New Move & Future Diaries

In case you are a reader who checks my blog, I want to let you know what is happening in my life.  First, my wife and I are moving to Colombia.  I retired not long ago, and I have long planned to spend the rest of my days in Colombia.  Like any country, it has its good and bad places.  I think we have picked a really good place for retirement: a rural home in the hills, where it is cool and peaceful, the locals are friendly, and fresh water is abundant.  But moving involves a lot of work, so I have had less time to write.

I am also spending more time reading social science textbooks in preparation for future diaries.  It will take some time, but I know it will be rewarding for me.  I hope it will also be rewarding for others in the international Progressive Movement.

Hasta la proxima,

Alex Budarin

Origins of Political Conflict: an Evo-Exchange View

In a previous diary, I presented a theory of social group dynamics which I called "Evolutionary Social Exchange Theory."  That tells you the main perspectives I rely on, but it's a long phrase, so I generally call it "evo-exchange theory," instead.  In today's diary, I want to show how  "evo-exchange theory" can explain political conflict, and possibly help to predict it. 

I have to begin with further discussion of "Factor #4" in evo-exchange theory, "Benefit Expectations." 

The foundation for evo-exchange theory is the proposition that people interact with other people largely on the basis of the benefits and costs they expect from an interaction.   The benefits can be economic in nature, such as food, shelter, money, and material comforts.  The benefits also can be social in nature, i.e., benefits derived from the social interaction itself.  Social benefits would include things like security, recognition, information, privileges, the arts, and various psychological and emotional gratifications.  At the same time, people are mindful of the economic and social costs associated with interactions, such as monetary support and exclusion of some other potential relationships.  This theory proposes that people interact with the expectation that the benefits of the relationship will outweigh its costs.  It's basically the ancient "pleasure versus pain" calculation, with added complexity due to the evolution of our brains. 

You can see how, from this perspective, expectations constitute a critical element in social interactions.  So, how do we develop our expectations? 

Biological Inclinations

Scientific evidence suggests that biology is a significant element in forming our expectations.   For example, experiments have demonstrated that "reciprocity" is a general principle of human behavior: one individual's beneficial action toward a second individual is followed by the second individual directing a beneficial action toward the first individual.  It's such a familiar principle that we have English idioms for it, such as, "I scratch your back, you scratch mine."  And humans aren't the only ones who honor this principle.  Experiments have found that rats also practice reciprocity.  So the primary expectation of exchange -- reciprocity -- likely has a biological origin.

Science is also uncovering biological differences in the brains of "Conservatives" and "Liberals" which likely affect our expectations, as well.  It has been reported that the brains of Conservatives have larger amygdala, a portion of the brain associated with anxiety, and smaller anterior cingulates, a part which has been associated with courage.  It is suggested that this could explain why Conservatives are more conformist.  I suspect there is also an association with authoritarianism.  On the other hand, the brains of Liberals have been found to contain DRD4, a dopamine receptor gene, a variant of which has been associated with novelty-seeking behavior.  It has been suggested, therefore, that the presence of this gene would incline one to be open  to novel alternative behaviors.  As such, these organic and genetic differences can play a role in people having different expectations of social exchanges.

Social Learning

Biology is not everything, of course.  One of the hallmarks of humanity has been the extent to which we can develop tools, arts and ideas.  We can take whole sets of ideas and weave them together into an "ideology," or system of beliefs.  Then, as shown in Social Learning experiments,  these ideas -- including ideas relating to expectations -- can be conveyed to members of our social groups through instruction by, and observation of, other group members.  

Sociologist Gerhard Lenski has identified the social group's ideology as the source of member expectations, and there certainly is evidence for this.   Take, for example, a U.S. social group known as the "Shakers."  "Shaker" ideology included core beliefs in celibacy and communal living.  Therefore, members of Shaker communities had to expect that they would not be finding sexual partners in the community, and that they would not be accumulating personal wealth. 

But research has found that it's usually a minority of the group -- mostly the power elite -- which wholly subscribes to the "dominant" ideology.   You can see this in the distinction between what the Vatican declares to be official Catholic doctrine and the actual range of beliefs among U.S. Catholics.  Most people operate with a less coherent mix of ideology and extraneous ideas, beliefs and values:  a "worldview."

Moreover, a group's professed ideology may give you a pretty good idea about the expectations of its members, but there are likely to be components of the population whose expectations differ significantly.

Furthermore, culture is generally dynamic, rather than static.  Some parts change, to adapt to new environmental, technological and social conditions.  I think this is what anthropologists call "Cultural Evolutionism."

Personal Experience and Observation

Political Scientist Ted Robert Gurr agrees that ideology is one source of expectations, but he believes there are additional sources.  For the sake of brevity, I see his additional sources as falling into two categories: experience and observation.  In the first case, the benefits that people experience for themselves become the standard for their expectations of future social exchanges.  In the second case, people also set their expectations on the basis of benefits they observe other people receiving.

The establishment of expectations regarding social exchanges has a significant consequence.   When group members observe that they are not receiving the benefits they expected, they become frustrated.  Psychologist Leonard Berkowitz has studied the consequences of such frustration and arrived at the following conclusions:

• "...when people expect to reach a certain goal or to obtain a certain reward, they are basically anticipating the pleasures this goal or reward would bring them.  Furthermore, the greater the pleasure they are expecting, the more they will be provoked when their hopes are dashed." [p. 36]
• "...frustration  produces an instigation to aggression.  The negative affect is the fundamental spur to the aggressive inclination."  [p. 44]
• "... I'm convinced that we see this type of reaction in many different areas of life, and I also think that this phenomenon is involved in the social unrest and even revolutions that can occur when rapidly rising expectations are not met."  [p. 37]

I think that when people protest against injustice or complain about unfairness, this is what they mean: they are not experiencing the level of economic and/or social benefits they expected.

Like Dr. Berkowitz, I'm convinced that this frustration-aggression association can be used to explain and predict a wide variety of social conflict.  Ted Robert Gurr, Jack A. Goldstone and the Feierabends
have used this principle to develop predictive hypotheses concerning revolutions, rebellions, political violence, internal wars and other forms of civil strife.

I believe there are even more fields to which it can be applied, and I hope to explore some in future diaries.  

The Rise of the Aristocrat: an Evo-Exchange Perspective

Toward the end of my diary about Evolutionary Social Exchange Theory (or "Evo-Exchange Theory"), I stated that

"... as groups increase in size, and in their capacity to exceed basic expectations, they do become able to support formal, full-time administrative roles.  At that point, formal political arrangements -- governments -- arise and assume responsibility for effectively ensuring that the expected economic and/or social benefits are secured for group members."

I could not say how it happened that these administrators arose, but I observed that they did arise, nonetheless. 

Simon Powers now has explained, from what I see as a Social Exchange perspective, one way these administrators could have arisen in the transition from hunter-gathering groups to agricultural groups:

"Although the role of irrigation systems in creating despotic states has been overstated in the past, they certainly would have created an opportunity for would-be leaders to behave entrepreneurially by managing their construction.  Those that chose to follow their agricultural-technologist leader would then benefit from access to irrigation.  This would provide the benefit of increased food production, enhancing both their quality of life and the number of surviving offspring they could produce.

"In this way, social hierarchy could initially arise voluntarily – because individuals that chose to follow the leader were materially better off than those that did not."

Powers reports that his model simulations explain how this hierarchical exchange becomes entrenched.  First, the benefit of more food leads to a population increase, as more offspring are able to survive.  The population increase, in turn, increases the farmer's cost of terminating the exchange, by decreasing the amount of land not subject to the exchange arrangement.  Second, terminating the exchange costs the farmer all of his previous investments associated with the exchange. 

I note that these conditions also strengthen the position of the leader, vis-a-vis his farmers.  First, for the reasons mentioned by Powers, the farmers are pretty much stuck with the leader, even if he begins to exploit them.  Second, given an increase in the farming population, there will be decreased cost to the leader if some farmers decide to terminate the exchange and move away. 

With this, the Aristocrat has arrived. 

I can imagine a similar result arising in a violent territory on the basis of a warrior offering protection to farmers in exchange for support. 

But the story does not end there.  The Commoners will continue to hold the Aristocrat to his end of the bargain, which is to ensure that they receive the social and economic benefits they have come to expect.  To quote my earlier diary,

"As I see it, the fate of the political arrangement, and possibly the group's survival, depends on the degree to which the group meets the benefit expectations of its members.  If member expectations are NOT met, then members will be frustrated and either fight the political arrangement or flee."

I'm currently working on a diary which considers this circumstance in greater detail. 

(h/t to rawstroy.com, where I first saw Simon Powers' article reported)

A Theory of Social Groups: Evolutionary Social Exchange Theory

Back in July 2012, I posted a diary titled "Evolution, Pragmatism and Progressivism."  In it I offered what I saw as a foundation for a political philosophy of Progressivism.   It was based  on ideas which had been steeping in my mind for decades, after I received my M.A. in Sociology and left academia.  In today's diary I will present what I see as the social science behind that diary.  If I fail in that, well, I would feel worse if I never presented it at all.

                                                                        *******

As I indicated at the outset of "Evolution, Pragmatism and Progressivism," this theory is grounded in Evolutionary Psychology and Social Exchange Theory.  The basic premise is that the human brain is an organ which has evolved over millennia to calculate, on both conscious and older sub-conscious levels,  the potential risks, costs and rewards of various behaviors.   Association with other people has been a successful survival adaptation, but nature and social life continue to present problems, so we continue to calculate, consciously and subconsciously,  the potential risks, costs and rewards of various social behaviors.  In my view, the major premises of Social Exchange Theory are:

1. Social interaction of any kind involves a conscious or unconscious calculation of benefits and costs, or expected benefits and costs;    
2. The benefits and costs being calculated include the material, such as money and imprisonment, and the non-material, such as honor and dishonor; and
3. The objective of this conscious or unconscious calculation is to manage benefits and costs so that benefits outweigh costs to the greatest extent possible.

I believe these principles apply all the way from the smallest social groups, such as families, to the largest, such as nation-states and multi-national organizations.  I'm not saying that everyone behaves rationally, nor that every behavior is purely rational.  There are crazy people out there, and sometimes our emotions overrule our reasoning.  But it's my observation that most people, most of the time, behave in ways which reflect such calculations. 

So my major premise is that people act in groups on the basis of benefit/cost calculations.  But what factors determine the complexity, evolution and duration of social groups?  All kinds of answers have been proposed.  Here are the factors which appear to me to be best-supported, along with the authors who proposed them.

FACTOR #1:  USABLE RESOURCES

This is the factor most emphasized by Jared Diamond, in both Guns, Germs and Steel and Collapse.  It's also a factor identified by Gerhard Lenski in his book, Ecological-Evolutionary Theory. 

Both Diamond and Lenski were considering fairly large social groups, so their attention was drawn to resources such as drinkable water, arable soil, climate, and available food sources.  Diamond, in particular, demonstrates how a difference in the availability of such resources allowed Polynesians on one island to continue an agrarian lifestyle, while their former relatives on another island, with fewer resources, were compelled to resume hunting and gathering.

But I believe this factor can and should be generalized to include other resources potentially available to social groups, such as capital.  There are many social groups, especially modern social groups, which do not directly engage in food production.  But they still need resources -- such as capital -- in order to survive as a group.     

The bottom line is this: if more usable resources are available to the social group, then more benefits can be available to the social group.  In historical terms, a social group which lived in an area with drinkable water, good soil, a temperate climate, and edible grains and animals was able to obtain more food than a social group which did not.  In modern terms, a family which has more capital can support itself better than a family which has less.   With more resources at hand, the group can grow larger, and eventually develop more complexity.

But the amount of usable resources -- natural or capital -- can change over time.  The climate can change drastically.  Or you might use up a resource until you have no more.  So, it is a factor  which is both critical and variable.  It bears watching.  Perhaps a measure of "Gross Domestic Resources" is worth creating.

FACTOR #2:  KNOWLEDGE

This is a factor upon which Lenski places particular emphasis.  Well, he refers to it as "technology," and then defines "technology" as "information about the ways in which the resources of the environment may be used to satisfy human needs and desires."  It's a critical factor, because the more practical information a social group acquires, the more benefits that social group can generate, economic and/or social.  The group might learn how to grow more food, how to defend itself better, how to heal its sick, or how to create various arts.  This is true whether we're talking about families or empires.  Demographer Wolfgang Lutz reports that he has found "consistently positive and significant effects of educational attainment on economic growth" (p.294). 

But the amount of knowledge acquired can differ from group to group, and it can also decline, as it did in Europe during its "Dark Ages."  

What's the appropriate measure for this?  My suggestion would be aggregate measures of educational attainment by group members.

FACTOR #3:  POPULATION

Another critical factor identified by Lenski and Diamond is the number of people in the  social group -- its population.  With more members, the social group can increase its ability to acquire the resources and knowledge necessary to increase economic and social benefits for its members, which in turn permits the group to evolve more complex and specialized social exchanges.  Exchanges between members of a small group are wholly personal; exchanges between members of a large group become less personal and more a function of position, class or caste.  Of course, the size of a social group can also decline, due to things like disease, war, famine, or emigration -- or separation and divorce, in the case of families.  In any case, a decline in the population will decrease the amount of social and/or economic benefits the group can generate.

Appropriate data is already collected by most countries in the form of a periodic census. 

FACTOR #4:  BENEFIT EXPECTATIONS

Lenski identifies "ideology," or belief system, as critical to a social group's development, because he associates the social group's "ideology" with how its members will calculate costs and benefits.  Since these calculations involve uncertainties, I think it would be more accurate to say that a social group's "ideology," or belief system, is a factor which determines the cost and benefit expectations of its members. 

The Amish give us a perfect example of this: based on their religious beliefs, members of this social group are expected to lead simple, humble lives, so they vastly restrict their purchase and use of modern amenities, such as cars, TVs and telephones.  As a group, they don't have high benefit expectations.  They are satisfied with the amount of benefits they can obtain by their traditional means.  Their non-Amish neighbors, however, have higher benefit expectations.  The non-Amish do expect to be able to enjoy the benefits of such amenities, even if they could technically survive without them.  So, I would predict that the non-Amish would be likelier to increase their amount of practical knowledge, increase their usable resources, and increase their population.  It's not because the Amish are less intelligent; it's because the Amish are satisfied with less.

Nevertheless, I prefer not to tie benefit expectations exclusively to a social group's ideology.  First, some of the expected benefits of human association are universal.  Everyone, regardless of ideology, needs food, drinkable water, and some form of shelter.  These are basic "economic" needs. 

Furthermore, the vast majority of us find it necessary, for psychological and emotional reasons, to be around other people.  We are generally social animals with certain basic social needs.  Some social groups are based exclusively on such exchanges.  Consequently, people who participate in groups will have certain basic benefit expectations in common, whether social or economic (or both), regardless of the group's ideology.  

Additionally, it can be the case that people who share the same social group -- even the same family -- don't share the same ideology.  The existence of different ideologies can result in some different benefit expectations among its members.  That can be a source of friction within the group, which forces the group eventually either to evolve or to rupture. 

My hypothesis regarding this factor is that the more benefits the members of a social group expect, the more benefits they will try to obtain.  Sociologist Peter M. Blau adds that the amount of benefits which group members are able to obtain becomes the standard for the amount of benefits which they expect (p.143-4).  When members don't get the kind or quantity of benefits they expect, they will definitely make their disappointment known!  Frustration of expectations leads to aggression.  That is a long-established principle of psychology.

I'm guessing that data on benefit expectations will have to be gathered from periodic surveys of group members. 

FACTOR #5:  AVAILABLE BENEFITS, SOCIAL AND/OR ECONOMIC

The four previous factors enable a social group  and its members to secure a quantity of economic and/or social benefits.  The group's survival depends, first, on whether the quantity  of economic and/or social benefits is enough to meet the basic expectations of its members.  If it isn't, the group will collapse, partially or wholly.

But the group may be in a situation where its usable resources, knowledge, population and benefit expectations combine to yield more than enough to meet its members' basic needs.  If that is the case, the group will be able to grow in population, acquire more knowledge, and develop more usable resources.  Benefit expectations will likely increase, as well, creating a "feedback loop."

Of course, a group which has enjoyed a surplus can later experience an event which causes the group to lose resources, population and benefits.  Wars, epidemics and droughts can have that effect.  In this case, if member benefit expectations are not met, the group will collapse, partially or wholly.

Measures of a group's pool of economic benefits might include data concerning total assets held, or GDPs for nation-states.

Measures of a group's pool of social benefits might include rates of member interaction and voluntary participation in group activities.

FACTOR #6:  EFFECTIVENESS OF THE POLITICAL ARRANGEMENT AT SECURING SOCIAL AND/OR ECONOMIC BENEFITS FOR GROUP MEMBERS

In small groups, political roles are informal.  There is no need for formal administration, since everyone has a personal relationship with everyone else, and there may not be enough of an economic surplus to permit any members to assume formal, full-time administrative roles.   
However, as groups increase in size, and in their capacity to exceed basic expectations, they do become able to support formal, full-time administrative roles.  At that point, formal political arrangements -- governments -- arise and assume responsibility for effectively ensuring that the expected economic and/or social benefits are secured for group members.  The size and complexity of the political arrangement increases and evolves along with the group.

Of course, a group may grow in population, have specialized roles, develop a political arrangement, and then experience an  event which causes the group to lose resources, population and benefits. 
My contention is that, to be effective, the leaders in the political arrangement need to:

1. pay attention to increases and decreases of the four primary factors, as well as increases and decreases in the benefits being received by members of the group; and
2.  undertake pragmatic actions calculated to ensure that group members receive the benefits they currently expect.

 As I see it, the fate of the political arrangement, and possibly the group's survival, depends on the degree to which the group meets the benefit expectations of its members.  If member expectations are NOT met, then members will be frustrated and either fight the political arrangement or flee.  The degree to which they fight or flee will depend in part on the degree to which their benefit expectations are not met, and in part on their numbers within the population.  I'm sure there are other variables, as well, and I hope to address some of them in a future diary.

Typical measures of the political arrangement's effectiveness have included things like wealth surpluses, credit ratings and membership figures.  I think measures of ineffectiveness would include the quantity, size and forcefulness of member protests directed against the political arrangement, as well as emigration.

THE TEMPLE OF ESET

As I developed a mental picture of the interaction of these factors, the facade of a greco-roman temple came to mind.  It's a temple with four pillars: "Usable Resources;" "Knowledge;" "Population," and "Benefit Expectations."  The four pillars work in combination to support the lintel, i.e., "Benefits, Social and/or Economic ."  And resting upon the lintel is the crown, i.e., the "Political Arrangement for Securing Expected Benefits."
 

  
If the pillars of resources, knowledge, or population increase, then the lintel of benefits also increases, and so does the crown, the political arrangement.  If the pillars of resources, knowledge, or population weaken, the lintel of benefits also weakens, and so does the political arrangement. 

Such is my current theory of social organization, subject to any change that evidence requires.  I hope it's useful for others, but I can only say it works for me.  In the near future, I plan to post a diary concerning the conditions preceding revolutions, using this "evo-exchange" theory.  I'm also thinking of looking into the evidence for cycles of social change.

Peace and progress to all.

Thank you, Ziv Hospital!

I have read about the help you give to injured Syrians.  It gives me hope for our future.  When we can treat one another as people, suffering equally from the accidents of life, regardless of our national origins, we have achieved a victory for eventual peace.  You serve as an example for us all.  Thank you.

Ethics without God

Religious conservatives often assume that only a fear of God will lead people to moral behavior.  Since atheists don’t believe in God, religious conservatives often assume that atheists have no reason to be moral, so they will be immoral.  But there are plenty of ethical principles which people have proposed that don’t depend upon fear of God as their rationale for distinguishing moral and immoral conduct.  In this diary, I’d like to talk about a few of them, with an emphasis on Pragmatic Ethics.

In the first place, several famous philosophers have proposed moral codes that don’t rely on a judgmental God.  Aristotle proposed “the mean between excess and defect” as a universal standard of ethical conduct.  He allowed that there were some actions for which there was no “mean,” such as homicide, adultery and theft, but he regarded these as exceptions to the rule.  Kant argued that principles of conduct could be called “moral” only if they could serve as universal laws.  For Sartre, the greatest virtue is “authenticity” in one’s choice of action, with the caveat that one’s choice is simultaneously a choice for all humanity, and truly “authentic” choices will logically aim toward freedom.  My favorite Pragmatist, John Dewey, declared that “The genuinely moral person....forms his plans, regulates his desires, and hence performs his acts with reference to the effect they have upon the social groups of which he is a part.”

That pretty much sums up what I see as Pragmatic Ethics.  We are born and live in both social and natural environments.  The mere fact of our existence has consequences, certainly over time, and, to a less obvious degree, upon these environments while we live.  We do not exist in a void.  Everything in our natural and social world is interconnected, so everything we do has consequences – for us and for everything with which we are interconnected.  Thus, from birth to death, our existence in social and natural environments demands consideration beyond ourselves.  Selfish behavior is simply negligent behavior.  We may even be able to choose “non-existence” at some point.  But that does not eliminate the question of consequences.  Even our absence from social and natural environments will have consequences.  We should be mindful of those consequences, too.

For Pragmatists, as I see it, the question of ends and means is the same: “What are the likely consequences of this action, based on history, experience and science?”  Both the ends and means you choose have consequences.  The consequences of your actions for your social group have consequences for you as well, as a member of that social group.  What are the likely consequences of the goals you have chosen -- for you, for your social groups and for your environment?  What are the likely consequences of the means you have chosen to achieve your goals -- for you, for your social groups and for your environment?  Above all, on balance, is the likeliest outcome beneficial to you, to your social groups and to your natural environment?  If not, I would advise against the ends and/or means being considered.

As I noted above, religious conservatives assume that people will act morally only if they fear that God will punish them for immoral behavior.  Who or what enforces Pragmatic Ethics?  I say the answer is Reality.  If you do things that harm others, others are likelier to harm you.  If you give no thought to your use of the air, water and land, your negligence is likely to result in suffering.  Generally speaking, if you don’t consider the likely consequences of your actions, you are more likely to come to harm.*  There is an element of this in U.S. law, which requires “due diligence” prior to actions and punishes “negligence” for lack of appropriate consideration and preparation.

Unfortunately most of us spend little time pondering the likely consequences of our actions.  Indeed, I have been a sinner in my own creed.  But I don’t need a threatening God to keep me in line.  I have suffered directly, and could suffer indirectly, for my lack of forethought and consideration before saying and doing some things.  I conclude that we should all lead more mindful lives.  It would be beneficial to all of us.


*    The concept of “Karma,” while attractive to me, suggests a certainty of consequences which I cannot affirm.  Thus my recourse to likelihood and probabilities.

Seven Years!

This month marks the seventh year since I started this blog.  I've wondered how I would proceed hereafter.  My passion for political infighting has waned.  Our Republican Party has lost any mooring with reality.  Its members speak more and more with open contempt for rising forces in the national electorate, such as Hispanics.  Like a Roman emperor whose name I have forgotten, they try to brush back the waves and declare victory.  Public opinion has surged beyond them, to endorse gay marriage and other perceived insults to their religious authoritarianism.  They maintain their dogmatic beliefs and damn the consequences.

Little by little, this is happening in other countries, as well.  It is a confrontation which the times and environment demand.  Here, and in Turkey, in Egypt, in Israel and in Iran.  Those of us committed to real democracy must oppose them, to the extent that our conditions allow. 

I think I will write more articles about Pragmatic Ethics in the future.  A commenter at Daily Kos suggested that Pragmatism is simply an "end justifies the means" philosophy.  I would like to refute that.

Testament to the Tea Party Jesus

In 2010, an excavation in northern Somalia uncovered a text dated roughly to the time of the synoptic Gospels, but a text which is not included in any of the various existing versions of the Christian Bible.  The text is remarkable for the fact that the Jesus described in the Testament is wholly unlike the Jesus described in the standard Bibles.  The Testament Jesus appears to embody instead the ideals of the Republican Party of the USA.  

The following is a translation of the ancient Aramaic text into modern American English. 


Oh, my brother Apostles, I cannot believe what you have done.  I have read your stories of Jesus and marveled at your exaggerated tales, twisted history and critical omissions.  Your desire to create a commune in Jerusalem, share things with one another and “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s” has led you to change the true story.  You compel me to tell the real story of Jesus, his passion for private enterprise, and his disdain for government and taxes.

I remember the story he told of his birth, as it was told to him by his parents, Joseph and Mary.  He was struck by the fact that a regulation of the Roman government had forced his parents to return to Bethlehem, despite his mother’s obvious pregnancy, for the sake of a census.  But, of course, the census was connected to a Roman tax.  And, because everyone from Bethlehem had to return there for the census, all of the good places to stay were reserved.  The few that were still available were overpriced.  It was for this reason that, according to his parents, Jesus was born in a stable, surrounded by bad-smelling animals.  Jesus often repeated this story to demonstrate the perversity of government regulations and taxes.  And he always sought to avoid regulations and taxes whenever he could.

One of you, my brother Apostles, said that three rich men came and gave Jesus presents of gold, frankincense and myrrh.  In your story, the rich men suggested that Jesus was entitled to such presents solely by virtue of his birth.  Have you forgotten?  Jesus himself said that no one helped him on his path to fame, that everything he had was the fruit of his effort alone.

It was lack of wealth, in fact, which forced Joseph to leave Bethlehem with Mary and his newborn son.  So many people had returned to Bethlehem that there was no work for another carpenter like Joseph.  He had to take his young family across the desert and sneak into Egypt, where there were always a lot of government construction projects.  He returned to Galilee as soon as he received word that jobs were again plentiful in the local economy.

That story of the wine at the wedding was also false.  When the father of the bride realized that his guests were quickly drinking up his stock of wine, he mentioned it to Jesus.  Jesus and I took all the empty wine jugs to the well and filled them almost completely with water.  We returned to the kitchen and poured what we could of the remaining wine into the water jugs.  The result was not a good wine, but the people at the party were just moochers.

You mentioned that Jesus cursed a fig tree that was not producing fruit, even though it was not the season for the fig tree to bear fruit, but you do not explain why he did this.  You did not comprehend his true message, which was this: we should all be producing fruit, all the time, however impossible our circumstances make that.  Otherwise we are only worthy of curses.

You also mentioned the time that Jesus gave a long sermon and distributed loaves and fishes to everyone present.  You omitted the fact that the loaves and fishes lasted because we sold them at the highest price we could get!  Yes, those people were participating in Jesus’ lecture, but that did not entitle them to food at our expense.

Eventually the authorities caught up with us and confronted Jesus, saying, “You failed to pay taxes for 5 years.  Who do you think you are?  A king?  The Son of God?”
Jesus answered, “Whatever you say.”
Unfortunately, this was not the time for sarcasm.  The authorities took offense at his attitude and condemned him to death.  They saw his refusal to pay taxes as theft from the State, which is why, by the way, he was crucified between two thieves.  The Romans were not subtle.  He died for all those who would not pay taxes. 

His body was removed from the tomb because Joseph of Arimathea donated the tomb but expected the rest of us to pay the property tax on it.  Jesus was opposed to paying property taxes.  That was why we kept traveling around.  So, we declined to pay the property tax.  Not long after that, the body of Jesus disappeared from the tomb.  We questioned the few people we found at the tomb, but they only gave us vague answers, and Joseph of Arimathea claimed to know nothing.

Now the lot of you are practicing communal living and giving away money to the poor like they are entitled to it.  Jesus would have rebuked you.  His message was to share nothing, honor the wealthy, despise the poor, and pay no taxes that might end up supporting layabout widows and blind men.

That is why I had to leave you, and why I now must reveal His True Message to the World.

Thaddeus


Thus ends the Testament of Thaddeus to the Tea Party Jesus.

There Will Always Be a "Herrenvolk" Party

As I read about the conflict within our Republican Party, between its "Establishment" and "Social Conservative" factions, I am reminded of an earlier political party in the U.S., the Whig Party.  The "Whig Party" is said to have supported modernization and economic protectionism.  It was basically a "Herrenvolk" party of the Northern and Southern elites.  But the Whig Party ultimately imploded over a social issue: slavery.  It was a question of social and political status: were slaves from Africa humans with equal rights?  Whigs in the Northern and Southern regions were divided on the answer, and eventually they separated into other political parties. 

One of the political parties that arose from the ashes of the Whig Party was the Republican Party.  They didn't support slavery.  They appeared to confer human status, even equal status, to the African slaves.  One of the new Republicans, Abraham Lincoln, just wanted initially to restrict slavery to the states where it already existed.  He saw this as a compromise position.  But Southern states feared that his policies would end their "status quo."  Such policies would certainly mean that any new States created on this large continent could not be counted upon as allies of the Southern states.  So, after Lincoln's election to the Presidency, they sued for independence.  That led to the U.S. Civil War.

At this point in our history, it appears to me that our Republican Party is faced with a similar fracture, this time over Hispanic immigration and homosexuals.  America's "Herrenvolk" party is faced again with a question of whether equal status should be granted, this time to Hispanic immigrants and homosexuals.  It is a question of whether homosexuals and Hispanic immigrants shall be given equal status to the Herrenvolk, and again there is a division.  Based on our history, I do believe there will be a number who cannot accept Hispanics and homosexuals as equals.  They will form a minority party.  The remainder, though diminished in number, will be the genesis of our new Herrenvolk party.

Machiavelli observed long ago that in every republic there are two conflicting factions, that of the people and that of the nobles.  Our Republicans perceive themselves as "the party of the noble," but I perceive them as the party of the Herrenvolk, who perceive themselves as noble.  Following the above analysis, I believe their influence will be diminished for a while.  But they will return, to represent those who regard themselves as the new nobles of our society.  Most likely this will be based upon their wealth.  Sexual orientation and national origin will no longer matter.


 

Political Orientation

Over the last several years, research concerning our brains and political orientation has consistently shown differences in the brains of liberals and conservatives.  This can be due, in part, to life experiences.  The brain is not a static organ, and research shows it can be rewired.  This can occur by accident, by surgery, or by practices like meditation.  But it is also a fact that we each start with mental wiring that was not a matter of our choice.

For example, some people are born with a preference to use their left hand instead of their right hand.  They did not wake up one day and decide that writing with the left hand was better.  It was simply their natural inclination to favor their left hand when manipulating objects.  My mother tells me that, in her generation, use of the left hand was punished, and she had to learn to use her right hand instead.  But the births of "lefties" continued, and it is no longer a matter that people feel a need to correct.

We are now seeing the same thing with "sexual orientation."  People don't wake up one day deciding that they would like partners of the same sex.  It is simply their inborn inclination.  They can hide it and act like heterosexuals, but it is increasingly a matter that people do not feel they need to hide or "correct."

I believe we must acknowledge that the same thing is true with "political orientation."  To a greater degree than previously imagined, our political orientation -- liberal or conservative -- is probably something we are born with.  It's not a matter of choice, per se.  It can be hidden or "corrected" when the political climate requires, but it is not eliminated.

Nor is it something simply guaranteed by procreation.  My own parents are very conservative, while I am very liberal.  They are firmly Christian, and I am not. 

And yet my father told me recently that he loved me.  I told him I loved him, too.  I know that we both meant it.  Both of us have learned that the differences in our natures does not require us to diminish our regard for one another, even though we oppose each other on political and religious grounds.  There are exceptions to every rule, but I think this is the general case.

Tradition: the Kiddie-Blanket of Conservatism

When Conservatives of any country speak about what they believe their nation needs, it comes down to this: Follow Tradition.  In Conservative minds, Tradition is a shield against a threatening world.  It is an anchor in the chaos of change.  In the mist of confusion, it glows as a well-worn path.  And it ensures the help of the God, or gods.

Those of us who are not Conservative see Traditions as either benign, like the British monarchy (which is nevertheless expensive!), or dangerous, like traditions of discrimination, or even death, for failure to meet the terms of Tradition.

From our perspective, Conservatives rely upon Tradition as a kiddie-blanket, something they must have with them to feel secure, to sleep soundly.  It’s ultimate justification is emotional and sentimental, not rational.  Clearly, maintaining Medieval beliefs and practices into the present age and climate is not healthy.  But Conservatives persist, because they cannot feel comfortable otherwise. 

I do not believe it is possible to alter the psychological constructs of our Conservative brethren.  More and more I am convinced that there are genetic, organic roots to our differences.  This does not mean it is futile to express my opinions.  There are differences of degrees, even though I speak in general terms.  It is my hope that some who may be somewhat Conservative can be persuaded away from this dangerous delusion, and that people who see what I see are encouraged to speak the truth.

Chen Guangcheng Says It Best

Based on an Agence France-Presse report, Chinese democratic activist Chen Guangcheng made the following comments in Washington today:

“I urge you to continue unwaveringly from your basic principles of democracy, human rights and freedom of speech. You must not give an inch or offer the smallest compromise when it comes to these basic principles,” he said.

....
Chen denounced “the barbarism of the authoritarian system” as the greatest contemporary threat, saying that such regimes do “their utmost to stop the mouths and bind the spirits of good-willed people.”

“They will ravage you at will. If you resist, they will make you a criminal; if you protest, they will make you their enemy,” he said.

“If you approach them with dialogue and reason and hope that they will give up some of their authoritarian power, you will in effect become an accomplice to their work,” Chen said."

There will always be social and international problems in the world, because none of us are perfect.  But many, if not most, of our problems will be resolved more easily when the voices of nations in the world truly reflect the interests of their populations, and not the interests of the few in control.

May there be democracy in China.  在中国有民主。

May there be democracy in Syria.  قد تكون هناك ديمقراطية في سوريا.

Fundraising for Progressive Groups

I'm not a fundraiser by profession - more like a researcher - so I've done some online research concerning nonprofit fundraising.  What can progressive groups do, aside from the usual donor campaigns and events?  Well, I've learned that nonprofits have used these ideas, as well:
 
Endowment funds, to operate off of dividends

Memorial funds that people give to in memory of a loved one. Which also yields dividends.
 
Affiliate Marketing, or getting paid to advertise for other organizations and businesses, such as AMAZON.

Credit Card [aka "Affinity Card"] with a bank.  True, progressives won't want to support a rapacious bank or bad actor.  I have not seen the name of UMB Bank linked to scandals, and they have a program that allows a non-profit to get their logo on a credit card and make some money.  You can find that here:

http://www.cardpartner.com/affinity

If you don’t like banks, your group may be able to share in proceeds from a card issued by Working Assets, now called CREDO:
http://www.workingassets.com/CreditCard/Default.aspx
The catch is that the proceeds are shared among a list of recipients who are nominated and voted upon.  The list of recipients has already been compiled for 2013, but the process will be repeated for following years, allowing other recipients to be chosen in the future.

Mutual Funds
If you are willing to invest in the markets, it is possible for like-minded non-profits to band together for mutual dividend benefit.  It has already been done by environmentalists:
Green Century Fund
http://www.greencentury.com/about
So it makes sense that progressive groups also could band together and create a "Progressive Century Fund."

The following are merchandisers who will put your logo on their products and then take and fill orders for that branded product.  The nonprofit gets some of the proceeds.

http://www.fieldhouse.com/Logo-Web-Stores.asp?AC=

http://www.visability.com/services.html

There is even an "E-Bay" for nonprofit organizations:
http://www.biddingforgood.com/auction/BiddingForGood.action
They present some interesting auction concepts, such as "Breakfast with ....." as an auction item. 

This is some of what we can do in the U.S.  I think it likely that similar arrangements can be created in other countries.

Barack Hussein Clinton

William Jefferson Clinton was a President I found both admirable and frustrating.  I admired his soaring rhetoric, his passion, his intellect and his feeling for the common man.  As a steward of the State, he created a budget surplus, which is no easy feat.  And yet he was a frustrating figure.

This was not because of his sexual weakness, but because of his low aim.  His "liberal" policies were often watered-down Republican policies, which Republicans fought anyway because Clinton proposed them.  Could more progressive policies have been proposed?  I would have liked to have seen them attempted, at least.

This is how I feel now about President Obama, as well.  Like Clinton, he has the soaring rhetoric, the passion, the intellect and a genuine feeling for the common man.  He shows some timidity in applying Keynesian remedies to recession, but the economy is slowly recovering under his stewardship, and he is defending Keynesian fiscal policies against Republican trickle-down mythology.  But he is also, like Clinton, a frustrating figure.

Like Clinton, his "liberal" policies are often watered-down Republican policies, which Republicans have fought anyway because Obama proposed them.  Could more progressive policies be proposed by President Obama?  Maybe.  He has "evolved" beyond Clinton on the issue of homosexuality.  And current Republicans, who are even more reactionary than Clinton faced, may provoke him to move further left.

The irony then would be that the Republicans, having provoked his leftward movement, would not see this as a self-fulfilling prophecy, but proof of his ulterior aims all along.

I'm Not Dead Yet!

Since my last post here, I have been posting and commenting more at www.dailykos.com.  In the interim, President Obama has been re-elected.  This is good.  But there is still a group of Tea Party Republicans [TPR] in our Congress sufficiently large to obstruct any progress, and even any compromise toward progress.  This is our current problem in the U.S.  No political system is perfect.  The TPR have exposed our weakness.  A group that refuses to compromise can tie up anything.  It's even worse when they are so ideologically absolutist that even the harmful results of inflexibility do not  give them pause.  If our economy collapses, it seems that they will rejoice.

It is possible that the TPR will be marginalized by Republicans willing to compromise.  This is my hope, but it remains to be seen.

In any event, this standoff cannot proceed forever.  Eventually, reality will kick people in the ass.  The question is how much more damage will have been done in the meantime.

Bumperstickers for Romney

I travel the roads a lot, but I haven't seen any bumperstickers telling Americans why they should vote for Mitt Romney for President.  Maybe his campaign needs some ideas.  Here are a few I've come up with:

ROMNEY

Bush with Better English

Vote Romney

Or He Will Do Bad Things

Mitt Romney

For Whatever You Want

Santorum for Inquisitor 2012

In the view of Rick Santorum and his ilk, the United States of America can only be a great country if it pleases God. And only Rick Santorum and other evangelical Christians like him know what pleases God. Their knowledge of what pleases God is based on statements written thousands of years ago by people unknown to us in languages few of us can speak, in certain letters and books selected among hundreds by various churches over the centuries. Truly, what knowledge could be more certain?

You might ask, for example, what did these letters and books specifically say about God's wishes for fertilized human eggs? Nothing directly, from what I have seen. God allegedly said to go forth and multiply, but did not say, "heedlessly." Does this absence of a direct statement fill Santorumites with caution on the issue of contraception? No. Their religious authorities have spoken on the matter. Despite any direct Biblical statement about it, their religious authorities have divined that contraception displeases God. To question this now is to show lack of faith in God. Lack of faith in God leads to eternal damnation. Whatever their religious authorities have declared to be God's desire on the issue must be true and is not subject to discussion, science or reason. And so it is with every social, economic and political issue about which their authorities have spoken.

This would not bother me so much if that was the end of the matter. Unfortunately, Santorumites believe that God is not pleased until every citizen of the nation is forced to do what they believe pleases God. Until every citizen does what pleases God, in their belief, the nation will suffer!

Ladies and Gentlemen, it is at this point that you and I part ways. In my view, our freedom of religion does not give your religion the freedom to stomp on my religious beliefs and impose your doctrine upon me.

Newt Lectures Romney on Ethical Conduct

Sorry, but that makes me laugh every time I think of it.

The Masses Will Not be Managed 大量不會被處理

Villagers in Wukan, Southern China, recently marched in demonstrations against corruption and exploitation by their authoritarian elite. This is what people around the world are waking up to.

Regarding the Wukan demonstrations, a Communist official named Zhu Mingguo delivered a message to his superiors that should be a message to all authoritarian elites of the world:
“The task of managing the masses is becoming more and more difficult....The public’s awareness of democracy, equality and rights is continually getting stronger, and as a result their demands are growing.”

This is the truth. The lies and distortion, propaganda and sloganeering, will no longer work like they used to. All authority ultimately depends upon the consent and cooperation of the members of the community. Consent and cooperation may be coerced, but not forever. Inequities will be tolerated, but not continually. There is a point at which tolerance turns to outrage and the public refuses to cooperate further in its own exploitation.

President Assad الرئيس الأسد

الرئيس الأسد, فهو لم يذهب الى سوريا. كما تحاول خنق الديموقراطية بالقوة من دون ان ينجح. الرجاء اعتبار مجلس
المصالحة, او ما شئتم تسميتها. ولا بد أن نزاهة بأن الديمقراطية في سورية. السلام تتوقف على ذلك. ومن ضمن ذلك انشاء قوة لكم. من اجل الانسانية, ونطلب منكم ذلك.

It is not going well for Syria. The attempt to stifle democracy by force is not succeeding. Please consider a Council of Reconciliation, or whatever you wish to call it. There must be an honest, recognized democracy in Syria. Peace depends upon it. It is within your power to create this. For the sake of humanity, we ask that you do so.

Gotta Walk the Talk

Dear President Obama,

The speech you gave in Kansas was a symphony to this listener. Fox News is tone deaf. You could say, "I love my mom and apple pie," and they would say you forgot to mention God, the second amendment, and the sanctity of marriage. You can't win with them.

But you can still win with your base. You can animate us like you did in 2008. But it will take a little more this time. Because you talked tough the last time, too.

I think I understand why you sought to compromise so often, since your election. The leaders in Congress were people with whom you worked before. You knew them. Perhaps you thought they would remain reasonable colleagues. But times had already changed dramatically, Prez. I'm guessing that you realized this when the Republican candidates indicated at a debate that they would not accept any compromise that included increased revenue for the government.

Regardless, you do appear to be rejoining your base now in calling for the Fair Society, one in which we all get a fair shot and we all contribute our fair share. I'm with you on that. But this time, between now and the election, your words won't be taken for granted. You gotta walk the talk, Prez. You have to stand up to your former colleagues, and tell them to their faces, that what they are demanding is not fair to the country as a whole or its future. If you do this, and do it repeatedly, I believe you will see again the fervor you saw in 2008.

Разделенное Россия

Г-н Путин,

Когда правительство позволяет урнам для избирательных бюллетеней быть заполненным, нет народовластия. Народовластие Потёмкин.

Когда вы требуете что протесты были оркестрованы другими странами, вы оскорбляете сведению ваших товарищеских русских. Они нет тупоумных людей. Им не нужно американцы сказать им чего они видят. Им не нужно американцы сказать им как чувствовать о этом.

Чему вы думаете русские будете верить, ваши губы или их собственные глаза?

Divided Russia

Mr. Putin,

When a government allows ballot boxes to be stuffed, it is not a democracy. It is a Potemkin democracy.

When you claim that protests have been orchestrated by other countries, you insult the intelligence of your fellow Russians. They are not stupid people. They do not need Americans to tell them what they see. They do not need Americans to tell them how to feel about this.

What do you think Russians will believe, your lips or their own eyes?

Democratic Philosophy, Out Loud and Proud

How good it is, to see and hear American political leaders, candidates and pundits speak out forcefully on behalf of democratic political philosophy, in opposition to the authoritarian creed which has divided and diminished our nation.

Most recently, our Nobel Laureate economist and columnist Paul Krugman expressed it in a post he titled, "The Social Contract."

In that post he pointed to a video of Senatorial candidate Elizabeth Warren, one in which she briefly and beautifully presented democratic political philosophy and its application to the current ideological debate in our country.

President Obama, too, has been using democratic political philosophy to explain to the public the basis for his positions on the issues facing us:

• "But there’s always been another thread running through our history -– a belief that we’re all connected, and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. We believe, in the words of our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, that through government, we should do together what we cannot do as well for ourselves.

• "And so we’ve built a strong military to keep us secure, and public schools and universities to educate our citizens. We’ve laid down railroads and highways to facilitate travel and commerce. We’ve supported the work of scientists and researchers whose discoveries have saved lives, unleashed repeated technological revolutions, and led to countless new jobs and entire new industries. Each of us has benefitted from these investments, and we’re a more prosperous country as a result.

• "Part of this American belief that we’re all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security and dignity. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves. And so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, those with disabilities. We’re a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further. We would not be a great country without those commitments."
  

Most Americans prefer not to think of themselves as having an "ideology." But they do, in fact, have worldviews based upon systems of ideas and beliefs. Those systems of ideas and beliefs then inform their political positions. I think it best that we honestly present the philosophical underpinnings for democratic political positions, and let the people judge which is better for them. I believe democratic political philosophy will prevail eventually over all authoritarian creeds.

The Virtue of Compassionate Government

I hear Teabagger complaints about government. One of them is that they shouldn't have to pay taxes to support things they don't believe in. They should get to choose where their money goes.

But society and government exist to ensure that all members benefit, not just those who are "liked." Supporting only those who are liked leads inevitably to discrimination on the basis of prejudice. Teabaggers have no problem discriminating against non-Christians, people of color, and so forth. But this is not only contrary to the principles expressed in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. It also defies social reality. Equal treatment is a legitimate expectation in our society. Failure to recognize this expectation leads first to frustration - and then to aggression. And teabaggers will be shocked, SHOCKED at the result.

Teabaggers worship private enterprise. But business is NOT concerned with the General Welfare of the people. It is concerned with individual profit. Where there is no personal profit, there will be no private enterprise. This is where democratic government steps in, to ensure that citizens receive benefits they should receive, as citizens. According to Teabagger ethics, where there is no personal profit available, there is no value. Damn them to hell, or to rebirth as poor people.

Senator Marco Rubio , Teabagger darling, has commented that neighbors, churches, and synagogues used to help people in need. And personal savings. Oh, my naive young senator! Do you honestly believe that neighbors, churches and synagogues can remedy the effects of high unemployment? Or the high costs of health care? Do we have to affiliate with a church or synagogue to get health coverage, even if we believe their creed is absurd? What if our neighbors are as poor as we are, or they don't like us? How many of us can save enough money for cancer therapy, hip replacement or heart surgery? Your suggestions are laughable. And sad, because you believe them.

But such are the naive, egocentric and unthinking ethics of Tea Party Conservatism.

Cut and Hoard Republicans

Are worse than "tax and spend" Democrats.

Our economy is based on a market for goods and services. When Democrats "tax and spend," it means more demand in the market. More demand means more business, and more business means more jobs.

When Republicans cut taxes, and cut government spending, and hoard the national wealth for themselves, it means less demand in the market. They may buy more diamonds [Newt Gingrich] or more expensive wine [Paul Ryan], but they simply cannot compensate for the hundreds of millions of consumers now with less ability to consume. So the net result is less business and fewer jobs. If we cut taxes to "nothing," and government spending to "nothing," the result would be the same.

But, in the end, this is for Republicans a moral imperative, not a question of economic rationale. That is why the economy could collapse around them and they would feel self-righteous, even as their homes are devalued. Their austerity policies could lead to riots, and they would simply blame the rioters for not accepting the destruction of their dreams, the elimination of their expectations, and a lifetime of deprivation....so the rich could hoard more and more.

You simply cannot have both economic feudalism and political democracy. This leads to the question I believe we face in the U.S.: will we accept political feudalism, as the Republicans want, or take measures to "democratize" our economy?

Political Labels

Conservatives in our country have, for decades, created and parroted pejorative labels for liberals and Democrats. Perhaps because we lack their goose-stepping authoritarianism, liberals and progressives have not replied, in a unified fashion, with similar labels. Some liberals and progressives even dislike the notion of "stooping to the level" of Conservatives. Some argue that it "turns off" unaligned voters in the middle.

I did meet a lady who expressed disgust at the nasty political rhetoric she heard. But she did have, at that point, a bias in favor of Republicans, and it only appeared to disgust her when Democrats replied with nasty political rhetoric. It was okay as long as it was only Republicans saying foul things about Democrats.

To hell with that. Political labels evoke passions. Some people go to the polls from a sense of duty, but more will go to the polls because they have been emotionally moved to participate. It may be for reasons of supporting a particular candidate. Or it may be out of antagonism for another candidate. This is reality. And this is a time when voters must decide which side they are on: the side of corporate Christian feudalism; or the side of egalitarian secular democracy.

On behalf of egalitarian secular democrats in the U.S., here are some labels I believe our fascist Republican brethren have earned:

greedy
irresponsible
egotistical, egocentric, self-centered
prejudiced
childish, juvenile
parochial
primitive
gator-brained
paternalistic
feudal [mind-set, attitudes]
dogmatic
uninformed
naive
unthinking
unenlightened
"cut and spit" [they cut public taxes and spending, and spit on the citizens who need public help]
"cut and hoard" [they cut public taxes and spending, and hoard the nation's wealth]
"Antoinettes", e.g., "Congressional Antoinettes" [Paul Ryan] and "Conservative Antoinettes" [Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter]
blinded by their preconceptions

If I think of more, I'll add to the list....

When Compromise Becomes Appeasement

source

In 1938, Adolf Hitler created a crisis in Europe by demanding that the Czechs give part of Czechoslovakia to Germany. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain of Great Britain sought to end this crisis by negotiation. When Chamberlain came back from negotiating with Germany, he declared that it had been agreed between Great Britain and Germany that the Czechs had to give up part of their country, to save their country and save Europe from Armageddon. But, due to Hitler’s goals - which had been stated in his book, “Mein Kampf” - Czechoslovakia was not saved, and Europe was not saved from Armageddon.

As I write this, the Republican Party is creating another financial crisis for the United States. They demand that Americans give up government-managed programs and benefits, or they will make the country a debt scofflaw. And President Obama is attempting to negotiate with them to end the crisis.

When negotiating, the goals of your opponent must be taken into account. This is easy, when they state their goals publicly. How many times must Republicans say that Social Security should not exist, or should be privatized, for Democrats to conclude that the Republican goal is the end of Social Security? How many times must Republicans say that health care is a privilege, and Medicare should be replaced with vouchers, before Democrats conclude that the Republican goal is to eviscerate Medicare and Medicaid? How many times will Republicans be given concessions for the sake of their promises? Isn't it clear that they will not stop creating crises until their goals are achieved? At this point, continuing to compromise with them becomes mere appeasement.

Mr. President, I hope not to see you wave a bill and declare, in the manner of Neville Chamberlain, that “Democrats and Republicans have agreed that Americans must give up something from their government-managed programs in order to save their government-managed programs, and to save America from default.” Clearly, Republicans are attaining their goals, piece by piece, with each crisis they create. It is in their favor to continue to create crises, and to make many more crises, if with each crisis they get closer to attaining their goals. If you do not share their goals, you must define and defend your own, or lose them piecemeal.

A Suggested Presidential Speech

Fellow Americans,

You can't have tax cuts during wartime. That was a fundamental mistake we are still paying for. We should have removed the tax cuts long ago, to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the party in power then wanted to believe that the wars would somehow pay for themselves, and that tax cuts would somehow stimulate economic growth that would pay for everything.

But the real world doesn't work that way. If what they said was true, we would have no recession now. But we do. Unfortunately, the party that believed in wars with tax cuts still believes in wars with tax cuts. Despite the reality of the recession that confronts us, they believe in continuing the policies that brought us to this crisis. Even now they threaten our international standing for the sake of continuing these failed policies.

Yes, we need to confront the deficits created by past administrations. But we don't have to do that by eliminating the supports to our own elderly, disabled, orphaned, jobless and impoverished. What we need to do is end the tax cuts, loopholes, subsidies and supports which have not helped us and will not help us. We can do this, and we must do this, for the sake of our great nation.

We must also address unemployment. Our nation once faced a Great Depression, and we worked our way out of that. Instead of continuing failed policies, let us follow the policies which have been successful before. It is unconscionable that our nation would both withhold unemployment support and withhold jobs that would provide support. I pledge to you that a top priority of my Administration will be to counter unemployment with all legal means available to me.

I ask you to join with me now, by insisting that Congress stop playing politics and start working with me on real-world solutions to the problems that face us.

Thank you, and may God bless America.

The Prez Speaks His Mind

OK, not really, but this is one speech I bet he wishes he could give!

Obama: I'm A Dick! - watch more funny videos

Class Payoff Doesn't Create Jobs, Either

I read with interest the statement from Joe DeSantis, communications director for Newt Gingrich, that "class warfare does not create jobs." I know what he means. Any suggestion that the wealthiest Americans should contribute the highest revenue to maintain our nation is "warfare" against America's nobility.

Well, how has coddling the rich paid off?

It doesn't, it hasn't, and it won't. Indulging the upper class with subsidies and tax breaks and exclusions and deductions has gotten us nothing, zippo, nada. How many jobs does an account with Tiffany's create?

You seriously want to end the deficit? Pay up, you cheap *********.

President Obama: Declare a War on Unemployment

We have seen U.S. Presidents declare a "War on Poverty," a "War on Drugs" and a "War on Terror." President Obama needs to declare a War on Unemployment. Except in times of plenty or actual war, the economy is the issue uppermost in the minds of the people. It shows up in every poll taken, and rightly so. The American people are concerned about the lack of jobs to support themselves and their families.

Compared to this, the Republican "War on the Deficit" is a laughable abstraction. Having a deficit doesn't mean people can't eat. Being unemployed does mean people can't eat. Which of these has more immediate impact on you?
a. The government is spending more money than it takes in; or
b. You don't have a job and there are none out there.
I would pick "b." I think every American who needs a job to survive -- the vast majority -- would agree.

So, Mr. President, you can stop with this "Win the Future" slogan. No one knows what it means, anyway. Declare war on unemployment with the same vigor and determination you showed in the pursuit of Usama bin Laden. That we can understand.

Saudi Women Defy Driving Ban

I salute you, ladies. This is a clever way to point out the social injustice. You can't even drive a car wearing a burqa? With your husband beside you? Who decided this? On what theocratic basis?

It strikes me as similar to the lunch counter demonstrations in our country, where Blacks demanded equal treatment in restaurants where they paid the same money as the White patrons. Equal treatment eventually won.