Shut Down

Too much to do; too little time. I'm shutting down this blog. I think I'm just going to keep Smiling Atheist for my personal blog, since I plan to continue being an atheist, whereas socialism may not last in the US of A.

I want my money back

Elon Musk just won a tech award today. In the Wired comments on the story was posted this:

And to think, he gets the award because he was able to use my hard earned tax dollars, charitably donated to him by my over-reaching government. When do tax payers benefit from this? Can I have my money back now please?

I felt this deserved a reasoned response from the socialist perspective. To wit:


You can have your money back, but you need to get in line. I want my money back for funding the Viet Nam War and the conflicts since then. What do tax payers benefit from those undeclared wars? I want my money back from regulatory agencies that got in bed with corporations so they could bugger taxpayers under the covers. I want my money back from corporate bailouts from Chrysler in 1979 onward.


When I get my money back, you can have your money back. I was here first. And btw, your tax dollars are every bit as hard-earned as those dollars you spent going to a movie. They're just dollars, and we all work for a living.

A Needed Book

I'm thinking of writing a primer about Republicans. I have the title: The Complete Idiot's Guide to Complete Idiots.

Democrats lose control of Senate; defeat for Obama

So is that it?

Is socialism over?

Liberal Patriotism

I think I'm seeing something rather curious, at least for my generation: liberal patriotism.

Now, settle down. I know liberals (and radicals) are patriotic, but it's of a particular form and flavor; certainly far different from right-wing patriotism. Its vocabulary and tone is quite different from the foam-at-the-mouth crowd. Specifically, the sort of liberal patriotism that I grew up with takes the form of apologetics (I mean this in the classical sense of the word).

But in recent weeks, and specifically since Obama's decision to add troops into Afghanistan, I've been seeing patriotism expressed in more positive terms. It's focused on the soldiers. It takes the form of expressing concern for their welfare, welcoming them home when they return, giving them respect while they're here. It's as if because a liberal president sent them into war, it's okay to express support in these more traditional ways. It's not that liberals never did this before, but it's as though they've been outed. They can behave this way in public now, without embarrassment.

This is all subjective impression and maybe you media types should go and do a study, but I'm hearing it from mainstream media, in the tone of certain advertising, in local news stories, and even in the liberal press. There was a time when the critics of an unjust war criticized the soldiers as well, but that doesn't happen much any more. This is even weirder when you realize that during Viet Nam the soldiers were draftees whereas today the soldiers are volunteers. If the war is unjust then surely the privates deserve criticism as much as do the generals. More, probably, for the generals made their decision to go military long before we sent soldiers into the Middle East, whereas the privates knew exactly what they were getting into and knew all the criticisms of this campaign, so one has to assume they more or less agree with the underlying politics.

So, we elect a right-wing numbskull and the nation splits over how and when to be patriotic. We elect a moderate (no, Virginia, he's not a leftist) and the country is mollified and supportive, if not exactly unified. I'm party to it. I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I hear the sportscaster send a message to the troops overseas, or whatever. Then the TV goes away and I get this creepy feeling. The sportscaster (or whoever) is sincere. The troops are sincere. It's just the war that's wrong, and I keep wondering if I've been played.

Press 1 for English

Just saw a Facebook group called "Why the HELL should I have to press 1 for English". I wanted to reply to the person who became a fan of this but I didn't want to insult the individual, who wouldn't have understood anyway, so I'm writing my response here.

Why? Because 1 represents the grand total of languages you can understand! You xenophobic cretin.

I don't mind stupid. I can hang with stupid all day. What I cannot abide is stupid and arrogant.

What Am I?

Just a quick question: if America is now run by socialists, and America is a socialist state, then am I a socialist? Is Rush Limbaugh a socialist?

I mean, all those people in Communist Russia were communists, right?

If a government is socialist does that mean that every government employee is socialist? Is my mailman a socialist?

If I agree with 10% of what my socialist government says and does, and disagree with 90%, am I free of the socialist taint? What if I agree with 90%? Where does one draw the line?

Okay, that was more than one question.

Comrade Sad Sack

Has the government gone too far? It appears so: they've socialized war.

It's true. The basterds have taken away the conduct of war from private business, which clearly could do a better job, and have given it to the government. Those bloated, overpaid fools now have complete control of tanks, airplanes, guns, you name it. It's the government--the Feds, for pity's sake!--who try to organize the complex system that is modern warfare.

Clearly this is a job for the free market. Do you really think the same jokers who run our freeways or who give a free pass to atheists and welfare cheats are going to be able to manage to run an army? Of course not! Armies are too complicated. We need a free market here, with each military unit free to form according to its own natural desire to fight and win. I mean, do you really want an army that is "too big to fail"? Do you really want your tax dollars to bail out troops?

No!

Let each brigade fail on its own merits. Let only the strongest survive, and if that means foreign troops are better than ours, well so be it! Nothing, and by "nothing" I mean nothing, is more important than the free market. Let war mean capitalism and let capitalism mean war!

Amen, brothers and sisters, and go in peace. When you're told to.

Nazis in the Suburbs

First they hijacked town hall meetings. Now they've had their March on Washington.. Reactions vary from mystified to irritated. (That's pretty much the entire emotional spectrum for the Left, nowadays, which lost its sense of outrage and fury in the 70s, so much so that they viewed the election of Clinton as a victory.)

Keep an eye on the extreme Right. They wear plaid shirts instead of brown ones, cowboy boots instead of jackboots, but their mentality is virtually the same and their methods are restrained only by an effective police force. The current atmosphere is reminiscent of pre-Nazi Germany, as noted in a previous post.

For the suburban Nazi the greatest danger facing America is socialism. It used to be communism but it can't be any more because communism collapsed and the great Bogeyman was dead. This was a terrible blow to the Right, but it gradually discovered that socialism was an even better Bogeyman because it was everywhere and nowhere. Socialism can't fall, so it can always be a danger. This danger is so grave that it justifies any act, any lie; indeed, to refuse to consider the extreme act is to show a lack of patriotism.

Many folks say this is laughable and maybe a little unsettling, but no more. That was the reaction of liberals in Germany. The things said by the Right were so obviously false, so melodramatically hysterical that one felt like a fool taking it seriously. In fact, the only ones who did take it serously were the Communists, who were likewise anathema to the political majority. No one in power took them seriously until they were the ones in power.

It can happen here, as Sinclair Lewis pointed out years ago. And as he noted then, there are three key ingredients to a takeover by the Right. They need a crisis. They need a leader. And they need a failure of will by the majority.

We've had a crisis, and I fear we have the failure of will, though that will has not yet been truly tested. The Right has yet to produce a real leader. They thought they had one in George Bush but he let them down; he was merely a fool, it turns out, and they cannot forgive him for that.

So I say it again. Watch out for these people. They are dangerous, because they are self-righteous. Like the suicide bomber, they have in their own minds justified every act they will ever commit. They repeat their political creed like mantras and they work their radios and remote controls like working a rosary, never straying outside the prescribed boundaries, for outside lies perdition. This is, in fact, precisely the mob that the Founding Fathers sought to protect our government against.

I've been watching these people all my life. They spat on us when we wore long hair and they kicked at us when we protested the Viet Nam War. They supported government spying, war without declaration of war, and flaunting of law national and international. They don't want the government telling them what to do because they're too busy telling everyone else what to do. They have that poisonous hatred that is born of a life lived in fear. They have always been here. And they've always been dangerous.

If this is life under socialism, it feels more like Germany in about 1932. The left still appears confused, uncertain, hesitant while the right is increasingly shrill and strident.

One comes to the point where one understands the limits of reform are determined by the limits of will. The right in America is willing to go further, to perpetrate violence, to flaunt the law, to throw out any and every principle in order to win even a tactical victory against its declared enemy, while the left forswears violence, reveres the law, and clings to its principles even at the cost of defeat.

Those old enough will understand this. It's why the civil rights movement became the black power movement. It's why the SDS split. It's why people took to the streets. Not because of the nobility of the cause but because of the utter hopelessness of the path of moderate reform.

The trouble with the radical solution is that is splits. It splits the nation, it splits communities, and in the end it splits even its own members into increasingly marginal factions. It's like a great wave that begins with seeming overwhelming power as it crashes into the shore, but ends in a hundred rivulets and tiny pools, isolated and evaporating. But while mighty, it can sweep away much.

It has been a very long time since those who genuinely want reform have held real power in this country. They don't seem to know quite how to handle it. I wish them well. In the wake of three decades of bonehead politics, this country can benefit from even the most modest tune-up.

The Tipping Point

I wonder how socialist a country has to be in order to be socialist. I mean, maybe we already are, and all this kerfluffle is wasted breath. What a relief that would be! We could all just acknowledge we're socialists, or else go underground and start to work on the great capitalist revolution. Now that's a delicious thought, isn't it? Capitalist revolutionaries? Stock brokers at the barricades, overturning file cabinets and setting them on fire! Throwing safe deposit boxes at the tanks!

Where was I?

Oh yes, the tipping point. Assuming we're still capitalist, will it be health insurance? Is that the deciding factor? How many corporations does the government have to bail out? Or is it total money spent versus number of corporate entities? I'm not sure. I've looked around at the conservative blogs, but can find nothing. You'd think they'd have a list. A guidebook.

Maybe even a threat level with its own color spectrum.

Part of the problem here, of course, is that socialism is just a word. It's never been clearly defined. Same as capitalism. It's more a matter of self-definition: we is this; they is that. As long as we are we and they are they, then this ain't that. And there can be no tipping point, but only the eternal threat of tipping.

Clear?

American Know-How

We're really proud of this. We don't seem to be very clear about the specifics (just try searching on 'american "know-how" ' and see what you get), but we're very clear that we have it and that it's American. A couple of points occur to me.

First, it's curious that people implicitly assume that American know-how magically evaporates in the halls of government. Indeed, "American know-how" (often presented as "good old American know-how") is set as the counterpoint to American government. American know-how exists in the individual, in the family, in the independent business, in corporate business -- everywhere, in fact, except in government. No one seems willing to explain this strange sociological phenomenon.

Second, I deeply object to the notion that "know-how" is American. This is an especially bizarre notion given that America is a nation of people from almost everywhere except America. So "know-how" cannot possibly be American, either in character or in location. Are we to believe that no one else on the planet is clever? Persistent? Resilient? Inventive?

I wonder if Russians speak of good old Russian know-how. Or if there's a similar phrase in Sri Lanka or Senegal or Luxembourg. (I actually would relish speaking of Luxembourgeois know-how). This is another instance of where nationalism is just plain wrong. Not just factually wrong but inimical to the human condition. Think how much better, how much healthier it would be to speak of human know-how. To do so would be to confer confidence upon all our brothers and sisters, not merely to those who happen to serve under the same flag.

*meh*

I'll go on a nationalism rant another time.

Socialized Medicine Has Arrived

It's been tough keeping up with the blogs, but I had to put this one out.

I've discovered a secret Socialist wedge into American free enterprise. It's completely government run -- paid for by your hard-earned taxes, and totally under government supervision. Competition isn't even allowed, and literally millions of Americans are subjugated to it without any voice in the matter.

What is this pernicious cancer eating at our free world?

It's the school nurse. Ah yep.

We need to dismantle this hateful aberration. Let the market determine which children get what sort of care. Clearly the government can't possibly do as good a job of taking care of the health of the Future of America as can locally-owned doctors' consortia under the direction of a business manager.

End the school nurse and think of all the tax money we will save, especially those of us who have no school-aged children. As for the others, you'll only pay for the care your child receives. No more will Big Government reach into your pocket and fling millions of dollars at ne'er-do-well kids who have a "headache." Hey, you wanna stop bleeding kid? Hand over your lunch money.

I'm telling you, it's high time we gave Government Nurse the boot. End socialized medicine in our public schools!

Proof Positive

In the Idaho Statesman today came the proof, in black-and-white and it must be true-cuz-I-read-it-in-the-papers. What proof? Why, of the burden imposed on us all by socialism.

It was right there on the front page. How much our taxes have gone up. We knew it was going to happen. Those tax-and-spend socialists would dip their filthy fingers into our wallets and it only took them a few days to get to it.

In a bravura performance of reportage, the Statesman gives us the bill: sixty-one cents per Idahoan.

I feel oppressed already.

A War on Two Fronts

Obama has taken on too much, they say. He should concentrate just on for now.

I'd love to hear these Republicans in 1941. We can't possibly fight Japan *and* Germany. We should fight one and then the other.

Fools. They envision our challenges as arriving like bad-guys in a 1970s kung fu flick: one at a time, each waiting its turn to get decked.

17 Socialsts

Rep. Bachus (R -- as if you hadda ask) has declared there are 17 Socialists in Congress. To which I say, well, 17 beats 16.

I R A Socialist 2!

We iz all socializt.

Nick Cavuto is Stupid

Nick Cavuto is stupid.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,511655,00.html

I'm not talking ordinary stupid here.
I'm talking what'd he just say? stupid.
He is honey-bar-the-door-I-think-they're-getting-in stupid.
I'm talking stunning stupid.
He is stupid enough to make stupid look smart.
I'm talking somebody actually pays him for this? stupid.
He is it-cannot-be-said-in-too-many-ways stupid.
I'm talking ... and here I am not exaggerating ... he is ... well,
George Bush stupid.

Free Market Myth

I'm getting heartily tired of listening to Those People talk about the "free market". Tired of them talking about it as if it exists or ever did exist, and tired of them talking about it as if it were manifestly a Good Thing.

First, dearest Virginia, there's no such thing as Santa Claus and there's no such thing as a Free Market. Go ahead, have a look around. Tell me when you find one.

Do they mean free as in "unregulated"? A market with not a single regulation? Of course not! Very well, we are not talking about differences in quality but differences in quantity. Some regulations are good, more regulations are bad. The line being exactly wherever the Republicans decide to draw it this week.

Do they mean free as in "..." well, I can't come up with any other meaning. So there's no such thing as a free market; there are only markets regulated to one degree or another.

Second, let's look at degrees of regulation. The first great wave of regulation came during the Progressive Era, in direct response to the crash of 1894-95 and to the excesses of the robber barons. There was a comparatively unregulated business environment, and what happened? Well, for one thing, a helluva lot got done. Railroad boom, oil boom, massive real estate development, and industrialization pretty generally. But what also happened was many small businesses were driven out of business as corporate giants gobbled them up, then the giants conspired to keep power in their hands and cut off startups. Until they got so big and centralized that when an economic crisis hit, the consequences were exacerbated. And the working man took it in the chops.

After the Progressive Era, we had another round of Republicans (and let us be fair: the behavior was international, with free marketeers infected most advanced countries). We had the boom of the 1920s, and once again much got done, but with a terrible price: the Great Depression. Once again, the working man took it in the chops.

And again in the 1980s and again now. *Every* time regulations were rolled back, ordinary folks got hurt. There are no exceptions.

I'm less afraid of the government than I am of a corporation. I have a voice in my government, however tiny. I have no voice in corporate America. When was the last time you saw a wave of populist reform driven by moral considerations inside a multi-national? It literally cannot happen.

So screw the free market. It's a myth and it's a golden calf. Regulate the corporations. Hell, we keep our *dogs* on a leash with less good reason than for keeping the corporations leashed.

Let's see.

This week Obama made a presidential order that the government should follow science and reason.

This week we stopped calling people "enemy combatants" so we could just lock them away and not be bothered with annoying legal procedures.

This week Obama gave the green light to stem cells so fundamental biological research could occur.

...

I think I kinda like this socialism thing.

Three feet high and rising

That's the sentiment out there all right. Socialism is just bustin' out all over. I'm still having trouble spotting it.

Oh, the *threat* is there. Good gosh golly, the threats are just positively everywhere, ain't they? I mean, just look at all the money they're spending. Spending lots of money is socialist. Innit?

Wait, wait, I got a better one. Nationalizing the banks. Now that's socialism, yessir, no doubtaboudit. Yet now we're hearing Republicans suggest we nationalize some banks. Nationalize the "right way" they say. If a Republican says it, is it still socialism?

How high's the water, momma?