ECON 004 ~ Bill of "Goods"

~

Reference: 1) http://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2011/01/are-we-serfing-yet.html
2) http://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2009/04/vc-bill-of-goods.html

ECON 003 ~ Capital Manifesto

~

ECON 002 ~ Handwriting on the Wall

~

Are we serfing, yet?

~~~
So many of my acquaintances are panicked by government power (with some considerable justification), yet blasé (to the extreme) regarding the corporate giants who massage the backs and egos of elected officials. Giants who supply-line election and PAC coffers; giants who demand and receive favors; giants who even write legislation.

Does it not seem strange that the top four* (and many others) of “The Power 50” profiled by Newsweek magazine (Nov. 8, 2010, pp. 34+) are the trusted voices of millions for everything pro-big-business and anti-government? With all the déjà vu of money corrupting truth, perspective, memory, and motive shouldn’t we be a little more inclined to fact-check these voices? To question the Calvanist view that accumulation of money manifests merit and God’s favor? To review what God has to say about vast accretions of money and power? To remember that the first Boston Tea Party was as much, if not more, a rebellion against the massive, powerful, corrupting, monied, monopolistic, transnational East India Company (owner of the tea)? The British government, shoulder to shoulder, with the East Indian Company was muscling this huge corporate behemoth upon new-world, small entrepreneurs, putting many out of business. Maybe if we gave as much time to factual history as to Criminal Minds and Desperate Housewives, we would encounter a wider vision than that of faux-defenders of freedom and democracy via deregulated, big business and finance. Maybe we would encounter words of warning like:

Thomas Jefferson ~ 1816: I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country.**

Judge Edward G. Ryan, Wisconsin Supreme Court Judge, 1873: [There] is looming up a new and dark power … the enterprises of the country are aggregating vast corporate combinations of unexampled capital, boldly marching, not for economical conquests only, but for political power. … The question will arise and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine, which shall rule—wealth or man [sic]; which shall lead—money or intellect; who shall fill public stations—educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital. ….**

---------/
*Top 4: 1) Rush Limbaugh, $58.7 million; 2) Glenn Beck, $33 million; 3) Sean Hannity, $22 million; and 4) Bill O’Reilly, $20 million; all right-wing voices who lament forever the massive, overwhelming power of the left. (Could that be Jon Stewart at #5!)

**As quoted in Unequal Protection by Thom Hartman pp. 103 and 94. © 2010.

ECON 001 ~ The (In)Visible Hand($)

~

------------/
Note 1: Because symbols and pictures can sometimes be more direct than words, I have undertaken to sketch some thoughts and observations of the current state of dire affairs between Big Business, big government, small politics, and the beleaguered citizen (formerly “a person with equal rights”). Hopefully over time my rough art will improve. Where abbreviations in the sketches are not provided, some aids to deciphering (and pondering) may be found in the posts that share labels or in references noted below the sketch. For example: Refererence: http://dejavu-times.blogspot.com/2009/10/crimes-against-people.html

Note 2: All ECON sketches may be used pursuant to the Creative Commons License noted herein.

With Their Lips …1

(OR Why it is PAST TIME to abandon the Republican/conservative “read my lips” allegiance)

Note: This is not a back-hand endorsement of liberals or Democrats. They have their own endangering (and often similar) failures. Rather, this is a voice of warning concerning those who present themselves as the last-gasp “saviors” and “guardians” of liberty and the American Constitution. Their rhetoric is full of “freedoms” and “values,” but by their actions, they repeatedly violate those very freedoms and values. Consider:

With their lips—they claim grounding in rational economic and Constitutional truths, but manifest a reflexive, emotional devotion to words over realities, seemingly unable to acknowledge the colossal inconsistencies between their words and their deeds.²

With their lips—they espouse the virtues of small government and fiscal conservatism, yet preside over massive government growth and ballooning debts and deficits.³

With their lips—they claim the moral high ground and divine endorsement, yet espouse and implement policies that foster and sustain economic darwinism (survival/enrichment of the richest and most powerful).⁴

With their lips—they ennoble the sacrifices of the military, yet denigrate the service and opinion of soldiers, veterans, or family members who oppose war or criticize the conduct of war.⁵

With their lips—they denounce central, planned economies, yet cater to the centralized, planned economies of multinationals and bow to the “invisible [deterministic] hand” of (fictitious) free-markets and -trade;⁶

With their lips—they venerate justice and equity, but preside over egregious injustices in pursuit of American and business hegemony.⁷

With their lips—they scorn the follies and corruptions of their opponents, yet turn a blind eye to their own.”⁸

With their lips—they advocate the rule of law, yet justify “executive” powers that enshrine the “opinioned” rule of presidents.⁹

With their lips—they claim to be defenders and promulgators of freedom, human dignity, and the Constitution, yet foment uprisings against democratically elected governments in foreign countries that do not bow to the Washington Consensus; sanction torture and assassination; suspend habeas corpus; deliberately deceive citizens and “uncooperative” officials; turn a blind eye to human rights violations in favored nations; foster the aggregation of power and wealth to the detriment of individual citizens, etc.¹⁰

With their lips—they denounce extremists, yet wildly applaud Barry Goldwater’s infamous “Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice”; and champion the bombing of enemies to manifest toughness.¹¹

With their lips—they advocate free-markets, yet subsidize big-business; bailout corporations; award no-bid contracts; cater to lobbyists; legislate private agendas; sell off public assets; etc.¹²

With their lips—they claim to speak truth, yet continually neglect/refuse to fact-check or correct themselves.¹³

With their lips—they advocate individualism, yet favor private corporate collectives and reward compliance to authoritarianism.¹⁴

With their lips—they denigrate government, yet spend their private fortunes in pursuit of its power, privileges, employment, and (where politically possible) earmarks.¹⁵

With their lips—they speak of moral and family values, yet pursue pro-war agendas that tear families apart, exacerbate moral decay, and shatter minds, hearts, and bodies.¹⁶

With their lips—they claim to honor free speech and democratic values, yet vilify voices that question their ideology, “facts,” opinions, worldview, etc., especially attacking journalists, professors, researchers, historians, dissenters, anti-war advocates, scientists, philosophers; in fine, anyone who does not “see” as they do.¹⁷

---------/
Note 1: This is a post from Deja Vu ~ Times II blog of Thursday, March 18, 2010.
Note 2: I do not concur with all that is claimed in the recommended reviews (RR) below, but there is much to consider, reconsider, and research in going beyond the “speed-of-knee-jerk” rejection characteristic of too many right and left ideologues. Both right and left have positives, but both have become enmeshed in the negatives of money, power, and ideology. Thus, we are increasingly presented with two unacceptable alternatives. But, the reason I find the right even more dangerous than the left, is their increasing abandonment of honor and justice as they pursue and justify the extremes of “individualism,” nationalism, and the primacy of the market-place.

1. “With their lips do honor democratic principles, but their actions are far from it.” Variation on a theme: Old Testament: Isaiah 29:13; New Testament: Matt. 15:8; Mark 7:6; Book of Mormon: 2 Nephi 27:25
2. RR: Conservatives Without Conscience by John W. Dean; The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew J. Bacevich; hyprocrisy segments on The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC)
3. RR: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3750 ; http://thepoliticsofdebt.com/?p=177 ; http://mises.org/daily/895 ; http://zfacts.com/p/480.html ; The Predator State: How Conservatives Abandoned the Free Market and Why Liberals Should Too by James K. Galbraith; Tear Down This Myth: The Right-Wing Distortion of the Reagan Legacy by Will Bunch; government statistics of relevant periods
4. RR: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston
5. Remember: John McCain 2000; Max Clelland 2002, John Kerry 2004, “Swiftboating” tactics; Pay attention to how they profile veterans or family members who oppose war
6. RR: The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power by Joel Bakan; One World, Ready or Not: The Manic Logic of Global Capitalism by William Greider; The Soul of Capitalism: Opening Paths to a Moral Economy by William Greider
7. RR: Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq by Stephen Kinzer; Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy by Noam Chomsky; Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic by Chalmers Johnson; Confessions of an Economic Hit Man by John Perkins
8. That is, all liberals are evil, but errant conservatives are an infrequent aberration—“a ‘few bad apples’ in a gigantic barrel of goodness.” Observe political discourse; review http://www.factcheck.org/ ; check in on occasion with The Rachel Maddow Show (MSNBC)—hyprocisy watch; suspend emotion in order to assess facts
9. Aka: government by legal memo; Also read John Yoo, et al.
10. RR: The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Ruined Government, Enriched Themselves, and Beggared the Nation by Thomas Frank; Torture Team: Uncovering War Crimes in the Land of the Free by Philippe Sands; see also RR at #7
11. 1964 speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9buEI8SgwU ; other Republican Conventions: 1984, http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4690 ; 2000 or 2004
12. RR: see RR at # 4 & 6
13. Listen to both conservative and liberal newscasts. Reference http://www.factcheck.org/
14. RR: see Johnston at #4; and Dean at #2
15. Listen to faux-rogue candidates from McCain/Palin past Romney to Reagan; observe the realities of politicians in power
16. See Republican Convention 2004, 2008; observe the “tough on terrorists/extremists” talk by GOPs such as Sarah Palin ( http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTI5NzBmYThkM2M5MDI4NThiMDQwNGU1NmRkMzMxMDE= ) and the repeated accusations of liberal softness—of liberal wimps. Do they forget that republican Reagan actually talked to Gorbachev of the “evil empire”? Do they forget that Democrats have taken America into more wars than Republicans? Not an accolade for either side! The tendency to romanticize war is a national shame. We can be grateful for the sacrifices of service men and women and their families, but do not pretend that war is not attended by moral degeneracy and terrible, lifelong consequences. Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States
17. Observe political discourse; pundits commentators, etc.

Get Thee to a Nunnery!

Why do so many resolute “defenders” of democracy and freedom seem convinced that freedom is a one-way street? Three examples from my own small community in recent years:

• People should be able to say or display “whatever” in public places without restraint or complaint and if some don’t want to see or hear such expressions of freedom then they are free to go elsewhere or free to practice virtual blindness/deafness or perhaps free to not even go out in public, if their values are so sensitive.
• People should be free to shop on Sunday if they wish and if others would like to be free from having to work on Sunday, the brief and simple answer is “Feel free to get a different job.”
• Freedom of speech is sacred until the freedom lover has heard enough of the other-side’s opinion. Then the cry is, “ENOUGH, ALREADY!!!” (Forgetting their own advice, that they are free to stop reading, seeing, or hearing at any time.)

Whenever there is the least hint of “values-based” constraint, these emotional, local defenders decry the death or denial of their rights and freedoms. They rage against the tyranny of imposed standards and against the sanctimonious supporters of such standards. Or as one man extrapolated, mothers complaining about lewd magazines at the grocery store checkout were dishonoring the sacrifice of soldiers fighting for freedom in Afghanistan. And almost always, the advice of these freedom enthusiasts to their opponents seems to devolve into a version of “Get thee to a nunnery!” As in, “If you don’t like what’s in public, then don’t go there!”

Accommodating democracy and differing views is not easy, but why are we so prone to extremes; so prone to discounting others’ views and opinions; so dogmatic; so emotional; so often irrational? Perhaps science has the answer. In Sharon Begley’s Newsweek column of August 16, 2010, p. 24, entitled “The Limits of Reason: Why evolution may favor irrationality,” she outlines some findings that help explain our propensity to emotional irrationality. In short, we like to win arguments—and so “effective argumentation” becomes the goal, not truth or justice. We abandon “reason” for persuasion and self-validation. The tools/ploys we cultivate in this endeavor are:

1) confirmation bias: that is “seeing and recalling only evidence that supports [our] beliefs …”;
2) “not [testing] our beliefs against empirical data” (that is, being “blind to counterexamples”);
3) “not [subjecting] beliefs to the plausibility test”; and
4) “[being guided] by emotion.”

Thus we “mislead [ourselves] about what’s true and real, by letting examples that support our view monopolize our memory and perception ... .” We ignore flaws in our position, but actively seek flaws in evidence that “undermines our point of view.”

Perhaps this helps explain the dismal state of politics and the proliferation of endlessly reiterated, fallacious talking points! Is anyone looking for truth anymore or is it all about persuasion (rhetoric), winning arguments, and pursuing hegemony?

Woe is us. We seem to have forsaken reason, rationality, fairness, balance, justice, and truth for the mere sake of appearing “right”! And for all those who are wrong? Well, if you ask the winners, these losers should just go cloister themselves so the “right ones” can be free of irritating counterexamples, parallels, and plausibilities!

----------------------/
See also related post: http://dejavu-times.blogspot.ca/2010/08/contraries-of-freedom.html

The contraries of freedom

In a nearby rural community, there has been a vigourous, ongoing discussion in the local paper about the headlines and pictures that "grace" the "Magazines at the Checkout Counter." The initial complainant (a young mother with several young children frequently in tow) has been immensely relieved and gratified that the grocery store chose to heed her concerns and to initiate a cover-up of the worst offenders at the checkout. Others soon become outraged, claiming that their fundamental freedoms and rights have been infringed; that mothers and other supporters of the cover-up were mis-educating children to be ashamed of semi-nudity and of sex; and how dared these complainants impose their rigid values on others!

This same "freedom" controversy has raged in more towns and cities than we can count. (“Déjà vu all over again!”as Yogi Berra would say.)

These are my thoughts, entered into the fray.

Letter to the Editor:

The contraries of freedom: Some people want the freedom to say and display in public anything they wish. Others want the freedom to use and enjoy public spaces without being subjected to anything they view as offensive. Most take a position somewhere between these opposites.

Some say “If you don’t like (… … …), then don’t read, watch, go there,” etc. Others say “I should be free to navigate in public without my values being affronted.”

Some object to any constraints, seemingly unaware that such a position imposes its own form of constraint on others who do not see as they do.

In light of these contraries, has not Extra Foods taken (like other stores in various locales) the most reasonable and respectful course to accommodate opposing views?

Isn’t EVERY customer STILL FREE to examine or purchase ANY magazine offered for sale? STILL FREE to walk to the magazine aisle (where most magazines cover each other—without anyone’s complaint!)? And now, additionally FREE to proceed through checkout without the blizzard of sensational displays?

If everyone is STILL FREE to look at any magazine they wish, perhaps the present controversy is NOT really about freedom, but about inconvenience and misunderstanding. Perhaps we should consider the contrary of Mr. Hendericks’ view (TCS, 5 August 2010, p. 8)—and regard the “cover-up of covers” as an extension of freedom, not a restriction—a type of community ClearPlay where MORE people are free to avoid things they find distasteful—without altering IN ANY WAY magazine content or the purchasing choice of others.

For those who lament the slippery slope of censorship, there are others who equally lament the slippery slope where private (as well as profane) matters have become so public and so universal that many are forced by this “freedom” to see and hear things they would prefer to “see not” and “hear not.” Do their preferences and values not merit respectful consideration on the continuum of freedom?

Extra Foods’ action seems the fairest win-win possible in this controversy. Magazines are freely available with only minor inconvenience to overt/covert scrutiny at checkout (easily remedied with a little wrist action)—thus leaving ALL customers FREE to exit with fewer visual intrusions (and who doesn’t wish for a little more calm in the midst of our troubled world!?)

SMSmith

PS: In the spirit of opposites and equity—If the cover-up of “checkout” magazines is so offensive, would those offended consider taking their own advice recently given to others, namely: “to shop in places where they do not feel offended or inconvenienced”? Surely we can see! there is no cause or need for the exclusion of anyone. Thank you Extra Foods for fairly considering the freedoms of all complainants.

“More popular than you! So there!”

Recently, a popular news/entertainment commentator¹ sought to disparage/discount a competitor’s criticism of his network by touting its/his ratings and mocking the ratings of his critic's network—somewhat in déjà vu replay of grade-school standoffs. Oh, the “fame” of it all!

When have popularity/ratings/celebrity ever been the paradigm? Does this host really think his network’s ratings serve as some special “mass value” lending greater credence, weight, and truth to broadcasts? Perhaps he should consider the long (and short) history of preference.

Who/what has proven generally more popular?

• At the party (even family) table: vegetables or cream puffs?
• At the thought of exercise: racetrack or recliner?
• In the face of peer pressure: square-ness or hip-ness?
• At the mall: cash or credit?
• At the political rally: conscience or charisma?
• In the assurance of anonymity: integrity or avarice?
• At the ratings game: thoughtful/honest or sensational/hype?
• Before the cross: Jesus or Barabbas?
• Etc., etc., etc.

Considering the history of popular choice, our host might be wise to rethink his parade of superior ratings. The déjà vu of “more popular than you” is rife with surprising twists and downturns. Just ask the rich man.²

-----------/

1. O’Reilly Factor, FNC, Wednesday, July 21, 2010.

2. New Testament Luke 16:19-31