Friday, July 8, 2005
TERRORISM REVISITS THE MOTHER COUNTRY
Our English friends, with their Northern Ireland troubles, are much
more accustomed to terrorism that we are, but yesterday's subway and
bus bombings in London still managed to get everybody's attention.
English support for our efforts to bring freedom and democracy to Iraq
does have its costs.
Pridger was surprised that England joined our Iraqi coalition in the
first place. After all, one would have thought the English had learned
their lesson hard enough several decades ago. But those who don't learn
the lessons of history are bound to have them repeated.
As Ben Franklin said, experience keeps a hard school, but a fool will
learn by no other. And, even then, there's no guarantee that the
lessons will not be soon forgotten.
The British Middle East experience during the late colonial era
undoubtedly hastened the decline of the British Empire considerably.
But the new post 9-11 Anglo-American axis was seen by Bush and Blair as
an unbeatable team. That teamwork might have worked a hundred years
ago, when the British Empire was till holding. It might have held a lot
longer than it did had American military might been devoted to the
cause of Empire. Unfortunately, America hasn't been devoted to the
British Empire since some time before the Revolutionary War.
In fact the British were the only ones who had ever managed to invade
the United States and sack and burn the capital, and if the Revolution
had not totally soured us on the Mother Country, that War of 1812
certainly did. So it isn't surprising that we have never been a great
backer of the British Empire.
Nonetheless, we came to the assistance of the Mother Country in both
great world wars of the twentieth century. The first one seemed to save
the great Empire, and extended it into places it had never been before
-- the Middle East. The problems of Empire had just gone on steroids.
The Second World War sealed the fate of the
greatest empire the world had ever known. Empire was intentionally
undermined and curtailed by Franklin D. Roosevelt and his successor,
even as we pulled England's chestnuts out of the fire. Churchill, whose
purpose had been to save and preserve the Empire, was obliged to
preside over its speedy decline and ultimate end. And he was forced to
grin, bear it, and act grateful.
Ironically, had Great Britain favored Hitler's Germany, rather than
declaring war against it, the British Empire probably would have
survived a good deal longer than it did. But, unwilling to share the
world with an invigorated German Empire which would eventually eclipse
it, the British Empire opted for its own untimely destruction.
Churchill was correct in his opinion that an Anglo-American alliance
would be unbeatable. With the addition of Soviet Russia to the
alliance, Germany didn't have a chance. But he apparently failed to
appreciate the fact that the Roosevelt administration was more
ideologically allied with the USSR than the British Empire.
The final collapse of Empire corresponded with our Civil Rights era of
the 1960s. America's legacy of post-slavery discrimination was catching
up with it, and it would commence a long downward spiral itself even as
it was at the pinnacle of its geopolitical power.
At that time, the UK was fortunate enough to remain relatively
homogeneous. It had no significant racial minorities to contend with.
But it opted to change that, by allowing massive immigration from its
former colonies. So today England finds itself with a multi-racial
society which has brought more chickens home to roost. A renewal of the
Anglo-American alliance in the war on terror, and especially in Iraq,
is bearing bitter fruit. The recent bombings in London are stark
evidence of it.
Pridger, as an American patriot, cannot be considered an Anglophile by
any stretch of the imagination. But he is an admirer of the British
people and nation who were not only responsible for building the
greatest global empire in history, but provided the seed that
transformed itself into the United States of America. But once America
became a great nation, the subsequent Anglo-American alliance has
transformed both nations. And both nations are joined in both cultural
and strategic decline.
It is equally ironic that the Anglo-American alliance is now engaged in
a global war against a more or less phantom enemy -- terrorism -- which
emanates from the troubles in the Middle East. And, of course, those
troubles have their roots in the first Anglo-American alliance of
nearly a century ago. While the Anglo-American combine grapples with
Islamic terrorists which will continue to sap its combined vitality
into the indefinite future, the larger picture has been ignored.
WAKING UP TO THE THOUSAND TON FLY IN THE SOUP?
In quest of the perpetual profits promised by the globalization of
business under the control of western capital interests, and spinning
our wheels in Iraq and on the growing international terrorist threat
(that our leaders had carefully provoked and nurtured for over a period
of half a century), China has been quietly, but increasingly quickly,
metastasizing.
With its recent acquisition of IBM personal computers, and its present
bid to take over a major American oil company, some of our trusty
leaders in Washington are beginning to express a "little concern." What
is China doing? Does China want to become the biggest, most
economically and militarily powerful nation in the world or something?
They aren't supposed to do that!
It's amazing how foolish our policy planners are. Pridger doesn't know
how they have managed to do it, but they have managed to fixate their
gaze on the wrong ball for thirty years. The subject seems too hopeless
to
seriously get into. The American Empire seems to be losing its clothes.
It's as obvious as it is embarrassing just to bring the subject up.
Pridger can only suggest that all of our mis-repesentatives in
Washington be forced into counseling, and perhaps a series of crash
courses in such things as world and American history, the Constitution,
and the meaning of not only "limited representative government," but
the purpose of government itself. They need to be forced to read the
Declaration of Independence, the Federalist Papers, Washington's
Farewell Address, the writings of Paine, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison.
They should be forced to take a course in basic economics, read the
Communist Manifesto, and especially Mao Tse-Tung's "Little Red Book" of
quotations.
They should be forced to read Sun-Tzu's "The Art of Warfare."
Nikita Khrushchev, in one of the more dramatic moments of the Cold War
pounded his shoe upon his United Nations General Assembly desk and
said, speaking to the United States and the West in general (to
paraphrase), "We will bury you! And we'll use your own system to do it!"
Needless to say, Khrushchev was not a geopolitical prophet. The late
great Soviet Union crumbled, much to the embarrassment of many both in
Washington and Moscow. On the other hand, Mao's Red China hasn't crumbled, though we like
to think that it is undergoing a miraculous enlightenment and
transformation in its turn down the capitalist road. The transformation
is more than just obvious, and our leadership likes to congratulate
itself on having facilitated it.
Chairman Mao may come a lot closer to being a prophet than Khrushchev.
Among other things, Mao said that America was engaged in fastening many
nooses around its own neck, and would eventually be hanged by enemies of
its own making. He said China would learn and build, and be patient --
and modest. Some of what Mao said could easily have been written only
two or three years ago -- or even last week. The questions are: has
China's historical view of the United States changed? And (more
importantly), have China's long-term goals really changed?
China isn't saying much today. It is merely "allowing" us to make
ourselves more and more economically dependent on China, as it grows
more powerful in every way. The globalism we have been promoting for
thirty years is our ball-game, after all. China is now playing it for all it is worth. But who will have the world
by the tail in the end when the game is over? And which nation will be
caught up short with a tightening mass of nooses around its neck?
Here's a brief sampler of Mao's quotes. In reading this, remember that
it is still Mao's picture on the face of Yuan currency notes.
Mao Tse Tung's
"Little Red Book" Sampler
"...U.S. imperialism has not yet
been overthrown and it has the atom bomb. I believe it also will be
overthrown. It, too, is a paper tiger... The United States has set up
hundreds of bases in many countries all over the world. China's
territory of Taiwan, Lebanon and all military bases of the United
States on foreign soil are so many nooses round the neck of U.S.
imperialism. The nooses have been fashioned by the Americans themselves
and by nobody else, and it is they themselves who have put these nooses
round their own necks, handing the ends of the ropes to the Chinese
people, the peoples of the Arab countries and all the peoples of the
world who love peace and oppose aggression. The longer the U.S.
aggressors remain in those places, the tighter the nooses round their
necks will become.
"Riding roughshod everywhere, U.S. imperialism has
made itself the enemy of the people of the world and has increasingly
isolated itself. Those who refuse to be enslaved will never be cowed by
the atom bombs and hydrogen bombs in the hands of the U.S.
imperialists. The raging tide of the people of the world against the
U.S. aggressors is irresistible. Their struggle will assuredly win
still greater victories.
"If the U.S. monopoly capitalist groups persist in
pushing their policies of aggression and war, the day is bound to come
when they will be hanged by the people of the whole world. The same
fate awaits the accomplices of the United States.
"...There is a Chinese saying, 'Either the East Wind
prevails over the West Wind or the West Wind prevails over the East
Wind...
"...It is the spirit of
internationalism, the spirit of communism, from which every Chinese
Communist must learn. ...We must unite with the proletariat of Japan,
Britain, the United States, Germany, Italy and all other
capitalist countries, before it is possible to overthrow imperialism,
to liberate our nation and people and to liberate the other nations and
peoples of the world. This is our internationalism, the
internationalism with which we oppose both narrow nationalism and
narrow patriotism.
...In another
forty-five years, that is, in the year 2001, or the beginning of the
21st century, China will have undergone an even greater change. (than
in the previous forty-five years) She will have become a powerful
socialist industrial country. And that is as it should be. China is a
land with and area of 9,600,000 square kilometres and a population of
600 million people, and she ought to have made a greater contribution
to humanity. Her contribution over a long period has been far too
small. For this we are regretful.
"But we must be modest — not only now, but
forty-five years hence as well. We should always be modest. In our
international relations, we Chinese people should get rid of
great-power chauvinism resolutely, thoroughly, wholly and completely." Chairman Mao Tse Tung's Little Red
Book of Quotations (1967 edition, Foreign Language Press, Peking).
China has the bomb now too, and it has learned how to use our very own
system against us in ways that apparently never occurred to any among
our truly amazing brain trust in Washington. Among other things, China
has been buying up many of our industries. Last count, China has taken
over about 1,500 American companies and still buying. It literally has
money to burn -- American money -- thanks to our appetite for free
trade and Chinese products.
For its part, the United States has been voluntarily dismembering
itself, both commercially and strategically. Our willingness to "take
advantage" of cheap Chinese labor has blinded us to our growing
economic dependence and strategic vulnerabilities. But we hear of the
new great American global commercial empire -- the New World Order,
"Made with great pride, in America" (by the agents of avarice), for the
people of the world!
While we still wear our "great-power chauvinism" like a national badge
to cower the world, China speaks softly and fashions, with meticulous
patience, a bigger stick than Theodore Roosevelt ever thought of.
It isn't that China is more capable than America. Indeed, China would
have taken a century or more to advance as far as it has these past
thirty years if it hadn't been for our insistent help.
What this boils down to is that the American people have been betrayed
by their own government. The rhetoric, of course, has been that we are
engaged in making this into a better world for everybody. The reality
is that it has been done on behalf of corporate enterprises for profit
without regard to long-term economic, political, and strategic,
consequences certain to be suffered by the American people in the
fullness of time.
Monday, July 4, 2005
INDEPENDENCE DAY -- How many Americans celebrating our national
birthday stop to ponder how our nation has slipped from being a truly
independent nation back into dependency?
Pridger wonders how anybody can celebrate our "independence" with any
degree of seriousness these days. It seems to him that Independence Day
should be a national day of
mourning -- lamenting an abandoned and lost cause -- a great national
experiment intentionally wrecked in order to "make the whole world like us." Our
independence is gone. The
"Land of the free, and home of the brave" -- the world's only remaining
superpower -- has become an acutely and embarrassingly dependent
nation.
We should have got the hint when our Federal Government started
printing "food stamps" for the poor -- the very symbol of dependence.
In case you didn't notice, those stamps were imprinted with an image of
the famous painting of the founding fathers signing the Declaration of
Independence. The message was pure Orwell (1984), "Dependence is
Independence," and "Independence is Dependence." Double Speak has
reigned ever since as the language of American governance.
Following the Revolutionary War, it became a national priority to
become not only politically independent of the Mother Country, but
economically independent of England and the rest of Europe, as well.
The conventional wisdom was that we not only had to feed ourselves, but produce
everything we needed as a people and a nation. This was
considered simple common sense until about half a century ago. Within a few decades, we managed to do just
that, and finally became the industrial powerhouse of the world,
dependent on no other nation for our national needs. We managed to do it through "protectionist"
trade policy.
We remained a politically and economically independent nation until
about the beginning of the last quarter of the twentieth century. It
was then that the national leadership opted out of independence into a
growing dependence on others to provide our manufactured goods. The
"international interdependence" model that our trusty leaders have been
promoting since the 1980s as a new era called the "new international
economic order" (i.e. "globalism" and the New World Order), is a
literal repudiation of everything that built this nation into a great
country. The term "Protectionism" has become as politically reviled as
"McCarthyism."
What is international interdependence, but national dependence? And, if
that simple question doesn't answer itself, who among us has had his
head so far down in the sand that he doesn't realize that it is
becoming increasingly difficult to purchase anything that is "Made in
the U.S.A."
Today we are even less economically independent than we were before the
Revolution. We're more dependent on China alone than we ever were on
England (and if Pridger's instincts are correct, China thoroughly
intends to eat us for breakfast in the not too distant future).
We
now depend on a whole raft of foreign countries to provide the wherewithal
for our coveted "American Way of Life." We depend on them to furnish
our oil, our shoes, our clothing, the great bulk of our household
appliances and consumer goods, our computers, our TVs, our VCRs, and
even an increasing percentage of our automobiles, not to mention the food we eat.
To top it all off, we depend on foreign ships to deliver our vast and
growing volume of foreign trade, and we depend on foreign creditors to
provided us the financial liquidity to live well off of the production of
"others elsewhere." Ironically, our major creditors are made up of traditional, past,
and/or potential, enemies, i.e.,
Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, Germany, etc.
As if that were not enough, for a little more icing on the cake, here's
some more. Though we have, as national policy, actively sacrificed
millions of our best jobs, thousands of factories, and scores of whole
industries, we now increasingly depend on Mexico and other Latin
American and Asian nations (both legal and illegal immigrants), to
provide workers to fill the domestic jobs that are being created --
even high tech jobs. Outsourcing has become just one more national disgrace.
It seems the last generation of hard working Americans -- the ones who
had the good jobs (producing "Made in America" everything) -- is
retired, retiring, or soon to retire. Besides the fact that most of the
old good jobs are gone, the younger generation of Americans (all
over-fed and over-entertained, without the necessity of hard work)
isn't about to get its hands too dirty. After all, isn't doing the hard
work what we've got Mexicans and Chinese for? (Whether they are here,
south of the border, or on the other side of the world, aren't they at our disposal?)
What's more, China is the next superpower (both militarily and
economically), and our trusty leaders have allowed us to become
economically and financially dependent on it even before it has decided
to seriously flex its military muscle.
How could this happened? It didn't happen by mistake or by chance. The
American people have been sold down the river by their own
mis-representatives in Washington, while being told they were going up
the river all the time. Even now, we're on the brink of another shove
down the river with CAFTA, the central American extension of NAFTA, and
there are more such free trade agreements waiting in the wings,
extending those treaties to the entire hemisphere as the Free Trade
Zone of the Americas.
CAFTA supporters, of course, swear that if it passes, we'll be well on
our way back up the river again. And we continue to be sold down the
river by believing them. It's been going on for well over twenty five
years. GATT, WTO, NAFTA, etc., didn't happen in a day.
The present generation of Americans have never known either hunger or
any other significant hardship. Under our present globalization
policies we expect the rest of the world to become "just like us" (a
ecological impossibility), while continuing to support the American Way
of Life through their productive activities. How long will this
travesty go on? How long can we continue our "conspicuous
over-consumption" and "unconscionable waste"? How long until
significant numbers of Americans again discover what hunger really is?
The events of 9-11 was a strong hint that our policies had not been
winning the hearts and minds of everybody else in the world. Since
then, we have become even less loved by a growing number of the global
population.
All of this puts me in mind of something Thomas Jefferson said about an
entirely different subject. "When I reflect that God is just, I tremble
for my country."
Friday, July 1, 2005
The local jurisdiction has just convicted and sentenced a sexual
predator to sixty years for his role in the repeated, "very real"
sexual abuse of his nine year old step-daughter. This guy and his wife
(who was a party to the crimes, but has not yet come to trial), were
about as despicable a pair as one could imagine. Conveniently, in
addition to finally confessing, they'd gone the extra mile and filmed
the abuse, and otherwise cooperated with authorities, so the
prosecution had a pretty easy case. There was no doubt as to the guilt
of the parties.
Apparently the victim was not physically harmed by the couple, though
she will probably suffer psychological scars for a good long time. But,
at least she is alive and well, and will undoubtedly be able to adjust
and cope with life.
Beyond a doubt, this diabolical pair deserves to be publicly horse
whipped, then branded on various parts of their torsos. Then they
should be tarred, feathered, and paraded around the public square
for eight hours a day for about a week. Then they should be allowed to
rest and recuperate in the local jail for about six months before being
freed and forced to go back to work, facing their previous friends,
neighbors, and co-workers.
The man had cooperated with the prosecutors in the case against his
wife, in hopes of earning a lighter sentence. So he "only" got 60
years! This 60 year sentence, 85% percent of which must be served, is
an effective life sentence for him. He'll be released when he is 91
years old, if he lives that long -- having had his room, board, and health care paid for by
the taxpayers for 51 years! Had he and his wife sliced the poor girl up
into a thousand pieces and buried them in the back yard, he could hardly have received a more
severe punishment.
As bad as the crime was, there seems to be something wrong with our way
of fitting punishments to crimes. Those disposed to sexual crimes
should not be encouraged to kill their victims to cover their crimes,
by making the potential and probable punishment for sexual abuse as
severe as the punishment for murder or otherwise inflicting serious
bodily damage.
Unfortunately, the severity of punishment for such crimes as rape and
child molestation are such that many perpetrators are prompted to go
the extra mile and kill their victims to cover their tracks, where
otherwise they may have left the victim merely violated but otherwise
whole.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments on public
property is okay as long as they are posted at the behest of atheists,
humanists, historians, or Buddhists. Only then can they be considered
not to be an overt assault upon the separation of church and state. On
the other hand, if they are posted at the behest of Christians who
believe they are "God's Commandments," they are considered an attempt
to officially establish a state religion, and are thus as
unconstitutional.
This clears things up considerably. Christians can have no hand in
posting the Ten Commandments unless they lie about their motives,
purposes, and beliefs. If a Christian community wants to post the Ten
Commandments at City Hall, the court house, or a local school, they
must hire outside contractors with no Christian religious affiliations
to come in, make the proposal, and do the posting. For example, the
community could bribe a local group of Hindus to propose posting a Ten
Commandments display on the court house lawn.
Also, just posting a framed copy of the Ten Commandments is a no-no --
too much like posting an official notice. Many people, including
impressionable children (at least the ones who can read), would likely
be
offended to be commanded not to kill, steal, or covet. And being
commanded to "Honour thy father and thy mother" is about as uncool as a
notice could get in this day and age.
Perhaps Christians could cause a Ten Commandment display to be erected
with sufficient accompanying disclaimers, such as "These
Commandment have no religious meaning or significance, and are posted
merely to demonstrate how our primitive forefathers were once taken in
by religious superstition." Maybe posting the Eight Fold Path, and an
array of Stars of David, Yin Yang, Swastika symbols, etc., in
conjuction with them would help
legitimize the display.
Perhaps disguising the Ten Commandments would do. Say, by having them
written
in ornate Chinese Script and attributing the document to Confucius.
All in all, Pridger doesn't believe the Supreme Court has favorably
distinguished itself with its Ten Commandments ruling. But when did it
last do that? For over two hundred years the Supreme Court has been
"interpreting" the Constitution, and making it into a "living" and
"elastic" (or "slippery"), document.
Between the Supreme Court, Congress, and the
executive branch of government, the Declaration of Independence has
been revoked and rendered null and void.
With its four references to God, the Declaration of Independence is
clearly in violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution.
The Declaration is thus clearly a fraudulent document -- declaring, as
it does, a God-given right for a people to severe ties with the Mother
Country and establish a free and independent government -- and that all
men, in fact, have inalienable, God-given, rights. Now we have learned
(thanks to the
Supreme Court), that this is not true -- that our government cannot
officially acknowledge God, much less subservience to any such
"notion." And, since the validity and legitimacy of the Constitution
rests totally and completely upon the legitimacy and validity of the
Declaration of Independence, we find ourselves in a real fix. Hasn't
the Supreme Court effectively ruled that our freedom and independence
has been a total sham from very the beginning, and that we are, in
fact, still subjects of the British Crown?
AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
Pridger has often wondered why Christians continue to hold the Ten
Commandments in such high regard. After all, they are not Christian
commandments but rather pre-Christian Judaic Commandments. Jesus came
along and overturned the old Mosaic Law. Here are the updated
Commandments, as reiterated
by Jesus in Matthew 19:18-19:
THE
COMMANDMENTS REITERATED BY JESUS
(Matthew 19:18-19)
| (1) Thou shalt
not do murder |
(4) Thou shalt
not bear false witness |
| (2) Thou shalt
not commit adultery |
(5) Honour thy
father and thy mother |
| (3) Thou shalt
not steal |
(6) Thou shalt
love thy neighbor as thyself |
See
this article on the Ten Commandments
Of course, though God isn't mentioned, there would still have to be a
disclaimer of some sort to
assure the public that Jesus suggested these rules as a man rather than
the "Son of God."
OUR GAY NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH
Well, Canada is in the process of distinguishing itself by becoming the
third nation to
officially sanction gay marriage. It's hard to believe, but Canada is
even more "progressive" than we are. This leads us to conclude
that the United States is not quite yet the most morally bankrupt
nation on earth.
As they say, God works his wonders in queer ways. Undoubtedly, this is
part of God's answer to the problem of overpopulation. Gay married
couples don't procreate and reproduce, they only recruit. If they do
enough recruiting, the population problem might be solved.
Pridger wonders whether gay marriages will be restricted to homosexuals
only. Why shouldn't everybody be able to have a gay (i.e., same sex)
marriage? Are homosexuals somehow better than the rest of us? Why
shouldn't good buddies be able to marry and have the same legal
benefits as homosexuals? Have we become such a morally corrupt society
that we are allowing homosexuals to become a privileged class -- the
only ones legally able to marry others of the same sex? Is homosexual
sexual activity a requisite to gay marriage? Is there going to be a
"don't ask, don't tell," loophole that will allow straight men or women
to marry other straight men or women?
From time immemorial, marriage has been unquestionably and universally
defined and understood as a union between men and women for the
purposes of
procreation and the nurturing of the young. Of course,
barren men and women were not barred from marriage, but unknowingly
marrying a barren partner was almost always grounds for annulment.
Marriage isn't taken as seriously now as it once was, of course. Most
marriages end in divorce -- the moral climate of modern society being
such that vows to God and contracts between married couples have become
pretty meaningless. Today, money is the only significant key to binding
contracts. And being single is no longer a serious obstacle to
child-bearing. So marriage has become pretty irrelevant in our society.
But most of us are still a little nostalgic about it, however, and
deplore the total debasement of what was once universally considered a
holy institution.
Brothels may be nice and useful institutions, but at least a dwindling
number of us are still repelled at the idea of turning churches into
brothels. We don't want the word church to take on the meaning of
brothel. This is what is happening to the word marriage. It is being
given a new meaning that has nothing to do with its former meaning.
Pridger is a little old fashioned and sentimental about such things.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Speaking of sex crimes, pedophiles, and our warped sense of outrage
with regard to them, Pridger's local paper tells of a mother recently
convicted and sentenced to five years in the pen for molesting her
son. It seems she admitted to receiving sexual gratification from
allowing her three year old son fondle her breasts! Pridger finds this
somewhat incredible. How does a 24 year old mother end up in court for
letting her three year old fondle her breasts, whether or not she
received sexual gratification?
How does such a seemingly trivial thing become a serious state (Class
II) felony case? Heaven forbid if she had actually allowed the babe to
suckle! Maybe she'd have received ten years for such a crime as that!
Okay, maybe there was more to it than meets the eye or was revealed in
the newspaper account. Maybe the girl is a loose canon. How else could
such a "crime" have come to anybody's attention? Apparently the woman
had confided her "secret activities" to somebody in
the Department of Children and Family Services, and they reported her
to the State Police. A State Police officer said, "She stated
specifically three different sexual activities, on a ongoing basis,
every week."
The lady was a first time offender, and she was cooperative with
authorities. Poor girl. Had she not been so cooperative, she might have
got the counseling she may have needed without the hard time.
She even pled guilty to a charge of "aggravated criminal sexual abuse."
This, in itself, is evidence of madness. Obviously, she didn't
know
what she was doing when she "confessed." I wonder if she was read her
rights before the plea? Her attorney admitted that, "It's clear that
she is messed up sexually and relationship-wise, but they find she is
suitable for counseling." But apparently, though she was found
"suitable for counseling," the judge and jury sentenced her to five
years of hard time!
So, let's say the girl was a little quirky. But five years in the pen
for being intimate with her own three year old? This is real? When one
considers that a woman can be put away for allowing her own son to
fondle the font of love and nourishment, is there any wonder that we
have jails and prisons bursting at the seams with two million plus
inmates and growing? No doubt a serial murderer or other violent felon
will have to be released to make room for this dangerous woman.
Compare this hapless woman's fate with that of Michael Jackson.
OUR HANGUPS ABOUT SEX CRIMES.
Sex crimes such as rape and child molestation carry such draconian
penalties in our society that the perpetrators are too often compelled
to terminate the victim with great prejudice, just to keep the victim
from revealing the crime and identifying the perpetrator. This has
undoubtedly resulted in thousands of murders which started out as a
mere sex frolic to satisfy an uncontrolled lust.
The main reason that rape and child molestation have been considered
such unforgivable crimes stems from the days when both wife and
daughter were considered the exclusive property of the husband or
father. A despoiled wife or daughter was a deadly affront to a man.
Never mind that the woman may not have been physically harmed, it was
considered a hanging offense, and grounds for deadly retribution by the
offended husband or father.
Pridger, being an old fashioned male chauvinist warthog, is in sympathy
with this, even though it is no longer fashionable to claim bodily
ownership over wives and children. That is, he believes an outraged
husband or father ought to have the right to kill anybody who would
rape his wife or daughter (or at least be excused for doing so). But
most of us don't do that any more -- we leave it to the law. But the
law is still overly harsh, and often much less forgiving that outraged
men or women, in some respects.
There are different kinds of sexual predators and rapists. There are
those who would never harm a hair on the head of their victim, as long
as they get their gratification. And there are those who delight in
inflicting bodily harm on their victims. If a rape victim is unhurt,
the attacker ought to be put into the stocks and publicly flogged to
within an inch of his life. Only those sexual predators who inflict
bodily harm on their victims, or are repeat offenders, should be
subjected to harsh prison terms. And only those who attempt to kill, or
permanently maim their victims, should be taken out and hanged or shot.
The way it is, however, all rapists and sexual predators have the
threat of long prison terms, or even death, for their crime. This
undoubtedly prompts a significant number of them to go the extra mile
and murder the victim in hopes of covering the crime.
In addition to this, we have men in our penitentiaries doing long hard
time for such trivial things as "inappropriately touching" of a child.
Many more hapless people, fathers, grandfathers, teachers, and priests,
etc., have had their careers and lives ruined by false or wrongful
accusations and allegations of such "crimes." We have fathers and
grandfathers doing long years for giving in to their inappropriate
lusts, but who did no bodily harm to those they actually loved but
nonetheless despoiled -- often as much or more time than murders and
violent criminals.
Not that these more benign sex crimes or inappropriate behaviors should
be condoned or excused out of hand, but five or ten years for
inappropriately touching is hardly reasonable. We have men, even
teenagers, doing hard time for having consensual sex with young ladies
who were old enough to know what they were doing but legally "jail
bait."
This same situation exists with regard to petty drug offenders, too,
and the perpetrators of other victimless "crimes." What outrages
Pridger about these particular kinds of crimes, is that
murders and real violent criminals, who actually intended to do harm,
often get
relatively light sentences, or are let out on parole to make room for
petty offenders who never intended to do anybody any harm.
Another type of criminal prosecution that is being used more and more
frequently, involves cases where extraordinarily bad luck, such as an
accident that results in loss of life, is treated as a serious crime.
The hapless drunk who has an automobile accident and kills somebody is
now subject to prosecution for murder -- as if he had grabbed a gun or
knife and intentionally went our and killed somebody.
Pridger has just read of a mother convicted of the wrongful death of
her child, and sentenced to forty years. Her boyfriend had severely
beaten the child, and the mother had rushed him off to the emergency
room to save his life. The prosecution held her accountable for the
child's death because she hadn't called 911 and waited for help to come
to her. The boyfriend apparently escaped without any jail time at all.
There are increasing cases were parents are sent to prison for lengthy
terms after having suffered the loss of a child in an automobile
accident -- because the child was not strapped in properly. Isn't the
loss of a loved one punishment enough in such cases? Not in our new
"get tough" brand of police state.
We're not only getting tough on criminals, but anybody who does not
exactly toe the regulatory line and ends up in an unfortunate accident.
What makes our attitudes about sex crimes so perplexing is that our
society is sex-crazed by commercial (if not political), intent. Sex
stimuli permeates mainstream media entertainment. Sex and beauty
enhancement are major national industries and pass times. Yet we have
come to a point where mere innocent "flirtation," a "suggestive
leer," or innuendo (much less, a friendly pat), can be considered
prosecutable sexual harassment, or grounds for costly civil suits.
Work places now have "Sexual harassment is a crime" and "Zero
Tolerance" signs. Why not just say that "any harassment" is bad manners
and
won't be tolerated. Why sexual harassment only? Is sexual harassment
worse than any other kind of harassment? Why not signs that say "Zero
tolerance for illegal activities" and "WARNING! Almost everything is illegal"?
The prison population in what was once called "The land of the free,
and home of the brave," is now about 2.1 million. How can this be in a
supposedly free and democratic nation? It seems, with only about 6% of
the world's population, we host about 25% of the world's criminals and
prisoners. 2.1 million is almost one percent of our entire population, and a much higher percent of adults.
When you consider that the penal system is a revolving door, in which
only about a third of our criminal population is incarcerated at any
given time, while another third is free on parole, and another third
about to be convicted and sentenced, the magnitude of the problem
becomes clear.
But the problem is not only crime ("real" criminals should be harshly dealt with), its also the problem of a criminal
justice system bent on incarcerating a whole array of non-criminals for
regulatory infractions or unfortunate accidents.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Pridger has mixed feelings about the Michael Jackson acquittal. Pridger
isn't a Jackson fan, by any stretch of the imagination. He considers
Jackson an apt symbol of just how desperately sick our society has
become. As for
the verdict, it can be taken either as a "very special case" where a
different standard was applied for an entertainment idol than would
have been applied to, say, a Catholic priest, school teacher, mechanic,
or any kind of "ordinary" male. On the other hand, the case can be
viewed as a courageous instance of jury nullification.
Almost everybody believes that Michael Jackson is as guilty as sin --
just as most people believed that O. J. Simpson was guilty. Jackson is
a pedophile, and everybody know it. But he's somehow "different" from
other pedophiles, and in a class all by himself. Perhaps the jury, like
most of Jackson's fans, believed that laws that apply to "normal
people" shouldn't apply to Peter Pan types who sleep with boys in Never
Never Land. In any case, any parent that would allow their child into
such a place is as guilty, or even more guilty, than Michael Jackson
himself. The "victim" was probably guilty too, and likely enjoyed the
so-called abuses he was allegedly subjected to. And -- you simply don't
put Peter Pan in jail for from three to twenty years for playing, or
sleeping, with little boys.
Of course, the jury claimed a "shadow of doubt" of guilt in this
particular abuse case. But in all likelihood, that shadow of doubt was
merely the guilt they themselves might have felt had they sent Jackson
up to do several years of hard time. The potential punishment seemed
too severe for the supposed crime (which he almost undoubtedly
committed). The victim wasn't hurt any more than he was told he should
feel hurt by parents and society at large. And the motives of the
parents in prosecuting the case was highly suspect.
Juries are generally not nearly so lenient with other types of
pedophiles. "Regular" people, and priests, are often sent away for long
periods, sometimes for merely petting or "inappropriately touching,"
the objects of their affection or lust. Hardened murderers and other
violent offenders have to be released from the system early to make
room for them. Often civil charges are pursued rather than criminal
charges -- usually for profit.
Where sex is concerned, we have become a very peculiar society. While
"sex offenders" (and most particularly, pedophiles), are generally
considered monsters (and the only offenders that are never forgiven by
society even after they have done their time), sex permeates every
corner and nook and cranny of society. Pornography has become a national
obsession (a significant symbol of Americana and a great American
industry), and sex aids of every conceivable nature are being widely
promoted almost everywhere one looks.
Former senator, and presidential
candidate, Bob Dole, even became a TV poster boy for the Viagra drug.
The sexual expletive (the wonderful f-word), has become the the
nation's favorite "manly" and "womanly" slang word -- proper for all
occasions. It has become the defining vocal logo of both "progressives"
and trash can "conservatives" -- both the "know it alls" and the "I
don't give a sh-ts!"
Pridger remembers the time when a guy had to go down to Mexico in order
to be accosted by dark figures in the shadows of back alleys, peddling
such exotic things as "Spanish fly." Today sex, mechanical sex
aids, and sex drug commercials are showered on us in great
profusion in our
own living rooms by TV, and no "health care" or "home variety" catalog
would be complete without an array of sex aids.
"Sex sells" -- and is used to sell just about everything else too. Sex
sells better than anything else in our society, and it's been injected
into about everything to one degree or another. Yet, in most areas of
the country, a guy can't simply go down to the cat house to purchase
half an hour of carnal pleasure. The "real" sex trade (prostitution),
continues to be as illegal as pedophile activity in most of the United
States. Prostitution is called "the first profession" and the very
first and most natural "free enterprise" activity. It's the profession
where women have always, and quite naturally, had the upper hand from
the beginning of time.
It's more than just ironic that while it is illegal to "sell" real sex
services, the term "illicit sex" has otherwise totally lost its
meaning. Moral depravity is almost expected of everybody. Sodomy and
"alternative life styles" are even going mainstream. There is no longer
anything concerning sex that is considered illicit -- except doing it
for profit or in public. This in the society where profit is king and
Mammon the god. To advocate virginity and sexual abstinence outside of
marriage has almost become a joke, and would almost be illegal but for
the constraints being advocated due to the AIDS epidemic.
We can all do it for fun in any amount or degree, but doing it for
profit is a prosecutable offense, for which thousands of young ladies
are slapped into jail and fined every year. And men don't escape this
peculiar kind of prosecution -- the street-walking hooker is often an
undercover cop working the entrapment game. It's illegal to offer
payment for sexual services, but okay otherwise. It is as if it has
become "desirable" for every woman to have the
morals of a whore so long as she doesn't suggest direct payment in
cash. Its okay to seduce or be seduced and have a sex orgy, provided
everybody concerned is "of age," but not okay to exchange coins or
dollar bills after. Pridger finds all of this, including Micheal
Jackson, a little strange.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
NATIONAL HEALTH CARE
America has developed a very peculiar form of National Socialism.
This staunchly capitalistic nation, dedicated to corporate free
enterprise, sort of backed into socialism. It did it while firmly
maintaining that socialism was and is an evil to be avoided at all
costs
– that socialism is the antithesis of individual freedom, free
enterprise, and free market economics.
Our peculiar brand of socialism came as the result of maladjustments
endemic to the capitalist financial system that our Washington brain
trust had facilitated and encouraged. The crash of 1929 was the shock
that not only made socialization possible, but seemed to make it
extraordinarily necessary. The major touch stones of the primrose path
were the Federal Reserve act, the Income Tax amendment, the New Deal,
the New Frontier, the Great Society, the War on Poverty, etc. All
constituted great leaps "forward" in terms of the size of the federal
government, increases in its powers, number of departments, and
activities. During this period (1913 to the present), the "American
system" and constitutional government have been totally overturned
– all in the name of democracy, freedom, free enterprise, and the
growing primacy of corporate capitalism.
"From each according to his abilities, and to each according to his
needs" was not the creed of the American socialist model. The federal
state remained in firm denial that a socialization of the nation had
become the national policy. State ownership of the means of production
was not the goal. Marxism and Communism remained the big threatening
bugaboo, and official enemy of freedom and democracy in the world. The
Cold War was evidence of our continuing commitment to private capital.
Hot wars were fought, and tens of thousands of Americans died to prove
it.
World War Two had been our statement against National Socialism. For
a time Nazism and National Socialism was a greater enemy than
Communism. One reason Nazism and National Socialism had to be destroyed
was the dynamic economic successes it was displaying in Germany and
Italy. That success was correctly perceived to be a great threat to the
global financial interests that were driving the ailing economies of
the other great western powers.
While the United States and the rest of the industrialized world
labored under an intractable economic depression, Germany had pulled
itself up from the ruins of World War One and its aftermath, and was
thriving. This was quite an embarrassment.
Fortunately, Hitler wasn't quite a total genius. He had some serious
hang-ups that caused him to be both over-ambitious, impatient, and
easily manipulated into a self-destructive war – not against the
Bolsheviks of the east (which was his true target), but
against the west. The west did not want Hitler's successful system to
succeed, and (apparently) wanted the Soviet system to succeed, at least
in the short term.
The war that defeated the Axis Powers, pulled America out of its
depression and promised peace and prosperity in a free world. The only
problem was that it also had empowered Soviet Russia, and had rewarded
the Soviets with half of Europe – depriving half the world of
that
promise of freedom. The Iron Curtain and almost a half a century of
Cold War were the results. The de facto continuation of a state of war,
in addition to the necessity of rebuilding both Europe and Japan, was
just what the major capitalists needed to consolidate the power of
corporate capitalism and solidify their global financial interests.
As National Socialism proved in Germany, the partnership of a
national government with national capital made a very powerful team.
Soviet Russia failed to learn the lesson, and collapsed in due time
– much to the surprise of the socialists of the world, who
continued to believe that socialism was the model which would win the
world.
The financial and political powers in Washington, New York, and
London, did learn the lessen. In fact they had known it all along
– corporate capitalism, given free reign by government, was the
key to unlimited power and wealth. The only thing lacking in their
model for global corporate hegemony was any sense of nationalism or
idealism. Idealism, however flawed, had been key to both Communism and National
Socialism. Communism, however, was bent on revolutionary movements in
all nations, while National Socialism (at least for starters), was
focused on the "fatherland" and its peoples.
Both Communism and National Socialism intended to put people to
work. Communism through state ownership of productive capital, and
National Socialism through cooperation of the State and private capital
– each with its own form of a "command economy." In other words,
there was at least a "plan" -- even an ideology -- to both systems, and
labor, industry, and government
were supposed to be on the same team, directed by enlightened central
planners. Both systems failed, of course. Communism, because of its own
shortcomings, and National Socialism through tragic miscalculation and
military defeat.
But the National Socialist idea has reappeared in a new form without
any idealistic under pinning or shepherding. And we call it globalism
-- corporate
globalism, to be more specific. This is a system built on the altar of
free market economics -- not for the people, however, but by and for
the major capitalist interests.
There's no free health care for the working man, of course. Making
quality health care available to everybody in need of it would be the
logical place to start a socialist system. But we didn't do that. We
started by paying people not to work rather than paying them to work.
The welfare state pays people to stay out of the job market and be
unproductive. It broke a lot of people from having to take just any
job. Poor Americans no longer had to shine shoes, work in the fields,
or as domestic servants. The once celebrated American "work ethic" has been officially undermined amongst the poor.
The net result, as we see, is that we now need an ever-increasing
supply of legal and illegal immigrant labor to fill the "undesirable"
jobs. Immigrants eventually upgrade, of course, and before you know it,
they are taking the desirable jobs too -- competing successfully
against American workers who expect good "American" wages, health
insurance, and retirement package.
Friday, April Fools' Day, or Sunday, Mayday, 2005
GLAD YOU ASKED...
EMAIL: "Pridger, I've been back to your blog a couple of times in
the last few months. But there's never anything new. What kind of a
blogger are you?"
Glad somebody finally asked. Truth is, Pridger isn't a very good
blogger, and probably shouldn't be blogging at all. If blogging
licenses were required (and it's a wonder they aren't), Pridger's would
have been revoked a long time ago for nonperformance, if he ever
qualified in the first place. He should be writing an encyclopedia of
freedom, political wisdom, and sustainable economics – or a tome
of philosophy, or working on the Seventh Seal. Or, maybe he should
spend more time just working in the garden, or on the boat. But writing
is in his blood, despite the triple handicaps dyslexia, ignorance, and
functional illiteracy – not to mention being the anachronistic
product of a bygone era and lost world. And then, as time goes by,
old-timers' disease (or something similar), is taking its ghastly toll.
Pridger has already forgotten almost everything he once knew, and found
out most of the rest of it was wrong. Nonetheless, he's driven to write
what little he still thinks is right (if not actually relevant or
correct), before that fades too.
For those who care, Pridger has added a link to an an index page of
all the "Backlog" of missing posts. These were posts written, but not posted, during the
last half year or more. Some were not even completed, as Pridger's mind
drifted on to other things. He had time to write, but lacked sufficient
inclination to post. They are mostly undated, and mostly out of date.
In fact, don't bother to read them. Readers, though desirable, are unnecessary. It is enough
that "the truth is out there." Pridger isn't here to save the world
– much better men than he have tried (and are still trying and
failing), to do that – but merely to record what has been lost,
and what might have been.
Pridger's blog is no longer going to be posted through Blogger. This
blog is now published the old fashioned way, via his trusty FTP.
Posted by: Pridger / 9:51 PM
Thursday, April 7, 2005
THE IDENTITY CRISES
We Americans suffer from multiple identity crises. The meanings of
such handles as Democrat and Republican, and liberal and conservative,
have become so muddled that they are as clear as mud and just about as
useless as belly pimples on a boar hog. When liberals talk about
conservatives these days, they are generally talking about something
even more alien to true conservatism than classic liberalism is to
modern liberalism.
So-called neo-conservatives have swept true conservatism from the
political landscape. Neo-conservatives have taken over the Republican
party, making it another internationalist party, like the democrats had
become long ago. The way Pridger understands it, neo-conservatives were
more or less converts from the left who flocked to the Republican party
after the revolutionary star of international communism finally set so
resoundingly that the extreme left appeared totally politically
bankrupt. Why they opted to become "conservatives" and Republicans,
rather than their more kindred liberal Democrats is a little
perplexing, and probably has a lot to do with business arrangements and
the potential for profits – and, of course, the desire to be on
the winning side, i.e., the one that ostensibly represented the "great
silent majority" but was actually something entirely different –
about to bring the New World Order into full fruition.
Once the Global Village Utopia came under the undisputed control of
Wall Street based corporate interests (the details having been
carefully worked out by shadowy figures behind the scenes), the
Democratic party had little to offer. When international communism was
finally shown up by international capitalism, a great many former
communists, socialists, and liberals "saw the light" and, in the
twinkling of an eye, "became conservative" global free marketeers. They
switched from the aspiration of world governance through pure political
socialism, which had lost its luster, to world governance through
Friedman style free market economics and predatory capitalism –
the only viable internationalist alternative. The only other
alternative would be economic nationalism, and government of the
people, by the people, and for the people, which (by definition),
would have precluded global empire.
Rush Limbaugh, that liberal-bashing pillar of conservative wisdom,
and Republican "yes man", (on loan from God), clarified what a
neo-conservative is a couple of months ago on his radio talk show. He
said, in all seriousness, "Neo-conservatives are nothing but Jewish
Republicans." Pridger hadn't looked at it exactly that way, but maybe
Rush has a point. Clearly neo-conservatives are not all Jews, but they
are all pretty much supporters of Israel and firmly in the camp of
global financial interests. If they are not actually Jews, they are
generally in bed with the "money power" and champions of the Wall
Streeters
Ironically, a large segment of the "religious right" (an array of
socially conservative religious groups), has come to the support of the
neo-conservative agenda. These, apparently, are deluded fundamentalist
Christians (or bona fide "Old Testament Christians"), eager to support
God's Chosen People at any cost, with the prospects of Armageddon as
the desired reward. Odd bedfellows, to be sure, and a more poisonous
witch's brew could hardly have been concocted anywhere but in Hades
itself.
Rush was rebutting criticism of the Bush administration, which is
chock full of neo-conservatives and fundamentalist ideologues.
Neo-conservatives are routinely criticized these days by both liberal
Democrats and "truer" varieties of conservatives. What Rush was
actually saying was that the conservatives that criticize
neo-conservatives are "right wing radicals," actually tending toward
the deadly sins of anti-Semitism and neo-nazism. He (Rush), of course,
considers himself and president Bush "true" conservatives, and that the
"neo-conservatives" are true conservatives too – of the most
politically and economically progressive variety. In other words, Rush
well knows which side his bread is buttered on.
True conservatives are sometimes differentiated by being referred to
as "paleo-conservatives" these days. Pridger (who is not only a true
conservative, but a classic liberal), isn't very fond of that
particular term. Paleo, of course, means ancient or prehistoric, and
Pridger probably isn't alone among conservatives when he expresses the
hope that such reference is premature.
Unfortunately, a lot of conservatives really don't know who or what
they are because intentional language confusion and Orwellian
Doublespeak have muddied the water. The left, and "liberal media," group all conservatives together, but today they usually mean
neo-conservative rather than real, or true, conservative –
tarring all with the same brush and exacerbating the confusion. Many
conservatives have yet to discover this, and many actually buy the
neo-conservative line as the true conservatism.
Due to this identity crises, we have the peculiar specter of the
"liberals" complaining about "conservatives" taking over the media.
While conservatives still complain of the "liberal media," liberals
inquire "where have their heads been? Don't they know conservatives
have taken over the media, and particularly talk radio?" But most
conservative talk radio hosts are Republican Party "yes men," like Rush
Limbaugh, and a host of copy cats. Rush was once a conservative, but
now he is just an anti-liberal espousing the neo-conservative message.
He showed his spots a long time ago, however, and was correctly
referred to by one conservative columnist as a "Judas goat" during the
administration of George Bush, Sr.
One point of Rush's conversion was obvious in his conversion to the
idea (or learning experience), that neither a balanced budget nor the
national debt are of any great importance. Rush had "seen the light"
– as long as everybody that counts is making money, what
difference do the deficits and levels of debt make? This happened to
coincide with his personal business philosophy, so the conversion
wasn't at all painful. Governmental fiscal responsibility was once one
of Rush's major political Crusades, but it doesn't matter much any
more. As long as business is expanding, and money is being made by the
ones who count... the routine goes.
No true conservative would condone perpetual deficit spending and
the growth of an outrageous and un-payable national debt – to be
passed on to future generations, or ended by national bankruptcy and
chaos. What we are effectively doing is living high on the hog on a
credit card with the understanding that the kids will pay the bill when
they've grown up and shouldered the burdens of responsibility. But to
the capitalist ideologue, that doesn't matter as long as everybody who
counts right now is getting theirs.
To a true conservative, a neo-conservative is much worse than a
bleeding heart liberal. Even in the modern political context,
liberalism still stands for some forms of altruism. But a
neo-conservative is not bothered with any notions of altruism. They are
internationalists masquerading as conservatives, and they get away with
it because in this degenerate materialistic era, capital, capitalism,
and profit motive, have somehow come to be identified with political
conservatism.
Democrats and liberals are the traditional champions of oppressed
minorities at home and elsewhere, but lately some of them have been
having second thoughts about Zionism and unlimited support for Israel
right or wrong. Yes, there are some liberals, and apparently a few
Democrats, with principles! At least they don't all think war is the
right way to bring about a peaceful world. Here again we have a point
of confusion. The parties have swapped roles in the matter of war. The
Democrats have been known as the war party throughout the twentieth
century. Now the Republicans have that distinction.
Ironically, American Jews are pretty firmly allied with the
Democratic Party and have been for a long time. They were reluctant to
vote for George Bush, but nonetheless Bush got more Jewish support than
any previous Republican president – solely because of his war on
Terror and Iraq and unequivocal support for Israel – the "Roadmap
to Peace" not withstanding.
Pridger has noticed that Rush seems to have "neoized" considerably
himself in the last few years (along with the Republican Party), though
he doesn't yet wear the Star of David on his lapel. He's a New World
Order man because the New World Order has become a Republican business
proposition, and the profit motive (along with abundant profits), can
be shown to be its driving force.
Few Americans have the slightest idea what being an American is (or
was), supposed to be. For example, what does it mean to be "proud to be
an American" today? Many, of course, are proud because we are
supposedly bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet,
the forces of liberal political correctness tell us that being an
American is no better than being a Tongan or Laplander – that, in
fact, we have much more to be ashamed of as a nation than proud of.
Still, in spite of the insidious power of the forces of political
correctness, most Americans are still proud to be Americans. The war
effort actually depends on it.
Almost everybody acknowledges that America is a great nation –
whether as the bastion and champion of freedom and democracy in the
world, or the Great Satan personified in national form. America, for
better or worse, is almost universally billed as the world's greatest
(and, for the moment, only), superpower. To some that means the
strongest defender of freedom and human rights in the world, and to
others it means the biggest bully on the block.
Pridger can say, with a great deal of sincerity, that he's proud to
be an American. But at the same time, the America that Pridger
associates with no longer exists as a political reality. It exists as a
state of mind only. Still, the pride lingers on, and is still there (in
spite of the fact that the nation jumped the tracks a long time ago).
Of course, America was never perfect. This is understandable –
not even Pridger is perfect. The flaws were many, and they included
serious birth defects and developmental problems. Still, there was
great hope in what America started out to be, in spite of the fact that
it was the result of conquest (which meant injustice to the former
occupants – but there was a time when conquest was considered an
honorable – even politically correct – thing).
One reason Americans are proud is because they realize (or at least
believe), they are better off materially than Tongans and Laplanders
– or, at least, better off than Somalis and Ethiopians. America,
in fact, has become a nation of obscenely conspicuous over-consumption,
unconscionable waste, a cultural cesspool, and abysmal moral license.
Yet, it is the nation to which Somalis, Ethiopians, Cubans, Haitians,
Mexicans, and many, many others, still clamor to immigrate to in order
to better their lot.
They come to take the jobs that "ordinary Americans" no long want
for various reasons – such as: because there's actual work
involved, it's undignified, hands get dirty, the pay is too low, and
especially, because there is no employer paid health insurance. No real
American wants to do the chores any more – unless the employer at
least pays for health insurance. Leave those marginal jobs to the
newbies, both legal and illegal. We need them!
Any job, no matter how difficult or undignified, of course, can be a
good job if the pay and benefits are right – i.e., American wage
scales and benefit packages. But good jobs are getting scarce in
America because the American worker no longer has any meaningful
representation in Congress. Free trade policy has destroyed millions of
good jobs for millions of Americans. Job and factory export, and now
outsourcing, is evidence that Congress now represents multinational
corporations and Wall Street, but has abandoned Main Street and the
American laboring classes. "American interests abroad" are an euphemism
for what Congress and the White House now represent and pull for
– to the point of initiating preemptive warfare against nations
that don't go along with the program of supporting American interests
abroad.
Among American Interests abroad, of course, is the global financial
system itself — the system that has already bankrupt the nation
while while making a few multi-billionaires and many more
multi-millionaires at the expense of the American working classes. Yet,
the American consumer-taxpayer, and the national credit machine, has
been the fountain of wealth that has made it all possible. But that
American consumer-taxpayer is now running on a waning storehouse of
stored social capital, liberally supplemented by by a growing warehouse
of accumulated debt obligations.
The alleged goal of globalism is very altruistic, of course. It
isn't just corporate profits and Wall Street returns. The goal is to
bring modernity to the have-nots of the world – including a job
for everybody – working for a major corporation. "Modernity," in
the context of American commercial Empire, is an euphemism for
"obscenely conspicuous over-consumption, unconscionable waste, cultural
cesspool, and abysmal moral license." Yet everybody knows that when the
whole world has been raped and pillaged, and its natural resources
depleted, there simply won't be enough modernity to go around.
Our betters in government must know this, of course, and must have
contingency plans. Tyranny feeds on the prospects of future crises.
Whatever form those plans may take, one can be fairly certain that
"American interests abroad" will be protected.
When president George Bush tells us, and the world, that he intends
to defend the "American life-style," he means, among other things, the
profits oil giants reap from oil from foreign sources. These, in turn,
depend on Americans' ability to drive gas guzzling SUVs, or any other
kind of vehicle in sufficient numbers. Bush is waging a war to help
American consumers continue to live the good life. The good life for
Americans is the ability to get in their car and go whenever they take
a notion – or stay home and watch TV – the freedom to view
professionally produced pornography in their own living rooms (though
that is seldom articulated by professing Christians).
There are plenty of new "bad jobs" – of the variety that
American workers supposedly "no longer want." Employers have been
increasingly tapping into the fresh waves of immigrants which
facilitate the downgrading of formerly "good jobs" to the kind only
immigrants find attractive. Organized labor has been sold out to the
degree that organized labor has had to sell their members out. Through
necessity, it now recruits primarily among immigrants and in the public
sector.
The strongest and most significant unions are now in the public
sector, notably teachers. State and Federal Civil Service now has the
largest share of "good jobs" with full benefits and attractive
retirement packages – all paid by taxpayers or on state and
federal credit.
Pridger plans to drop out of the job market as early as
circumstances allow, for those very reasons – as soon as he
qualifies for Social Security and Medicare. Why buck the system?
America, in fact, is still the Promised Land, and immigrants from
all over the world are still eagerly flocking here. Even Jews are
leaving their own Promised Land in Palestine these days and coming to
America – the New Jerusalem.
Just what it means to be an American is difficult to pin down these
days. Race no longer has a serious co-relation to what it means to be
an American. The "American type" that had been developing during
the first century or so of national existence (a mixture of Western
European races), is being quickly submerged by a willful national
policy of so-called multiculturalism. The political institutions that
set America apart politically from any nation that had before existed,
now stand in form alone, but not in substance. "Globalism" has become a
"national" policy and political priority – one that is certain to
continue to submerge what "Americanism" once was and cast us into
perpetual identity confusion. The so-called "representatives of the
people" have literally given America to the world, without the informed
consent of the governed – to be the receptacle of all comers.
Anybody, and everybody can be an American – even anti-Americans.
This has become the American Way.
The republic is dead, but not buried. Empire has been enthroned, but
not proclaimed. The corporation and money power reign but have not been
officially crowned. And nothing is as it seems or should be. Still, the
people are over-fed and over entertained – thus a facsimile of
"happiness" and contentment – our cake and circuses – stave
off insurrection and chaos. Few even bother to try to figure out what
is happening. "If it feels good, enjoy it" is our national motto, and
"give us safety and security at any price" is our contemporary war cry.
Return to Main Blog Page
