A Peek Behind the Curtain: A Two Party Farce in One Act

A Peek Behind the Curtain: A Two Party Farce in One Act

P. Schultz

May 26, 2014

            Below is a link to an article in Politico dealing with the scandal involving the Veterans’ Administration and especially VA hospitals. Here are a couple of paragraphs from that article: 

Unlike in October, when Republicans focused their message on calling for Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to be fired, they’ve gone broader now, saying this is about more than VA Secretary Eric Shinseki, whom most have avoided calling on to resign or be fired.
This, they say, is much, much bigger: The phrase that House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and his colleagues have been emphasizing is “systemic failure.”

            Now, don’t be fooled by the language here, that the Republicans have “gone broader now, saying this is about more than VA Secretary Eric Shinseki….” What this means is that the Republicans, for reasons not specified, don’t want to focus on the VA and the scandalous activities that have been taking place at their hospitals. Hence, they “have avoided calling on [Shinseki] to resign or be fired.” This is classic redirection and the question, not addressed by Politico or anyone else I have read, is, Why? 

            I am not at all sure but I will hazard the guess that this is because both the Republicans and Democrats have no intention of actually working to solve these problems or to reform the VA. Hence, even a dissenter with the credentials of Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, has said that "by and large, the quality that veterans receive in this country is good to excellent." And this quote appeared in an article entitled “Miller: VA Scandal ‘Much Larger’ Than Shinseki,” which also appeared in Politico, referring to the chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Jeff Miller (R-Fla). 

            Of course, those being “served” by the VA know that this is all just part of an effort to avoid dealing with this issue. These veterans know, in other words, that even those who claim to care most for our military are willing to screw them over once again when they leave military service. And no one with any power objects. But then why should we be surprised? 

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/barack-obama-veterans-affairs-scandal-inaction-107029.html

"Oligarchs," Not "Conservatives"

“Oligarchs,” Not “Conservatives”

P. Schultz

May 22, 2014

            A rather simple phenomenon became clear to me just recently, viz., why our “conservatives” are not, that is, are not and cannot be “conservatives” on their own terms. These people are “oligarchs,” not “conservatives.

            Why aren’t our contemporary “conservatives” actually conservatives, that is, supporters as they claim to be of “small,” less powerful, and less intrusive government? Because they are advocates of inequality. And when inequality or, rather, inequalities exist, small, less powerful, less intrusive government is just not feasible. Why not? Because inequalities, always and everywhere, whether social, economic, racial, or sexual, breed resentment and resentment breeds civil unrest, resistance, even rebellion. Hence, government, large, powerful, and intrusive government is necessary, even essential.

            The evidence? Take an extreme form of inequality, slavery of any variety. Without a large, powerful, and intrusive government, slavery of any form cannot exist. The equation: More inequality = more government. More equality = less government. And there is no getting around this formula.

            This helps explain why those who are labeled “liberals” support a humongous bureaucracy. They do so because they recognize that the pursuit of great wealth produces significant inequalities and their hope, utterly vain, is that the bureaucracy can ameliorate these inequalities, thereby preserving social stability. This also clarifies the “quirk” in contemporary “conservatism” whereby although “conservatives” claim they want “to get the government off the backs of the American people,” they end up supporting and even extending the reach of our pervasively powerful national government, e.g., NSA spying or the reach of the FBI. Of course, they justify this as necessary for protecting “national security” which is OK so long as it is remembered that “national security” can be undermined by internal “threats” like black power, communists, “socialists,” or labor unions.

            Today’s “conservatives” – and even today’s “liberals” – are actually “oligarchs,” seeking ways to support while ameliorating the effects of inequalities, and especially economic inequality. And as oligarchs, they end up supporting large, powerful, and intrusive government. They have no choice. The best they can do is disguise their acceptance of a pervasively powerful government as necessary for “protecting national security,” or for sanitizing or cleansing society, say, of drugs or crime or both, or for defending “traditional social arrangements.” But the bottom line is: our political class is oligarchic and, hence, must support and even extend the leviathan that exists is Washington, D.C. To expect a different result, even or especially from our “conservatives,” is to delude ourselves.

Some Great Political Humor

Some Great Political Humor

P. Schultz

May 17, 2014

            Here is some of the best political humor I have ever read or heard.

“The American people today are tired of disorder, disruption, and disrespect for the law. America wants to come back to the law as a way of life, and as we do come back to the law, the memory of this great man, who never left the law as a way of life, will be accorded even more honor….” [The Subversives, p. 492]

            Why is this so funny? Because these are the words of President Richard Nixon, honoring J. Edgar Hoover at Hoover’s funeral in the year 1972, or shortly before Nixon had to resign the presidency because of his illegal acts and not all that long before the nation learned of the extent of Hoover’s disrespect for the law. You can’t make stuff like this up.

Rand Paul's Foreign Policy: An Email Exchange

Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy: Email Exchange

P. Schultz

May 16, 2014

Here is an email exchange on Rand Paul and foreign policy. Enjoy.

On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Peter Schultz wrote:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/rand-paul-on-the-war-path

On May 16, 2014, at 2:23 AM, M B wrote:

"Paul has met with donors including the staunchly pro-Israel mega-donor Paul Singer; Wall Street types like Emil Henry, a former George W. Bush Treasury official, and last month a gathering of former Romney backers; he has spoken with people with Republican Jewish Coalition, an organization strongly opposed to a nuclear-armed Iran, in part out of concern for what that would mean for Israel.  Paul has appeared at pro-defense bastions such as The Citadel in South Carolina; one professor there, Mallory Factor, has publicly gone to bat for Paul.  And he has brought on Lorne Craner, a longtime aide to GOP Sen. John McCain, to serve as one of his foreign policy advisers.  He has also gone to Israel since entering the Senate and impressed some observers at the time with his enthusiasm" (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=5F84CA93-88F6-4311-9AB4-3C6FB45F8285).

“OK. There is nothing here, I suspect, that distinguishes Paul from others, except some rather vague assertions that are meant to placate, not the imperialists as the article contends, but rather those labelled "isolationists." As long as Paul is coming on like a "balancer," seeking to balance "involvement" with some "disengagement," "involvement" will prevail. That is what "balancing" is meant to do: It is, in actuality, a disguise for involvement, making it look like the person is actually calculating whether to be involved or not. 

“Look at it this way: In constitutional law circles, there is a concept labelled "balancing," viz., balancing individual rights, say the freedom of expression, against the good of society. Well, guess what happens? Yeah, the "balance" almost always tips in favor of the good of society, the exceptions being when the "threat" posed by the assertion of individual rights is minimal. So "balancing" a way of limiting or restricting rights while pretending to be concerned with their protection. 

“I suspect Paul's foreign policy "evolution," as one person described him, is of the same character. I also suspect that the powers that be know this and express their "concerns" about Paul to make us think that there is a real debate about foreign policy going on when, in fact, there is not. And insofar as Paul "evolves" into a "realist," then "realism" and its credentials are strengthened. "See, folks, there is no sensible alternative to 'realism,' as the evolution of Rand Paul illustrates!" And the status quo is not only preserved but fortified, even while the political class pretends to be debating alternatives. These guys in the political class are shrewd. Of course, they are nothing but shrewd but we Americans are convinced that that is enough, aren't we?” 

"When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?" [Song: "Where Have All the Flowers Gone?"]

Mahalo

Obama, 9/11, and Foolishness

Obama, 9/11, and Foolishness

P. Schultz

May 15, 2014

            A museum dedicated to the attack on 9/11 was opened and, among others, President Obama spoke. This is part of what he had to say.

“President Obama on Thursday dedicated the long-awaited museum commemorating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, with a mournful elegy to the victims, a stirring tribute to the heroes and a firm resolve to never let terrorists shatter the spirit of America.” [NY Times, May 15, 2014]

            Here is what confuses me: How could terrorists ever “shatter the spirit of America?” I mean, the shattering of “our” spirit is not something that can be accomplished by any attack, no matter how devastating – and certainly the attack on 9/11 was hardly a terribly devastating one except psychologically. But “the spirit” of a nation is not “shattered” by attacks, as you would think we would understand by now, that is, post WWII and post Vietnam, where the US thought that it could, via massive bombings, “shatter” the spirit or undermine the resolve of our enemies.

            So why this foolishness from the president? After all, he is not a fool. Well, it is because he has to make something out of 9/11 that it wasn’t. Or, perhaps, I should say that he has to continue to make something out of 9/11 it wasn’t. After all, 9/11 wasn’t even an attack that was part of a broader war on the U.S. as evidenced by the fact that we have not been attacked since and any apparent attacks were rather more like eccentricities than parts of a broader war being controlled by a few enemy leaders. But this doesn’t sit well as we in the U.S. obsess over that attack. It seems we have to think that, for example, nothing was the same after the 9/11 attacks and this, even though, as Putin has reminded us, things are pretty much the same as they have always been.

            Obama’s rhetoric reminds me of the rhetoric used when the Boston Marathon was run this year and it was said that Boston was being quite “defiant” in holding the marathon. But who were the Bostonians defying? One of the bombers was dead, the other was in custody and the mother was somewhere in central Europe still claiming, I imagine, that her sons had been scapegoated by the U.S. government. Apparently, there was no one Bostonians were defying but they had to think there were others threatening to bomb the marathon again or their feelings would seem more narcissistic than would otherwise be the case.

            The president also said:

“No act of terror can match the strength or the character of our country,” Mr. Obama told a crowd that included family members of those slain and other invited guests in the cavernous underground hall of the National September 11 Memorial Museum. “Like the great wall and bedrock that embrace us today,” he added, “nothing can ever break us. Nothing can change who we are as Americans.”

True enough, Mr. President, but its truthfulness is matched by its triteness. No,
“nothing can break us. Nothing can change who we are as Americans.” But some might say: Too bad because some change in who we are as Americans might actually improve us.  Just sayin’.

The American Empire

The American Empire
P. Schultz
May 13, 2014

            Immediately below, some interesting passages from an essay on the American empire and its current state. The link follows the quotations. 

“The U.S.A. accounts for close to 40% of the world’s military expenditures, compared to some 10% by China and 5.5% by Russia.  The Aerospace and Defense Industry contributes close to 3% oi GDP and is the single largest positive contributor to the nation’s balance of trade.  America’s three largest arms companies—Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing—are the world’s largest, employing some 400,000 hands, and all but corner the world’s market in their “products.”  Of late defense contracting firms have grown by leaps and bounds in a nation-empire increasingly loathe to deploy conventional boots on the ground.  These corporate contractors provide an ever greater ratio of contract support field personnel, many of them armed, over regular army personnel.  Eventually, in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom private contract and regular military personnel were practically on a par.

“This hasty evocation of the tip of America’s military iceberg is but a reminder of President Dwight Eisenhower’s forewarning, in 1961, of an “immense military establishment” in lockstep with “a large arms industry. . . [acquiring] unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,” injurious to democracy.  At the time Ike could hardly have imagined the gargantuan growth and political weight of this military-industrial complex or the emergence, within it, of a corporate-contract mercenary army.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/04/18/the-ukraine-imbroglio-and-the-decline-of-the-american-empire/

Win Battles But Lose the War

-->

Win Battles But Lose the War

P. Schultz

May 12, 2014

            Below is a link to an article in the NY Times about how a Christian legal group, Alliance Defending Freedom, has won some cases defending what they see as “religious freedom,” such as the recent case in which the Supreme Court said that the town of Greece, N.Y. can begin its public meetings with a public prayer. The article also points out that this group is hoping for a victory in the Hobby Lobby case, where it is being argued that forcing companies to provide birth control as part of its health insurance is a violation of “religious freedom.”

            Well, this is correct: Forcing companies to do such a thing when it violates the religious principles of the owners is a violation of religious freedom. Hence, the Supreme Court might well side with the Alliance Defending Freedom. But that is a long, long way from getting us where the Alliance – and others – would like us to go, viz., to a nation that puts religion ahead of politics. And in my not so humble opinion, this nation will never go there because it is, fundamentally and deeply, committed to a secular view of religion, a view which is embedded in the very Constitution the Alliance appeals to in order to defend religious freedom.

            What is labeled “the separation of church and state” is actually “the separation of religion and politics.” Moreover, this “separation” was created as a way of subordinating religion to politics or of religion to the secular. Evidence of this? Well, most simply put: It is the state, the government that decides how far the freedom of religion extends against the demands of the political, the secular. So, the government can decide that all will serve in the nation’s armed forces if that is what it thinks best. There is no constitutional right of “conscientious objection,” not even for Quakers. Moreover, the government decides if parents have the right not to treat their children medically when their lives are at stake. Again, there is no constitutional right to refuse medical treatment for one’s children. There is even no constitutional right not to send your children to public school, at least through the grades that precede high school, as decided in Yoder v. Wisconsin, where the Court did find that the Amish did not have to send their children to high school. But note: The case did not involve grade children nor did it involve young people of high school age who wanted to go to public high schools. As Justice Douglas reminded the court, it would be a horse of a different color were a case to arise where some Amish children wanted to go to public high school and their parents were, on religious grounds, objecting. It is difficult to conceive of a court decision in favor the parents’ freedom of religion at the expense of the children’s right to attend a public high school.

            The point is this: There is a realm of religious freedom that exists under the Constitution by virtue of the first amendment. But the extent of that realm is decided by the government exercising its judgment about what the good of secular society requires. So it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be under this Constitution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/12/us/legal-alliance-gains-host-of-court-victories-for-conservative-christian-movement.html?hpw&rref=politics