PERCEPTION

It’s all in the eye of the beholder. That rule of thumb seems more compelling in today’s political climate – and is impacting every facet of life. How one perceives existence has more influence on outcome than any other factor. Today, in fact, perception is more powerful than reality.

President Barack Obama perceives the world through a different set of glasses than his progressive base that worked so hard to get him elected. He views Republicans as worthy, distinguished opponents with similar goals for the betterment of all. As an outcome of this distorted perception, compromise is not only the instrument, but the objective. Thus, progressive issues are thrown under the bus, promises broken, and ostensible appeasement made with enemies of labor, environment, and social justice.

Notably, to prove his commitment to bipartisanship, the President cedes major concessions from the onset by appointing prominent corporate Republicans to head high-profile economic, energy and jobs task forces instead of drawing from a talented pool of progressive specialists. What’s he trying to prove? How conciliatory he is? The result is his voting base becomes disenfranchised – suppressed to the degree the next election cycle is poised to hand power to the right-wing. How can he not see what he’s doing?

Elizabeth Warren is sent packing to Massachusetts and Paul Krugman totally ignored. Instead, Obama courts the Republican CEO of General Electric, Jeffrey Immelt, to be his jobs czar – neglecting to take into account GE’s outsourcing thousands of jobs to China, Brazil, and elsewhere.

Obama’s political eyesight is myopic.

On the other hand, Tea Party Republicans perceive Democrats, generally, and Obama, particularly, as enemies of democracy and America. They have no respect for Obama and Democrats, nor do they feel obligated to show any. Their worldview is polarly opposite to Obama’s. Compromise is impermissible and a sign of weakness.

These battling perceptions, both inaccurate, have led to polarization, which results in government gridlock. The victim between the dueling views is the average citizen wedged betwixt the vice grips. Because the principals never pay the consequences.

Obama insisted the government could not break contracts when it came to TARP taxpayer dollars shelled out to big banks and Wall Street. So, billions in bonuses were mandated to be subsidized by taxpayers because CEO contracts didn’t permit the cessation of bonuses to the guys that ran the economy over the cliff.

In contrast, union contracts between workers and companies/government are broken without remark from the right, because ordinary workers don’t make billions and, thus, don’t have the means to hire lobbyists to buy politicians. Oh, yes, their collective bargaining rights and benefits can be cancelled, unions busted, and agreements nullified arbitrarily. But no billionaire suffered from the `08 Crash, only the rest of the world. We pay for their corrupt indulgences while they make out like bandits – more than any time in history.

A double standard is the norm in an unjust, plutocratic world. Wall Street is too big to fail, while Main Street deteriorates to pot-holes and dust. Corporate welfare is okayed without fanfare, while welfare for needy and unemployed Americans is denied – denounced by the right with no mention of the other. It’s the perception, their worldview, that drives them to hypocrisy favoring the rich. How opposite to Jesus Christ and Robin Hood can one be?

Meanwhile, we have no true representative of progressives – just a President who sees compromise as both the means and the end.

The gridlock state of America is real. Some have accused me of just holding a pessimistic view, that events and movements [now sculpturing our world] may be interpreted in a brighter light. They say my perception is off and I can’t see clearly.

Like the pessimist who observed a pile of manure and stated the obvious, “Well, there’s a pile of shit.” Next, the optimist strolled by and countered, “Oh, that’s just fertilizer. The pile’s so high, there’s got to be a horse in there somewhere.”

In today’s America, we’re obstructed by a great, big pile of shit Republicans left as their signature legacy. The optimist might come along and hope for better results than what’s visible by way of ignoring the foul-smelling obvious. The realist (pessimist) is the progressive, the optimist is Mr. Hope – Obama. While the party that dumped on America is the GOP. Who has the clearest vision and best interests of the American people at heart?

It’s a matter of perspective. If you’re one of the 99%, you see your job jerked out from under you, your home foreclosed, and your tax dollars bailing out billionaires and paying their bonuses. If you’re one of the elite 1%, you see the vast majority as a threat to your privileged lifestyle. But if you’re Obama, you still only stubbornly see compromise as the sole vehicle to reach consensus with adversaries that laid the big pile and are proud of it.

The Occupy Wall Street movement may have a ripple effect, though dismissed by the predictable FOX and radio right. And the ripple is only momentary. Because there’s no focus, no foresight.

What’s required is a visionary revolution of fresh perspective and new ideas that inspires America back to innovation, invention, and improvisation – the same ingredients that pulled us out of other depressions and crises in the past.

But where is that leader with vision? For, without vision, the people perish.

Barack Obama, I believe, needs to transform himself into that visionary. He has the intelligence, background, and potential to lead America back to greatness. He only needs a change of perception – assimilating the viewpoints necessary for success. He needs to recognize Republicans for what they are – untrustworthy opponents determined to destroy the nation to take his job – and he needs to act accordingly: AROUND them.

If unwilling to discard his long-held skewed perception and misconceptions, the nation perishes.

To stubbornly hold the passive approach is worse than Bush digging in his heels to cover up the big lie of pretext by claiming God orchestrated bombing Baghdad. Not only is Obama’s base greatly disappointed and repressed, but the country is damaged – on the edge of Depression. And without an energized base, Obama may lose, not to mention the loss of Senate, House and future Supreme Court appointees.

The cost could not be higher if eyes remain closed or vision blurred.

Who for President in 2012? Or Where has All the Passion Gone?

I enjoyed smoothing out 10 truckloads of fresh white sand on the beach at our house, but today when I saw that a family of Black-Bellied Tree Ducks had taken to the pristine white shoreline it surprised me. What passion I felt at seeing the ducks on the hills of white. Maybe 10 in all, some standing on one leg behind a furled wing, they made a perfect silhouette against white sand and a new sun peaking over the trees. These splendid, endangered, “Do not shoot” waterfowl whistled sweet songs to each other. The feeling lifts you and takes you back. Like when I was a boy of 11 in the endless Corrigan Woods of East Texas with the silence of the trees and the twittering of thousands of birds within the canopy of green with little droplets of sunlight peering through. Then I was discovering wildlife on my on for the first time. But today I watched the stoic poses of Tree Ducks, looking aloof and into the east wind that must have cooled the sand overnight. They knew me. They had observed me, as they went disinterestedly about their duck affairs unafraid for many days as I sculpted the very hillside with trusty Kubota tractor and front-end scoop bucket loader. All this was in preparation for the white sand that came last week. The tractor noise, nor my fishing very near these velvet ducks of many colors and a big black belly that the artist must have forgot to paint, seemed to disturb them. Nor did my casting a Tiny Torpedo, a floating clear bullet of a lure with a silver propeller on the back that spun when you retrieved it slowly on the water’s slick top.

Many Ways of Looking at a Tree Duck. Enjoy.

So this morning a good friend called me. We discussed a bit of politics, government, gold and silver, the price of eggs, the drought, the impending crisis with water shortages, the Fed, Bernanke’s printing presses, nothing out of the ordinary. It is agreed that all the world’s problems and frailties, including global warming, are man’s contributions to the planet, at least partly. We sort them out, trying to see a glimmer of soul within us humans, a caring about us ourselves as a species, as a viable worthwhile source of good that would make the universe smile to know that we are here. 

The practice of lying to one another as humans seems endlessly pathetic and needless, yet it is what we do. To gain an advantage, power, money or otherwise, yet we do it until we cannot separate the truth from illusion. And our human databanks and memory chips become faulty and corrupted at times. Our giant human egos become the smoke pots, and our greed for instant gratification, money, and power, our mirrors. Politicians do it best, or maybe it’s their handlers who buff up candidates with powder and wigs and other cosmetic trappings to make the pig with lipstick seem acceptable (or delude us into believing the pig is not really a pig at all). Our eyes wander about the talking head faces of candidates on big screen TVs, looking for perceived character flaws or assets interchangeably until we wear ourselves out and flip the expeditious coin in our bank of what used to be reason. This business we humans must conduct if we are to do something collectively such as elect a president. And if it looks good, sounds good, and the hair on camera is good, bingo. We decide. The TV messages, the reasoning, the sincerity, all are secondary to the subjective images and nuances we see onscreen in little 30-second ads, mostly, and we decide to give it our best shot and we decide. 

“Audacity of Hope” is catchy. So is “Change you can believe in.” These are, of course, Obamaisms that helped him get elected in 2008. But suffice it to say, for whoever is to blame, we Americans are farther bogged down in the swamp of more debt, more printing money at the Fed, and still have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Guantanamo is still open for business and habeas corpus is still non-existent. Tarp bailouts don’t work, even GM fails and gets absorbed by Uncle Sam, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are now owned by Uncle Sam and funded by us taxpayers. And our estranged Uncle Sam still wiretaps us in violation of the Constitution.

But not so fast. Who set all these plates of doom to spinning? Well, Reagan borrowed and spent $3 trillion extra during his 8 years as president. It was peacetime (do you love it?) yet the Great Communicator, the Teflon President, the Gipper convinced American voters that Russia was the Evil Empire and needed to be brought to their knees, economically. And enough American voters bought into it and voted for him. Twice. Religion was used against the Democrats like 100s of Tomahawk missiles (at over $1 million a copy) were employed against many ground targets when Bush II attacked Iraq. Bush said Iraq was in cahoots with al Qaeda and had missiles of mass destruction pointed at our very own American cities. And Right Wing religious groups such as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition said, Reagan and Bush II were about God’s business and opposed abortion, so support them. Voters bought into it, and Bush II attacked Afghanistan, then Iraq, and we are still there, thank you very much, Shrub. In dollars, it only cost us taxpayers another $4 trillion borrowed and spent by Bush II. And all this massive borrowing and spending totaled half the debt of all our National Debt during the combined terms of Reagan and Bush II. So will the real big-spending Democrats please stand up?

Reagan’s take on the problem

So Reagan promised to get government off the backs of the people. But it grew in size and drug our nation’s financial integrity into the toilet just as fast as the Fed could print more US dollars to buy a little more time. For those we trusted as leaders, for those who lied and corrupted America, there has been little to no accountability. For a greed that stole America. After all, during war time or peace time if you can convince voters to hold still while Halliburton sells our own government $500 for a single hammer on a no-bid contract, that’s Grand Larceny, isn’t it? So have the American voters become like millions of barnyard chickens that need plucking by the military industrial complex war corporation cronies of their favorite bought-and-paid-for presidents and congressmen? Were we just too trusting? Do we give up and buy the illusion? Just because a talking head candidate with good hair and no heart tells us he is made of truth and worth voting for? It is hard for me to feel passion for any of the candidates thus far, but I want to. I am still looking them over.

I have lived in Texas most of my life. We all used to be fierce in our competitiveness to win races here in Texas before the RNC and Tom DeLay stole an additional 16 seats in the US House of Representatives years ago. Redistricting they called it. And today DeLay has not spent a day in jail, though he was convicted of wrongful use of campaign money funds. Today, the courts are still sorting through the mess Redistricting caused, but Lordy, the damage has already been done. It is hard to put that genie back into the bottle. Texas is a funny place when it comes to judging what’s right and wrong, and the twists and turns for Texas lawmakers to get there, is a bitch sometimes. Sometimes you feel like T.S. Eliot’s J. Alfred Prufrock:

‘I should have been a pair of ragged claws, scuttling across the floors of silent seas.”

The other night my wife and I had dinner with two couples across the lake. They were our neighbors, recent acquaintances , and we played the famous game of “Ain’t it awful” about the drought in Texas and all and how our little 85-acre lake had fallen over 5 feet. I told them about the illustrious Tree Ducks on my new beach, and they seemed pleased. I also told them about how the Water Hyacinth had retreated to the far corners of land and had put down roots and were waiting for the lake to come up so they could float once again in all their majesty with succulent bulbous stems as floating green bulbs and luscious lavender flowers that truly do imitate Hyacinth flowers. Well, they were negative at the idea. Water Hyacinth, they proceeded to tell me was a noxious weed that choked waterways, etc., and as I listened, I had secret visions of my childhood in the South Texas bayous were the Water Hyacinth grew in great mats, providing cover for bait fish like minnows and added oxygen for water quality and clarity.

I argued in defense of the glorious water plant of my youth, telling them that when the White Amur Grass Carp were unintentionally released into Lake Houston that it became a fishless mud hole for over 20 years, and how not one sprig of Water Hyacinth or other vegetation existed in that lake for over 2 decades. But my arguments would not turn them. They certainly did not want any Water Hyacinth on their shoreline. 

So I sought the advice of Google and found an alarming bit of news. Texas (Fish and Gamer Dept. of) had seen to it that over 10 years ago that it became illegal to own, transport, or nurture Water Hyacinth. The fine? Oh well, it was stiffer than any possession of ANY substance known to man, including Marijuana, I would guess. Each Water Hyacinth plant carried its own and separate fine of from $200-$2,000! That’s per plant! And a jail term of not more than 180 days or both. I had plans to transfer perhaps 100 plants from the cove to where the Water Hyacinth had retreated to my own beach, and quickly, the minimum fine would have been $20,000 and the maximum, $200,000! And the State of Texas means business. 

But my neighbors proved to be politically correct about the hyacinth. I don’t think they knew that the plants were illegal, but I will tell them and watch a smile come to their collective faces. It’s always good to be right.

These glorious, non-invasive (in the eye of this Texan) plants of my childhood still exist all over Texas waters at this writing and are not a menace to water navigation or Texans in any way. What has the state become? Take a look at the wording, short and sweet, of this law that Texas has on the books to protect its citizens. Texas Law against Water Hyacinth and its Creator, God Almighty.

Needless to say I lost my passion for the Water Hyacinth revival project. Ah, passion.

“I grow old….I grow old…..I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.”   -T.S. Eliot

An Educational and Non-Divisive Patriotic Recitation Suggestion Proposed As An Alternative to the Un-American Pledge of Allegiance

When the colonists broke off from the mother country, they did so in part in order to create a new kind of government - a nation of the people, by the people and for the people. The founders wrote a Constitution for a nation of laws, man-made laws to be administered by representatives elected by the people. This was a noble experiment, a departure from the traditional government model under God, the latter better known as the Divine Right of Kings. In other words, kings were presumed to know what God wanted, so kings ruled. This was a very good thing for kings, maybe not the best arrangement for the commoners. However, the United States of America started out and continues to function under a different kind of model. Despite the god-awful phrase under God that the Knights of Columbus (i.e., the Catholic Church) successfully pressured Congress to insert into the 19th century godless Pledge of Allegiance during the Communist-scare era of the 1950's, the U.S. remains a democratic Republic, not a nation ruled (or influenced or affected in any way) by a make-believe sky god. Few believers in this particular nation they claim is now under a god seem to recognize the contradiction between our revered “liberty and justice for all” and the concept of being “under God.” The inclusion of this “under God” business automatically precludes “liberty” for all who do not subscribe to a god concept.

For years, I wanted to see Dr. Michael Newdow's lawsuits succeed striking the under God phrase from the Eisenhower-era pledge, but now I want to see something more - I want the Pledge itself eliminated. I think it's an embarrassment - a mindless, ineffective and moronic ritual blah blah that does not encourage reflection or education about the Republican nature of our system of government. (Besides, not a soul has a clue about the meaning of under God. If we took the Pledge seriously, we would want to know which god we're under and in what specific ways are we under said god?)

But I do have a replacement that I believe would be thoughtful, effective and meaningful, namely, reading aloud sections of the Constitution, including the amendments. Pick a minute or less of reading and go with that - over time, everyone would be exposed to truly worthy ideas that mean a great deal.

I recall as a youngster reciting the Pledge of Allegiance everyday, in Catholic grade school. We held one arm out like little Nazis swearing allegiance to a flag. Since we had to do it, it was not a sincere or educational ritual. We just did what we were told to do and got done with it - it meant nothing and we learned nothing from doing it. Nor is this ritual sensible today, for children or adults. No more arm stretched - bad memories of that gesture. Now it is done ever so reverently with hand held over the heart symbolizing what - flag under god love?

I'm put off by all oaths, because anyone, loyal or otherwise, can recites a broad and vague oath. A terrorist can recite an oath as well as a Tea Bagger. For the former, it's a minor irritant; for the latter, it's a jingoistic way of convincing ourselves, as Mitt Romney put it the other day, God created the United States and God wants us to be number one.

Loyalty oaths are required for nearly all public officials these days, including those who are to serve president, in the Congress, as state legislatures, the judiciary, all state and local offices and so on. Naturalized citizens are required to pledge their allegiance to the United States to become citizens. (As if anyone who wants to live here and work here is going to say, No, actually, I prefer not to take oaths - I think they're kind of stupid.) So, too, must everyone seeking to join any branch of the military. The whole business of oath-taking is out of control. I should be grateful I did not have to take a loyalty oath to write this blog. (Ooops, I shouldn't be giving them ideas.)

The Puritans in 18th century New England required citizens to pledge support for the Commonwealth - and to report anyone who dared dissent from the ruling government. I'm going to guess that a person in that era who chose not to recite an annoying pledge was exiled - if he were fortunate.

Pledges do not bring out the best in us. They do not promote an understanding of, respect for or true allegiance to the nation. They are not a good fit with democracy - with government of the people and all that. Let's give the Pledge a rest. Next time your local club gathers, consider reading the First Amendment, instead of reciting a pledge, under or over any alleged god.

HENRY METELMANN: Through Hell for Hitler

Until a week ago I would never have thought of devoting this column to Henry Metelmann To almost all readers of Letter from the UK his name will mean nothing. In Britain, where he lived for most of his long life, he was known only to those who may have read the few autobiographical books he wrote or happened to have watched the 2003 BBC Timewatch documentary devoted to him. For most of his working life he was a signalman for what was once, before privatization of the railway network, known as British Rail. After his retirement he worked as a grounds-man at the prestigious private school, Charterhouse. A very ordinary life. He died in July of this year, aged 88.

Had his life before he reached the age of 24 been similar to the lives of most of his fellow workers in Britain it would have aroused little interest beyond his immediate associates. But it wasn’t. Henry Metelman was a German, born in Hamburg in 1922. His childhood, adolescence and early manhood were spent in Nazi Germany where he was subjected to  the conditioning common to thousands of young people like him. Aged eleven when Hitler came to power, he entered the Hitler Youth. Like millions of others, he came to adore the Fuhrer. In 1941, at the age of 18, he was drafted into the Wehrmacht. As part of the 22^nd Panzer division he became a tank driver, and in 1942 was transferred to the Eastern Front. It was this experience that was to change his life forever. In his own words, the Nazi nonsense was knocked out of him when his arrogant nose was rubbed in the mud at Stalingrad. Unlike so many of his compatriots whose war came to an end on the flaming banks of the Volga in February 1943, Metelmann was fortunate enough to escape the Soviet encirclement of the 6^th Army. He managed to make his way back across thousands of miles of war-torn Russia until he reached Germany. Finally, after a period of convalescence, he was sent west in the last hopeless attempt to check the Anglo-American forces advancing on the Reich. He finally surrendered to the Americans in western Germany in early 1945. He was sent as a prisoner of war to the U.S. where he spent a year before being handed over to the British. Finally released from captivity in 1948, he returned briefly to Hamburg where he discovered that his mother had been killed in the British bombardment of 1943. He returned to Britain where he spent the rest of his life. In 1952 he married Monika, a Swiss au pair he had met earlier while working in captivity on a Hampshire farm.

The bare outline of his life gives little indication of what it was that set Metelmann apart from many other German prisoners of war who chose, initially at least, not to return to their homeland. Unlike most of them his experiences had turned him into a passionate anti-Nazi. Despite the lack of any formal education, he dedicated himself to informing young people in British schools and colleges about the horrors of Nazism. He chronicled his childhood and wartime experiences in two books, Through Hell for Hitler (1990) and A Hitler Youth (1997). He was a captivating speaker whose modesty and transparent sincerity won the admiration and respect of all who heard him.

I first met Henry Metelmann in 1989 at a student conference on Nazism and the Holocaust at the Imperial War Museum in London. I remember that he was asked by a student whether he had personally participated in any atrocities. I fully expected him to say that he hadn’t, but he ruefully admitted that in Russia he had been ordered, in the depths of winter, to evict a peasant family, including old people and children, from their shack. The shack was then incinerated and the peasants left to freeze to death. He admitted that, to his eternal shame,  he had been a dedicated Nazi, believing that he was participating in a noble civilizing mission to rid the world of “Untermenschen”. He also recounted an episode prior to Stalingrad where his unit was visited by a group of SS “educators”. According to Metelmann, they asked the soldiers why they thought they were in Russia. The soldiers replied that they were there to subdue the “Untermemschen” and to prevent the triumph of “Judeo-Bolshevism”. The SS “educators”, he claimed, dismissed this explanation as “Goebbels propaganda”. The real reason, they explained, was to conquer the Caucasian oil fields, drive on southwards towards the Middle East and finally link up with Rommel who was then advancing on Egypt. Once this objective was achieved, the oil reserves of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia would be in German hands and world domination would be in sight.

This clearly had a big impact on Metelmann. He rapidly came to the conclusion that Nazism was the most aggressive form of capitalist imperialism. He seems likewise to have undergone a rapid change of heart and mind about Nazi racism. In his talks to students he would tell them about a Russian girl called Anna, with whom, as a 19 year old, he fell in love. His almost universally favourable impression of the Russian people – so different from the racist fanaticism of so many Germans of that generation – led him to reject everything he had been led to believe. In his book Through Hell for Hitler he describes witnessing a passing line of cattle-trucks transporting Jews to the extermination centres, further strengthening his detestation of the regime he had served. I became aware of the great difficulty he still experienced in dealing with the Holocaust when some years ago I suggested to him that he might participate in a discussion with Holocaust survivors. He responded that he would very much like to do so, but that he doubted whether the other participants would feel able to accept him as a participant.

I am sure that his great repentance for his past was influenced by the memory of his father. He was the only child of working class parents. His father was an unskilled labourer, his mother a religious woman from a rural background. His father was a socialist, though Metelmann does not make clear whether his loyalty lay with the communists or the social democrats. He died on the outbreak of war in 1939 when Henry was 16. He was dismayed by his son’s enthusiasm for the Hitler Youth. He regarded the Nazis as the “brown plague” and apparently warned Henry that if and when he became disillusioned, the pain would be terrible. Henry loved his father dearly but being “so young and with the Nazi drums drumming in my brain” he pushed aside the promise to heed his warnings. It seems surprising that someone as thoughtful as Metelmann, with the literary and communication skills that brought him plaudits as a writer and educator, should have spent his life as an unskilled worker. One explanation might be that after the war he pledged himself to penance for the rest of his life for what he saw as the betrayal of his father’s ideals. This may also account for the somewhat idealized admiration he conceived for the Soviet Union and for the Russian people. In the epilogue to A Hitler Youth, referring to his experiences with the Wehrmacht in Russia, he wrote:

“Especially during the winter’s retreat, we often stayed with the peasants in their primitive but mostly warm cottages. I had many conversations, arguments and quarrels mainly with the women – their menfolk were at war – whom I learned to respect and even trust as fine human beings. When some of them asked me why I had come to their country to conquer, burn, kill and destroy, I half-heartedly gave a stock Nazi answer in terms of a quest for glory and national honour. Their rejection of this banality revealed the emptiness of my words, ands I stood naked and totally devoid of any meaningful explanation to give them, and when they suggested that I had come in the service of my masters, the mighty arms manufacturers, bankers and land-owning Junkers to secure for them the enormous mineral wealth and land of Russia, I painfully realized that at root they saw things through the same eyes as my father.”

I last met Henry Metelmann several years ago. We rarely discussed British politics, but I knew that his heart was on the left. He told me that after his release from captivity in 1948 he returned to Hamburg where he discovered that his mother and all members of his closest family had perished. He found that most people he talked to expressed no guilt for the Nazi regime and blamed their plight solely on the allies. He found the atmosphere intolerable and came straight back to Britain.

After our meeting something rather strange occurred. Our discussions about the war in the Soviet Union had reminded me of a poem by Brecht – “To the German Soldiers in the East” – written while he was in exile in 1942. Probably the greatest poem to come out of World War II, it is an anguished cry from the heart against the heartless military machine that had been moulded from the bodies and minds of millions of young men corrupted by a monstrous inhuman regime. It is also a scathing damnation of the abominations perpetrated by those very same men, who, in Brecht’s words, have donned the garb of robbers and arsonist murderers. He recognizes the German soldiers as brothers but condemns them as murderers. (The tremendous power of Brecht’s poem cannot be adequately rendered in translation.) My discussion with Henry Metelmann recalled this poem to me and I looked it up to re-read it. As I did so I received a telephone call from Henry. He had called to recite for me a passage from the very same poem. We had never discussed it and, as far as I recall we had never referred to Brecht.

A few weeks ago Henry’s name came up in conversation and I said that I would try to arrange to see him and introduce my friends to him. I was still intending to call him when, on the 23^rd September his obituary appeared in The Guardian. He died on the 24^th July. One thing he never mentioned to me. He was a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain and remained a member until it was wound up in 1991.

The Big Canary in the Economic Coal Mine: POST OFFICE

The realization came to me last February as Wisconsin’s Governor Walker and his pals in the Republican legislature prepared to pass a law decertifying public unions, destroying collective bargaining, and cutting teachers’ salaries and pensions. I knew then a trip to Madison was in order. So, we joined 100,000 workers circling the Capitol at the high-point on March 12.

 

 “But where’s Obama?” many questioned. “Just when we need the President’s support, nothing but silence.” Teachers, nurses, firemen, custodians, state workers, and police were angry – disappointed they had cast votes for the man who promised devotedly to put on walking shoes and demonstrate with workers if collective bargaining was ever challenged.

 

The promise of “change one can believe in” was not imagined but clearly defined by Candidate Obama.

 

Now, the damage from lack of support was dismissed by union leaders at the peak, but hindsight tells a different story. Only two Republican state senators were recalled instead of three or six, which would have given Democrats a majority and reversed anti-union measures. This, to me, was direct evidence Obama is to blame for the sin of omission. He could have energized the Wisconsin vote, but didn’t.

 

National union leaders could have also called for a state-wide general strike but instead opted for recalls. Big mistake. While enjoying an invigorated movement, they could have nailed Walker. Obama’s walking shoes were never put on, so why hold back with lesser methods?

 

The base’s leaders are weak. Right aggression calls for an equally strong left aggression. Appeasement is surrender. Thus far, we only witness appeasement.

 

As predicted, now we find the largest public-sector union under attack: the American Postal Workers Union, along with the carriers’ and mailhandlers’ unions. Obama could have stopped it at the gate last February in Wisconsin but didn’t, either out of cowardice or sticking to his constitutional lawyerly misconceptions.

 

Teachers and state workers didn’t cause Wisconsin’s budget woes, neither did postal workers and their unions cause the Postal Service’s pending collapse. The seeds of financial ruin were, of course, planted by “conservatives” years ago – but only allowed to incubate due to inaction by Bush’s successor, Barack Obama – only in office by union support.

 

In 2006, the Republican-controlled Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, signed by George W. Bush. This law requires the Postal Service to do something no other business or government agency has to do: Pre-fund its future retiree health care benefits. This is a 75-year liability that has to be paid in 10. The Postal Service is required by law to pay $5.5 billion every September 30 – end of the fiscal year – to meet this congressional mandate.

 

The Post Office has been paying this $5.5 billion installment for four years into a trust fund for employees who have not even been born yet. This is the burden that is creating the “financial crisis” for the Post Office. The Great Recession (along with its ugly sibling, the soon-coming Second Great Recession/Depression), has certainly affected the Postal Service. But even in these, the worst of economic times since the 30s, the USPS has had a net profit of $611 million – not taking into account the ridiculously mandated overpayments Republicans planted in `06 during the lame-duck before Democrats took over.

 

The crisis is a purely manufactured one – as are the other crises (economic and subsequent social mayhem soon-to-follow) now gripping the U.S. and Europe. Bush sowed the seeds; Obama was reluctant or hesitant at revocation; and now we’re past the incubation phase into the harvest. The effects of Republicanism is now manifest. (Happy now, rightwingers?)

 

The postal crisis has energized postal workers across the U.S.

 

Around one-hundred union activists picketed in front of the Fort Smith office of Rep. Steve Womack Tuesday afternoon, September 27^th.  Union activists from across Northwest Arkansas met at the Fort Smith Little Theater, next door, where union t-shirts and signs were distributed for those marching both sides of the street -- back and forth -- while union presidents and officers were inside visiting with the congressman to present our take on the postal crisis. Then we heard Rep. Womack's reply. It was as if he didn't hear or didn't understand what the six officers explained. (Actually, it was obvious; he didn’t want to hear, as evidenced by his refusal to budge from party line.)

 

Union officers stated repeatedly, "We don't want nor need a bailout. Not one cent of taxpayers' money is needed to remedy the Postal Service's problem. The Postal Service has NEVER spent one-cent of taxpayers' money in its 235-year history."

 

There was a severe disconnect. Womack acted like he didn't hear a word we said.

 

What Womack vehemently disagreed with us on is his undying support for HR2309 and against HR1351. HR2309 (Darrell Issa's bill) would DESTROY the Postal Service, bust the unions, and send one-quarter million workers to the unemployment line. Apparently Womack is in lockstep with Issa, despite his public statements to the contrary.

 

The same pattern emerged across the country – as union leaders met with hard-line Tea Party Congressmen who wouldn’t stray from sacred ideology. Translation: Gridlock. The nation is paralyzed – except for Obama’s eagerness to compromise – even for that which should never be on the table, yet offered as a peace-token to the angry white men’s mob unwilling to give an inch but willing to witness the country suffer for ideological gain. The people lose when trapped between bully and balless.

 

HR1351, “The United States Postal Service Pension Obligation Recalculation and Restoration Act of 2011,” is the only bill before Congress that will address the pressing financial concerns of the Post Office in a practical manner without eliminating jobs and services to the American public. Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) introduced 1351 and presently has 211 co-sponsors. This is not a bailout, nor will it cost the citizens of the United States a single penny in taxes.

 

Despite the facts aforementioned, Republicans – along with their propaganda network, FOX – continue to drum it into the public’s head, “Bailout! Taxpayers’ money!” Just like other catch-word codes hatched by Luntz: “Death taxes, death panels, tax & spend, etc.” Republicans are marketers of decline and national shame. I just wish some champions would rise from the other side.

 

The fall of the Post Office is the big canary soon to collapse from suffocation in the mine. What other indicator does one need to wake up and start fighting for America’s survival?

 

The Denial of Reality is a Health Hazard: All Wellness Enthusiasts Should Promote Effective Decision-Making No Less Vigorously Than Sound Nutrition and Exercise

There are dreadful consequences straight ahead for America as a direct consequence of the platforms espoused by all but one Republican presidential candidate (Jon Huntsman), namely, the denial of significant realities. The nation is already awash in dysfunctional thinking, conspiracy theories, media distortions and organized resistance to innumerable facts. Large segments of the population, it seems, cannot deal with certain realities. Though demonstrated by science, certain realities undermine and give the lie to foolish but revered superstitions. Empirical evidence touted by an overwhelming consensus of the world's scientists is, to a large segment of American society, rendered controversial by candidates Perry, Bachmann, Cain and nearly all leading contenders of the GOP nomination. The term "conservative" has been rendered synonymous with Christian. The Tea and Republican parties consist of religionists devoted more to certain ceremonial and other forms of god worship than respect for secular constitutional government. Such people are contemptuous of evidence unsupportive of their ancient dogmas. The world-views of Right Wing fundamentalists persist in the face of facts. This is in part due to early education and in part a continuation of cultural reinforcements. The future well being of individuals and the quality of life of our society hang in the balance, and the 2012 elections could enable a new critical mass of science denial. At present, these people deny scientific evidence: if they prevail, they will next be in a position to question the competence and legitimacy of scientific evidence to establish reality. They already favor an alternative reality, one based partly on biblical myths, the other on making stuff up. The next step would be to implement policies that render such demential normal and legitimate.

It seems to me that those of us who value REAL wellness, particularly the keystone quality of a developed sense of reason, should strive to do all possible to counter the hazards of science denial. Let's make this advocacy a key element of wellness promotion. The dangers of denying science are far greater in the aggregate than the hazards of poor diet and insufficient exercise. The latter are, of course, dreadful and pernicious. Science denial is disastrous to an extent we can only begin to imagine. Being fit and healthy will be of limited value if we remain awash in dysfunctions brought on by climate change and other disasters created by our rejection of reason.

Wellness enthusiasts might initiate or expand a new focus on reality advocacy as part of wellness education by reading popular science writer John Grant's new book, "Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality" (Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 2011). Grant does a thorough job documenting the extent of the antagonism toward science in America today. The nineteen chapters over the course of 374 pages describes the damages caused by the flood-tides of science denial. Grant's new book also documents the growing hold of pseudoscience and alternative ("complementary") medicine, and shows how advertising disguises the hazards of drugs, smoking and other products and habits. It soon becomes clear to the reader how easily mountebanks of many descriptions are able to obscure sound health programs (e.g., the case of the anti-vaccine movement). Attention is also devoted to the influence the anti-intellectual trend has had on our culture. While Republican candidates for president did not create these disabling conditions, their positions on campaign and other issues do reinforce the worst of the lot. The fact of science denial is also at the root of the successes of New Age gurus, prosperity preachers, healers who channel god, the creationist advance in science classes, the climate change skeptics and others who promote that which is contrary to the clear lessons of established science. This sorry state is a consequence of gullible, easily fooled, under-educated people facing a stark choice - at least for them: whom to believe. Should they look to the science deniers or the scientists? Alas, those who find Republican presidential candidates worth taking seriously are very likely to go with the science deniers.

As John Grant makes clear in the first chapter of "Denying Science," a non-existent god won't help us. We're on our own and all we really have to understand reality is our brains in good working order. There is no better window into reality than what Robert Green Ingersoll called reason: "I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night. Blown and flayed by passion's storms, and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish it and nought remains. Ingersoll linked reason with observation and experience, calling all three the holy trinity of science."

Consider, for just a moment, the two ways that Ingersoll described as diametrically opposed approaches for understanding reality. Read this quote from Ingersoll and ask yourself which of the two would be embraced by the Republican contenders for that party's nomination for president, and which by those who respect and rely on science: "There are two ways -- the natural and the supernatural. One way is to live for the world we are in, to develop the brain by study and investigation, to take, by invention, advantage of the forces of nature, to the end that we may have good houses, raiment and food, to the end that the hunger of the mind may be fed through art and science. The other way is to live for another world that we expect, to sacrifice this life that we have for another that we know not of. The other way is by prayer and ceremony to obtain the assistance, the protection of some phantom above the clouds."

If, as I imagine given your presence reading TPJ, you favor the first approach Ingersoll described, I think you will very much enjoy "Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality."