No, We Aren't

(Inauguration Day, 2009)

It is ironic that Jamie Foxx, one of many pop-culture icons on hand Sunday at the Lincoln Memorial lauding America's first pop-culture president, Barack Obama, would quote the late Thurgood Marshall during early inaugural festivities:

“Each of you as an individual must pick your own goals. Listen to others but do not become a blind follower. Do not wait for others to move out. Move out yourself. Where you see wrong or inequality, speak out, because this is your country, this is your democracy. Make it. Protect it. Pass it on.”

Has there ever been in the history of the American people a more blind, conformist, passive and incurious mass than those who have deified Barack Obama? Have you met a single Barack Obama supporter who has an original thought in his or her head about the man? Have you met anyone informed about who this parvenu actually is, what he stands for politically, and what he has actually ever accomplished? This is a president without a resúmé, and yet "change has come!" This is a president who has neither a record of success nor one of failure, and yet "hope is here!" Granted, a case can be made that the election of George W. Bush to the office of president is incontrovertible proof that one needs no qualifications to serve in the Oval Office, but at least Bush had been something, even if that something was a failure. He may have only been a governor of a large state; he may have only been a poor businessman. But at least he had a record, a provenance; even if his life was replete with failure and mediocrity, we could map those failings for ourselves. But Barack Obama, whose only notable qualification is that he has been perpetually running for president, is surrounded by millions of folks who adore him, blindly, mindlessly (and even cynically); he is revered for doing nothing more than, as Hillary Clinton said during her campaign, giving a speech (or two). Jamie Foxx urges the very people who have acted like a common, disinterested and mindless herd not to "become blind followers." The irony is too great not to note.

Inauguration Day. This is NOT a great day for America, though I will say it is an exciting and important day for Americans who have been under the impression that America has been such a bastion of racism that the election of a person with darker skin than white could never be elected to the presidency. I am happy for those who find some message of potential and possibility in his election. But today is a bad day for those who disagree with the over-arching theme of the inauguration -- that "We Are One" -- for the simple reason that America is not one. Over 56 million people voted against Barack Obama: 46% of those who bothered to go to the polls believed he was not fit to be president. And there is no evidence -- NONE! -- that those who opposed him, and STILL oppose him, harbor ANY racial ill-will against him simply because his skin is dark. There are millions of disenfranchised voters not applauding this day -- for reasons having everything to do with ideology, with policies -- and nothing to do with race. Those who voted against Barack Obama do not see "change"; instead they see 1992 and corruption, scandal, in-fighting, smoke-and-mirrors promises, and deception.

We are not one.

I am grateful to a Boston radio talk show host for reminding me yesterday of one of the political left's mantras repeated during the bulk of the Bush presidency. That mantra was shouted even by Hillary Clinton in the wake of Bush's (and her) decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq: We heard "Dissent is not unpatriotic!" from all sectors of our nation's disenchanted. But if dissent was patriotic under the Bush regime, it is surely as glorious under the Obama regime. I admit I do not hold much in common with the host who reminded me of my right to dissent, but I do accept his commentary that the double-standards inherent, not only in the press but in the Democratic Party itself, are so despicable that dissent is not only the only option, it is the noblest option.

For this citizen to be in good standing with his own conscience and convictions, dissent is my only choice. And no, I am not afraid of the ridiculous rejoinder that I must therefore be a person who supports inequality, injustice, racism, oppression, torture, war and "the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer." Moral rectitude is not, even by a long shot, the banner flying over the Democratic Party and its new president. I dissent against deception. I dissent against idolatry, of worshiping a mere man. I dissent against the claim that "America's standing in the world" as defined by pop-culture has been elevated by the new imperialists moving into the White House, led by a pop-idol president. I dissent against the obvious socialistic plans of the new regime; I dissent against the fear-mongering used by Mr. Obama to push down the throats of the American people a "stimulus package" that we need "urgently," and I do so noting that such dire and frightful forecasts coming from Mr. Obama's lips are religious in nature and not one whit factual: he claims to know outcomes he cannot know, telling us we "must" do X and Y before it is "too late," that we are in "imminent danger" and we MUST act with a "preemptive" strike against this mother-of-all recessions. (The economic alarm rung by Mr. Obama sounds exactly like the "non causa pro causa" global warming fallacies used by the likes of Mr. Al Gore.)

I dissent against the idea that America looks to a president, some guy in Washington, for inspiration. For guidance. For direction and hope and a moral compass. I dissent against the day we have become so pathetic we must be reminded by a president and a Congress that we need "national days of service," as if America heretofore had been struggling to find volunteers: that until we all saw Barack Obama roll paint on a wall yesterday, Americans had no idea that helping others was a good thing. I dissent against the idea that kindness is to be a matter of law, and not a matter of grace.

And not only do I dissent against the welfare state, I dissent against those who believe the state -- the collective unified as one -- and not the individual acting in freedom, is the basis of the American constitution. I dissent against the new master/plantation mentality already evident in the new regime -- that the master will provide jobs, stimulus, safety, ease -- if we all just comply, if we all just pick our cotton and stop our partisan bickering -- and give the fruits of our slavish labors back to the master to redistribute fairly among those who are "less fortunate." I dissent against a state that seeks to enslave and indebt its citizens to itself. And I dissent against the Ponzi scheme that is the Obama regime's economic plan.

I dissent against the blindness of people like Bono -- who has made himself into a god, perhaps a lesser god. He seeks to eradicate poverty, and yet can countenance -- and participate in -- an inauguration costing more than $105 million. Recall the OUTRAGE over President Bush's intent in 2004 of spending a mere $40 million for his inauguration -- and Bush's party was during the heights of a sterling and thriving economy. Today home foreclosures are at an all time high; Barack Obama has warned us of how dire things are in this recession. And yet things are not so dire that he and his minions would consider refraining from blowing hundreds of millions of dollars on pop-idols and party favors. (Barack Obama believes Americans will overlook these huge expenditures, or so it is reported.)

We are not one. And no we can't.

In honor of the words of Thurgood Marshall, I shall indeed pick my own goals. I will NOT be a blind follower. I will fight injustice and evil and idolatry everywhere I see it. I will NOT be like the common herd that has gathered at the beck-and-call of pop-culture, baptized by the zeigeist, at the National Mall.

Peace through dissent.

BG

A Résumé Of Now

During Thanksgiving weekend last year I enjoyed dinner with some of my favorite people on this planet. It was a great time of silliness and laughter, fine wine and soft light, delicious food and spirited conversation. And politics.

I don't mean to suggest that there were any feverish moments of partisan bickering, of allegiances and loyalties busting at the seams; of bellies belching flak. There really was nothing of the sort. After all, it was November 2007; the roster of political candidates for any party had not yet been filled.

I recall this now because of something I said that night. But first, I must offer something of a confession. Those of my readers who have paid close attention, even any attention, to what I've written here should know by now that I am not a fan of John McCain's. In fact, I have not penned a single sentence in favor of his candidacy at this or any other website. None. And I make this bold assertion in the face of the clearly delusional visitors who come here to accuse me of being some sort of paid hack for the McCain campaign. Sadly such folks confuse my criticisms of Barack Obama as proof of my allegiance to all things Republican; such confusion also leads some interlocutors to conclude that my defense of John McCain or Sarah Palin from blatantly false or mean attacks is tantamount to my endorsing the Republican Party throughout eternity. But back to my story.

In November 2007, while dining in a fine establishment with the loveliest people, most of whom align themselves quite strongly with the Democratic Party, I was asked by one of my dinner companions what I thought of the upcoming election season (the one that is now upon us). I recall quite clearly stating that I was not a big fan of any one candidate, but that I thought the Republicans would nominate John McCain. I remember also mentioning that I believed Mitt Romney would be a very attractive candidate, at least superficially; and that Rudy Guiliani had a great chance, though his pro-choice stance on abortion might limit him. But my reason for discussing John McCain was simple: John McCain had not been perpetually running for president. In fact, or so I offered, he was known to be a hard worker in the Senate, often if not always present. I also noted that he had been working in Washington far longer into the year than many other senators who were seeking the presidency. That McCain began his on-the-road campaign later than most, if not all, of his colleagues, I thought was rather telling.

Finally, I added that McCain was clearly his own man, for no other senator of note from either party had been known to so often stand against the party to which he (or she) belonged. It was for these reasons I believed John McCain would win the nomination; and, at the time, I felt he would be the Republicans' best chance for appealing to independents and conservative Democrats, as I believed then that the Democratic Party presidential nominee -- without question -- would be Hillary Clinton.

Several of my companions agreed that McCain was, at best, the most tolerable Republican known then to be striving for the White House.

I share all this because of yesterday's startling events. John McCain decided to suspend his campaign for the White House because he felt the need to fulfill his duty -- he IS employed as a US Senator -- and return to Washington to help in this time of "economic crisis." In short, John McCain decided to be a senator and not a candidate, at least until the crisis is averted (at least on paper).

Now I know that Democrats instantly turned on Mr. McCain for returning to the capitol: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, reduced Mr. McCain's decision to a mere ploy, a mere photo-op. And it very well may be. But it strikes me that Mr. McCain's decision is at least consistent with the sort of senator John McCain has always shown himself to be: diligent and dedicated. And present.

Wednesday, like millions of others in America, I received an email from Barack Obama. Here is that email's first sentence:

The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has created a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression.

I have little educated reason to doubt that Mr. Obama is correct, that we are witnessing something as dire as the Great Depression. But I ask: If something so dire is about to befall this country, is spending nearly half a billion dollars on a presidential campaign the most important thing to be doing right now? Shouldn't that money -- and all campaign money -- be held for something "more important"? Moreover, if today is the very threshold of the next Great Depression, what is Barack Obama going to do about the imminent crisis -- not in the future, for the future is perhaps too late -- but RIGHT NOW?

Please, I beg you. I am not saying John McCain has done the right thing here; I am merely suggesting that he has done the better thing. The problem with the Obama candidacy is highlighted in this very moment: Barack Obama's résumé is a résumé of the future. His candidacy is all promise: Elect me and I will do _______. But what we need from him is something more than promises: we need some proof not only that he can deliver, but that he even knows how to deliver, that he knows the basic steps. To what can the Obama campaign point that proves Mr. Obama has delivered? Where is his expertise? What proof does the campaign have that Mr. Obama can work across party lines and get REAL things done, like the real thing before us? Everyone concedes that John McCain has proven himself over and over again, especially across party lines. Where are the people who say the same of Barack Obama (besides his adoring fans)?

This exact moment, or so it seems to this writer, is the last great chance Barack Obama has to prove he is a man who DOES things, and not just a man who thinks and talks about doing things, before the election.

Today I stop and think about what happened yesterday. Did I really see a "maverick" rush back to Washington for a photo-op, or did I see him go back to Washington because sometimes there are more important things than even the White House? Surely Barack Obama's OWN WORDS prove that he believes we are on the very brink of catastrophe, and yet his actions prove that an imminent financial collapse is less dire than a White House without him.

John McCain, on the other hand, has at least attempted to do something today; he is not boasting about his wild successes in some vague and unknown future. That, I am reluctant to say, is one admirable and commendable quality in a leader. But I'll let you do the endorsing.

Peace.

BG

Brown Spots On The Wall (Street)

John McCain has called it a crisis. Barack Obama called it a result of George W. Bush's failed policies, the product of "more of the same."

I wonder about the arithmetic of this current correction of the American economy, a correction replete with foreclosures, bankruptcies, take-overs and bail-outs. And I wonder about blame.

If there is the slightest hint of corruption to be found; if the tiniest shred of evidence pointed toward a culpable person or party, isn't it likely that great political theater would have already been staged, with seats sold out in a sudden rush of interest?

If the Republicans were to blame for the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae debacle, wouldn't it be political idiocy, even suicide, if the Democrats did not immediately call for subpoenas and indictments and hearings and special prosecutors? Why haven't they done so? Doesn't the DNC stand to gain from getting to the criminal bottom of it all, if, indeed, Bush and Company are culpable?

Or are Democrats afraid? But why? Why should Democrats fear when they confront the vast "culture of corruption" that is the Grand Ole Party? I should think that the very halls of Congress would be abuzz with news of hearings, of impeachments and convictions. But I am not hearing any such thing. Am I not listening closely enough? Why the relative silence; where's the great hue and cry for justice, for "hell to pay!"

Is the silence due to the fact that the two biggest contributions to political campaigns disbursed by Freddie Mac went to Democrats Chris Dodd and Barack Obama, respectively? Is it because the former head of Freddie Mac, Franklin Raines, who paid himself $20 million in 2003 essentially to destroy a financial sacred cow and then awarded himself another $25 million as a consolation prize, is one of Barack Obama's campaign advisors and was a big player in the Clinton Administration, serving as director of the US Office of Management and Budget? Or is this all a reach?

Or is the silence due to the fact that Joe Biden voted in favor of the 1999 legislation that arguably led to this great 'crisis,' while John McCain was 'absent' from the Senate at that time; and that Bill Clinton signed the deregulation bill into law, making it a key part of his Democratic legacy? Yes, Republican Phil Gramm, a former McCain campaign economic advisor, helped craft that controversial bill. But Democrats were also behind the bill. Beside, as already noted, the Obama campaign is getting economic advice from the man who led Freddie Mac into the abyss. If Gramm is McCain's liability, then Raines is Obama's liability as well.

I am not unaware that Republicans also received contributions from Freddie Mac, but the Republican connections to Freddie Mac do not seem quite as unbreakable as their Democratic Party counterparts'. I am also aware that everyone may stand to lose something here. But surely there is a party that stands to lose less and gain more, no? If so, why has that hand not yet been played? Or does it all amount to no more than a wash? Are we about to see more mud-flinging around Wall Street, flung solely as a distraction, even a palliative, keeping voters confused, detached or disinterested, and hence passive and careless?

Someone, I hope, can set me on the right path. I would very much like to understand the politics of this particular game -- and why the game is not being played for all it is worth.

Prediction: Whoever wins this particular game wins the election.

©2008. All Rights Reserved.

The Economy Of Blood And Gore

If I ever had to seriously consider the meaning of the word economical, I might find myself thinking of two things: the mechanics of markets, or the wranglings of wordsmiths. The former is what most often comes to mind when I consider the social science of economics; the latter might come to mind when considering those writers who are economical with words. Or I might think in terms of frugality and efficiency in anything a person does, be it managing a home budget, a corporation, or the words in a letter to one's mother. I consider a person economical who manages something well, with simplicity and efficiency. An economical person might even be described as bare-boned or stripped-down; a person of the essential and necessary. It would not be too much to say that an economical person is plain, like the rooms at the Just-A-Bed Hotel or the lavatory in the economy-grade motor home.

I once worked with a man, a sweet guy but a notorious pothead, who one morning during break told me a wild tale.

"Heeeeeeyyyy, Billllllyyyyy! This morning, I woke up and looked at my alarm clock. 7:30. Oooops! I got in my Jeep. Zooooooooooom!"

And then he just walked away.

This sort of storytelling is truly economical, unintentionally descriptive by omitting description. I completely "get" the "Zoooooooooom!" It's Hemingway after his morning bong.

In a rather angry and confused moment while writing in my journal during a difficult period of courtship (the woman I thought I was to marry was off looking for meaning in Great Britain for a year), I wrote this "poem", the only entry for the day:

"There is a woman in England who has inspired this sentence."

Now that's an economical use of language, double entendres and all. (By the way, the woman in question is still in England; she found her purpose.)

But for contrast, please check out these three opening paragraphs from a Wall Street Journal op-ed drafted on economics by Al Gore and David Blood. While you read, please meditate on the possibility that Al Gore could be––right now––the President of the United States. I beg you, please read carefully.

Capitalism and sustainability are deeply and increasingly interrelated. After all, our economic activity is based on the use of natural and human resources. Not until we more broadly "price in" the external costs of investment decisions across all sectors will we have a sustainable economy and society.

The industrial revolution brought enormous prosperity, but it also introduced unsustainable business practices. Our current system for accounting was principally established in the 1930s by Lord Keynes and the creation of "national accounts" (the backbone of today's gross domestic product). While this system was precise in its ability to account for capital goods, it was imprecise in its ability to account for natural and human resources because it assumed them to be limitless. This, in part, explains why our current model of economic development is hard-wired to externalize as many costs as possible.

Externalities are costs created by industry but paid for by society. For example, pollution is an externality which is sometimes taxed by government in order to make the entity responsible "internalize" the full costs of production. Over the past century, companies have been rewarded financially for maximizing externalities in order to minimize costs.

Is that not a gas? I mean, is that not like being gassed to death by sheer verbosity?

I have a rule -- it is not a rule that goes very far -- and it is this: if someone of alleged expertise cannot explain his subject in plain language, he ain't an expert. He is, in short, a dolt, trapped in the complex language of his subject, unable to get out into the fresh air of analogy, metaphor or simile. He is stuck. I once heard an alleged expert during an alpine ski lesson tell his students to "work on the pressurization of your downhill ski," leaving his listeners (I was standing nearby) with the impression that they might have to jam one of their skis into an aerosol can. The ski instructor, a full-time engineer when not on the mountain, was unable to leave the language of engineering to explain something rather simple. Why? Because he did not really understand what he was teaching.

But even if he did thoroughly understand his subject, he did not know the most important rule about communicating: Know thine audience! And like the instructor who thinks everyone in his class is an engineer, Blood and Gore think all of us think and speak in the abstruse language of economic analysis. And yet I am too gracious, for I've read quite a bit of economic writing, and Blood and Gore strike me as being, at least conceptually and linguistically, in over their heads. They may have personal market success; they may be shrewd money-makers and advisors; but they are not communicators.

Here's another gem from their essay, "For People And Planet" (Wall Street Journal, 3/28/06):

...In addition, the rise in shareholder activism and the growing debate on fiduciary responsibility, governance legislation and reporting requirements (such as the Global Reporting Initiative and the EU Business Review) indicate the mainstream incorporation of sustainability concerns.

While we are seeing evidence of leading public companies adopting sustainable business practices in developed markets, there is still a long way to go to make sustainability fully integrated and therefore truly mainstream. A short-term focus still pervades both corporate and investment communities, which hinders long-term value creation.

I am sorry, but does this not border on the comedic? Is this not a parody of economic writing? Is this not Alan Greenspan --whose clearest statements were indecipherable -- playing himself on Saturday Night Live, or perhaps after too strong a dose of Prozac? Or is it a serious piece, written in a style that emulates the often abstruse Greenspan, intended to steal his cachet, a mere rip-off of his reputed erudition? For if words are like products boxed and ready for shipping, then what we are dealing with here is not a glut, it's market oversaturation, unprognosticated capital diminishments, and resource misallocation without due cognizance of market receptivity or consumer reciprocity.

Alas, it is serious, and that is the joke. For all this goes "Zooooooooom!" right over my head, and yet, unlike my pothead friend's words, Blood and Gore's words leave me laughing not at what is left out, but what is left in.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.