Let's Do More to Give Citizens Improved Decision-Making Capacity - It's the Right Thing to do and Might Diminish the Success Rates of TV Evangelists

 Paul and Janice Crouch are no oiler or more grotesque and absurd than run-of-the-mill Elmer Gantry's, such as Richard (son of Oral) Roberts, Jerry Falwell (deceased), Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, Ted Haggert, Jimmy Swaggart, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson and the rest of that ilk. But, the Crouch's are in the news this week thanks to revelations about their astonishing self-indulgence. While details of such are on my mind, they can serve as poster preachers for a few ideas I have on education reforms and tax modifications.

The Crouches and other TV preachers spend a lot of time convincing their audiences that the fastest way to get rich is to give away their money - to them. It seems that God desperately needs money and they, the Crouches, know how God wants it spent by the Crouches - on his behalf. The Crouches, apparently, know a great deal about hell and can describe what its like in detail. They are good at profiling those likely to end up in hell - basically, everyone who supports the homosexual socialist liberal agenda or uses the internet to read blasphemies on politics, sex and religion at TPJ. The Crouches tell their viewers that, to boost chances for answered prayers and miracles, "send love offerings." Operators always seem to be standing by.

Before getting to the Crouches, I should mention something else about the media preacher business.  God must really love those called to this ministry, for all TV preachers appear to be as prosperous as Mitt Romney. On rare occasions when a media preacher business comes to grief, it's not because donors got wise but because preachers got caught. They got caught doing what they condemned - doing things without clothes on with homosexuals (some of whom might also have been socialist liberals). Alas, most of the time TV preachers don't get caught, in good part because the vile acts that they commit every time they go on the air are perfectly acceptable and legal, namely, selling snake oil (nonsense about miracles, eternal life, answered prayers and the like). It ought to be a crime - against the laws of common sense, but such laws have not been invented yet. Worse, what they do to finance their lavish lifestyles is socially acceptable and even honored, not just with earthly riches but with honors. Who will ever forget the appalling appearance of Rick Warren at the Inauguration of President Barack Obama. To paraphrase Andre Breton, Everything that is doddering, squint-eyed, vile, polluted and grotesque is summoned up for me in these two words: television evangelists!

But, let me get to the Crouches.

What accounts for the success of TV evangelists like the Crouches and the others who pull in mind-boggling sums from viewer donations and tax-free earnings? I have a theory. I think it is due, more than anything else, to the degree to which the nation neglects quality public education. Only a population poorly educated in the application of reason and consequent respect for science, a people innocent of rational, evidence-based decision-making, can explain the propensity of viewers to donate money to such characters.

What do the Crouches and the gaggle of televangelists offer in return for responding favorably and generously to pleas for donations that make up about 98 percent of their ministry programming? Basically, they offer improved odds of winning the eternal lottery - a ticket to a kingdom in the next life.

Assume for just a moment that there is no such kingdom, that there is no god and that the Crouches and other TV folks have no more capability of arranging miracles or having prayers answered than the woman in the moon, the old guy behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz or, for that matter, me. Wouldn't that shed a new light on all these characters preaching prosperity gospels?

But, as I mentioned before, this is about the Crouches. Ah, the Crouches - ya gotta love em. They were featured in news accounts all over the country because it seems the Crouch family is fighting over how to spend the loot gained from faithful audiences trying to help God do good. According to a feature story in the New York Times (See Erik Eckholm, Family Battle Offers Look Inside Lavish TV Ministry, New York Times, May 4, 2012), the Crouches have a lot of God's money on hand to fight over. Their TV enterprise consists of a multitude of stations with satellite signals that reach millions of worshipers all over the world.

Here are a few examples of their own prosperity, made possible by tax-exempt income (donations) all faithfully consistent with the gospel prosperity:

* In 2010, Mr. Crouch received $400,000 as president, Mrs. Crouch $365,000 as first vice president.

* They own his-and-her five to six million dollar mansions in New York City.

* They own a large ministry house near Orlando.

* They own a theme park in Orlando called the Holy Land Experience.

* They own another home in the Holy Land itself (i.e., in the theme park, not in the Middle East).

* They own high value properties in Texas and Tennessee (on the former Conway Twitty estate).

* They own corporate jets valued at $8 million and $49 million each.

* They enjoy dinners costing thousands of dollars.

* They provide lavish homes or "parsonages" for staff.

All of these facts came out because of dueling lawsuits within the Crouch family, though it's not clear if the battles are fueled by greed or from hearing different messages from God on how best to help the poor and downtrodden. Besides lavish spending, charges of embezzlement and varied financial crimes are being hurled about. A defender of the family business explained: the spending that some call opulent is necessary to convey the ministry’s position of accomplishment.

The Crouches have plenty of accomplishment booty to fight over. Their prosperity gospel brought in $93 million in 2010 alone, plus $64 million in additional income from selling airtime and $17 million from investment income. Apparently, it takes a lot of cash to do the Lord's work. Doing the Lord's work, however, seems to build quite an appetite. One of the lawsuits contain allegations that the Crouchs (and their son) each ran up meal expenses of at least $300,000 per year.

So, what kinds of reforms might be in order to rein in such seemingly dubious ways to spend charitable contributions?

Here are a few ideas I'd like to see discussed in the years to come, assuming this country does not become a theocracy wherein such conversations would be considered blasphemous and thus illegal:

   ▪     Fund a national crash program in public education that emphasizes critical thinking skills. Hopefully, this would render TV ministries less attractive to vulnerable, easily-exploited citizens by prosperity gospel preachers and other charlatans offering spiritual pie-in-the-sky with all the trimmings.

         ▪        Tax all church property and religious business enterprises.

   ▪     Develop enforcement capabilities to identify reasonable versus extravagant uses of charitable contributions and industrial- strength record keeping and public disclosure of all charities.

         ▪        Create a national secular board or agency with the power to identify, study and, if appropriate, prosecute mountebanks who run scams under the umbrella of religion.

What a sweet deal the Crouchs and other TV evangelists have at present. They do not and could not guarantee their product - believers can never prove they were Madoffed with promises of wildly improbable returns on investments. After all, those who experience less, not more prosperity for their donations can't seek refunds. And, when they die, they don't even discover that it was all balderdash. No heaven or hell, no gods or devils and no judgments. They'll never know it was all BS. They'll never know they were duped.

There ought to be a law - lots of laws or at least a more sensible tax structure to discourage donations to people like the Crouches and others mentioned.

But, I'll settle for massive reforms in the educational system at all levels to encourage more critical thinking because the rest is as unlikely as prosperity from supporting the Crouches.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He wrote High Level Wellness in 1976 (Rodale Press) and many other books since, including Die Healthy, 14 Days to Wellness and most recently, Aging Beyond Belief and REAL Wellness. Since 1984, Don has produced 685 editions of the Ardell Wellness Report. Don's website at SeekWellness.com/wellness is the largest repository of wellness essays. 

Don is one of ten Americans given the Healthy America Fitness Leaders Award in 1991 by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. In 2010, he was granted the Lifetime Achievement Prize by the German Wellness Association in Dusseldorf; in July 2011, he was honored with the Halbert L. Dunn Award by the National Wellness Institute.  

Don has won many national and four world championships in triathlon and duathlon, his most recent world titles coming in 2009 in the Gold Coast of Australia and 2010 in Budapest, Hungary.

A free subscription to Don's wellness report is available on request - write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

Of Tears and Fears Redux

Like so many liberals, I am deeply disappointed by Barack Obama’s tepid leadership over the past three-plus years. Nevertheless, I will reluctantly support his reelection and vote for him in this election cycle – but only out of lesser-of-evils desperation.

 

Recently I reread the columns I wrote for TPJmagazine shortly after Obama was elected. I was very happy at the time but also deeply concerned about the unrelenting threat from the right.

 

It is now very clear that the fears I expressed then have come to pass, enabled in part by the inaction and foolish bipartisan efforts of Obama and his administration. And the tears? Well they have a different cause these days – profound disappointment.

 

Here follows the column I wrote immediately after the election, wherein the last four paragraphs are about as close as I’ll ever come to political prescience.

 

. . . . . .

 

Like millions of others here and abroad, I choked up when the TV pundits finally proclaimed that Barack Hussein Obama would be the 44^th President of the United States. Certainty came to me when they announced that Ohio had gone for Obama. At 11 p.m., when MSNBC declared him the winner, tears began to flow and I woke my wife, who had gone to bed an hour earlier, already confident of the outcome. After eight years of mutual political foreboding, I wanted to share the wonderful news as well as the joy and relief we both felt. In that moment all the nagging doubts I was unable to shake leading up to the election were swept away. It was one of the happiest moments of my life. Of course I wanted to savor the moment, and I did; but in the back of my mind was the awareness that this was just one moment, just a beginning, as Obama put it in his marvelous victory speech.

 

There seems to be a near consensus that the President-Elect and his team deserve the highest praise for conducting one of the most effective presidential campaigns of all time, the details of which are now being fleshed out by experts. There were many times during the campaign that I became frustrated with the Obama campaign because they weren't striking back forcefully enough, weren't attacking a vulnerable opposition beset with pronounced and potentially damaging weaknesses. Why, for example, weren't they bringing up McCain's many opportunistic flip-flops, his cynical selection of an ignoramus for a running mate, his shameless sucking up to the religious right whom he previously labeled “agents of intolerance,” the Palins' association with the Alaskan Secessionist Party, McCain and Palin's stonewalling the release of their medical records, the Keating Five, Palin's embarrassing and outrageous avoidance of the press following the Kouric disaster, and much more? Predictably, the broadcast media pretty much ignored McCain and Palin's glaring liabilities, although they did sort of come through on the flashy issue of Palin's $150,000 coast-to-coast spending spree. Typical mainstream media ratings-based superficial infotainment. I feared the Obama campaign was letting McCain-Palin off the hook and the election might end up like Bush-Kerry.

 

As the relentless, incendiary slander from the Republican campaign reached a crescendo in the final weeks, Obama stayed on message and emphasized the issues, especially the economy, and most of all middle-class economic plight. One area where he didn't let McCain off the hook was the Republican candidate's support of Bush. Obama wasn't going to let McCain co-opt his signature message of “change.”

 

Well, it turned out Obama knew what he was doing: He projected a serious, dignified, competent presidential image that inspired confidence in contrast to the desperate ravings and mudslinging coming from McCain and Palin. He didn't exactly ignore the attacks as much as he deflected them, sometimes with appropriate, contemptuous humor: “I don’t know what’s next,” he said in response to their attempt to brand him as a socialist. “By end of the week, he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich!” Obama appeared to trust the American people, with just a little help, to recognize the obvious – the scattershot smear tactics being employed by an erratic opposition that couldn't compete on the issues that Americans were most concerned about. He beat the Rovian character assassins without sinking to their despicable level.

 

Two weeks later I am still savoring my happy feelings, and I'm prouder to be an American than I have been in many years. I feel as if a great emotional burden has been lifted; and for the first time in years I am experiencing cautious optimism as well as cautious relief from Republican-inspired dread. I am optimistic because Americans have elected rational leaders who show every sign of addressing the nation's many problems in a responsible manner and actually putting good governance ahead of gaining political advantage at every turn. And I'm relieved because we have somehow dodged the right-wing bullet aimed right at the heart of our constitutional democracy, so that for now, at least, the country's remorseless drift toward fascism has been curtailed.

 

But it has been two weeks, plenty of time for reality to reassert itself. As a confirmed skeptical realist, I can't help looking for the dark cloud behind every silver lining. And looking out across today's political landscape, I would have to be blind or in denial on the scale of a Phil (it's a mental recession) Graham not to see many dark clouds gathering on the horizon. In fact, everywhere I look there is a huge mess to clean up, the result of eight years of calculated treachery, criminal neglect, squandered opportunities, and monumental incompetence. So my skeptical-realistic take on the situation is this: Despite the bipartisan, inclusive intentions of the new president, the fragmented opposition may soon reconstitute itself into a purer and even more virulent form of right-wing extremism – not just lipstick on a pig. We will still be assailed by the daily din of a dogmatic, hate-mongering, dishonest, and frighteningly determined opposition. At their most menacing, they will be a kind of political Borg requiring our utmost vigilance. Other times their simpleminded, faith-based assertions will evoke images of the comical, ultra-capitalist Ferengi. But however they come across to us, the army of political, religious, and media demagogues will continue to exploit the ignorance, fears, prejudices, and superstitions of their sizable and angry, “dittohead” constituency. And they will continue to fan the flames of the culture war in increasingly ugly ways and to obstruct progressive change with their familiar lock-step tactics. One of their highest priorities will be to protect the gains they made in the Federal judiciary during eight years of Bush appointments with little opposition from a timid Democratic Congress.

 

Let's not forget that a small, well-disciplined army of like-minded fanatics with a well-defined long-term strategy can be more than a match for a larger, poorly coordinated force of well-intentioned individuals. Democrats by nature are a diverse, often fractious group. In principle that is what healthy democracy is all about, assuming that the large majority of citizens are well-informed, loyal to the ideals of Constitutional democracy, and participating in good faith. I leave it to you to decide if that's where we're at in the United States at the present time.

 

In the next several columns I will discuss the dangers of complacency and the kinds of actions I feel progressives need to take to keep the right-wing social and political cancer in remission. We have won a major battle, but the fruits of victory remain elusive.

 

One more thing: It remains a matter of great uncertainty how the elephant in the room – I'm talking about the very real possibility of an economic depression – will affect everything all of us have been talking about. 

ELECTION 2012 – The God Effect

Driving to Sunday School one cool March morn, Hank and Mary Lou discuss the current primary contest between Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Paul. “I don’t give a flip about  Mitt’s Mormonism just so long as he can beat the shit outa Obama,” comments Hank. “ ‘Drather have a guy wearin’ magic boxers than a damn Kenyan Muslim wearin’ the country down. Hell, I’d vote for Darth Vader over that nigger,” he crudely remarks.

“Oh, hush, Hank! You know better than to use the N-word around the kids,” chides Mary Lou as if any other setting would be okay.  Billy (11) and Lou Ellen (8) are in the backseat intently soaking it all in.

But Hank and Mary Lou both agree: Barack Obama is a socialist liberal – an imposter whose birth certificate was forged so he could be placed in office – then conspired with ACORN to illegally register a bunch of aliens and ethnics so he could seal the deal and steal the election. How do they know? Because FOX and chain emails from friends across the country told them so. Plus their pastor confirmed by sermonizing from the pulpit, “Any vote for a Democrat is a sin against Almighty God.” What more evidence does a true born-again Christian need? Jesus hath spoken.

Ever since Obama won in ’08, the rightwing machine had been busy pounding the airwaves, “Obama is a Machiavellian candidate whose presidency is illegitimate for too many reasons to list.”  Their efforts in spreading falsehoods fall on fertile ground: evangelicals that constitute the base of modern Republicanism.

Hank voices appreciation to Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh, and Toby Keith for their contributions blasting Obama. The family feels the anger (“righteous indignation”) gushing from Hank. Where’s Jesus in all this?

Little do Hank and his family know they’re victims of a massive con job. The unindicted Karl Rove and fellow rightwing operatives target evangelicals for several reasons, not the least of which are gullibility and proportion of the population. Those disposed and willing to embrace absurdities will soon commit atrocities due to their unsubstantiated anger and fear manufactured by professional operatives behind-the-curtains who employ focus groups for highest impact.

Rove should be serving an extensive sentence for treason since he is the alleged principal conspirator in stealing elections, lying the nation to war, WMD, and planning the Iraq invasion as exclusive political fodder long before seizing office in 2000. But because the incoming Obama Justice Department was too timid to investigate, much less prosecute, the man is still at liberty to further damage American democracy. Ironically, Obama’s second term is at risk of being sabotaged by the most high-profile person they failed to bring to justice.

Rove’s #1 weapon, on the other hand, is the evangelical movement, ahead of Koch connections, American Crossroads, and Citizens United. For without their blind loyalty, there’d be no chance of Republican resurgence. Rove is famous for his ability to sell refrigerators to Eskimos, so to speak. Thus, marketing a Mormon to fundies (who brand LDS a cult) is effortless. Besides, it’s a no-brainer, the choice between a Black Christian and White Mormon; WHITE wins every time. (“Give us Barabbas!”)

Hank pulls into the parking lot of Muskogee’s Victory Family Worship Center, a non-denominational Pentecostal church which is experiencing astonishing growth. Although he’d been speaking trash the whole drive, he puts on a smiley face to greet seemingly-sweet church folk.

But his Christian life wasn’t always so conflicted. Neither was the evangelical, Pentecostal movement from back in the day. Hank had accepted Christ at 13 – undergoing a genuine born-again experience where his life was transformed from one of hate and fear to love and peace. It was a miraculous paradigm, ostensibly unforgettable. As with Hank, the evangelical movement in general was based on the same Agape, unconditional love that saw all races and peoples equal – as God sees the whole of humanity. The biblical principles were reinforced by supernatural encounters that couldn’t be explained away by purely rational thought. Jesus’ life was the model to live by, and the Holy Spirit empowered them to follow.

But that was before Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and other religious charlatans politicized the movement. No longer were evangelicals leading by example, they became front-line “warriors” against evil secularism that supposedly threatened American tradition and family values. Anti-abortion, anti-gay-rights, anti-liberalism, anti-government , and pro-gun became the sole mantras. Discarded in the process were mercy and grace. Certainly, God’s love was supplanted by fear and hate, because a soldier on the spiritual battlefield could no longer be governed by love, could he or she? Because love shows weakness and non-masculine traits.

Carrying a concealed weapon to church substituted putting on the armor of God. Peter cutting off the ear of the centurion became the example rather than disgrace.

¹⁰ Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. ¹¹ Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. ¹² For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. ¹³ Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. ¹⁴ Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, ¹⁵ and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. ¹⁶ In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. ¹⁷ Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.  – Ephesians 6:10-17

Neither could they any longer trust God to fulfill prophecy by His unassisted sovereignty, but injected themselves as “partners with God” in influencing world events to speed the Second Coming and Advent of Apocalypse. They proudly championed themselves as “Christian Zionists” with hateful rhetoric against Muslims, Palestinians and liberals that attempted in any fashion to generate Middle-East negotiations instead of combat. By this stand, they assumed to be on “God’s side.”

They were primarily looking for the Antichrist rather than the Lord Jesus Christ. And by doing so, they lost their first love and became what they feared most – an antichrist cult being manipulated by wealthy outside political opportunists. Simply put, they became Mammon’s merchandise, no longer guided by the love of God. The spirit of fear drove them further into deceit and anger, which they piously brushed off as “righteous indignation.”

Absolutism and polarization set in as the movement degenerated into something other than what Christ taught. Anyone not adhering to the straight-and-narrow dogma was of Satan, a legitimate target sanctioned for scorn. The movement more resembled Phariseeism than Apostolic Christianity.

Hank is caught up into this web. He no longer sees his “first-love” Christian experience as exemplary but superseded by the new militant spirit fighting for a return of “American moral values” and an apocalyptic Christ to butcher unbelievers. Democrats, liberals, unionists, feminists, the NAACP, and environmentalists are all thrown into the pile of evildoers allied with Satan. Furthermore, anyone associated with “them” are ungodly.

Hank and Mary Lou vote against their own interests because they view the ruling class as empowered by “the sovereign will of God” established to make order out of chaos. The wealthy are respected while the poor are demeaned as free-loaders. “Why should I give my hard-earned money to welfare queens?” asks Hank. (Meanwhile his family relies partially on public assistance and medicine since they live in Oklahoma, a right-to-work state that detests unions.)

Republicanism is Robin Hood in reverse while the religious right is Jesus Christ in reverse. The like-movements are married, resulting into a national “Handmaid’s Tale.”

Hank is blind to his own judgmental religious McCarthyism – as are the majority of the religious right. The lies about Obama are readily accepted so that truth is not allowed access to any thought pattern.

America’s political climate is, thus, made ripe for turmoil. Nearer to November, as polls reveal Obama’s narrow lead expanding, “God’s soldiers” on the right sense they must take matters into their own hands rather than relying on Providence. They call for “Second Amendment remedies” as the FINAL SOLUTION to Obama winning a second term. FOX and friends don’t hesitate capitalizing on this fallacy.

The majority of Americans must resist and reject this religious and political heresy if we are to survive as a great power and land of liberty. 

MURDOCH: TWILIGHT FOR THE GODFATHER IN THE U.K.

The Sun is Setting on Media Tycoon’s British Enterprises

Anyone who as a child sat enraptured and rather scared through the wonderful movie The Wizard of Oz, will never forget the final five minutes of the film, in which the all-powerful and hitherto hidden wizard, is suddenly exposed as a rather pitiful, bumbling old man, whose magical powers, having evaporated, is left fumbling for words. There were occasions when, watching Rupert Murdoch’s performance as he was questioned at the Leveson inquiry, the less than wonderful wizard came to mind. Watching the former king-maker in the flesh, we saw an old man who was clearly unaccustomed to being questioned by anyone about anything, let alone about matters that he considered were properly the concern of the various underlings to whom they had been delegated. If he had been carefully briefed, it didn’t show. Perhaps he mistakenly believed that he needed no advice. Faced with the forensic probing of Robert Jay, QC for Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry, Murdoch stumbled from one evasive or inadequate response to the next. Deeply uncomfortable with the situation he found himself in, he was sometimes flippant, sometimes arrogant, frequently irritable, and always self-exculpatory. His performance bore no relationship to the image of the all powerful global mogul whose blessing was so recently sought by the political elites in return for great favours happily granted to further aggrandize his already overblown media empire. One might have been forgiven for thinking that this spelled the beginning of the end for Murdoch and News Corporation. That is almost certainly the case for News International in Britain, but it is too early to write the obituary for News Corp’s far more extensive international media enterprises.

All hope he may have had of extending his control of the print and broadcasting media in Britain must now be abandoned. Taking the remaining 61% of BSkyB, which only last year was almost a done deal for him, is now beyond his reach. He has already closed the best-selling tabloid, News of the World, many of whose former journalists and management face criminal charges for phone-hacking and perverting the course of justice. His son James has resigned as executive chairman of News Group newspapers, but remains deputy chief operating officer of News Corp.

The toxicity staining the Murdoch brand in Britain has now spread to the government. Evidence has emerged in emails released by News Corp, that culture secretary, Jeremy Hunt (who last year was in charge of oversight of the BSkyB bid) was in secret contact with James Murdoch. In emails written to Murdoch by his lobbyist, it seems clear that Hunt was, contrary to his parliamentary obligation to act in a quasi-judicial and impartial way, adopting a blatantly partial stance in favour of the £8 billion bid. In one explosive revelation the lobbyist, apropos his contacts with Hunt, notes: “Confidential: Managed to get some infos on the plans for tomorrow (although absolutely illegal!)…Lots  of legal issues around the statement so he [Hunt] has tried to get a version which helps us.” None of this comes as much of a surprise to close observers of the dealings between the government and News Corp. Jeremy Hunt had already described himself on his own website as a “cheerleader for News International”. In December 2010 business secretary Vince Cable, then responsible for overseeing the BSkyB bid, had unwittingly revealed in a sting operation against him by the Daily Telegraph, that he had “declared war on Murdoch”. For this indiscretion he was removed from his responsibility and replaced by Hunt. Everyone expected Hunt to approve the bid, enabling Murdoch to take the 61% of the shares, giving News Corp total control of BSkyB. All that stopped this happening was the revelation by the Guardian newspaper on July 13 2011 that the News of the World had hacked into the voicemail of murdered teenager Milly Dowler in 2002. Had this not happened, Hunt would have waived the bid through. To avoid what, in the light of the revelation, would have been a unanimous House of Commons vote against it, the bid was withdrawn by Murdoch.  It was in the midst of all this that prime minister Cameron announced the establishment of the Leveson judicial inquiry, with a wide-ranging brief to investigate the culture, practices and ethics of the press. In view of what has been revealed so far, he and much of the political establishment, to say nothing of those engaged in the practices that Leveson is investigating, must devoutly wish that the inquiry had never been set up. This is clearly the view of most of the tabloid papers who are judiciously avoiding any mention of the proceedings. But, such was the pressure on the government – the Tories in particular – to do something to create the impression that they were no longer in hock to Murdoch, that Cameron had little room for maneuver.

Murdoch’s ambitions have taken a severe battering. His appearances at the inquiry have revealed a man seemingly much diminished – although his public appearances have anyway been so few that it is difficult to judge. One thing is clear; he seems determined to wreak some sort of revenge on those he blames for upsetting his plans. Thus the release to the inquiry of a steady flow of information of a very comprising nature for so many of those with whom he has had dealings. As the centre-left political weekly, the New Statesman opined on 30 April “If Murdoch’s going down, he’s taking everyone with him”. Those with inside knowledge claim that the release of email records of confidential exchanges with Jeremy Hunt was deliberately intended to finish the minister’s career. It is also reliably reported that before the present government came to office the Tories did a deal with Murdoch to the effect that News International’s tabloids would support the Tories in the 2010 election (meaning that the Sun and News of the World would withdraw their backing for Labour) in return for a Tory government supporting Murdoch’s interests in the UK. That meant assisting the BSkyB bid, reducing the powers of the media regulator Ofcom and cutting back the BBC. All this came naturally to the Tories anyway, much as it had to Tony Blair and New Labour whose desire to please Murdoch was no less than Cameron’s. Anyway, all the indications are that Cameron acted exactly as had been arranged. His first visitor at No.10 after the election was – Rupert Murdoch.

The most recent development in this saga is the report of the parliamentary culture, media and sport select committee. It is damning. As the record of criminal behaviour at the News of the World is so well established and incontestable, the Murdochs and their minions are unable to challenge the main finding of the committee’s report. What they are anxious to do is to reject any suggestion that those at the top of News Corp – particularly Rupert and James Murdoch, are personally culpable. Some of the underlings who can be allowed to go to the wall are: yesterday’s favourite, former Sun and NofW editor and ex-News International CEO, Rebekah Brooks; former NofW editor and director of communications for Cameron, Andy Coulson; former executive chairman of News International and Murdoch favourite, Les Hinton; ex-NoW editor (now editor of the New York Daily News) and former legal manager of News Group Newspapers, Tom Crone. Brooks and Coulson are at present on police bail. Hinton, Myler and Crone have been found guilty of misleading a select committee. They will be summoned to present themselves before the bar of the House of Commons to formally apologize – the first time this has happened since 1957. The committee drew no conclusion about the behaviour of Brooks and Coulson as they are both under police investigation and on bail. Brooks was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.   

The most damning conclusion in the committee’s report concerns Rupert Murdoch himself. In a key passage the committee concluded that “Rupert Murdoch is not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company.” No sooner had the report been released than Tory members of the select committee, led by aspiring celebrity Louise Mensch, rushed to disassociate themselves from this conclusion. They hastened to point out that all the Tories on a committee numbering ten (5 Labour, 4 Tory, 1 Liberal Democrat) were opposed to it. Mensch stated forcefully that the “not a fit person” passage gave the report a partisan character that completely devalued its conclusions. In the ensuing argument it became clear that there had been other disagreements over which the committee had divided. It turns out that they voted on 16 amendments making the report more, or less critical (or neither), of the Murdochs. The voting pattern shows that the Labour members and the Lib Dem supported most of the amendments making the report more critical and that the Tories supported many of those making it less critical and few of those making it more critical.  For example, Louise Mensch only voted for one making it more, but for six making it less critical. Her fellow Tory, Dr Therese Coffey supported none of the amendments making the report more critical and voted for 6 of those making it less critical. Philip Davis probably reflected the Tory attitude to the Murdochs in his less than trenchant judgment that “They have admitted mistakes. I make hundreds of mistakes every day. Hands up anyone here who has not made any mistakes!”  But committee member Tom Watson, the Labour MP who has done more than anyone in parliament to expose the criminality at the heart of News Corp, went straight to the point: “We found that News Corporation carried out an extensive cover-up of its rampant lawbreaking. Its most senior executives repeatedly misled Parliament and the two men at the top, Rupert and James Murdoch – who were in charge of the company – must now answer for that.”

No-one who has followed the affair can be in any doubt about the cover-up, or that responsibility goes right to the top. The attempts by Mensch and her fellow Tories to wriggle out of the report’s conclusion are completely disingenuous. They cannot deny the overwhelming body of evidence implicating the Murdochs, but they shy clear of holding them responsible, preferring instead to let their underlings take the rap. This shows how deeply reluctant Tories are to challenge corporate power. Britain’s political elites have been subservient to the Murdoch empire for so long that the habit of subservience is hard to break. But it will do them little good. As ever more incriminating evidence emerges – as it surely will as the Leveson inquiry exposes more criminality and those implicated start to blame one another  - it will not help anyone’s political career to be seen as a defender of Rupert Murdoch.

The only argument left to his dwindling band of defenders in Britain, is that he is “a fit person to exercise stewardship of an international company”, by virtue of the fact that he must be to have got where he is today. And, ultimately of course, that is the defense upon which the News Corp executives and shareholders in the United States will have to rely. Corporate power needs no justification other than its continued success, and that is measured in terms of the share price. Who cares how se got where we are. Whether Murdoch will be able to stage a retreat to his New York bunker and  successfully pursue his operations from there, remains to be seen.

'Speak No Ill of the Dead' Sounds OK But ... Chuck Colson, 1931-2012

Sam Harris, one of this country's leading secularists, has a new book describing free will as a myth. Here and in lectures and articles, Mr. Harris rejects the idea that we can change our character or the course of our lives, including lifestyle choices and so on. We are, Harris posits, hopelessly guided by forces other than volition, unaware and powerless to change much about ourselves. We are ruled by our biology, culture and experiences, among other forces beyond conscious control. 

Taking this reasoning into account, I shouldn't be too hard on Chuck Colson, or anyone else of whose deeds I am appalled. Given similar circumstances, I'd no doubt be more or less like them, except of course for the influence of random variables that also shape every life. We are all, in fact, shaped by contingencies (AKA blind fate/luck/chance, etc. as you wish) and the other above-noted factors.

In any event, Colson is gone (i.e., dead) and I'm resolved to be nice, more or less. Unfortunately, his work continues so a few less than super nice comments can't be helped. (Besides, I'm also a product of all those forces acting upon me - I'm going with the flow here.)

Perhaps you are too youthful or for other reasons not aware of the first career for which Mr. Colson is infamous. (I use this term in its generally accepted sense. Personally, I think Colson's true fame was as a political operator; his vile infamy for which he is heralded was his work as an evangelist for superstition amongst undereducated captive populations.)

There were two Charles Colsons known to the world. The first was the Republican hit man; the second the religious proselytizer. I never liked either one but I will always be fond of the first compared with the ghastly business done by the second.  

Best known for his honestly in saying, I would walk over my own grandmother to ensure the reelection of President Richard M. Nixon, Colson was a dirty tricks artist and highly effective political strategist. He got credit, said to be well deserved, for laying the groundwork of Nixon's 1972 landslide win over Democrat George McGovern.

I loved the Washington Post column by humorist Art Buchwald in which he imagined a prayer session between Mr. Colson and the grandmother:

Colson - Shall we kneel together?

Granny: Not me. I haven’t been able to kneel since you screamed at me, ‘Four more years’ and then put your Oldsmobile into drive.

My favorite assessment of Colson was expressed years ago by Americans for Separation of Church and State's Barry Lynn. Americans United brought lawsuits against Colson's Prison Fellowship - and won. It turns out that the Fellowship engaged in more dirty tricks than Nixn's reelection committees. Colluding with Right Wing evangelical political leaders and officials, Colson's new ministry pressured prisoners to convert to Christianity, in good part by arranging better conditions for those willing to come to Jesus, Lynn said: Colson never changed his methods, just his boss. Sadly, when he went from being Richard Nixon's hatchet man, he turned into a man who thought he was God's hatchet man. He literally turned his very formidable political skills once in the service of very far-right religious and political agendas.

Of all the Colsonian expressions that this character contributed to the world, my favorite would have to be this one: When you’ve got ’em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow. This worked for Colson in both careers, with slight variation. In the second, as recruiter for an imaginary friend, he added souls to hearts and minds.

This seems appropriate, given that no evidence exists for souls, either.

-------------------------

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He wrote High Level Wellness in 1976 (Rodale Press) and many other books since, including Die Healthy, 14 Days to Wellness and most recently, Aging Beyond Belief and REAL Wellness. Since 1984, Don has produced 685 editions of the Ardell Wellness Report. Don's website at SeekWellness.com/wellness is the largest repository of wellness essays. 

Don is one of ten Americans given the Healthy America Fitness Leaders Award in 1991 by the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. In 2010, he was granted the Lifetime Achievement Prize by the German Wellness Association in Dusseldorf; in July 2011, he was honored with the Halbert L. Dunn Award by the National Wellness Institute.  

Don has won many national and four world championships in triathlon and duathlon, his most recent world titles coming in 2009 in the Gold Coast of Australia and 2010 in Budapest, Hungary.

A free subscription to Don's wellness report is available on request - write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com 

Why People Vote the Way They Do: Trying to Make Some Sense of it All-Part I

Ever wonder what makes somebody pull the lever to the right or to the left?  Ever wish you could see the world through Andy Rooney eyes when he meanders about the highways of the mind as though on a quest for true understanding of one of life’s peculiar mysteries?

Ever wonder if the boys in the back room of the RNC and DNC care about the truth if each party has millions of dollars to fashion the very truth to their own liking?  You know, to where whichever candidate each party runs for high office will be able to pull it off and win?  So then they get their man and a bunch more they sponsored to fashion laws to benefit their large campaign contributors for high favors?  Like in letting Halliburton and the like have exclusive no-bid contracts for the Iraq War meals for soldiers, roads to be built, infrastructure to be repaired, the usual?  If enough money is thrown at a chosen candidate’s campaign war chest, wouldn’t it follow perhaps that those upper-crust contributors might get rewarded with a tax cut for the rich?  Like when Bush sponsored and his lap-dog Congress passed the $2 Trillion tax cut for the rich?  And Obama, years later, put his okay stamp on extending the Bush Tax Cut for the rich?  The richest taxpayer Americans got a return of real tax dollars of over $92,000.00 per year!  Must be nice.  You got yours, didn’t you?

Ever wonder if the written history of the Democrats exists in an Orwellian world where we were always at war with Oceania?  No, rather we were always allies with Oceania, wasn’t that the true history?  Or was it changed when it became more beneficial to the BIG$ for the history to be rewritten?

Does the true history really matter if your candidate wins?  Does the truth play an important part in the why a candidate gets reelected?  If you follow the money all you need do is stop right there.  No.  Absolutely the truth does not matter.  The money does.  Voting is about the money.  It’s always about the money.  Candidates are about your ass pocketbook not your religious affiliation or views.  Your positions on Pro Choice or Pro Life change as political winds shift and change even within the same election or with the same candidate.  Take Romney.  Will you?  He is the ultimate changeling.  It is about the money.  And the smearing of church and state together is, I opine, only to get votes.  Reagan was a master when it came to television and the rehearsed line that made good old boy voters feel good.  And those votes are bought and paid for by the money trying to influence election outcomes. 

Don’t forget the Tea Party demonstrations in Washington, D.C. that Fox Propaganda Channel and the Koch Brothers of Wichita, KS and the world all sponsored.  If you are still trying to figger out just what the grass roots Tea Party is about, just ask one of them with a roving microphone on the streets.  They get memory lapse.  Their history comprehension is zero.  All they know is they are just plain folks bought and paid for bus tickets in hand to come down to the nation’s capitol and demonstrate against all the stuff the Democrats and Obama stand for, but they can’t be sure if asked any specific questions.  Sounds a bit like Sarah Palin, eh?  Déjà vu, all over again.  Those D.C. Tea Partiers had a great time in D.C. hotels, what with bus fare and hotel fare paid for by the Koch Bros., known ultra-conservative, right-wing nut cases deluxe.

When the Tea Bag Convention was held in Nashville, here come the busses, the airplanes, and all the no-nothing Billy Bobs and girlfriends and wives to support and cheer for Sarah Palin who gave the keynote speech at the convention.  All paid for by the Koch Bros., thank you very much, but hey what do you all stand for?  We know you are for cutting government spending on welfare programs just as long as the government does the right thing.  Like one of their signs on a stick said, “Keep your hands off my Social Security.”  Looks like the Tea Baggers are in for a surprise when the Koch’s tell them that the true purpose of the Tea Baggers, in cutting spending, is to blow up Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all Welfare, so the Koch’s and the rich can have the government and its tax dollars for themselves.  But don’t tell anybody.  Let the Tea Baggers continue to blast Obama for wanting to kill old people instead of paying for their terminal illnesses with Medicare and Medicaid.  One of their signs said, “Don’t Kill Grandma.  No Youth in Asia.”  Shouldn’t the Koch’s and their handlers hire an editor like for their stupid signs?  Or does it really not matter?

Ask the next Tea Bagger you meet if cutting spending means cutting the billions of dollars in the Pentagon Budget as well as in social programs.  It will get damn silent all of a sudden I would bet.  Nope, their rehearsed talking points don’t include the military, you know, the government entity that spends the most on sophisticated weapons and systems, like the stuff the Military Industrial Complex gets no-bid contracts to build billion-dollar airplanes and $500 toilet seats.  They nor Hannity, nor Limbaugh will be caught talking about their big-money sponsors when it comes to cutting government spending.

It is about the money, and all else is smoke and mirrors.  And you really don’t have to say anything intelligent to get Billy Bob to go along.  Just wrap the cause in the flag and pray for our country, amen.

All further dialogue, if well presented, is about which candidate can help you earn the most money by pursuing real measures to increase jobs, decrease taxes, increase human services, and be all things to all the voters.  Impossible, you say?  Not at all.  The $15 Trillion National Debt is proof that real money is an oxymoron.  But here in the good old USA you can crank up the presses and just print more.  Printing more money is the Fed’s number one job.  This funny money that dilutes the worth of the Treasury, the US economy, jobs, decimates a good standard of living and a respectable currency are all the rewards promises made by candidates and both parties to keep the plates spinning on sticks.  It is the grand illusion that perpetuates the belief that a dollar bill is just as good as it always was and still spends just as good.  And you don’t have to tell the truth to get there.

Maybe Congress should pass a law making it unconstitutional to print more money.  Think they would?  Ha!  See when the voters elect a candidate whom they expect to be honest and to serve the best interest of the people he represents, borrowing money (Trillions in the case of the federal government) to insure his success in keeping his promises is cheating.  Anybody can produce illusions of prosperity with an unlimited source of hard cash with which to act the part of the Wizard of Oz.  Without the smoke and mirrors, though, Toto proved the Wizard was a fake simply by pulling back the curtain.

Okay, so much for prologue.

All tags such as patriotism, a belief in God (Judeo-Christian preferred, to be politically correct nowadays), prayer in school, you know the drill, are mere props with which to pole vault over the election booth high bar to win elections.  And you vote according to who will help you make and keep the most money in your lifetime.  All else seems to be a huge crock.  Jerry Falwell was a means to an end to Reagan.  Despite all his high-toned words about the Bible and his hit lists he proclaimed to be in the best interest of the Almighty, if the Democrat bugger candidates were all expunged and replaced with God-fearing Republicans.  Made you sick to your moral conscience.

Over the years I have enjoyed watching voters who thought that candidates like Reagan would best serve the people of America.  He appealed to the masses, the common working people, and he did a fine job of convincing Billy Bob from Cut-And-Shoot, Texas to vote for him.  So what did Billy Bob get out of it?  Well, see, Billy Bob was a welder’s helper who had a pretty good union job until Reagan proved unions were dispensable by firing all the Air Traffic Controllers.  It trickled on down and finally Billy Bob found himself in a quandary when he got replaced by a cheaper-wage illegal, fresh up from the border.  No unions necessary no more got Billy Bob a South East Texas pink slip, and when he found a job later, he had to compete with the cheaper labor available.  So Billy Bob had to let his air boat go back to the credit union, no more alligator night hunts to supplement no income.  And that refinery job he was hopin’ to get thanks to his sister’s brother Buford just up and vanished along with that $18 an hour and lots of overtime.

A few weeks ago I met a bunch of these Billy Bobs at a party across the lake.  It became known real quick that they hated Obama, and I questioned them as to why.  In Part II I will tell you all about it and how and why hatred for a candidate can build to the boiling point, but nobody can really put their finger on why, even now.