BLOG
ARCHIVES

JAN-FEB. 2008
JUL-DEC. 2007
JUN. 2007
MAY 2007
APR. 2007
MAR. 2007
FEB. 2007
JAN. 2007

DEC.  2006
NOV. 2006
OCT. 2006
SEP. 2006
AUG. 2006
JUL. 2006
JUN. 2006
MAY  2006
APR. 2006
JAN-MAR. 2006

JUN-DEC. 2005
MAY-JUN. 2005

APR. 2004
MAR. 2004
FEB. 2004

BACKLOG
Of Unorganized
Diatribes

Monday, 31 March, 2008

IT'S GREAT TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND, BUT...

It isn't surprising that our open society has produced a lot of open-minded people. Open-mindedness is generally a good thing – but it can be overdone. The Democratic Party, being the "progressive" party, obviously tends to have more open-minded people than the more conservative Republican Party.

The Democrats are so open-minded that they've put all their presidential hopes into the belief that the nation is ready for a woman, or a Black, president. No less than "another" Clinton, and an African-American with a most peculiar sounding name and a very unusual pedigree and background.

This reminds Pridger of a quote he recently received at the bottom of a recent email.

"Don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out."

Both Democratic presidential candidates have something of offer, of course. They are both brilliant. There's nothing particularly wrong with either of them, other than the fact that they are both liberal Democrats, and inconsistent with American political tradition with regard to race and gender. 

Slightly less noted for open-mindedness, the Republican party has also fielded a candidate that has something to offer. Yet, in view of his rather liberal credentials and his determination to "stay the course" in an increasingly unpopular war, he probably wouldn't have much of a chance at the presidency – unless, of course, his opponent happened to be a woman or an African-American.

All this also reminds Pridger that "People tend to go crazy in flocks and herds, but only sober up one at a time."

John Q. Pridger

PRIDGER'S EMAIL BAG FUNNIES

FAN EMAIL: "...really, I don't know what to make of you and your so-called blog. It's much more like an unending series of bigoted and extremist views. I picture you as a rather small man who is somewhat out of his depth." PRIDGER'S REPLY: Funny, I often picture myself in much the same way. In fact, here's a picture to prove it. As for being some kind of an extremist, you'll notice that I have a shotgun in my left hand and a Bible in my right, and I've wrapped myself in the American flag. How's that for extremism?

Sunday, 30 March, 2008

THE IRONY OF CIVIL RIGHTS

It would seem that justice done would be universally recognized as a good thing. Indeed it would, if it was really justice for all.

Many whites got behind the Civil Rights movement for just that reason. The overwhelming majority of the white population really wanted justice for all. After all, that would be only right. It's just that many of them didn't want to be forced to integrate with other races – or, more precisely, they didn't want other races to be allowed or encouraged to forcefully integrate with them.

When federal armed forces were used to forcibly integrate white schools in the south, something of fundamental importance died in this country. Perhaps it was democracy itself that died – because the majority was forced by the federal government to accept something that it didn't believe in, and was not ready to accept.

Forced integration was not a democratic process by any measure. Though it is quite politically incorrect to say it, it was an act of federal tyranny. The way it was done was more akin to the way we are presently bringing liberty and democracy to the Iraqi people. Acts of tyranny are seldom productive of good ends, even when rationalized and utilized to bring about what is considered a worthy and righteous goals.

When Federal Courts mandated forced busing to integrate schools in the north and throughout the nation, that was not a democratic process. When, by federal mandate, it became illegal to "discriminate" on the basis of race in private apartment rentals and housing sales, the will of the majority was again thwarted. The result was that the complexion of inner city neighborhoods quickly began to change. Whites began voting in the only way left to them – with their feet.

The unintended consequence of these good intentions, was to seal the fate of our great industrial cities. They have not recovered in forty-five years, because much capital fled the cities too, as the suburban mall came into being.

Regardless of the colors involved, when it became easier for a mediocre student to enter college or a university over a brighter student, justice was not done. The "generosity" of special consideration for the one was an injustice to another. And both races have suffered the consequences.

The unintended consequence of school integration, of course, was the precipitous decline of educational quality in our public schools that followed – and this adversely effected all students, both white and black. And are those schools that were forcibly integrated in the 1960s still integrated today? Perhaps, with a token number of white students.

Injustice is worse than justice of course. Justice, though a undoubtedly a positive thing, is actually neutral when applied equally and fairly. Nobody of right mind resents justice fairly applied. But they will resent an injustice, whether the party aggrieved party is white or black.

Past injustices cannot be properly addressed or atoned by counter-injustice to innocent parties. It can only lead to simmering resentments. And that resentment is not confined to white Americans. The injustice against white Americans has impacted black Americans too, and their traditional resentments have been compounded by the perception of continuing and newer "systemic" injustices – which they see as continued discrimination.

This is reflected in Reverend Jeremiah Wright's brand of sermonizing, and white America's reaction to the "news" that Blacks are not really all that happy with all white society has done both "to or for" them.

The races have not been integrated. The divide has actually been broadened and deepened, taken on new patterns, and has reached new levels of intractability.

"Why can't we just get along?" Rodney King asked. Perhaps we could, if we had a truly colorblind political landscape. Maybe both whites and Blacks should have paid closer attention to Martin Luther King, Jr., when he said he hoped for a nation and society where people are "judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin."

Justice is not served when "unlimited choice" is awarded to minorities while the "choices" of the majority are curtailed. Because that has happened, racial problems have not gone away. Society has merely rearranged itself into new patterns of division. Blacks are not any happier. In fact they are even more angry than before – and for good reason. Overall, their plight has become worse since the Civil Rights era. And whites are angry too – also with good reason – but their anger is muzzled and silent. Yet that suppressed anger is no less dangerous than the openly expressed anger of the black minority.

One reason things have become worse for Blacks, is because things have also become worse for still more fortunate whites. When the national leadership decided that it would be a good idea to de-industrialize the nation in order to encourage "free trade" and facilitate a new era of international corporate rule (and Wall Street "white elite" prosperity), we entered into a long era of "productive job" contraction that has devastated, and continues to erode, the prospects of all working classes.

Only in a society and economy that provides abundant work opportunities for an increasing population can economic justice for minorities and the majority alike be a possibility. Economic justice is the only cure for poverty – and black poverty is acknowledged as the major cause for today's racial unrest.

As Barack Obama says, it's time for a major change in the way things are done in Washington D. C. Among other things, it's time for our government to focus less on the aggrandizement of globe-straddling corporations and the Chinese production machine, and more on resurrecting a productive economy in the United States. We need to rebuild a national economy that would not only pay its own way in the world again, but provide the wherewithal for labor to prosper again. Labor is black and white, of all other races.

Big Lie Number One has been that all Americans had to do in the global economy was to learn how to use a computer, play at the Stock Market casino, get smart and become knowledge workers – and just generally become more "productive" by using these "tools." But that's not the way to be productive. That's only the way to be a high tech, hopefully well paid, consumer. So we've become a nation of consumers but no longer a nation of producers.

Big Lie Number Two has been that Americans had to become more productive so we could export more of our production at competitive global prices. But it isn't exactly coincidental, nor totally unknown, that export based economies have traditionally been colonies or former colonies, populated with abundant cheap labor. The antebellum South was a prime example of an export based economy. The export big commodity was cotton, and the labor that that export profitable was slave labor.

The same is true in any export based economy, whether the exports are bananas or high tech electronics. Cheap labor is what makes it profitable.  

We've got to get back to making all of the things that we use and consume. In an economy where labor is also the primary consumer of its own production, high wages are a necessity. Yes prices are higher too, but prosperity is also the result. This is how the United States became prosperous in the first place – our period of greatest prosperity being during the height of our post-war industrial era.

There were environmental problems, of course, but our job was to find a means by which to move toward sustainability so the rest of the world could learn by our example and avoid environmental mistakes. Our government opted to export our production to "others elsewhere" – thereby betraying American labor in particular, and the American public in general. And if China and Mexico are beneficiaries, there are a raft of other down-sides that our trusty leaders failed to take into consideration.

Today national security is supposed to be a big issue. But there is no such thing as national security in a nation that is dependent on others for everything it consumes and uses. There is no security in dependence.

Big Lie Number Three was that "international interdependence" was a worthy national goal – because, ultimately, it really meant "dependence" on others elsewhere, including potential enemies, for our national sustenance. It has led to national insecurity in the most fundamental sense of the term.

For example, we are now more dependent on China than the colonies were on the mother country just prior to the Revolution. This is not really a great national security development. China (a past, and potentially future, enemy), has become a productive dynamo as we have become a non-productive dependent consumer economy. We have not only become dependent on China for consumer goods, but national financial credit as well!

Of course, we were writing about Civil Rights and race relations. Put everybody back to work, in meaningful production (real wealth production for domestic consumption), and a large measure of the tensions between the races would simply disappear through lack of interest. Broad-based prosperity and economic liberation for all would go a long way toward eliminating social grievances of every type.

John Q. Pridger

Saturday, 29 March, 2008

DEMOCRATIC DIVISIONS AND REPUBLICAN "UNITY"

Do we want a Black president who has long associated himself with the radical Black evangelicals tied to "Black Liberation Theology," or a Woman president who manufactures war stories to enhance her national security and foreign policy credentials?

Those things certainly have a lot of people thinking, and rethinking, about their presidential choices. McCain, for all his deficiencies and warrior-like determination to not leave Iraq until the job is done, is undoubtedly looking better all the time to a lot of people.

There's nobody on the Republican nominee campaign trail to take the spotlight off of McCain or challenge any of his ideas. That's party unity.

No wait. What about Republican Ron Paul's candidacy? He's still running, if not exactly in the race. But you'd never know it. The media and the Republican party that carefully marginalized him from the beginning, is now simply ignoring him entirely – as if he didn't exist.

You'd think that they would give Paul some exposure, and allow some alternative views on the Republican side. But "they" certainly don't want any one on one debates between Dr. Paul and John McCain. McCain has a good chance at the presidency, especially if Ron Paul can be kept out of sight, and prevented from raising embarrassing questions and alternative views. That's the way our democracy works when it comes to selecting presidents.

In other words, it doesn't work – at least not as it is supposed to work. We simply do not have a real choice worth considering.

John Q. Pridger

BLACK LIBERATION THEOLOGY

Many voters, both Black and White, are probably trying to get a handle on Reverend Jeremiah Wright and what the media has been calling "Black Liberation Theology."

To put it in a nutshell "Black Liberation Theology" is a cousin of Marxist "Peoples'" or "National  Liberation Movements." The anti-American seeds sown by Soviet operatives and fellow travelers in the United States, (left wing intellectuals, academics, liberals, etc.), took root and survive in many many places – including Black churches.

Though the Black Liberation Movement is not necessarily Communist, it developed because the Civil Rights movement itself was heavily infiltrated and supported by Communists groups and fellow travelers throughout the twentieth century.

This should not surprise or alarm anybody. The anti-American creed of Marxism had a very strong appeal and following among the downtrodden, oppressed, and the victimized peoples the world over – and the Soviet Union took every advantage it could of the resentment of those who for any reason felt the oppression of colonialism, military, capitalist imperialism, and exploitive corporations.

In the dying decades of the British and other European Empires, most national liberation movements were infiltrated by communists and actively supported by the Soviet Union. And these same movements usually continued, and often increased, after national independence was established in former colonies – to throw off the ruling oligarchs who supported exploitive Western corporations.

In the United States, communists and their friends purported to champion the causes of disadvantaged minorities who suffered from various degrees of racial discrimination. It's no secret that the Soviet Union intended to spread communism throughout the world. In prosperous nations, such as the United States, it hoped to subvert and sabotage as many of our political, social, educational, and religious institutions as possible. It worked to throw a wrench into the capitalist system by subverting organized labor, and creating as much divisiveness as possible using innumerable fronts for their activities – to rend, if possible, the very fabric of the nation itself. – and they were very successful.

Civil Rights was a happy hunting ground for agents working to subvert our nation. And, honestly, where else could Civil Rights leaders really go for help in throwing off the perceived (and often real enough), "oppression of the majority" in a democratic nation? They really couldn't appeal to the majority, any more than than oppressed and exploited "natives" could appeal to the colonial rulers of their respective countries – or Latin American peasants could appeal to the board of directors of companies like the American United Fruit Company.

Martin Luther King, Jr., has often been accused of having communists ties (by none other than J. Edgar Hoover, for one). Well, of course, King and the various Civil Rights organizations had many communist friends! They had them because it was from those quarters that they not only found encouragement and monetary support, but much needed organizational, marketing, media, and propaganda expertise. Additionally, in them they also found friendly media connections – and the Marxists also had many friends in high places within the U.S. Government itself.

Their communist friends didn't really have their interests at heart, of course. They had a much different agenda. Their sole purpose was to destroy our society from within, by fostering and encouraging divisions. In the end, the divisiveness in the United States grew and has survived even longer than the Soviet Union did.

Although Civil Rights accomplished a considerable amount of good (as far as fulfilling the promise of our Declaration of Independence through "equality under the law"), the divisions have nonetheless remained and grown – and grown even more bitter in some quarters with the passage of time.

The continuing chasm is manifest in the perception of continued endemic white racism and institutionalized discrimination on the part of many Blacks, and an equally seething (but much more silent), resentment on the part of many Whites. Blacks feel quite free to vent their anger in public – they have a degree of freedom of speech whites no longer feel they have. Their resentment and growing array of accusations and grievances are routinely expressed from the pulpits of many Black churches.

John Q. Pridger

For some Black views on similar or related subjects, check out at Elizabeth Wright's http://www.issues-views.com/ 

9/11 CONSPIRACY THEORIES WON'T GO AWAY – for a reason.

They simply won't go away – those damned conspiracy mongers! They just don't give up! And that's a good thing. Otherwise, we'll never learn the whole truth.

Pridger doesn't know the truth of 9/11, of course. He's a little skeptical when it comes to the popular "It was an inside job!" theories, and even more skeptical of the "official" story. Almost everything about 9/11 still looks fishy – mighty fishy. And how could anyone doubt that something of that nature had been expected, and even hoped for, by some people in high places? Even Pridger wondered why something significant had not happened much sooner (of course, there had been an earlier, unsuccessful, attempt on the WTC).

For some odd reason, federal agencies long ago adopted a policy of quickly cleaning up major crime scenes where major events have occurred. Naturally, that makes it appear they have something to hide or cover up. It tends to make one wonder, and a little suspicious. It breeds conspiracy theory.

Even without forensic evidence available to the public, there are still all those videos out there on sites like U-Tube. Of course, by now there are probably a lot of doctored videos too.

The last time Pridger unquestionably believed a video was when he saw the movie Forrest Gump, showing Forrest's meetings with presidents, Kennedy and Johnson (remember, "I've got to pee!" and "I'd like to see your wound"?). And, of course, there were all those videos showing Shock and Awe, and the application of "overwhelming force," as tanks assaulted the Branch Dividian commune (a.k.a., "fortified compound" and bunker complex), which then burned like a matchbox.

There are so many questions that have not been satisfactorily addressed. For example, what about the embarrassing spontaneous collapse of World Trade Center Tower Building Seven? Did the plane that was supposed to bring it down simply fail to show up? Maybe that was the one that allegedly crashed in the Pennsylvania field – producing a rallying story of passenger heroism.

According to one video source, the BBC was able to report the collapse of that building 20 minutes before it collapsed. Wow! If it's true, that was a scoop!

Those airlines certainly had a lot of penetrating power. One would almost think they must have had hardened noses. And what about all those secondary explosions so many witnesses heard throughout the Twin Towers just prior to their collapse?

And what about the Pentagon? Why didn't the wings, or the heavy engines that were supposedly on them, make a showing on either side of the main entry wound? The wings might have totally disintegrated or vaporized, but what about those hefty engines? Only the cylindrical fuselage seems to have penetrated the building like a bullet without wings (and some say it left a single jet engine inside!). Where are the photos or surveillance videos that show a commercial aircraft approaching?

If things happened the way the government says, why don't they simply clarify everything by showing the photographic evidence, and any other evidence, they may have? That's a good question.

Why were some Israelis "furniture movers" apparently so jubilant over the attack – especially in view of the fact the Israeli Mossad is known for its "false flag" operations?

And why did a War on Terrorists, based in Afghanistan, turn into a second Iraqi War? 

Pridger has little doubt that the full truth will eventually come out, but it will be difficult to differentiate truth from all sorts of official and unofficial obfuscation – and, of course, the public's attention will be elsewhere, and not many will notice.

The government seems to be able to fool enough people, enough of the time, to get away with almost anything in the end. Pridger isn't saying they actually did this, and are still doing this, in the case of 9/11. He's just saying that it appears that way.

Would we really want to trust Hillary with a government that can do all of this?

John Q. Pridger

Friday, 28 March, 2008

WHAT AN UPSIDE DOWN WORLD!

The world has literally turned over during Pridger's adult lifetime, and he doesn't much like the results – the aroma of the bottom side, so to speak. Fortunately, not all that much has changed on Paradise Ridge – but crossing the property line and venturing into town is a disconcerting experience fret with dangers.

Things probably won't change much on Paradise Ridge in the near future either. However, Pridger will likely become officially designated as an outlaw. This will happen if the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), is ever fully implemented – as planned by the New World Order people.

Pridger is simply not going to register or micro-chip any horse, cow, pig, chicken, dog, or duck to satisfy Big Brother. He'd register his shotgun – or move offshore – before he'd do that! He simply isn't going to stand for the total Orwellization of agriculture – at least not on his farm! And if Big Brother doesn't like it – well, "he" or "she" can either pull a surprise attack (Waco and Ruby Ridge style), or serve papers and have Pridger ship off to Guantanamo or some other concentration facility.

Under what authority can the federal government require registration and/or micro-chipping of private livestock on private property? None, of course. So it has initiated this "international mandate" by throwing the ball into the court of State governments. And the State governments, eager to do their patriotic duty (and get federal funding), have begun doing the bidding of the federal government, which is pushing an international system of governance. It's about control, of course – and international marketing, on behalf of big corporate meat packers and international traders – under the false colors of public health and food safety.

In the mean time, it is said that the hamburger you eat at the local McDonalds may contain meat from hundreds of cows from dozens of different countries. That's globalism, they say, and that's simply the way things work now. If food safety was really the issue, such a hamburger patty would be unthinkable!

So the Pridger farm is probably going to become an outlaw hideout, or "compound," complete with incriminating contraband – unregistered horses, cattle, hogs, chickens, ducks and dog.

That's all it takes to turn things right upside down and onto their heads. Simply pass a law – or rewrite the rule books – and whammo! Unpteen thousand law abiding citizens either knuckle to Big Brother or become outlaws.

Ironically, they've changed the laws and rewritten the rule books on behalf of "gaming" interests, abortionists, pornographers, and the marketers of sleaze. They're all out in the open, legal, and perfectly respectable now. But it's against the law to put up a copy of the Ten Commandments, have a manger scene at Christmas time, or give thanks in publicly owned places.

HOME TOWN MADNESS

Though about twenty miles from the river, Pridger's home town is located in the Ohio River Valley's extended flood plain. The city was built on a hill known as Crusoe's Island, because it was known that the surrounding bottomlands are prone to frequent flooding.

The entire business district of this town of 9,000 souls was placed high and dry on the knoll of that hill. The surrounding landscape has experienced several devastating floods over the town's century and a half existence, but the business district was never touched by flood waters.

During the last few decades this home town has been busily reinventing itself. Though it never knew the destruction of white flight and urban blight, it has nonetheless gone the extra mile to participate in a particularly virulent, fashionable, brand of urban renewal. In fact, the commercial development and "urban sprawl" of this small city has been nothing short of breathtaking.

During this spectacular period of commercial growth, the population has gone from about 10,000 people to about 9,000. The mines and most productive industries and jobs have largely disappeared, but the growth nonetheless goes on unabated. There's a super abundance of the standard array of banks, chain drug stores, supermarkets, fast food restaurants, and everything else one associates with a modern American city or "strip." There's even a "Super" Wal-Mart under construction.

Meanwhile, the old business district has largely been abandoned. Though neat and clean, and not in shambles, it has the typical look of a modern ghost town – always forlorn and deserted. There's a modern Courthouse on the square and a very attractive jail just across Main Street, and two nice banks, occupying two sides of the square. The forth side of the square still has it's old buildings. All are empty except a single surviving business – a tavern. All the new commercial development has been on a new "commercial strip" down in the bottomland.

Last week they had a flood – a most unusual flood. It didn't come as the result of the Ohio River breaching its banks and the city's levees, as is usually the case, but from nothing more than rain – lots of rain – over a two day period. It flooded quite a bit of the bottom land around Crusoe Island.

For three days, the residents couldn't buy anything at any of the new shiny stores – the businesses on the new strip were either flooded or cut off by flood waters. The Courthouse and jail in the business district, but there are no stores left there to serve the town's people.

Those things happen sometimes when things have been turned upside down.

A NATION OF AMAZONS

"Insanity is the exception in individuals. In groups, parties, peoples, and times, it is the rule." (Fredrich Nietzche)

It used to be said that it was a man's world. Yes, we did have a patriarchal society, and that had been so since Adam was plopped down in the Garden of Eden and Eve cobbled together as his smaller and weaker companion.

The time honored patriarchal society ended during Pridger's adult lifetime – apparently in favor of a Big Brother (or maybe Big Sister), society, "Under G.O.D." (Government Omnipotent and Deified).

Only when modernity permitted mankind to relax somewhat with a degree of security, were radical feminists, able to complain loudly and effectively against the way God had ordained things. But, at least in the West (and most particularly in the United States), the lady's actually had it pretty good prior to their supposed liberation. Children had it pretty good too – having a mother at home to care for them and teach them, in the time honored way, to be good children and later good citizens (not to mention having a much better chance of being born at all!).

Now we have a major problem furnishing child care for the children of working and single mothers – and single mothers are becoming as common as married mothers. Divorce is just about as common as marriage, and considerably easier to come by. "Sacred" marriage vows (still usually given "before God"), are no longer sacred or binding.

In fact, nothing is very sacred any more, except, perhaps, some business contracts. We take it for granted these days that marriage vows have no lasting meaning, and that the "word" of an increasing number of people, is simply no good at all. Sacred marriage vows, like the Oath taken by politicians to support and defend the Constitution, seem to be dismissed in advance as if by a standing Kol Nidre vow.

It's much easier to get out of a supposedly life-long marriage contract than to weasel out of year-long cell phone contract, because laws hold business contracts to be sacred.

With women increasingly freed of their naturally ordained rolls of childbearing, nurturing, and teaching, they're free to do just about anything else they feel big enough to do – including becoming president of the United States.

The liberation of women has had a far-reaching impact on economic matters too. More jobs were required to accommodate large numbers of women in the work force – and this great influx of workers happened at a time when automation, and finally job export and outsourcing, was beginning to take a great toll in jobs. And, of course, women not only wanted equal pay for equal work (which is only fair), but they wanted men's jobs, in all the various fields that had been the most coveted family breadwinner jobs in the nation.

And finally, it comes to pass that both parents now have to work to support a family where one did very well before, as Fredrich Nietzche predicted. But, never mind, the family itself is disappearing too.

Nietzche also predicted of liberal "democracy" that: women would become like men and men would become more like women. He also said that "When there is peace, the warlike man attacks himself."

That's pretty obvious in our society today, as extreme sports and "reality" TV attest. And, of course, it applies to women, too, now that they have all the prerogatives of men, and "In revenge and in love, women are more barbaric than men."

Only a relative few men are actually choosing to be like women (or even be women), but the amazing thing is that the male gender as a whole has simply abandoned any notion of defending its traditional roll in society. Yet the overwhelming majority of men still believe in that traditional role. What man – real man – (for example) is really, honestly, ready for a woman president? About just as many as are willing to become wife-like, "Mr. Moms," subservient to a dominate, bread-winning, women?

Almost all men would admit this if it were not for fear of being condemned as politically incorrect, and labeled as male chauvinists? Honesty itself is no longer politically correct.

There are some men, of course, who become Mr. Moms. Some have merely rationalized – if you can't beat them (and you can't really join them), you might just as well take advantage of the freedoms and advantages domestic housewives have always enjoyed. Homemaking and child-rearing, though demanding jobs, do have their rewards.

Pridger has heard that our military services could no longer function without its women – and in front-line combat positions too. And for this very reason (women where women shouldn't be, in roles they shouldn't be in), it's probably becoming more difficult to recruit viral young men. Undoubtedly, some young men can no longer have the same interest in the military that has been their traditional due. A military that cannot allow its men to show great pride in their maleness, even revel in it, has lost much of its allure to traditional military types.

At least the Boy Scouts continue to survive as a male institution – but not because they are not under concerted attack to change their bigoted ways. Ironically, rather than being condemned for not accepting girls, they are primarily under attack for not welcoming adult homosexuals into their ranks as Scout Leaders. As for the scouts themselves, a "don't ask don't tell" system probably works at least as well as it does in the military.

Why not have homosexual Scout supervisors? The Catholic Church has been allowing homosexual clergymen for decades (maybe centuries), and look how well it has turned out! The Church is being overwhelmed with child molestation suits, and some diocese are threatened with bankruptcy.

Come to think of it, Pridger can't figure out why we seem so confounded biased against "normal" pedophiles. Are they that much worse than homosexual ones? And what in the world is wrong with open homosexuals in the military anyway? Now that it is no longer a male institution, what difference would it make? If there can be open females in the military, surly it can just as easily stand open homosexuals and she-males. In fact homosexuals seldom produce as many embarrassing pregnancies as either "regular" men or women do when mixed up together.  

Just look at the number of young women leaving their husbands and young children to go off to war these days! Not as nurses, doctors, or technicians, but front line warriors, or at least in forward combat positions! Some, of course, will never come back, and many more will come home to their family and children maimed for life.

This seems incredible and, until relatively recent times, it would have been totally unthinkable. Women want to take their rightful place as mean, lean, fighting machines, because they feel they are perfectly able to be as cold and cruel, as male warriors can be – though they would perhaps prefer to phrase it differently.

They'd rather say they merely want to do their share in the good fight, defending freedom and liberty. This job, they say, is rightly a co-ed affair – like equal taxation for equal pay. Ironically, the battleground for that particular venue is now in Iraq.

Some of these lady's are sincere female patriots, of course – merely misdirected. Some, like some men, merely want to prove their metal and masculinity in the rigors of combat situations. Naturally, a few are disarmingly attractive – and it is the duty of all male companions-in-arms to endeavor to leave their libido behind while keeping their fighting spirit up – and not be inordinately concerned or distraught at the sight of a woman companion in bloody agony due to battlefield wounds.

The tragedy, as Pridger sees it, is that women actually no longer have the choices they once had, no matter how much "freedom of choice" they may think they now have. Or, alternatively, they increasingly feel duty-bound to make bad choices.

The role of mother, homemaker, teacher (by far their most critically important role of all), has been denigrated and rendered the mark of a cop-out, or a lazy-minded woman without vision, ambition, or spunk – a vocation that offers only drudgery with no challenge, monetary reward, or fulfillment. Worse yet, there's no "honor" in it – no mother or homemaker has ever earned a purple heart.

If women can't actually be men anatomically, at least they can fulfill the fantasy of being Amazons – whether in war, politics, or the corporate world of dog eat dog. Oh, feminists and liberated women do worry about the children, of course. Yes, indeed! And would have Big Brother look into the problem and find satisfactory solutions.

This is tragic, indeed, and evidence of a world turned upside down in our time. Of course, many of the ladies will think Pridger is a lowly male chauvinist warthog. It that's the case, so be it.

BY EXTENSION...

The legitimization of preventive, preemptive, war – the return of officially sanctioned torture of prisoners? Imprisonment for long periods without benefit of trial, specific charges, or legal representation, becoming acceptable to our rulers...? All of these things could be expected – they are "natural" enough – given that our traditional order has been progressively turned upside down onto its head, and our national moral compass totally dumbfounded.

Nothing less than the Highest Court in the land formally threw off all Christian compassion and reverence for life when it callously discounted the life of baby's in the womb. In so doing, the Supreme Court of the United States of America effectively redefined infants in the womb (human beings), as nothing more than so much bodily waste to be discarded at will or whim of the mother.

In making sure women had "their rightful array of choices" and "owned their own bodies" (which they already had, and already did [but were apparently hoodwinked into missing that salient fact]), the Highest Court betrayed and violated everything that it should have stood for, and what we should all still stand for. 

Was it 1973 when this revolution took place? Appallingly, this nation (us), has stood for an ongoing grisly holocaust – the killing of tens of millions of unborn human beings – for thirty-five years! A whole generation! And it has not yet been corrected – not even close. What kind of a nation have we become? How could a population and electorate, over 80% of which still claims to be Christian, stand for this for so long?

What are the "rights" of a few "enemy combatants," or suspected terrorists, compared to those millions of innocent "Americans" snuffed out every day? Hardly anything at all, would seem the ready answer. We look at bin Laden as a devilish enemy for orchestrating the 9/11 attack, killing 3,000 innocent people – but the legally sanctioned killing of that many innocent Americans is occurring each and every business day. In fact, it's considered business as usual!

By extension, what can we realistically presume our own rights to be after the concept of "God given rights," or even "human rights," have been totally abandoned or rendered meaningless?

SITUATIONAL ETHICS

Situational ethics have come to rule the day in America. It's high time we (individually, as well as a nation), rediscover the iron-clad boundaries between right and wrong, good and evil – the thing that religion once told us, and which we usually still at least pay lip service to.

A whole generation has grown up, and others are on the way, that have not had the benefit of a government, or an educational environment, that favors Christian morality (or any kind of morality). In fact the "Wall Between Church and State," (which has been laboriously cobbled together by the enemies within), has insured that our new generations of political leadership will largely be without a suggestion of religious scruples.

We already have them – though some swear up and down that they are "born again Christians." But they have abundantly demonstrated that their word is not exactly trustworthy, and their hearts are not pure. They not only operate under the auspices of "situational ethics" but sometimes actually believe they are doing God's will by waging deadly and destructive wars (elsewhere, of course), in the name of protecting "The American Way of Life." 

Is there any real correlation or relationship between what president Bush calls "The American Way of Life" and what we used to think of as "Truth, justice, and the American Way"?  

John Q. Pridger

AMTRAK AND AMERICAN PUBLIC – RAILROADED

Amtrak, our nationally subsidized mass transit and long distance rail carrier, holds the status of troublesome step-child of the railway system. It has to struggle to survive, and it has to use track owned by hostile private rail companies. This is a pretty peculiarly situation, since the U.S. Government literally gave tens of thousands of square miles of public land to private railroad companies during the nineteenth century in order to build and develop the nation's railroad infrastructure.

Many great and private fortunes trace their genealogy to those generous railroad land grants.

Unfortunately, in spite of the successful development of a wonderful rail infrastructure system that is still serving the country, the government was a little short-sighted in simply giving this infrastructure to private companies without the stipulation that rail beds would always be available for public transportation needs, and/or would revert to the people if ever abandoned for rail use, but who could have foreseen the automotive age of the twentieth century?

Today, Amtrak is our only surviving long distance rail company serving public transportation needs. It has to utilize privately own rail beds and track – paying for that use – and it has to operate on a "second fiddle" capacity, with the owner's traffic having priority over public transportation needs.

Amtrak would be a great boon to the nation, except for the fact that it is merely the skeleton remains of a national rail transportation system. It only serves a few areas well, and the rest of the country practically not at all. In Pridger's area, the "local" station is fifty miles away, and there aren't many places a guy can go to by train when one gets there. One track, from New Orleans to Chicago, is the sum total of our local public railroad transportation system. There are connections, of course, but not to many Main Street areas of the nation.

Tens of thousands of miles of track – comprising the bulk of what should have remained the public's railroad transportation infrastructure – have been abandoned in recent decades, because it didn't fit into the private long distance freight needs of the nation's large railroad freight companies. Today, most of our remaining functional railroad beds and tracks have been integrated into what is basically a coast to coast "land bridge" system serving the international shipping industry.

The wonderful passenger and freight rail infrastructure that once provided rail transportation service to almost every small town and community in the nation is long gone. In Pridger's neck of the woods, many of the rail beds have been converted into bike paths. Bike paths are nice, of course, but it would have been much better to have maintained the capacity to resurrect public rail service at some future time. Now, getting back to public rail in the rural areas of the nation will require a whole new railroad construction endeavor from the ground up.

This is simply the result of bad, or none-existent, long-term planning on the part of our government planners and visionaries. Since the 1950s, the only vision they have had was one of providing wonderful highways for an increasing number of trucks and private automobiles. And, of course (as intended), this has led to the exponential growth of truck freighting and private automobiles using those highways.

Our government, in what today seems a very short-sighted vision of what our nation should be, has built a transportation infrastructure devoted to private automobile ownership. That infrastructure now literally requires everybody not served by urban mass transit systems to own a car – and families to own multiple cars.

Most of our large cities and metropolitan areas are now strictly engineered for cars, but not for "people," and often not even for sensible public mass transit systems – and certainly not for pedestrians. In most of our cities today, the hapless pedestrian, or cyclist wannabe, lives in a nightmare world.

The bicycle is the most perfect local transportation contrivance imaginable. Walking and cycling are wonderful ways to get healthy exercise in a meaningful and useful way – commuting to a job or going to the supermarket. But today adult walking and cycling is usually confined to indoor tread mills and exer-cycles. The more adventurous can go to the park to walk or cycle on special bike paths in some places.

It wasn't just yesterday, however, that we found out we were becoming dangerously dependent on foreign oil to fuel the increasing number of cars on the nation's roads and highways. It wasn't just yesterday that we discovered that the volume of truck and automobile traffic in and around our cities was causing major environmental problems. It wasn't just yesterday that we realized that we still needed a viable rail transportation system in order to solves these problems.

But, nonetheless, we've continued to make this into a car driven society, and do it at an ever-accelerating speed. And we've continued to burn the bridges, and rip up the tracks that could have once again freed us from slavery to our automotive madness, and make it possible to get automotive traffic back down to reasonable levels.

Perhaps there is hope – but it is a long range hope. At least when the government embarked on creating the Interstate Highway system, it gained and retained public ownership of very broad roadbed right of ways. The project was undertaken in the name of "national security." At some time in the future, part of these broad ribbons of concrete could be converted to rail beds and both long and short public rail systems regenerated. National security could again be used to justify such a project – getting our national destiny out from under the heavy thumb of OPEC.

We not only need alternative renewable fuels, but we need to drastically reduce our overall consumer "energy needs" though the efficient uses of various technologies, using the resources available to us right here in our own bailiwick.

The tracks would not take up all that much room. Often they could be built in the meridian or shoulders of Interstates, so there would still be plenty of vehicular lanes. But since the number of cars and trucks would be expected to eventually significantly decrease when mass rail transit become available, there would also be plenty of room for bicycle lanes – and (what the heck), horse trails should be worked into the mix too.

Fund the job with real Greenbacks, of course – not bonds or taxes – and require that the entire project be completed using only American made materials – construction machinery, tracks, rolling stock, etc. It could put a lot of Americans back to work.

The question is, will anybody in a position of government policy planning ever think of such a thing?

If they do ever think of it, they'd probably want to "save money" by contracting the job out to some French or Chinese firm (which, of course, would have license to contract and import cheap foreign labor). A foreign firm would, of course, later get to operate the new rail system and collect all fares. Naturally, it would be cheaper to import all the machinery and equipment used, as well as all the tracks and rolling stock – China could produce all of this much cheaper than we could. And, of course, they would simply "have to" fund it with Federal Reserve money (what other way is there?), employing taxation, bond issues, and foreign loans, to get it.

John Q. Pridger

Thursday, 27 March, 2008

COMPARE ROOSEVELT'S WAR WITH GEORGE W's WARS.

Interesting comparison link: The "Daily Kos" – a Liberal web site:

"Thunderdome: Bush vs. Roosevelt"

"With Bush so anxious to compare the trials of our own time to the challenges of World War II, and others on the right ready to equate what we're now facing with the greatest dangers of the past, it only seems appropriate that we see how Bush stacks up against the man who led us through those days.

"That's right, folks, it's time for Presidential Thunderdome. George W. Bush vs. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Two presidents enter, one president leaves!..."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/20/73653/7046

Pridger doesn't have what could be called an orthodox view of World War Two, but it was a real war – an unlimited war. Not only that, Congress declared it – and the American people got behind it and stayed there until the job was done. We had a clear-cut goal (to win), and that's exactly what we did – with all due credit to our armed forces and American workers back home.

John Q. Pridger

SPEAKING OF WAR

World War Two brought the nation, and the world, out of the Great Depression. It did that because it put America and Americans back to work in the fullest sense of the word. In that, it had a very positive effect.

War cannot do that any more. Thankfully, unlimited war is not in the program – but in the past even limited wars could significantly perk up the economy. During the Vietnam war, significant numbers of Americans, besides the troops, were kept busy supplying the troops. American ships carried everything they need to them half way around the world.

Back then, American workers still produced just about everything the entire nation needed, including most of the stuff we expended in the war. Besides the navy ships, tanks, trucks, artillery, bombs, bullets, aircraft, and uniforms, those thousands of merchant ships that carried the goods (including our commercial trade), were all "Made in America" and manned by Americans.

The nation had a very favorable balance of trade and a favorable balance of payments. In fact, besides being the world's greatest consumer market, and the world's greatest importer and exporter, America was still the world's largest creditor nation.

The nation not only produced everything that it needed, it produced enough wealth to pay for it too – even during war time (though our trusty leadership tapped into the Social Security Trust Fund to avoid adding war taxes, which would have unduly inconvenience those who had to stay home and watch the war on TV).

Wars can no longer do for the economy what they once did. They no longer have a positive impact on the national economy. Americans no longer produce everything they use or consume. Others, elsewhere, do – in far away places, or south of the border.

About 98% of the thousands of ships that carry our burgeoning international trade were built elsewhere too, and that percentage of all the freight revenues generated accrue to the foreign competition as well. Even the relative few American flag merchant ships remaining, with American crews, with only a precious few exceptions, were foreign built and (in spite of the American flag), are foreign owned. So, most of their freight revenues also go to the foreign competition.

The wages of labor for the lion's share of our consumer goods go to foreign workers. And this increasingly applies to the wages of service and "knowledge" workers as well. The increased business profits that help keep Wall Street afloat, don't go to American labor or Main Street. They go to foreign subsidiaries and a few well healed American CEOs, management teams, and investors. That class of people is getting rich as most of the American people get poorer and into ever-greater debt – both person and public.   

We have to borrow from other nations to finance both our comforts and necessities at home and our wars abroad. We still watch them on TV, but if we feel secure because our men and women are fighting and dying for freedom and democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are deluding ourselves.

How long can a nation that is incapable of supporting itself remain a free?

John Q. Pridger

HISTORY NEGLECTED LEADS TO ERRORS REPEATED

Funny how our politicians refuse to study history, or learn by experience. Pridger distinctly recalls the following major "wake up calls" that were subsequently ignored and/or forgotten.

1. Pearl Harbor – when we found out, that if a potential enemy is badgered long enough, and given an ultimatum to knuckle to our wishes "or else," they might sneak around and attack us.

2. The Holocaust – when we found that if a war is barbarous enough, long enough, and no quarter is given, some really nasty things can happen.

3. The Cuban missile crises, where we learned that if we go out of our way to build an giant enemy, it can become a real threat to us.

4. The Kennedy assassination – where we learned that even popular presidents sometimes run afoul of the real rulers and are subject to removal without notice, and with a great deal of prejudice.

5. Quagmire in Vietnam – which taught us not to go to war "over there" out of the "goodness of our heart," to prevent something that may never happen, or may not be nearly as bad as we supposedly feared.

6. The Oil crises – when an Arab oil embargo showed us we really needed a serious national energy program aimed at energy independence. It should also have hinted that we should perhaps strive to be economically independent in other necessities as well.

7. The monetary crises – where we found out that something was direly wrong with the Almighty Yankee Dollar and the way we manage our spending and monetary affairs.

8. The Iranian Hostage crises – where we learned that messing in the affairs of potentially hostile nations (such as installing a friendly Shah), can lead to negative outcomes in the fullness of time.

9. The "Savings & Loan" crises – when we found that home lenders really needed some sort of government oversight.

10. The illegal immigration crises (of 30 years ago) – which should have taught us that the nation's borders ought to be considered one of our main lines of defense.

11. The NAFTA Peso crises – that taught us that globalization is bound to have many unexpected and unintended consequences – even in the case of close and friendly neighbors.

12. 9/11/2001 – when we found that decades of biased Middle East foreign policy can have serious consequences – and that determined enemies, even if they are very weak, can inflict nasty, humiliating, wounds. And, as we fret over weapons of mass destruction, do we forget that the 9/11 highjackers only needed box cutters to commandeer airliners and bring down the towers.

These are only a small sampling of the many wake-up calls and negative experiences we have had since Pearl Harbor. But what good have those experiences done? Every new crises seems to be an updated variation of an older one.

As we continue to build freedom and democracy in Iraq for the Iraqi's, freedom and liberty is sacrificed at home, in the name of national security. And democracy at home has become a farcical media circus, as evidenced in our present presidential campaign. There are three viable candidates left standing, and not one is a majority candidate. Not one allows constitutional issues to come into their campaign rhetoric. In spite of the fact that economic issues have become the biggest public concern of all, not one dares mention monetary reform.

John Q. Pridger

Tuesday, 25 March, 2008

NOW IS THE TIME TO THINK OF MONETARY REFORM

Now that the Federal Reserve is showing that it is more than an co-equal branch of government, perhaps someone will notice that things just aren't right here. Only Congress can appropriate money. But the Fed is now doing that in bailing out private financial houses with perhaps multiple billions of newly created credit dollars." The Fed's "liquidity facilities" is the term used – the ability to bail out such things as big bankers and the Mexican economy (after NAFTA started working its magic). 

Robert Reich has called it "Socialized capitalism"  – as big capital gets bailed out by the federal government so profitability can be sustained, and the taxpayer takes the losses.

This is an appropriation, and misappropriation, of massive amounts of taxpayer money by an agency of government that isn't even an agency of government. The Fed is a privately owned "central banking" system! Even if was fully owned branch of government, it would have no right to appropriate the peoples' money – only Congress can constitutionally do that. But the Fed is doing thus that, as Congress looks on helplessly with crossed fingers. It has done it before, and it'll do it again. 

Of course, these are extraordinary times. The chickens of decades of fiscal irresponsibility, and just downright bad economic policy, are coming home to roost in large numbers. Soon they may be coming in overwhelming numbers. In short, we're on the very brink of what could be a rather catastrophic economic reckoning. The only thing that will stave it off, at least temporarily, will be the public's ability to swallow the reassurances of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve and our politicians – "The economy is essentially strong... We've never had it so good..." etc. Meanwhile, there's a lot of fear in high places.

As billions of new credit dollars are pumped into the economy at the tip-top of what is supposedly the "trickle-down" faucet, several things are happening.

1. Some of the richest people and financial institutions in the world, who have been playing fast and loose with the credit monster, are getting bailed out by working taxpayers and their children and grandchildren – the Federal Reserve making the deals and appropriating the funds.

2. Each and every credit dollar the Fed pumps into the economy equals not only a dollar created out of thin air and then spent, but two, three, or four, additional dollars of public debt that will have to be paid back by taxpayers at some future time.

3. This spells inflation – and a dollar that will continue to lose value against gold, silver, oil, and other major currencies, thereby cheating every American of the value of their earned dollars.

4. If the Fed bails out badly managed financial institutions, bad management is rewarded rather than punished. And if it bails out reckless borrowers, so they can pay debts they've contracted, the same thing is being done.

5. The Constitution vests lawmaking and spending of public funds solely in Congress – so the clear intents of the Constitution are being blatantly violated and ignored.

There's no real up-side of this cascading effect loose credit and the law-breaking required to save a smoke and mirrors financial Ponzi games. If the free market actually "ruled," as they always tell us it should and does, those big financial institutions that break all the rules of credit extension ought to be allowed to fail.

But our national leadership, over a period of many decades, has boxed us into serious predicament. We're between the rock and the hard place in which all alternatives are equally undesirable.

Our present monetary system is a total smoke and mirrors system operated as a profit-making business by private bankers. It's totally insane on the face of it – doubly so lacking fiscal responsibility on the part of Congress.

We have a purely fiat, smoke and mirrors, monetary system and monetary unit with no basis in any kind of value-based reality. It provides nothing but the ultimate slippery slope, because every dollar created is a dollar spent with an interest-bearing dollar of debt remaining.

Why not have a purely fiat, smoke and mirrors, dollar that doesn't result in a dollar in debt drawing interest from the sweat of labor's brow? We already have such a currency. It's been around since the Civil War, but hasn't been in use since the Kennedy administration.

THE LINCOLN GREENBACK

The Lincoln Greenback is an "United States Note" – a Treasury note – rather than a Federal Reserve Note, which looks very similar. The Greenback bailed the nation out of a huge debt quandary during the Civil War, and saved the nation billions of dollars that would have otherwise had to have been borrowed from private bankers and other financial interests at high interest.

A point of particular interest with regard to the particular $5.00 note shown above, is that some people refer to it as a "Kennedy Greenback" because of its issue date of 1963, and that both Kennedy and Lincoln were assassinated.

The main difference between how a U.S. Note works and how a Federal Reserve Note works is this:

1. A United States Note is given "Legal Tender" status by our lawmakers. It is printed and spent into circulation by the Treasury for the costs of paper and printing.
         When it is spent into circulation, it discharges the obligation it was spent to satisfy. Then it remains in circulation to be spent and received by others in payment of debts public and private. Not additional debt is created.
   

2. A Federal Reserve Note is given "Legal Tender" status by our lawmakers. It is printed by the Treasury for the cost of paper and printing. But but this is where the similarity ends.
        Federal Reserve Notes can only be circulated after the Treasury has issued an interest bearing (large denomination) Treasury Note, bond, or other Treasury "security" instrument as "security" for a loan to the government. The security is the "backing" for the Federal Reserve money that will subsequently be released into circulation.
        The Security is purchased from the government at discount by a financial institution, foreign government, or "investor," at a fraction of its face value. Thus the purchaser has loaned the government the money that it can now spend in the form of Federal Reserve money.
        That money is then both available for the government to spend, but also represents an ongoing liability of the government with a tail of high interest in its wake.
        So, when the government spends a Federal Reserve Note into circulation, it discharges the obligation it was spend to satisfy, just as would do with a U.S. Note. However, though it remains in circulation to be and received in payment for debts public and private, it also represents an ongoing debt of its face value, plus interest, plus the discount on the bond or other security that "backed" it.  

For our government to use Federal Reserve Note money, rather than its own United States Note money is totally absurd. But that's they way we do it.

The absurdity is that the government can only get the use of what is supposedly its own money by issuing security in the form of "Treasury Notes" to a private investor who then "loans" it money at high interest. In a sane world, the government would simply bypass the "private investors," and thus public indebtedness, and issue United States Notes, "Treasury Notes" for use of the people as money.

There was a time when money was a paper representation of gold or silver, and many were afraid money without gold or silver backing could not hold any value. It was called "inflation money." But that is no longer the case. Both United States Notes and Federal Reserve Notes are pure fiat money without any backing by gold or silver.

True enough, we now have inflation money. But rather than using our own "inflation money" that wouldn't cost the taxpayer much of anything to use, we have "bankers' inflation money" that costs the taxpayer plenty to use – and it unavoidably inflates at an ever accelerating pace (especially given the flaky economy that has been built upon it).

Inflation of National currency, could theoretically be scientifically controlled by Congress and the Treasury (if Congress could ever rediscover the concepts of limited government and fiscal responsibility). But inflation bankers' money is beyond the control of Congress or the Treasury. It is under control of bankers, of course, who do have a vested interest in making the system work, but it works to enrich the bankers who have the monetary monopoly at the expense of the people.

WHY DID THIS SYSTEM DEVELOP?

First, we must recall that the American government was supposed to be very limited in size. Second, we must remember that gold and silver were the only form of money recognized by this and other governments.

Government, of course, can't manufacture gold or silver, so it was not initially considered that the government could or should have the power and ability to "make" money. Gold and silver came into the economy only through private mining or trade. It was a given that "all wealth" came from the soil and commerce in the products the soil could be traded for gold and silver (money).

The only way the government could get it's hands on the gold or silver (money), required to carry out its functions, was to levy excise taxes (such on the sale of whisky), and to international trade – collecting tariffs and customs duties, which had to be paid in gold or silver.

It was considered that this would be sufficient to finance a strictly limited federal government establishment – and it did throughout most of our history, until the advent of the Federal Reserve System and Income Tax Amendment in 1913.

Most of the gold and silver coin that circulated in the young nation, was in the form of foreign coin, predominately Spanish silver. Most of the gold and silver remained safely deposited in banks, and "banking paper" became the primary circulating currency. The concept of "fractional reserve banking" allowed bankers to circulate a lot more paper than they had gold and silver to back up.

Despite many abuses of various kinds, the "bank paper" system worked pretty well. So, we had a de facto paper money system which was strictly a product of private enterprise and private banking.

Most of the big eastern banks, which became known as the "Eastern Banking Establishment" – were connected to English and other European banking houses. The Bank of England provided leadership in the developing "science" of credit creation and fractional reserve banking. And it must be remembered that much of the capital (money), that developed our nation – including western cattle industry, railroads, and many other industries, came via those European financial connections.

There was much "power" in this allied European-American banking combine. And, naturally, it's greatest power became it's money power – so that's what we call it, the "money power."

When the Civil War came about, the federal government was in need of much more money than it was able to tax in the traditional way. Not only did it need gold and silver with which to purchase war materiel and deal with foreign and domestic bankers, it needed millions and millions of dollars with which to pay the troops and domestic suppliers that comprised the generalized war machine.

The cost of borrowing such huge amounts of money from bankers, presented the Lincoln administration with a monumental dilemma. Bankers would advance the money, of course, but they would loan paper, charge high interest, and demand gold in repayment! It would have allowed total highway robbery – and this right at the very beginning of what would be a long war.

The idea of a national paper currency, and the economic mechanics behind it, had been long known and often debated. We had had many positive experiences with paper money during the colonial period. Colonial script had provided liquidity when colonies had been starved for gold and silver coin. Several colonies had managed to become prosperous in spite of the lack of "money," because the paper money actually served it's purpose as a viable medium of exchange.

The success of colonial script did not sit well with the mother country and the Bank of England, of course, and was suppressed and finally outlawed – this being one of the causes that eventually lead to the Declaration of Independence.

Script became an absolute necessity during the Revolutionary War. In spite of problems of inflation, Continental Currency served its purpose. But because of the inflationary nature of the Revolutionary script, government issued paper money came out with a bad name.

Naturally, most of the bad press directed at the idea of government issued script currency originated with the banking interests. And, of course, they carefully avoided mentioning that one of the major reasons for inflation of Continental script was the rampant counterfeiting of that script by the Crown and Bank of England. Counterfeiting Revolutionary script was a major tactic of war. The British Armies in North America used the script themselves – very lavishly.

So, it came to pass in America (as well as everywhere else), that money creation was a prerogative of bankers, not government.

But the requirements for huge amounts of money in the Civil War caused Lincoln to question what had already become monetary orthodoxy. The result was the good old Greenback dollar – the very first official, Made in America, circulating, government printed, paper currency – legal tender, for all debts, public and private.

Of course, the "money power" was livid, and National Banking Acts were soon passed – and though the bankers "permitted" survival of the Greenback as an emergency wartime expediency, they also consolidated the bankers' money creation prerogatives.

So, the bankers won out anyway. They won at the very time that the Greenback was doing extraordinary duty, paying for the Civil War. The banker's victory resulted an National Banking System wherein the various member banks could create and issue National Bank Notes. The bankers' victory was complete with the creation of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Today, we call Federal Reserve Notes, "Greenbacks." But they aren't really Greenbacks at all. They are expensive imposters.

The following is quoted from a United States Treasury web-site on the history of U.S. money:

United States notes were known as greenbacks

"United States notes, which came to be called greenbacks, were the first real paper money issued by the U.S. government. They became known as greenbacks as they were the first bills to be engraved with green backs.

"Greenbacks were put in circulation in April 1862 at a time when the North was struggling with the problem of financing the Civil War which had begun a year earlier. These notes were made legal tender for all private and public debts except payment of customs duties and interest on U.S. bonds and notes. Thus they also became known as legal tenders.

"U.S. notes were originally backed by faith in the government rather than gold or silver. However, the Treasury was directed to begin redeeming U.S. notes in coin in 1879, which everyone understood as meaning they would be redeemed in gold. This continued until 1933 when the nation abandoned the gold standard. And so, once again, these notes were backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.

"The highest amount of U.S. notes ever outstanding was nearly $450 million in 1864. After the Civil War, many of these notes were retired until, in 1878, a law was passed freezing the amount outstanding at more than $322 million. This law still stands today although U.S. notes have not been issued since 1969.

"Today, U.S. notes are a liability of the U.S. Treasury, while Federal Reserve notes are a liability of the Federal Reserve System. Since the Federal Reserve System has the responsibility for maintaining growth and elasticity in the U.S. money supply, it uses Federal Reserve notes for the active currency part of the money supply. With this in mind, the Department of the Treasury has asked Congress to enact legislation that would allow them to cease issuing U.S. notes on the basis that they are an anachronism."

As documented above, the Greenback survived in a specially "limited" way until relatively recent times, and were even redeemable in gold from 1879 through 1933. The 1929 Stock Market crash prompted the emergency war powers initiatives that enabled Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal programs. Yet, strangely, he declined to utilize government Greenbacks in his spending programs, and was thus unable to effect an economic recovery.

Greenbacks apparently haven't been issued since the Kennedy administration, when, many seem to have been mysteriously circulated. Perhaps coincidentally, Lincoln and Kennedy were both assassinated. There's much evidence that the bankers hated Lincoln, and some evidence that Kennedy may have ticked them off too. (see: Lincoln, Money, Greenback, and JFK).

Roosevelt took some very bold action with regard to banking and money. After all, there was a very serious banking crises on hand. And he famously said, referring to bankers, "They are uncompromising in their hatred for me, and I welcome their hatred."

Significantly, however, he did not infringe on the banking monopoly on money creation. He never threatened to to do so – in fact his tough actions were aimed at saving the banks as well as boosting the economy. And every penny that he spent on his New Deal spending programs from 1933 through 1941, profited the nation's National and Federal Reserve Banks. So Roosevelt was not assassinated. 

John Q. Pridger

A NEW GOLD STANDARD?

Of course, the only way to force fiscal responsibility on Congress would be to make the currency actually "worth" something. Gold and silver have always been the monetary metals of choice. And our Constitution makes it clear that our founders knew this. The only problem is that the government must buy or borrow the gold necessary to back the currency from those who have it. This leads to somewhat of a "what comes first, the chicken or the egg?" problem, which Pridger has discussed before. And there doesn't seem to be enough gold to back the amount of currency required to power large economies such as we have today.

The probable answer would be the once much discussed "commodity dollar." Rather than basing the value of the dollar on a rare commodity of limited availability such as gold, base it on a "basket" of key renewable agricultural commodities – commodities that bear a direct relationship to the real necessities of life. These would have a direct relationship to the things which we would most like our currency to maintain a fixed value in relation to.

Wouldn't it be nice to thing if the value of our currency always maintained its purchasing power with regard to the necessities of life?

This would then seem to be the "logical standard" by which an otherwise fiat dollar, such as United States Notes, should be scientifically tied.

Look at a supermarket cart full of groceries. Pridger remembers when a generous week's supply of groceries for a family of five cost about $20.00. The same cart full would probably cost about $200.00 today. Had the dollar been tied to the market value of the raw agricultural commodities that when into those groceries, we'd still be able to buy the same amount of groceries for about $20.00.

In spite of all the rhetoric about maintaining free markets, and avoiding wage and price controls, etc., a national government does have a naturally ordained role to play in price stability, just as it has a role to play in providing a workable and fair currency. And the two ought to be tied together as one. If the currency is tied to basic essential agricultural raw materials (and perhaps other raw materials produced within the continental United States), prices will naturally tend to stabilize. If prices are stabilized, the market will also tend to stabilize wages and the prices of other market items.

And what of gold and silver? As stable as they are as basic elements and market commodities, a fixed relationship between them and a stable currency in terms of the necessities of life simply cannot be maintained. But they could still play an important monetary function. There is sufficient silver to allow use of silver coinage – and gold makes an ideal "savings" commodity.

John Q. Pridger

THE MORAL DILEMMAS OF CUTTING AND RUNNING

Not even the Democratic presidential candidates are advocating a "cut and run" end of our Iraq campaign. They admit that the war was a ghastly mistake, with much lost and no hope of actually winning anything. Not only is there the dilemma of how to make an orderly exit, but the larger moral dilemma. responsible.

As Colin Powell said before committing himself to lock-step with President Bush's war aims, "If we break it – we own it." And if we own it, and have broken it, we have the moral obligation to fix it before leaving.

We had the same dilemma in Vietnam. We finally essentially cut and ran from Vietnam, leaving the divided factions to hash things out at best they could. But Iraq is much more complicated, and the divisions much more complex.

Vietnam was a relatively simple contest between Communist nationalism, allied with our ideological enemy, Soviet Russia in the North, and non-communist nationalists in the south who were obliged to put their faith and national destiny in the hands of the United States.

In Iraq there are many more dynamics at work. While communism is not in the mix, the divisions between our culture and that of all Moslem states is much more historically and religiously based and more intractable than it was in Vietnam. The Vietnam War was essentially a political and economic war which its roots in colonialism.

The feelings at play in our Middle East intervention have much older and deeper roots. It begins with the fundamental Islam vs. Infidel religious philosophy of the region. Two centuries of Christian Crusades remain a fresh memory in the collective consciousness of the Arab World.

It's ironic, that despite similarities in race, common religious roots, and having sprung from kindred ancient civilizations, the cultural divide between the Christian West and the Moslem East seems much greater than between the Christian West and what Christians had always considered "pagan" Asia. Why this is so is perhaps more a matter of racial and cultural temperament than actual religious moorings.

Anybody who has studied the history of the Mediterranean peoples, and particularly the Moslem Arabs, realize there is a marked difference in the general temperament of the Arab peoples of North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, compared to most other European peoples. Colonial powers partly subjugated them, but never really conquered them. They were largely an array of fiery, courageous, and often elusive, nomadic tribal warriors. In the post colonial period, the riches promised by oil alone have made many Arab chieftains and rulers amenable to inroads by limited numbers of Infidels. So, in dealing with the Arabs, we are dealing with a different sort of temperament than we dealt with in the case of most Europeans and Asians.  

Once the French colonialists were out of the picture in Vietnam, we filled the power vacuum in order to give the Vietnamese a chance to discover political independence while maintaining trade and political ties to the capitalist West – to prevent them from being "subjugated" by "communist yoke."

Remember those mean, atheistic, communists who intended to conquer the world? We didn't want that to happen, and Vietnam was one of the places where we drew a line in the sand. Well, we all remember how that turned out.

As in Iraq, we were in Vietnam as the "good guys" – to save the Vietnamese from the communist scourge. Yet it is also of significant to remember that our philosophy in battle was that anything that would save the life of a single American G.I. was to be employed, no matter how many Vietnamese might be doomed thereby. In other words, though we were there to help the Vietnamese, one American life was worth any number of Vietnamese lives.

We still look at things that way as we fight in Iraq and elsewhere. Only now we can no long actually say it in such crude terms. It's become politically incorrect. We actually have to try hard to limit collateral damage – or at least make a convincing case in that direction.

Another thing that is different about Iraq. There, we invaded a relatively politically and culturally stable country that was not at war with anybody. We broke down the entire political and military establishment that had kept the nation together, and now are in a mess as the nation begins trying to sort itself out into several distinct mutually hostile religious factions and tribes – and which one will ultimately rule whatever sort of "nation" emerges from the rubble. The hope of a peaceful, unified, nation now seems totally impossible in anything like the near future.

Thus the moral dilemma with which we are confronted. How can we attain peace with honor, as we tried to do in Vietnam, and get the hell out without leaving the nation we broke – not in two, but into fragments – in total chaos?

The Vietnamese are a naturally orderly people, because their ancient civilization was long steeped in the soothing influences of Confucian and Buddhist philosophy. They really had no deep-seeded quarrels among themselves. The clash between Buddhists and Catholic minority was relatively mild, since both were, after all, religions of peace and tolerance. The only quarrels were imposed on them by external interests and forces.

The quarrels were between colonialism and self-determination, and between communism and capitalism. We helped break the already bi-lateral nation, and tried to mold at least the south half of the country according to our own vision of what Vietnam should be, but Vietnam had to fix itself after all. And it did.

Nonetheless, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese refugees migrated to the United States because of the situation we finally had to leave them in.

The Iraqis are not likely to become unified again. They are not one people. They are a multitude of mutually hostile tribes, sects, and minority groups. They had been roughly cobbled together as a nation by the last ruling colonial power, and then held together only through the strong military administrations of ruthless dictators.

We successfully got rid of the ruthless dictator, but in doing so destroyed a relatively stable and unified nation. We can't fix it. Only the Iraqis can sort things out – but they can't do that while we are in the mix taking sides, but unable and unwilling to crush all opposition to our Iraqi blueprint.

John Q. Pridger

Easter Sunday, 23 March, 2008

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE LIGHTS WENT OUT?

A winter ice storm caused the lights to go out in Pridger's neck of the Heartland a few weeks ago. Two days without electricity were pretty trying even on Paradise Ridge. Pridger's household probably suffered a lot less than many others. The main hardships the Pridger family faced were that the TV and computers couldn't be turned on. We couldn't check our email, and Pridger had to postpone posting on his blog. But the fireplace still burned and the gas stove continued to work. So did the kerosene lamps, and water could still be drawn from the well with a bucket. Some hardships!

Many people, however, lacked heat or the ability to cook. Some water systems failed to put pressure in the lines. Many couldn't travel, and those who could still probably found it difficult to adjust to not having a functioning home to go back to. Fortunately, it was only for two or three days.

What if the outage was even more widespread and lasted weeks or months rather than days? What if trucks and trains could not travel? What if the ships conveying out goods from China failed to come in, or could not be unloaded, for a matter of weeks or months?

What would happen if the nation's life support systems failed for any length of time? 

We would find out very quickly what hardships really are. And we'd discover that anything approaching true "national security" is a really bad joke. We have no national security, and we have no backup system. Nothing will work if the lights go out and the national and international transportation systems are interrupted. We not only have no backup system – our primary systems, including the agricultural industry, are dependent on OPEC oil imports, and machinery and consumer goods imports.

In short, we'd find out what international interdependence, and a total lack of local and even national self-reliance, is all about.

SPEAKING OF LIGHTS GOING OUT...

This is an amazing picture – both a beautiful and a scary picture – a night view of the earth's main landmasses and oceans from space. Just imagine the energy being consumed in order to light our planet up in this manner – and consider the correlation between the lighted areas and modern civilization itself.

Just a little over a hundred years ago the entire planet would have been almost entirely dark at night. This is an illustration of the industrial progress of the twentieth century – a period that has spanned only Pridger's life and that of his parents. 

And think of the extent and magnitude these lighted areas have in relation to our present perception and concerns with regard to global warming! And China, India, and several other major and minor countries fully expect to soon shine just as brightly from space as the eastern continental United States, Western Europe, and Japan.

Are we to suppose that gas and other energy prices are ever going to come down again? Are we going to work fast enough to replace fossil fuel energy with  non-polluting, renewable, fuels? Are we going to stop, or even appreciably forestall, global warming – if it is even attributable to human activities?

On global warming, Pridger isn't convinced that it is as much of a man-caused phenomena as we are increasingly being told. But irregardless of this – even if global warming is not strictly our fault – we (with our material "progress"), are destroying, or at least crippling, our earthly environment. There's little doubt of this. If man is also causing global warming, this is merely another unintended consequence of our material "progress." Whatever the case, we do need to clean up our act, and do it soon. But we won't, because of the corporate mega-systems that have come to dominate and govern the human condition. These systems are ravenous "growth machines" that will not be stopped or arrested except through catastrophic events.

In any case, we're not "hurting" the earth, of course. The earth will continue – and do very well even if we manage to render it inhospitable to human habitation. The worst we can do is hasten various environmental changes and extinctions – but there have been many extinctions before. The next Genesis may merely add one more day to the Creation and start anew. 

Ironically, the dark land-mass areas (where habitable and inhabited), are the areas where humanity is still best equipped to survive if something should happen to our ability to light ourselves. For, if the modern world's lights went out, its "civilized peoples" will be about as helpless as babes in the woods. 

Some remaining indigenous Africans, Amazonian Indians, aboriginal New Guineans, Borneo tribesmen, Mongolian herdsmen, and other "primitive," but self-reliant, peoples, scattered in isolated areas, will be the only ones capable of taking the outage in stride. While they survive as usual, never missing a meal or festival, the civilized peoples of the world will be in dire straits, event to the extent of reverting to cannibalism. Remnants may survive by learning anew how to produce during the daylight hours and sleeping during the hours of darkness.

Our goal, however, is to make sure that every living soul on the planet attains all the advantages we have – by making certain they too become totally dependent on the production of others elsewhere (as we do), and must purchase their every life sustaining morsel of food, and every consumer necessity, from appropriate corporate entities (as we do).

Just something to ponder.

John Q. Pridger

WRIGHT DOESN'T MAKE WHITE – OBAMA'S CROSS

Pridger believes, with the possible exception of Ron Paul, Barack Hussein Obama is the best man still standing for president. His honesty and candor seem to match his intelligence. His political face seems to be genuine rather that just rhetoric.

The main problem with his candidacy is that the American people still do no know who he is. Many whites have viewed him as the Black candidate that would allow them to elect the nation's first Black president, but still have one that was white. After being introduced to the inflammatory rhetoric Senator Obama's minister, many are not so sure.

On the other hand, many Blacks who had looked at Obama as an extraordinarily slick Uncle Tom – in fact, a White man in disguise – are discovering perhaps a kindred spirit.

Obama undoubtedly came out of his mixed upbringing and education with questions of his own. Who was he, and what were his goals? When he settled into his profession as a lawyer and perhaps began to have political ambitions, he had to make a decision – where would he most likely find the most support? As a mixed race person of white and black parents, the obvious answer was to be found in the color of his skin rather than the content of his character.

He could only be fully embraced by the African-American community and could never have been fully embraced by the white community. This is simply a lingering fact of life in America. We are still a divided nation where men are divided by the color of their skin, regardless of the content of their character. As an aspiring politician, the choice was obvious.

So, Barack Obama chose not only to identify with Chicago's black community, he chose to join a particularly militant black church. His association served him well in Chicago where black voters can easily tip the balance in favor of black candidates. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric stood Obama in good stead among most black voters. It propelled him into the Illinois legislature representing his predominately black constituents.

Then something totally unexpected happened. Not only did Barack Obama find himself winning an Illinois seat representing that state in Washington – he now finds himself on the very brink of becoming the Democratic presidential nominee.

Now some stray chickens come home to roost and threaten his chances at the nomination. And if he get the nomination, they will even further threaten his chances of winning the White House. Obama has handled the affair admirably well. But he has a problem. Americans are only now really trying to figure out who he really is, and what he represents.

Until the Wright Sermon revelations, white Americans were in a quandary as to whether or not they are ready for a Black president – one who seemed to share their own thoughts and beliefs. Now they are wondering about Obama's "whiteness," and whether they are ready for a truly Black president – one who may secretly agree with Reverend Wright's fiery sermons.

It's impossible to really know. Senator Obama may merely be an unfortunate victim of circumstance. On the other hand he may agree with some of the things that Rev. Wright expounded. In fact, it would be difficult for Pridger to believe that he does not. Some truths simply cannot be acknowledged in today's political climate.

John Q. Pridger

Saturday 22, March, 2008

THE PASSING OF THE LAST AMERICAN GENERATION

In a few years the last generation to have known the pre-globalization, pre-multicultural, unabashedly "Christian," and the still essentially independent, United States of America will have passed away. Already the new generation of politicians and national leaders are the products of our post-independent, post-homogeneous, even post-industrial, era.

If Barack Obama becomes the next president, the background of the president of the United States will be, for better or worse, one that is totally alien to the culture that formed, nurtured, and built our national greatness. The same, though perhaps slightly less so, can be said of Hillary Clinton. John McCain is undoubtedly more experienced than either Democratic candidate – but his political wagon is securely tied to the very same forces now remaking the nation into something it was never intended to be. All three presidential candidates can be expected to continue integrating this nation into a global system that is totally antithetical to national independence, security, and even individual liberty.

Pridger's generation was born during the trying times of World War Two, and had reached adulthood by the time of the assassination of President Kennedy, Civil Rights, the Counter-cultural movement, multiculturalism, the advent of the Welfare State, and, of course, globalization.

Pridger's generation had been raised by parents and grandparents who still had the very strong cultural and religious underpinning of those who had founded and built the nation. They had experienced the transition from a horse drawn economy to an automotive economy – from kerosene lamps to rural electrification – and from a predominately agrarian nation to a predominately industrial and urban one. They had known the hardships of poverty, the Great Depression, war-time shortages, rationing, and sacrifice, as well as the post-war era that delivered a degree of broad-based prosperity never before known in the history of any people in the history of mankind.

Those generations witnessed the first manned flight and the progression of advancement that put men on the moon – they new the very first wonders of radio news and entertainment and finally saw the advent of color TV and the computer age – and they had maintained their core values through it all.

Even Pridger's own sheltered and progressive experience includes things that now seem like ancient history – things such as the drinking bucket and dipper in the kitchen; the wood and kerosene kitchen ranges; the wooden ice box; the wooden crank telephone; and the horse-drawn milk wagon in town. He knew the one room school house, and (though not particularly religious), thought it perfectly normal and appropriate to thank God for his food in public school. He served a hitch in the Navy when it was still referred to as "this man's Navy."

In those days, Pridger could never have imagined co-ed military academies that could no longer "discriminate against" women. He couldn't imagine women aboard a warship. He couldn't have imagined gun-toting women – mothers – leaving their husbands and small children to go off to war in places like Iraq. The thought of female pilots bombing and strafing innocent women and children was unthinkable.

Pridger's experience was slightly unique in that he watched many of the changes that soon overtook his homeland from afar. The nation was just beginning to "change" in the early 1960s as his work and desire to see the world took him to the Far East for what became an extended period of time.

When he returned home for visits in 1967 and 1970, he returned to a markedly changed nation, but he really didn't realize the magnitude of the changes that were taking place. But by then he was beginning to pay a little closer attention. When he returned home to stay in 1977, it was culturally like coming home to a foreign nation – as if the nation had been long occupied by alien enemies who had overturned everything Americans had once clung to and held dear.

The nation that had considered Washington, Madison, Jefferson, and the Adamses and national heroes seemed gone – as dead as those "Dead White Men" – as dead and discredited as Christopher Columbus. The statement had been made, "God Is dead!" And spokesmen for the progressive leadership had answered had agreed, and the ACLU was conducting a national cleanup campaign to make it stick.

Pridger remembers when the Yankee dollar was still considered as good as gold, and when our "silver" coins were still made of silver. He remembers when what was good for American business was not only good for Wall Street, but good for American workers as well. He remembers the day president Kennedy was assassinated, and he remembers the changes that have transformed the nation, seemingly from that pivotal event onward.

He has watched as a great nation, which aspired to remain great, began to crumble from within, and transform itself to something that is hardly recognizable as the nation that had elected its first Catholic president. He has watched the nation go from a nation that was internationally (at least in the West), considered an aspiration to mankind, to an international pariah state, seemingly no longer possessed of any significant redeeming social values.

Of course, there were some things Americans had clung to for far too long. Things like institutionalized racial discrimination. But it was obvious that something had gone terribly wrong with the processes of implementing what was supposed to be "equality" and "justice." Our government began providing justice to previously oppressed peoples by establishing degrees of injustice toward the presumed oppressors – the majority. Democracy, of course, ceased to function as the oppression of the majority was traded for a form of oppression by the champions of minorities and "victim classes."

Culturally and educationally, we seemed to have abandoned all real efforts directed toward upgrading and improving our society in favor of downgrading and debasing it – while loudly proclaiming progress, enlightenment, and national fulfillment.

Blacks got "equality under the law" and then some. They got the integration they wanted – while whites got forced integration they didn't want. Blacks got Affirmative Action. They got welfare and food stamps. And after all these coveted things had been gained, they still figured they were coming up short. So they got madder than they had been before Civil Rights was ever seriously considered. Radicals, it seemed, were in charge of everything behind the changes taking place in the nation. Apparently many Blacks thought they had gained license to riot in the streets, and at least destroy their own neighborhoods – in hopes "Whitey" would provide something better.

In our cities it was no longer safe for bus drivers to carry change. "Exact fare" was required. Pridger personally found it out on a visit to Detroit, on a "Black Day in July" in 1967. On that particular "Black Day," plus four more days, forty-three people died in the rioting. Some 2,509 stores were looted or burned; 388 families were rendered homeless; and 412 buildings were burned or damaged enough to be demolished.

In short, inner cities became dangerous ghostly places surrounded with dangerous inner city neighborhoods. Betrayed by "democratic processes," Whites had been voting with their feet and relinquished the inner cities to the Blacks who preferred white neighborhoods to Black neighborhoods. It was total, heartbreaking, irony.

When Pridger returned home in 1970, many of our great industrial cities were still in the throes of self-destruction. By 1977, those great cities were no longer great. They were in shambles. Urban Renewal was the government's answer to destroyed inner cities – and Urban Renewal was another wave of destruction in those suffering cit