Sunday, May 9, 2010

Oil Company Business As Usual



Big Oil: Corrupt As We Thought




T he Shell oil Company is every bit the crooks and thugs we suspected they were but were afraid to mention it. This video of the Company's criminal antics in County Mayo,says every thing that needs saying and a little bit more. I say we just hand them over to the World Court and imprison them for life. We have all the hard evidence we need. They may have 200 lawyers, but who cares. They are all guilty as dirt. Destroying people's water and land. And then they send in corrupt police forces to do their dirty work and beat up anybody who protests. I wouldn't want to be a local politician in that county. They will be lucky to escape with their lives. And with good reason. They sold out 10,000 local people's drinking water to the crooks at Shell. Like so many corporations these crooks deserve to be put to death.

Yeah, you heard me... "Put to death!"

Thursday, April 29, 2010

The New American Kleptocracy



Crooked Corporations





I am not great in terms of following the Financial Reform minutiae. Actually I am not entirely sure I get the politics of it at all. But I do know that the mortgage companies are doing their very best to foreclose on as many American homes as they can possibly get away with. And that even with the specter of Finance Reform looming on the horizon, the banks and mortgage companies are not backing off one iota with their unethical and racketeering ways.

For example, we got behind on a few payments and quite suddenly and out of the blue, our mortgage company no longer would accept payment. They did want very much to foreclose on our house since we have, over the years, made important improvements and the house is now a very beautiful and gracious home, and one that the mortgage company would be able to sell for a very high price in a New York minute. A price by the way that would be far and away beyond the amount currently owed on the mortgage. And while they were busy "not accepting" payments, they were, at the same time, counting all those payments as "missed" or "delinquent" payments so that it would appear in any court of law that we were entirely responsible for the foreclosure and not them. When our legal representative began to try to negotiate with them they went into a very odd mode of losing the papers, and then finding them but they were at another office and then so and so was looking at them but when so and so was contacted the papers had mysteriously disappeared and turned up somewhere on the East Coast. And just as quickly when the East Coast branch was contacted the papers seemed to be somewhere else. All done with no sense of irony but as courteous as you please. So our mortgage company is running a scam with our house and the probability is that the original papers were sold long ago at a hefty profit and they betting that we would not have the wherewithal to take them to court. And if we did their lawyers would be able to stall indefinitely.

While this kind of robbery is going on, the financial whiz guys, the smartest guys in the room, over at Goldman Sachs and Lehman Brothers, were also busy ripping off everybody else on Main Street. Keiser calls ours a Kleptocracy. A form of government structured so as to rip off the people it supposedly governs. And the Supremes, (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy) have ruled on this very idea as well, saying in effect: A corporation is well within its rights to sell you a defective product. But you may not pay for this product with a defective check. Now, the Republicans upon hearing such stories shake their heads and tch tch, saying that we were at fault and the poor mortgage company had no choice. But then every Republican I have ever encountered was a known liar and a drunk as well.



Tuesday, March 30, 2010

The Roots of Authoritarianism


Family, Church, and School
By Harriet Fraad, crossposted from Tikkun Daily and Alternet.org. Harriet Fraad is a psychotherapist committed to radical social-structural change.



This is one of the most important articles on the frightening specter of Authoritarianism I have read. Robert Altemeyer, Associate Professor at the University of Manitoba, has done a 20 year study on the subject. His book, The Authoritarians, is the most authoritative and extensive work on the subject.

I think authoritarianism is a disease which is now rife in America; it was inevitable that it would infect the national political scene--- obviously in the followers of the opinion makers at Fox News. Most notably, the Tea Bagger followers of Glenn Beck, O'Reilley and Hannity and the Rush "Dittoheads" are incapable of disobeying their twisted leaders. Here, the author pinpoints the 3 sources of the causes of the disease: The Authoritarian Family, the Authoritarian Church and the Authoritarian Educational System. Very little work has been done to show the extent which physical, mental, and emotional abuse play in the formation of the authoritarian personality. No doubt sexual abuse at an early age is a key factor. Here, sexual abuse by the Catholic clergy is mentioned and discussed to a limited degree, and in particular the current Roman Church, and The Pope's reaction to the criminal behavior of an abusive clergy and the Bishops who enable them. But then that is all that the scope of such an article is allowed.


Much more in-depth study is needed so as to begin to understand the precise causes. And it seems to rest on a multiplicity of causes. Very young children are shown that they are helpless and will inevitably be punished unless they obey the authoritarian figure. In the family it is the abusive father figure; in the church, it is God and those who speak for God; and in the school it is the teacher, and finally, the principal who must be obeyed.


The newspapers are full of the latest priestly sex abuses. This is an on going story. Within the last year, mass scandals have erupted in Brazil, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria. and the United States. Figures from the John Jay School of Criminal Justice estimate that since 1950, an estimated 280,000 children have been sexually abused by Catholic Clergy and deacons.

How has this happened? Why does it continue?

Pedophilia certainly is a familiar problem for the Catholic Church. Father Thomas Doyle, a priest, and Richard Sipes and Patrick Wall, former monks, wrote that the Catholic Church has recognized the problem of abuse by priests for 2,000 years. Their acclaimed book, Sex, Priests and Secret Codes (2006), was based on the Church’s own documents.

Now the scandal is at the Pope’s door in Germany. After all, he was the Cardinal in charge of approving a known pedophile, Father Hullerman, who had been convicted in court where he admitted getting young boys drunk, watching pornography with the boys and then molesting them. The priest was released from court in the care of the Church. He was sent to a psychiatrist for treatment. The treating psychiatrist reported that Father Hullerman was an unrepentant alcoholic pedophile who showed no willingness to change his alcoholism or his pedophilia. Within five days of the beginning of Hullerman’s treatment, the Pope approved moving Father Hullerman to a new parish with access to children There he molested more boys. He retired in peace without serving time for his documented crimes. He is no exception.

There are practical reasons why Catholic Bishops and the Pope have not been disciplined for moving accused priest molesters who work with children to different parishes where they continue to molest. Two-thirds of sitting US Bishops have been accused of moving pedophile priests to new assignments. There would be a dearth of Church fathers if they were held accountable for their crimes. We could ask why are so many of the priests pedophiles? Why don’t they abuse adult men and women who also trust them and are vulnerable? Why do they particularly abuse male children? However, since sexual abuse as well as most other kinds of abuse seem to flourish within hierarchical religious communities of all kinds, we might ask why abuse should happen within orthodox hierarchical religions? That question would yield answers beyond questioning only one hierarchical religion, albeit one in the news. (See The Journal of Religion and Abuse, which unlike the myriad excellent books on the subject covers abuse in all hierarchical religions. Further reading here and here)

If we are willing to ask the deeper question: What is it about hierarchical orthodox religions which is so conducive to abuse?” We have expert guidance in solving that mystery .

We have help from Louis Althusser, one of France’s great philosophers. Althusser discovered subtle forms of influence that keep people subordinated to unjust authority. They influence people even more deeply than the police, the law, and the army. They inspire people to discipline themselves from the inside, as if their subordination is the way things have to be. The serfs in medieval Europe toiled for the Lord of the manner because they deeply believed that toiling for the Lord was their ordained, God impelled destiny. People obey their parents and their church or temple because they learn to obey before they even know what they are learning. They usually follow directions at school because they learn that the teacher and the principal are to be obeyed without question. They internalize discipline that therefore, does not have to be externally enforced. They learn the lines of dominance and subordination before they know that there could be any choice. Althusser names the biggest three types of internal disciplinary forces ” ideological state apparatuses”. They prepare citizens for unquestioned obedience. The three primary ideological state apparatuses are: the authoritarian family, hierarchical authoritarian religions, and authoritarian hierarchical educational systems.

In this post, I am looking at a patriarchal, orthodox, hierarchical religion. Of course, the Catholic Church is not the only one. In Orthodox Judaism there are strict rules of what is, and is never acceptable to God. For example, Jewish Orthodoxy does not permit women to be rabbis. Orthodox Jewish and Hasidic males congratulate themselves in their prayers that God decided that they be not born women. Fundamentalists like the Southern Baptists or Mormons, explicitly require wives’ submission to their husband’s authority in God’s name. They, like Catholics, exclude women from hierarchical Church leadership positions. Muslims exclude women from temple leadership and positions as Imams. Like their orthodox Jewish brothers, they segregate worshiping women during religious services. Scientologists require strict obedience to their Church hierarchy as religious duty and part of the mission to serve God.

With that said, we can return to the Catholic Church whose vast abuses are now regularly exposed. In the latest revelations of abuse the patriarchal hierarchy itself is implicated from nuns and priests to Cardinals and Monsignors, to the Pope himself. The system of secrecy in a Church responsive to its hierarchy from the top down rather than its parishioners is now on trial. The cases of hundreds of thousands of abused children were ignored. In one recently publicized case, young representatives of the 200 deaf boys abused by Father Murphy told everyone they could. Some signed affidavits and sent them to the Bishop. Some plastered wanted posters around their cathedral. They told priests and nuns. They petitioned the Archbishop, the district attorney and the newspaper. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published a story in 2006 covering the abuses since 1965. The victims were consistently reassured that the Church would take care of it. Complaints were sent up the hierarchy to Archbishop Weakland who sent them to Rome, addressed to the Pope. Nothing was done until the victims filed a lawsuit. Only then, Father Murphy was retired to spend his last days in comfort at his parents’ summer home in Northern California. The plaintiffs under pressure withdrew their lawsuit. There were at minimum 44 years since their first ignored allegations. The Pope honored Father Murphy’s petition to spend his last days in honor, peace and comfort. The hellish lives of his petitioning victims were not honored with the truth or with action.

The three institutions that Althusser named as ideological state apparatuses (authoritarian religions, the authoritarian family and authoritarian educational systems) are closed systems. They are accountable only to the man at the head of the hierarchy, not to the people they ostensibly serve. In both the cases of the authoritarian family and authoritarian religion, evaluations of behavior are a one way street from top to bottom. Power is exercised as if God given and natural. In authoritarian schools authority is exercised in the same manner, from the top down. Those schools that are unionized give teachers some voice. Children are silenced. In this way the lines of social dominance are drawn early before children know what is happening to them.

The rigid Catholic hierarchy is maintaining its dominance and the subordination of all those under the Pope, from the children who complained, to the priests and nuns who reported the abuse, to the Bishops to the Archbishop who reported the abuse to the Pope. His decision was to protect the priest in power and the Catholic hierarchy thus reinforcing the authoritarian structure of the Church.

Why do so many people remain in such authoritarian structures?

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Frankfurt School, a psychologically and socially active socialist group of German thinkers, predicted the rule of fascism in Germany. They found that about 60% of Germans had what they called “authoritarian personalities.” They obeyed their leader, whoever was in power. They followed orders, no matter how sadistic. About 20% of Germans were actively sadistic and eager to do a torturer’s bidding. About 20% of Germans were opposed to all totalitarianism and would defy sadistic orders no matter who dictated them. Those who tolerated sadism if authorities commanded it and those who actively sought opportunities for torture were reared in authoritarian families. Those who defied sadistic totalitarianism were not raised in totalitarian structures. They were reared in democratic families. Robert Altemeyer elaborated those studies in Canada and the United States (1997). He found that they are still true. Authoritarian families raise children to know their place, which is at the bottom of the family and other social hierarchies. Authoritarian parents prepare their children for servitude to a powerful leader.

The Catholic Church scandals raise basic ethical issues. If there is any absolute that an ethical human can have, it is that a human being is never a thing. The 280,000 children abused by Catholic priests were reduced to things, things for the priests pleasure, things that were poison containers for the priests self loathing at their own pedophilia and things who might hurt the church if their painful truth was revealed. Secrecy was managed by protecting abusers and reducing their young victims to silence.

John Cory’s discussion of the Catholic Church scandal cites Khaled Hosseini’s novel The Kite Runner in which a father, Baba tells his son Amir, “There is only one sin and that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft… When you kill a man, you steal a life. When you tell a lie, you steal someone’s right to the truth.” To extend that metaphor when you, a trusted father, a church father, molest a child you steal a child’s sense of his or her soul as pure and good. When you lie, you steal peoples’ right to the truth.

In authoritarian families or religions or schools children are things to be managed. Compassion and judgment operate from the top down. Threats to the authoritarian hierarchy are eliminated by whatever means are necessary. It is these authoritarian structures which are the enemies of freedom and kindness, They steal people’s right to the truth and to respect and dignity. That is why authoritarian hierarchies must be transformed.

Attempts to transform the repressive authoritarian hierarchy of the Catholic Church have not received publicity. There are such attempts in every authoritarian hierarchy from authoritarian families to religions to educational systems. Since I am writing about a specific authoritarian hierarchy, the Catholic Church, I want to mention one of the many groups working to transform that hierarchy. This group does not limit itself to one particular manifestation of the hierarchy such as their homophobia or their secrecy on issues of predator priests and colluding Church superiors. The group, the Roman Catholic Women Priests (RCWP), is committed to transforming more than the Church’s discrimination against women. RWCP calls on women and qualified men to become priests together and transform the Church’s authoritarian hierarchy into a ministry united with the people they serve. They want an inclusive spirit and commitment to a democratic Church of equals. In 2002 they ordained women as priests committed to a democratic Church. In 2008 the current Pope, Benedict XVI excommunicated the women priests and the Bishops who ordained them. They posed a threat to the authoritarian hierarchy that the Pope was quick to address in escalating steps that culminated in excommunication. The women and their Bishops did not accept the Pope’s authoritarian pronouncement. They continue to lead democratic congregations. They have their counterparts urging the transformation of all authoritarian hierarchical institutions. They affirm the morality of the deepest respect for people who can never be treated as things or robbed of the truth and respect they deserve.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

The Economic Forecast: Not Good



Just when things were looking up



Both Wall Street and the Whitehouse have been making optimistic noises lately and now along comes these guys in this video to rain on everybody's parade. It is true that the gloom and doomers back in the late seventies were telling us the world was going to end and very soon, but somehow it never did quite. Nope, it would take the Bush/Cheney folks a full eight years to make it really happen. The crimes of the banksters are finally even more terrible than we believed originally.



But have a look at this. Neither the banksters nor the Federal Reserve, which was created by criminals for criminals, anyway, have forsaken their crooked ways. There's Chris Dodd watering down any oversight legislation that might have teeth. If the country fails--- truly fails,--- the guys in the first video said, you should have been buying some gold each month, and buy property outside of the USA so you can get away. Also, in that eventuality, we know who is responsible: The Republicans.

Communism had a 60 odd year run in Russia. After 60 years they saw it was a failure and packed it in. But Capitalism, Republican Crony Capitalism, in America, has had a 30 year run, since Reagan took office. The legislature has, since then, from Reagan on, right up through 2006, been ruled by the Republicans.

Then the country's economy collapsed. After eight years, the Bushies --- the worst administration in the history of America --- finally destroyed what was left of the economy. Then Bush and Cheney skipped out and now enjoy themselves throwing stones at Obama, instead of being where they truly belong, in jail for life, if not a firing squad for Crimes Against Humanity and for War Crimes. Obama, who is, anyway, hiding something he shouldn't be covering up. Why else would he not allow the prosecution of CIA torturers and the entire Chain of Command.

Monday, March 15, 2010

Wall Street Crooks Still Have Not Learned



Handcuffs Are All They Understand


A 2,200 page report on how the Banksters managed to defraud the American taxpayers strongly suggests that Bernanke and Geithner, as the Execs who oversaw the Fed and the Treasury, knew all about the scams which Lehman Brothers was running all during the Bush Administration. This video is shocking in its impact.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tuesday, March 9, 2010

The Egregiously Flawed Logic of Justice Clarence Thomas



From The LA Times



Reporting from Washington - According to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, a prisoner who was slammed to a concrete floor and punched and kicked by a guard after asking for a grievance form -- but suffered neither serious nor permanent harm -- has no claim that his constitutional rights were violated.

Thomas objected when the high court, in a little-noted recent opinion, said this unprovoked and malicious assault by a North Carolina prison guard amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.

The court's decision came a few days after Thomas' now-famous former law clerk John C. Yoo was charged with flawed reasoning, but not professional misconduct, as a Justice Department lawyer when he applied much the same view toward the treatment of Al Qaeda prisoners.

In the so-called torture memos in 2002, Yoo reasoned that subjecting prisoners to simulated drowning or "stress positions" in cold cells was not illegal torture because it did not cause the intense pain of a serious injury, equivalent to "death or organ failure."

Thomas' consistent record of dismissing claims of prison brutality, most of them joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, shows that Yoo's view of torture was not that of a rogue lawyer. Instead, it represents a strain of conservative thinking that looks back in history to define cruelty and torture, rather than toward what the court has called the "evolving standards of decency."





Over two decades, Thomas and Scalia have repeatedly dissented when the court ruled for prisoners who alleged they were subjected to cruelty. They include an inmate who was handcuffed to a "hitching post" and forced to stand shirtless for seven hours in the hot summer sun of Alabama. Another involved an inmate from Louisiana who was repeatedly punched in the mouth by a guard.

According to Thomas, this harsh treatment did not qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. "Judges -- not jailers -- impose punishment," he wrote.

The two justices explained that the word "punishment" as it was used in the English Bill of Rights in 1689 referred to judges imposing punishment for a crime. Prison guards do not impose "punishment" even if they mete out cruelty, they said.

Scalia raised eyebrows when he repeated this view on the CBS TV program "60 Minutes." When asked about torture and cruelty toward prisoners, he discounted the possibility. "Has anyone ever referred to torture as punishment? I don't think so," Scalia said. "What's he punishing you for? He's trying to extract" information, he said.

Yoo took a similar approach in his 2002 memo. He said a CIA interrogator could not violate the law against using torture if his "specific intent" was to obtain information rather than to inflict pain.

This is one area of law where Thomas and Scalia are not in sync with the court's other conservatives.

When he was a young Justice Department lawyer, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. argued on behalf of Keith Hudson, the Louisiana inmate who had been punched in the mouth and kicked by a prison guard. A supervisor stood by and told the officers "not to have too much fun." The punches left Hudson with a swollen face, loosened teeth and a cracked dental plate. Roberts argued in 1991 that this unprovoked beating was cruel and unusual punishment, and the high court agreed in a 7-2 decision in Hudson vs. McMillian.

Thomas and Scalia dissented and said Hudson did not have a "serious injury." Justice Harry A. Blackmun took them to task for this view. If adopted, it would "place various kinds of state-sponsored torture and abuse entirely beyond the pale of the Constitution," Blackmun wrote. As examples, he cited "whipping them with rubber hoses, beating them with naked fists, shocking them with electric currents, asphyxiating them short of death, intentionally exposing them to heat and cold, or forcibly injecting them with psychosis-inducing drugs."

The same issue of prison cruelty arose two weeks ago in the case from North Carolina. In a 7-2 decision, with Roberts in the majority, the court revived a suit from Jamey Wilkins, who had filed a handwritten petition to the justices. He had been punched and kicked, but a judge threw out his claim without a hearing because he did not show he had suffered a serious or permanent injury.

The Supreme Court reversed this decision and repeated its view that the use of "excessive physical force" is cruel and unusual punishment if it is malicious and unprovoked.

"I continue to believe Hudson was wrongly decided," Thomas said.

david.savage@latimes.com


Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times

Sunday, February 28, 2010

The Lies And Myths of Privatisation



Just Where It Went Wrong




Paul Volker has recently said, "Well, we’ve got a problem in governing in this country…, our inability to deal with very large evident problems is apparent."

Indeed we do, and the problem is not new. The problem became evident to many long before Mr. Volker's term as Chairman of the FED, and he, along with many others, are complicit in perpetuating it.

There are two beliefs held by America's powerful elite that make solving social problems impossible. In fact these beliefs exacerbate existing problems and continually create new ones.

Much of America's political and economic communities hold the belief that government exists to promote private-sector business which will in turn use its ingenuity, expertise, and the profit motive to solve society's problems, relieving the government of that responsibility. Politicians of both parties, more or less, have adopted this view. It accounts for the government's unwillingness to tax corporations and the wealthy, for both the Congress' ability to find money for corporations and war but rarely for people, and for the Republican assault on social programs, even social security. Republicans claim that all such programs should be privatized. Let the private sector handle social problems. It matters not that more than two hundred years of history proves the view to be misguided, perhaps something that Mr. Volker has come to finally recognize. No known instance of the private sector's addressing and solving a social problem exists. Social problems abound in all societies that have from time to time adopted this view. Since the fall of communism in Bulgaria, unsolved murders have become epidemic, and look at what happened in Russia and Israel after they abandoned communism and socialism respectively. Crime and poverty have become widespread while billionaires have crawled from the woodwork.

The reason this always happens lies in another view held by the same elite: private-sector companies have one and only one responsibility—the pecuniary interests of their stockholders. Private-sector companies have no social responsibilities. The chief proponents of this view are the late Milton Friedman and the Chicago school of economics, although the view is quite widespread and was formulated long ago. It is sophistically called economic freedom.

That these two notions are incompatible should be obvious. The first places the responsibility of solving social problems on the private sector and the latter removes that responsibility from the very same private sector. The result is that neither the private sector nor the government takes responsibility for the solution of the "very large evident problems" that Mr. Volker now recognizes.

But these notions also account for why the government's stimulus packages are not working. The original stimulus that gave almost a trillion dollars to the investment and automotive communities has produced meager results. Now the administration is proposing a "jobs bill" that merely consists of giving small businesses that hire new workers tax breaks, which is just another instance of the government's promoting private-sector businesses in an effort to solve a social problem. These programs are burglarious. The people are made to take on debt to pay for their own jobs.

There is much forthright criticism of these programs. See Obama's disco-era jobs bill, but the Congress will pay no attention; the dogma will prevail, and the economic problem with all of its associated social problems will persist in greater or lesser form.

A number of pieces have appeared which describe the stimulus as a failure. Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation writes, "Congress does not have a vault of money waiting to be distributed. Every dollar Congress injects into the economy must first be taxed or borrowed out of the economy. No new spending power is created. It is merely redistributed from one group of people to another. . . . Yes, government spending can put under-utilized factories and individuals to work–but only by idling other resources in whatever part of the economy supplied the funds. If adding $1 billion would create 40,000 jobs in one depressed part of the economy, then losing $1 billion will cost roughly the same number of jobs in whatever part of the economy supplied Washington with the funds. It is a zero-sum transfer regardless of whether the unemployment rate is 5 percent or 50 percent."

But why Carroll and others like him fail to notice that the same thing happens when the government subsidizes private-sector business ventures is logically incomprehensible. Any subsidy comes from somewhere and goes somewhere else. All governments engage in the practice of transferring money from one group to another. From whom the money should be taken and to whom it should be given is the essential question. That it should be taken from the poorest and given to the richest is what contradicts all known moral principles and has provoked the common widespread opposition to the stimulus.

And the Wall Street Journal reports in The Stimulus Didn't Work that "The data show government transfers and rebates have not increased consumption at all." But only an economist would ever have expected it to. Birds won't feed if the birdseed in sprinkled over the dog's food. Transferring money to vendors does not increase consumption.

Job creation is the measure everyone seems to be looking at, but merely creating jobs is itself not helpful. Anyone who has looked at the way the unemployment rate is calculated knows that it is bogus. It is not mathematically possible for the number of jobs lost in a month to be greater than the number gained and have the unemployment rate drop. Two plus two never equals three. Furthermore, it is perfectly conceivable for a society to have full employment and widespread poverty. All that is required is sufficiently low wages. Widespread poverty is a social problem that is worse than unemployment. In fact, if merely reducing the unemployment rate were the goal, given the way the employment rate is calculated, the goal could be accomplished more quickly by just paying the unemployed enough to take them off the rolls of jobseekers. Some economists, Stiglitz for instance, have claimed that the reason employment is a lagging indicator is that wages are not reduced fast enough in economic downturns to stimulate it. But lowering wages creates rather than solves social problems.

The powerful elite in America who object to social programs for the people, otherwise known as entitlements, apparently don't recognize that subsidizing the private sector is itself an entitlement. The private sector knows that it can expect these subsidies and feels it is entitled to them, and when some companies are deemed "to big to fail," the entitlement becomes absolutely necessary. The result is that the government exists for the benefit of the private sector and not for the people. The private sector endures while the people perish. It results in the absurdity of the nation's having thousands of empty houses while homeless families live on the streets along with their hungry children. See Suburban homeless: Rising tide of women, families. Is this how the greatness of America is to be measured? Is this how we want the world to view us? Is this the kind of world we want to live in?

So what is the upshot of all of this? There are only three logical possibilities.

· One is that the private sector be required to take on the responsibility for solving social problems, exacting severe penalties from those companies that don't assume it.

· Another is that the government abandon the view that the private sector can or will solve social problems and assume that responsibility itself.

· The third is to do nothing, making clear that the government assumes the attitude of William H. Vanderbilt who said, "The public be damned!"


I suspect that those who make up America's power-elite would prefer the last but lack Vanderbilt's honesty. These people are, of course, evil through and through. But I wonder which alternative Mr. Volker would select, and whether he's honest enough to even confront the issue. We'll never know of course, for Mr. Volker along with everyone else in this elite class have adopted Pascal's view that "the best defense against logic is ignorance," and they maintain their ignorance by ignoring all critics.



John Kozy is a retired professor of philosophy and logic who blogs on social, political, and economic issues. After serving in the U.S. Army during the Korean War, he spent 20 years as a university professor and another 20 years working as a writer. He has published a textbook in formal logic commercially, in academic journals and a small number of commercial magazines, and has written a number of guest editorials for newspapers. His on-line pieces can be found on http://www.jkozy.com/ and he can be emailed from that site's homepage.