For Joe, Who Loves Business and Opposes Government.

Joe, healthy societies cost money. You can't have a safe neighborhood, a stable bank account, reliable electric and telephone service, courts that give recourse to the law equally, schools that prepare kids to become responsible and self-reliant adults, clean water, safe medicines, untainted foods... without lots and lots of money. This is the case everywhere. And almost everywhere, people do NOT have these things.

People on the Right tend to talk about taxes in ideals, as in, "it's not the role of government..." or "people shouldn't rely on institutions..." These are legitimate thoughts and are of course true. They also tend to focus on government waste, inefficiency, lousy programs, etc. as areas to tap for needed funds for the legitimate purposes of government.

But in business, if an idea, a product fails, it gets shut down, changed, or the business as a whole fails. In government, there is no luxury of starting over - or failure, for that matter. You can start a business a thousand times. You can fire workers. Increase, decrease, or eliminate benefits. Change prices. Put profits in foreign bank accounts, thus improving the bottom line.

But we started our government once. And we did a damn good job.

A digression, if I may: I am a social worker. I work waaaay down on the ground where the stomachs and assholes (not the personalities, the actual body parts) dwell. It's not enough to say that government should create the conditions for free markets and then get the hell out of the way. We can't fire citizens no matter how poorly they work or how sick or dysfunctional they become. If we try, they end up costing us more, as social failure is far more expensive than even the most generous nanny state. Even the bottom line supports liberal social policies, when spun out over the long term.

The strong will always devour the weak, as in nature. Except that in nature, millions of years of evolution produced the conditions that prevent the shark from eating every last herring (or whatever), whereas in our business world, it's shark eat herring and herring be damned. Only government prevents the annihilation of the herring. You and I are the herring, BTW.

Jesus, can I beat a metaphor to death or what?


Unlike business, every adjustment in government has to be done while the populace experiences the effects of the failures or successes and vicissitudes of daily progress in real, live time. Also, the mission statements of businesses do not include protecting everyone from injustice or providing for the common welfare. It's hard to make a profit without losers as well as winners.

And it should be so. And it is good -- as long as the powerful are prevented from the outright purchase of government - which, I think we can agree, has more or less happened in America. Especially since "Citizens United," a case that was not about citizens but PACs, and no one was united at all.

The Right tends to think of wealth as achieved in spite of, not because of, government programs. If this were true the whole world would be as wealthy as we are, because the one things that separates America IS our form of government and its specific programs. The irony is that the very protections that keep capitalism from devouring itself and collapsing are the ones which the business class hate the most. If CEOs were mandated to consider a business cycle of, say, two generations, as opposed to tomorrow's stock price or next month's financial reports, the society would be healthier and there would be far greater sustainability. Greater equality and social justice would be a by-product.

The petroleum industry is a perfect example of the disconnect. Only by looking at the short term does it make any sense to pursue more and more oil. We know someday it'll be over, but the markets open at 8:00 on Monday and if the business is to thrive, it has to do so NOW. And, as in any war, in business you go to war with the Army you have, as Rumsfeld once said.

Creating a more perfect union and deriving a steady flow of profits are often in conflict. Which is why both the markets and the government have their own experts, their own proven methods. The canard that a successful CEO is by definition a qualified political leader is just that, a canard. Looked at another way, on December 4, 1933, Joe Kennedy was the greatest criminal drug dealer in America. On December 5, 1933, he was a patriarch of a majestic political dynasty. Quite a transformation, except that the only difference was the ending of Prohibition. The man's abilities and qualities were the same.

I have great sympathy for those on the Right, whose answers to tough problems are simpler and more viscerally satisfying. The problem is, as history tells us, when spun out to their logical conclusions, the strong will always exploit the weak until either revolution, monarchy, oligarchy, fascism, or totalitarianism prevail. Good policies that include a robust social safety net and vigorous regulation of business prevent revolutions of the unwashed masses, and keep the CEO safely and happily in his mansion and boardroom.

And that takes lots of money. Dillinger robbed banks because that's where the money was. We tax the rich for the same reason.

"Who Benefits?" Is Not An Ideology.

We start on facebook (of course), where I posted, "Letting the arsonists try and put out their own fire is a dumb plan, even for the American voting public. But at least with shared power the Republicans railing against "guv'ment" in general will be shooting at their own feet, too. Shame on grownups in the GOP for entertaining the idiocy of "mama grizzlies" and letting other nutcases into power. Now we'll see if they can tame 'em, too..."

My facebook friend and sparring partner Matthew responded, "sometimes Dave...I cant tell if you are too much into your ideology, hyperbole, or have no clue. lol. said with love."

Okay. Here's my reply, and I hope you'll indulge me...


Of course, Matt. Taken that way too. And be honest. You did not laugh out loud. You should have said LQTM, laughing quietly to myself... but hey, we were on the subject of hyperbole...

Listen, man. I don't have an ideology. I think for myself. I am a member of no party and the only wing I like is the chicken wing, and it better be hot as hell, with bleu cheese on the side, and celery - old school, upstate new york style.

I have until now come down on the side of the worker, as opposed to the person who inherits the company from his daddy. To me this is common sense. Protect the worker and not his bosses' bosses' bosses' boss - not because of ideology, but because his way of life needs protection and his CEO does not. It would be foolish to minister to the CEO's interests. He's doing just fine and always will.

There is no society of organisms in nature wherein the weak exploit the strong. None. It is always the other way around. The middle class didn't get lost somewhere on a road trip. It has been systematically poisoned and destroyed. Who benefited? Answer that, and you have the answer to the big questions.

As far as having a clue... Our nation is in deep trouble, our infrastructure crumbling, our middle class evaporating... but it's the very best of times for some, and they are laughing at both of us. That's a clue. You should take it, too. Said with love, Boyo.

Want to know what happened to your country? Look at who is prospering, and there you will find what happened to your country. There are winners and there are losers. Once upon a time, the American people reasoned that "winner take all" may not be the best approach to creating a stable nation... for this reason, it is no surprise that the "golden age" of America coincided with the heyday of the labor movement, and tax rates far higher for the wealthy than anything the "Commie" Obama harbors in his wildest dreams.

My "ideology" is: we should call things what they are. The American worker is toast. When will our country be healthy again? When the middle class is gaining back the ground they lost. Then, and only then.

And using "who benefits?" to find the source of the problem is not just for your country - it applies to any country, in any era. When systems of great inequality and suffering prevail, look to where the money goes - and there's your culprit. Count up the millions of foreclosed homes, and look at the Wall Street bonuses coming out higher than ever this year. Look who got richer when the economy tanked.

The deregulation folks. The GOP. Wall Street.

Frankly, I don't see hyperbole or ideology or cluelessness in any of this. But LOL?... ... puh-lease!

One More Time, With Feeling... Ed and I Go At It Again.

Another exchange from facebook, brought here and presented by the GTL for your dining and dancing pleasure:

On Friday morning, September 10, 2010, Ed posted a link on his facebook page, stating: "I am flying the American flag in a moment of remembrance for 9/11."

A commendable sentiment, but with a Jingoistic edge, I thought. I responded, "Fly a flag for all the nations that lost souls on that day, not just ours." Ed responded with a rather sarcastic and puzzling post, "Not sure what other countries were attacked by terrorists on that day, but they should be honored as well."

Here's my reply:

Once again Ed? Nowhere do I say any other countries were attacked on 9/11. Please stop doing this. The straw man routine is crude and disingenuous, not to mention tiresome. My goal in these debates is to try to convince you to consider my opinions and ideas sincerely. To compare and contrast our philosophies and ideas in an effort to arrive at a reasonable set of solutions to real problems -- not to get zingers in and play at innuendo. I realize you are an adept and cunning arguer - but you needn't use a battering ram when a doorbell will suffice.

You're "not sure what other countries were attacked?" Really? You mean you actually think other countries "might" have been attacked on 9/11, you just forgot? Either you're confused, intentionally condescending, or employing a rhetorical flourish intended to mock my statement. I respect your intellect and know you know better. I am being sincere and would rather not be mocked, especially as you are a person who seeks to live by the doctrine of loving one's enemies, and believing that God loves all people, not just Americans.

When Americans are killed in terrorist attacks overseas, we fly U.S. flags at those sites. What is wrong with honoring the dead of other countries on this sad day, in addition to our own? The capitol of the world was attacked. There's enough grief to go around. Plenty of room for everyone.

New Yorkers are America's welcoming committee. If we are to assert our country's glorious exceptionalism in the arena of nations, we should at least be as hospitable to guests (and foreign cultures) as Islam instructs all Muslims to be in theirs.

People from everywhere, Muslims too, were killed on 9/11 -- not by Islam -- but by 19 crazed terrorists. The world as a whole is a colder, harsher place because of their depraved murderousness, and the misguided belief in the superiority of their own religion that fueled it.