Gregory G. H. Rihn (milwaukeesfs) wrote,
Gregory G. H. Rihn

Politics, October 2011

1. Re: "Class Warfare". The first time this term started being flung around recently was back during the Bush2 administration, at which time I said,
"Right. When the rich start trying to warn people off of 'class warfare', what that means is that the war's already begun, and that this time it's the rich making war on the middle class, not the poor on the rich."

It's truer now than it ever was. Those with power and wealth have evidently decided that America doesn't need a middle class, and have stepped up programs that have the effect of doing away with family-supporting jobs, home ownership, reasonable access to medical care, and retirement security of any kind (not just talking about Social Security, here--erosion of pension benefits, where they even exist, in private industry has been slow but steady--). It's not so much that this is a coherent plan, it's just that this is a side effect of the super-rich being hell-bent on heading off anything that they see as a risk to their enormous fortunes, however small. This is ultimately short-sighted, since the middle class drives the US economy. However, I'm afraid that international corporations and financiers only really care about the US as a relatively secure base of operations, while the real money will be made in economies with more room to grow, like China and India.

Why are people like the Koch Brothers, worth an estimated forty BILLION dollars each, spending their money in order to squash the aspirations of people who make maybe forty thousand a year? Partly, I think, it's about power--just because they can--but also, plain greed. I recall a southern saying about a man who was "so stingy, he would chase a mouse to hell for a pumpkinseed." I think that's part of what's going on here, too. The greed is so great they can't bear to part with any of their hoard to pay mere taxes, so they are willing to wreck the nation and the lives of anyone less rich than themselves to keep their pelf.

The brazenness of it is shocking. The Wall Street bankers and others now smarting under deserved criticism from protesters, have had the gall, in the wake of the worst financial meltdown since the Great Drepression, to argue that no new regulation is needed. In other words, having nearly wrecked the economy and ruining millions while filling their own pockets, they demand to be allowed the license to do it again in the future, and have commanded their tame running dogs in the Republican party to make it so.

As you may gather, I support the "Occupy Wall Street" protests, and I hope that more will be done to discomfort the presently comfortable.

2. The Rise of Newspeak: I've been ironically amused by the gaffes thrown out by the Republican debaters, in particular Bachmann and Perry. What they seem to be doing is "duckspeak," as defined by George Orwell: Duckspeak is a Newspeak term meaning literally to quack like a duck or to speak without thinking. Duckspeak can be either good or "ungood" (bad), depending on who is speaking, and whether what they are saying is in following with the ideals of Big Brother. To speak rubbish and lies may be ungood, but to speak rubbish and lies for the good of "The Party" may be good. (Wikipedia). When Perry, for example, states the absolute lie that the Federal government has had no involvement with border control (what, no Customs and Immigration, no Border Patrol, no National Guard) he is blurting out what he reflexively assumes the faithful want to hear, with no consideration as to whether it is factual or not. While this may play well at Tea Party rallies, it has so far done less well in more open forums. Fortunately, there are still "Oldspeakers" in the press to point these things out.

3. Anwar al-Awlaki. Civil libertarians have been questioning the appropriateness of the drone-strike killing of al-Awlaki, who was born in the United States and apparently possessed both U.S. and Yemeni citizenship.
While I consider myself a civil libertarian as well, I would like to suggest to my fellows that, in this case, they sit down and shut up. If Al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, then he was also a traitor if anyone ever was, advocating war against the United States, giving aid and comfort to its enemies, and being involved in taking up arms against the USA and its people.

It's all very well to say that terrorists should be tried. I agree with that, where practicable. But I also think that Al-Awlaki was no less an enemy and a danger than Osama Bin Laden, and I see no reason why we allow these foes to continue their careers of violence just because we can't take them alive. They knew the job was dangerous when they took it.

This entry was originally posted at Please comment there using OpenID.
Tags: economics, politics
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded