Ozzie Guillen Learns About The Limits Of American Freedom

The political ridiculousness of the Cuban exiles in Miami seldom has been more apparent than this week, when that community shouted down Ozzie Guillen over his remarks on Fidel Castro and saw to it that Guillen's Miami Marlins baseball club suspended him for five games.

That nobody in South Florida seems to appreciate the irony of decrying tyranny in Cuba while hysterically stifling free expression at home in the USA is mind boggling. Guillen was bullied into submission by irrational thugs hellbent on imposing their version of reality. That doesn't sound much like freedom.

In any case, at least in Cuba it's possible to find a doctor and go out at night without fear of getting shot to death by a drug gang. That can't be said of many of the island's neighbors, such as Honduras.

The Case For Minnesota's Secession

Supporting Warmongers and Reactionaries

Did you know that Minnesotans pay over 100% more into the coffers of the government in Washington, DC, than they receive in benefits? (See map above and chart below, courtesy of "The Economist" at: http://tiny.cc/o62ui.) The state is being fleeced.

Given that Washington also launches and forces us to participate in illegal, interminable and colossally expensive wars of aggression, wars that will bleed us for generations; that it botches foreign policy in other ways that hurt us, such as maintaining the trade embargo on Cuba; and that it constantly emanates toxins from a depraved media and political culture; wouldn't it be better for Minnesota to secede from the Union?

Our state would have been better off waltzing out of the USA circa 1970, when Vietnam and Nixon had made it clear how terribly the country had veered off course, and when Minnesota did even better relative to the rest of the country on socioeconomic indicators. But it's not too late, even now.

Minnesota used to produce enlightened politicians, even statesmen, like Eugene McCarthy and Paul Wellstone. Even presidential election losers Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale would tower over contemporary national political figures. Now, however, infected by the reactionary zeitgeist in the rest of the country and funded by Texas oilmen and the Koch brothers, the state produces intellectual midgets and/or demagogues such as Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann. We even harbor our own PNAC monster, Vin Weber. It's hard to believe any of these latter domestic evildoers would have had a leg to stand on if Minnesota were its own nation-state, free of benighted forces from beyond its borders.

So, rather than being subjected to rule by sadistic troglodytes like George W. Bush (and, potentially, Rick Perry), wouldn't it be almost infinitely better if we Minnesotans could govern ourselves according to our own traditional values, among which I would count a belief in shared prosperity, equality of opportunity, and quiet competence? The alternative is to allow greed, jingoism, ignorance and pettiness -- the hallmarks of Washington, DC, and much of the rest of the country, particularly the South -- to continue to corrode our state.

It would be hard enough to assert that paying a premium of 100% for the fruits of an excellent national political system is worth it. But given the reality of the debacle that Washington, DC, has become, it seems almost impossible to argue that we should stay in the federal game. The moral noxiousness and financial dysfunction that the capital foists on us should be cauterized while Minnesota remains a distinctive, productive and viable society. The USA is killing us.

Afghans Get A Glimpse Into The "Culture" Of Their Would-Be Liberators

The View From The US vs. The View From Afghanistan

Now that General Stanley McChrystal has been deposed, following some ill-considered remarks about his civilian bosses in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine, what impressions might the people of Afghanistan be left with? What if the magazine that brought the general down were to be distributed among the populace?

Would they be aghast over the cover photo of Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta (aka "Lady Gaga") posing with machine guns pointing out of her breasts? Would they be outraged by such a flippant treatment of violence? Would they wonder why the military officer making life-and-death decisions regarding their country saw fit to discuss his efforts in their country with a magazine generally focused on pop culture? Would they wonder why "serious" journalistic outfits such as the New York Times and Washington Post never dug deep enough to reveal the general's contempt for the civilian leadership?

More broadly, would Afghans wonder why the country that purports to desire the betterment of the lot of women in Central Asia has no females (or for that matter ethnic or religious minorities) in the upper echelons of its military establishment? Would Afghans wonder what they ever did to deserve having such a hypocritical, decadent and ineffectual power poking and prodding at them for nearly a decade now?

If Afghans don't end up asking these questions, at least we Americans should.

Marching For Immigration Reform: Promoting Justice, Acknowledging Reality

Today on the national mall I marched for immigration reform. It's time that our country's laws bow to demographic reality; with thirteen million undocumented immigrants living in the country, the humane action is to bring them out of the legal shadows. It's also economically rational to bring these people, the vast majority of them younger workers, into the financial mainstream in order to help support retiring baby-boomers who are about to create a giant sucking sound when it comes to the nation's "entitlements" system.

,

Indeed, the USA should consider itself lucky to have a steady stream of hard-working risk takers eager to make a new life here. Considering that these immigrants also tend to be staunch supporters of Jesus, democracy and capitalism, we natives ought to be grinning from ear-to-ear as we welcome them while implementing measures to ensure that the newcomers and their children find their way forward in the workplace and at school. Assisted assimilation of people who already mostly share the indigenous value system should not be viewed as too onerous to undertake.

,

It is true that the governments of the home countries of the bulk of immigrants, principally Mexico, could do a much better job of putting in place policies that help create jobs and keep people economically anchored to their place of birth. It is also true that the US government could do a lot to enable Mexicans to remain home by opening up its market for agricultural and other goods and finally ending the failed "War on Drugs." In any case, the phenomenon of people migrating every which way throughout the Americas in search of a better life - a tradition as old as the crossing of the Bering Strait at least 15,000 years ago - will continue regardless. The key is making sure that this restlessness benefits both new arrivals and the descendants of old arrivals to the USA.

Please, No More. . .

Even Freddie Mercury Would Want the Twins to Stop

The song "We Will Rock You" was released by the British band Queen in 1977. Junior high kids loved it. Professional sports teams started playing the tune in their stadiums when they had the visiting team on the ropes. We all have heard it literally thousands of times. We get it. It ceased being fun a generation ago. So, please, Minnesota Twins, stop blaring "We Will Rock You" at the Metrodome. It's time to move on.

Post-Election Analysis

Just One Of Many Questions

I am relieved that Barack Obama won this month's presidential election. He is a positive and well-spoken politician who ought to set a tone in Washington, DC that will feel like a salve after eight years of a White House that emanates sadism and stupidity.

Moreover, the other major-party ticket was abhorrent. It consisted of a simplistic old man who achieved "war hero" status by first dropping bombs on a distant agrarian society, and then getting shot down and imprisoned for it by the aggrieved, paired with a syntactically-challenged megalomaniac who believes that humans and dinosaurs (quite apart from her running mate) co-existed. If the Republicans somehow had won the presidency, it would have intensified the death throes of the USA. For once, America seems to have dodged a political bullet.

So, it is time now to move on to the three biggest post-election questions, judging from the mainstream press, facing the nation:

1. Whom should President-elect Obama choose to fill his cabinet? Many of my friends and family members, as well as former colleagues and professors, would make superlative candidates. These people have the experience, qualifications and moral fiber to do an outstanding job. Furthermore, none is beholden to the organized, monied interests of Washington nor wedded to the status quo manner of governing. If Mr. Obama would like me to forward specific names for his consideration, I will do so in an instant.

As for the other, well-known personalities being batted about by the media in connection with various cabinet posts, does it really matter? These people are so disconnected from and unconcerned about the average American that the federal government can scarcely be called "ours"; instead, it more closely resembles a parlor game, like pro sports. "Do you think Obama should keep Robert Gates on as secretary of defense?" "Do you think Hank Steinbrenner should try to put C.C. Sabathia in Yankee pinstripes?" Ultimately, it makes not a whit of concrete difference to us bystanders, the citizens.

2. What should the Republican party do now? That anyone feels genuine concern for a group of greedy; racist; superstitious; paranoid; and willfully ignorant zealots boggles the mind. That anyone still considers this pack of self-described "patriots" a legitimate political party is even more amazing. The GOP can best be understood as a religious cult. It confounds rational analysis. The best the rest of us can hope for is that the Republicans suffer their very own Jonestown.

,

3. What type of dog should the Obamas take to the White House? Obviously, they should take a cat.

.

Now that the above matters have been settled, the nation's commercial media and their endless supply of experts and pundits should feel free to move on to the next set of critical issues.

I Told You So

For years, I told anyone who would listen that borrowing money from the Chinese to make wealthy Americans even wealthier, while simultaneously wasting hundreds of billions dollars on a pointless war in Mesopotamia, was terrible economic policy.

For years, I told anyone who would listen that the invasion of Iraq not only would produce no foreign policy success, but that the resultant death and destruction would also contribute to severe domestic moral erosion.

,

Today I feel vindicated but extremely rueful. I hope my country has learned its lessons so that it soon can begin to heal and evolve into a far better place.

An Open Letter Against Time Magazine

Time Magazine Carries On A Deplorable Tradition

Dear "Time":

Your magazine's question "Is It Time To Invade Burma?" - posed to readers today online - represents possibly the most arrogant, irresponsible and reprehensible piece of rhetoric I have ever seen emanate from the mainstream press.

The assumption of the article in question that other countries are the mere playthings of the U.S. and its military shows that your publication will sink to the depths of the most sordid yellow journalism and the most brazenly jingoistic posturing.

'

Given the recent atrocious track record of our country in violent and imperialistic adventures, one might have expected more circumspection. Yet it is now more evident than ever that your publication is part of our nation's problems.

Sincerely,

Michael Blaine

McCain The Fraudster

Featuring John McCain As "Shyster"

The "Los Angeles Times" revealed today that presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has been collecting a tax-free disability pension from the US Navy that in 2007 totaled $58,358. Only two conclusions can be drawn: If McCain is (psychologically?) disabled, he's not fit to be president. If he is not disabled, he's been defrauding the federal government for decades and should be criminally prosecuted. Either way, McCain's candidacy needs to end immediately.

The Alcoholic and the Torture Victim

894/899

A diverse country of 300 million people, continental in scale, the United States is full of talented individuals. So why was a dullard like George W. Bush put in the White House? A man who challenged the nation with such penetrating questions as, "Is our children learning?" A man who assured us, "I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family." A man who told Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, "Germany is important." A man who declared to President Lula, "Wow! Brazil is big." That remains a mystery. But some day, with the benefit of hindsight, our country may come to realize, as Bush himself once observed, "people that are really very weird can get into sensitive positions and have a tremendous impact on history."

'

Fortunately, 2008 brings a new opportunity to select a national leader. Will Americans seek a person with the innate intelligence and cultivated wisdom to do the job properly? The Republicans think not. Their candidate, John Sidney McCain III, graduated from college with a class rank of 894 out of 899 students. This confirms, in spades, the reason McCain comes across as so lackluster and uninformative in his public remarks: he simply is not very smart.

Lack of intelligence in the White House impedes good policymaking, as has been amply demonstrated by George W. Bush. But what about other obvious warning signs in a presidential candidate? In my view, it always was clear that nobody who was an active alcoholic until age 40, as Bush was, should be voted into the presidency. It is welcome news whenever a problem drinker gives up the bottle, but that does not mean that the ex-drinker should go on to lead the entire nation. Clearly, decades of inebriation is poor preparation for such a task.

In McCain's case, his status as someone who was tortured during the Vietnam War gives great pause. How terrible that any human being is ever abused, and how difficult the recovery from such a harrowing experience must be. But McCain's five years in a POW camp, and the torture he endured there, are hardly solid preparation for taking the helm of the United States of America. America desperately needs a smart, steady hand in Washington. Any presidential candidate whose resume features a black hole in the middle, no matter how unfortunately come by, should be turned away. Let those wrestling with awful ghosts do so far from the halls of power.

Hillary Takes On Shuster: In Defense Of An Independent Media

MSNBC'S David Shuster Discovers The Perils Of Covering The Clinton Campaign

David Shuster is (was?) a TV journalist I had grown to respect enormously for his mastery of the arcane details of the trial and conviction of White House lawyer I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. When Shuster last week described the process of Hillary Clinton utilizing her daughter Chelsea to court anti-democratic "superdelegates" by using the verb "to pimp out," he employed a phrase that is colloquial yet quite apt. Hillary's subsequent bullying of Shuster's network - MSNBC - into forcing him to apologize on the air strikes a blow against independent media and reveals the presidential candidate's arrogance and propensity for authoritarianism. MSNBC and Shuster should have stuck to their guns, even if it meant forgoing the Clinton machine's advertising revenues.

A Cock-and-Bull Story

Ready for Congressional Testimony

This week, after CIA director Michael Hayden admitted that his agency has tortured prisoners, the US Congress snapped into action by holding a hearing to question baseball pitcher Roger Clemens about his alleged steroid use. With this bold stroke, the "People's House" sent a clear message to the rest of the world: cheating in the highest professional ranks of the national pastime could have negative consequences, although we will still ask you for your autograph. Our elected officials proved that the beacon of democracy shines on.

But the story does not end there. As official government confession on torture sank in, civic groups raised a hue and cry for the humane treatment of . . . roosters. New York Mets pitcher Pedro Martinez and former San Francisco Giants pitcher and Hall of Famer Juan Marichal turned up in a YouTube video releasing cocks in a fight two years ago in the Dominican Republic. (For the record, Marichal's rooster killed Martinez'.) Notwithstanding that this activity is legal and wildly popular in the pitchers' native country, the president of the Humane Society declared that "(a)nimal fighting has no place whatsoever among those who presume to be role models for youngsters . . . It's animal cruelty, no matter where it occurs."

Although I'm sympathetic to the Dominicans' own cultural standards, the Humane Society's position is perhaps defensible. But until the American government repudiates wars of aggression; extra-territorial occupations; the murder of civilians, intended or otherwise; and torture, it stands to reason that whether or not baseball players attend a cock fight will have only a marginal impact on our kids. At one time in this nation it would have been obvious that the real issue is not defending roosters, but the universal rights of human beings. If American children see Congress focused on steroids while society's institutions wreak violence on humans, our country can hardly expect its youngest members to behave humanely.

The Real Meaning of "Anchor Baby"

Just Wait Until They Get The Invoice For Their Share Of The Debt

"Each year, thousands of women enter the United States illegally to give birth, knowing that their child will thus have U.S. citizenship. Their children immediately qualify for a slew of federal, state, and local benefit programs. In addition, when the children turn 21, they can sponsor the immigration of other relatives, becoming 'anchor babies' for an entire clan."

--The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)

Many xenophobes and immigration demagogues in our country have latched onto the concept of the "anchor baby": the theory that a pregnant woman, always Mexican, would make the taxing trip North by land to give birth in America and thereby obtain US citizenship for her baby. The mother in this way obtains a foothold in our country and begins to enjoy all the wonderful financial handouts on offer. FAIR - quoted above - is possibly the most serious of the groups concerned about immigration into the US, but there is still another angle from which to view the issue: every American child, born to natives or not, is an "anchor baby" in the sense that he or she comes into the world with an economic anchor already around his or her neck.

The national debt currently stands at $9.2 trillion, and will surpass $10 trillion within just two years. Divide the current number by the US population of 300 million, and you get a static liability of $32,600 per person. In other words, every "anchor baby" born on US soil automatically is on the hook for that amount of money. The picture gets worse if you look at future obligations. In 2006, the Government Accountability Office estimated that each full-time worker in the US had an unfunded liability exposure of $400,000, meaning he or she would have to pay that much over a working life toward financing federal "entitlement" programs. How many mothers-to-be would continue into the US if they were handed those figures at the border?!! Given those shocking numbers, it seems we could use all the workers we can possibly attract just to dilute the burden.

Since our political "leaders" in Washington, DC, steadfastly refuse to run the nation's fiscal accounts on an adult basis (see how they are rushing to send us checks funded by the Chinese this election year under the guise of "economic stimulus"), I predict we will see a reversal of the "anchor baby" phenomenon: expectant American parents may want to abandon the US in order to have their children in a country that offers jus soli or birthright citizenship and also has its books in order. An obvious choice in this regard is Canada, which has run a budget surplus for over a decade and enjoys a declining national debt both absolutely and as a percentage of GDP. In short, it is a country where a baby can start life with a basically clean slate, free of financial anchors.

Help The Poor? Edwards Can't Be Bothered

Heading Back to the Better of the Two Americas

Erstwhile Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards promoted an appealing rhetoric: The working poor in America should get a larger piece of the very large national economic pie. In the interests of equity and social harmony, this was the right stance to take, especially after years of government sponsorship of class warfare against society's most vulnerable members. Edwards, it appeared, had made a personal and moral commitment to creating a fairer America.

But as soon as it became clear he would not obtain his party's nomination, John Edwards quit. It reminded me of something I had almost forgotten: On election night 2004 I went to bed having heard vice-presidential candidate Edwards promise to explore every legal channel in Ohio in a bid to move that state's electoral votes into the Democratic column and potentially propel the putative opposition party into the White House. By the very next morning, though, the great American appeaser had capitulated and that was the end of the matter. His running mate John Kerry went back to his cushy job as a senator, and our nation got four more years of George W. Bush.

This time around, knowing full well he would end his presidential bid the next day, John Edwards found himself in a union hall in St. Paul, Minnesota, urging the gathering (along with potential donors) to stay in the election fight with him. I guess announcing the campaign's end at that time was inconvenient from the standpoint of publicity generation, but there should have been great compunction about leading supporters on for such self-serving reasons. Edwards took advantage of the union members, hiding his real intentions until one last opportunity to grandstand before the national press during prime cable news hours.

If Edwards really cared about poor Americans as he claims, he would stay in the race until the Democratic convention in August and broker a deal there on their behalf. But clearly this cause of the poor is not worth another few months of work for the former senator. When the going got tough, he folded. Meanwhile, 37 million poor Americans will remain that way, without an explicit champion on the national stage.

The disingenuous Edwards had this to say as he threw in the barely-perspired-upon towel: "But I want to say . . . . this son of a millworker's gonna be just fine." With that reassurance, America's working poor must have breathed a tremendous sigh of relief. The system actually works, at least for half-hearted politicians with millions of dollars to fall back on.

Guilt, Bloodlust and Presidential Politics

Ol' "Blood and Freedom" Thompson

"We must never forget that America has shed more blood defending freedom here and abroad than all the other countries in the world combined."

--Republican Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson

I heard Fred Thompson (on TV) make the above statement to his supporters after losing the South Carolina primary. It drew great applause, and struck me as one of the oddest utterances of the tedious 2008 presidential campaign. It is a risible assertion, patently impossible to substantiate, even if the term "freedom" were objective. Yet it drew wild applause.

As a search of the Internet shows, Thompson trots out this enigmatic and grisly phrase a lot. What can it mean? Why does it strike a chord? Here is a hypothesis: It at once assuages repressed guilt for the mass violence wreaked by our country on Iraq, and validates the collective bloodlust so prevalent among hardcore Republicans. It also implies that, in a manner befitting the Aztecs, the GOP - if returned to power - will continue to sacrifice humans as a talismanic ritual.

Mao's Little Red Accounting Book

Brother, Can You Spare Some Yuan?

"The Bush administration is close to completing an economic-stimulus proposal that will include $800 rebates for individuals and $1,600 for households."

--Bloomberg News, 1/17/08

The US financial crisis has become so severe -- domestic stock markets have plunged nearly ten percent since the start of the year -- that the president seems to have taken notice. So, after spending $4,100 per household so far on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, he is on the verge of giving over one-third of it back. How beneficent.

But where will this money come from? After all, the US government already owes $9.2 trillion, up from $5.7 trillion in 2000 -- a rise of 61% in just over seven years. The proportion of this debt held by foreigners is approaching fifty percent, with nearly half of that held by two countries: Japan and China. If these countries overcome their increasing reluctance to accept Treasury paper denominated in ever-weaker dollars, they would be the parties to whom Bush turns to prop up the national economy.

So I propose we cut out the middle man, and have the Asian Development Bank issue checks to American citizens directly. That way, we all would know who bailed us out and to whom we must return the money when (or if) we're on better footing.

Why the current government cares about the state of the American economy now is somewhat of a mystery. Fiscal, tax and monetary policy for years have been driving us to this moment of reckoning, so it can not come as a surprise. Plus, with only a year remaining in office and approval ratings securely in the doldrums, popularity for the Bush administration must not be much of a concern. There is also a dim prospect of the next president being a Republican no matter what happens over the next few months.

Ulimately, the "stimulus package" that we citizens are going to get is due to a nefarious bipartisanship: If the economy becomes too rocky in an election year, the two major parties that have controlled government for as long as anyone can remember may have to answer some real questions and propose some real solutions. And that is something they can not abide. But they can always provide a quick fix now and work out a payment plan with the Chinese later.

A Bridge To The Twentieth Century

After the Caucus Loss In Iowa: Hillary Clinton with Bill and Chelsea;

Over Hillary's Right Arm Peer The Hawk-Like Eyes of Former Sec. of State Madeleine Albright

,

Was the slogan on the podium "Ready for Change" meant to be ironic? Writer F. Scott Fitzgerald's Jay Gatsby sunnily asserted, "Can't repeat the past? Of course you can, old sport!" Yet he protagonized the greatest tragic novel in American literature. Let's hope other American voters do their reading as well as Iowans apparently have. It's time for the country to move on and embrace a new and better political era.

Uncle S(h)am Wants You (For His Next Scam)!

Just Make Sure You Ask For A Gift Receipt

"Since Sept. 11, 2001, the world’s opinion of the United States has plummeted, with the largest short-term drop in American history. The United States now garners as much international esteem as Russia. "

--Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.), Foreign Policy, May/June 2006

"Not for a long time will people listen to US officials lecture on the virtues of free financial markets with a straight face."

--Martin Wolf, The Financial Times, 12/12/2007

"It hurts to see our national pastime ripped apart by allegations and scandals. I am seeing former teammates and opponents go under the HGH/steroid crosshairs, and it makes me wonder what else was happening in the 15 seasons I was part of [Major League Baseball.]"

--Doug Glanville, ESPN.com, 12/20/2007

As the Bush Administration counts down its final months, we Americans can look forward to picking ourselves up and shaking off a bit of the dust. It has been a rough few years for our country; a period of self-examination is in order. And what we find on the threshold of 2008 is the following: a foreign policy that inspires revulsion across the globe (witness the string of electoral defeats suffered by key Bush allies such as the sitting governments of Spain, Poland and Australia, as well as the retirement of Britain's Tony Blair); a financial system that will face dozens if not hundreds of lawsuits over the coming months for fraudulently presenting packages of subprime mortgages as "investment grade" to international clients; and a national pastime -- baseball -- whose fans literally cannot believe their eyes because so many players have been artifically pumped up on steroids. Even for a nation where the snake oil salesman has thrived for centuries, and where millions believe that a New York farmer named Joseph Smith found gold tablets left on his farm by God, this is a lot to take.

Yet one can assert that there is no reason to be pessimistic. The US has put its disheveled house in order countless times before, following the Civil War; the Great Depression; Vietnam; Watergate; and the S&L crisis. Next up for resolution are the grotesque aftermath of the housing bubble and the morally (and financially) disastrous occupation of Iraq. As the country goes about tackling these issues, it seems the best advice for the citizenry is to be reticent to trust its self-anointed "leaders," and instead insist that humane and intelligent policies percolate from the enlightened grassroots upward. Because when Uncle Sam comes strolling down the sidewalk, eager to tout a needless war or to sell a bundle of worthless paper, the best thing is to grab the kids, check the wallet, and cross over to the other side of the road to join your neighbors.

Minnesota's Own Version of "Verjudung," or How Somali Refugees Threaten Christmas In The Upper Midwest

Germany's Pro-Christian, Anti-Semitic Adolf Stoecker:

Would He Win Votes in Present-Day Minnesota?

A substantial number of Minnesotans have developed an hysterical fear of Muslims. The main Minneapolis newspaper regularly reports on the purported social infractions engaged in by the local Somali community, who arrived in the city in the early 1990's as refugees fleeing civil war in their home country. The latest outrage to rile the native population involves the creation by a local community college of a designated place for Somali-origin students to observe their daily prayer ritual.

In a blog discussion about the prayer site, one participant asserted the following:

“This is just another step in the Islamification of our country. This will be the civil war of our lifetime. America vs. internal and home-grown Muslims.”

,

Apart from evincing paranoia, the commentary -- not at all unique in the blogosphere, or in the nation's capital-- is also reminiscent of a sinister belief from Germany's past: Verjudung.

Verjudung held that 19th century German culture was being corrupted by the newly-emancipated Jews. One of its foremost proponents was Adolf Stoecker, who -- according to Wikipedia -- was "upset with the dislocating social effects brought on by rapid industrialization" and so "called for German society to rededicate itself to Christian faith and return to Germanic rule in law and business." Stoecker founded the Christian Social Party, designed at once to beat back socialism and deprive Jews of their civil rights. The CSP found that the more it attacked German Jewry, the greater its success at the ballot box.

Along with increasing xenophobia in Minnesota, directed not only at Somali Muslims but also at Mexican immigrants, the US Congress has swung into action to revive explicitly a principal part of the CSP philosophy, last week passing House Resolution 847: "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith." While the Iraq situation festers and a global financial crisis unfolds, our House of "Representatives" found time to assert officially by a vote of 372-9 that "on December 25 of each calendar year, American Christians observe Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of their savior, Jesus Christ." Stoecker would have been proud.

Another major piece of the context that helped spawn the German CSP also is on the rise in present-day America: economic anxiety. The subprime mortgage crisis threatens not only to throw millions of people out of their homes and cause the US economy to contract, but also to provoke a worldwide financial meltdown. The blame for this, according to Martin Wolf of "The Financial Times," ultimately falls on the shoulders of the financiers of London and New York who are guilty of poisoning international markets with a "mixture of crony capitalism and gross incompetence." Even so, substitute "liberal" for "socialist" and "Muslim/Mexican" for "Jew" and my money is on our nation's latter-day Adolf Stoeckers to continue diverting anger from worthy targets onto bogeymen.

The Latest Republican "Debate" & America's Ostrich Complex

Unfortunately, Viagra Works Magic On Only One of the Above

"The Economist Intelligence Unit sees at least a 40% chance of a recession in 2008, with overall GDP growth of not much more than 1%."

'

-- The Economist Intelligence Unit, 11/30/07

"As much as $362 billion in U.S. subprime home mortgages with adjustable interest rates are due to reset at potentially higher rates in the coming year . . . Losses related to bad mortgages already have reached the tens of billions of dollars and have led to turmoil in the world's financial markets."

-- The Wall Street Journal, 12/1/07

"Any of you want to tell us about your gun collection -- roughly how many you own; what your favorite make, model and caliber is . . . ?"

'

-- A question posed to Republican presidential

candidates during their November 28 "debate"

'

The incongruity of the quotations above points up the extremely poor health of American democracy. Our nation seems unable to apprehend much less confront and deal with the social, economic and political complexities of the 21st century. Our citizens are losing their homes; our college students are drowning in debt; our children have insufficient health insurance; the value of the dollar is plummeting; totalitarians like Chávez, Putin and the Chinese politburo are in the ascendancy; and our government remains mired in the massively expensive and deadly Iraq debacle. Yet it is deemed important to ask our presidential aspirants about a quirky, anachronistic hobby. Worse still, these "leaders" -- rather than condemn the very question itself as fatuous -- trip all over themselves to provide an answer. How humiliating, both for them and for us.

'

In 2000 I had a chance to watch a re-run of the 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate. Not only did I not notice any of the infamous beard stubble on Nixon, but I found him to be every bit JFK's equal as an orator, policy analyst, and intellect. Each man spoke in complete paragraphs, citing concrete data, and putting forth a coherent vision for the nation's future. In retrospect, of course, I knew that both men eventually would get a turn in the presidency and that Nixon would turn out to be a morally defective "crook." But I did not get the sense that either one was condescending to the viewer, or immersed in irrelevancies, or that I would be ashamed to have him represent me -- as an American -- abroad. Today, though, one questions whether either JFK or Nixon would put up with the trivialities and constant insults to his intelligence required to run for the White House.

'

And so, while 2008 promises to be economically problematic and possibly catastrophic, we learn that a particular Republican presidential candidate believes that allowing gays in the military is inconsistent with Judeo-Christian tradition. (Although neither Britain nor Israel has a problem fielding openly homosexual soldiers!) And, while the US struggles with the most unequal distribution of income since the roaring '20's, we learn that the Republican candidates somehow balance an unwavering devotion to Jesus with a fervent belief in capital punishment.

'

The fact is, we citizens no longer get real answers to serious questions from our politicians. Instead, truth from Washington probably will continue to trickle in like this: a friend of mine was recently informed via a mundane letter from the Social Security Administration that her promised federal retirement benefits would likely be reduced 25% by the time she was old enough to qualify for them. In other words, hard reality will be impressed upon Americans anonymously and without any room for political accountability.