WHAT ABOUT BOB?

My former friend, Bob, routinely focused on enemies – real or imagined. I call him “friend” only in the sense I was obligated to represent him on several occasions, not that we held any true amiable relationship. At work, he was a trouble-maker from the word "GO." Union reps aptly classified Bob as “high-maintenance” due to the fact they were regularly called to mediate many altercations for which he was central.

One afternoon Bob and I were having lunch at my favorite restaurant when he abruptly noticed a woman across the room laughing – seated perhaps 75 feet away. Unfortunately, Bob didn’t simply notice but made a loud protest to the waitress that if the staff didn’t shut the lady up, he’d walk out and never come back. It was a scene from hell. The woman on the far side of the restaurant was actually not loud at all. But something triggered Bob – I know not what to this day.

Bob continued his rant, "Look at her! Isn't she disgusting? If they don’t shut-her-up soon, I'm going to walk over and shut her up myself," Bob threatened.

I responded, "Now, Bob, she's way over there and nobody else seems bothered. So, why should you?"

"Well, it just makes me mad. We shouldn't have to put up with people like that," he argued.

It wasn't just the case of the loud, somewhat obnoxious female, because on other occasions at restaurants he would become embroiled over a group of college students, athletes, cell phones, or simply a waitress with her hair out of place. Bob never focused on the good, only the bad. Meals were never pleasant in his company.

This is an example, in my opinion, of the way Republicans behave. They MUST have an enemy to justify their existence. If there's not one at present, they've got to make one up or cultivate animosity towards nations that traditionally harbor a measure of ill-will against the U.S. in normal circumstances. Maybe they don’t necessarily have to produce them out of thin air, they simply inflame them. Domestic enemies too. They treat Democrats with as much hostility as terrorists or communists.

If it's not Afghanistan, it's Iraq. If it's not Iraq [after it finally settles to a measure of stability], it’ll be Iran or Libya or Syria or Venezuela or God-only-knows-where-else. Truly, it’s a bully mentality on steroids.

Republicans are like my former friend who always felt compelled to zero in on an enemy or a shortcoming someplace perceived in some stranger or group of unknowns. Republicans are barking dogs with nothing better to do than notice anything out of the ordinary which activates a constant yelping directed toward superficial enemies. And unfortunately, the right is equipped with a vicious bite. Apparently, it is their purpose for being. If their enemy doesn’t actually exist, they create a straw-man.

Domestically it’s the “War on Christmas” or “death panels” or “Obamacare” or “violent Muslims” that Republicans zero in on. Everything’s a war with warmongers. Then Democrats are tossed into the mix with no distinction between foreign terrorists and liberal neighbors. Republican hate is shared by all – somewhat like spreading revulsion around equally (socialized enemies’ list).

Equalized hate has a source: Rightwing Christian fundamentalism – which dominates the party. Their worldview demands they see in unflinching black and white absolutism – with God on one side and Satan on the other with no shades between. Therefore, Democrats – if not strictly aligned with fundamentalist doctrine – are of the devil and, thus, conspiring with related enemies and terrorists to destroy their cherished but distorted view of America and its revised history conforming to their worldview. The cry “I want my country back” not only has racial undertones (given we have a Black president) but religious.

I must tell you; it was no fun lunching with Bob. And no longer is it fun living in an America strongly influenced by a rabid right-wing cultivating hostility around the world – both domestic and foreign – just because it’s in their bully-nature to do so. On several occasions managers were called to settle some grievance Bob instigated involving another customer at an eating establishment – before I finally gave up on him. (I was about as slow as Obama in realizing I could never change the guy by sound reason and counsel). It was embarrassing. Bullies are the same in that regard – including whole movements like the Tea Party that’s taken full possession of the GOP.

Republicans are spoiling for a fight. Without that prime function, they are but castaways. It's in their nature to act up, provoke or imagine enemies, then vilify them with their hateful rhetoric. Their leading consultants, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove, are paid millions to conceive derogatory language to pleasurize the base and demonize Democrats at the same time.

Have you ever had a friend or acquaintance acting as such? You can predict what they'll do next. Pretty soon you'll be scouting out restaurants to pinpoint your Bob’s probable targets. It's like a game, albeit an excruciating one. I became an expert at identifying the next victim.

The rest of the patrons not acquainted with Bob were naturally neutral in the ensuing conflict like it was an isolated incident. Or that both sides somehow were equally at fault. Little did they know. To view the incidents fairly, one would have to know Bob like I did with his hostile past – his patterns of discontent – to come to an accurate assessment.

The same is true for the uninformed and misinformed in America. If they only knew the true nature of the instigator, calamities could have been avoided or averted. Maybe Tucson could have been prevented if American media was courageous enough to expose right-wing hate-speech. Iraq never would have happened if America knew the truth; neither would financial ruin.

The US media, in its attempt to be “fair,” refuses to recognize “Bob’s” (Republicans’) past practice and modus operandi. It would like to put both parties on an equal footing when discussing hateful rhetoric leading to violence. “False equivalency” it’s now codified universally as a result of the abusive media practice. In that way, the media is the naïve restaurant manager that fails to recognize Bob as the source of hostility but pins half the blame on innocent customers just to look “fair and balanced.” There’s nothing “fair” about dishonesty. Responsible leadership takes everything into account, then bases solutions on facts. A bully is a bully, and the Republican Party is America’s bully. To see it any other way is dishonest and irresponsible.

Now Republicans are going after teachers, custodians, road crews, union workers, Planned Parenthood, NPR, aliens, and millions more Americans. The targets are all in Karl Rove and Frank Luntz’s playbook to weaken the Democratic Party, thus winning future elections for Republicans. Koch brothers Charles and David – plus several other billionaires – are funding the fall of America by funneling millions through Rove and Luntz for their war on workers. It is incredible. They are going for the jugular. Tax cuts for billionaires, pink slips to the working poor and filthy streets for the homeless. Concentrating all wealth at the top while raping the bottom is the name of their game. That’s exactly where we are.

One would think their strategy inconceivable. But the religious right, again, has made their efforts possible to destroy unions and low wage-earners, because equating Democrats with the devil (since they refuse to adhere to fundamentalism) means many workers vote against their own best interests.

The terrible trend continues. The right is spoiling for a fight and will have its wish fulfilled if left unchecked, and it’ll remain unchecked if American media continues its false equivalency game and the evangelical movement continues to spread like a mesmerized cult.

Wading Into the Shallows, Part 1

I don’t get it – never did, never will. On second thought, saying “never will” sounds a bit arrogant, too much like the pronouncements of the deluded religious-right ideologues I’m always criticizing. Of course I can’t predict my future with certainty; but then neither can you, or anyone. Especially not those religious fanatics who are always so spectacularly and embarrassingly wrong about everything. (Considering the preposterous claims they make, it’s hard to believe they even have the capacity to be embarrassed; but they are certainly an embarrassment to the rational citizens of this nation).

The “it” I don’t get is the whole concept of a supernatural realm – ghosts, angels, demons, gods, etc. Here I’ll focus on theism, which has the distinction of being the dominant world view in this hyper-religious country. Theism is the entirely speculative belief that there is an invisible creator-god who takes an active role in earthly affairs and maintains a close relationship with humans, whom he created from dust and ribs as the proud culmination of his work. In other words, a personal god who created us human mammals in his own image. And please note that theists make many testable claims about the nature of reality, one of the most grandiose being that their holy book is literally true in every particular. Also note that this absurd and provably false position forces theists to invent the most stupendous rationalizations, all too often with an air of pretentious, solemn piety implying that they understand something of cosmic significance that you better accept if you know what’s good for you.

Anyway, in the spirit of “Never say never,” and also in the much more important spirit of skeptical, scientific openness to new evidence, I must leave room for at least a smidgen of doubt. So I’ll just say that in all likelihood I will never get it. Of course there is always the possibility of a dementia-induced, deathbed conversion. But as Christopher Hitchens said, that wouldn’t really be me, so pay no attention if that should come to pass.

Understand that I’m not talking about deism, the belief in a creator/intelligent designer that does not intervene in the world. And while I can’t agree with them, I have no quarrel with deists, as long as they aren’t lending support to the fundamentalists/evangelicals (fundagelicals) who are trying to reverse the Enlightenment and turn our society into some kind of a non-thinking, science-denying theocracy in alliance with oppressive, right-wing politics. Jesus hates social programs, dontcha know?

From a practical standpoint, it seems to me that deism is virtually indistinguishable from agnosticism or atheism. How’s that? Well, the major point of contention between deists and nonbelievers seems to be how it all got started in the first place. Beyond that, deists are free to embrace the scientific account of nature, including evolution, in its entirety. They don’t claim to know the mind of some god or to know all the “revealed” answers to the meaning and purpose of life. And they don’t generally claim that features of living organisms (the eye; the notorious bacterial flagellum) reveal the hand of an intelligent designer who tinkered with the ongoing process of evolution. Unlike theists, they are not arrogant. And make no mistake about it: fundagelical theism is a supremely arrogant belief system. What else can be said of people who claim to know the absolute truth about all the big questions without a shred of solid evidence?

So if deists prefer to believe that a hidden and undetectable supernatural being designed and created the cosmos, I can’t prove them wrong, and I really don’t care to try. Unlike theists, their philosophical arguments and speculations are not shallow and dogmatic, but neither are they compelling. Deists have not marshaled enough real-world evidence to prove their hypotheses, and their god-in-hiding remains an inference.

To me, the only sound position is not to claim to know the answers to the big questions. In that respect I go along with Richard Dawkins, who points out that any intelligent designer would be far more complex – and therefore even more improbable – than an undesigned, natural universe. In the absence of evidence, postulating a creator doesn’t explain a thing but just pushes the origin question back to another level that itself requires explanation. Who’s to say what may have transpired in the fullness of time? The possibilities seem limitless. For example, it can be shown mathematically that in a multiverse that generates universes with different physical laws, everything that can happen eventually will happen. It is possible that a hugely powerful intelligent designer of this universe was the product of a lengthy period of evolution in another universe that itself was designed. Or that humans (or their successors) a million years from now will be designing their own universes. And so on. Who knows? It’s all speculation, isn’t it? But you’ll never hear that from a theist. They’ve got their culturally privileged, shallow little story and they’re sticking to it.

The late, great Carl Sagan took this position: Anything, however improbable, is possible, but only as long as the claims being made are general. When they start getting specific (miracles, the efficacy of prayer, prophecies), evidence must, of absolute necessity, come into play and be taken seriously. Which strongly implies that the hypothesized creator/intelligent designer of the deists bears almost no resemblance to the anthropomorphized, interventionist god who “speaks” to the Christian fundagelicals, the Mormons, and the Muslims. Of course Christians, who typically grasp at any straw that seems to support their presumptuous claims, want to include deists as their allies when it suits their purposes (example: appropriating the founders’ rhetorical term “nature’s God” as evidence they intended to establish a Christian nation, which is the exact opposite of the separation of church and state they really intended.) The idea that deism supports Christian dogma is, to put it bluntly, self-serving bullshit. Deism is much closer to a secular, naturalistic world view than it is to theism. Deism doesn’t make absurd claims about a six-thousand-year-old universe, talking snakes, virgin births, angels and demons, a Garden of Eden, heaven and hell, etc. It doesn’t deny established science. It is simply the position that, all things considered, it seems more likely to them that the universe came from conscious design rather than natural processes. I think most deists respect evidence and would agree that the evidence we have doesn’t prove the existence of a god and certainly doesn’t support the mythology of the petulant, jealous, vengeful, and fickle god of the Abrahamic religions. In contrast, theists look for any support they can dredge up to bolster their politicized claim that this is a Christian nation. It’s all a big god tent when they want something; the rest of the time they preach that all those others are going to burn in hell for worshipping the wrong gods, the wrong version of a god, or no gods. No one I know of has made this point better than Sam Harris.

Being a practical person, I’m inclined to go along with Thomas Jefferson, a deist, who said, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Now there’s an example of the kind of tolerance that needs to be more widely practiced in this diverse culture. Unfortunately, tolerance is anathema to U.S. fundagelical leaders who are hankering to replace our Constitutional democracy with a Bible-based, oppressive, theocratic system of law.

Let us not overlook Mormonism, a newer (circa 1830) theistic faith that makes specific, testable claims. Among other provably false claims, their scripture says that three groups of immigrants sailed to the new world from the near east, starting with refugees from the Tower of Babel in 2200 BC, followed much later by two other groups from Jerusalem, around 600 BC. After a series of wars, so the tale goes, the unbelievers in Christ (never mind that he had not yet been born on the other side of the world) prevailed to become the ancestors of today’s native Americans. Now get this: Shortly after his crucifixion in Jerusalem, Jesus came to America, ministered to and converted the inhabitants. (Bet you didn’t know that!) And the whole crazy story goes on and on from there. Of course those clean-cut young men in the white shirts and ties who come to your door with the Mormon message won't be telling you all that. They probably won't mention magic underwear, either, or the Mormons’ pivotal role in bankrolling the successful opposition to gay marriage in California.

But of course in the U.S. we’re supposed to respect others' religious beliefs. Which leads me to ask just what is meant by respect? And why do prominent religious leaders keep saying and doing things that are impossible to respect? What the term seems to mean in the U.S. is something like this: “Keep your big freethinker mouth shut so we can continue to enjoy our privileged status and pursue our theocratic agenda without having to justify our unsupported beliefs.” In the case of the Mormons and Scientologists, it's also so they don't have to publicly reveal much of the weirdness that conflicts with comfortable, traditional beliefs. That unfamiliar stuff might drive away prospective converts before they have been softened up. Better to suck them in first with feel-good appeals until they've made a commitment, then let them in on the bizarre secrets of the inner sanctum.

Anyway, if I had lived in the 1800’s, 1700’s, or earlier, I probably would have been a deist, along with Jefferson, Madison, and other enlightened figures of the time. The world and the life on it certainly have the “appearance of design,” as Richard Dawkins has said; and before Darwin, there were few, if any, plausible naturalistic hypotheses to explain the bewildering complexity and intricate organization of the natural world. It really does look like it was designed. Charles Darwin certainly thought so before his painstaking observations and research led him to the idea of evolution by natural selection, which has been called the greatest idea anyone ever had. What a remarkable man; what an intellectual giant! Naturally, the ignorant, contemptible fundies demonize him along with what has become the established fact of evolution.

Now that I’m all worked up again over the ignorance and arrogance of the toxic religious right, I’m really looking forward to writing Part 2, in which I’ll refute the provably false claim that religion is the foundation of morality. That column will also deal with the slanderous religious-right meme that atheists and agnostics cannot be moral. Which leads me to reprise the following quotation from “Unknown”:

“Morality is doing what’s right regardless of what you’ve been told; religion is doing what you’ve been told regardless of what is right.”

THE OBAMA VISIT: The Essentials of the Not-So-Special Relationship

The last days of May have seen a continuation of the sunny, rain-free weather that has blessed (or afflicted, depending on your point of view) the south-east of England for many weeks now. So London has been bathed in sunshine for the state visit of the Obamas, providing another opportunity for a replay of the pomp and circumstance of the royal wedding a month ago. For a government engaged in imposing the most draconian austerity measures in living memory, opportunities for distraction such as this must be seized with both hands. The public relations possibilities have been exploited shamelessly by prime minister Cameron who, together with Barack Obama,has been filmed for the news channels playing table tennis with pupils at a south London state secondary school. Meanwhile, Michelle Obama took a group of schoolgirls from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson school in north London (which she had visited in 2009) where many of the students are black and 54% qualify for free school meals, to Oxford University’s Christ Church College where hardly any students are black and most come from fee-paying “independent” (private) schools. The point of the exercises was to convince these children that they can achieve anything if they have the will, drive and determination to do so. But social inequality in Britain, already amongst the worst in the developed world, is growing. The unfortunate reality, which the propagators of “every fairy story can come true” myths prefer to ignore, is that most of the young people in the schools visited by the Obamas will grow up poorer, with fewer prospects than their parents’ generation.

There is no doubt that Barack and Michelle Obama are very popular in Britain. Kids from deprived ethnic minority and working class backgrounds, suddenly finding themselves in the presence of this glamorous, world-famous yet apparently accessible couple from backgrounds that seem similar to their own, are likely to be thrilled and inspired to believe that “anything is possible.” It is unimaginable that G.W. and Laura Bush could have pulled off anything like this. On Bush’s visits to London he had to be kept away from the public and from huge, angry demonstrations against his visits. Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the anti-war demonstrations against Bush and Blair numbered hundreds of thousands to more than one million. This week, a demonstration outside Buckingham Palace called by the Stop the War Coalition was so small that it was easily ignored by the news media. This, despite the fact that Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, increased the use of drones in Pakistan, backed the Nato bombing of Libya, bypassed international law in the extra-judicial assassination of Osama Bin Laden and failed to close down the US detention camp at Guatanamo. And the British government remains as closely allied to the United States in the so-called “special relationship” as it was when Tony Blair was in office.

Active opposition in Britain to US foreign policy in the Middle East, Afghanistan and now Libya has all but collapsed since Obama took office. The same can be said for opposition to Britain’s alignment with the U.S. It has been estimated that the ConLib government’s involvement in Libya will cost the taxpayer over £1 billion if the war continues through the autumn. This at a time when we are told that painful cuts to public services must be endured as there is no money to fund them. How is such a remarkable change of fortune to be explained? A large part of it must be put down to the “Obama phenomenon”. For a prominent world leader to be more popular abroad than in his or her own country is nothing new. In the 1980s Mikhail Gorbachev was more popular in Europe than in the Soviet Union and Margaret Thatcher was more popular in the United States than she was in Britain. Obama seems to be more popular in Britain than in the United States. Part of the reason for this is that the violent hatred borne him by the Tea Party movement and other sections of the Republican right-wing is regarded here as motivated by racist bigotry. It serves to confirm the opinion amongst liberals that large numbers of Americans prefer as president an inarticulate semi-literate to an eloquent intellectual tribune – especially if the latter is black. 

Such is the fascination with Obama that the professional political class here jostles to be seen in his company. Cameron hopes that his visit will have done the government – and him in particular - a power of good. The president’s arrival from Ireland was preceded by a joint article in the Times on the 23^rd May. This was intended to convey the impression of an identity of aims and interests. It amounted to little more than a string of predictable platitudes which will serve the purpose of the moment but will be forgotten very soon. “We are two different countries but our destination must be the same; strong and stable growth, reduced deficits and reform of our financial systems…so that they will never again be open to the abuses of the past.” At the very best this is wishfulness. They do not see eye to eye over the way to tackle budget deficits. Cameron wants Obama’s support for the speed and depth of his cuts; Obama has to face a hostile Congress that wants him to cut deeper and faster. Talk about reforms to the financial system to avoid the abuses of the past is pie in the sky. The banks have been let off the hook, pretty much guaranteeing that the abuses will recur. In Britain the “deficit reduction” policies, far from ensuring “strong and stable growth” have already resulted in no growth – the most likely prospect for the foreseeable future.

A main purpose of the Times article and the joint appearances and speeches is to assert once again that the “special relationship” is alive and well. It has now been re-branded the “essential relationship”. The term is equally vacuous, but it is intended to serve as a useful PR exercise which, it is hoped, will play to the advantage of both leaders with their own electorates. The media coverage of the Obamas at Buckingham Palace as guests of the queen should, it is hoped, play well with the US domestic audience. For his part, Cameron hopes that some of the Obama presidential magic will brush off on him, enhancing his delusion that he is an important world statesman. The “special relationship” is all show with no substance. To call it “essential” is intended to suggest that it is crucial; that the UK plays a vital part with the US on the world stage. From the US point of view, whatever the protestations to the contrary, it is the cost-free indulgence of a declining post-imperial European power for whom there remains a cultural sentiment based on shared language.

An earlier Letter from the UK argued that the idea of a special relationship went back to Churchill’s 1941 meeting with FDR which produced the Atlantic Charter. Following World War Two, Britain, together with the other European “great powers” was relegated to the ranks of the second and third class. Soon, the British Empire, for which Churchill had fought so stubbornly, was no more. Ever since, successive British governments have sought solace for their imperial decline by attaching themselves to the apron-strings of the great English-speaking power across the Atlantic; the former colony that they liked to think had inherited the mantle of the British Empire. Today it is all patent nonsense.

Not only is Britain of no real consequence globally; the United States is also well past its prime as an imperial power. The rising powers are China and India. Yet if the posturing of Cameron and Obama were taken seriously one would imagine that they were to be the arbiters of the destiny of the whole world in the years to come. Their joint article in The Times is redolent of deception, double standards and hypocrisy. This may be demonstrated by questioning a few of their ringing declarations and claims to moral rectitude. Addressing themselves to the situation in the Arab world, they warn autocratic regimes against the violent denial of the hopes of their citizens:

 “We will not stand by as their aspirations get crushed in a hail of bombs, bullets and mortar fire. We are reluctant to use force, but when our interests and values come together, we know we have a responsibility to act.” Note, “when our interests and values come together”. Presumably this has happened in Libya where they have unleashed a hail of bullets and bombs, but not in Syria, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia.

“We will stand with those who want to bring light into dark, support those laying the building blocks of democracy”. We can only begin to imagine the benighted, repressive nature of a regime that imprisons women for the crime of driving a car. But Saudi Arabia is the lynchpin of Western oil supplies. No “responsibility to act” there to help bring light into darkness.; likewise in Bahrain and Yemen. According to William Hague, the use of force by Assad of Syria is unacceptable. But it will be accepted.

In Afghanistan Obama says that “Nato has broken the Taliban momentum” and there will “soon begin a transition to an Afghan lead.” Not according to the best informed opinion on the war there. This wishful optimism completely belies the actual situation on the ground. And with regard to the Israeli/Palestinian stalemate Obama and Cameron say “We stand united in our support for a secure Israel and a sovereign Palestine.” This can mean anything or nothing. If it means that Obama and Cameron mean to stand firm on the stated commitment to support a territorial solution on the basis of the pre-1967 borders and are determined to resist Netanyahu’s certain attempt to sabotage this, then that would be progress. But we can be sure that they won’t. It will be interesting to see how the champions of democracy react to the UN General Assembly vote next September on the question of Palestinian statehood.

But it may not be too unrealistic to hope that the continuing Arab revolution will slip beyond the control of the Western powers. If the democratic movement is allowed to take its course, it may succeed in ending the deadlock of decades and breaking the grip not only of the despotic Arab rulers but also of the Western backers and armourers who have for so long underpinned their power.

Should You Be A Patriot? It Depends.

Patriot is a word much abused in today's America. The simplest definition of patriot is one who vigorously supports his country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors. Yet, many who wave the flag, associate the nation with a superstition (one nation, under God), support every war, approve laws dubious at best if not unconstitutional (e.g., The Patriot Act) render patriotism unattractive. Today, many would say, If that's patriotism, count me out.

What is patriotic often changes with conditions - and the nature of the population. Today, we consider George Washington, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, James Madison, Thomas Payne, John Hancock and all the founders patriots. However, in 1775, loyalists in the colonies thought them conspirators, traitors and/or seditionists. As far as the government was concerned (i.e., the one in England of which they were citizens), they most definitely were not considered patriots. How times and perceptions can change.

So, are you a patriot? Do you want to be a patriot?

Personally, I think the appropriate answer to the question (s) depends. We might choose to be patriots about some things, not so much about others. Some facts about America and its policies, traditions, actions and representations we support vigorously and would defend against enemies or detractors. However, sometimes those enemies and detractors (i.e., critics) are the very same folks who in time might be judged the true patriots. As noted, it depends.

There are some things about this country that many of today's flag-waving, USA USA, We're # 1 patriots don't want to learn, think about or acknowledge. Many Americans, perhaps a majority, know little about some extraordinary realities of the nation's history. I'll give you one example. The example I have in mind reflects a fact about one entire section of the country, the Southern states. I believe the situation, what it reflects and how it is viewed today shows that there is profound ignorance about the evil nature of a good proportion of the American people who lived at that time.

In 1848, the United States had just won a war with Mexico War that gave it lots of new territory, soon to be states. The president, Zachary Taylor, was from Louisiana and owned slaves. The great question was whether the new states would be slave or free. Imagine that - what a choice. What kind of people would enslave others? Well, the answer obviously, is the people of the south at the time. Its leaders in the Congress and the Southern States wanted a new tier of slave states. Oddly, Taylor himself was against more slave states. Sentiment in the North, while not enthusiastic against slavery in the south where it had a firm hold, also opposed more of it elsewhere. Compromises were made by 1850, brokered in good part with the aide of a southern Senator Henry Clay and Senator Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois - with the support of the new president, Millard Fillmore. In this bargain with the devil if there ever were such a creature (not), the South got a fugitive slave law. A more villainous, heinous, despicable betrayal of the Founder's hopes for the nation surely never came to light before this time. The Fugitive Slave Law required the federal government to arrest and return any slaves who made it to the north seeking freedom from oppression in the south. Returning slaves was the patriotic thing to do.

The good news is that this law would eventually create the very conditions that convinced previously neutral whites to oppose slavery. It also contributed to secession and the Civil War, a war that, at least theoretically and legally, would liberate the slaves. (Of course, things did not turn out so well for at least a century after the Emancipation Proclamation but that's another story.)

Today, patriots in the south honor those who fought for slavery. There are parades in their honor. Statues line a main avenue in Richmond. Robert E. Lee, who turned against his country to lead a rebellion, is judged a hero by most people throughout the present souther states. It's mind-boggling and infamous.

Who better to put the nature of the southern (white) people then and their apologists today in perspective than Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899), who fought valiantly as a Colonel in the Army of the Republic. In his Decoration Day Oration in 1882, he said:

... in the South, the negro toiled unpaid, and mothers wept while babes were sold, and at the auction-block husbands and wives speechlessly looked the last good-bye. Fugitives, lighted by the Northern Star, sought liberty on English soil, and were, by Northern men, thrust back to whip and chain. The great statesmen, the successful politicians, announced that law had compromised with crime, that justice had been bribed, and that time had barred appeal. A race was left without a right, without a hope. The future had no dawn, no star -- nothing but ignorance and fear, nothing but work and want. This was the conclusion of the statesmen, the philosophy of the politicians -- of constitutional expounders: -- this was decided by courts and ratified by the Nation...Ours appeared to be the most prosperous of Nations. But it was only appearance. The statesmen and the politicians were deceived. Real victories can be won only for the Right; The triumph of justice is the only Peace. Such is the nature of things. He who enslaves another cannot be free. He who attacks the right, assaults himself. The mistake our fathers made had not been corrected. The foundations of the Republic were insecure. The great dome of the temple was clad in the light of prosperity, but the corner-stones were crumbling. Four millions of human beings were enslaved. Party cries had been mistaken for principles -- partisanship for patriotism -- success for justice.

But Pity pointed to the scarred and bleeding backs of slaves; Mercy heard the sobs of mothers raft of babes, and justice held aloft the scales, in which one drop of blood shed by a master's lash, outweighed a Nation's gold. There were a few men, a few women, who had the courage to attack this monstrous crime. They found it entrenched in constitutions, statutes, and decisions -- barricaded and bastioned by every department and by every party. Politicians were its servants, statesmen its attorneys, judges its menials, presidents its puppets, and upon its cruel altar had been sacrificed our country's honor. It was the crime of the Nation -- of the whole country -- North and South responsible alike.

But Pity pointed to the scarred and bleeding backs of slaves; Mercy heard the sobs of mothers raft of babes, and justice held aloft the scales, in which one drop of blood shed by a master's lash, outweighed a Nation's gold. There were a few men, a few women, who had the courage to attack this monstrous crime. They found it entrenched in constitutions, statutes, and decisions -- barricaded and bastioned by every department and by every party. Politicians were its servants, statesmen its attorneys, judges its menials, presidents its puppets, and upon its cruel altar had been sacrificed our country's honor. It was the crime of the Nation -- of the whole country -- North and South responsible alike.

What kind of a patriot today honors the infamy of that Southern cause? The parades, the statues, the defense of those people and their leaders is grotesque.

Patriotism depends - it depends on human decency, on values of kindness, respect, help for others in need, love and the verities of equality, equal opportunity and a fair regard for everyone's right to the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. There were a few patriots in the south of that time, no doubt, as there are in the south today. But the history of the Confederacy is a history of shame and treachery, cruelty and dishonor that deserves nothing but our disgust and rejection.

Let's be very, very careful about the things we associate with patriotism. If our better natures prevail in the future, our heirs may not be so impressed. And let us also be quite clear about the worthiness of causes we associate with patriotism.

These considerations are some of the things that patriotism depends on.

The Great Depression Revisited

During the Great Depression, I have been told by those who lived and survived it, if you had a nickel you could stave off starvation by buying an apple. Only problem is, neither you nor your neighbor had a nickel. This was a time in the 1930s when times were tough and you had to make do with the meager resources you had. There were no jobs. No Social Security. No welfare, no national healthcare, no real means of keeping body and soul together. We have all heard the stories about the tough times then, and Jimmy Rogers (the Blue Yodeler) made hard times seem more bearable with his hobo songs of boxcars and brakemen. 

These times were before credit cards and other forms of plastic that could command a meal. What you had in your pocket was the only thing between you and your next meal. I can imagine such times in one way, however, even though I did not live during the Great Depression. In 1961 I had a summer job as a plumber’s helper in Kansas City. I planned poorly one week and spent all my money. I needed some more for food before the end of the following week, but my funds were next to nothing. What would I do? I had about $5.00 in cash and that was it. It would have to suffice for all the food and all the gas I needed to drive to work for a whole week. So I stopped driving to needless places and bought a loaf of bread and some slices of bologna. It would have to last for almost a whole week. It was a tough experience, and hunger visited me more than once. It was the closest brush I ever had with what was everyday life during the Great Depression.

Looking for work, my Dad rode the boxcars all over South Texas. He found only a little hired hand work from time to time, but only enough to provide a little food each day between sunup and sundown. He met many interesting characters on his journey seeking greener pastures. Everyone was hungry most all the time. Hobos had a way of foraging for food that some might call organized. Some in a group would find the fare such as potatoes growing in a farmer’s field and would be in charge of digging them. The potatoes were then taken to a source of water, a pond or even a rain ditch still full of water, to be washed. Other hoboes would look for a metal container to fill with water (from a ditch if necessary) so that the potatoes could be boiled. Last then were the cooks who boiled the potatoes. Sometimes there was salt and sometimes not. My Dad observed that potatoes, boiled in a tin can with water from a ditch are not very tasty, but would do wonders for a collapsed stomach.

There was a leader in one of Dad’s hobo groups named Carney. He carried some salt and after the first potato was eaten, Carney would distribute some pinches of salt to the hobos for their second potato. He figured it would be better appreciated that way. One of the hobos asked Carney if he had any pepper, too, and Carney told him, “Pepper is a spice and, unlike salt, pepper is not a life’s necessity. Go and live your lives in a manner to where you will be called the salt of the earth. Be a salt man, not a pepper man.”

Such was the mundane existence of those without resources, jobs, and food back then. Sometimes the roving masses could find watermelons, sweet corn growing tall, and my Dad commented that many times the farmers saw them taking some food from their fields. But no one ever objected.

My grandfather, David Milton Pace, had 15 children, a wife and a farm with a bank mortgage during the Depression. He was a sharecropper. Once a month Dave Pace would hitch his mule to the wagon and go to Bartlett, Texas for provisions. To get the provisions, basics like flour, bacon, and salt, he had to submit a list of his requirements to the banker assigned to his account. The banker would study the list and render a judgment as to whether Dave Pace’s list was acceptable or not. Prince Albert smoking tobacco in the red tin can was unacceptable to the banker. He crossed it off Dave’s list. “You can make do with Bull Durham tobacco at half the price.” the banker said. And so the session went, with the banker arbitrarily crossing off those things that he found to be unnecessary in his opinion. When the banker had you by the short hairs a poor man had little or no choice. And during the Depression, luxuries like personal dignity often got trampled into the dirt by the heels of those with money and power.

By accident, my mother met her father, Dave Pace, in the town square at Bartlett one day. He was going to get his provisions at the general store and she was going to high school there in town. Most all her brothers and sisters were small children and still lived at home on the farm. Mother had come to Bartlett because it was the closest town with a high school, and she stayed with a family and worked for her room and board.

Mom told me how on that day, her dad pulled a dollar bill out of his bib overalls and gave it to her to help with her expenses. “I knew it was the only dollar he had, and I objected and told him to spend it on the children, but he insisted.”

Such an impression a dollar made on my mother, I thought. It was truly amazing how one dollar could conjure such a memory some 50 years later. The Great Depression was a phenomenon indeed that gripped the human spirit.

In her early years, Mom picked cotton with her brothers and sisters. 

Mom told me: “I would see these fine motorcars going down the country roads, and I told my brother, Dave, how someday I hoped to have a nice shiny one, too. I remember then that I thought those people were rich, that they probably had as much as $100!”

One day my mother was picking cotton next to her older brother, Buck. His shirt had come apart and fell off his back right there in the cotton row. So Buck went to the house and told his mother he needed another shirt. Mom said that the best her mother could do was to cut the top off one of her dresses, and when Buck returned wearing the dress top with puffy shoulders my mother sat down in the row and cried. The poverty of her family overwhelmed her at that moment in time, she said.

In 1935 Dave Pace died of pneumonia from plowing the cold wet fields in January. Mom persevered and graduated from college at Southwest Teachers College in San Marcos, Texas. It was there that she married my Dad, and they both signed contracts to teach school at Meeks, Texas, a rural school with all the grades up to high school. The school provided a house for them to live in, and their neighbors of Czech and German descent, were generous with their food that came from their farms. Some of this food, my Mom and Dad took to her mother and the small kids in the country. Without Dave Pace, the farm had fallen into ruin. They had no relief or welfare or Social Security to help them. Mom and Dad stood between that remaining family and starvation. And many years later the kids remembered those times with fond feelings when Big Sister and her husband would bring them food.

Nowadays there is much talk of another crash, another Great Depression in the making for the whole world this time. I suppose if it must be we could survive. Humans are resilient as a species. We are resourceful. I have often wondered what the world would be like without plastic credit cards to pay our bills. Or if all the social programs now funded by government were to disappear or die on the cost-cutting operating table in Congress. Could we save ourselves?

If the US dollar loses its status as the world currency, how will that affect our lives? Some say that the rise in gold prices recently is the result of the dollars’ fall against other world currencies. I hope not. Will we Americans be able to buy gasoline to get to work if it tops say $8 a gallon? Will we be able to buy food with what resources we will have in the future? Will we ever go green with solar panels and electric cars? Or will Big Oil and Big Coal continue to rule while foreign wars and occupation remain the way of the world as the gap between Haves and Have-Nots widens? 

The Great Game’s New Clothes

According to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Leon Panetta, the U.S. never informed Pakistan about the operation to assassinate al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Ladin because it thought the Pakistanis could “jeopardize the mission” by tipping off the target.

Maybe, and maybe not. This is, after all, the ground over which the 19^th century “Great Game” was played, the essence of which was obfuscation. What you thought you saw or knew was not necessarily what was.

The “official” story is that three CIA helicopters—one for backup—took off from Jalalabad, Afghanistan and flew almost 200 miles to Abbottabad, most of it through Pakistani airspace. Pakistan scrambled jets, but the choppers still managed to land, spend 40 minutes on the ground, and get away.

Is it possible the helicopters really did dodge Pakistani radar? During the Cold War a West German pilot flew undetected through the teeth of the Soviet air defense system and landed his plane in Red Square, so yes. Choppers are slow, but these were stealth varieties and fairly quiet. But at top speed, the Blackhawks would have needed about an hour each way, plus the 40 minutes on the ground. That is a long time to remain undetected, particularly in a town hosting three regiments of the Pakistani Army, plus the Kakul Military Academy, the country’s equivalent of West Point. Abbottabad is also 35 miles from the capital, Islamabad, and the region is ringed with anti-aircraft sites.

Still, it is possible, except there is an alternative scenario that not only avoids magical thinking about what choppers can do, but better fits the politics of the moment: that Pakistan’s Directorate of Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI) knew where Bin Ladin was and fingered him, estimating that his death would accelerate negotiations with the Taliban. Why now? Because for the first time in this long war, U.S. and Pakistani interests coincide.

Gen. Hammad Gul, former head of the ISI, told the Financial Times on May 3 that the ISI knew where he was, but regarded him as “inactive.” Writing in the May 5 Guardian (UK), author Tariq Ali says that a “senior” ISI official told him back in 2006 that the spy organization knew where bin Ladin was, but had no intention of arresting him because he was “The goose that laid the golden egg.” In short, the hunt for the al-Qaeda leader helped keep the U.S. aid spigot open.

Indeed, bin Ladin may have been under house arrest, which would explain the absence of trained bodyguards. By not allowing the al-Qaeda leader a private militia, the ISI forced him to rely on it for protection. And if they then dropped a dime on him, they knew he would be an easy target. As to why he was killed, not captured, neither the U.S. nor Pakistan wanted him alive, the former because of the judicial nightmare his incarceration would involve, the latter because dead men tell no tales.

As for the denials: the last thing the ISI wants is to be associated with the hit, since it could end up making the organization a target for Pakistan’s home-grown Taliban. If the ISI knew, so did the Army, though not necessarily at all levels. Did the Army turn a blind eye to the U.S. choppers? Who knows?

What we do know for certain is that there is a shift in Pakistan and the U.S. with regards to the Afghan war.

On the U.S. side, the war is going badly, and American military and intelligence agencies are openly warring with one another. In December the U.S. intelligence community released a study indicating that progress was minimal and that the 2009 surge of 30,000 troops had produced only tactical successes: “There remains no clear path toward defeating the insurgency.” The Pentagon counter-attacked in late April with a report that the surge had been “a strategic defeat for the Taliban,” and that the military was making “tangible progress in some really key areas.”

It is not an analysis agreed with by our NATO allies, most of which are desperate to get their troops out of what they view as a deepening quagmire. A recent WikiLeak cable quotes Herman Van Rompuy, president of the European Union, saying “No one believes in Afghanistan anymore. But we will give it 2010 to see results.” He went on to say Europe was only going along “out of deference to the United States.” Translation: NATO support is falling apart.

Recent shifts by the Administration seem to signal that the White House is backing away from the surge and looking for ways to wind down the war. The shift of Gen. David Petraeus to the CIA removes the major U.S. booster of the current counterinsurgency strategy, and moving Panetta to the Defense Department puts a savvy political infighter with strong Democratic Party credentials into the heart of Pentagon. Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to the war but could never get a hearing from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a Republican.

The last major civilian supporter of the war is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, but Gates, her main ally, will soon be gone, as will Admiral Mike Mullen, head of the Joints Chiefs of Staff. The shuffle at the top is hardly a “night of the long knives,” but the White House has essentially eliminated or sidelined those in the administration who pushed for a robust war and long-term occupation.

A surge of sanity? Well, at least some careful poll reading. According to the Associated Press, six in 10 Americans want out of the war. Among Democrats 73 percent want to be out in a year, and a USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 72 percent of Americans want Congress to address an accelerated withdrawal. With the war now costing $8 billion a month, these numbers are hardly a surprise.

Pakistan has long been frustrated with the U.S.’s reluctance to talk to the Taliban, and, from Islamabad’s perspective, the war is largely being carried out at their expense. Pakistan has suffered tens of thousands of civilian and military casualties in what most Pakistanis see as an American war, and the country is literally up in arms over the drone attacks.

The Pakistani Army has been deployed in Swat, South Waziristan, and Bajaur, and the U.S. is pressing it to invade North Waziristan. One Pakistani grumbled to the Guardian (UK), “What do they [the U.S.] want us to do? Declare war on our whole country?” For the 30 million Pashtuns in the northwest regions, the Pakistani Army is foreign in language and culture, and Islamabad knows that it will eventually be seen as an outside occupier.

A poll by the New America Foundation and Terror Free Tomorrow of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan’s northwest—home and refuge to many of the insurgents fighting in Afghanistan—found some 80 percent oppose the U.S. war on terror, almost nine in every 10 people oppose U.S. attacks on the Taliban, and three quarters oppose the drone attacks.

The bottom line is that Pakistan simply cannot afford to continue the war, particularly as they are still trying to dig themselves out from under last year’s massive floods.

In April, Pakistan’s top military, intelligence and political leadership decamped to Kabul to meet with the government of Harmid Karzai. The outcome of the talks is secret, but they appear to have emboldened the parties to press the U.S. to start talking. According to Ahmed Rashid, author of “Taliban” and “Descent into Chaos,” the White House is moving “the fledgling peace process forward” and will “push to broker an end to the war.” This includes dropping “its preconditions that the Taliban sever links with al-Qaeda and accept the Afghan constitution before holding face-to-face talks.”

Given that in 2008 the Taliban agreed to not allow any “outside” forces in the country and pledged not to pose a danger to any other country, including those in the West, this demand has already been met. As for the constitution, since it excluded the Taliban it will have to be re-negotiated in any case.

While there appears to be a convergence of interests among the major parties, negotiations promise to be a thorny business.

The Pentagon will resist a major troop drawdown. There is also opposition in Afghanistan, where Tajik, Uzbek, and Hazara minorities are deeply suspicious of the Taliban. The Karzai government also appears split on the talks, although recent cabinet shuffles have removed some of the more anti-Pakistan leaders.

Then there is the Taliban, which is hardly a centralized organization, especially since U.S. drone attacks and night raids have effectively removed more experienced Taliban leaders, leaving younger and more radical fighters in charge. Can Taliban leader Mullah Omar deliver his troops? That is not a given.

Both other insurgent groups—the Haqqani Group and Hizb-i-Islami—have indicated they are open to negotiations, but the Americans will have a hard time sitting down with the Haqqanis. The group has been implicated in the deaths of numerous U.S. and coalition forces. To leave the Haqqani Group out, however, will derail the whole process.

The U.S. would like to exclude Iran, but as Rashid points out, “No peace process in Afghanistan can succeed without Iran’s full participation.” And then there is India. Pakistan sees Indian involvement in Afghanistan as part of New Delhi’s strategy to surround Pakistan, and India accuses Pakistan of harboring terrorists who attack Indian-controlled Kashmir and launched the horrendous 2008 attack on Mumbai that killed 166 people.

Murphy’s Law suggests that things are more likely to end in chaos than reasoned diplomacy. But self-interest is a powerful motivator, and all parties, including India, stands to gain something by ending the war. India very much wants to see the 1,050-mile TAPI pipeline built, as it will carry gas from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to Fazilka, India.

A lot is at stake, and if getting the peace process going involved taking out Osama bin Ladin. Well, in the cynical world of the “Great Game,” to make an omelet, you have to break eggs.

Back in the Victorian era the British Army marched off singing a song:

“We don’t want to fight but by jingo if we do/

We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men, and we’ve got the money too”

But in the 21^st century most our allies’ armies don’t want to fight, ships are useless in Afghanistan, there aren’t enough men, and everyone is broke.

For 33 years the people of Afghanistan have been bombed, burned, shot, tortured and turned into refugees. For at least the moment the pieces are aligned to bring this awful war to an end. It is time to close the book on the “Great Game” and bring the troops home.