America the Fun

 

Why can't our Donkey & Elephant be as fun as these guys?         

     Why do these private entities get to consider themselves statesmen and run the country?  Political parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, and their status interferes with the checks and balances of the Constitution.                  
                                                            

Who's Paying?

 

     Elon Mu$k is insistent that the population should keep growing, not stabilize or shrink.  Many people had called for population control for environmental reasons. Mu$k wants growth for continued economic expan$ion.

     If the population expands, there will be more children born who will have a lifetime of needs. Yes, they will also be con$umer$, but some will need significant social supports.

     Also, if there are more consumers, there will be more environmental impacts.

     If Mu$k wants this expansion, then he needs to be the billionaire leading the charge to raise marginal taxes* on the wealthy.  These tax revenues will provide more services for those born with more needs and will pay for environmental clean-ups.  Perhaps it could also provide more daycare and early childhood education free to more people (via vouchers, of course, so it wouldn't involve Mu$k indoctrination).

    Instead, billionaire$ like him are fine with increa$ing the gap between rich and poor. But a larger population gives him more people from which to increa$e his own wealth.  He and other billionaire$ need to pay higher marginal taxe$ on their upper earning$.

*Marginal taxes:  taxes charged only on income above a certain level or "margin."  When people talk about charging higher taxes on the rich (this blog repeatedly calls for a 42% upper income marginal level), that percentage (i.e. 42%) is not taxed on the person's entire income, but only on amounts above a certain level, say, $500,000 or $1 million.

Let Freedom Ring

Downfall of Our Forbears

Pathways

Our society is a little crazy right now.  The internet makes it worse.  Things come across as if our whole society is SJW's (Social Justice Warriors) vs. neo-chauvinists; no gun restrictions at all vs. total banning of guns; unrestricted capitalism vs. full socialism; MAGA vs. laissez faire belief systems; hard core Christian evangelicals vs. atheists; etc., etc. When you get people talking, get them away from labels, there's still a lot of overlap in the directions Americans think this country should go.  There need to be methods to support the consensus areas.

Spare No Expense

      

      The one-year anniversary of Spare in January 2024 has been an inspiration!

     Many hoped that Harry and Meghan would "platform" a little less.  The pontificating was wearing to many of us.  They don't really seem like the shining examples they would like to portray themselves as.

     Whatever they do, they will still seek income.  As Meghan develops her line, perhaps Harry could develop these Spare-related products, which would practically sell themselves:

       Obvious but useful!  In an era where most "spares" are the annoyingly small donut tires (tyres), Harry could spearhead a movement back to full-sized spares!

     Who doesn't need to keep a few spares of these around?  Even though we're past the COVID shortages, you don't want to be caught without extras of toilet paper, or loo rolls, as Harry's native UK refers to them.

  

     Most of us keep some spare towels around.

     Or if you want to play up the "misfit" aspect, as Spare does, maybe this collection is for you:

For more ideas on possible Harry merch, check out these links:

Prince Harry in a Can

Other Spare Things

Downfall of Our Forebearers

 

    The U.S. Founding Fathers modeled our Constitution heavily on the old Roman Republic.  The Republic preceded the Empire (the downfall of which a lot of modern thinkers want to use as a comparison to our times).  

     The Republic lasted from 506 BC to 27 BC, whereas the Empire went from 27 BC to "kind of" 476 AD.  (I say "kind of" because the first Germanic invasion didn't completely collapse the Roman system.  The invading Germans wanted to live as Romans.  It wasn't until a few invasions later, after the Lombard invasion of 568, that an invading Germanic people began dismantling the Roman system.)  

     Let's do the math on this.  The Roman Republic lasted 479 years.  Not a bad run for the first attempt at a democratic republic.  (Some Greek city-states had run smaller direct democracies for a while, but they didn't have the same lasting power.)  

     The Empire lasted variously 503 years, if counting to the first invasion, or up to about 600 years, if counting up until the Lombard dismantling of legal and structural systems.  Although the Empire lasted longer, it was a stinking, rotting corpse near the end, and, in fact, through other portions of its existence.  (There was a half-hearted attempt after Emperor Caligula to return to a republic, but it didn't amount to much.)  The Empire was propped up by slavery and, for a while, by constant absorption of new lands through conquest.  It was kind of a weird "pyramid system", relying on conquest (rather than drawing on creating new investors to prop up old ones, as do investment pyramid schemes)--  the needs in newly conquered territories would eventually be propped up, in some ways, by what was conquered after that.

     The Pax Romana created a system of relative peace and travel that allowed Christianity to take hold (accounting for the human rather than divine factors).   Off and on over time, some scholars have blamed these very Christians for the downfall of the Empire.  The reasons are too complicated to blame Christians.  Its time had come, like those banks that are propped up too long and called "too big to fail."   (I will agree that Emperor Theodosius [r. 379-395 AD], the one who made Christianity the official religion of the Empire, was a factor in the Empire falling.  He was a lousy emperor at several levels.  His time also saw Christians turning around and persecuting pagans.)  I think it's too much of a "parlor game" trying to find parallel causes of the Empire falling and what's happening in modern American society.  Since we were based on the Republic, that's where we need to go for answers.

     The Roman Republic destroyed itself, largely, by letting itself fall into the traps of a two-party political system. The parties didn't line up exactly along the lines that ours do, but there are some parallels.  Overall, the take-away is that such a system creates a tug-of-war.  It also leads to easier corruption because it's easier to pick a side and practice bribery to get power.  With multiple parties and multiple thought streams accounted for, it's a little harder to do this.  Contrary to how "originalists" operate now days, the Roman Republic was willing to adapt itself to keep functioning.  They got nearly 500 years out of their system. We have insanity brewing, and we haven't even made it to 250 years.

     The Roman historian Sallust (@85-35 BC) suggested the conquests were a factor in the Republic's downfall.  The influx of money from newly conquered territories was a factor. "Strongmen" arose, lusting for money and for power.  Violence began to replace voting.

Cicero Denounces Cataline  --Cesare Maccari, 1889

     Our Founding Fathers were pretty smart men, overall.  (As an aside, I disagree theologically with many of them because, counter to what some of my fellow believers say, they were not all Christian.  A lot of the prominent thinkers were Deists or proto-Unitarians, meaning they didn't believe in a Trinity.  But they were, seemingly, a pretty intelligent bunch.)  These men were trying to create a stronger system to replace the loose Articles of Confederation from right after the Revolutionary War. That weak, decentralized system left our new nation very vulnerable in several aspects, including militarily and economically.

     The Fathers were cautious and wanted a sensible balance between centralized powers, the rights of states and the rights of individuals (at least White landowning men).  They looked to the Republic.  Strangely, they did not take into enough account how partisanship had brought down the Republic. 

     They also did not take into account the politics in Great Britain at the time, which was already a constitutional monarchy with a sitting Parliament.  (The words directed at George III in the Declaration of Independence should more properly have been directed at Parliament.)  England had long used a "first-past-the-post" system, meaning the person who got the most votes (even if it were a "plurality" and not a "majority") won the race. England was also developing tug-of-wars between Tories and Whigs at that time.  The UK is largely a two-party system (allegedly), though other parties exist in name. With how badly Labour has conducted itself, it's practically a one-party system right now.  The Tories (Conservatives) are managing things so badly, though, that it remains to be seen what happens there.

     George Washington's exit speech when ending his presidency (see elsewhere in this blog, under the "politics" or "moderation" labels) warned strongly against developing a two-party system.  He warned it would have people at each other's throats.  He warned that it left the door open to foreign intervention in our political system, notably through bribery.

     So why couldn't the Fathers have taken some additional steps to address elections and parties in the Constitution? Some say there is no way to address this in such a document.   Yes, there were several ways. They could have pondered harder since they were intelligent and dedicated to the survival of our republic. They could have mandated that political parties not be private entities. They could have stipulated that, if parties were to form, there would be no less than three and no more than five at any one time.  If they had thought hard enough, they could have considered the option of required run-offs, as opposed to the first-past-the-post system.  After all, with the electoral college system, there were times that run-offs happened in the House of Representatives to choose the President in the early days.

     Hopefully our republic can course correct in ways the Roman Republic did not.

My Type of Patriotism

For this 4th of July, this picture describes my patriotism:

#politics

What the Heck?

 

     I've been trying to tell people (i.e. Americans I know) that losing the "Center" in our political representation was going to be a disaster.  We're tearing ourselves apart and heading towards the ridiculous.  Soon it will be both ridiculous AND ignorant!

Yeats "The Second Coming"

More Political Choices

    

     The 20th Century was, in many ways, a tug of war between far right (often fascist) and far left (communist/extreme socialist) movements in many parts of the world.  Each of these movements would justify what they did, saying "At least, I'm not those guys..."  "We just do what we do to keep those guys at bay..."

      Guess what?  They're both bad; they're both really bad. They both lead to autocracy.  Once autocracy is in place, it all becomes about propping up the autocrat's ego and/or greed.  Whatever the people who put the autocrat in place wanted, that fades in light of the autocrat keeping his position, no matter what.  Beware-- what you thought you'd get by supporting an autocrat will fail.              

 

The old adage that right & left bend around and meet in some weird spot.  Here it's backwards, in the past.  The center goes forward.

       As we move into the 21st century, this tug-of-war seems very active in the U.S.  If you listen closely to the loudest of the voices, they seem perfectly willing to cave in to autocracy to get what they want.  

      There are other combinations than hard right and hard left.   

      Besides the absolute Center, there are really 4 dimensions that combine differently in different voters:  liberal on social matters, liberal on economic matters, conservative on social matters, and conservative on economic matters.  

     One of these voices that truly exists but is almost completely unrepresented is the voice that is conservative on social matters (or at least wants to ensure that religious conservatives have an on-going place in society), yet economically liberal (not necessarily fully socialist; just more progressive taxes).   Some people who don't understand this position assume that it would be an autocratic one.  Not necessarily.  The positions defined as "Christian Democratic Parties" in much of Europe fall into this perspective.  These parties do not seek to exclude people who are socially liberal from the society nor to deny their rights. They just want to ensure that people who practice traditional or conservative religions (in ways where they are not discriminating again others in society) are not ostracized from society for their beliefs.  In addition, many European countries that are otherwise socially liberal do not have free and unrestricted abortion through all 40 weeks of pregnancy.  Some Americans who believe in this combination feel that better support for workers is a family matter (supporting something that's socially conservative); it might also reduce abortions. 

     The economically conservative yet socially liberal position is not officially represented by either major political party but is hugely represented in influence across society.  They are loosely defined as the "Libertarians."  This is the position a lot of businesses and business leaders like.  If you listen closely to what a lot of the media says about "moderates" they favor, they hold this position.  A fair amount of the Hollywood crowd is in this camp.  "Be nice to everyone on the surface.  But don't let everyone know that it's still much easier for the rich to get richer than people on lower rungs to climb any higher."

     The right & left are getting very polarized socially.  The economic area has many centrist thinkers.  Some of the center has shifted into liberal economic territory during the 45th presidential administration.  But the economic center is still larger than the economic left.  This 'territory', especially slightly left of center, is similar to the propositions discussed in the paragraph on European Christian Democrats.  This would be more of a repeal of Reaganomics, improving educational & training opportunities, improving a safety net for workers or the truly disabled, improving public works projects (some of which would also improve the environment). Price controls would not be a factor (except possibly in the area of medicine, such as prescription medicines and insurance costs); neither would be taking over industries, etc.  Private enterprise would continue.

     Though the Right & Left are becoming more polarized on social issues, this does not mean that the numbers are equal.  It does appear the Religious Right is shrinking and is maintaining its political clout is somewhat artificial ways. This is not helpful for anyone in the long term.

     If we had better representation, it would take the force of one vs. the other away.  It would be less likely that an eventual "victor" would pull everyone off the cliff with a huge tug.  We could get some of this through things like rank-choice voting and fully open primaries.

Quote from St. Nick

                                                                                                        

“The giver of every good and perfect gift has called upon us to mimic His giving, by grace, through faith, and this is not of ourselves.” ― St. Nicholas of Myra; (St. Nicholas Day is December 6th)

Exceptional?

 What's the point in arguing about the term "American exceptionalism?" We're a nation of imperfect people, founded on some amazing ideas of a democratic republic, enshrined in our Constitution. We've done some very noteworthy things; we've done some things that were stupid and even cruel. Accepting all these facets doesn't make us [1] less American, nor [2] less willing to accept or work on problematic parts of our past. Can we unify on this, too?   --Marie Byars

Try a New Tool

 

It's well past time for the "sides" [mostly referring to the culture wars] to think they can use the political system as a sledgehammer to "smash" their opponents into oblivion.  

No one's going anywhere, folks.  You're wasting a lot of energy, a lot of political capital, and a lot of your ability to try persuasion, instead.  --Marie Byars

Hard But Worth It

An old sketch of mine.

Integrity is not easy. But it's important, and it's worth it.

The [Slave's] Complaint*

[written to be sung to the popular ballad, Admiral Hosier's Ghost] 

Forc'd from home, and all its pleasures, 

Afric's coast I left forlorn; 

To increase a stranger's treasures, 

O'er the raging billows borne. 

Frederic Shoberl, 1821 (depicting Virginia, USA)

Men from England bought and sold me,  

Paid my price in paltry gold; 

But, though theirs they have enroll'd me, 

Minds are never to be sold. 

Still in thought as free as ever, 

What are England's rights, I ask, 

Me from my delights to sever, 

Me to torture, me to task? 

Fleecy locks, and black complexion 

Cannot forfeit nature's claim; 

Skins may differ, but affection 

Dwells in white and black the same. 

Why did all creating Nature 

 Make the plant*** for which we toil? 

Sighs must fan it, tears must water, 

Sweat of ours must dress the soil. 

Think, ye masters, iron-hearted, 

 Lolling at your jovial boards; 

Think how many backs have smarted 

For the sweets*** your cane affords. 

Is there, as ye sometimes tell us, 

 Is there one who reigns on high? 

Has he bid you buy and sell us, 

Speaking from his throne the sky? 

Ask him, if your knotted scourges, 

Matches, blood-extorting screws, 

Are the means that duty urges 

Agents of his will to use? 

Hark! He answers!—Wild tornadoes, 

Strewing yonder sea with wrecks; 

Wasting towns, plantations, meadows, 

Are the voice with which he speaks. 

He, foreseeing what vexations 

Afric's sons should undergo, 

Fix'd their tyrants' habitations 

 Where his whirlwinds answer.**

— William Cowper, 1877; Stanzas 1-5 [English poet, hymnwriter & clergyman] 

 *The original title of this poem was "The Negro's Complaint." This archaic term was not intended to offend; it was the term used at the time. As you can see, Cowper took the heart and soul of the Black man very seriously. 

**Fierce weather in the Caribbean, where many English slaves were sent More information on Cowper (prounounced "Cooper") Biographical Info and Quotes of William Cowper

***Sugar cane in the Caribbean

Changes Prompted by 1918 Flu Pandemic

      The 1918 global flu pandemic, coming in the wake of WWI, was a travesty.  So many people were shaken by it, and by their responses (sometimes more selfish than they would have thought of themselves), as well as their survivors' guilt, that first-hand accounts of the flu largely disappeared.   

Seattle, Washington; 39th Infantry preparing for deployment to France

     However, the whole tragedy prompted some positive changes that stay with us.  Here is a slide show accounting of some of those changes:

Daily Mail: 10 Major Changes Resulting from the 1918 Flu Pandemic
 
     I was really surprised this event was given so much credit for countering "eugenics."  Eugenics was the study of how to arrange human reproduction to increase the passing down of "desirable" inherited characteristics. That meant so-called less-desirable people were forcibly sterilized (including in the U.S.) There were attempts to promote abortion more heavily among the poor. The 1918 pandemic helped people realize that the conditions of poverty, not personal "defects", allowed diseases to spread more rapidly among the poor.
     Francis Galton, an Englishman, was largely responsible for first developing this line of thinking.  In the U.S., Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, came to believe in eugenics.  (It's not true, however, that she did it for racially motivated reasons.)  In "The Eugenic Vale of Birth Control Propaganda" (1921), she wrote that "the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."  Eugenics was finally dealt its death blow after the Nazi's abhorrent use of it.

Why Did That Chicken Cross the Road?

(Some of this is a bit behind the times, but you all still know the references.)

SARAH PALIN: The chicken crossed the road because, gosh-darn it, he's a maverick!
BARACK OBAMA: Let me be perfectly clear, if the chickens like their eggs they can keep their eggs. No chicken will be required to cross the road to surrender her eggs. Period.

JOHN McCAIN: My friends, the chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road.
HILLARY CLINTON: What difference at this point does it make why the chicken crossed the road.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don't really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road or not. The chicken is either with us or against us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where's my gun?
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken.
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken's intentions. I am not for it now and will remain against it.

AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white?
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won't realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he is acting by not taking on his current problems before adding any new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross the road so badly. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I'm going to give this chicken a NEW CAR so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
ANDERSON COOPER: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he's guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way the chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmer's Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I've not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn't ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough for us.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn't that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish it's lifelong dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2014, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2014. This new platform is much more stable and will never reboot.
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?

Original Sin

I take issue with both laissez faire, hands-off capitalism and full socialism for the same reason: the inherent selfishness of humanity.  With unrestricted capitalism, you see the selfishness, the rising oligarchy, which this country went through once before, starting about 140 years ago.  With socialism, you would see those who are lazy wanting to sponge off those who work hard.  The optimal solution is a balance between the two.  --Marie Byars

Art TELLS Life

This 16th century Flemish [Belgian] painting takes a dim view of what happens when we humans turn on one another and devour one another.  This is happening right now, when uncaring and unfeeling economics are leaving too many workers in the U.S. with too few resources. 

(from the Chicago Art Institute---that city's museum):

Ted, Jr., Yet Again

     Brigadier General Theodore (Ted) Roosevelt, Jr., was President Theodore Roosevelt's oldest son.  It is especially good to remember him on D-Day,06 JUN.  He was the first General Officer on the beach on D-day.  Not only this, but he was leaning on a cane.... from injuries sustained in World War I!!!!
     As World War I had been drawing to a close, young Major Ted Roosevelt was asked to help form the American Legion.  The picture below is from the preamble to the Legion's constitution.  It mentions freedom from the "autocracy of the classes and the masses."  Neither mob rule nor oligarchy should define our country. These words are clearly those of Ted, Jr., and his father before him.  It's a shame we can't get that balance now!  (Of note, the "classes" are mentioned first... definitely a risk in our time... has been growing since the 80s.)

     For the record, the "100% Americanism" is of note.  Both Ted and his father wanted Americans to define themselves as "Americans without hyphens."  (I don't always do this because I do sometimes define myself as German-American.  I want to keep my ancestors' culture alive, particularly as I see little actual culture afloat in White America.)  But I take the point... and it cuts both ways.  It means we also have to let people of other races and other immigration statuses fully integrate as Americans. A lot of White Americans have griped over the years that minorities don't seem to fully integrate but have blocked them when they tried.  Not cool.

Theodosius the Atrocius

It's real popular with a certain crowd of conservative Christians to talk about creating "a Christian nation" here in America.  Talk about misguided!  That's never commanded in the New Testament.  We're supposed to get on with our work of sharing the Good News of Jesus through private endeavors.

In fact, an early attempt to create "a Christian nation" did not turn out well.  The Roman Emperor Constantine is somewhat well known for making Christianity legal. Before this, Christians had suffered episodic persecution.  

Then Theodosius came along and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.  Theodosius did some really foolish things as emperor.  (He does get credit, though, for ending some on-going conflict with the Germanic Goths.) Though Theodosius' rule was not the final cause of Rome's fall, it did add to it.  

Adaptation of a bust found in Turkey, thought to be Theodosius I

Plus, the Christians turned around and persecuted the pagans, something we were never told to do.  In fact, both Jesus & St. Paul gave us such injunctions as "put up your sword [regarding religious matters]", "shake the dust off your feet [just go on your way]", and "as much as it is possible for you, live in peace with others."  

It seems to work better to use the economic benefits that come from well-run governments and societies to support the Christian Church privately.

It's interesting that Rome fell AFTER it became "officially Christian."  This should be a warning that creating a Christian nation is not going to guarantee an easy life.  Read on:

Theodosius I- Wikipedia

Theodosius I- Encyclopedia Britannica

Theodosius the Great: Saint or Sinner

Plus, you had people "glomming on" to Christianity to curry favor with the Emperor and other high officials. Christianity lost its glow as a movement of grace and love, first God's towards us, then Christians' towards each other.

It also led into centuries of forced state church religion in Europe. After warfare done in its name, a lot of Europe has shed Christianity.

This is NOT the way to go.