"You're not making an impact if you're not pissing someone off"

Monthly Archives: December 2011

A recent letter from billionaire Leon Cooperman chastising the President for engaging in “class warfare” is written in a perspective that only some one-percenters can see things from.

 

 

In a Nov. 28 open letter to President Barack Obama, hedge-fund manager Leon Cooperman, the Omega Advisors Inc. chairman and former CEO of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS)’s money-management unit, dresses down the President of the United States, charging Obama with creating “a gulf that is at once counterproductive and freighted with dangerous historical precedents.”

Capitalists “are not the scourge that they are too often made out to be” and the wealthy aren’t “a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot,” Cooperman wrote. They make products that “fill store shelves at Christmas” and provide health care to millions.”  SOURCE

 

When you have lots and lots of money people tend to have grand delusions about their own sense of value and ability.  To pretend also that the President is guilty of anything other than what is obvious to a degree to most observers portrays Mr. Cooperman as one who is too closely tied to his wealthy class and fails to step back and look at the bigger picture.

People like Leon Cooperman do not “make” anything you can find on store shelves.  While they may have entrepreneur skills that generate capital in this country, they also are guilty of exploiting their great wealth and power as those who did in his former company,  creating toxic mortgage assets that they sold to unsuspecting investors and walked off with billions, robbing their clients’ savings while effecting a collapse in global financial markets.  Let’s not forget about all those liar’s loans either made by other wealthy financial bankers to unsophisticated, low-income first-time home buyers.  The notion too that they help other businesses make products that “fill store shelves at Christmas” is only true when you understand that the real people who make most of these products are mainly underpaid laborers in foreign markets like China, India and Malaysia.

Without labor, here or abroad, people like Cooperman may never have made it to the Columbia Business school he graduated from, paid for in part by his South Bronx plumber father and enabled by a public education at P.S. 75, Morris High School.  The other part of his higher education funding came from a federally funded National Defense Education Act student loan that ultimately enabled him to have a “successful run at Goldman Sachs”, finding ways to use other people’s money to create his own vast fortune.

It’s true that not all one-percenters are “a monolithic, selfish and unfeeling lot”, and as Asawin Suebsaeng points out in his Mother Jones article that “the ‘few bad apples’ argument [they make] really is worth acknowledging”.   But this equally applies to the OWS movement where a “few America-denigrating ruffians at an Occupy gathering don’t automatically discredit the protest movement as a whole.”  Mr. Cooper wants to undermine the grassroots OWS movement with a media blitz paid for with aid of other members within the elite organization, Job Creators Alliance, a Dallas-based nonprofit that develops talking points and op-ed pieces aimed at “shaping the national agenda,” according to it’s founder, billionaire and Home Depot Inc. executive, Bernard Marcus.

 

Billionaire Cooperman takes a step further to expose his one-sided view of decency when he says that “You’ll get more out of me if you treat me with respect.”  Sure Mr. Cooperman.  Just as was done with those former Goldman-Sach clients I mentioned above.  Or are you referring to the kind of respect those corporate-friendly cronies in the government gave to financial “humanitarians” on Wall Street in the form of tax payer bailouts while Main Street took a nose dive grasping for some similar life preserver?

It’s one thing to point out the flaws in our economic system that have contributed to the greatest income disparity this country has seen in about a century and yet another to vigorously take action to correct it.  In his letter to the President, Cooperman makes us aware that “as a high-income taxpayer, I might be considered one of [the OWS movement’s] targets, I find this reassessment of so many entrenched economic premises healthy and long overdue. Anyone who could survey today’s challenging fiscal landscape, with an un- and underemployment rate of nearly 20 percent and roughly 40 percent of the country on public assistance, and not acknowledge an imperative for change is either heartless, brainless, or running for office on a very parochial agenda. And if I end up paying more taxes as a result, so be it. The alternatives are all worse.”

As magnanimous as this is, there has been little evidence that Leon Cooperman has stepped up to the public microphone as Warren Buffet and Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz, conveying his allegiance to the efforts that call into questions the “heartless” and “brainless” actions and words like the Koch brothers who work with elected officials to undermine labor unions and public employee jobs or GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich who incites ultra conservative crowds by falsely characterizing all Occupy protesters as deadbeat, smelly bums with his denigrating comment that they all need to “go get a job right after [they] take a bath”.  Only after Warren Buffet challenged the rich this last August to pay higher taxes for the sake of “shared sacrifice,” did Cooperman go on record and claim he supports “a 10-percent income tax surcharge for three years on those earning more than $500,000 per year.” He also said that he believes in the progressive income tax.”

However, to accuse Barack Obama along with his “minions’ role in setting the tenor of the rancorous debate now roiling us”, while ignoring those within his own economic and political circles of making equal or greater abuses, does in my opinion, weaken all of Mr. Cooperman’s more admirable comments in that letter of his that points out the speck in the President’s eye.

 

RELATED ARTICLE

The Post-Truth Campaign  (Paul Krugman NYTimes)


Bill Maher’s recent tweet denigrating Bronco’s quarterback Tim Tebow raised a stink with many Tebow fans and Christians in general.   As the Broncos were getting battered by the Buffalo Bills in last Sunday’s game, Maher tweeted the following:

“Wow, Jesus just f***ed #TimTebow bad! And on Xmas Eve! Somewhere … Satan is tebowing, saying to Hitler “Hey, Buffalo’s killing them,” 

I like Maher, despite his frequent displays of arrogance, but such public badgering of the unabashed christian quarterback only heightens Tebow’s popularity and creates a support base that would perhaps not otherwise exist.

It is understandable why Maher, a professed Atheist, would mock the evangelical quarterback who had scripture quotes in his “eye black” during his college days.

Spreading the gospel to heathen football fans?

The evangelical christian community has seized on Tebow’s public display of his faith and lamely accuses people like Maher who criticize Tebow as evidence of the church’s persecution in this country where nearly 80% of those polled in a Pew survey claim to be Christians.     Some might even think this “outrage” is merely another ploy used by the christian right to get their extreme views aired and further promote their litany of wedge issues like same sex marriage and their hysterical claim about the war on Christmas.

But behaving lamely is sometimes the norm for fanatics, be they the religious sort or not.  Case in point – a FOX sports report claimed that “[Maher’s] tweet prompted some to call for a boycott of [his] HBO show “Real Time with Bill Maher.”

Any casual observer of Maher’s HBO program is fully aware of his popularity with his audience, especially when he goes after “religious crazies” like many of the Muslim hate groups and individuals like Pastor Terry Jones in Gainesville, Florida who wanted to burn Korans or the equally bizarre Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, KS, who gathers at the funerals of dead service men and women proclaiming that “God Hates Fags”.  Tim Tebow’s public prayer hardly poses a threat like these people and so far he has not engaged in attacks on the secular community that I have seen.  However, Maher’s attacks on organized religion are a part of his shtick and few are spared his barbed assaults.

Maher learned his lesson with commercial TV when his late night show, “Politically Incorrect” was summarily dismissed from ABC following comments that right-wing zealots found offensive.  His criticism of the government following 9/11 didn’t let up unlike his competitors on late night TV and he paid for it when “a conservative talk show host in Houston hosted by Dan Patrick urged listeners to complain to two of the show’s advertisers, Sears and Federal Express, who subsequently dropped their ads”.   Maher’s criticism of the government turned out to be the norm for many commentators later when the causes for invading Iraq didn’t pan out as sold by the Bush administration to the public.

Does anyone believe that there are significant numbers that can effect a productive boycott of Maher’s show that airs on non-commercial cable TV?  Who watches the show anyway that hasn’t already been offended by Maher’s criticism of religion?  Unless you are a fan why would anyone subscribe to Maher’s tweet page?  Not that his tweet would empathize with evangelicals but why wouldn’t Maher’s comments evoke a shared sense of how Satan celebrates when humans fail?

Devout beliefs in one category do not necessarily carry over into other domains but far be it for some religious fundamentalists to be deterred in their crusades on the infidels of this world.  In this case at least someone has to be earnestly looking for Bill Maher to offend them and then make it more of a public issue than need be.


Though it seems more as just another gaffe for Newt Gingrich, his comments about sending Capitol Police or U.S. Marshals to arrest judges and force them to testify before Congress to explain what he or any other would-be President would deem “radically anti-American” decisions, should draw attention to what’s going on in Hungary right now.

 

What do these two men share about the judiciary?

In a free and fair election last spring in Hungary, the center-right political party, Fidesz, got 53% of the vote. This translated into 68% of the seats in the parliament under Hungary’s current disproportionate election law. With this supermajority, Fidesz won the power to change the constitution. They have used this power in the most extreme way at every turn, amending the constitution ten times in their first year in office and then enacting a wholly new constitution that will take effect on January 1, 2012.

This constitutional activity has transformed the legal landscape to remove checks on the power of the government and put virtually all power into the hands of the current governing party for the foreseeable future.

Under the new constitutional order, the judiciary has taken the largest hit. The Constitutional Court, which once had the responsibility to review nearly all laws for constitutionality, has been killed off … .    SOURCE

These changes under the right-leaning Fidesz government has co-opted the fledging democracy in Hungary in the following ways:

  1. the government expanded the number of judges on the bench and filled the new positions with their own political allies
  2. the government restricted the jurisdiction of the court so that it can no longer review any law that has an impact on the budget
  3. the government changed the rules of access to the court so that it will no longer be easily able to review laws in the abstract for their compliance with the constitution. Moreover, individuals can no longer challenge the constitutionality of laws without first going through a lengthy process in the ordinary courts.

This law also creates a new National Judicial Office where a single authority will be charged “with overseeing the nomination of judges and will also have a say over which cases they oversee in court.”  This action pretty much encompass what Gingrich has suggested in his attack on “activist judges”.

In a half-hour phone call with reporters Saturday, Gingrich said that, as president, he would abolish whole courts to be rid of judges whose decisions he feels are out of step with the country.

The former House speaker Sunday showed no sign of letting up on his assault on such judges. During an appearance on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” Gingrich suggested the president could send federal law enforcement authorities to arrest judges who make controversial rulings in order to compel them to justify their decisions before congressional hearings.  SOURCE 

This sentiment absolutely flies in the face of our own Constitution’s imperative of separation of powers between the 3 branches of government.  Based on that premise alone you would expect the Tea Party movement to severely chastise the former House speaker, but they have been eerily silent.  Most political observers are aware that comments like this from any of the GOP presidential candidates is aimed at the Party’s base.  If these extremes are appealing to that base then it becomes clear that the GOP of their sainted Ronald Reagan has been taken over by a fringe element that is right of Attila the Hun.

For now however there are plenty of denunciations on this by those on both the right and left.  Reflecting on Gingrich’s despotic views, Washington and Lee University Law Professor, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost asked the obvious question most people have on their mind in one fashion or another.  “Just exactly what ‘activist judges’ is Gingrich gunning for? Hasn’t anyone told him that judicial activism today is on the right – judges that are elevating the rights of corporations over those of individuals and declaring laws unconstitutional when those laws interfere with their vision of libertarian public policy.”  Why, Jost asks, would anyone on the political right want to tamper with “the one branch of government that they actually control – to the detriment of all of the rest of us.”

It may seem unfathomable to many that such a radical shift in power could so easily happen in America.  Just because it has obviously occurred in a former Soviet communist satellite country like Hungary with only about two decades of democratic reforms under their belt doesn’t mean that such a breakdown in our centuries old founding principles would implode so easily here.

But for anything to occur of any dramatic nature it only takes the planting of a seed by a few and nurtured over time while public discontent is focused on perceived enemies of “American exceptionalism”.   With the rapid rate of communication though social networks, efforts to curtail minority voting that tends to favor Democrats and control of the major arteries of media by conservatives, it is not that far-fetched to see this country – absorbed with their material consuming obsessions – to easily fall prey to the egomaniacal whimsies of people like Gingrich whose views in the past have reflected a man beset by a lust for power.

“It doesn’t matter what I do.  People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.” – Newt Gingrich 

“… it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. …voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”  – Hermann Wilhelm Göring, Hitler’s Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe 

RELATED ARTICLE:

Newt Gingrich says Supreme Court crossed major threshold with 1958 case 

Hungary’s Junk Democracy


Tebowing: A New grassroots Movement?

 

There’s a grass roots movement afoot by young people that seems to flaunt authority.  They don’t seem to have any specific agenda but they have made life difficult for other people by congregating in public places and disrupting daily routines.

No, I’m not talking about Occupy protesters but some of the students at Riverhead High School in Riverhead New York who occupied a school hallway all week while posing Tebow Style

Could such anti-social behavior get out of hand?

 

  

 

 

Was Rodin’s “The Thinker” the original tebower?

 


In the spirit of the holiday I thought I would keep things light.  Yesterday’s editorial in my local newspaper offers up the perfect commentary for this purpose.  It’s both humorous and somewhat nostalgic.  Merry Christmas to all of you.

‘O, Little Town of Scooby-dooby-doo’

Our editorialist was trapped in a moving automobile last weekend as his wife played a succession of contemporary “Christmas albums” on the car stereo. He said it was enough to make him want to burn his Santa Claus suit.

We know what he means. We are big fans of Christmas music — the traditional carols and the majestic oratorios — but we cannot for the life of us figure out why anyone would want to listen to a rapper spit out the words to “Santa Claus is Coming to Town,” or endure the efforts of an aging crooner as he puts a Las Vegas spin on “The Little Drummer Boy.”

We blame the late Gene Autry for all this. It was Autry, a singing movie cowboy by trade, who recorded “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” in 1949, and we can’t remember a Christmas since then that our ears haven’t been assaulted by some gimmicky holiday song or another, or by an album of “Christmas favorites” butchered by some second-rate singer who shouldn’t be allowed to perform “O, Holy Night” in the shower, let alone in a recording studio.

(Not the least of the crimes Autry is answerable for is the one of insinuating this intruder, Rudolph, into the true, authentic team of Santa Claus’ reindeer as recorded by Clement C. Moore in his classic poem A Visit from St. Nicholas. Children today — even some adults! — labor under the false impression that the bulbous-nosed pretender was an actual colleague of Dasher, Dancer, Prancer, Vixen, Comet, Cupid, Donder and Blitzen.)

And “Rudolph” is not even the worst of the contemporary Christmas songs. Year after year, composers seem to vie to see who can write the silliest, most insipid lyrics to sell to the gullible holiday trade. We have mothers kissing Santa Claus; we have grandmothers getting run over by reindeer; we have toothless waifs wishing for incisors in their stockings. We rock around the Christmas tree and do the “Jingle-Bell Rock.”

In the spirit of the season, we want to be charitable about this. Irving Berlin’s “White Christmas” is a fine Christmas song, possessed of a lovely melody and beautiful lyrics that evoke memories of Christmases past.

And those of us of a certain age will likely shed a tear each time we hear “Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas” or “I’ll Be Home for Christmas.” They were written in the darkest days of World War II, and their evocations of soldiers pining for their families back home will have meaning as long as that Greatest Generation lives.

But we could live the rest of our lives happily without hearing Alvin the chipmunk place another order for a hula hoop.

Generally speaking, and with the aforementioned exceptions notably excepted, we say that anyone who has written a “Christmas song” after about 1945 deserves a lump of coal in his stocking, and anyone who sings one of them on a contemporary “Christmas album” is no better than a humbug.

(Now that we think of it, we also issue a special dispensation to “Deck Us All with Boston Charlie,” the great Walt Kelly’s comic-strip carol, as sung by Pogo ’Possum and all his Okefenokee Swamp pals. Now that’s a Christmas song for the ages!)


The Obama Administration has finally gotten tough on polluting energy sources that emit mercury, arsenic and other toxins into the air, causing11,000 deaths a year by some estimates. 

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration on Wednesday unveiled rules for coal-fired power plants that mean costly investments passed on to consumers, but also health benefits.

Hundreds of older plants — which together make up the largest remaining source of unchecked toxic air pollution in the United States — will have to cut emissions or shut down.

“By cutting emissions that are linked to developmental disorders and respiratory illnesses like asthma, these standards represent a major victory for clean air and public health,” Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, said in a statement.  SOURCE

The coal industry lobbyists are crying foul, claiming that in some areas electricity prices could rise by as much as 19% and could result in the loss of 1.4 million jobs by 2020.  Such estimates are questionable but they are also a smoke screen to conceal the critical issue families face through this country’s continued use of a dirty source of energy.

To listen to the one-sided arguments of industry lobbyists you might react as if there was no common sense used by the EPA in regulating an industry that has throughout their existence evaded responsibility for filling the air we breathe and water we drink with carcinogens and lung disease-causing elements that cause heart and asthma attacks as well as other serious health issues.

Earlier this year the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council (ERCC), the leading electric-power industry trade group, attacked the EPA saying “the new regulation on toxic pollution is too expensive and that there are no health benefits from reducing hazardous pollutants other than mercury.   The question any sensible person ought to ask is how can there NOT be any health benefits by removing “386,000 tons of hazardous air pollutants that coal-fired plants put out each year.”  Pollutants like toxic metals and metal-like substances such as arsenic and lead; mercury; dioxins; chemicals known or thought to cause cancer, including formaldehyde, benzene and radioisotopes; and acid gases such as hydrogen chloride.

American Academy of Pediatrics President O. Marion Burton scoffed at the ERCC’s declaration and stated simply that the long and short of it is that “dirty air makes children sick”.  Some 130,000 children suffer asthma attacks each year as a result of the filth emitted from 400 coal-fired plants scattered across 46 states.

These health issues equate into monetary liabilities for families in the form of health costs.  Health costs that will start to disappear as these power plants begin to install the “scrubbers” to their emission outputs that spew out tons of pollutants in communities near and far.  “If you think it’s an expensive process to put a scrubber on a smokestack,” Burton said, “you should see how much it takes over a lifetime to treat a child with a preventable birth defect.”  

A study done in 2010 by the non-profit Clean Air Task Force found “that fine particle pollution from existing coal plants is expected to cause nearly 13,200 deaths in 2010. Additional impacts include an estimated 9,700 hospitalizations and more than 20,000 heart attacks per year. The total monetized value of these adverse health impacts adds up to more than $100 billion per year.“   That is 10 times the estimate the EPA claims it would cost to implement the new standards.  This factor seems to elude critics like the ERCC, a coal industry front group.

The insensitivity expressed by some in the energy industry to reduce emissions that kill many people and wreak havoc on the public health is reflective of a mentality that has been brought against wealthy corporate interests for years.  Profits over people has always been the driving force behind those arguments that try to scare many people into believing that these needed changes are going to hurt us more than the companies that will now have to make these changes.

When did it ever become okay for people to make a living from doing what hurts our families and our children.  There was a time when our knowledge of the threat from use of fossil fuels to heat our homes and power our businesses was lacking.  The good life it created by distributing “cheap” energy to large amounts of people in this country over rode any early concerns there may have been for discharging the waste product of spent coal and oil into our ecosystem.  But we know better now and to be mislead by the self-interests of for-profit businesses whose bottom line may suffer from correcting the causes of many ruined lives is the height of arrogance.

We can only hope now that the Obama administration will not back down from intimidation tactics and misleading information that has been and will continue to be coming from the special interests that oppose these new safeguards.  Safeguards that will not only enhance the health of millions of people in the coming years but reduce our out of pocket expenses for health care caused by the past disregard of an industry that put profits before people.

RELATED ARTICLES

Coal-Fired Power Plants: Understanding the Health Costs of a Dirty Energy Source

Springtime for Toxics (Paul Krugman NY Times)


About two weeks ago I wrote a piece on Frank Capra’s inspiring 1946 film “It’s A Wonderful LIfe”.  Of the two things that I mentioned that have endured in my life from watching that film, one of them recently played itself out for me.  The George Bailey character in the movie, played so marvelously by Jimmy Stewart, was given an opportunity to see what the world would be like had he not been born.  On this aspect of the film I commented:

Most of our actions are daily and seemingly mundane but everyone of us have perhaps said or done something once in our life that has made an impact on another and perhaps altered their life to some degree.  Were we always aware of how our comments and actions are filtered by those we come into contact with, we might weigh them more prudently and less-selfishly.

Today, I stepped out my front door on my way to the mailbox and almost tripped over a beautiful potted Poinsettia.

 I thought at first that a friend of my wife’s had left it for her.  She seems to do a lot of “secret Santa” type stuff each year.  But the note attached to the plant dispelled that notion and left me just a bit astonished.  It had obviously been typed out on a computer printer but it was so informally written as to give me the sense that it was handwritten.  I was moved as I read it.

Thank You!

We have lived on Emerson Lane near Woodrow Wilson Elementary School for the past 15+ years.  During this time, we have driven past your home on our daily commutes to school, work, church grocery stores. (Piggly Wiggly), etc.

Each Thanksgiving our children watched with anticipation for Santa and Mrs. Claus kissing under the huge star on your roof.

It was officially the Christmas season when “Santa and Mrs. Claus by the Pig Store” when(sic) up!

Our kids (twins) are 22 years old now and of course “The Pig Store”” is long gone.

Thank you for providing a Christmas Tradition to our family.

The letter was signed but I’ll withhold it here for reasons that respect the lady’s privacy who signed it.  I do  not recognize her name even though Emerson Lane is a mere two blocks just north of my house.  The “Pig Store” she’s referring to is the Piggly Wiggly grocery store that shut down a little over a year ago.  They simply weren’t profitable enough to compete with Kroger’s nearby and the Super Wal-mart store a few miles from here.  The building remains empty to this day.

“Santa and Mrs. Claus” are two hardwood cutouts my wife bought some 15 plus years ago from an acquaintance who did this type of art work as a hobby, but one that provided a small income for them, especially during the holiday season.  It’s anchored to a front brick facade on my house as seen here.

Santa is holding a sprig of mistletoe over Mrs. Claus’ head to entice her for perhaps a farewell kiss before he summons Rudolph and friends to set out on their annual global trek.

The star on my roof is five strands of miniature lights connected together that I have hand-fashioned into the shape my heretofore unknown admirer and her kids have enjoyed all of these years. I marked the star’s point spots with a colored caulk that matches the roof shingles so I can easily locate them each year without the hassle of trying to successfully achieve each year what I was able to do on my first effort nearly two decades ago.

Several of our friends have commented on the star and one businessman that lived around the block from our home some years ago (and who has since moved) stopped by to ask one day how I had created a star that size that looks reasonably symmetrical in its design.  “Got Lucky”, I told him.  But I made sure that it wouldn’t be luck in the future by marking the star’s points.

Each year as I age it get’s a little tougher to put out the Christmas decorations.  I did stop putting up lights along the front facia trim and up the ridges of the roof because it was just becoming too physically taxing.  I was going to stop laying out the star also but my wife, who really get’s into dressing up the house, keeps encouraging me each year to continue.  I think the fact that so many of her friends comment on it each year makes her feel that it’s important to not let them down.  But it wasn’t until we received this poinsettia and the note that if became clear to me how much something as simple as this not only gave her friends a few weeks of pleasure each time they passed by but how it has become a “Christmas tradition” for an entire family that we have never even met.

I now realize that until my body is completely crippled, I must find the energy each year to put Santa and Mrs. Claus up, stealing a kiss under the make-shift “Star of David”, lest I ruin a moment of delight for a few of my neighbors.  The crass commercialism that this holiday has become a part of has ruined the mood for me as I’m sure it has with most everyone else.  But now there is renewed meaning for me.  One that reaffirms the emotional joy that only children can exude from seeing symbols of the holiday that enable their sense of anticipation for that special morning under the Christmas tree.

Two "kids" and their toy pony


Raised in the Catholic Church and a one-time professed “born again” Christian, I have since discovered through careful historical readings that the fundamentalist views of some Christians today do not always reflect the reality of this system of faith.

 

I hate to come across as a humbug this time of year so if you are in the “Christmas Spirit” and don’t want to be brought down from it, you might want to skip this post until another time.  The subject matter isn’t necessarily related to this “jolly” season but it was a recent letter to the editor in my local newspaper that activated my response here.

Affirming his belief that we should keep the Christ in Christmas, the writer of that letter seems to ignore the fact as many do that though the season is all about the birth of the baby Jesus as described in the new testament, it is in fact NOT the actual birthday of the Nazarene.  Nobody really knows when that is but historical records indicate that some believed it to be the first week in January.

Bruce David Forbes, author of “Christmas: A Candid History,” says those who delay Christmas festivities can take some comfort in the fact that Dec. 25 isn’t the date of the birth of Christ.

When Christians started celebrating his birth in the 300s after the Roman emperor Constantine converted to that religion, they didn’t know the birthdate, so it appears that they picked a day to coincide with Romans’ midwinter celebrations of their own gods. Meanwhile, Christians in more eastern countries, like Turkey and Greece, were already celebrating on Jan. 6.   SOURCE

It seems we have the pagans to thank for this holiest of Christian holidays.

Also, in a news story back in 2008, astronomers speculated that, based on their calculations of when the “star of David” appeared over Bethlehem a couple of thousand years ago, that the birth of Jesus was sometimes in June.  If that notion had been picked up by the Roman Catholic church initially, all of the “White Christmas” references would never have materialized and Santa’s red suit would now be a tropical shirt and shorts attire.

But this isn’t the part of the writer’s letter that rubs me the wrong way.  It is the notion that we are primarily a nation “founded on Judeo-Christian values”.  There is no argument from me that much of what our laws are based on come from the Mosaic laws and are inherently fitted to some core christian values.  But it is distortion of the worst kind, in my opinion, to presume that everyone who came to this country did so to establish Judeo-christian values.

Sure the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock were escaping religious persecution in England but let’s remember that that rigid group of people had a set of values in many ways that resembled more how the Romans treated early Christians than they did the teachings of Jesus.  The most well-known display of such un-Christian behavior was the innocent killing of people that were hysterically deigned as “witches”.  Fear, not compassion, compelled the actions by which people burned some of their own for alleged heretical beliefs.

Expressing the Christian virtue of Tolerance?

The social structure back in the early colonial days was strictly paternalistic and the legal codes “especially in the Puritan north – served as enforcement arms of religious orthodoxy.”  Women and non-whites were viewed as lesser human beings.

Community leaders acted as stern fathers to the children God had entrusted to their care. Members of the community were supposed to be taught God’s paths for their lives and brought back into the fold when they strayed – but the rod was not spared.

Laws against Quakers were … worse than those against Anabaptists – they could be executed if they dared to return after having been banished. Quakers appear to have been especially feared as threatening to “undermine & ruine” the properly instituted authorities of the colony. Two Quakers were made examples of and hanged in 1659, but they weren’t the only ones.

Blasphemy was another crime which merited swift and harsh punishment – as with the previous examples, any act which might undermine unquestioning faith as promoted by the local religious leaders was regarded as threatening to undermine general social stability. Blasphemers could, at court discretion, be put in the pillory, whipped, have his tongue bored out with a hot iron, or be forced to stand in the gallows with a rope around his neck.  SOURCE

People like this letter writer cherry pick those parts of our socio-religious culture to create an illusion that is a far cry from what life was really like back when.  If they were really so adamant that our nation should reflect the Judeo-christian tradition then they should be putting to death their disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18) and punishing bankers that have profited greatly from loans to people of low income. (Deuteronomy 23:19-20, Exodus 22:25, Leviticus 25:35-37)

A closer reading of the founding fathers who put our constitution together will show that many of these men were not great men of faith and many, like Ben Franklin, were Deists, not Christians.  Their primary concerns as they spelled out the laws of this land were based more on property rights than on concepts found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount since they were pretty much all land-owning aristocrats and not humble men who “fear the Lord”.

Enjoy your religious holidays and prescribe to those tenants in your faith that reflect compassion and tolerance but don’t presume to be a victim in a society where most people claim to be Christians while giving more support to Wall Street bankers than Occupy protesters and attack all Muslims because of the radical views of a minority.  I can’t be sure, but it’s possible that that is not what the baby Jesus would want.

Related Articles:

The Tea Party, the Constitution and the Founding Fathers: An Argument Without End 

How I Learned to Move Beyond the God of My Religious Upbringing 


Terms of Endearment?

 

 

There’s a woman I’m familiar with that likes to refer to her husband as the “sarge”.  Sgt. G—  she refers to him as.  I don’t know her well  enough however to know if this a refererence to his rank in the military, police department or some right wing militia.  Did I mention she’s a died-in-the-wool Tea Partier?  There’s probably a tattoo of “Old Glory” planted somewhere on his anatomy that a young man might have thought his buddies would have found clever but I don’t even want to raise that image anymore than I already have.  Perhaps even one of the Stars and Bars

I wish I could get my wife to refer to me with my E-3 ranking of Lance Corporeal but we all know I would be out-ranked anyway since she’s the General of our outfit.  Besides, LanceCorporal doesn’t quite have the pizzaz that “sarge” does and a shortened form like “LC” might bring up images of the Borden’s milk cow.  She does refer to me in ways though that do remind me of my bootcamps days in the Marines, like “scum bag”, “meat head”  and “fart sack”.

 


HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT

In Part I I talked about those elements in free market thinking that puts job creation above other human needs and that those who take this tact use it for persuading voters to keep government “over reach” out of the free markets, a position that presumes that if left alone, an “invisible hand” of the market will create a level field and ultimately make life better for all of us

However the human element of greed has taken root in Capitalism and the vision that Adam Smith spoke to is now being exploited and allowing some to expand their wealth to the detriment of the rest of us.  It has creeped into the very system of government that allowed the free markets to flourish and is changing our democracy to one of a plutocracy

“Yes, our regulatory agencies are incompetent. But they are incompetent by design.” –writer David Goldstein

During the Bush/Cheney years nearly every agency and department was staffed and chaired by people from the very industries they were supposed to monitor and check for abuses and excesses.  Laws were watered down and in many cases overlooked to prevent what they felt was any undue hardship to corporate interests.  One of the most glaring examples was failure of the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf last year.  The short cuts and omissions by management helped create conditions that led to this human and environmental disaster  but government oversight was lacking and perhaps led to this lax state of mind by the industry

Bush’s Mineral Management Service Agency Director (now called BOEMRE, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement), Johnnie Burton, and her boss at the Interior Department are but two examples.

In July, Republicans the House Government Reform Committee accused [Ms. Burton’s] agency of stonewalling their investigation. In September, they accused [her] of going too far in making concessions to oil companies. That same month, the Interior Department’s chief independent investigator declared that “short of crime, anything goes at the highest levels of the Department of the Interior.

Under President Bush, the Interior Department’s top ranks were filled with people with close ties to industry. Most prominent were Gale A. Norton, a strong advocate of domestic drilling who [eventually] stepped down as Interior secretary and subsequently joined Shell Oil, and G. Steven Griles, a former industry lobbyist who became deputy secretary and now faces a possible indictment on charges of lying about his dealings with the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

In November [of 2006], Interior officials announced that a new task force of outside experts would evaluate the royalty program. Officials named David T. Deal, a longtime lawyer for the American Petroleum Institute, to head the panel.

“[Under Bush], there [w]as … a clear agenda to promote oil and gas development wherever and however they can,” said Erich Pica, a policy analyst at Friends of the Earth, an environmental policy group. “Time and again, you [saw] the administration and its political appointees side with the oil and gas companies.”   SOURCE

The problem of corporate cronyism under Bush was so prevalent that the sentiment expressed in 2005 by former EPA toxicologist, Deborah Rice, pretty much sums it up – “They [the FDA] really consider the fish industry to be their clients, rather than the U.S. public.”  But this sort of relationship started long before George W. Bush became our 43rd President and has existed to some degree in most administrations.  Shortly after we became a nation, men like Thomas Jefferson were already concerned about corporations and their influence in government.

 “I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”  Thomas Jefferson,  1816

Even James Madison, a favorite of the TeaParty crowd, saw the encroachment of corporate power as a threat to the new republic.

There is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by…corporations. The power of all corporations ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses. -President James Madison

The complicity of ardent, laissez faire free marketers to over look the flaws and deception by corporate interests has reached a level that simply defies logic.  The belief that individual liberties always supersede the collective good has led many political leaders paid by corporate lobbyists to promote their concerns even in light of serious issues where better judgement would pause and reflect on the wisdom or the lack thereof to follow through with them.

Take for example the current stand taken by those on the right towards the EPA’s efforts to monitor CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants.  It has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt already that such sources of energy production create other toxic emissions like mercury and ash that have caused serious health issues with populations that live in close proximity to these facilities.   CO2 buildup in the earth’s atmosphere is occurring at a faster rate than historical records have shown and yet corporate friendly congress men and women refuse to make provisions to keep in check such emissions from a source known to contribute heavily to this build up.

There are those within the industry that see the need to comply with efforts to keep our CO2 emissions at reduced rates to prevent their further impact on man-made global warming but the ardent laissez faire free marketers within that industry are spending millions to obstruct such efforts based purely on their ideological beliefs that it is not the government’s job to inhibit their production and thus their profits.   Specious arguments are contrived by paid goons to dispel the threats of global warming by presenting arguments that have been aptly debunked by a consensus of climate scientists.

Critical thinking is abandoned by such strongly held views that refuse to look outside the box of their own thinking.  It is one thing to hold to views that don’t require the use of tools at our disposal to attest to the veracity of such claims and another to ignore the body of evidence that reliably shows how the actions of “A” can lead to the consequences of “B”.

In religious views for example there are no measuring devices to better ascertain whether an unseen force uses evil to punish a wayward people as Jerry Falwell claimed on Pat Roberson’s 700 Club shortly following the terrorist attacks on 9/11,  or the belief by many evangelicals that “God causes disasters and sometimes does so as punishment.”   But we have the capabilities and tools to measure global warming’s impact on climate change through an array of measuring devices spread across the globe, on land, under the sea and in the air.   Some skeptics, especially those paid by the fossil fuel industry, may refute or challenge the findings of these measurements but the countless empirical tests of numerous different hypotheses that have now built up a massive body of Earth science knowledge creates a consensus view that only a fool would deny.

” A real free market does not allow one person to damage another person with impunity.” — Michael Rozeff

It is equally dangerous to ignore the bigger picture where only one aspect dominates the thinking of authoritative figures over the total impact of a given decision.  The outcry by ardent laissez faire free marketers regarding the delay of construction of the Keystone XL pipeline that will transfer oil from the Canadian tar sands in Alberta to the refineries in Texas is a case in point.  They claim in this time of high unemployment that we should be doing everything we can to push for the types of jobs this pipeline will create.

It makes a good argument but overlooks the bigger picture we face for potential health and environmental hazards similar to what we suffered from not only the BP Gulf oil disaster but from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, BP’s TransAlaska pipeline, a million-gallon oil spill in Michigan, and a gas explosion that destroyed 37 homes and killed eight people in California.  There are also the “14 other spills that have occurred from Keystone since the first phase opened in 2010”, says Vern Meier, the company’s vice president of U.S. pipeline operations.

“Much corporate environmentalism boils down to misleading statistics and hype.” –Business Week cover story investigating the impacts of corporate environmental initiatives

The environmental threats are worth noting, especially individual concerns that the pipeline’s path “would threaten the water for people in seven states and a third of irrigated groundwater for U.S. agriculture.”  This could prove to be costly in the not-so-distant future for those municipalities in these areas, eating more into the already dwindling wages of most workers.    There is also the very real possibility that constructing this pipeline as planned “will raise gasoline prices.”   

I have not even mentioned the reality that this project extends our dependence on a source of fuel that directly impacts man-made global warming; warming that will melt the glaciers and arctic ice, raising sea levels that will devastate the world’s coastal cities and cover some nation islands.   When these factors are included into the equation the long term health care and energy cost increases that will result are sure to outweigh the immediate need to create jobs today.  When that time arrives will we have regretted our haste to achieve a short term goal that will leave our budgets even further strained had we thought things through more critically?

“The difference between what we are doing and what we are capable of doing would solve most of the world’s problems.” — Mahatma Gandhi

Job creation from sustaining the finite fossil fuel sources of energy today need to be weighed in terms that look beyond tomorrow.  Increased costs for finding the more hidden remaining sources of oil and coal will not keep these sources cheap and their use will continue to create health issues as they also threaten our ecosystem, creating food and water shortages around the globe and opening us to the hazards of war to compete for these dwindling essentials

When such views hold that violent climatic changes are a sign from God and that immediate concerns should ignore long term consequences, you have to wonder if the thinking of the Dark Ages is not resurfacing.

The real owners of this country, the wealthy business interests … don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking.  They don’t want well-informed, well-educated people capable of critical thinking.  That doesn’t help them.  That’s against their interest.  - George Carlin

RELATED ARTICLES:

What The Founding Fathers Thought About Corporations

30 Major U.S. Corporations Paid More to Lobby Congress Than Income Taxes, 2008-2010 

The Hazards of Ideology When Critical Thinking is Removed: Part I



Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 81 other followers