What luck for the rulers that men do not think

Chris Hedges, who is an American journalist, author, and war correspondent, does a remarkable job of pinpointing exactly how the country ended up at this juncture. In his essay, Hedges reveals a truth that many on the left will find profoundly unsettling, but will be unable to effectively counter. In effect, what Hedges is saying is that the collapse of liberalism is to blame for the extreme candidates, and violent rhetoric, that currently infect our political system. Or, to be more precise, liberals allowed themselves to be Co-Opted by the corporate state and, in the process, betrayed the tens of millions of working-class and middle-class voters who made up their constituency.

Now, many of those same voters are angry at what they correctly view as their abandonment by the leaders, and the party, that once championed their cause. Decades of outsourcing, union-busting, and deregulation have combined to shred the social contract that kept the peace between labor and capital. The right is poised to capitalize on this situation in a big way, despite the fact that their policies are even more unfair to those disenfranchised by the current system. The result of this is not pretty.

Liberals seem weak and ineffectual, while the right offers up simplistic remedies peddled by demagogues who at least seem to understand, and share, the sense of betrayal and anger felt by so many. Both major parties have colluded to create this disastrous state of affairs, and the day of reckoning is coming. The situation that now exists practically cries out for a strong leader who will sweep aside all the useless politicians, along with our democratic institutions. I predict resistance will be scant. In fact, the leader will most likely be elected in a democratic election. Possibly the last one we'll see for a long time.

Thrilla from Wasilla

Levi Johnston made an appearance on Bill Maher's show and it is worth watching. Towards the end of the six minutes that Johnston was on, Maher pointed out something very interesting. In an article for Vanity Fair, Levi Johnston said that Sarah Palin quit her job as governor of Alaska for the money. Meaning that she could make a boatload more money giving speeches, working for Fox News, and writing books. Well, it would appear that Levi's insight was "on the money". To the tune of some 12 million dollars, which is what Palin has raked in since then. And does she really deserve to be addressed as "Governor Palin"? She served less then 20 months of her first term before walking away from the job. Calling her"Governor" gives Palin an air of gravitas that is completely unsupported by the facts. She is a shallow mean-spirited person who wears her ignorance like a badge of honor. As the panelist on the show remarked "He (Levi) has more courage then most of the Republican Party". Meaning that he is not afraid to speak the truth about this woman...

Organized Crime: The Banksters

Watching this video reminded me of a book that I read some 5 years ago. Predatory Bender: A Story of Subprime Finance perfectly exposed the workings of the global financial system by focusing on one of it's ugliest, and most profitable, manifestations...

High Tide

The man whose San Francisco non-profit organization, The Tides Foundation, was targeted by a gunmen this past July is convinced that Glenn Beck's repeated on-air denunciations of the organization led to the aborted assault.

Byron Williams, whose mug shot is shown on the left, got into his pickup truck armed with three firearms and plenty of ammunition to, in his words, "start a revolution by killing people at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU.

He never got there thanks to the interventions of CA Highway Patrol officers who spotted him speeding and weaving in and out of traffic. In the ensuing gun battle, Williams and two officers suffered gun shot wounds.

Drummond Pike, CEO of Tides, has released the text of a letter that he sent to the companies that advertise on Beck's show asking them to pull all of their ads.

You would think that the following companies, good corporate citizens that they are, would move quickly to divorce themselves from any association with someone whose reckless and irresponsible use of language inspired Byron Williams to set out on his murderous mission.

Rupert Murdoch may not have a heart or a soul, but he sure knows how to count: Let's hope that common sense prevails and they all pull their advertising dollars from this man's hate-filled program:

P Morgan Chase, Geico, Zurich Financial, Chrysler, Direct Holdings Americas (Time-Life), GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Lilly Corporate Center, BP and The Hartford Financial Services Group.

The Most Dangerous Man In America

According to news reports, Byron Williams consumed something like 18-20 beers before stealing 3 firearms from his mother and setting off on his mission. He got in his pickup truck along with the guns and plenty of ammunition to, in his words, "start a revolution by traveling to San Francisco and killing people of importance at the Tides Foundation and the ACLU." The unemployed Williams, 45, was on parole for a 2002 robbery. He didn't reach his destination because his erratic driving attracted the attention of the California Highway Patrol, and he was pulled over. A gun battle ensued that saw two police officers wounded, and Williams himself receiving 5 bullet wounds. The body armor that he had donned before leaving the house likely saved his life.

By his own account, Byron Williams watched Glenn Beck's show on Fox News. It seems beyond a reasonable doubt that if not for Beck, Williams would never have heard of an organization called The Tides Foundation. While I suppose it is possible that he might have decided to launch his revolution anyway, I suspect that he would have settled for something less grandiose. Like knocking off a liquor store. Glenn Beck filled his head with a toxic stew of nonsense day after day and the result was mayhem. Beck doesn't happen to like what The Tides Foundation stands for, and felt free to attack it repeatedly employing language that seemed designed to provoke a reaction. A violent reaction.

Of course, Beck will throw up his hands and express astonishment that someone actually took him seriously. After all, Beck is nothing, but a "rodeo clown". His words. However there is nothing even remotely entertaining, much less enlightening, about what Glenn Beck does. He is a hate-filled demagogue who will surely inspire more Byron Williams before he is done.

"Ersten rein und Letzten raus!"

In the spring of 1985, as part of a trip to West Germany, US President Ronald Reagan paid a brief visit to a German military cemetery to lay a wreath. The cemetery, which is located near the city of Bitburg, contains the remains of German WWII soldiers, including members of the Waffen SS. The visit was surrounded by much controversy, and became a major public relations debacle for the administration. The whole thing was immortalized in song by The Ramones, who famously named their song "Bonzo goes to Bitburg", in homage to Reagan's role in the movie "Bedtime for Bonzo".

I bring this history up now because of some recent revelations about the man running as the Republican nominee for the seat in Ohio's 9th congressional district. The politician, Rich Iott, participates in historical military reenactments. Which would not seem to present much of a problem, except for the fact that Mr. Iott belonged to an organization called Wiking. Now, the fact that he has left the organization, doesn't list it on his resume, and the Wiking web site has taken down his name and photographs of him in uniform, definitely point to a certain awareness on Mr. Iott's part that this could be a major headache for a politician.

How big a headache is not yet clear, but suffice to say Mr. Iott will have his work cut out for him explaining this away. House minority whip Eric Cantor, who is the GOP's sole Jewish house member, moved quickly to distance himself from Iott. Past history would dictate that Iott will not be able to survive revelations of this nature. But, this is no ordinary election year and I wouldn't count him out just yet. Much more interesting then the fate of a Ohio congressional candidate is the fact that an organization like Wiking exists at all in this country.

In Germany, Austria, and perhaps France as well, wearing an SS uniform would get you arrested. There are quite strict laws pertaining to the symbols of the Third Reich and violations are treated seriously. Obviously, similar laws do not exist in the United States. However, there was a time when someone wearing a Nazi uniform in this country would be subject to scorn and abuse. They would need the protection of police and the interventions of the ACLU in order to assemble publicly. American Nazis were a fringe element given about the same amount of respect accorded the KKK.

What has changed? Well, for starters, Wiking is careful to draw a distinction between the Nazi Party, and the combat units that made up the German Army. In fact, the Waffen SS division that they glorify was largely made up of non-German volunteers from countries that Germany had conquered. They signed up to go and fight the Bolshevik threat from the east. Wiking stresses the fact that the division never fought against the Americans, only the Soviets. Given the fact that we engaged in a half-century long "Twilight Struggle" against the Soviet Union, such a distinction becomes quite useful.

Suffice to say, I doubt very many angry protesters are going to throw eggs and tomatoes at men armed with automatic weapons, even if they are firing blanks. Holocaust survivors are dying off at the same rate as are WWII combat veterans. Memories are fading and the constant name-calling on the part of pundits and politicians has effectively diluted whatever meaning words like "Nazi" and "Hitler" once had. If there is to be a resurgence of Nazi ideology, it will be here in America, not in Europe.

Torches of Freedom

"I never smoked a cigarette until I was nine." - H. L. Mencken

I just finished reading a book titled The Cigarette Century by author Allan M. Brandt. The sub-heading on the book's cover describes it thusly: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product That Defined America. It is certainly no exaggeration to argue that the cigarette was indeed the dominant consumer product of the American 20th Century. Indeed, by the mid-point of the century more then half of all American adults were habitual cigarette smokers. That by itself is quite remarkable when you consider that the cigarette was scarcely in evidence when the century began.

A century ago, the cigarette was widely viewed as a "dirty habit", and a disreputable form of tobacco consumption. A mechanical means of rolling cigarettes, all of a uniform quality, was only the first step in the process of turning them into the preferred method of consuming tobacco. Just as important, was the campaign to change the public perception of cigarettes. In fact, that campaign marked the birth of modern advertising and marketing. The tobacco companies were aided immensely by the advent of the First World War. When asked what the nation could do to assist in the war effort, General Pershing famously answered "You ask me what I need to win this war. I answer tobacco, as much as bullets.". And by "tobacco", he meant cigarettes.

Once they had secured the rights of male smokers, the tobacco interests turned their attention to the "disenfranchised" half of the population. Consequently, in the hands of shrewd marketers, cigarettes became "torches of freedom". It was considered socially unacceptable for woman to smoke in public, right up through the 1930's, and the industry set out to knock down those barriers. In an era that saw woman struggling to attain equal status with men, the very act of smoking in public became a powerful statement of equality. The result was an astonishing increase in cigarette sales.

Throughout the first-half of the 20th century, the tobacco industry enjoyed a period of sustained growth that was literally without precedent. The cigarette, and smokers, became ubiquitous. The industry spent liberally on advertising, and the ads always featured happy and attractive people enjoying the good life, of which the cigarette was an integral part. Hollywood pitched in with the result that you could hardly find a movie in which the stars didn't smoke cigarettes. The cigarette quickly became an indispensable prop in cinema, an object that could be employed to convey any number of meanings. In 1950, the outlook couldn't have been brighter for the industry.

Then, came the fall. Over the course of the second-half of the 20th century, the tobacco industry went from being respected and admired, to being castigated as lying "merchants of death". The industry fought back ferociously with every tool at it's disposal, legal and otherwise to create and sustain a "controversy" over the scientific evidence. The industry managed, in the face of overwhelming evidence that their product poisoned and killed it's users, to continue promoting and selling cigarettes.

The list of crimes that one can level at the tobacco industry is a long one. Topping it of course, would be the deliberate addicting of generations of children, many of whom would be consigned to a slow and painful death by way of lung cancer, emphysema, or any one of a host of other serious medical conditions, all attributable to years of smoking cigarettes. One would be hard-pressed to find a more convincing case of corporate malfeasance. And yet, they are still in business. The story of how that came to be would take up much more space then I am willing to dedicate to it right now. Maybe another time...