Reading the Teabags

Man has always been involved in trying to foresee, to foretell the future. The History channel broadcasts the predictions of Nostradamus. Tarot cards, once favored by wizards are no longer so regarded. Gypsies made reading the tea leaves fashionable and the phrase survives as a metaphor. Now, however, we are left with a new device for future casts, the teabags. Since reading the teabags is a fairly new phenomena, we had not yet built a body of expertise on the subject but some feckless, if not foolhardy, new casters are venturing into this uncharted discipline.Teabag-based forecasts regarding the 2010 elections abound. Sarah Palin, still in pursuit of her golden harvest, plans to charge the teabaggers convention $115,000 for a talking appearance, not that she has much of value to say, but, hell, she can usually draw a crowd. It remains to be seen whether the "Lipton lobby" will sell off enough reservations at $550 a plate, to cover the spread, but Sarah has read the teabags. We'll see.

The Promised Land

On January 18, watching the History channel on TV, I

saw MLK's Washington speech concerning the” movement” and his

comment "I have seen the promised land." After all these years, despite

the progress of the civil rights movement I must conclude there is no

promised land and in fact it is a poor metaphor. Striving for

betterment is the journey.

Buddha's wiser counsel, that there is only the journey, is far better,

both as a goal for behavior and descriptive realization that striving

for enlightenment to improve our world is far better than hoping for

some idealized destination called the promised land.

I'm reminded also of the novel "Darkness at Noon" analyzing the

communist movement and its dogma that the end justifies the means,

concluding that there are only means, there is no end and behavior

must find its justification in the here and now, not excused by some

envisioned, distant result where the gains far outweigh the pain and

cost of progress.

There is only the journey.

Defense Spending Appropriations

Last month Congress passed the $636 billion, Defense Spending Appropriations bill, which appropriates 55% of all federal taxes with barely a whimper of objection raised. Loaded with earmarks inserted by congressmen and senators alike, it provides billions to purchase aircraft  which DOD doesn't need or want but which provide work for favored industries in their home states and districts, without any protest from the administration or DOD. New aircraft carriers costing billions are under construction despite the fact that they were unneeded by the Navy. Boon doggles and pork on parade. In 1961, retiring President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell speech, warned of the dangers of the growing power of the military industrial complex, of how that combination would grow in power and override other concerns and claims upon the budget unless careful and continued scrutiny was observed, The unwarranted influence of this combination could threaten security and liberty. Regretfully, we failed to heed  Eisenhower's warning and the military budget passes without scrutiny while the remainder of the budget  is shredded, allegedly in the service of economical  government. While congress wrings its collective hands over the costs of health care, global warming and a host of other important concerns, the military gets a free pass, a platinum credit card to use as they please, beyond criticism or oversight. Only one remedy is now possible to put an end to this repeated abuse. That is the passage of a constitutional amendment providing for a presidential line item veto. This would enable the President to strike from an appropriation any item deemed inappropriate. Currently, the President must veto the entire act or permit it to pass into law unchanged. By adding earmarks and other unrelated and marginal items to a critical appropriations passage of these “pork” items are virtually assured, unless the President is willing to veto the entire bill and precipiate a confrontational crisis.

Communication

In the last decade TV news reporters have inaccurately used the terms: “next” “straight ahead” and “but first” when they really meant “eventually” or “sooner or later.” This should have served as a cautionary notice for a breakdown in communication.

Letters and phone calls have been replaced with e-mails, twitter,google, face book and texting. People no longer communicate directly.

Periodically I am informed that someone has declared I am their “friend” or someone has written on my wall. In all candor, I did not know that I had a wall and I am unsure of my responsibility for it now that people are writing on it. I am fearful that it may be something inflammatory like the wall posters that caused such a stir in China a while back. Then again if it is something obscene or offensive I suppose I have a responsibility to have it removed, but I’m unsure as to the location of my wall.

I have yet to review any texting and I’m informed there is something of a cryptic coding involved. Can a revival of pig latin be far behind? 

Small Government Fallacy

It is argued that what we need is a smaller government, as if less government will provide a better, stronger society. This premise is advanced without any consideration  of how our government grew to their current size. The government grew largely in response to problems in our society, abuses which were not  resolved and a ruthless exploitation  of the American people by a few people with power and privilege. During the era of our history called the Gilded Age, when extravagance and excess were the hallmarks of the life style of the rich, the rest of the people worked and lived in conditions of abject poverty. Those ultra rich who owned the railroads, the steel industry, mining and manufacturing treated labor as a commodity rather than people. Writers, known collectively as "muckrakers" publicized the horrible working conditions and other abusive practices of big business. Government responded to the needs  of the people. "The Progressive Movement" created institutions to regulate and control objectionable practices. Decent working conditions, minimum wages, safety regulations were promised. The ICC was established to curtail railroad abuses, the SEC to limit stock market frauds, Pure Food and Drug  regulations protect public health to name a few.  As problem areas surfaced and no relief was in sight, government responded on behalf of the people, to provide protection and satisfy a need otherwise neglected. In short, government didn't just grow big by accident nor for any sinister purpose, rather it grew to promote the health, safety and prosperous society which was America.   Reagan opined that the government was the problem and created a movement which advantaged the rich by abolishing regulation whenever possible. We dutifully dismantled protection that had served so well. We have just survived from the folly of that philosophy which led to the banking and Wall Street abuses which almost destroyed the economy. Neither small nor large government, per se, is the answer. We need sensible, responsible government to prevent abuses. Size alone is no criterion with which to judge whether government is well serving its people. Reducing the size of government without concern with what aspects  of society then go unregulated can only lead to another "Gilded Age"  where some of us live in luxury and excess while the rest of society subsists on unemployment benefits and food stamps.