Political casserole: I have not carried on about future middle class economic woes because it is what people want to hear- (which is the conservative contention the second anyone mentions anything bad about the economy). No sense in not telling the crew the ship is sinking. I don't think the American ship is sinking, at least not yet. However, I will not simply tell people what they want to hear. The last time I actually did so was when I was 12 and told my mom that I liked this casserole that I didn’t like in order to spare her feelings. I then think she made that same hot dish once each month for the next two. The fact that the casserole offended senses I didn’t even know I had was a clue that telling even innocent lies is a counter-productive approach to inter-personal relations. She was not the party responsible, as she did not over or under cook the meal. I am not a fan of onions and peas, so chances are pretty good I won’t like a concoction that attempts to mask the consistency, appearance, or flavor of either, even if chocolate, peanut butter and caramel are the only other ingredients. Politics is like casserole- many throw in what they believe are good ingredients for a recipe we concoct in our head and expect others to swallow it. If you are a die-hard republican or a die-hard democrat and serve me up ALL of what you've been eating, I will spit it back in your face. Some casseroles, like plenty of issues, are spicy, some are beefy, some are energizing which feature an ingredient like elbow macaroni and some are downright onionous, in that they are many-layered, like a typical casserole, and plenty nasty if you don’t happen to like onions/the compromise your party relents to after changing the recipe. Am I still talking about onions?
That’s offensive: People loathe being offended and seek an apology when they have been; some seek to be offended. In order for things to change politically, in order for any issue to be resolved, I may be wholly necessary that the first thing to do is to offend the hell out of people who blindly worship at the altar of either of the political parties, which isn’t a violation of the categorical imperative or J.S. Mill’s contention about individual freedom if you restrict your efforts to shaming the ignorant into submission. Massaging their ego and giving them an aural participation trophy, granting them the right to their own opinion, which debilitates progress on the issues, has been tried- in youth sports in the last two decades, and where politics is generally concerned. Then, who should rule? Get back to me on that after I finish apologizing to people who have rarely held jobs, watch the Library Access channel, have rarely driven a vehicle outside of their own county and know no more about the real world than that Kendra chick on “Girls Next Door.” Self- I am sorry.
Anarchy- It has begun!: All over the world there is an inter-species war at hand and the animals are losing. I have been sneaking in comments here and there, disavowing my aggression towards certain animals in each of my columns, often mocking animals and assigning many a medical malady, hopefully for comic effect. Seems I have started a war between people and animals that could have disastrous results. Joseph Pullitzer and William Randolph Hearst would be so proud. Serves the animals right for stepping out of line, or deigning to finish second at the Kentucky Derby, for the runner-up in that race- Eight Belles was euthanized on the track for being the first loser. Kidding, the horse was actually put down for agreeing with the Budweiser frogs about something I am not at liberty to discuss, given the treaty we people signed with the cold-blooded reptile contingent of the Animal party. Word is the horse was put down for breaking its own leg (riiiight!) and boy were the insurrectionists against the human cause known as PETA upset about that. PETA is choosing to focus on the whippings horses receive in races and ought to put their full powers into protesting the animal v. human war crime of stud-farmers who take hundreds of thousands for inbreeding thoroughbreds for speed, which sacrifices strength. Consider these animal v. human encounters- shark attacks, man throwing cat against wall, coyotes clamping onto an infant’s skull and attempting to drag it into the woods so that we fight back; also consider these stories:
Ar, Ar, Ar: Sea lions were shot dead because our allies, apparently the salmon, were being eaten in mass quantities- Associated Press, May 5, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24457199/ “Sea Lions Found Shot Dead on Columbia River.”
Big ones: Take a look at this collection of pictures courtesy of Newsweek- http://www.newsweek.com/id/42379>1=43002. They show a number of animals- a cat, fish, rabbit, roach, squid and hog, etc. beefing up for what must be a planned animal offensive against us. Luckily, they were all detained for questioning and while we had them in our sights, we let them go . . . just like with Osama Bin Laden. Hopefully these animals will never get as organized as the smiley-faced killer. My neighbor tried to tell me that there was some newly formed animal sumo-wrestling league. I almost bought it until he told me there was an aquatic division. Then I did buy it after a heavyweight, a seal, tried to “mess” with a penguin . . .
“Seal Tries Sex with Penguin: First Known Example of Sex Attempt Between Mammal, Other Vertebrate.” (See- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24585481/ a Live Science article written by none other than Charles Q. Choi). Choi writes: “The hapless bird of unknown sex struggled, rapidly flapping its flippers and attempting to stand and flee, without luck.” Now I know how I would feel if Queen Latifah tried to have sex with me. The story indicates that the perpetrator- er, seal, is an elephant seal. Well, Choi writes that “this seems to be the first known example of a sexual escapade between a mammal and another kind of vertebrate” (excepting all of the farmers who have taken a run at sheep). If that is to be believed then how was such a creature as an elephant seal derived? Did it merely hyphenate its name like some hybrid-driving, granola-eating elementary school teacher, who had grown over-fond of her maiden name? Perhaps seals have, in the past, attempted to sexually abuse elephants, to mixed results in the procreation area. When asked for a comment, the seal who apparently had grown tired of the unrequited love of a dolphin, said that the penguin had led him on. The penguin, which refused an on camera interview, simply held up its flippers in a way that led observers to believe he was critiquing the size of the seal’s penis. Either that, or the last march of that penguin, after it was violated, will lead it first to the flightless bird emergency room, necessitating the use of a rape kit- (I sure hope the penguin is not an illegal penguin- see parts 22-27). Or maybe the penguin, who just wanted to put the event behind him, was referring to the size of the krill it had most recently consumed. This story gives a new meaning to the phrase- “flipping the bird.” The rationale for the encounter from a scientific perspective is that the seal originally intended to eat the penguin, but seeing as it was the end of mating season, perhaps the sexually frustrated seal “channeled into its sex drive.” Thankfully, penguins were not made available to me during my pre-connubial lean times. A penguin’s waddle is very, very sexy. How I could go on . . .
I love a good stop sign: The mayor of Oak Lawn, Illinois, who had a hand in allowing cute phrases to follow the word “STOP” on the signs of his fair city, apparently has the IQ of a bovine, which is actually an insult to bovine everywhere. We humans know that cows are the Switzerland of the geo-political animal war; everyone loves a good bovine pacifist- especially tucked carefully between a whole wheat bun, doused with ketchup and served with fries. At any rate, Oak Lawn’s fine mayor decided that removing the distracting stop sign addenda, such as- STOP- “and smell the roses” was a good idea because the “signs violated the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices” . . . and that “the city could have lost federally funded projects.” The acronym for Illinois’ Department of Transportation- IDOT . . . the well-placed addition of the third vowel in that acronym would punctuate the story well. The Associated Press article- “No More ‘Love’ in Stop Signs, State Says,” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24425735/ tells the whole story. Ok, that story wasn’t so much about animals per say, but rumor has it that there was a deer crossing sign not a quarter mile from at least one of the enhanced stop signs. Usually the most guilty are those that have the most to gain.
Joe Camel: Finally, “Man Arrested for Allegedly Punching Camel.” Naturally, the man did so, having been dared by a friend at Six Flags Discovery Kingdom. No word yet on whether it was a double dare or if this was some form of animal assault roulette where the next step would have been the darer upping the ante by agreeing to flick a duck on the beak. Perhaps it was a bacterian camel . . . a gut bacterian camel.* Charles Q. Choi has been assigned to follow the story- (see part 27). Follow the complete story- just Google- camels and pugilism. Maybe the guy just didn’t like the fact that a cigarette company’s mascot could put so many lives in danger simply by being cool. These animals are subtle, sneaky creatures. See- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24474349/.
Ok, on with the show . . .
Introduction to issues 101: Political issues are the food of the attentive masses. Never has so much time been wasted in discussion as when politics is the subject, often enough by people who do not know what the hell they are talking about. Hell, I've spent 28 posts proving I don't know anything about politics. Issues such as campaign finance reform, immigration, taxation, free trade, military spending, education and social aid programs (social security, Welfare, Medicare), etc. are what feed my anxiety about the potential future middle class economic woes. All is well in our country according to the republicans, excepting that the democrats keep stealing all their money; all is lost in our country according to the democrats, excepting that the republicans make too much money. Neither statement is true. But I think it is important for each party to vehemently continue to be frustrated with the other so that none of the issues I will list next time will ever be resolved, for them to continue to offer platitudes, to lie to the voters, and to intellectualize the issues without resolving any of them. This was more comically expressed in Jon Stewart’s book- “America”:
“The Republican Party is the party of nostalgia. It seeks to return America to a simpler, more innocent and moral past that never actually existed. The Democrats are utopians. They seek to create an America so fair and non-judgmental that life becomes an unbearable series of apologies. Together, the two parties function like giant down comforters, allowing the candidates to disappear into the enveloping softness, protecting them from exposure to the harsh weather of independent thought.” (pg. 107)
The “harsh weather of [I]ndependent thought.” Quite right.
Through the Mill: Another John put essentially the same sentiment more succinctly, though without mentioning our two major political parties- “In all intellectual debates, both sides tend to be correct in what they affirm, and wrong in what they deny.” This man’s name was John Stuart Mill. Hm. While I agree, and do not believe that I argue from a position of absolute knowledge, I would like to Photoshop a volume knob and on/off switch on people who blindly follow the mandate of either of the two major political parties, after playing back to them their own opinions of course. I wouldn’t want to censor anyone. Thing is, those critical of people like me, who are in earnest in their demand for political party alternatives probably think that MapQuest is the only place to go for directions.
Milton Friedman: Plenty of citizens, politicians and economic specialists have been aligned more closely with one political party, only to switch allegiances at one point in their lives, once they have expanded upon their knowledge base and can better stand new, unrecognizable BS of the other party rather than the old familiar BS toward which they were initially drawn. A serial-dating crab takes the same approach- divesting itself of the old shell for the new one, sometimes hoping to avoid romantic entanglements with a lobster that became overly attached after just one fling; a crab’s instinctive nature is distinguished from a human’s reactionary political stances in that the crab has actually grown, which necessitated the exchange of shells. Politics, after all, is a shell game. The late Milton Friedman was an individual who changed sides, having stood with F.D.R. during the New Deal era, but who later became more conservative. He falls under the economic specialist category I mention above. Now, I don’t know enough about economics to dismiss even half of what he wrote and would defer to him on many economic matters. The first thing I would have corrected him on is the title of his most well-known book- “Capitalism and Freedom.” If his intention was to demonstrate in what ways capitalism might lead to freedom, in that our government would become more decentralized and with that, the people would enjoy more liberty- I would beg to differ. By “freedom,” having read the book- Friedman means democracy- that those who enjoy the reality of capitalism will in turn find that America’s brand of democracy could work pretty well- if every single entitlement program were wiped from the minds of liberals and that there would be virtually no regulation of free-trade. My contention is that we are not now, nor have we ever really lived under a democratic government- and I wrote as much in part 22. I wrote that capitalism is working fairly well; capitalism wouldn’t be working so well for the rich if democracy weren’t working so poorly for the indigent. Our brand of democracy clearly does not deserve the name- unless we change the definition. “Democracy” is a Greek word- they probably wouldn’t mind. I provided definitions for the words oligarchy and democracy and left it up to the reader to decide under which type of government business in the United States has always been conducted.
George Bush’s monopoly: Our current president would put the issue more succinctly still. The American people might hear these words coming out of the president’s mouth: “I’m a uniter, not a divider.” Our resident backward speech technicians who record the speeches of others and play them backward looking for clues into what important personages might be hiding in their spoken words, found that the president said this: “My politicians do monopolate the people.” I touched on the odds makers/politicians (see parts 12-14) running our government who, either accidentally, or with euphoric complicity, seem like a well-oiled machine of collusion, checking and balancing us to death and ensuring that we quibble amongst ourselves defending and attacking each other. What we ought to do is combine forces which would signal the ruination of the oligarchy that has been in place these 219 years (since the Constitution was fully ratified). Until we decide to do that, each party can plausibly deny that the stalemate the American people have been treated to is accidental. Course, I am being a bit fecicous. Jefferson and Madison made several inroads into the political power structure, checking the Federalists, just not enough for me to notice. More on that below.
Invisible hand: Over two-hundred years ago Adam Smith wrote a book, “The Wealth of Nations,” which was far more groundbreaking than Friedman’s. Perhaps the most quotable line from Smith’s over 900 page economic yarn is the invisible hand line which appears in a Janus-like long paragraph. I believe the most pertinent words from this paragraph are these:
“By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he [each individual laborer] intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.”
The issue of free trade: Sometimes people might wish to employ the invisible hand to smack me across the face, given my irreverence, but many have sought to apply Smith's "invisible hand" analogy in ways that he had not intended. Its application should be restricted to thoughts on foreign trade as it equates to industry, capitalism, etc. Having learned this, dozens of people who know me are scrambling to determine if Smith ever made use of an invisible foot metaphor that’s application was more far-reaching. Wikipedia tells me that Smith’s use of the “invisible hand” metaphor is rather for the purpose of natural inclination and not a social mechanism. I can see using it to make the logical leap- seeking to apply it to the survival of the economic fittest, ala social Darwinism. My contention however will remain that though private market forces and the laws of supply and demand are always at play in the free market, the prices on necessary costs are rising far more steeply than payroll increases for the middle class- something that Smith was ill-equipped to comment on in 1776. Until corporate tax loopholes are closed and the government and corporations are held responsible for taking advantage of the dearth of free market laws and illogical free-trade practices, we will have a problem.** The natural connection to free-trade would lead us to the topics of taxation, necessary costs, prices on medicine, co-sourcing and immigration (for free-trade includes the ability of corporations to employ cheaper wage labor) to the benefit of corporations and the detriment of any class of people, including the rich (think competition for wages and lost jobs, and consider that a portion of a doctor’s MRI duties could be off-shored- Google it!). Again, prove to me that the benefit of cheaper products, given the controllable cost outlay of corporations for outsourced labor overrides the loss the same people paying for those goods are losing in their paychecks when wage and job competition is entered into the equation. Health care is up 52% the past six years, and college tuition is up 5-7% most any year and has risen each of the past 26 years (Schumer, part 18). It so happens that the publication of Smith’s “Nations” was overshadowed, at least in this country, by the slightly more important issue, that same year, of gaining our national independence from Britain. The right to trade freely without being burdened with excessive taxes was just one of the Colonist’s complaints. Colonials like John Hancock were called smugglers for circumventing British tax laws without their being represented in the home country. Things have come full circle- with Colonial Americans having found fault with what they were denied and contemporary Americans beginning to find fault with what proponents of unregulated free-trade allow.
Invisible hand alright: So, as I clarified what Smith meant by the “invisible hand” metaphor, I will bastardize his intention just like everyone else. We have two invisible hands working in this country. These hands are working unbeknownst to us- to some of us. If only the workings of democrats and republicans in government were as transparent as their efforts at winning votes, (playing pool, holding babies, adopting speech impediments while at an American stutterers conference), we wouldn’t have so many pundits and talk-show hosts having to defend them. Conservative talk-show hosts can defend the motivations of their political party and continue to say that there is no proof that the parties act to the detriment of the public in concert, which somehow is adjudged by pundits as slightly better than both parties acting falsely accidentally. I would chastise a liberal talk-show host but they are so awfully hard to find. It seems to me, that the old cliché- "the right hand [the republicans] doesn’t know what the left hand [the democrats] is doing" (and vice versa), at least in the case of politics, isn’t true. They both are all too familiar with what the other is doing. That being said, considering that we are not privy to any number of things, we are being ill-treated by two invisible hands that are far more guilty when put in motion as when they inconceivably remain at rest. The old cliché, - “Idle hands do the devil’s work” is a cliché I don’t have space to get into, but its manifest influence on the state of the country compared to the left hand v. right hand cliché is one quarter the problem when it comes to political intention and intervention; the actions of a murderer get all the headlines while the inaction of someone who willfully denies to act to save a life is back page news by comparison.
Some examples: 1) the republicans are getting nailed for keeping us in a war the public is becoming increasingly against, though plenty of democrats were initially for the war (action); 2) the democrats are largely skating for continuing to allow the abuse of the Welfare system (inaction); 3) it is likely that both parties are to blame for a ridiculously unregulated free-trade policy (inaction); 4) both parties are failing us for not having enacted meaningful immigration legislation (inaction); 5) further campaign finance reform (in addition to McCain-Feingold) may never become a reality because of both parties; 6) the democrats allow the subjection of our culture and values because of a minority's right never to feel violated, even when their expectations are completely unreasonable (both action and inaction, considering some of the legislation that has and has not been passed protecting the rights of naturalized citizens). Note: These are the general practices of both parties, though individual members might differ from their party now and again. So, while action may get more headlines, inaction can be just as troubling. Someone remind me again, which is the party of Jefferson and Andrew Jackson and which is the party of Hamilton and Lincoln- because I am all kinds of lost.
The good and bad: Politicians have also done a number of decent, acceptable, necessary things. However, I do not believe that the good and the bad done by elected officials are in any way near equal. I am not alone in holding that view. I do not often hide in the comfort of numbers and am hesitant of the reason of mob majorities. I am not alone in my concern for the role of the public in matters of issue resolution. In a recent Citizens League survey where the perceptions of both citizens and public officials were considered- 27.2% of the general public thought there was ample opportunity for their view to be heard, contrasted with 75.6% of public officials claiming a citizen has a right to be heard. I would side with the public officials- although not to the tune of 75.6%. The problem is not whether a citizen can be heard but whether a collection of them are listened to. I am pretty sure my daughter hears me when I ask that she bring her plate to the sink, but her deciding against that course is a pretty sure indication that she hasn’t listened to me. The survey, printed on the OP5 page of the Opinion Exchange section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune on May 11, 2008 indicates the results of only five questions from that survey. One of the questions which seems to me to be absent from these reprinted results would concern how often the public and public officials believe the public’s desires are taken into consideration by the officials. I’ll probably bring this up later, as it goes a long way in determining why incumbents are so often re-elected to office.
Resolve to do nothing: I would not expect that a government populated with natural adversaries could solve all of the issues I hope to list comprehensively next time. Given the intricacy of the issues, the pig-headedness of each political party, the moral high ground each affects, and the pompous dismissal of dissenting opinions, because everyone knows better than the next guy, there are just too many variables to overcome. What I would expect is that maybe just one of the issues could be resolved, just one; that is not unreasonable. I wouldn’t be satisfied with just one, but it would be a start. Please treat just one of the issues like a Six Flags camel rather than continuing to treat us like that elephant seal treated the penguin.
Founding fathers, sons of liberty: Everyone knows of the word “factions” who has done any reading of American history, particularly of the early years of American politics. This was probably what the founding fathers feared most as having an impact on the auspices of government. Money is that which divides people into factions to begin with, because it is the property with enough flexibility and power to bring us, given that we have enough of it, just about any other piece of property we might be inclined to own- especially if we are the governor of N.Y. and only want to “own” something for a few hours (i.e. Eliot Spitzer). I am sure that the Jeffersonians would have chided the Federalists in this manner way back in the 1780s:
“Come on, come on, lovin’ for the money.
Come on, come on, listen to the money talk
Come on, come on, lovin’ for the money,
Come on, come on, listen to the money talk” (AC/DC cannot possibly claim full copyright on these lyrics)
But instead they were ruled by the droll, assuming, Big Bad Wolf known as Alexander Hamilton who had many things to say about representative government, virtue and wealth- among them are these words:
“It is a harsh doctrine, that men grow wicked in proportion as they improve and enlighten their minds. Experience has by no means justified us in the supposition, that there is more virtue in one class of men than another. Look through the rich and the poor of the community; the learned and the ignorant. Where does virtue predominate? The difference indeed consists, not in the quantity but kind of vices, which are incident to the various classes; and here the advantage of character belongs to the wealthy. Their vices are probably more favorable to the prosperity of the state, than those of the indigent; and partake less of moral depravity.”***
No wonder Aaron Burr shot and killed this guy. Where a poor man will steal your wallet, or your car, a rich man will steal your soul and too often does so within months of your having elected him. I have argued for years that alcohol allows people the luxury to act as if they were blameless, though if their sober intentions were known we would not assume the consumption of alcohol was their biggest problem. Men drunk on money are far more dangerous than those who have never had much of it, because the latter has never had as much to lose. To put it another way- a poor man with a match can do less damage than a rich man with a flamethrower- course, the evil that rich men might do could be wholly dependent on how far they can throw a flame such as a sexually confused elephant seal.
Half right: About half of what Hamilton spoke on that day, of which the above quoted words were included, was just fine. But he was more often in the right when speaking about man’s proclivities generally and not so much when he imagined a representative’s potential specific intentions. Hamilton attempted to dismiss a representative’s ambitions. Nice try. Essentially, he felt that a smaller number of representatives were suitable for a large number of people within any given state, despite the number of differences that can be found between one portion of a state and another. He rightly contends that there ought to be “the most intimate conformity between the views of the representative and his constituent,” but contradicts himself by saying that a rich man’s vices are preferable to a poor man’s. A guy has a better chance of convincing Elaine Benes that he is sponge-worthy than that sneak Hamilton had of buttering up those he intended to lull into favoring the type of monarchical and aristocratic government of which Americans had just ridded themselves. What’s that- the American government has been run by rich landowners since its political inception over 230 years ago. Huh, better trim those side-burns boys . . . Seinfeld reference.
Rich man, poor man: A rich man representing a state of poor men is a fairly predictable precondition for misrepresentation and was completely at odds with the Jeffersonian view of a smaller federal government and a nation of farmers. It is possible that the rich can serve the needs of the poor, but perhaps better in the private (by donating canned goods and volunteering for Habitat for Humanity) than in the public eye (when lifestyles may be affected by pension funds and tax brackets). Hamilton writes: “As riches increase and accumulate in few hands; as luxury prevails in society; virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth . . .” An appendage of wealth with an invisible hand whereby the rich might reach with over-exuberance in the pursuit of more wealth at the expense of the poor. Hamilton, at one point, disavows knowing the definition of the word “aristocracy” and asks “Where do we find men elevated to a perpetual rank above their fellow citizens . . . ?” The answer: in politics- where the money is. Sheeesh. This is a man, just like any other son of liberty that read Aristotle and the Greeks and Cicero and the Romans and was quite familiar with the philosophy of Montesquieu, John Locke and Isaac Newton. In reading some of Hamilton’s work, it does not appear he was all that capable of expressing himself sarcastically and as an expert pamphleteer successfully obtained for the rich, according to him, their rightful place at the head of our government, though he would have us believe the rich are more benevolent than the poor. It was no different then as now. The economic stratification of millions of people is an acceptable hazard of capitalism. Unfortunately, Hamilton’s agents of wealth prevailed, despite the best intentions of Jefferson and Madison. The rich more moral than the poor? Hamilton would have the nerve to attempt to assuage the pain of bronchitis by describing to a patient the merits of the sweet misery of the onset of pneumonia; quite a charmer. I think John Adams accused him of having a Type-A personality; if you spilled mutton on his frock coat he would probably have placed you in irons; if he were a citizen of New Delhi he would have participated in a display of snake charming . . . he would have been the snake.
Rebuttal Mr. Madison: James Madison is recognized as the father of the Constitution (ah, so we have him to blame). Couldn't he have snuck in just one phrase about how mutable his intentions with its contents might have been? Madison also helped pen about thirty of the Federalist Papers, which were written in order to convince the colonies to ratify the Constitution. He offered his opinions on how to suffer through the inevitability of political parties and how to handle a difference of interests among them . . . by continually attacking the other side. Oh, how we’ve grown since then. He was a gifted writer and statesman, who like many other gifted writers and statesmen, is convinced that his own side is true and his opponent’s is false. He spent his words critiquing the natures of the Federalist and Republican parties and noted the undeniable differences between them. Unfortunately, he did not spend as many words on what a citizen might do and think in a society where both parties are essentially the same. With that, we could use his help these days. Much more of Madison is worth quoting than this: “The great objects [of combating political parties] should be to combat the evil . . . 2. By withholding unnecessary opportunities from a few, to increase the inequality of property, by an immoderate, and especially unmerited, accumulation of riches 3. By the silent operation of laws, which, without violating the rights of property, reduce extreme wealth towards a state of mediocrity, and raise extreme indigence towards a state of comfort.” ****
Critique of Madison: 1) this could not be done without “violating the rights of property,” for once someone owns something they become very aware of its having been removed from their possession; 2) it should not be done, because by-and-large, someone who owns something has worked for what they have obtained; 3) the definitions and interpretations of words such as “unnecessary” “immoderate” “unmerited” “extreme wealth” and “comfort,” (words with which Hamilton might pretend to be unfamiliar) are always inadequately defined according to those that lose what they had previously owned, or stand to gain what another could lose. One single mother called into a radio program a few months ago and complained that she had to pay the same price for canned goods at the grocery store than her well-off dual-income neighbors- nonsense! 4) All Llamas are afraid of the dark. I would never promote the Robin Hood mentality of taking from the rich to give to the poor until all government wasted money is identified and properly reallocated and this of course includes economic boondoggles of both the conservatives (ex. Military) and democrats (ex. Welfare). The remainder of Madison’s thoughts on parties, in this offering alone, is well worth quoting, but I have a length limit and I have another Jon Stewart quote to get in. Madison was quite a prodigious writer. I am sure he at one time referred to Llamas as the Wal-Mart of camels; the man seemed to think of nearly everything . . . excepting the fact that there would be a time when both parties were essentially the same. (Hint- I am referring to the present time.)
Madison v. Hamilton: Madison and Hamilton worked together to convince the states to ratify the Constitution, each writing numerous articles that comprise the Federalist Papers, published serially in the late 1780s. In the 1790s they were on opposing sides of the political influence of public opinion v. the political elite debate. We do have citizens who participate in politics (Madison’s hope), but in far too many cases our contributions are negligible, compared to the machine of politics (Hamilton’s desire). Unfortunately, Jefferson’s and Madison’s Democratic-Republican efforts to keep the power in the hands of the voting public were about as ineffectual as the white crayon as the color to be used to best color in the outline of your average cartoon character in any coloring book ever manufactured. Madison, the Republican,***** had this to say of the Federalist Party of Hamilton, today’s democrats and republicans:
“those, who from particular interest, from natural temper, or from the habits of life, are more partial to the opulent than to the other classes of society, and having debauched themselves into a persuasion that mankind are incapable of governing themselves, it follows with them, of course, that government can be carried on only by the pageantry of rank, the influence of money and emoluments, and the terror of military force . . . [and the wealthy hope] that the government itself may by degrees be narrowed into fewer hands, and approximated to an hereditary form.”****** (See Richard Hofstadter’s, “The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840” chapter three- a good background source)
Related thought: Canada has four major political parties and while I am not qualified to comment on the legitimacy of the least of them- (the Green Party gained 4.5% of the popular vote in the 2006 Parliamentary Elections, while still being unable to grab one seat), I do think that is something to shoot for. I believe that additional parties will be just as beholden to money, corporations, campaign finance contributions, lobbyists and special interest groups, but it is a start. Just as I don’t believe that the immigration issue can be resolved by adopting just one solution, neither can any of our issues be resolved without enabling other progressively moderate viewpoints to be accepted by the majority- of people- not of elected officials. I don’t believe the desire for additional political parties can be dismissed because it has never seemed to work. It can work, if a number of issues in concert are amended to meet the needs of the many rather than the few. Someone wrote to me that the Independents don’t have a chance because they stand alone. I would rather be a well-informed solitary member of an ill-defined political party than a sheepish bore in the march of ineptitude, being led into the city of Sacrafice-ville by two parties that stand to gain by your loss and stand to lose with your gain. The republican and democratic political shepherds are outsourcing the futures of middle class kids to the highest bidders, so forgive me if my political leanings dictate that I pretty much stand my ground. This was more comically expressed by - Jon Stewart- (not that Mill guy- the guy from the Daily Show):
“Each party has a platform, a . . . menu of beliefs making up its worldview. The candidate can choose one of the two platforms, but remember – no substitutions. For example, do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro-limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion. Luckily, all human opinion falls neatly into one of the two clearly defined camps. Thus, the two-party system elegantly reflects the bichromatic rainbow that is American political thought.” (pg. 108)
I would rather stand pat and stand alone in protest having seen that the masses are blind to the nature of change and who rule out the idea of punching a camel in the face just for the hell of it. Be careful of the suspected martyrdom of miniature pinschers and the pariah-ness of prison inmates that might risk escape, in order to curry favor (or sympathy) by risking their lives for a shot at freedom from a New Orleans prison though a once-sighted, shy black bear, not employed by the prison, may be roaming the woods acting as the final obstacle to the freedom of men. (See “Driver Kills Dog, then Sues Owners for Damage,” Associated Press, May 8, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24530214 and “Inmates Think Twice about Escaping from Here,” Associated Press, May 5, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/24472774/ respectively.
Other notable evidence of an animal insurrection: “Beetlemania at Pennsylvania Post Office” (http://www.msnbc.com/id/24631558/, Associated Press, May 14, 2008)- short story: “Customs agents seized more than two dozen giant beetles—some the size of a child’s hand—from an overseas package after postal workers heard the insects making scratching noises.” AND “Ants Swarm over Houston, Fouling Electronics: ‘Crazy Raspberry Ants’ emerging by the Billions with Onset of Humid Season” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24620246/, Associated Press, May 14, 2008)- short story: “voracious swarming ants that apparently arrived in Texas aboard a cargo ship are invading homes and yards across the Houston area.” Perhaps I’ve been taking pot shots at animals, birds, and insects for a reason, for their continued, violent, sinister planning to take over the world. So we respond by having a red neck throw a cat against the wall http://www.topix.com/city/st-paul-mn/2008/05/st-paul-man-arrested-for-killing-girlfriends-kitten. This from the state department- “U.S. Lists Polar Bear as Threatened Species.” Yes, we have resorted to threatening polar bears. Apparently we are keeping lists of which animal species we threaten. When will it end? Not here- look at this list of “Exhibited Animal Attacks”- . . . http://www.api4animals.org/popups/a1a_exhibited_animal_incidents.php. I think Dorothy (from the Wizard of Oz) was onto something- “Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my.” Perhaps if I can get this version of yellow journalism going, (people v. animals) this will have the same effect as the sinking of the USS Maine had on the Spanish-American War. We cannot give up without a fight.
* Yes, I know, it is actually spelled Bactrian- just taking creative license.
** While this example may not directly fall under the broad heading of free trade or NAFTA agreements, the Close Brothers, who still are not identified in the story, are taking advantage of the current tax laws to avoid paying Medicare and Social Security taxes. See- “U.S. Defense Contractors Seek Off-Shore Havens,” Associated Press, May 7, 2008- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24510512/. This is just another example of America’s largest corporation, the military, taking advantage of the American taxpayers, and all kinds of shell companies trying to “circumvent U.S. law.” For surely, surely, we wouldn’t need to pay in as much tax should loose ends such as these get tied up- to the tune of “about $846 million in revenue over 10 years” or more. The article also addresses the widespread nature of this tax haven mess, including how defense contractor groups attempt to justify how tighter controls will cost them money in a competitive global marketplace. Huh, that sounds like capitalism to me; if we can’t regulate free-trade (generally), the housing market, the oil industry, or aggressive bikers who think they own the road, you may have to lower some of your prices. Start getting some of your uninspected steel from China, and perhaps that would lower the prices of your bids which would make you more competitive. Google- “cheap steel from China” and eventually you will figure it out.
*** Hamilton made the address on June 21, 1788 to the New York Ratifying Convention, where members of the state government of New York gathered to discuss potential ratification of the Constitution. See- http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s38.html.
**** Just do a search on- “In every political society, parties are unavoidable.” If you get hooked on Madison, it will not be because of his thoughts on “Population and Emigration.” Don’t read that one out in nature where you may fall victim to selective narcolepsy and be subject to an attack by a wren, robin or giant frog, especially should they be jealous of your not having muscle compartment syndrome or an inconsistent urinary stream- like them.
***** Many have put forth the view that Jefferson and Madison Republicans are actually modern day democrats. I see no such resemblance to modern day democrats, who attend to the desires of the public no more frequently than do modern day republicans, who would traditionally have been considered the former Federalists.
****** “A Candid State of Parties,” James Madison, National Gazette, September 26, 1792.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment