Could Rick Perry Become Our Next “Rock Star” President? Part II

Ah, comes now Governor Goodhair as the late Molly Ivins used to call Rick Perry, governor of Texas.  He has soared to the top of all Republican candidates in the upcoming 2012 presidential race.  My, my, where to begin? In Part I we compared Perry to the exceptionally evil alien creature in the movie “Independence Day” who wanted the whole human race to die, to be exterminated.  This allegorical diversion is to illustrate how well Perry is suited to carry out the wishes and the desires of two of the most heartless Teabagger/Republicans ever to get America by the throat:  Newt Gingrich and Grover Norquist.  Remember them?  The former wanted Social Security to wither and die on the vine.  Well, what better candidate than Perry who just made it plain that he thinks Social Security is unconstitutional?  Forget that it helps people, the commoners, the working people.  They are the problem that needs to be eliminated.  Norquist announced that he wished to drown all government social programs that help people in his bath tub.  The “Beast” he called such programs.  Good metaphor, Grover.  I bet you almost had an orgasm when Perry as governor of Texas, annihilated funding of the SCHIPS medical aid to children program in the state of Texas.  Bet several children of poorer working families bit the dust in the true Neocon spirit of drowning people and the programs that help them in the bath tub.

When Bush II left office as governor of Texas, of the 10-billion dollar state budget deficit left Perry, he said, “I’m glad I’m not going to have to be the one to clean up this mess.”  Not to worry, Perry went right to work.  He threw over 160,000 disadvantaged and handicapped children under the bus.  Perry cut them off SCHIPS, a government insurance program that made insurance affordable to those without a lot of money.  Without hesitation Perry kicked the kids to the curb.  Without resources many had to die, Perry should be proud.  What a president he would make, considering some of the other Darth Vader types afoot in our Capitol as we speak.  Paul Ryan uses a laser scalpel when cutting benefits for the working man.  His counterpart Scott Walker, governor of Wisconsin has led the charge against teachers and unions to where they would suffer even more under the foot of the new GOP who has no fear of downsizing the poor and working class while adamantly standing fast on no new tax increases for the rich.

Hey Tea Baggers! Why don’t we ever hear from you on all the borrowing and spending that plunged us $14 Trillion dollars into debt as a nation?  Can’t blame the teachers and unions for that.  That came from the idiot borrowing and spending under 2 presidents, both of them Republicans:  Reagan and Bush II.  Reagan was fighting to build up our military to defeat the Evil Empire, Russia which only cost us $3 Trillion.  And Bush II chalked up $4 Trillion borrowed and spent, PLUS all the eternal interest to attack Iraq and Afghanistan for reasons long forgotten.  HALF of our National Debt due to two Republican presidents, thank you very much.  Why don’t some of you Tea Baggers take a night course in Accounting 101?  And learn to say something intelligent for a change?  You can begin by redefining what a “Conservative” is.

But wait, there’s more.  What about the Gardasil vaccine Perry mandated as Governor of Texas?  This vaccine was to be given arbitrarily to all Texas sixth-grade school girls as ongoing protection against the sexually-transmitted HPV Virus.  And why did Perry withdraw so abruptly from such a controversial decision right before he declared his run for the presidency?  Or was it because his former Chiefs of Staff were in on a boondoggle with the vaccine maker, Merck?  Take your pick.  Remembering the heartless alien who wanted all the human race dead, what would a few sixth-grade girls matter?

Perry professes to be a born-again Christian who believes that the earth is only 6,000 years old.  He is a strong homophobe who would keep the GOP in lockstep against gay marriage, no doubt about it.  Anti-Abortion, to the very end.  He sees no conflict in declaring that our Constitution is written with a Christian nation in mind.  Forget that all the famous founding fathers were Deists, not Christians.  But when you are re-writing history a la Big Brother the truth is totally secondary to the divine mission at hand.  And in Perry’s case that would be to rid the land of the Democrats like David rid the Holy Land of the Philistines.  See, Democrats pander to and help and protect the downtrodden, the poor, the have-nots, and Perry is out to drown them and all their government programs in Grover Norquist’s bath tub.  Forget them low-lifes who won’t pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and work for a living like the rest of us.  Perry hates them all and vows to rid the nation of all entitlement programs, if elected, by cracky.

Funny thing but you never hear Perry quoting Jesus’ parables about helping thy neighbor, or going 2 miles with him when he bids you go 1, and yes, the most passionate parable of all about the Good Samaritan.  Yet Perry is an avowed Christian fundamentalist.  Help thy neighbor is not Perry, though. Why before Perry gets through he might have re- written the whole New Testament about brotherly love and all to where all them freeloaders might just disappear from the planet like the alien yearned for in “Independence Day.”

In killing all the misfits and tax dollar drains on the pockets of the chosen people (the Neocons), Perry even acts like God Almighty as a prelude to his election as president.  He has executed prisoners whose innocence was proven before they were killed.  Just before an expert was to testify in the murder case of Todd Willingham who was wrongfully convicted of the arson deaths of his three daughters in Corsicana.  Perry restacked the Texas Forensic Science Commission the way Tom De Lay redistricted Texas voting districts, and appointed a crony, John Bradley, to head it.  Immediately Bradley cancelled Willingham’s hearing before the new evidence could see the light of day shine upon it, and Willingham was executed.  Wonder if Perry saw himself as God the avenger of all that is riff raff, regardless of guilt or innocence?  Was Pontius Pilate correct about “What is truth?”  Guess so when Perry’s hand is on the beaker switch.  Pretty rough stuff, Rick.  Reducing the Population Perry-Style

Then there is Perry’s total indifference when it comes to stealing Texas special purpose set aside funds.  Take  the Texas Electric Assistance Fund set up for low income customers to help them pay their light bills.  What with Texas in the throes of the worst drought on record and wildfires and triple-digit days as we speak sweeping much of the state, you got to wonder where the money went to help Texans.  Wasn’t  the money set up for that sole purpose?   When you are about to run for president you got to look noble.  But when you are about drowning the Beast you got to wear more than one hat.

And the Teachers Retirement System Board where Governor Perry took millions of dollars set aside for teachers and fees and gave it back to the firms that helped him get elected.  That little “privatization” trick Perry has perfected.  Death by Privatization.  Catchy sound.

What about Perry’s statement that Bernanke’s printing of more money at the Fed as “Treason?”  I got to wonder what Perry thought about his mentor, George W. Bush, lying to the world about our dire and urgent need to attack Iraq because, he said, Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction pointed at U. S. Cities.  Did it matter that our own CIA told Bush not to use the bogus British intelligence report that Hussein was attempting to buy Yellow Cake Uranium from Niger?  Nope.  Life is unimportant when you are dealing with members of the Have-Nots, and those who attacked us on 911 like Hussein.  Or not.  And Perry is the man for the job, damn the truth, full speed ahead.

Perry stonewalled the $25 billion dollar Texas budget shortfall just as slick as owl shit on a sycamore limb.  He told us Texas was the chosen state that had more jobs and the best balance sheet of any state in the union.  But Texas’ shortfall, all considered, is right up there and looking to surpass California’s at this writing.  The shortfall pinches.  Texas is laying off hundreds of teachers and government workers as we speak to address Texas budget shortfalls and planned budget cuts levied on the innocent.  What a guy!

Adding insult to injury Perry is involved in many scandalous maneuvers to reward his cronies who elected him by favoring them with funny money Texas slush funds established for set purposes.  And because they sound so lofty, the funds can disappear in an instant (poof) and find their way into the pockets of cronies like one of Perry’s favorite buddies, Red McCombs, co-founder of Clear Channel Communications.  He and Perry aim to build a Formula One Racetrack in Austin, and over $25 million in Texas state funds are on the chopping block.  Every year.  That and other such slights of hand at the governor’s office in Austin  is where the tax money for teachers, education, and other programs that serve Texans pours out of Austin like a big hole in Lake Travis Dam.

Texas Tax Dollars Favor the Rich Thanks to Perry

Oh, and what about Perry’s stated desire for Texas to secede from the United States?  A secessionist running for president of the country he wants to leave high and dry by walking Texas out of the Union?  Somebody pinch me. Have we voters stumbled and hit our head on a big rock or what? This dude is far worse than Dubya ever aspired to be.

So what if you ruin the whole 100s of millions of working class and their families by favoring companies who take their factories offshore?  What if people starve for lack of a government that cares about the common man?  European countries who make it work for all the people in healthcare, pensions, and vacations, have got to think the USA is one big fruitcake.  A nation gone cuckoo with the Neocons and misguided Tea Baggers like Palin and Boehner beating all us working class, middle class, and poor Americans like a cow being driven with a stick.  And telling us it is the way Jesus would have wanted it.  As a country we stick out like a possum at a Beagle picnic.  Perry’s credo does not agree with those decent countries that care about people, their fellow men and women, and decency.  Perry’s is a philosophy of survival of the fittest.  And of the dishonest.

So what happens to all the millions of Americans to be eliminated?  No problem.  To take their place at menial wages here at home, you got the illegals from Mexico, the vermin that Republicans love to say they hate, but secretly want to keep as servants, maids, landscapers, factory workers here (wink, wink).  Then you shift the manufacturing jobs overseas to China, to Mexico where labor is cheap and sparkling new offshore factories bought with Bush’s 2 Trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich are belching smoke and thriving.

You heard it here, Perry, if elected to president, will be the final Neocon Buzzard that picks the bones of what used to be the United States of America, a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Take heed.  Perry has given us fair warning of what lies ahead in his demented world if he has anything to say about it.  And he ain’t no rock star.

Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and other fundamentalist Republicans Are a Threat to American Democracy

First, the good news. Not even the three most maniacal Christian fundies (Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, or Sarah Palin) among the extremist Republicans who want to be president want to stone adulterers, whip or cut off the hands of thieves or impose the death penalty on those who leave Christianity. Before you conclude that no humans could be so inhuman or barbaric, consider this poll from the Pew Research Center: Views of harsh punishment by Muslims shown as a percentage who favor A) stoning people who commit adultery; B) whippings/cutting off hands for theft and C) death penalty for people who leave Islam. (Percentages estimated from bar chart   - numbers could be one or two percent off.)

Egypt

A. 81

B. 79

C. 82

Pakistan

A. 80

B. 80

C. 78

Jordan

A. 70

B. 58

C. 84

Nigeria

A. 58

B. 63

C. 54

Indonesia

A. 41

B. 38

C. 30

Lebanon

A. 22

B. 16

C.   4

Turkey

A. 18

B. 17

C.   2

So, let me start by acknowledging a little gratitude about our random good fortune that modern day Christianity, even at its irrational worst, is still less toxic that the breed of Islam that infects Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, Nigeria, Indonesia and other Islamic nations. (Not included in the Pew survey for obvious reasons are some of the most virulent theocracies, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, where one suspects the enthusiasm for such atrocities is at least as strong as in the nations polled.)

The bad news is that the Right Wing Christian worst here in America is still god-awful. This is especially so for those who (like myself) do not share the extreme theocratic "fires in the belly" fervor of Rick Perry, Michelle Bachmann, Sarah Palin and others of that ilk. This terrible threesome are Christian nationalists. They reject secularism, including separation of church and state. They want the United States of America to be become an official Christian nation, as they think the Founders intended. They do not consider other religions or no religion equal under the law and thereby entitled to the same safeguards, rights and status as followers of their brand of Christianity. Perry, Bachmann, Palin and their Christian Right backers cite some version of Ten Commandments as the foundation of American law, the better to carry out Biblical principles.

What kind of America might follow the election of one of these three horses-ass, wet-dream, rapturous Apocalypse apostles? What kind of America would remain for First-Amendment enthusiasts and defenders of the civil rights that all, including secularists, enjoy today? What would be in store for dissenters and those these super Christians consider adulterers, perverts (i.e., homosexuals), disobedient children and, believe it or not, demonic agents? What are the chances that the election of Perry, Bachmann or Palin would usher in an era of fascism? What brakes might remain to constrain the godly men and women who believe they were chosen to carry out God's will?

Karen Armstrong has warned of the possibility that Christians would welcome a totalitarian state that "leaves no room for any other view or policy, no democratic tolerance for rival parties, no individual freedom.” (Source: Chip Berlet, "Inside the Christian Right Dominionist Movement That's Undermining Democracy," AlterNet, September 2, 2011.)

Other likely goals of Perry, Bachmann and Palin are to convert Americans to their ideology, enshrine biblical codes into the legal system and proceed to see that God’s will, which they divine via voices and other heaven-sent revelations, is done on earth - starting here in these more or less still united states.

It's time, I think, for media people to start probing the Christian beliefs of these three presidential candidates, and exploring for the American voter the implications of such beliefs for insights into the agenda they would seek to impose upon the nation, if elected.

While non-believers can hardly cry, "God help us," we can take comfort from our beliefs that at least no gods will be helping any of them, either. Let's just hope that, as their form of Christianity becomes better understood, no Americans who care about freedom as enshrined in our godless Constitution give Perry, Bachmann or Palin much help in the year to come.

CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM, AND THE LEGACY OF STALIN

When the scale of the global financial crisis became clear with the collapse of Lehman Bros in 2008, Will Hutton, the Observer’s Keynesian economics columnist, pointedly remarked that the crisis of capitalism was upon us but the Marxist left, which had been predicting it for decades, was in no position to do anything about it. More recently, just a month ago, Nouriel Roubini, who almost alone amongst economics forecasters had predicted the financial crash, told the Wall Street journal that Marx had been right in claiming that capitalism was doomed to destruction. The re-discovery of Marx is, outside the small and largely marginalized groups on the left in western countries, still very much a minority interest. However, given that for the past twenty years at least, it has been taken for granted amongst mainstream political and economic theorists that Marx and all his works were truly dead and buried, the revival of interest is significant. Francis Fukuyama’s triumphalist 1992 celebration of ‘The End of History’ has turned out to be amongst the shortest-lived of mistaken ideas. Whether the first decades of the twenty-first century will turn out to herald the ‘final crisis of capitalism’ we cannot know. But only willfully blind defenders of the crisis-ridden status quo would confidently predict that its future is assured. Given the grave and growing instability of the global financial system, - and, if one wanted to compound the problems by mentioning the impact of wars, military intervention and revolution in the Middle East, Afghanistan and elsewhere, as well as the small matter of man-made global warming and climate change – a burning question presents itself. Why are there no mass movements committed to halting this headlong rush to catastrophe? Why are there no effective radical parties of the left dedicated to changing the system once and for all? That is the question. Given the patent failure of finance monopoly capitalism to achieve the ‘free market’ nirvana preached by its Hayekian and Friedmanite ideologues, one might have expected a vigorous revival of socialism. It is important to consider why there has been no such revival.

In seeking an answer we must look once again at the Soviet experience and its impact on the rest of the world. For our purposes this means primarily addressing the question of Stalinism. It would be neither appropriate nor possible here to go into the complexities of the debate about the meaning of Stalinism or the precise nature of the regime over which Stalin presided. The Marxist left in Britain has for more than sixty years been divided in its interpretation of the nature of the Soviet regime between the late 1920s and its demise in 1991. For most communists, following the Moscow line, the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and elsewhere allied to it, were regarded as socialist. For most orthodox Trotskyists, the Soviet Union and its allies were bureaucratically deformed workers’ states. For some neo-Trotskyists, these countries were not considered to be socialist at all, but were regarded as versions of ‘state capitalism’.  Whatever the differences between Marxists, all accepted the undeniable fact that the Soviet Union and other self-proclaimed socialist countries had put an end to private ownership in the means of production; all had established nationalized industries and largely collectivized agriculture, and operated their economies on the basis of centralized state planning. This was the system widely regarded by both left and right as ‘socialist’ or ‘communist.’

During the 1930s, through the years of the great depression, there existed a world-wide communist movement, closely allied to Moscow through the Communist International (Comintern.) In many countries the communist parties led mass working class and peasant movements. Communists were to the forefront of social struggles and of the movements in opposition to fascism and war. The Comintern organized the international brigade volunteers who fought to defend the Spanish republic against Franco fascism.  During the Second World War, in which the Soviet Union played by far the largest part in the destruction of fascism, communists were to the forefront in all the resistance movements in occupied Europe. After the war mass communist parties emerged in France and Italy and communist movements led successful revolutions in Vietnam, China and later, Cuba..

Between the late 1920s and 1953 the Soviet Union was led by Stalin. Whatever its accomplishments, and they were in many ways astounding, the regime over which he came to exercise iron control, developed into a tyranny. The forced march to transform the vast territory from a backward agrarian country into an advanced industrial state, cost the lives of millions. In 1931, at the beginning of the four year plans, Stalin declared that the country was 50 to 100 years behind the west in terms of its industrial development. It had, he said, 10 years to catch up. It would either succeed or perish. Exactly 10 years later the Nazis invaded. After unimaginable sacrifices, Soviet armed might, made possible many argued by the forced march of the five year plans, succeeded in defeating the greatest war machine history had ever known. Some have argued that this accomplishment justified the means employed to achieve it: ‘You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs.’  This claim might possibly have some flimsy credibility if it could be shown that (a) there was no alternative to the draconian forced march onto which Stalin dragooned the country, and (b) given that, the sacrifices of millions of lives were inevitable. Neither of these is true.

Stalinism was a complex phenomenon that cannot be reduced to any simplistic formula. It is not helpful to use the term as a label to characterize all communist-ruled countries as diverse, for example, as Yugoslavia and Cuba, or for that matter to describe the Soviet Union and other states of Eastern Europe at different stages of their history, as for example, 1950 and 1980. But it is possible to point to certain definitive characteristics of Stalinism. From the late 1920s, following the defeat of the Left (Trotskyist) Opposition, Stalin’s policy of building ‘socialism in a single country’ came to be imposed as the state orthodoxy. There could be no alternative. Any suggestion of a possible alternative to the five year plans and forced collectivization of agriculture, was rejected tout court.

Given that the country existed isolated in a hostile capitalist environment it was easy and convenient to treat any deviation from the ‘correct’ course as evidence of opposition to socialism itself. ‘Those who are not with us, are against us’ was the watch-word. Stalin regarded himself as the true disciple of Lenin and the interpreter of ‘Leninism’. In the circumstances of the 1930s, particularly with the rise of fascism in Germany and the knowledge that the exiled Trotskyist opposition was engaged in a sustained ideological attack on Stalin, claiming that he had betrayed the revolution, the search for ‘hidden enemies’ inside the country became a paranoid obsession. Under a regime which allowed no legitimate voice of dissent, the imagined scope of hidden and conspiratorial dissent became limitless. This is the background to the purges of the late 1930s which eliminated the majority of the old Bolsheviks from the leadership of the communist party and spread like wildfire throughout the lower ranks of the apparatus and beyond. From the early 1930s to the end of the decade and the onset of war, millions perished, either in the famine induced by forced collectivization and the elimination of the kulaks, or through incarceration in slave labour camps in the ‘gulag archipelago.’ The full horror of what had happened during the years of Stalin’s dictatorship did not become widely known until after his death.

It was then revealed beyond any possibility of doubt that the trials of leading communists during the Soviet purges of 1936 – 1938, and those in Eastern Europe between 1949 and 1952, were grotesque frame-ups in which confessions to the most preposterous crimes were obtained through torture. The truth that emerged after Stalin’s death led indirectly to the splits within the world communist movement and, finally, played a part in its disintegration. What is the relevance of all this to the weakness of socialist opposition movements in the western world today?

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the states of Eastern Europe between 1989 and 1991, the world became safe for rampant neo-liberal capitalism. From 1945 to around 1980, western capitalism had to some extent been constrained by the need to compete with the communist world for economic and ideological influence in the newly independent ‘Third World’ countries whose anti-colonial stance inclined them towards closer association with the Soviet bloc. Also, in the advanced capitalist countries, particularly in Europe, the Keynesian/social democratic model of economic development based on mixed economy, was to some extent an attempt to counteract the influence of a more assertive socialist movement, often influenced by the perceived successes of Soviet and other communist countries. Thus, the continued existence of the Soviet Union and other communist-ruled countries who, whatever their faults, appeared to have achieved a more egalitarian distribution of wealth, acted as a brake on unrestrained ‘free-market’ capitalism.

But perhaps the most far-reaching propaganda triumph of neo-liberal capitalism in its drive to globalization, has been its equation of socialism with Stalinism. This perpetuates the old Hayekian canard that any attempt to constrain the ‘free market’ is ‘the road to serfdom’ leading inevitably to Stalinist tyranny. To be able to claim that ‘There is No Alternative’ to capitalism has enabled a vast army of propagandists in the media and academia to write the obituary of socialism and of Marxism. It is incumbent on the left to challenge this dangerous myth. Stalinism has done incalculable damage to the socialist cause and it is absolutely essential that this is properly understood. What happened to the Soviet Union under Stalin was not inevitable; it was not an inevitable outgrowth of Marxism. As US academic, Professor Stephen F. Cohen (Rethinking the Soviet Experience: Politics and History since 1917) has argued very persuasively, the outcome of the Soviet debates in the 1920s could have been different; a different course, leading to a very different version of socialism could have been undertaken. It suits both the apologists for Stalin and the advocates of neo-liberal capitalism to claim that there was no alternative to Stalinism. There is an alternative to both Stalinism and capitalism. It has yet to be tried and unless is tried humanity cannot be guaranteed a viable future.

ONCE UPON A TIME...

Today marks the tenth anniversary of 9/11 – a day that will live in infamy. How have we done over the decade? Does our post-9/11 behavior honor the victims? I can’t help but visualize Osama bin Laden looking up from Hell celebrating the decline of the U.S. But there should be no self-satisfaction. The weakening of America is not the fruit of Osama’s labor; it’s the result of rightwing politics coupled with Democratic leadership’s cowardice. And such has been the condition throughout the post-period. The two parties are the evil twins “Meany” and “Weiny” – as former Congressman Alan Grayson correctly tags them. One places party over country while the other fearfully surrenders to every demand. Result? We’re all screwed. ONCE UPON A TIME… working folk had power in America and used it to better themselves and their country. The story actually begins before unions became influential. So, let’s back up a bit further.

ONCE UPON A TIME… there was a Great Depression caused by over-speculation and corruption on Wall Street. The Stock Market crashed in 1929. So, voters got together and threw the bums out in Washington that were in collusion with the bankers and greedy speculators that caused the mess in the first place. And they put a man in the White House by the name of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (elected 1932, inaugurated 1933).

FDR was a wise and kind man who saw clearly what the root causes of Depression were: (1) Lack of government oversight; (2) Extreme disparity of income; and (3) unfair, unbalanced tax and labor policies favoring the rich. To jump-start the economy, he immediately started work programs such as WPA and CCC. He launched Social Security and the National Relations Labor Act (which helped workers). The whole package was called THE NEW DEAL, because it drastically changed the course of American history for the better.

Naturally, the opposition fought back hard. They hated FDR and all he stood for because Roosevelt gave the working people a chance. So, they took over Congress in 1937, focused on the national debt, forcing the country deeper into Depression by mandating the U.S. pay back its obligations at an accelerated pace that had accrued due to the economic collapse they’d caused.

As predicted, their austerity measures (cutting the budget, jobs programs, social safety-nets, etc.) caused another small depression right in the middle of the big one. So, it wasn’t until after World War II started in 1941 the country finally climbed out of Depression, because the government again spent lots of money to pay for necessities… like the biggest conflict in world history.

After the war, unions were powerful, working people could raise a family and send the kids to college on just one parent's income. Anyone who wanted a decent paying job could get one. Many jobs were union jobs, and this meant they had guarantees of a pension, occasional raises, health insurance and someone to stick up for them if they were treated unfairly.

People now refer to this period as the “Good Ol’ Days,” and rightly so. But what many forget is this: Unions and unwavering Democratic leaders were what put the “Good” into the “Ol’.”

Once upon a time, working people understood their history. They remembered the 1930s what condition the country was in and who put them there and why. They recalled the New Deal and National Labor Relations Act – how these programs initiated in the 30s helped them off the streets and soup lines.

Now we live in a different century where a lot of younger workers forget or never knew. Side issues are now more important than labor – like “Obamacare” and “guns-God-gays.” Little do they realize – the “side issues” are designed by unscrupulous political operatives to derail their jobs, livelihoods, and futures. If workers can be distracted by tangents, then corporatists and the greedy elite will have succeeded in destroying labor, and by destroying labor, they will have succeeded in destroying America.

America is also negatively impacted by the current President who sees himself as an Abraham Lincoln instead of a Franklin Roosevelt. Times demand an FDR, but we’re saddled with Mr. Nice who bargains away bedrock benefits and rights for the unlikely chance at enemy acceptance. Opponents are respected more than supporters. Understandably, the base is discouraged to the point of handing the 2012 election to any contender, including a Perry, Palin or Bachmann. It’s a situation he alone has created and will lead to driving nails in the coffin – if not swiftly reversed.

I believe the state of health of domestic labor is the canary in the coal mine for all America. As our jobs evaporate and relocate elsewhere, everyone can clearly recognize decline in this country. Have you driven America’s streets lately and noticed the creeping blight? The nation’s appearance is disfigured when compared to yesteryears, and that’s only the surface symptom of a serious chronic infection: encroaching fascism.

Our only option is sticking together with unwavering determination to throw the bums out. Like a family in the midst of storm, we must hold on to one another to make it through to a brighter day. Then we can sing with Judy Garland the lyrics of Wizard of Oz (1939):

“Somewhere over the rainbow, Way up high, There's a land that I heard of Once in a lullaby. Somewhere over the rainbow, Skies are blue, And the dreams that you dare to dream really do come true.”

Once upon a time unions were strong and jobs plentiful. Those days will come again if we just hold on.  There may not be cute birdies flying over colorful rainbows, but at least we’ll have real hope for tomorrow.

We’re Natural-Born Lawyers, Not Scientists

I don’t recall where I read my title, but it essentially captures what I have been getting at in these columns. Theoretically, both science and the law recognize and depend on the centrality of evidence, and the goal of both is to reach “true” or at least optimal decisions based on verifiable evidence and reasoned argument. But despite a few superficial similarities, science and the law obviously represent very different approaches to evidence-based discovery. Science mostly adheres to the ideal of basing its (provisional) conclusions on reliable, verifiable, repeatable evidence. I insert the modifier, provisional, because every scientific finding or theory is subject to refutation or revision in the light of new, better evidence. Science is a work in progress, always seeking more complete evidence, always developing more refined theoretical models for improved prediction and control (i.e., technology). In science, sound evidence – verified data – always reigns supreme. If a hypothesis or even a longstanding theory is disconfirmed by new observational or experimental evidence, then the hypothesis/theory must be revised or discarded.

Primarily because of this commitment to the primacy of evidence, science works – damn, does it ever produce results! Anyone who wants to question the efficacy of scientific method has a huge mountain to climb. It doesn’t take a Sherlock Holmes to see that science has given us astounding knowledge, understanding, and technological progress – virtual godlike powers by the standards of only a few hundred years ago. Imagine discovering and reviving a preserved adult corpse from, say, the 16th century. She would be stupefied. Virtually everything she saw would astonish her, exceed her wildest imaginings. She would be a living testament to Sir Arthur Clarke’s third law, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” One of her few experiences that might be somewhat familiar would be other people, who wouldn’t be all that different from the folks she remembered. Or would they?

Anyway, let’s not debate the awesome effectiveness of science, which proves that reality is discoverable, predictable and, allowing for a number of obvious limitations, controllable (though for both good and ill). Is this fantastic success due to the greatness of individual scientists who came up with profound, breakthrough insights by virtue of their genius? I’ll argue that the answer is no. While there have been many brilliant scientists who are justifiably honored, the profundity and brilliance reside in the methods of science and not in the genius of individuals. After all, there have been great geniuses in arts and letters, philosophy, politics, and maybe even religion. And I don’t disparage their contributions, except to note that they mainly influenced others rather than actually advancing our knowledge, understanding and control of nature. Freud was a genius, but it is certainly appropriate to question whether his speculative, unscientific “theory” contributed to or detracted from our understanding of human nature and behavior. And with regard to arts and letters it is worth noting that history is traditionally part of the humanities; but to the extent that historical accounts are based on verifiable data, it belongs with the sciences.

(Since I mentioned religion again, I’ll raise this question once more: What do we understand about reality, including human nature, that can be attributed to religion? I’m thinking that just about everything religion tells us about human nature is either flat wrong or highly questionable. It seems increasingly clear that the fundamental Christian tenet of free will is a myth, that human behavior has natural causes, like all other natural phenomena. Another myth is that we’re governed by a disembodied essence such as a self or soul that influences our mind. It is becoming increasingly clear that the mind is what the brain and nervous system do, nothing more. There’s no evidence for a tiny, incorporeal homunculus named “Self” or “Soul” sitting at the control panel of the mind.)

Anyway, most practicing scientists are members of a community that is dedicated to expanding our knowledge, understanding, prediction and (in the experimental sciences) control of the nature. (I started to write “control of the natural world”; but what other world is there?) The members of the community of scientists adhere to rules and practices grounded in evidence that have a proven record of phenomenal success. Science is far more than the body of knowledge taught in most schools. It is a method, a rigorous discipline, a set of very high standards that always come down to verifiable, repeatable evidence. Each branch of science has its own distinct methods of observation, testing, and experimental controls; but they are all doing essentially the same thing. And the individual scientist knows that she must present data and analyses that meet those standards if she wants to persuade her peers. Primarily, she must be willing to change her mind on the basis of evidence.

So, finally, here’s the point: What scientists do does not come naturally. Skeptical, critical, methodical, evidence-based thinking is not part of our DNA. Evolution did not program us to withhold judgment until we had collected sufficient reliable evidence to explain a natural phenomenon. It did not program us to question our own hypotheses or the pronouncements of prestigious authority figures. It did not provide us with a good sense of probability, which now plays such a central role in the sciences.

Quite the contrary! We seem to be programmed to invent explanations, to adopt group beliefs that “explain” everything and then use our ingenuity to defend those beliefs come hell or high water. Back in the era of evolutionary adaptation, the struggle for survival took place on an entirely different playing field where utter ignorance was the norm. Now the game has changed radically, and so must we, starting with how we think. The stakes are obviously very high and they are now planetary rather than local and tribal. We live in a world that has changed much faster than our evolved nature, and many of us are still answering the call of Stone Age genes. I would argue that as never before it is critical to get things right, to base our individual and collective choices and decisions on the most accurate understanding of the realities we’re dealing with. That’s where science comes in: it is the only way we know of to get it right. Nothing less than our survival depends on supporting science and rejecting pseudoscience and superstition. And as individuals we need to cultivate habits of thought based on science and reason.

But back to lawyers, at least so I can justify the title of this piece. They operate in a very different arena, one that feels far more familiar and natural than the discipline of science. In litigation they make use of evidence primarily to support the client’s cause, not as part of a cooperative effort to advance our understanding of reality. A scientist who cherry-picks data and spins evidence to create a favorable reception for his hypothesis will not be honored by his peers. A lawyer who wins cases using those techniques enhances his reputation. In other words, litigating is more like salesmanship than like science. It is arguing for a predetermined position rather than participating in a collective effort to expand knowledge and understanding. I don’t say that to disparage honest lawyers, who provide a necessary service. The point is that when it comes to our beliefs about the world we operate like a lawyer steadfastly and cleverly defending a particular position, not like a scientist willing to consider all the evidence and go where it leads.

I’m not saying that scientists are more honorable people than lawyers (although on average I think that’s probably the case). If scientists are more honest, it has to be in large part because of the rules they follow – rules enforced by the scientific community – and because they value that community and share its goals. Of course there are scientists who have sold out and have become mercenaries in the service of political and commercial interests. The rogues who abetted the tobacco companies and the anti-climate-change corporate interests come to mind. Then there are other scientists who are so enamored of their theories they can’t accept the negative verdict of their peers and decide to take their case directly to a less skeptical public. A number of people in the field of paranormal research fit this description.

I’ll wrap up somewhat gratuitously with one of my favorite quotes. It comes from former Colorado governor Richard Lamm, who in 1992 looked at the ratio of engineers to lawyers being trained in various nations, and worried about the trend in the U.S.

“All we know about the new economic world tells us that nations which train engineers will prevail over those which train lawyers. No nation has ever sued its way to greatness.”

And no nation from this point forward will flourish without a strong commitment to science and reason. Yet as I look at the irrational, anti-science, ideological madness pervading the political and religious right these days, I am increasingly fearful that we’re rapidly regressing in the direction of theocratic fascism. Rick Perry? Michelle Bachmann? Sarah Palin? The Tea Party? Creationism? Would you believe it?

The Republican Presidential Primary Is Too Important to be Left to Political Bloviators and Mountebanks: Speak Out Before It's Too Late!

The population of the United States is more than 300 million and it includes some of the best and brightest that the human species has to offer, probably more so than any other country in the world. There is surely something wrong with a system for choosing a leader when, given a pool of such talent and a process that occupies more than a year and consumes billions of dollars, what rises to the top of the heap is George W Bush. Or when the likes of Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin can be mentioned as even remote possibilities. Richard Dawkins. This except is from Professor Dawkins' response to Governor Perry for On Faith, the Washington Post’s forum for news and opinion on religion and politics.

Now is the time, I believe, for all good women, and men, too, to pay attention to the Festival of Wingnuts, aka the GOP (God's Own Party) Presidential Primary. The leading candidates are farther to the right than Attila the Hun, more Christian than the Pope and more pro-business and dismissive of the interests of the middle class than John D. Rockefeller. They are a hazard to the Republic. All quality of life enhancement-seekers, that is, wellness enthusiasts, should therefore become highly engaged - the time has come for everyone to rise up and speak out, each in his/her own fashion, at every opportunity. The way to most effectively do so, in my opinion, is to take up the fine art of bloviating. But, not any bloviation - rather, bloviation with reason, exuberance, passion, humor and perspective. Wellness enthusiasts - help safeguard our liberty and the decency of America.

In case you are not familiar with this splendid term, here is a simple definition: Bloviate - to discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner. However, that definition applies to Right Wing bloviators who lack class, wit, wisdom, dignity and all of the common decencies - mountebanks such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly. There are good and decent bloviators who perform a public service by offering trenchant reflections on public affairs from a REAL wellness perspective. The latter communicate with reason and exuberance in service to our liberties, as opposed to Republican bloviators - angry twits who are irrational and grim, mean and selfish. And these are their better qualities.

Here is where you come in. While all ordinary wellness enthusiasts recognize their right to be heard, some have been holding back for any number of reasons, particularly the following three:

They are a bit shy - not sure they have original, earth-shattering ideas likely to change the world in 24 hours. This might be a standard too high. Settle for influencing someone, even if the beneficiary does not, at first, fully appreciate the watershed contribution your commentaries on Republican wingnuts has on her.

They are so very busy - Americans are not engaged in healthy lifestyles for the most part, so time is of the essence. Every waking moment of the ordinary wellness promoter has been focused on the search for and application of creative approaches to motivate, inform and guide the porcine populace to adopt and sustain more healthful, sensible attitudes and behaviors.

They are a bit intimidated - wellness promoters try not to offend anyone. While this is a good thing most of the time, desperate situations require a willingness to stir the waters by voicing resistance to the rabble.

In order to carry out my plan, namely, sound the alarm about the menace of crazed Republicans seeking the presidency, regular wellness enthusiasts must be willing to generate and deal with controversy. Such a role requires audacity, bravura, dauntlessness, fortitude, gallantry, hardihood, heroism, intrepidity, mettle, pluck, pugnacity, resolution, stoutheartedness, temerity, tenacity and yes, valor as well.

Which is why all wellness enthusiasts are hereby asked to please come forward and speak out before it's too late. It is time to evolve into a REAL wellness enthusiast. Real wellness enthusiasts not only have the qualities noted above and others of a noble nature, too numerous to list - they channel such talents in the public interest.

So, to paraphrase a few lines from the greatest speech ever given by an American not named Robert Green Ingersoll, I say, And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what a wellness lifestyle can do for you; ask what you can do as a REAL wellness promoter, for your country, when the out-of-control Republican Party is led by the likes of Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann an Sarah Palin. My fellow citizens of the world, ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do to prevent wingnut Republicans from destroying the freedom of man.

Good luck. Do what you can to stay well, fit and focused - and look on the bright side of life.