Not Enough Panem, Too Many Circenses

Gladiatorial Combat: A Giant Distraction?

Gladiatorial Combat: A Giant Distraction?

The phrase “bread and circuses” (in Latin, panem et circenses) comes from the Roman poet Juvenal’s Tenth Satire: “Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions—everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses.”

Politics in America has become a costly form of entertainment. Costly because, as a society, we put so much time and money into the process—at the expense of what we should be doing to insure justice and polling access to all Americans, shore up our sagging infrastructure, feed our poor, and begin transitioning to technologies that protect us from the vagaries of climate change.

The 2016 presidential campaign is in full gear, with scores of wannabes who intend on becoming Sarah Palins. It’s a splendid career: Serve half a term in office and make big money giving occasional speeches to people who are outraged about … about … oh, well, you name it! And with very little effort! Donald Trump will spend untold millions, but he will become a hero to the feeble-minded who want to hear what he has to say. Ditto Scott Walker, Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, and even some of the Democratic candidates.

You might call them political clickbait. They promise much, but in true American political style, deliver little—and certainly nothing that’s to the point.

I urge you not to be entertained by the whole process. Elections are a serious business, not a gladiatorial combat. If we vote in a lot of people who will spend their entire terms posturing and japing, we’re through as a nation.

 

Weasel Words and Glittering Generalities

What Does “Heritage” Mean?

What Does “Heritage” Mean?

It’s words like “liberty” and “patriotism” that get my hackles up because they mean little but try to enforce agreement with some person or organization’s political stance. “Heritage” is one of them. Originally,it meant birthright, or something inherited such as values. It is used particularly by conservatives who want to convince people that the old values are best and worth preserving. You will find it most heavily used in the South, particularly in connection with the antebellum South in the good old days of slavery. That Confederate battle flag that was recently brought down in South Carolina stands for a whole congeries of values that many people outside the South would find repellent, such as nigras staying in their “rightful place” and local governments taking precedence over the Federal Government.

Today, you will find Southern apologists saying that the Civil War was fought over “States’ Rights,” not over slavery. All that “States’ Rights” really means is that those powers not specifically reserved by the Federal Government in the U.S. Constitution may be exercised by the individual states. The wording from the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In actual practice, the term has been used as a code word advocating racial segregation.

George Orwell

George Orwell

Perhaps the best statement of how language is used to confuse political issues is a 1946 essay by George Orwell entitled “Politics and the English Language.” It is so applicable even today that I urge you to take a few minutes to read it on this website. Under the heading of Meaningless Words, Orwell wrote:

In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, ‘The outstanding feature of Mr. X’s work is its living quality’, while another writes, ‘The immediately striking thing about Mr. X’s work is its peculiar deadness’, the reader accepts this as a simple difference opinion. If words like black and white were involved, instead of the jargon words dead and living, he would see at once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

Particularly in the political sphere, one must be vigilant about the definitions of words, especially when they border on the meaningless. So celebrate your “heritage” if you must—whatever it is—but don’t try to bludgeon us over the head with it.

Party Pooper

Thanks, But No Thanks!

Thanks, But No Thanks!

It seems to me that political parties exists solely for the purpose of concentrating and funneling contributions for candidates and propositions. If there were no political parties, Sherman Adelson and the Koch Brothers would have a much more difficult task attempting to make television and print advertising buys.

I no longer make contributions to political parties, partly because I detest all political advertising and because I feel that every candidate I have ever supported as let me down in a big way. Consequently, instead of calling myself a Democrat, I see myself as a left-leaning Independent. I will probably continue to vote mostly Democratic (while holding my nose), but do not have any interest in their marketing problems. All political telephone calls are quickly dispensed with: “I’m sorry, I view myself as an anarcho-syndicalist and your candidate is just not toeing the line!”

Why support a gang whose primarily role is to get my vote at any cost, and then proceed to turn every political promise into a prevarication? As if the whole spectrum of American politics can be compressed into the platforms of two political parties! Let there be dozens of parties: It would force them to talk to one another.

If you think this is impractical, turn your attention to Iceland, where the fastest growing party is the Pirate Party.

Totally Out of Whack

None of These Bozos Will Make It to the White House

None of These Bozos Will Make It to the White House

There are currently so many GOP candidates for the Presidency that they could not fit into any vehicle smaller than the trailer of an eighteen-wheeler. Frankly, I don’t think I can name them all from memory. All I know about them is that they tend to say a lot of stupid things, which the echo chamber of the press magnifies until it seems that there is only one political party: The Tea Party.

As for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, no one really likes her. I don’t like her. Martine despises her. She is probably more competent to run our country than any of the Klown Kar Republicans. But she knows that everything she says will be drowned out by cries of Benghazi! E-mail! Foundation money! Why, I wouldn’t even be surprised if Faux News reveals that she had a torrid affair with Monica Lewinsky, and they probably have the dress to prove it!

Our political process has become so toxic that the only reason I vote is that I know that, if I didn’t, some Evangelical Jesus child molester will win. Gone is any Roman sense of duty. I will trudge down to the polling precinct by myself, thinking dark thoughts, while crowded church buses full of rednecks vote en masse.

Attacked by One of Their Own

James Laughlin Visits Burma

James Laughlin Visits Burma

Every once in a million years, someone from the hated 1% not makes a positive contribution to the culture but also attacks his fellow millionaires. James Laughlin (1914-1997) was not only a poet of some repute, but also the founder and publisher of the New Directions paperbacks that are to be found all over my library, including my favorite volume of stories by Jorge Luis Borges:

One of My All-Time Faves

One of My All-Time Faves

Interestingly, James Laughlin was from the Laughlins of Jones & Laughlin Steel Company, founded in 1852 and one of the giants of American manufacturing.

Imagine what his family thought of the following poem attacking corporate executives for their intransigence in a remarkably modern way:

Confidential Report

The president of the
corporation was of the

opinion that the best
thing to do was just

to let the old ship
sink as pleasantly &

easily as possible be-
cause it was plain as

day you couldn’t op-
erate at a profit as

long as that man was
in the white house &

now he was there for
good you might just

as well fold yr hands
and shut yr face and

let the old boat take
water till she sank.

Now it is quite obvious that the president of whom Laughlin was talking was Franklin D. Roosevelt, though I can see the same thing being said about Obama, Carter, or even Clinton.

 

Cristina’s Bulldog

You Know When You’ve Been Dissed by Aníbal!

You Know When You’ve Been Dissed by Aníbal!

Aníbal Domingo Fernández fills a useful slot in the Argentinian Government. Officially, he is Chief of the Cabinet of Ministers of Argentina. Unofficially, whenever the government of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (no relation) comes under attack, Aníbal is there gesticulating and coining subtly deprecatory phrases that makes the opposition wonder whether and how much they were just dissed.

Could you imagine someone on Obama’s staff who is there to counterattack whenever Ted Cruz or Rush Limbaugh or Louis Gohmert lets loose one of their smellies, and not only counterattack but make the perpetrator uncomfortably check to see whether his zipper is in the approved upright position.

When there was a scandal regarding infant malnutrition in the city of Tucumán, he is known to have said the problem was caused by “a sick society and a ruling class that are sons of bitches, all of them.” Imagine what Aníbal would say about Fox News when he called Buenos Aires TV host Mirtha Legrand “uneducated, rude, ignorant” and claimed that she “says stupid things.”

In January 2019, he called economist Martin Redrado a “fool” and “freak” who “thinks he is the center of the world and fails to show respect for Argentinians.”

Yes, I think Obama should hire him.

A New Mascot for the GOP

Don’t You Think It’s Appropriate?

Don’t You Think It’s Appropriate?

This is reprinted from a January 2012 posting to the late Multiply.Com:

While the donkey is not a bad mascot for the Democrats, I never thought of the elephant as the truest representation for the GOP. Elephants are actually fairly intelligent: Their brains are larger than those of any other land mammal. And whale brains, though they could be larger, are still smaller proportionately to the elephant’s brain. A whale twenty times as big an as elephant still has a brain that is only twice as large as the pachyderm’s. What is more, elephant brains are strikingly similar to human brains in structure and complexity.

No, what I propose for the Republicans as a symbol is the rhinoceros. Their thick hides do not allow facts to penetrate, and they are likely to launch an attack for no good reason at all. The rhino pictured above is from a 1550 German document and looks ideal for the party of Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rich Santorum, and Ron Paul.

What is the rhino’s message? “We don’t like your looks; we don’t care about what you have to say; and we are going to attack your ass until it’s hyena chow.”

Also, it is appropriate that the word rhino is British slang for money; and we all know the GOP is the party that stands for big money. (It’s interesting how that came into the language: rhino- is the Greek root for nose, and the word has come to mean cash money for paying through the nose.)

Nattering Nabobs of Negativism

It Seems That Most Politics Is Driven by Hate

It Seems That Most Politics Is Driven by Hate

The phrase is from the late Vice President Spiro T. Agnew, referring to the news media. I think, however, in today’s poisonous climate, it refers to most populist politics. According to an article in the current edition of The New Scientist entitled “We Are What We Vote,” we find the following paragraph:

Research in the past few years using information on brain structure and function from MRI scans, psychological responses, eye-trackers and behavioural genetics, shows that individual political orientations are deeply connected to biological forces that are usually beyond personal control…. Despite initial incredulity—people like to believe political opinions are rational responses to salient events—the evidence that political preferences are linked to systems that often involve subconscious is growing. An admittedly simplistic but useful summary of this research is that human emotions are grounded in biology, and politics is grounded in emotions.

If you are left-leaning, a look at Raw Story or Salon.Com will send your blood boiling based on what such fear totems as Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, and Rush Limbaugh are saying. If, on the other hand, your news source of preference is The Drudge Report or RedState.Com, you will find articles bemoaning attacks on liberty, gun ownership, and fundamentalist religion. The intention is generally to make you feel outrage and hatred.

For each article by a reasonable commentator, there are typically half a dozen or more pieces excoriating “the enemy.” If it is hard to get away from knee-jerk reactions, it is partly because, amid all the clickbaiting, there are all too many examples in the mainstream media.

There is even an entire news network dedicated to fear and outrage. Do I have to name it, or can you guess?

The Stale Language of Protest

This Is What It’s Usually About

This Is What It’s Usually About

Every so often, I feel that a particular mode of behavior has run its course. I think it’s time for a paradigm shift (perhaps that expression has run its course as well) in the art of protest. Turn on any news program, and you are sure to see a group of people carrying placards and usually moving around in a circle chanting very stale slogans. Typically, a newsman will hold a microphone and camera up to one of the most inarticulate of the protesters and ask them why he or she is picketing. After a few hems and haws, the protester will say that so and so is unfair or unjust or dangerous or just irksome as all get-out.

Now it is possible that all ten people who think like the protester are with him marching around and chanting. It is indeed probable that the viewpoint being expressed is not only in the minority, but a statistically insignificant sliver of the total population. In our era of “fair and balanced” news reporting, we are eager to seek out these minority viewpoints and make as much hay with them as possible. Think of these boring protests as a boon to news organizations, particularly on a slow news day.

I am always for more ingenuity. If one’s point of view is to be effectively conveyed, I say do something that people will remember. Let me cite a classic example. An Argentinian condom manufacturer who was also a big soccer fan published the following graphic before a match with Brazil:

PICBA1

I will not try to explain exactly what is happening here because—well, if you don’t know, you probably haven’t reached the age of puberty yet. Needless to say, the B stands for Brazil and the A for Argentina. This did not sit well with the Brazilian soccer fans. When their team pasted the Argentinians, they rubbed it in by publishing an even funnier graphic:

PICBA2

I will always remember this as perhaps the most inventive act of protest I have ever seen.

The next time you feel like taking to the streets with your message, try something different. Think of the streets as a form of theater. And start from there.

(This is a re-posting of one of my 2009 entries from Blog.Com.)

Time to Climb Off the Carousel

Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative—Just Going Round in Circles

Liberal, Libertarian, Conservative—Just Going Round in Circles

You’ve probably learned by now that political labels in American politics are primarily for assigning blame, whether due or not. That’s why I decided to not to write any more outrage pieces on my blog site. It was too easy to react to stupid things the other side was saying.

Oh, I’m still a Democrat, but as my hero Will Rogers once said: “I am not a member of any organized party—I am a Democrat.” But I do not accept phone calls from any political party. And I’ve contacted the Democratic fund raisers who were bombarding my e-mail to stop it. Of course, Republicans and Libertarians know better than to try to contact me for any reason. I have my doubts about Democrats (a.k.a. The Circular Firing Squad), but I like the other guys even less. I figure that if Faux News has something good to say about anybody, they’re probably a serial child molester and would-be tyrant.

Do I consider myself a Liberal? Not really. Fiscally, I’m a bit on the Conservative side. My goal is not to see the Federal, State, and Local governments all spend themselves into bankruptcy; but I think that we can’t neglect the poor, the way that many troglodyte Conservatives advocate.

All the political labels have resulted only in a lot of Americans hating one another solely for their stated political affiliation. I’d prefer to judge people on the way they act.