Living under Corporatism!

There all all sorts of corporations and corporate personalities just as there are in individuals. But, an overweening characteristic of big corporations is what appears to be greed (it really isn’t exactly that) and often an antagonistic relationship with their employees, especially those on the lower levels. I believe this is a direct result of corporate necessity to MAKE AS BIG A PROFIT AS POSSIBLE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE - thus the appearance of greed. Everything else is subordinated to those goals, and I do mean EVERYTHING.

This is the so-called ‘Capitalistic’ system which we still so avidly subscribe to in this country, but which has now actually morphed into “CORPORATISM” and is in reality a very muscular and burly second cousin only to a far weaker ‘capitalism’. In our country this fact is not yet widely perceived and the corporatists prefer to continue to fly under the radar using the capitalist label.

Corporations are also the largest beneficiaries by far of public welfare - in the form of tax advantages if not outright cash benefits which are also very common. Corporatists do not wish for the public to understand that corporatism now rules, for if we did there very well might be a strong public rejection and a move towards more socialism and perhaps even communistic type systems.

That is exactly what happened when Marx, Engels and Lenin motivated the masses against the piratical capitalist plunderers of their times.

One big difference is that instead of individuals or very small groups of people controlling corporations, there are today interlocking Boards of Directors, sometimes involved with many other corporations, who employ ‘hired guns’ in the form of highly trained CEO’s and CFO’s, etc., to do their bidding, thus moving themselves one or more levels away from the actual corporate piracy and antisocial corporate conduct. Another major difference is corporatists are clever enough today to spread the largesse around among more people near the top in order to keep everyone doing their bidding, or at least quiet and complacent.

Thus you have the spectacle of all the CEO’s of all the major tobacco corporations together in one group, blatantly and cynically lying before Congress - and getting completely away with it!

Today in our country money controls our political system in a way not seen in a century. Corporatism has seen to this, and has worked assiduously to remove obstacles preventing money from influencing laws and regulation. “Corporate Campaign Contributions” are now widely expected and accepted - and cynically defined as ‘Freedom of Speech’ instead of the vote buying bribes they in reality are.

Corporatists have also moved aggressively to control media and public organs of expression, and to suppress those they perceive as antagonistic to their interests. There are minutely planned and organized campaigns against anyone or anything perceived as populist, a la Karl Rove et al. The word “Liberal” has very nearly been defined as a swear word today and the word ‘progressive’ is rapidly being redefined as well. In other words, ‘black’ has become ‘white’ and vice versa.


I am amazed at the success Neo-Cons have in redefining something to be exactly the opposite of what it really is; “Bringing Freedom and Democracy to Iraq” while unilaterally invading and subjugating Iraq, or ‘Protecting Our Freedoms” while energetically taking them away being two prime examples. Unfortunately for us there are too many more.

Of course not all corporations are evil. There are still examples of corporations who ‘do good’ and treat their people - all of them - well. But, all corporations must survive in the competitive marketplace. Because of our now perverted system, larger corporations in particular are very susceptible to being subordinated to or becoming controlled by corporatists with strictly monetary interests above all else. Remember the old adage about nice guys finishing last? Ours is a decidedly unfriendly landscape for ‘good’ corporations.

Many large corporations are guilty of ‘buying’ public good will by contributing large sums of money to worthy causes, but which sums are very small mini-fractions of their bottom lines. Exxon Mobil contributes relative pittances to worthy causes while cynically and simultaneously working (and funding) behind the scenes efforts to undermine global warming mitigation and avoid court ordered fines for example.

Cynically, many large corporations mount egregiously false campaigns to polish their public images. BP touts their ‘environmentally friendly’ behavior for example when nothing could be further from the truth. In fact this practice is so pervasive I am surprised we haven’t seen laws passed against such barefaced corporate lying - but they remain blithely free to do so with impunity. No one in politics or the major media ever calls them on it. Not ever.

Such is life under corporatism!

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- - - - Benito Mussolini.

Dennis Hastert Interview

An imaginary interview with Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert over the Mark Foley controversy:

INTERVIEWER: Good afternoon Speaker Hastert. Thank you for meeting with me for this interview. There are just a few questions I’d like to ask you about Representative Foley.

Speaker HASTERT : Yes, well. I’ll help you all I can but there’s not a great deal I know about this whole business you understand.

INTERVIEWER: Well Mr. Speaker, what about allegations that you have known about Mark Foley’s predatory pederasty behavior since July, 2003?

Speaker HASTERT : Nonsense! That’s just another vicious partisan lie and a scheme to make political hay by the Democrats. I only learned about Foley in September of ’03!

INTERVIEWER: But didn’t you recently claim you hadn’t heard about it at all until the messages between Foley and the pages were made public.

Speaker HASTERT : Well, I just didn’t remember it until someone refreshed my memory for me. Of course now it has been disclosed that Representative Foley was sexually abused as a child and has been suffering from alcoholism since last Friday too.

INTERVIEWER: Isn’t it your duty as a leader and Speaker of the House to take overall responsibility to make sure all representatives obey the law, and in particular protect the young pages?

Speaker HASTERT : Well of course it is. As you know under my leadership we have now opened a full and complete investigation into this unfortunate affair.

INTERVIEWER: Don’t you think you should resign & let the investigation proceed without being influenced by you, another Republican? Couldn’t that be construed as a conflict of interest?

Speaker HASTERT: Of course I shouldn’t resign. I’m the Republican leader. Republicans control the House. Republicans control the Senate. There’s a Republican sitting in the White House. Republicans control the Ethics Committee. Republicans control everything and I’m untouchable and can’t be made to resign by anyone unless a majority of Republicans say so! There’s no conflict of interest unless we say so either!

INTERVIEWER: Don’t you think you’re setting a double standard here? For example Republicans viciously went after Clinton for his dalliance with a 21 year old White House intern - above the age of consent incidentally. Kenneth Starr spent over 80 million taxpayer dollars to do that.

Speaker HASTERT: Well, this is not anywhere near as serious as what Clinton did. There's no real proof yet Mark Foley ever did anything with a page either. We’re contacting every single page to make sure there’s no proof in the future too, no mater how much it costs. There was absolute proof Clinton did something - a stain on a blue dress if you remember.

INTERVIEWER: But Mr. Speaker, don’t you have an overall responsibility to protect the teenage pages? I mean they are High School juniors for Heaven’s sakes!

Speaker HASTERT: Listen. Those kids are smart. That’s why they are selected as pages in the first place. Anyhow, who’s to say they didn’t scheme to set this up and trap Foley? How about that, huh? Just because they are young doesn’t mean they aren’t dirty little conniving political beasts!

INTERVIEWER: But Mr. Speaker, it’s your DUTY . . .

Speaker HASTERT: LISTEN! Don’t talk to me about duty. Those little bastards have caused all kinds of trouble now. Just look at the mess they’ve made here! All good Republicans KNOW this is just a dirty, Democrat plot to muddy the waters and put the screws to Republicans! That just goes without saying for Heaven’s sakes! If we can find something to hang on those little page bastards we’ll prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law By God! I wouldn’t be a damned bit surprised to find out a lot of ‘em are Enemy Combatants either!

INTERVIEWER: Enemy Combatants? But, there’s absolutely no evidence or proof of anything like that! Not even a suggestion . . .

Speaker HASTERT: Proof schmoof! By God we’ll find some proof! I mean what in hell do you think the FBI is for these days? That’s the difference between Republicans and Democrats anyway you know. Republicans have never let the mere absence of proof be a problem! By God we’ll get the CIA involved if we have to!

INTERVIEWER: You’d make up some kind of case against them?

Speaker HASTERT: Hell yes! Just look at the damage to Republicans they’re causing just over a little bit of pedophilia. Keep in mind what’s important here is the Republican Party and the continuity of the party! Rendition is certainly not out of the question here either!

INTERVIEWER: Rendition?

Speaker HASTERT: Damned right! That’s what we do with Enemy Combatants you know . . . never have to worry about ‘em again!

INTERVIEWER: But how could you ever say any one of these kids is an Enemy Combatant? I mean one of them is from a right wing neo-con family in Louisiana for goodness sakes!

Speaker HASTERT: Doesn’t matter! Don’t even need to. If that little bastard’s got a Democrat anywhere in his family background - grandma, great aunt, third cousin whatever - there’s a damned good chance he’s an Enemy Combatant. We can make the case! Just look at that John Walker Lindh for example. You know, the "American Taliban” kid. All we had to do was threaten to classify him as an Enemy Combatant to get his confession! Now he’s doing twenty years without parole, right now, this day!

INTERVIEWER: But, how can you possibly do that? You’d make up the evidence?

Speaker HASTERT: Wouldn’t have to! A single Democrat in the woodpile would be enough for us! That’s all the proof we need. . . .

INTERVIEWER: Well Mr. Speaker, I certainly am surprised and amazed at your position on this matter. There’s just a few more questions I need to ask you . . . .

Speaker HASTERT: Sorry! I’ve gotta go now. Got a high level Republican strategy session to hold with my colleagues, then a pig roast to attend before my next fund raiser. No more time.

INTERVIEWER: But Mr. Speaker, you promised me a full hour for this interview . . .

Speaker HASTERT: Doesn’t matter! Gotta go! Say, you wouldn’t have any Democrats in your background would you . . . ? You sure do ask a lot of suspicious Enemy Combatant type questions . . . .

INTERVIEWER: Yep! You’re right! Gotta go too!

Global Warming Proof

Someone recently sent me some graphical proof of global warming to combat all the nay sayers and obfuscators who claim there's no such thing. This graphic closely correlates to the shrinkage of planetary ice mass on Earth. (click on the images to expand):


Coincidentally some history buffs believe they have now established a strong link between the rise of global temperatures and the average head size of some of the prominent Republican figures over the years. In this case, the head sizes correlate directly and parallel to the global temperature gains over the same time periods:

Some of the less respectful have suggested that this really simply illustrates a Republican "Pig Factor" and does not necessarily relate directly to Global Warming. Personally I think they are one and the same and closely inter-twined.

Vituperative & Foulmouthed?

An acquaintance has wondered if my blog could be considered 'vituperative & foulmouthed' as the Washington Post's David Broder has described certain 'liberal's' blogs.

I like to consider myself as 'progressive' though I wouldn't be surprised to be described as a 'vituperative liberal' by some. Such are the labels used by word gamers these days. I consider myself simply as an 'environmentalist' for example, but invariably find people like me now painted as 'extreme' or 'radical environmentalists' by the likes of Alaska's Senator Ted Stevens or Congressman Don Young even though I've not changed nor done nothing more extreme or radical than publicly express my opinion. Such are the words games that politicians play to marginalize those who don't agree with them. It is just a fact of life today in America.

I do try not to be foulmouthed. A friend once told me that swearing and being foulmouthed was just a manifestation of a lack of imagination and intellect, not to mention vocabulary. I've always considered myself to be 'center of the bird' in the words of comedian Pat Paulsen who humorously ran for President back in Nixon's time. He claimed that having too much left wing or right wing just caused you to fly around in circles. I agree. But, being a 'progressive centrist' lately has meant being shoved (without moving!) way over to the left by the Neo-cons who have now pried the country so far to the right. I did an inventory once not too long ago and realized that I have actually voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my life.

But, my views are changing over the past few years. I now perceive we live in neither a democracy, nor the 'capitalist' society that I've always believed in. Instead, I've belatedly recognized the US is actually under 'corporatism' or 'corporate statism' no matter which party holds the White House. Though admittedly this is far more true under Republicans. In fact, under the present administration our country can quite accurately be called Fascist as I understand the term. My countrymen may not like to hear that, but in my humble opinion that is very close to the truth.

Partisan Irresponsibility

There’s a well deserved Republican leadership meltdown ongoing over the scandal involving Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley & congressional pages. Foley ‘resigned immediately’ on 29 September, 2006 following disclosure of his inappropriate e-mails to male pages. It is widely speculated that Foley is in fear of further disclosures.

Ironically, Foley is a high profile opponent of chid pornography and served as cochairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. He was sponsor of child protection legislation, but his e-mails to boy pages show a definite pederast slant of his own. Maybe all Foley’s ‘protesting too much’ is akin to his being a wolf in sheep’s clothing. The biblically inclined like to point to Matthew 7:15:

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing,
but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
You will know them by their fruits.”

Foley may be subject to criminal prosecution under the very laws he helped write and pass. If so, his would be a classically apt example of being ‘hoist by his own petard’. This cliché was made famous by William Shakespeare in Hamlet:

“There's letters seal'd: and my two schoolfellows,
Whom I will trust as I will adders fang'd,
They bear the mandate;
they must sweep my way
And marshal me to knavery.
Let it work;
For 'tis the sport to have the engineer
Hoist with his own petar:
and 't shall go hard
But I will delve one yard below their mines
And blow them at the moon:
O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.”

As Shakespeare meant it, “hoist” means “blown up” as in bomb. A petar(d) is literally a buried bomb (mine). Being hoist by your own petard means being caught by your own booby trap! How fitting in this instance.

But the real story isn’t about Mark Foley. We will always have pederasts, perverts and child molesters among us. It’s the responsibility of other adults to protect the children against them. The real story is the partisan cover-up of Foley’s antics by the GOP leadership for well over a full year. Like the Catholic church covering up and hiding the predatory abuse of children by the priesthood, the Republican leadership made a cynical choice to protect their Republican turf instead of the children.

Astoundingly, Foley's excusers have gone so far as to blame the teenage pages themselves. Matt Drudge calls them ‘little beasts’. You can listen to his ranting for yourself here: MATT DRUDGE

It is unbelievably ridiculous, except that it is also a serious failure of responsibility. That the Republican leadership would choose to cover things up and leave the teenagers exposed to Foley’s overtures is criminal in many people's opinions. To their credit some Republican leadership are calling for a full investigation and censuring some of those whose responsibility it was to have taken action. This story is far from over.

And for Alaskans, what response do you think we have had from our lone congressman, Republican Don Young? Unsuprisingly, U.S. Rep. Don Young is not joining the call for House Speaker Dennis Hastert's resignation over a former Florida congressman's online messages to underage boys.

Meredith Kenny, the Alaska Republican's spokeswoman, said "It's not in his character to comment on someone else's personal problems. Well, not problems, someone's personal matters," "He's not going to get involved in this."

I thought it very apropos that the web site for ex-Congressman Foley's 16th Florida District now terms the position as "The Honorable Vacant" and the "Leadership" as "None":

It's All in the (Business) Numbers

Number of workplace arrests made by U.S. immigration authorities in 1997: 17,554[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]

Number in 2003: 445[U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]

Percentage change since 1999 in federal prosecutions of white-collar crime: -25[Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (Syracuse, N.Y.)]

Chances that a U.S. company settling a corporate crime case will illegally deduct some or all of the settlement to the IRS: 3 in 5[U.S. Government Accountability Office]

Average percentage by which U.S. senators’ investments outperform the stock market each year: 12[Alan J. Ziobrowski, Georgia State University (Atlanta)]

Chance that the CEO will quit or be fired within eighteen months: 1 in 2[RHR International Company (Wood Dale, Ill.)]

Average performance rating, on a scale of 1 to 100, of top U.S. government managers who are political appointees: 62[David Lewis, Princeton University (New Jersey)]

Average for those who are career bureaucrats: 70[David Lewis, Princeton University (New Jersey)]

Estimated amount the U.S. would save each year on paperwork if it adopted single-payer health care: $161,000,000,000[James G. Kahn, University of California, San Francisco]

Percentage change since 2000 in the average amount U.S. workers spend on out-of-pocket medical expenses: +93

Harper’s Magazine

Failing the Grade

The war in Iraq has emerged as the dominate issue for the ‘06 elections. Politicians of both parties franctically try to distance themselves from their almost universal previous support for this illegal and ill-conceived war.

The American public is increasingly disenchanted with the war and the world at large now widely views the US as being a bullying aggressor in Iraq. Nonetheless we continue to hear President Bush cry “Staying the Course” and his people running this war compare those who disagree to traitors and Nazis and characterize them as 'unpatriotic'.

Bush’s poll numbers have plummeted and Republicans overall are being blamed for this situation. The rush to distance themselves and disown the war has become a stampede, but it increasingly looks as if Republicans will be hugely punished in the upcoming election.

While both major parties are complicit in the Iraq War fiasco, a look at the stated goals by this administration for the war, and the progress towards those goals validates the overall public view on the war. I have taken the trouble to prepare a ‘Report Card” to illustrate this.

If this administration were in a public school they would be sent back a grade and that is just what might happen soon: