Truth Is a Casualty of Our Culture

I had so much fun writing about myself last time that I’m going to risk it once more. This time the pretext is to provide some background for future columns. So here’s my take on nothing less than truth. Which, by the way, has been a major casualty of the escalating cultural and political warfare in this increasingly bizarre country of ours. . . .

To the best of my self-knowledge, truth is my highest value, even when it is painful. And because truth (which I define as verifiable evidence) is so obviously essential for survival and progress, it offends me when people abuse it, bend it, or embellish it. I’m speaking as a dedicated, lifelong naturalist, rationalist, and scientific skeptic who values reason and evidence as the only reliable tools for discovering and understanding the nature of reality at all levels. In other words, scientific method. The same kind of thinking applies at a practical level: I see no reliable way to solve problems or make viable progress unless we start with and build upon accurate and reliable evidence in every situation and proceed systematically in the spirit of science. To me that is basic: it is essentially what a doctor, auto mechanic, or just about any competent expert routinely does. Based on the evidence I’m aware of (quite a bit, really), I can’t see value or promise in anything that departs very far from that prescription. I’m talking about beliefs and related practices that can in fairness be labeled paranormal, supernatural, or pseudoscientific. A few examples: revelation, divination, energy medicine (here and here), prayer and faith healing. Quite simply, I have never seen persuasive, supporting evidence for any of those belief systems or practices. Such questionable evidence as is brought forward in their behalf always breaks down under close scrutiny or the weight of better, more rigorous evidence.

Some readers will surely take that as evidence that I am close-minded, which I categorically and resentfully deny. I’m not a fanatic – that’s for ideologues and dogmatists – and I do recognize the necessity of being open-minded in tandem with my skepticism. I count myself as a member of the modern skeptical movement, which opposes close-minded rejection of claims while also holding that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” That certainly seems reasonable, don’t you think? I am not a reflexive naysayer or debunker, and I’m willing to consider reasonable evidence for a wide variety of fantastic claims and beliefs. In fact, I have taken a keen interest in pseudoscientific, paranormal, and religious topics for more than 30 years. That said, anyone who has been reading my columns is aware that I strongly reject, and even ridicule, many claims. Ridicule, as Thomas Jefferson said, has it place and certainly can be justified in many cases that have been around for a long time and have repeatedly been shown to be wrong. But thanks to an intractable epidemic of immature wishful thinking combined with incompetent, irresponsible media reporting and programming, the public just doesn’t get it. Skeptics remain a small minority. Maybe I should have channeled the spirit of one of America’s true geniuses, H.L. Mencken, and titled this column Minority Report (and do check out the link – you’ll thank me). 

I also give short shrift to claims that violate scientific laws. How about the unsinkable rubber duck known as perpetual motion? Can anyone offer even one good reason why it should not be scornfully dismissed? Show me even one example over the centuries where such a claim has held up. For your entertainment, here is another ludicrous example – that “holy man” in India who claims not to have eaten food or drunk liquid for 70 years. According to some mainstream press reports (stupid Fox News, again) he was “tested” under rigorous conditions. Obviously that cannot be the whole story, and it doesn’t bother me in the least to summarily declare that it’s a crock. I just keep finding more reasons to be contemptuous of mainstream news media and still more reasons to be embarrassed by the species I’m a member of. If any right-wing morons out there think that sounds snobbish, I am proud to plead guilty.

Anyway, skepticism is a complex topic in its own right that I’ll cover in more detail later. For now I’ll just take a commonsense position and say that I try to be skeptical the way a good scientist is. In general, the credence I’m willing to give to a claim is proportional to the supporting evidence. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more doubtful I am and the more and stronger evidence I require. So while I’m determined not to get taken in by bunk, I’m always ready to change my mind on the basis of convincing evidence. Naturally, some claims rightly require a lot more “convincing” to get past my baloney detector.

Although I hold factual truth as my highest value, I am not interested in beating individuals or groups over the head with “the truth” when it might be hurtful. (Well, there are exceptions.) For sure I am not opposed to the white lie to protect someone’s feelings. And I am not opposed to being very cautious about publicizing findings that could cause further disadvantage to the already disadvantaged. I try to remain aware that what I regard as truth is best viewed the way science treats facts and theories – not as proven, but provisional. Stephen J. Gould put it quite well:

In science “fact” can only mean confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent.

By that criterion there are a great many right-wing “perverts” out there concocting all kinds of ridiculous, convoluted arguments to deny any science that conflicts with their simplistic, anachronistic belief systems. The religious right is particularly gifted in that regard with their creationism and intelligent design fantasies. Can you think of anything more blatantly stupid than Noah’s Ark? I can: that infantile fable is about to be celebrated in the form of a tax-subsidized Noah’s Ark theme park in Kentucky with the blessing of the Republican governor of that great sovereign state. I’ll be curious to learn what Senator Rand Paul has to say about it.

Whether ideologues (who, almost by definition, oversimplify reality) like it or not, there is no escaping the fact that the reality gradually being revealed by science is highly complex and very difficult to understand. There are and always will be huge gaps in our knowledge, and we are surely destined for many surprises, pleasant and unpleasant. Whether the dogmatists and ideologues like it or not, there is and never will be any simple, overarching explanation: facts and the theoretical frameworks that tie them together are provisional and always subject to revision on the basis of new evidence. And ethics are, of necessity, situational – again whether the ideologues like it or not. Reality as revealed by science is amazing; and it is surely not a marionette controlled by a cosmic puppeteer, not even one with a long, white beard. Reality is all-too real; and it’s tougher than ever to study and understand now that we’ve already picked most of the low-hanging fruit. Fruit that the religious right rejects. I guess they learned their lesson with that first “tree of knowledge.”

Difficult as science may be, every scientific and professional field is based upon a core of well-established, replicated facts and evidence-based methods – truths, if you will – that it would be perverse to deny. Competent and ethical experts in those fields never claim knowledge or expertise they don’t have; and if they encounter situations where they feel they need to use speculative methods, they say so up front. It’s called transparency (a fancy term for honesty), which should be – make that must be – fundamental not only to good science but to mutually respectful relationships among competent adults.

Would that it were. Instead, on a daily basis I experience a culture that increasingly thrives on disinformation and hype in just about all areas. As soon as I get away from my handful of trusted print and Internet sources, it’s like I’ve entered a reality distortion field of spurious claims. Just turn on the TV and flip to a random channel. You won’t have to wait very long to see someone making unsupported claims or telling outright lies. Everything and everyone with a public presence is managed by PR experts, spin-meisters whose main purpose is to present a contrived, favorable image to a gullible public. Truth has nothing to do with it except as an annoying impediment easily circumvented. If you can afford it. This phenomenon reaches a crescendo during election seasons, which have now been extended to the point where they are seemingly perpetual. Is it my imagination or do all those formulaic campaign ads use the same droning voice reading minor variations of the same negative script? It’s amazing that we, the great American public, have become so indifferent to and so accepting of blatant deception. And the lies and deceptions continue unabated for one major reason – they work! And they work for a number of reasons, primarily because far too many Americans are too easily manipulated. Meanwhile, no one dares to utter a word about regulation or accountability for lying to the public.

Returning to science and expertise, I don’t mean to oversimplify the messy nature of the very human enterprise known as science, which, for all its imperfections and growing pains, is our only tool for understanding reality. Science’s great virtue is that its core methods are sound, and it eventually gets things right. I readily concede that more often than not we must act with less than full understanding, often in circumstances that are fraught with uncertainty. When we’re fortunate, we may have recourse to tested (evidence-based) strategies for optimizing our risk- or cost-benefit prospects. Of course there are always the slick, persuasive charlatans and sincerely ignorant, misguided ideologues ready to step forward with plausible-sounding, oversimplified solutions to almost any complex problem. Just look at all the alt-med cranks that I wrote about two columns back. Like politicians, they are very good at exploiting the myriad foibles of human nature.

As I think about the deteriorating political and cultural landscape in this country, I can only conclude that Republicans are the masters of effective propaganda. How else can you explain their recovery just two years after the debacle of the Bush administration? Here’s how: They see themselves as an army engaged in a life-and-death culture war, and their primary weapon is a massive, well-orchestrated propaganda network. They are far more coordinated than the fractious left, and they all reinforce the same memes. Getting caught lying never seems to shame them, hurt them, or mitigate the damage they inflict on the other side. Hillary Clinton got it just right with the phrase, “vast, right-wing conspiracy.” Now of course they’re after mild-mannered Obama and anyone who stands in their way, using the same old despicable and effective Swift-Boat tactics.

So there I go, complaining again; and I admit that’s the easy part. Much harder is to propose workable solutions. So in my next column I’m going to offer at least three steps we could take to begin reversing the intellectual and ethical deterioration of our culture. Be warned: these are ideology-free, evenhanded, practical proposals, which certainly means they would be savagely opposed by Republicans.

Ideology corrupts; ideology wedded to power corrupts absolutely.

THE “BIG SOCIETY” – IN BIG TROUBLE

David Cameron’s latest attempt to arouse some enthusiasm for his ‘passionate mission’ to promote the ‘Big Society’ should be put into perspective. Consider this:

Charities that are supposedly at the heart of his mission will lose £5bn through cuts. The 2008 bailout of the banks cost the taxpayer £117bn, averaging £5.500 per family. Last week, in his ‘Project Merlin’ peace deal with the banks, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced that it was time ‘to move from retribution to recovery’. Barclays is to pay £4.5bn in total remuneration to 22.000 investment bankers employed by its investment wing, Barclays Capital. £2bn will be paid in bonuses. CEO Bob Diamond will receive a bonus of £9m. Royal Bank of Scotland, 80% of which is publicly owned, will pay £1.3bn to executives. That’s the background. It should not be, and has not been forgotten by the general public. Most people are very angry and remain completely unconvinced that the ‘Big Society’ amounts to anything other than a meaningless sound-bite at best and a cynical deception at worst.

The notion is now in big trouble. For months the government has been trying to get the idea to fly but it has stubbornly refused to leave the ground. Ministers have struggled to explain what it means, which is not surprising as some of them have no idea themselves. Now, faced with high-profile desertions by those who were supposed to have been signed up to it, the prime minister is floundering. Suzie Leather, chair of the Charities Commission, told Cameron ‘if you cut the charities you are cutting our ability to help each other. That is what the ‘big society’ is all about. So you are pulling the rug from under that.’ Leader of Liverpool City Council, Joe Anderson, prized as a high-profile enthusiast for the scheme, has just pulled out, with a letter to Cameron on February 4^th announcing that ‘the council can no longer support the ‘big society’…as a direct result of your funding cuts.’ Anderson writes: ‘How can the city council support the Big Society and its aim to help communities do more for themselves when we will have to cut the lifeline to hundreds of these vital and worthwhile groups.’

Cameron is so worried that he has decided to re-launch the scheme. From someone with his PR background one might have expected a smooth, hard-hitting, convincing performance. Whatever one thinks of his politics he has a reputation as someone sympathetic and responsive to the public mood. To many he sounds persuasive despite the suspect smoothness associated with the PR man. But this time he sounded completely, even comically, unconvincing. In both his article for The Observer (13.02) and his speech to an invited audience at Somerset House in London (14.02) his performance was muddled and meandering. The strength of his conviction failed to convince. The Big Society, he proclaimed was something about which he feels passionately. It is ‘his mission’. The fact that something on which he has staked so much is proving such a flop should worry him and his supporters a great deal. You can be sure that when political leaders start to tell us over and over how passionately they believe something, they are getting desperate. Cameron is beginning to sound like Blair. Blair never tired of telling us how firmly he believed that what he was doing was right, as though the strength of his self-belief was sufficient justification for his actions regardless of how much evidence there was to the contrary. Thatcher, another ‘conviction’ politician (albeit one from whom Cameron wants to distance himself) firmly believed in the need for a ‘poll tax’. The failed attempt to impose it helped to end her career. Her successor, John Major, firmly believed that the British people needed to ‘get back to basics’, meaning basic Victorian standards of probity and moral rectitude, only to see his government overwhelmed by sleaze. And who now is able to explain with any assurance what Blair’s ‘Third Way’ was all about or how transformative his promotion of ‘Cool Britannia’? They are remembered, if at all, either with anger, as in the case of the poll tax, or as empty phrases ‘signifying nothing’.

When Letter from the UK first visited this subject some months ago, it was suggested that the idea of the ‘Big Society’ may have been prompted by Margaret Thatcher’s claim that there was no such thing as society. Hers was a philosophy of possessive individualism in extremis. In attempting, towards the end of the party’s thirteen years in opposition, to re-mould, or detoxify the Tory brand, Cameron was concerned to distance himself from the Thatcherite right wing. He couldn’t do this effectively without abandoning her views about society. The concept of the ‘Big Society’ is intended to do that. It is also intended to counteract what is denounced as Labour’s supposed commitment to the Big State – top-down over-centralization. The encouragement of localism, community-based initiatives, charitable organizations, neighbourhood watch schemes, residents’ associations – indeed, the whole voluntary sector, is unexceptionable. But it offers nothing new. In this sense the ‘Big Society’ already exists, and, despite often meagre funding, has, until now, functioned effectively. Of course, there is room for more and stronger local initiatives that will empower people, like the ‘people’s co-operative’ singled out by Cameron for special praise. This venture, inspired by a successful people’s co-op in Brooklyn will, if it succeeds, provide a cheaper and healthier source of supply to the local community, utilizing the voluntary labour of the community. But, the likelihood of such ventures succeeding depends largely on availability of funds. And there’s the rub.

Some critics have argued that this is a ‘good idea at the wrong time’, suggesting that if it were not for the unprecedented cuts in government spending that are decimating the public sector, the ‘Big Society’ would be a great success. This misses the point. The scheme has been launched now for a very good reason. It is intended to persuade people that with a bit of effort they can work together to provide the services they will lose in the tornado of cuts about to decimate local services up and down the country. Local government budgets are to be cut by 15% to 25%. Citizens’ Advice Bureaus and public libraries will close as will the Sure Start centers for young children. Front-line services of all kinds are to be seriously reduced; streets will be cleaned less frequently; parks will be unsupervised. Every voluntary organization is under threat, resulting inevitably not just in the impoverishment of local communities but in large scale redundancies as councils lay off thousands of workers. As has now been made abundantly clear by representatives of the voluntary sector and local government, there is no way that the ‘Big Society’ can begin to make good the damage that will be inflicted. Whether Cameron really believes what he says is neither here nor there. His ‘passion’ for the idea doesn’t alter the fact that it will not and cannot work. That is because it flies in the face of the reality inflicted by his government. The ‘Big Society’ can only serve the purpose of providing a fig leaf for the cuts. This is not, as claimed by the diminishing band of BS advocates, the cynical dismissal of a decent idea. It is the only reasonable conclusion in face of the facts.

Unless this conclusion proves to be mistaken, which is doubtful, then the ‘Big Society’ is destined to go the way of the other ‘initiatives’ mentioned above. But there is something puzzling about the way Cameron desperately clings to it. He says it is his ‘mission’ – using, once again that tired old phrase so beloved of leaders trying to dignify their mediocre ideas with a profundity they do not deserve. He has staked his reputation on it. This suggests that it has become something of an obsession, rather like Blair’s conviction that he was right to invade Iraq. It may very well turn out to be his undoing.

As the ‘Big Society’ joins the litany over-hyped, over-blown pseudo-concepts, it is tempting to look for a more truthful substitute that accurately describes the real distribution of power in Britain today. Set against the civil society there is an entrenched power elite, or ruling class, clearly represented by the members of the present cabinet. What is happening now is nothing less than an intensified re-distribution of wealth from the poorest sections of society to the most wealthy. Nothing provides clearer evidence of this than the way the bankers who brought the economy to the brink of disaster a few years ago, have been allowed to return to business as usual, while the rest of us have to tighten our belts and pick up the bill. The society favoured by the government and the power elite whose interests they represent, is not the big society. It can be accurately described as The Big Business Society – or, The Big Bankers Bonuses Society. Let’s coin the phrases – they may take off. 

Which Shall Come First - The Rapture or the Fall of Religion?

When good things happen, such as the fall of a dictator's totalitarian government, other hopeful possibilities come to mind. Could Iran's theocracy be next? How about Mugabe in Zimbabwe? How about Ratzinger in Vatican City? Yes, the latter would be on a fantasy list of ignoble states I'd love to see go down.

Ingersoll wrote extensively about the decline of religion and predicted it would be rare in the century to come (writing in the final years of the 19th century). His optimism was not prophetic. Philosopher-historian Will Durant half a century later also professed the coming decline of religion, not just within this country but in all Western democracies. Durant saw it as the basic event that would define modern times. Another half century has passed and we are still hip deep in the muck of religious babble, fervor and nastiness.

Is there a freethinker in today's America announcing the end of faith? Well, there is Sam Harris, who wrote a best-seller by this title. And most recently, there is the highly regarded reporter James A. Haught, author of many wonderful books on the hazards of religion (e.g., Holy Horrors, one of my favorites), doing just that - saying in effect that the end is nigh. In Fading Faith: The Rise of the Secular Age, Haught anticipates this consummation devoutedly to be wished. But, is Haught's hopeful vision any more likely to come to pass than the prognostications of the brilliant Ingersoll and the genius Durant?

Well, things look pretty good in Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan and other advanced democracies, where religious affiliation is down to five to ten percent of the populations. Don't you just love it when the pope laments as follows: Europe has developed a culture that, in a manner unknown before now to humanity, excludes God from the public conscience. Go Europe.

Alas, American is another story. We have no fewer than 350,000 churches. Religion takes in $100 billion annually - and it's almost all exempt from taxation. There are rich mega-churches, Rapture books are best-sellers, evolution is controversial and under attack from fundamentalists, televangelists are flourishing in the media and Billy Graham has still not been indicted for fraud. Pentecostals are babbling and evangelicals have taken over the Republican Party.

Where does Haught get off suggesting religion is on the decline?

Well, for starters there are data he offers that suggest we are, albeit slowly, following in Europe's footsteps. Secularism is on the rise, especially among younger age cohorts. Numerous polls document a rise in Nones, respondents who choose none when asked for a religious preference. It seems 45 million U.S. adults (about 15 percent) are what the devout might consider unchurched. Some suggest it's much higher. Robert Putnam in Bowling Alone stated that 40 percent of young Americans answer none in faith surveys.

Also, membership in mainline churches has collapsed. No less than 20 million Americans have quit Catholicism - one-tenth of U.S. adults are ex-Catholics, myself included. (Of course, like everyone else, I started out as an atheist. My parents declared that I was a little Catholic and tried over the course of my first ten years to make me believe it. By eleven, I was convinced they had me confused with someone else.)

There has also been a decline in the power of religions to constrain personal liberties and choices. When I was young, church-sponsored laws and customs and community rituals were far more pervasive than today. Think of Sunday blue laws, censorship of magazines and movies, restaurant and other restrictions on liquor, the limits on access to birth control information and devices, the absence of sex education, the inability of unwed couples to rent a room or buy a home. Recall the role of religion in criminalizing abortion and the damage to the wall separating church and state with the addition of under God to the Pledge of Allegiance. As Haught writes in Fading Faith:

Gradually, decade by decade, religion is moving from the advanced First World to the less-developed Third World. Faith retains enormous power in Muslim lands. Pentecostalism is booming in Africa and South America. Yet the West steadily turns more secular. Arguably, it's one of the biggest news stories during our lives - although most of us are too busy to notice. Durant may have been correct when he wrote that it is the basic event of modern times.  

Maybe Ingersoll was right, too, but it's simply taken an extra century to become evident. That would be consistent with his observation in Some Mistakes of Moses:  

It is hard for many people to give up the religion in which they were born; to admit that their fathers were utterly mistaken, and that the sacred records of their country are but collections of myths and fables.

To paraphrase the late great comic Lenny Bruce, I think it's about time we gave up religion and tried reason, science and common sense for a change. 

POSTSCRIPT: I sent this essay to the TPJ columnist we all know and love, namely, the Science Junkie. I asked for comments. I thought you would enjoy his take on the issues as much as I did.

THE SCIENCE JUNKIE: Very well said. It is very refreshing to read something plausibly hopeful about this declining nation.

One thing I have been worrying about is an imminent takeover by the coalition of right-wing crazies, in which the religious right will play a prominent, perhaps dominant, role. Appalling as it seems, there is a very real possibility that the lunatics will be voted into power in the next election, after which we may well look back on the Bush administration as a bastion of rationality.

There are other hopeful signs besides polls: Just take a look at popular culture through the lens of TV for a few days. All that crassness, violence, exhibitionism, consumerism, and mindless self-indulgence does not bode well for aspiring theocrats. So I say, Bring it on, popular culture! If this is what huge numbers of Americans like to do with their precious spare time, it's hard to see how the religious fanatics are going to get them to take Jesus seriously. Maybe that's where religion really stands: a relatively small group of hard-core zealots propped up by a great majority of hypocritical hedonists who pay lip service to the Lord without having the slightest idea what they're doing just because . . . well, just because that's what they think everyone else expects them to do. Or something like that.

So I find it hard to believe that the frivolous morons who populate TV's vast wasteland can be serious about religion, or anything else for that matter. And that may be a lesser-of-evils blessing, because religion tends to be dangerous in direct proportion to how seriously people take it. Thanks, now I feel better.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (564 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

Latin America: The Empire Strikes Back

For the past decade, American policy vis-à-vis Latin America has been relatively low-key, partly because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and partly because the region has seen an unprecedented growth in economic power and political independence. But, with Republicans taking over the House of Representatives, that is about to change, and, while the Southern Cone no longer stands to attention when Washington snaps its fingers, an aggressive and right wing Congress is capable of causing considerable mischief.

Rep. Lleana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl), a long-time hawk on Cuba and leftist regimes in Venezuela and Bolivia, is the new chair of the powerful House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the rightist Rep. Connie Mack (D-Fl) heads up the House subcommittee on Western Hemisphere affairs. Ros-Lethinen is already preparing hearings aimed at Venezuela and Bolivia, and Mack will try to put the former on the State Department’s list of countries sponsoring terrorism.

Ros-Lehtinen plans to target Venezuela’s supposed ties to Middle East terrorist groups and Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and to push for economic sanctions against Venezuela’s state-owned oil company and banks. “It will be good for congressional subcommittees to start talking about [President of Venezuela Hugo] Chavez, about [President of Bolivia Evo] Morales, about issues that have not been talked about,” she told the Miami Herald.

The new chairs of the House Intelligence Committee and Judiciary Committee have also signaled they intend to weigh in on establishing a more hawkish line on Latin America.

Unfortunately, it is the Obama administration that created an opening for the Republicans. While the White House came in pledging to improve relations with Latin America, Washington has ended up supporting a coup in Honduras, strengthening the U.S. military’s presence in the region, and ignoring growing criticism of its failed war on drugs.

Recent disclosures by Wikileaks reveal the Obama administration was well aware that the June 2009 Honduran coup against President Manuel Zelaya was illegal; nonetheless, it intervened to help keep the coup forces in power. Other cables demonstrate an on-going American hostility to the Morales regime in Bolivia and Washington’s sympathy with secessionist forces in that country’s rich eastern provinces.

Many Latin Americans initially had high hopes the Obama administration would bring a new approach to its relations with the region, but some say they have seen little difference from the Bush Administration. “The truth is that nothing has changed and I view that with sadness,” says former Brazilian president Luiz Lula da Silva. But things may go from bad to worse if the White House is passive in the face of a sharp rightward turn by Congress.

The Latin America of 2011 is not the same place it was a generation ago. Economic growth has outstripped the U.S. and Europe, progressive and left governments have lifted 38 million people out of poverty, cut extreme poverty by 70 percent, and increased literacy. The region has also increased its south-south relations with countries like China, South Africa and India. China is now Brazil’s number one trading partner. An economic alliance—Mercosur—has knitted the region together economically, and the U.S.-dominated Organization of American States (OAS) finds itself eclipsed by the newly formed Union of South American Nations.

But many countries in Latin America are still riven by wealth disparities, ethnic divides, and powerful ties between local oligarchies and the region’s curse: powerful and undemocratic police and militaries. One such military pulled off the Honduran coup, and police came within a whisker of overthrowing Ecuador’s progressive president, Rafael Correa, in 2010.

One 2007 Wikileaks cable titled “A Southern Cone perspective on countering Chavez and reasserting U.S. leadership,” pointed out “Southern Cone militaries remain key institutions in their respective countries and important allies for the U.S.” The author of the cable, then ambassador to Chile, Craig Kelly, is currently principle Deputy Assistant Secretary of State. Kelly strongly recommended increasing aid to Latin American militaries to help them “modernize.”

In many cases, rightists in Latin America share an agenda with right-wing forces in the U.S. For instance, Republicans played a key role in supporting the Honduran coup and continue to strengthen those ties. In a recent trip to Honduras, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Ca)—a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee—brought together U.S. business leaders and Honduran officials to discuss American investment. Honduras was suspended from the OAS, and only a handful of Latin American governments recognize the new president, Porfirio Lobo.

It was the Obama Administration, however, who recognized the government established by the coup, and remains silent in the face of what Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch calls widespread human rights violations by the Lobos regime, including the unsolved murder of at least 18 opponents. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is lobbying hard to have Honduras re-admitted to the OAS.

A quick survey of Republican targets suggests troubled waters ahead.

Chavez has won two elections and is enormously popular. He has cut poverty, tripled social spending, doubled university enrollment, and extended health care to most of the poor. A U.S. engineered coup seems unlikely. But a “supporter of terrorism” designation would cause considerable difficulties with international financing and foreign investment. Sanctions on oil and banking would also disrupt the Venezuelan economy, in the long run creating conditions favorable to a possible coup.

While it is hard to imagine what else the U.S. could do to Cuba, Congress may try to choke off investment in Cuba’s growing oil and gas industries. Companies are already jumping through hoops to avoid getting around the current embargo. The Spanish oil company Repsol and Italy’s Eni SpA recently built an offshore oil rig in China to dodge the blockade.

“It is ridiculous that Repsol, a Spanish oil company, is paying an Italian firm to build an oil rig in China that will be used next year to explore for oil 50 miles from Florida,” Sarah Stephens, director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas told the Financial Times. If the Republicans have their way, sanctions will be applied to those oil companies.

Ecuador’s Correa beat back a recent right-wing coup, largely because of his 67 percent approval rating. He has doubled spending on health care, increased social spending, and stiffed an illegitimate $3.2 billion foreign debt. But he has a tense relationship with indigenous movements, which accuse him of trying to marginalize them. While those groups did not support the coup, neither did they rally to the government’s support. Those divisions could be easily exploited to destabilize the government.

In the case of Bolivia, the Wikileak released cables, according to Latin American journalist and author Benjamin Dangl, “lays bare an embassy that is biased against Evo Morales’ government, underestimates the sophistication of the governing party’s grassroots base, and is out of touch with the political reality of the country.”

The cables indicate the U.S. is relying on information from extreme right wing and violent secessionist groups in Eastern Bolivia, groups that receive financing and training from the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID. Both groups have close ties to American intelligence organizations. Given Brazil’s strong opposition to any attempt to break up Bolivia, it is not clear a succession movement would succeed. But would Brazil—or Argentina, Uruguay or Paraguay—actually intervene?

Paraguay is also a country deeply divided between left and right, with a progressive president who warned last year that a coup by the country’s powerful military was a possibility.

The Obama administration’s acceptance of the Honduran coup sent a chill throughout Latin America, and certainly emboldened those who see tanks and caudillos as an answer to the region’s surge of progressive politics and independent foreign policy. The recent effort by Turkey and Brazil to broker a compromise with Iran over its nuclear program did not go down well in Washington. Neither have efforts to chart an independent course on the Middle East by nations in the region. Several countries have formally recognized a Palestinian state, and Peru will host an Arab-Latin America summit Feb. 16.

Latin America is no longer an appendage to the colossus of the north, but its growing independence is fragile, as the coups in Honduras and Ecuador suggest. The chasm between rich and poor is being closed, but it is still substantial. The economies in the region are growing at a respectable 6 percent, but, because they are relatively small, they can be more easily derailed by internal and external crises. Even as its power wanes, the U.S. is still the world’s largest economy with the world’s largest military. This, plus anti-democratic forces in Latin America, is fertile ground for mischief, particularly if there is not strong resistance on the U.S. home front.

Dancing with the Tar Baby (While Waiting for Santa Claus to Come) Part II

In Dancing with the Tar Baby Part I we shared a bit of the black stickiness of dark human events that sentence us human creatures to drift in and out of a state of melancholy for most of our lives. To find solace from the world’s problems, the real threat of world financial collapse, loss of jobs, loss of our homes, we seek diversions. Distractions from life’s morbid realities. The Caesars of Ancient Rome used to call it “circus and bread” for the masses. Keep the people busy. Keep them distracted from reality. And the Roman leaders managed to do just that when the bloodshot eye of reality kept peaking from behind the mask of deception. Circus and Bread

Not that I fully agree with them, but there are even more political websites that describe the phenomenon of circus and bread for the masses. More Circus and Bread Expanded

It becomes obvious that there is a great determination to divert the attention of the masses in the world to things more trivial than the destruction of sovereign currencies, the shifting of world wealth from the middle and working classes to the upper .1% of humans, and the wanton waging of wars for profit of the Military Industrial Complex. Ike’s Grave Warning

Now, in 2011 the world is rife with wars, military occupations of countless sovereign countries, and Trillions of dollars of annual production of war machinery and security software and hardware. Why is that? So we can wage combat. It must be our human pastime we do it so much. I used to think that perhaps Homo sapiens enjoyed the killing, but I don’t think that’s it. It’s the money. War makes the cash registers go Kachingo! 

Look at all the profits and jobs that come from the hard and software war brings to the table. Some say all the struggle in a good war is so we can protect ourselves from aggression. You buy that? Wanna buy a $500 hammer discounted to $200? No, that’s the business of the Military Industrial Complex to sell $500 hammers and $600 toilet seats to Uncle Sam. That is sacred NO-BID territory between gummint and war-crony companies like Halliburton and Blackwater. In the eyes of the government, I would not have the importance of a knot on a Possum’s penis in the Big Thicket, compared to the NO-BID war crony corporations. And finally, this entire ruckus is so the US Government can go bankrupt from borrowing and spending to the tune of $14,000,000,000,000.00 and counting. Why the heck would we want to go bankrupt, you ask? Simple. So we can tell all the people with crocodile tears that there just ain’t no more people money from Uncle Sam for Social Security, Pell Grants, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, and police protection. Ya’ll on your own, now, ya heah? Hope old Billy Bob can stand it so’s he don’t have to all of a sudden jump up from the sofa and run over all of Toby Keith’s CDs in his pickup truck.

Don’t make any sense, right? Like, why would the rich crap in their own nest? Well, you see, they planned ahead. They insiders, get it? They bought (take the Bush family…….please) over 200 thousand acres of land in Paraguay. Got lots of natural resources, including water, food, copper, lithium, and-get this-even a 400 man US Marine airbase nearby for protection. Don’t that beat all? You can’t even extract anybody from Paraguay for war crimes, neither. That might be one way to beat the system and bail out of a country once you trashed it and the people and the government programs they used to enjoy before the insiders started stealing from the people. Oh, and I would imagine lots of gold and silver made its way down there with them, don’t you? Screw Bernanke…..he can print as many US dollars as he wonts to, ‘cause we out of there. Look up Grover Norquist on Google. He was a prophet, you know, of all this when he talked about starving the beast (government people programs like Head Start and the School Lunch Program) and drowning it in the bath tub.

Where was I? Oh, yeah, for all this human effort, sweat and tears, we still need to protect us from ourselves. While the planet earth warms, due to human disrespect for the planet. We are the keepers and stewards of our home, planet earth.

As we speak, China is building ONE new coal-fired electric generation plant PER DAY. So aside from the excess production each day that we live and breathe as a species we put into the air billions of pounds more of Carbon Dioxide with each year that passes. In the new industrial birth of China as a world power (China just passed Japan as Number 2) few Chinese citizens have been able to afford automobiles. Not so anymore. The figures for 2010 in automobiles produced are staggering. China Auto Production in 2010

Some say China will produce another 50 million cars in 2011. 

Just think about it. All that additional air pollution. All that excess CO2 shoe-horned into our atmosphere. All that additional mercury poisoning that will settle in the fatty tissues of every fish and sea creature in the planet earth. What will we be able to eat? What will happen to us?

Right about now, I can hear the chuckles and guffaws of those who say global warming is a hoax. It is amazing when you think about it, how so much of the scientific community of the world believes in and supports global warming as a real and present danger, while so-called “paid scientists” rail against global warming and Al Gore for his movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Al Gore: Global Warming in 10 Minutes

The Nobel Peace Prize is given to those who have done the most to make the planet better for humankind. The Nobel Society is based upon a SCIENTIFIC SEARCH FOR TRUTH. Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his work on Global Warming. Yet opposition to Gore’s work to make us more aware of what we are doing to our own home, planet earth, is enormous. It is as fierce as the Trillions of Dollars to discredit him are numerous and fully deployed in his sought-after destruction. You see, to acknowledge the truth about yes, we humans are actually causing the temperature of our planet to rise, would be disastrous for the bottom line profits of most all heavy industries in the whole world. For once can we humans get on the same page, here? It’s the money, stupid.

“Where have you gone, Thomas Jefferson? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you (Woo woo woo). (To the tune of “Mrs. Robinson")

Exxon alone would have to spend billions on just improving the air quality of its belching refineries. Dow Chemical would need to outlay billions in cash to improve its water runoff systems, and of course, China would have to stop building coal-fired electric power plants and spend most all its cash on cleaning up the Yellow River and its vast sources ground water. China would collapse. It would be an impossibility, of course, which makes it such an easy task to demonize Al Gore for telling us the truth. What about Science though? Well they got the best scientists big lobby money can buy. First the Creationist Museum, and then the dumbing down of Science for the sake of the bottom line dollar of corporations. Goodbye, earth, it was nice knowing you. Now where’s that circus and bread? Gimme that controller so I can watch Fox News. Hannity and O’Reilly will make it all better about that bloody global warming thang.

The money well has no bottom when it comes to those who would debunk global warming and Gore as a hoax. Koch Industries is now at the top of the list as a donor to that cause of that organized destruction of the long time survival chances of the human race.   http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/

And you thought the Koch Brothers were just eccentric billionaires who just supported the Tea Party! 

So there you have it, my fellow earthlings. The grandest Tar Baby of all time has already taken our hand for one last dance. We are in denial and enjoying the modern day “Circus and Bread” of “American Idol,” Dancing with the Stars,” the “Super Bowl,” just name the diversion. We cannot be bothered with bad stuff or negativity. We just put in a hard day’s work, drove the hour home on the freeway, and want to relax and vege out. Can’t be bothered with no Al Gore or no global warming. And there are so many people who say that it is all a hoax, anyhow. For the first time, science has been manipulated to help us destroy us. There are endless billions of dollars from those who profit from business as usual, and continuing to smoke up the planet, and mercurytize our water supply, that you can hardly know what to believe. But know this, that when you follow the money, the smart money is on continuing on as we have for centuries, depleting resources and polluting air and water. Why? It’s more profitable. But what about the future? What future?   It does not exist. Only the now. Only the bucks you can make today. Get with it you tree-huggers! The Tar Baby’s got the next dance, chump. With you.

KILL or BE KILLED

America is almost equally divided. One party is totally partisan while the other still tries to get along, compromise, build consensus and display some sort of civility. Which do you suppose is winning dominance in the universe of politics?

Here is another nugget: When a group speaks with one voice and does not allow dissenting voices, it wins in general. That is a fact of life, albeit an ugly one. Remember Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment? "Thou shalt not speak ill of fellow Republicans." (Except if you're George Bush in the 2000 South Carolina Primary undermining John McCain with the black-baby rumor.) Well, the party faithful not only adhere to that fundamental, they excommunicate any member that strays. It's rock solid.

Lock-step party loyalty has what effect on this country? ANSWER: Gridlock and decline. However, it is the one ingredient that guarantees political success for Republicans no matter the scandal, no matter the ignorance. It is the factor leading to fascism. It is the characteristic most similar to the Nazis which spoke with one voice, marched lockstep behind its leader, and did not permit outsiders in the public forum. Democrats were banned from the public square in what year? ANSWER: 1933 Germany. The parallels are real.

I realize comparisons to Nazi Germany are now politically incorrect – especially from the element most analogous. But the comparison, in this sense, is justifiably correct.

Right-wingers forgive their own however egregious the transgression. But they never forgive outsiders, even for alleged crimes which later prove false and only hatched by some smear-master. In keeping with that distinctive, will they in time forgive birthers for fabricating the Obama-not-born-in-US lies? You betcha. More outrageously, they will continue to cling to the lie. Just like they do the no-global-warming on the 6,000 year-old-earth.

Jimmy Swaggart's crocodile tears were accepted by his followers as a token of repentance, and the Republican base is one and the same. Leaders of their flock only have to pretend to repent on Sunday to continue sinning on Monday, ad infinitum.

When shooting his Texas bud in the face, Dick Cheney could have done worse by killing the poor sap. Whichever. He would have been forgiven. Why? He's one of them. They always forgive their own – overlooking any fault, major or minor.

Wide Stance Larry finished his Senate term without a hitch (no pun intended). John Ensign and David Vitter still hold their jobs despite a $100,000 bribe and $3,000 hookers. All forgiven.

But Republicans are determined to investigate the hell out of Obama, ACORN, Freddie Mac / Fannie Mae, and Barney Frank (no-brainer of choices).

Barack Obama’s defense of a mosque near Ground Zero will never be forgiven, although what he said was consistent with American values. Why does the right continue to hold it against the President? He's not one of "them" plus his skin is a shade darker. Confederates still screech, “Hell, no! We ain’t forgittin’“ Although the Civil War was 150 years ago, rebs still hold a grudge. Guess what? They’re the same people that constitute the Republican Party today.

Friends, we are now in the AGE OF PARTISANSHIP. The nation is in gridlock; little progress can be made for the betterment of America and the world. Congress, controlled by the lock-step crowd, will never betray its pledge to represent the wealthy class and weapons industries to the detriment of everyone and everything else.

The parties differ in two principal ways: (1) PERCEPTION and (2) KILLER INSTINCT.

PERCEPTION

Republicans see in black and white with no shades between while Democrats view a world of diverse colors – so blended one cannot distinguish one hue from another. Republicans perceive Democrats as godless evil socialists ready to destroy this country if given the chance, and Democrats perceive Republicans as fellow sojourners sitting politely around a negotiating table bargaining in good faith. Republicans hate the opposing party, and Democrats want Republicans to like them so much, they’re willing to concede their core principles for a little camaraderie. Republicans focus on enemies; Democrats value friends.

Their perceptions are opposite.

Republicans see nations of the world as potential enemies while Democrats see them as potential friends. Republicans are absolutists while Democrats are abstractionists. Neither see in 20/20. Both have forms of defective vision; one far-sighted, the other near-sighted. In a nutshell, that’s the problem.

KILLER INSTINCT

Republicans own a killer instinct; Democrats don’t. Republicans are willing to win at any cost, including election fraud and lying the nation to war. Democrats don’t. Republicans are like a football team that pays off the refs to stay home; Democrats play crocket – only they have soft mallets to safeguard against injury.

Republicans roll out an assault rifle and blow the living shit out of anyone/anything they classify enemy. Democrats just roll their eyes.

Obama sees the partisan struggle differently than the Progressive base which elected him. His overall view is like his familiar Senate-setting where distinguished members debate in civil tones and all legislation is passed by compromise. Obama’s eyesight is about as skewed as Republicans’.

Whereas Bush held a firm determination to undermine labor, ignite wars, and pander to the wealthy, Obama holds no such fortitude to reverse the injury of the former. However, his determination is directed toward compromise and consensus. Whereas Bush was courageously ignorant, Obama is timidly intelligent. The outcome is almost as bad under Obama – since he has no practical will to repair the damage and set America on a progressive course – like he promised so aggressively during the 2008 campaign.

In a tournament, if one contender has a killer instinct and is ready to win by any means including eliminating his opponent and the other contestant is passive and desires to end an amiable competition with a handshake and a smile, which do you suppose wins?

Republican schools hand out lots of failing grades, few passing; Democratic schools issue everyone a gold star – even to those absent who never completed their homework. Both are wrong. Democrats are soccer moms that don’t keep score because they don’t want anybody to lose. Republicans pay the referees to let their kids win.

Democrats would like to outlaw dodge ball; Republicans would like to make the balls concrete.

Obama pictures himself as an American Nelson Mandela – a hero struggling to patch the racial divide – bringing Republicans and Democrats together to find solutions by appeasement and compromise. Obama knows not his enemies.

In the real world, it’s KILL or BE KILLED. Idealists would like for it to be otherwise, but it isn’t. And, so, America finds itself on the road to fascism, similar to the German experience where the Weimar Republic (Democrats) paved the Autobahn to Nazism (Republicans).

The national scene sickens me. Where’s reality and practicality?