AUSTERITY BRITAIN AND ROYAL CIRCUSES. Funerals, Coronations and Weddings, 1935 – 2011

Next week, on March 23^rd, chancellor of the exchequer George Osborne will wield his axe to administer the £81bn of cuts the government says are necessary in order to deal with the deficit. There is still a sense of unreality about what lies in store for those who will be hit hardest. The mass-circulation newspapers convey little or nothing of the severe austerity that is about to be imposed. The general mood still seems to be one of denial. But that is unlikely to last long once reality kicks in. April will be the first of many hard months – and years – to come. But the government must be hoping that April will bring some welcome distracting sunshine in the form of a much hyped, romantic royal wedding. Second in line to the throne, Prince William, will wed his photogenic fiancée Kate Middleton on April 29^th. We are assured by the tabloids that this is an event eagerly awaited by the whole nation, and one which will attract to our shores multitudes of tourists eager to share with us our joy, and experience at first hand the colour and pageantry for which British state occasions such as this are world renowned. Less widely reported is the fact that the numbers of people opting to take extended Easter breaks abroad this year due to the additional public holiday granted for the wedding, has shot up by between 30% and 50%.

Such occasions are hardly conducive to reflections on their antecedents, or for that matter, on anything much beyond the razzmatazz of the moment. For the record, we may recall that the last such event in Britain, the wedding of Prince Charles to Diana Spencer in July 1981, received the full-on treatment of a state occasion. 3,500 guests were present at the ceremony in St. Paul’s Cathedral and it was watched by 750 million world-wide. The Times described the wedding as a “Day of Romance in a Grey World”, and the description didn’t apply to the weather, which was fine. It would perhaps be unkind to wish the son of Charles and Diana the “happy ever after” life that his parents enjoyed for him and his bride, but it is not inappropriate to caution the happy couple that the prognosis for the longevity of royal matches in recent times is not good.

But it is more interesting to pick up the point about the “grey world”. The wedding of Charles and Diana took place two years after the election of Margaret Thatcher. Unemployment in Britain had remained relatively low from 1945 until the late 1970s. Then, in the manufacturing recession of 1981, due partly to the deflationary impact of strict monetary policy, it rose rapidly to unprecedented levels. From 1.5 million in 1979 it had reached 3 million by 1981, at the time of the wedding. This is not to suggest of course that the nuptials were timed to distract public attention from the dire economic situation, but it was nevertheless a convenient coincidental happenstance. Interesting to note also is that Thatcher’s popularity ratings in 1980 and 1981 were at an all-time low, at 23%. It was only the Falklands War of 1982 that restored her popularity and enabled her to go on to win the 1983 election.

Devotees of British cinema will not have failed to notice the phenomenal success at the box office of The King’s Speech, which, to critical acclaim, purports to relate the story of the late George VI’s struggle to overcome a stammer which seriously inhibited him from performing his public duties. Leaving aside the questions raised about the film’s historical accuracy in its depiction of the king as an admirer of Churchill and an opponent of appeasement, it continues the theme started earlier by another popular movie, The Queen. This film was widely regarded as an attempt to restore public affection for Elizabeth II, which had suffered badly at the time of Diana’s death in 1997. These films have appealed to audiences far beyond the ranks of devoted monarchists.

Although republicanism does not have a wide following in Britain, public affection for the monarchy’s present representatives has over recent years been less than fulsome. The shenanigans of the current Duke of York (the queen’s younger son and, like Charles, a divorcee) who, as Britain’s special envoy for trade, has consorted with a paedophile procurer of prostitutes and various unsavoury dictators, has not exactly enhanced the royal reputation for probity and sound judgment. A few years ago William’s brother, Prince Harry, was photographed at an upper-crust fancy dress ball dressed in a Nazi uniform, complete with swastika armband. This could be put down to youthful naivety, but it still leaves something to be desired in terms of intelligence and sensitivity.

The British power elite have a vested interest in retaining public support for the monarchy. Its mystique has to be kept alive. Deference to its antiquated modes and manners has to be maintained because if the institution itself should be called into question the implications for the British state would be very serious. So what are presented as important “events” in the “unending saga” of the monarchy have to be staged with all the pomp and pageantry they are deemed to deserve. Coronations, weddings, funerals, jubilees, are invested with a mystique deliberately intended to encourage wonder and admiration and the suspension of disbelief.

If we exclude the first world war and its immediate aftermath, prior to the financial collapse of 2008 and the age of austerity which is just beginning, the decades of the twentieth century marked by economic crisis, unemployment, war and austerity were the 1930s, the 1940s and early 1950s. They were also the years of elaborately staged royal “events”. It’s worth running through them:

1935. 4^th May. At the height of the Depression in Britain with 3 million unemployed and Mosley’s fascists on the march, Hitler in power in Germany and Mussolini about to invade Abyssinia, Britain celebrated the silver jubilee of George V, King of the United Kingdom and Emperor of India. These were the years of dole queues and hunger marches. Jubilee celebrations were held up and down the country.

1936. January 20^th. Funeral of George V at St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, after lying-in-state in London.

1936. Accession to the throne of Edward VIII, King of the United Kingdom and Emperor of India. An admirer of Hitler, he abdicated in December 1936 after causing a constitutional crisis by announcing his intention of marrying a ‘commoner’ – the American socialite, and divorcee, Wallis Simpson. The crisis embroiling the monarch and the government lasted throughout the year.

1937. May 12^th. Coronation of George VI, King of the United Kingdom and Emperor of India. The event was a grand spectacle, filmed for posterity in gaudy early Technicolor with an unctuously sycophantic commentary. Neville Chamberlain became prime minister the same month. In September 1938 he concluded the Munich Agreement with Hitler which led to the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia and paved the way for world war two. This was the high point of appeasement. On his return from Munich and before he had sought the agreement parliamentary endorsement for the treaty, George VI and his wife Elizabeth invited Chamberlain to appear with them on the balcony of Buckingham Palace to receive the adulation of his admirers. This was a highly unusual and unconstitutional step, which has been described by historian John Grigg as “the most unconstitutional act by a British sovereign in the present century.”

1937 was also the centenary of Queen Victoria’s accession to the throne, the occasion for a jingoistic colour movie “Queen Victoria”starring Anna Neagle, which celebrated “sixty glorious years” of queen and empire.

1947.November 20^th. The Royal Wedding of Princess Elizabeth to the Duke of Edinburgh at Westminster abbey. The depth of winter in one of the bleakest years of post-war austerity was brightened by the royal wedding of the 21 year old princess to Philip Mountbatten.

1952. George VI died of lung cancer on 6^th February. The funeral took place on 15^th February. Thousands lined the streets of London to watch the funeral cortege pass on its way to Windsor.

1953. June 2^nd. Coronation of Elizabeth II. The official commentary on this occasion surpassed in nauseating unction even the excesses of the coronation of George VI. 8.000 guests attended the ceremony in Westminster Abbey. Three million were said to have lined the streets of London, many having camped out overnight in the rain. A colour documentary was made for the cinemas. 20 million viewers watched the proceedings on TV, crowding into neighbours’ houses as television ownership was still limited. According to the commentary, the people were said to have “let themselves go in an outpouring of spontaneous emotion.” “The monarchy”, it was claimed, was “enshrined in the hearts of the people.”

In 1977 the queen celebrated her golden jubilee. In June 2012 there will be more celebrations on the occasion of her diamond jubilee. Then she will have been on the throne for almost as long as Victoria. So, Austerity Britain in 2011 and 2012 will be distracted from the doldrums by captivating spectacles. In April of this year we will be treated to a sparkling wedding of young royal celebrities. In 2012 the Diamond Jubilee in June will be followed by the Olympic Games in July and August. Perhaps the realities of wage-cuts, redundancies, unemployment, destruction of local services, demolition of the NHS, big bankers’ bonuses and growing inequality may all be star-dusted away. Unlikely. Things are not quite as they used to be and there are growing signs that the old monarchical magic is no longer working as it used to.

But there are some republicans who once thought differently who have now become ftconverts to the monarchy. One such is Peter Mandelson – now Lord Mandelson. In 1981, he and some fellow Labour party friends went to   Boulogne in France in order to spend the day of the royal wedding in a republic. He now looks forward to the Diamond Jubilee as “a truly historic occasion which will allow the people to show their pride and affection for the Queen.”

Part 1 – THE CONGRESSIONAL PAGE – A PARODY

My name is Jonathon.

I became interested in politics while a junior in high school during Clinton's second term which seemed, unfortunately, to have been dominated by the Lewinsky affair, whether by design or happenstance. The majority in the Lakeland area were up in arms about the President's extramarital relations performed right in the nation's sacred Oval Office. Thus, they not only wanted him impeached, but beheaded. Central Florida is predominantly right-wing, the extreme intolerant variety. It is commonly known as the "I-4 Corridor" for Interstate 4 which slices the state in half, from Tampa to Daytona.

As a non-conformist, I refused to share their sentiments, although declaring myself a Libertarian and registering Republican when finally reaching 18 a year later – for nothing other than the sake of my own best interest. Yes, I was an opportunist, guilty as charged. Because I really didn't believe in basic GOP doctrine. I was no ideologue either, which type dominates the party at present. But I wanted to take advantage of the situation to further my own ambitions. The GOP was simply a stepping-stone.

In 1998 I inquired about serving as an intern or congressional page in Washington. Soon thereafter, Representative Mark Stadler's administrative assistant called to congratulate me on being selected to serve as a page on Stadler's staff. It seemed such an honor to have been chosen from among hundreds of applicants.

At the end of the semester, I hastily packed and drove my old '88 Honda to Washington DC. It was an adventure about which I'd only dreamed.

The morning I met Congressman Stadler was an eye-opener. Stadler had arrived in Washington with dozens of other freshmen Republicans as a direct result of Gingrich's Republican revolution of '94 where GOP leaders presented their 'Contract With America.' I honestly was not impressed with this bullshit which was generously dished out to an ignorant electorate. But I went along for the ride despite misgivings.

Mark Stadler was strikingly handsome – with his red hair, green eyes, and great physique indicating he worked out rigorously. I was impressed. But what really caught my attention was the way his eyes darted about the room focusing on particular young men, fresh recruits to his congressional page brigade. Stadler was allowed ten, and nine of them were males – just out of 11^th grade. Only one female was present, probably a token or the daughter of some big contributor. All nine guys were attractive.

My first thought: "How could a so-called conservative Christian politician whose electability solely depended on his behavior while in office act in such a manner to compromise his re-electability?" Lakeland-Winter Haven is a right-wing bastion, not some freaky left-wing Massachusetts district on Cape Cod which elects a Barney Frank every term.

Then it dawned on me, "There's method to his madness." All politicians caught in the web of scandal seemed to have been implicated by affairs with females, not males. So, having a secret affair with another man, at that time anyhow, seemed less risky. Especially if the politician was skilled enough to put out a believable anti-gay message. It's like Jimmy Swaggart preaching against adultery all those years so he could divert attention away from his own affairs. Congressmen pull the same trick, I learned.

These were the days before Mark Foley was caught and Wide-Stance Larry was arrested (but continued serving out his term with impunity).

Ken Starr had just uncovered Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky, a female, and the discovery provided red-meat to a right-wing movement determined to take power at any cost, ethics and the nation's best interests be damned.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich also left himself wide open to attack by his careless trysts with female staffers. And guess who outed him? Tom DeLay, who seized the opportunity, thereby arranging Gingrich's premature departure so he could take his place or else choose his replacement thereby accumulating more power for himself. Gingrich had earlier outed Speaker Jim Wright of Fort Worth so he could take his place; then Tom DeLay outed Newt to take his place; now Tom DeLay is sentenced in Texas for political finance but never got caught for protecting the sex-slave trade in the Mariannas. It's dog eat dog.

Capitol Hill and all inside the Beltway were awash in scandal; it was a sea of corruption (still is) where bigger fish swallow the smaller as accepted behavior. It's a game of "Who can out whom the quickest." Or "Who can cover up the most the best." Those that hid the most corruption and cronyism were called "successful," and those who made careless mistakes that were later uncovered were called "failures." It wasn't the crime, it was getting caught committing the crime.

So, this was the atmosphere I walked into the summer of '98. Stadler was unusually handsome, had packed his page complement with spry high school boys from throughout his home district, and was obviously a closeted gay himself – or else deeply appreciative of male anatomy; I wasn't sure which. At first.

Six weeks went by after we had undergone orientation and got our feet wet. More or less we were simply "gofers" ("go-fors") as they called them. But we were privileged to sit behind the congressmen at committee meetings televised by CSPAN. I honestly think it was for window-dressing, because all we did was sit there and look attractive. Millions watch CSPAN, so the more attractive the people in the background, the better for the politician. It was all a PR stunt.

Once in a while we'd do actual work, like helping compile records, research topics limited to unclassified materials, opposition research ("dirt-digging"), and editing speeches and articles published in national and regional periodicals. Seldom were we allowed to speak directly to the congressman's constituents, at least never about policy. We were allowed to respond to emails, but only with preselected text, never our own. It boiled down to they had no trust in us.

Ironically, most of the representative's policy papers originated from RNC headquarters and arrived daily as "talking-points." Yes, the congressman read a canned script written by people over him seldom seen. He was rarely allowed an original thought, much less permitted to introduce resolutions and/or amendments outside what headquarters produced that was, in truth, created by lobbyists. In effect, only party-sanctioned lobbyists were allowed to propose legislation; congressmen simply served as conduits who "on-the-record" introduced legislation for the camera-eye, but such legislation was composed by lobbyists behind the curtain. Congressmen were downgraded to spokesmen for lobbyists and lobbyist served as puppets to major corporations and special interests who, in turn, never propose anything in the general public's best interest, only their own. No wonder the country's falling apart. Everything that masquerades as patriotic is destroying democracy as we once knew it.

The "K Street Project" was designed by Stadler and DeLay to solidify one-party rule. The plan went like this: DeLay and team signed contracts with lobby firms which denied employment to non-party lobbyists while guaranteeing positions to retired and former congressmen loyal to the party. All others were excluded, hence, guaranteeing the GOP a lock on power. Lobbyists outside the "Project" were essentially neutered, carried no influence on legislation whatsoever. As a result "K Street" firms hired only Republicans and approached only a few token Democratic legislators on Capitol Hill because Democrats had no authority to introduce bills. The effect was the reintroduction of fascism, not representative democracy by any stretch.

Oh, I almost forgot. The most unusual twist occurred at orientation when Congressman Stadler's assistant presented us with non-disclosure agreements and informed us that our signatures were mandatory, not optional, if we were continue on staff.  Although not on payroll, we were compelled to sign.

We read over the contract and one paragraph stood out: "Current and past pages under the supervision of Representative Mark Stadler will not disclose to the media or to any other person(s) outside this office any conduct or perceived conduct of the Congressman or his associates at any time, current or future, ad infinitum."

In other words, we were not allowed to rat on the congressman no matter what the offense, no matter what he did, good or bad. Whistleblowing was out of the question and we weren't provided immunity under any federal statute should we squeal to law enforcement, to the media, or to the ethics committee. Federal whistleblowing protections defaulted to the congressman's contract by way of our signatures, and no one in government would back us up if we did. It was more than a threat; it was a promise.

We signed, of course. But it raised a big red flag. What was Stadler hiding? What was he like behind the mask?

(Continued with next posting, April 10, 2011)

Can't We All Just Get Along? Probably Not

American society is fractured along ideological fault lines. To name a few of special interest, there is Republican versus Democrat, progressive versus conservative and secular versus religious. Yet, however divided these pairs might be, I believe nearly all persons affiliated with such segments favor the following:

* Accurate self-knowledge.

* A capacity to distinguish what is true from what is false.

* The importance of employing reason and evidence.

* The value of science and the scientific method.

* The desirability of an open mind.

To agree as a matter of principle about the merits of these qualities is one thing; interpreting and applying such perspectives in specific cases is something else. In my view, those who embrace these perspectives are most likely to fit in the progressive/ Democratic/secular (henceforth PDS) camps; however, I don't doubt for a moment that most in the other camp would claim such qualities. Yes, religious conservative Republicans (henceforth RCR) would surely endorse self-knowledge and love of truth, attest to the importance of science and claim to have open minds. And yet, they support beliefs that to the PDS camp are viewed as superstitions, supernatural, paranormal and pseudoscientific. Many in the RCR camp also embrace revelation, divination, energy medicine, prayer, faith healing, the paranormal, creationism and/or intelligent design - fantasies all. Few RCR types have a high regard for Carl Sagan's "Baloney Detector Kit" or respond well to skeptics like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Victor Stenger, Steven Novella and others. The latter, in fact, challenge beliefs and practices revered by RCRs. Despite all this, RCRs claim to value the traits sketched at the start of this commentary just as much as the PDSs.

How can this contradiction be explained? As Yul Bruner noted in "The King and I," "is a puzzlement."

Or is it?

Maybe there is another way to explain why humans make decisions and line up as they do on a range of issues, social, political and otherwise. Maybe it's not so much about reason, science and evidence as it is about genetics in general, neurons and the way they're assembled and function in particular.

A new book by John S. Kennedy called, "The New Anthropomorphism," describes the convoluted ways humans categorize things. His work deals with consciousness, intentionality and self-awareness - in animals. However, lessons are applied to human animals, too. It's all about neurons and how they fire. Another book by Jacques Vauclair entitled, "Animal Cognition" offers "a theory of mind" to explain why chimps line up (assemble along their own fault lines) as they do. Maybe the lessons from these studies might explain RCR types. And, of course, we PDS characters, too.

Consider the very human trait of morality. Do animals have a sense of morality? If so, how might it be described? How widely are different kinds of morality spread across varied species? Some investigators think morality is basically a collection of psychological instincts, not so much learned and conscious devotion to moral standards. It is not "language-based laws, philosophical arguments and abstract values that set mankind apart," Stephen Budiansky suggests in a Wall Street Journal article entitled, "Still Red in Tooth and Claw," March 12, 2011. Rather, it is our instincts. Here is a key section of the article expresses the core of Budiansky's point of view:

"A sense of fairness and reciprocity, for example, does not depend on formal rules or any 'complicated intellectual' processes, he writes, just a gut check: Our sense of justice is really nothing but a 'quick emotional' assessment. Empathy does not require a mind capable of imagining the feelings and thoughts of another mind, but arises from 'mirror neurons' that are automatically triggered when an animal witnesses the actions of others, generating the same sensations experienced when it performs those same actions itself."

That's it - maybe we're all working off instincts and can't help or reform ourselves. This is the best explanation I've read yet to account for the existence of conservative Republican true believers and the ghastly beliefs and policies they embrace and support!

Of course, we PDS types are running on instincts too but, naturally enough, we think our instincts are more humane, fair-minded, compassionate, and conducive to democracy and, naturally, conducive to REAL wellness lifestyles of quality marked by reason, exuberance, athleticism and liberty.

So, in the event there might be something to this genetic idea, let's try to be a little more understanding of and less astounded by the actions of our Republican fellow and sister citizens. They can't help themselves. It's not so much what they and we profess that matters but rather how they (and we) are wired.

Life is not fair.

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 (568 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

The U.S. & Pakistan’s Nukes

Washington—New American intelligence assessments have concluded that Pakistan has steadily expanded its nuclear arsenal since President Obama came to office…for the Obama administration the assessment poses a direct challenge to a central element of the President’s national security strategy, the reduction of nuclear stockpiles around the world.”—New York Times

The above words, written this past February, were followed by a Times editorial, titled “Pakistan’s Nuclear Folly,” decrying that “the weapons buildup has gotten too little attention,” and calling on Washington to “look for points of leverage” to stop it.

Well, the administration and the Times may be unhappy about Pakistan’s nuclear buildup, but it certainly should not have come as a surprise, nor is there much of a secret to the “points of leverage” that would almost certainly put a stopper on it: scupper the so-called 1-2-3 Agreement between the U.S. and India.

Back in 2003, Douglas Feith, then Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Bush Administration, pulled together a meeting of the U.S.-India Defense Policy Group to map out a blueprint for pulling New Delhi into an alliance against China. The code word used during the discussions was “stability,” but as P.R. Chari of the Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies noted, “What they really mean is how to deal with China.”

The Bush administration changed the Clinton Administration’s designation of China as a “strategic partner” to “strategic competitor,” and in its U.S.-China Security Review concluded that Beijing is “in direct competition with us for influence in Asia and beyond” and that in “the worst case this could lead to war.” Another Pentagon document revealed by Jane’s Foreign Report argued that both India and the U.S. were threatened by China, and that “India should emerge as a vital component of US strategy.”

One of the obstacles to that alliance was the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which blocks any country that is not a signer from buying nuclear fuel on the world market. Since neither India nor Pakistan has signed the Treaty, they can’t buy fuel from the 45-member Nuclear Suppliers Group. That has been particularly hard on India because it has few native uranium sources and has to split those between nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. The ban, however, is central to the NPT, and one of the few checks on nuclear proliferation.

But the Bush administration proposed bypassing the NPT with the so-called 1-2-3 Agreement that permitted India to purchase nuclear materials even though New Delhi refused to sign the Treaty. India would agree to use the nuclear fuel only in its civilian plants and open those plants for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But the Agreement also allowed India to divert its own domestic supplies to its weapons program, and those plants would remain off the inspection grid. In short, India would no longer have to choose between nuclear power and nuclear weapons: it could have both.

In July 2008, Pakistan’s then Foreign Minister Khurshid Kusuri predicted that if the 1-2-3 Agreement went through, “The whole Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will unravel,” and, in a letter to the IAEA, Pakistan warned that the pact “threatens to increase the chances of a nuclear arms race in the subcontinent.”

However, neither the Bush administration nor the Obama administration paid any attention to Pakistan’s complaints. The results were predictable. Pakistan ramped up its nuclear weapons program and may soon pass Britain as the fifth largest nuclear weapons nation in the world.

It also dug in its heels at the 65-nation 2011 Conference on Disarmament in Geneva and blocked a proposal to halt the production of nuclear weapons-making material. The 1-2-3 Agreement and the push to bring India into the Nuclear Suppliers group, warned Ambassador Zamir Akram, were “undermining the validity and sanctity of the international non-proliferation regime” and would “further destabilize security in South Asia.” The Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) is a priority for the Obama administration.

Islamabad is not alone in its criticism of the 1-2-3 Agreement or the FMCT. A number of nations are challenging NPT signers, including the U.S., China, Russia, Britain and France, to fulfill Article VI of the NPT that requires the elimination of nuclear weapons. While the U.S. and Russia have reduced their arsenals, both still have thousands of weapons, and the Americans are in the process of modernizing their current warheads.

Pakistan is a far smaller country than India, and would likely face defeat in a conventional conflict. It has already lost three wars to India. Its ace in the hole is nuclear weapons, and some Pakistanis have a distressingly casual view of nuclear war. “You can die crossing the street, or you could die in a nuclear war,” remarked former Pakistan army chief Gen. Mirza Aslem Beg. A BBC poll found that the Pakistani public has an “abysmally low” understanding of the threat.

Many Indians are not much better. Former Indian Defense Minister Georges Fernandes commented that “India can survive a nuclear attack, but Pakistan cannot.” And that same BBC poll found that for most Indians “the terror of a nuclear conflict is hard to imagine.”

Both countries have recently rolled out cruise missiles that are capable of carrying nuclear warheads. The Pakistani Hatf-7, or “Babur,” has a range of almost 500 miles and a speed of 550 miles. It appears to have been copied from the U.S. BGM-109 “Tomahawk,” several of which crashed in Pakistan during 1998 air strikes against Afghanistan. The Indian PJ-10 BrahMos cruise has a shorter range—180 miles—but a top speed of 2100 mph. India and Pakistan also have ballistic missiles capable of striking major cities in both countries.

In its editorial declaiming Pakistan as guilty of “nuclear folly,” the Times pointed out that “Pakistan cannot feed its people [or] educate its children.” Neither can India. As a 2010 United Nations Development Program report discovered, as bad as things are in Pakistan, life expectancy is lower in India, and the gap between rich and poor is greater. In fact, neither country can afford large militaries—Pakistan spends 35 percent of its budget on arms, and India is in the middle of a $40 billion military spending spree—and a nuclear war would not only destroy both countries, but also profoundly affect the entire globe.

Nuclear weapons are always folly, but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The U.S. currently spends in excess of $1 trillion a year on all defense and security related items, while our education system is starving, our infrastructure is collapsing, and hunger and illiteracy are spreading. If the Times wants to ratchet down tensions in South Asia, let it call for dumping the 1-2-3 Agreement and beginning the process called for in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measure relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

Snake-Oil Society

I want to take this opportunity to express my deepest concern and respect for the admirable and courageous people of Japan. I trust that we will help them to the best of our ability .

.   .   .   .   .   .

“It’s true that Americans believe a lot of nonsense,” my friend says. “But you’re not going to change anyone’s mind; and besides, most of the crap people believe is harmless, isn’t it? So why let it bother you?”

Not having time for an extended discussion, I let it go with an evasive reply along the lines of how, as a lifelong student and sometime practitioner of psychology, I have always been interested in the dark side of human nature. At best that was only a partial answer to a deceptively complex question that continues to haunt me. So here I’ll try to exorcise it with a serious and detailed answer.

First of all, he’s quite right to say that believing minds are not going to be changed – not by reasoned arguments, and not by facts. In a recent series of studies, researchers presented people with solid evidence that refuted their mistaken beliefs. The result: exposure to the disconfirming facts actually strengthened their commitment to their beliefs! Be sure to read this, and then chalk up another Pyrrhic victory for human nature.

Those studies and other evidence suggest there is a strong human tendency to protect beliefs, to reject or rationalize unwelcome arguments and facts that would otherwise be persuasive. This is the direct opposite of evidence-based critical thinking, which clearly does not come naturally but requires training and discipline. But where outside of a few departments in universities are students going to receive such training?

(Here’s a radical idea: Why not begin teaching critical thinking in elementary school? It could be justified as part of a much-needed course in science and scientific method. Other than reading and basic math, is there anything more important in today’s world than an appreciation of what science is, how it works, and how it affects every facet of our lives? But I digress.)

As for the kindly notion that most false beliefs are harmless, they’re not – not for the people holding them, not for society as a whole. My friend seemed to be implying that time spent worrying about widespread false beliefs would be better spent thinking about personal concerns closer to home. Kind of reminds me of the cliche, “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.”

Well, serenity certainly has it’s place – it’s good to be reminded when you’re obsessing about things you can’t control at the expense of things you can; but like so much ancient and contemporary “wisdom,” that simplistic saying only sounds like the last word on the subject. In a democratic society, concern about a wide range of issues is necessary and healthy. Except for this crucial caveat: Citizens must be receptive to reason and factual evidence. Otherwise, concern can easily be exploited and transformed into misguided ideology (Tea Party, anyone?). Jefferson famously said, “Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.” He might equally well have put it this way: Whenever the people are misinformed, they cannot be trusted with their own government. Sometimes I look around and get the impression that misinformation, and disinformation, have never been more prevalent.

So I am both intrigued by and deeply concerned about rampant false beliefs and their widespread consequences for individuals and the social fabric. That’s why I frequently discuss and write about this issue, as do many others who belong to a growing modern skeptical movement based on reason and science. We are all doing our part in various ways to try to understand, combat, and raise consciousness about the pernicious effects of widely held irrational beliefs. If weird beliefs and belief systems were isolated and limited, then they might be mostly harmless, as my friend suggested. But that is not the case: the body politic is infected with a spreading and dangerous contagion of irrationality. Nothing less than that.

There are three major institutions infected with bizarre nonsense that I would like to discuss in this and future columns – religion, politics, and medicine. The first two are obviously intertwined in a coordinated, symbiotic relationship that has far-reaching and very disturbing consequences. All three areas demand the most serious, concerted, and urgent action.

In this column I’ll deal with religion. Here we’re looking at about 40 percent of the U.S. population who are certain that the earth – no, make that the entire cosmos – was created in six days a mere four- to ten-thousand years ago. Just consider the magnitude of that error! The universe has been proven to be nearly 14 billion years old and the earth has been circling the sun for some 4.5 billion years. But that poses no problem for the fundagelical mind: You see, their god not only created Adam and Eve as adults, he also created the universe and the earth with “the appearance of age.” As for the fossils, he organized them in their respective strata to make us mere mortals think that the earth is many orders of magnitude older than it really is. Why would he do that? They dunno, and they don’t care – the Bible says so, and that’s all they need. Besides, it’s sinful to question God’s inscrutable reasons. And all will soon be revealed according to The Plan. By the way, another wacko fundamentalist interpretation of the fossils is that they were deposited in the strata during the great flood. That’s right, while the ark cruised along on the surface carrying all the animals, the flood sorted out the unlucky ones in conformity to evolutionary theory.

And we’re supposed to respect religion.

Yeah, whatever. As stupid as all this sounds, it’s a real and menacing nightmare right here in the heart of “the most advanced, most powerful nation on earth.” These deluded morons are deadly serious; they own the Republican Party; and they’re busy rewriting U.S history textbooks to support their contention that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. They use Thomas Jefferson’s “endowed by their creator” phrase in the Declaration of Independence as evidence of the founders’ theocratic intentions. Talk about deceit – Thomas Jefferson was the greatest and most vocal advocate for separation of church and state!

And wherever right-wing revisionists have power (Hello, Texas!) they are also busy revising science curricula to conform to their provably false dogmas. Historical and scientific facts are mere annoyances to the twisted minds of ideologues, who have no qualms about the virtue of lying for Jesus. But mostly they really and truly believe all this ludicrous nonsense, often with such fervor that they would be willing to die for it. They positively long for the rapture, which their Holy Scripture assures them is imminent. Then they will be transported to that blissful place where they won’t have to deal with all those abominable homosexuals, abortionists, atheists, and immoral liberals. All those miscreants are destined to burn in hell anyway, along with the gazillions of people down through the ages who did not accept the fundies' version of Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Meanwhile, Americans are electing these people to public offices at all levels, from school boards to Congress. Consider Representative John Shimkus (R - IL), who wanted to be chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee. Speaking before a House Energy Subcommittee in 2009, Rep. Shimkus quoted the Book of Genesis to support the Republican position that there is no need for climate legislation:

I believe that is the infallible word of God, and that's the way it is going to be for his creation. The earth will end only when God declares its time to be over. Man will not destroy this earth. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.

More real-world consequences are easy to find. A recent survey of high school biology teachers showed how effective the religious right’s disinformation and intimidation tactics have been: only 28 percent teach evolution according to standards, while 13 percent are avowed creationists. The remaining “cautious 60 percent” wish to avoid controversy and neither endorse evolution nor unscientific creationist alternatives.

This deserves to be put in perspective. Evolution stands as one of the most robust of all scientific theories. Over a time span of 150 years, there have been countless observations that might have falsified evolutionary theory. Yet in all that time there has not been a single discovery that is inconsistent with the theory. No fossil rabbits in the precambrian rocks, no contradictory molecular evidence, nothing. Every piece of data confirms the reality – the fact – of evolution. It is in fact one of the great triumphs of scientific method, and it is simply perverse to deny it. Yet in the United States the religious-right denialists have persuaded the majority of citizens that evolution is “just a theory” that doesn’t adequately explain the diversity of life on earth. Only in America.

The political right is waging the same kind of concerted disinformation warfare against climate-change science, with comparable success and even higher stakes. More on that coming soon.

And so it goes with the right wing’s relentless religious and political war against science/reality – deny, demean, deceive. Bully and intimidate. They really have no choice if they want their agenda to prevail, because reality is biased against them. Unfortunately, they use those tactics very effectively as part of their orchestrated, media-driven culture war. The “vast, right-wing conspiracy” is alive and well.

Next time more incredible nonsense and a few suggestions for how the reality-based community can begin to fight back. (Hint: Some semblance of leadership would help.)

If it’s not too late.

Keeping Promises, a Real Hurdle for Obama (But the Neocons Got to Love It)

The other day I got a call from an Obama phone solicitor. He wanted money of course, and it had been over a year since I made a contribution to Obama or any Democrat for that matter. You see, it was not long ago that I had voted for change that I could believe in. And since then I have been watching that change manifest itself as more of the same Neocon-based bullshit. It seems that Obama is afraid to do not only the right thing, but the things he promised us in order to raise money for his last campaign and to get elected as president. 

I fumed when I listened to this dude on the phone, asking for money. I did give him several pieces of my mind, though, beginning with how Obama pardoned the phone companies BEFORE any trial or indictments. They illegally helped Bush wiretap and listen in on private conversations of over 1.5 million Americans (Gee whiz, were there that many suspects as terrorists that needed looking at?). He tried to answer most of my objections with swift and sweep-it-under-the-rug comments, e.g., “Well you cannot expect everything to happen just right because Obama needs to bargain for the things he wants to change, sometimes.”

Bargain, my butt, I told him…Obama promised not only to change things when he got to Washington; he said he would go after the wrongdoers. So what would be wrong with Obama letting our justice system run its course and let the phone companies be tried for breaking the law and helping George W. Bush shred our Constitution by wiretapping us without proper court authority? Is the pardoning of the phone companies not just another example of government by Executive Dictator, so typical of the Decider?

Furthermore, Pres. O, what happened to closing Guantanamo, restoring habeas corpus, and restoring our rights instead of strengthening the Patriot Act for his own Executive privilege? 

Old Washington practice would be to favor Wall Street in times of financial crisis instead of letting the corrupt and inept companies fail. Yet Obama fashioned a plan to save many of the companies because they were deemed “too big to fail.” Too many jobs would be lost, he told us all, and many were saved, e.g., AIG who recklessly insured too many bad mortgage credit default swaps, not to mention other bad loans. So we taxpayers got to pay for saving their incompetent ass. Ditto for all the banks that failed, Freddie Mac, Sallie Mae, the list is endless. We get to pay for all that mismanagement, thank you very much.

Banks got endless bailout billions as a stimulus package to the economy, yet Americans saw very little of the stimulus package money the banks were supposed to loan out but DID NOT.

I am one Democrat who does not believe the government has endless money to bail out private companies who the government says are too big to fail. If there be job losses by keeping our government noses out of private businesses, then so be it. Is it government’s business to bail out business? No. Is it government’s business to help it’s citizens? As long as it collects tax revenues, YES. That’s the purpose of taxes, not to let Halliburton have no-bid contracts to sell us meals they don’t deliver or $500 hammers.

So then to the phone solicitor, I mentioned accountability. Obama promised to go after the wrongdoers in government, and he and all the Democrats who were elected in the 2008 General Election, were given the voter mandate to clean it all up and to impeach those who clearly had a hand in bringing America to the financial and moral brink of destruction. Yet what did they do on the day after the election, even before their first cup of coffee? Well, here they were with the talking heads on Good Morning America and CNN, doing a complete turnaround by taking impeachment off the table! Say what!!!? Wasn’t going after the wrongdoers the reason you all got elected? Did they think we wouldn’t notice?

And what about Bush lying to get us into war with Iraq? Oh, it wasn’t a lie, the phone dude told me, and nothing that Bush ever did was impeachable. Geez, Louise, I thought, my God, and then if the Bush White House committed no impeachable offenses, how could anyone ever be impeached? Did they have to get a bj in the White House and lie about it later to get impeached? Yes, he told me, lying was an impeachable offense. But not arbitrarily attacking Iraq based upon having weapons of mass destruction pointed at the US. And when later it became evident that there were no WMDs, oh shucks, what can you say? You can’t guess right every time, he said. I began to wonder whose side he was on. And was his mental outlook emanating from Obama himself? Was Obama just another slick politician?

So even if Bush did not lie about taking us to war and causing the deaths of over 150,000 innocent human beings is it not clear that he did NOT take the advice of his own CIA Chief who said that his information that Hussein was trying to buy Uranium from Niger was bogus and not to use it in Bush’s state of the union address? He used it. Knowingly! Is that not impeachable? If not the thousands killed and maimed, what about the extra $4 Trillion dollars Bush borrowed and spent to finance the Iraq War? Was that little ditty not an impeachable offense? And Obama promised to bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan? What happened to his promises? Is the only reason now to support Obama simply to insure that a bloody Neocon, like Sarah Palin, will not be elected by the GOP or worse, the Tea Baggers and the bloody Koch family?

I mentioned other strangeness in Obama’s behavior that gives me pause. When Bush was warned not to go to Spain or Italy for his book tour, he was warned that he might be nabbed and tried in a World Court for war crimes. Enter WikiLeaks whose pilfered records show that the Obama administration exerted pressure on Spain and Italy not to collar Bush. They reconsidered when apparently Obama threatened to withdraw US foreign aid to those countries. My, my. Please tell me, Mr. Obama, why would you do such a thing? If anybody at all is guilty in the eyes of the world, why would you interfere with a just due process under the moral laws of the world? And again, why are you protecting Bush by taking impeachment off the table and intimidating countries who think he is guilty of torture and other high crimes? You presidents got an exclusive club where you all hang together even if it’s wrong?

Then Obama did an unforgivable thing, I told Mr. Phone Guy. Obama extended Bush’s $2 Trillion tax cut for the rich! When all the Tea Baggers and Republicans are bitching about doing away with Obama care and making cuts to Social Security benefits, Obama does what George Bush would do if he were still president: HE EXTENDED THE TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH! While talking about cutting other programs for the poor, the working class, etc., all the while teachers in Wisconsin are demonstrating against an oppressive governor Scott Walker who is taking away their union’s bargaining abilities! Oh, it was necessary to do that, right? Bull. Extending the Bush II tax cuts is the same thing John Boehner, Newt Gingrich, Bush, and the rest of the thugs who want to drown the Middle and Working Classes in the bath tub, would do. The Koch’s must love it. Sarah Palin must think Obama is as dumb as she is. And it hurts to say that he acts like it. He forgot the promises he made and the platform of “change you can believe in” he ran on.

But hold on. The guy persisted and made a few points that made me think I might be a bit too hard on Obama. So in the interest of getting rid of the dude and in voting in advance to not see a Neocon replace Obama, I told him to send me a ticket in the mail and I would give Obama a $50 contribution. I know, I know, many of you will think I fell and hit my head. But I have always had hope. And the audacity of hope sometimes makes you crazy when it comes to women and/or politics.

So the very next day CNN says that Obama is going to extend the military tribunal court system at Guantanamo in order to try more of the “military combatants” that no state would try in our criminal court system. Say what? He ain’t going to shut G down, but now we are going back to the Stone Age and try them again by a military tribunal? Why don’t we just shoot them without a trial, someone asked from the back room. A technicality is what troubles Obama and makes him a deer in the headlights? For real? What kind of president is he? Are all of his promises going to be broken, eventually?

So I am thinking about the ethics involved in making promises. I have never broken one I made, though none of mine have been as tough as the president’s, to say the least. But if he breaks them, why should I be so righteous and keep mine? I have to wonder what the phone solicitor and Obama might think if, instead of sending them a check for $50, I simply returned the form with a note: “Sorry, but until you keep your promises, I won’t be keeping mine.” I am still struggling over it. What do you think?