weren't we brought up to look up to and admire these people?), gave more money to billionaires, and stopped making sure that companies weren't doing potentially destructive things, everything would have been fine.
This is where these people shine. They are salesmen. And they know how to sell a package. Even if it's full of bullshit. They come up with populist names like "Right to work" (laws which inhibit workers rights organisations from forming, aka Unions) or "Americans for Prosperity" (a group of a very small number of very wealthy men who want to protect the tax-breaks they get for destroying American jobs) and Citizens United (who won the right to call corporations people, thus making them exempt from disclosure of campaign financing. ie, the right to bribe public officials with unlimited money anonymously). The names all sound populous. Because these salesman that have bridged the divide between Government and Enterprise know that populism is indeed; popular..
And now there's trouble brewing in the cannibal feeding frenzy that is the Republican nominating process. Romney, the front runner, is being criticized for his business history by fellow Republicans. That's a no-no, because criticism of his business history is a criticism of a holy shrine of right-wing business. The ability to do anything that should be considered immoral, unethical, soulless and disgusting, so long as it's in the name of profits. Who cares how many lives and households you destroyed along the way? It's just good business. Romney knows that all to well. He is as rich as he is, because his company Bain Capital bought up companies, fired everyone, tore it to bits, sold off all the pieces, then ran off with all the cash. Which is exactly what he would do if elected president. Fire all public workers, sell of government offices to the highest bidder and pocket the cash. Who's to say he wouldn't? That's his modus operandi.
The problem is this. If left to their own devices, and not regulated by laws on an individual level (including laws against rape, murder, theft etc) most people would continue as they are now; going about their lives without doing particularly bad things. Either because they have genuine empathy and a desire to be good and do the right thing, or they are concerned that there will be repercussions from the community. However, the laws are there to protect the 99% from the 1% of sociopaths and psychopaths who are perfectly happy to do awful things to other people either for their own gain or amusement. aThe business world of corporations, which would have us believe that they (the corporations) are people, want exemption from laws, promising us they don't have among them bad people, driven by their own self interested, so there's nothing to worry about. The laws of regulation aren't there because every company is a bad place that will do bad things for money. But those companies do exist. Powerful people, driven by their own self interest do (believe it or not) find themselves at the helm of large powerful businesses. And if their decisions have consequences, you better believe it's others who will pay for those.
This voodoo concept of the Invisible Hand of the Market enacting justice on business for bad decisions is laughable. Invisible is right. If the mine you work for has bad safety standards and there is a cave-in, then everyone can just quit and go down the road and work at the next mine, right? Who's to say the safety standards are any better there? And are they even hiring anyway? What if there isn't even another mine down the road, or any other place else to work at for that matter? And what about the people that died in the initial collapse in the first place? We just shrug our shoulders and say "oops"? No, it's less expensive for the company to risk those things than it is to employ strong and efficient safety standards. Perhaps an analogy about omelets and eggs comes to the mind of the people at the top. Presumably they don't expect themselves or their children to be potential mine workers. The so called Invisible Hand of the Market and never been demonstrated to guide or punish anything. But who cares about facts, when you have theories that in practice make you rich (even if they fail to do anything else promised).
Which raises another irritating point, something that you hear time and again. When a politician or an economist is faced with the reality of function and history and it contradicts their claims, they answer with just repeating their theory, as though it hasn't been tried. When Jon Stewart confronted Jim DeMint the other night, he answered facts with theory. DeMint was explaining how all this oppressive regulation and taxation was hurting companies and hurting the economy. Stewart pointed out that in the last 40 years, during all this so called "oppressive regulation and taxation," corporations have been constantly rolling out record profits. It's also of note that they did better as companies and so did the market itself when they were paying more taxes and having to deal with tighter regulation. They had their worst years under Bush when they got their low taxes and no regulation like they wanted. That's just the facts and history. And what do you do when you make a claim that is then completely dis-proven with facts and information? Well, you answer by talking about the theory that supports your claim. No one ever talks about free market economics using the historical record. They always talk about it in theory. If Chili and Argentina had been free market success stories, they would be held up as models. Both were, of course, disasters. And the most recent example, during the Bush years their economic model caused the global financial collapse.
And here it is, just a few years later, and the same people that show their face during a disaster with the same magical remedy are back again. Hey, deregulate and cut taxes. It will fix everything.
But that's what they would have us believe. That the economic collapse we all not only witnessed but felt, in every way shape and form, was caused by, oh who was it again? Oh that's right, worker's unions, teacher's, police and firefighter's unions, and pesky regulation of Wallstreet. Had only we denied workers teachers, police and firemen rights (weren't we brought up to look up to and admire these people?), gave more money to billionaires, and stopped making sure that companies weren't doing potentially destructive things, everything would have been fine.
This is where these people shine. They are salesmen. And they know how to sell a package. Even if it's full of bullshit. They come up with populist names like "Right to work" (laws which inhibit workers rights organisations from forming, aka Unions) or "Americans for Prosperity" (a group of a very small number of very wealthy men who want to protect the tax-breaks they get for destroying American jobs) and Citizens United (who won the right to call corporations people, thus making them exempt from disclosure of campaign financing. ie, the right to bribe public officials with unlimited money anonymously). The names all sound populous. Because these salesman that have bridged the divide between Government and Enterprise know that populism is indeed; popular..
And now there's trouble brewing in the cannibal feeding frenzy that is the Republican nominating process. Romney, the front runner, is being criticized for his business history by fellow Republicans. That's a no-no, because criticism of his business history is a criticism of a holy shrine of right-wing business. The ability to do anything that should be considered immoral, unethical, soulless and disgusting, so long as it's in the name of profits. Who cares how many lives and households you destroyed along the way? It's just good business. Romney knows that all to well. He is as rich as he is, because his company Bain Capital bought up companies, fired everyone, tore it to bits, sold off all the pieces, then ran off with all the cash. Which is exactly what he would do if elected president. Fire all public workers, sell of government offices to the highest bidder and pocket the cash. Who's to say he wouldn't? That's his modus operandi.
The problem is this. If left to their own devices, and not regulated by laws on an individual level (including laws against rape, murder, theft etc) most people would continue as they are now; going about their lives without doing particularly bad things. Either because they have genuine empathy and a desire to be good and do the right thing, or they are concerned that there will be repercussions from the community. However, the laws are there to protect the 99% from the 1% of sociopaths and psychopaths who are perfectly happy to do awful things to other people either for their own gain or amusement. aThe business world of corporations, which would have us believe that they (the corporations) are people, want exemption from laws, promising us they don't have among them bad people, driven by their own self interested, so there's nothing to worry about. The laws of regulation aren't there because every company is a bad place that will do bad things for money. But those companies do exist. Powerful people, driven by their own self interest do (believe it or not) find themselves at the helm of large powerful businesses. And if their decisions have consequences, you better believe it's others who will pay for those.
This voodoo concept of the Invisible Hand of the Market enacting justice on business for bad decisions is laughable. Invisible is right. If the mine you work for has bad safety standards and there is a cave-in, then everyone can just quit and go down the road and work at the next mine, right? Who's to say the safety standards are any better there? And are they even hiring anyway? What if there isn't even another mine down the road, or any other place else to work at for that matter? And what about the people that died in the initial collapse in the first place? We just shrug our shoulders and say "oops"? No, it's less expensive for the company to risk those things than it is to employ strong and efficient safety standards. Perhaps an analogy about omelets and eggs comes to the mind of the people at the top. Presumably they don't expect themselves or their children to be potential mine workers. The so called Invisible Hand of the Market and never been demonstrated to guide or punish anything. But who cares about facts, when you have theories that in practice make you rich (even if they fail to do anything else promised).
Which raises another irritating point, something that you hear time and again. When a politician or an economist is faced with the reality of function and history and it contradicts their claims, they answer with just repeating their theory, as though it hasn't been tried. When Jon Stewart confronted Jim DeMint the other night, he answered facts with theory. DeMint was explaining how all this oppressive regulation and taxation was hurting companies and hurting the economy. Stewart pointed out that in the last 40 years, during all this so called "oppressive regulation and taxation," corporations have been constantly rolling out record profits. It's also of note that they did better as companies and so did the market itself when they were paying more taxes and having to deal with tighter regulation. They had their worst years under Bush when they got their low taxes and no regulation like they wanted. That's just the facts and history. And what do you do when you make a claim that is then completely dis-proven with facts and information? Well, you answer by talking about the theory that supports your claim. No one ever talks about free market economics using the historical record. They always talk about it in theory. If Chili and Argentina had been free market success stories, they would be held up as models. Both were, of course, disasters. And the most recent example, during the Bush years their economic model caused the global financial collapse.
And here it is, just a few years later, and the same people that show their face during a disaster with the same magical remedy are back again. Hey, deregulate and cut taxes. It will fix everything.
Monday, December 5, 2011
The Separation of Corporation and State
I've been watching with admiration from afar the events as they unravel in the United States and around the world known collectively as "Occupy" or "Occupy Wall Street". And as an American living abroad for the better part of a decade, I can't help but at least a slight bit of pride in my country similar to that brought by the landslide election of Barack Obama in 2008. Being that, incorrectly so might I add, the common critique of the movement is that there is no solid demand from the group means very little. This is a demonstration of the frustrations with a system which has seemingly moved from allowing pernicious manipulation of the systems by which our country runs for personal gain, to encouraging and enabling it, and in many cases rewarding it. This demonstration of people's growing intolerance toward this lack of fairness doesn't need to do much more than that. Demonstrate frustration. It has gotten the attention of the people it was addressing its complaints to. Demands shouldn't have to be made. A reassessment of the system by expert economists should do the trick.
But we all know the problem. After wading through partisan hackery from pundits hell-bent on misleading people in order to prove their loyalty to their wing we find ourselves at the foot of a monolith established long ago, of, by, and for the "people". But it is full of men and women loyal, not to the people, but to a certain, small percentage of people who have, masked behind the pundit swamp, tweaked the machine to benefit themselves, and themselves only, at the sacrifice of the protections to the people that were meant to stop this from happening. And it was seen in the beginning.
"The wall of separation of church and state", a clarification by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Babtist Association of the original text in the United States Constitution, was intended to not only give freedom to religious institutions but also to establish a "wall of separation of the church and state". The Government is established to protect the people and their interests, not just those of the religious institutions, nor to give any priority thereof. The Supreme Court in 1947 agreed with Jefferson about the "wall of separation".
It must have been important to them then, and it should be important to us now. The problem is, at the time, the rich and powerful institution of the world was the Church. Period. Large self-serving multinational corporations, and wall-street investment banks didn't exist at the time. The government was, in the beginning, acknowledging religion and allowing it's place in society, but not in government, in order to protect the people from things that might serve the religion's interests, but not the peoples. And indeed these arguments continue today, with religion masquerading as politics trying to get the bible involved in our sex lives, in our children's schools, among other things, and asking the government to help. Mostly in laughable charades, and almost entirely unsuccessful, though they do and always will persist.
So, whereas the Church has to stand outside our monolith, begging and pleading for control of society thanks to the first amendment, the bankers, lawyers, corporate executives, oil barons and their lobbyists are not constrained by the separation of Church and state. They can walk past the gate, and give themselves access to whatever politicians can be convinced is for sale.
The reason for the "wall of separation" is not a hatred or intolerance of religion. Far from it. It stands as an acknowledgement of the corrupting power strong institutions have on government, and how bad that is for society. The problem is not that it's a Church, but that it has immense power. Nothing but individuals and the society that they make up as a whole should have power over the government. Government of, by and for the people. Our founders, had they known there would be such grand and strong institutions know as corporations whose power and influence would rival and surpass that of the Church's, I imagine there is a chance they would have set a few more provisions into their "wall of separation" and for whom it was meant.
My own speculation, of course, but more useful than speculating on what they would have done, we can ask, "what will we do with what we have at hand?" I think that realizing that separation of powers was a priority in the foundation of this country can and should be applied to powers in the private sector is a good place to start. Most people, I'm sure, agree that Politicians should not be for sale. And most assuredly the offices and the structure they are meant to protect are not theirs to sell. Getting the money out of Washington should be a priority. We should call "lobbying" what it really is. Bribery. And people should be arrested for bribing and taking bribes, not rewarded. Jack Abramoff, in his book Capital Punishment, reviles that almost every single elected official was in his, or another lobbyist's pocket, including every single Republican in Washington. He was the fall guy. But if what he did was illegal, and he was doing it with everyone, they all should be in prison. I like the term "too big to jail," and it apply's here. Abramoff got thrown under the bus, but didn't take anyone big down with him. Richard Nixon got a pardon before he ever saw bars. Prison is not for the people at the top, apparently. Just for the other 99%.
But we all know the problem. After wading through partisan hackery from pundits hell-bent on misleading people in order to prove their loyalty to their wing we find ourselves at the foot of a monolith established long ago, of, by, and for the "people". But it is full of men and women loyal, not to the people, but to a certain, small percentage of people who have, masked behind the pundit swamp, tweaked the machine to benefit themselves, and themselves only, at the sacrifice of the protections to the people that were meant to stop this from happening. And it was seen in the beginning.
"The wall of separation of church and state", a clarification by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Babtist Association of the original text in the United States Constitution, was intended to not only give freedom to religious institutions but also to establish a "wall of separation of the church and state". The Government is established to protect the people and their interests, not just those of the religious institutions, nor to give any priority thereof. The Supreme Court in 1947 agreed with Jefferson about the "wall of separation".
It must have been important to them then, and it should be important to us now. The problem is, at the time, the rich and powerful institution of the world was the Church. Period. Large self-serving multinational corporations, and wall-street investment banks didn't exist at the time. The government was, in the beginning, acknowledging religion and allowing it's place in society, but not in government, in order to protect the people from things that might serve the religion's interests, but not the peoples. And indeed these arguments continue today, with religion masquerading as politics trying to get the bible involved in our sex lives, in our children's schools, among other things, and asking the government to help. Mostly in laughable charades, and almost entirely unsuccessful, though they do and always will persist.
So, whereas the Church has to stand outside our monolith, begging and pleading for control of society thanks to the first amendment, the bankers, lawyers, corporate executives, oil barons and their lobbyists are not constrained by the separation of Church and state. They can walk past the gate, and give themselves access to whatever politicians can be convinced is for sale.
The reason for the "wall of separation" is not a hatred or intolerance of religion. Far from it. It stands as an acknowledgement of the corrupting power strong institutions have on government, and how bad that is for society. The problem is not that it's a Church, but that it has immense power. Nothing but individuals and the society that they make up as a whole should have power over the government. Government of, by and for the people. Our founders, had they known there would be such grand and strong institutions know as corporations whose power and influence would rival and surpass that of the Church's, I imagine there is a chance they would have set a few more provisions into their "wall of separation" and for whom it was meant.
My own speculation, of course, but more useful than speculating on what they would have done, we can ask, "what will we do with what we have at hand?" I think that realizing that separation of powers was a priority in the foundation of this country can and should be applied to powers in the private sector is a good place to start. Most people, I'm sure, agree that Politicians should not be for sale. And most assuredly the offices and the structure they are meant to protect are not theirs to sell. Getting the money out of Washington should be a priority. We should call "lobbying" what it really is. Bribery. And people should be arrested for bribing and taking bribes, not rewarded. Jack Abramoff, in his book Capital Punishment, reviles that almost every single elected official was in his, or another lobbyist's pocket, including every single Republican in Washington. He was the fall guy. But if what he did was illegal, and he was doing it with everyone, they all should be in prison. I like the term "too big to jail," and it apply's here. Abramoff got thrown under the bus, but didn't take anyone big down with him. Richard Nixon got a pardon before he ever saw bars. Prison is not for the people at the top, apparently. Just for the other 99%.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)