DUMB, DUMB AND DUMBER

Sadly, we are a nation of increasingly stupid people. We must be. A nation with even a modicum of collective intelligence would not elect a George W. Bush as its president. And we have done it twice. (Technically, we have elected him only once; and then by a lot less than a landslide, but let's not nitpick. In 2000, like it or not, he was probably the people's choice. That the Supreme Court had to ratify the decision is really little more than a historical footnote.)

The course of developments which allow a martinet like Bush to occupy the White House had their origins in the Reagan administration. The late Ronald Reagan may have been a hail fellow well met, but when it came to his understanding of what was going on around him his elevator never stopped at the top floor. And he was not above whatever chicanery was necessary to pursue his agenda. Begin with Iran-Contra, and the ultimate sale of arms to an enemy in exchange for American hostages. Proceed to his coddling of the religious right, his preference for corporate America over its workers, his disdain for all things "liberal", and his elbow rubbing with the rich and the very rich, and you have the framework for what was to come. Indeed, we saw the creation of the so-called Reagan/Bush Dynasty. That it lasted only twelve years, with an eight year interruption by the Clintons, is the consequence only of the fact that George Bush I was so obviously inept that he could not wrangle a second term. While intoning those now immortal words "read my lips", and then upping taxes, he shot himself in the foot and fell out of favor--even with some of his own support base. But, Reagan/Bush is now enjoying its second installment (with conservatives rarely ceasing to laud Reagan as its progenitor) and, barring a resurrection of our collective conscience it is entirely possible that it could extend well in to the second decade of this century. Indeed, to forestall such a development we will have to become a lot smarter than we are now.

But what has transpired from the early 80s until now is more than the Reagan/Bush flag waving, more than the pernicious perspective of the moral right and the conservatively confused, and more than their combined influence. We have become a country of would be third worlders because we have lost our moral compass, because we have demeaned the necessity of basic education, and because we have allowed an increasingly sizeable portion of our population to lapse in to a one track mentality which concentrates on little more than the present. Contemplations of the future are left to those consigned to decision making, to those who get elected (regardless their political preferences), and to those few who might actually give a damn. And these groups, combined, represent a pitifully minute percentage of the total population. And when that population goes to the polls it does so in such minority numbers as to permit the election, in all too many instances, of folks whose agendas are usually confined to their own personal interests. Society is not well served this way, but it is a by-product of our system that participative democracy is optional. If you don't want to be bothered, you don't have to be.

About fifty years ago we witnessed the transition of our work force from a largely blue-collar
group to one which mutated to white-collar and, more recently, to one which is heavily oriented to services. While the manufacturing segment is still part of the economy it is no longer persuasive. And as it has eroded, and been replaced with a myriad of fast food places, retail establishments, and automated operations of all kinds and descriptions, collective bargaining, and even basic worker rights, have been assaulted and weakened. The fourty hour week is now closer to fourty-five, more workers earn the minimum wage than ever before, and fourty million Americans languish without health insurance. And Reagan/Bush, both then and now, do nothing to improve the situtation. And how could they? Their basic philosophy argues against the masses while favoring the well-healed. Reagan called it "trickle down". And the two Bushs have simply expanded on that notion while using other rhetoric to explain it. The Clintons did try to restructure the nation's health care system, but their proposals were ill-advised, they encountered strong congressional objections, and their plan faltered. And George W. Bush has not even addressed the subject.

And somewhere in the midst of this societal melt-down (which, let's face it, plays right in to the hands of the likes of Bush and his cohorts) we have also seen the degradation of our public schools. The current product of twelve years in the public school system is, with some notable exceptions, almost illiterate. While high school graduation rates remain constant the number of graduates actually receiving real diplomas is sharply reduced. Concurrently, the numbers walking away with polished up attendance certificates is increasing by leaps and bounds. And the Bush answer to this dilemma is to further weaken the public system by favoring so-called private school vouchers for the handful of aspirants who could qualify for such largesse. That Bush actually believes the country's few private schools could make a difference is astounding. That we should fall in with such thinking is ludicrous. But the dumber we get the more susceptible we become to the sly charms of a leadership which seems to honestly believe it can convince us that the sun rises in the west.

A nation of intelligent citizens (particularly a nation which bills itself as the world's only "super power") would not allow the circumstances with which we now contend. But many of these conditions proliferate, and most of our citizenry sit back, observe it all stoically (or, worse, ignore it entirely), and while Nero fiddles, Rome burns. To wit:

We are embroiled, for no discernibly acceptable reasons, in a war in Iraq which has, to date, claimed 2000 American lives. And even on this account we are being bamboozled. When the administration admits to 2000 American war deaths it offers no accounting for many others whose deaths are not calculated because they had the misfortune of not actually dying on Iraqi soil. They were injured there, transported to hospitals or clinics elsewhere, and then died. But they are not, as far as this administration is concerned, casualties of war. Thanks to this peculiar manipulation most Americans believe that "only" 2000 American soldiers have perished in this war. Furthermore, to the administration, this may be a small point, but it is all too indicative of the kind of hoo-ha these folks are capable of. Honesty, it seems, is not an element of their credo.

But we already knew that didn't we? We went to war, after all, because Saddam Hussein represented a clear and dangerous threat to this country. He had weapons of mass destruction (aimed, one assumes, at us), he was in league with Al Queda, and he was spoiling for a fight. That the facts contravened these assertions, moreover, was irrelevant to Bush and company. And when the president was obliged, finally, to fess up (which he never actually did) he simply changed the story, claiming that we had an obligation to rid the world of Saddam and to bring democracy to his beleagured country. And the so-called Al Queda connection never has gone away. No less than Dicky Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld still try to ballyhoo that argument. Facts, after all, are not as important as pursuing a victory we probably cannot (and arguably should not) achieve.

Following the Al Queda attacks of 9/11 the president vowed to "get" Osama bin Laden. To that end he committed twelve thousand troops to the mountains and deserts of Afghanistan. And four years later we are still looking for the elusive Osama. Bush claims we have dismantled the Taliban, he observes that we have inflicted crippling losses on Al Queda (while admitting that it probably has operational cells all over the globe); yet Osama remains at large. Even a generous twenty-five million dollar bounty has produced no credible leads. And every now and then the erstwhile Osama forwards an audio or video tape to the Al-Jazeera network to serve notice that he remains alive and well. If he has a sense of humor (which seems unlikely) he has to be chuckling in his tea over the Keystone Kop mentality which has yet to ferret him out. Lest we forget, however, Osama must have a lot of friends. And no small numbers of them live in Saudi Arabia. Remember that fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 attackers were Saudi nationals; but it never occured to Bush to even consider looking in that country. He is told by the Saudi royal family that Osama is an outcast (inspite of his Saudi nationality and his large family residing there), and that suffices to convince the president that Osama--wherever else he may be--is not in Saudi Arabia. Maybe not, but taking a look would seem to have been logical; certainly as logical as posting twelve thousand troops in Afghanistan, a country which during the heyday of the former Soviet Union engaged the formidable Russian war machinery and emerged victorious.

Bush justifies American involvement in Iraq, at least in part, by noting that its citizenry are entitled to the wonders of American style democracy. That such a notion is not well understood in an Islamic republic which, to all intent of purpose has never had such circumstances, (and was not asking for them) is, to the president, much less important than seeing to it that the opportunity is forced upon them.

The error, we believe, is in the all too obvious inability of anyone in this administration to perceive any issue from any perspective other than its own. Democracy works here; ergo it will work there. Christianity is the religious choice of America's majority so it follows that it is preferable to other spiritual options. That neither premise is truly tenable in the middle east never occurs to the inhabitants of Bush World. And that is stupid!

But what could be more stupid than the villification of France when it opted not to support our invasion of Iraq? We even went so far as to rename French Fries, "Freedom Fries".Surely the laughter in Gaul was heard from the Arc de Triomphe to the beaches in Cannes. And in one act of childishness we all but lost one of our few real allies. And if that wasn't enough we proceeded to simultaneously irritate most of the free world. (We did not have to rile the rest of the globe; they were already fed-up with our churlish behavior.)

Bush may have thought our preemptive invasion of Iraq was justified, but through that one act of arrogance he radically altered two hundred years of American foreign policy; and in so doing he assaulted the foundation of confidence the rest of the world had in us. For no matter how fearsome we may have become, before that invasion the world was content in the fact that we would attack no one unless we were attacked first. It was a sane and sensible policy; one designed to assure the world of our civility; and it disappeared in March, 2003. And most of the world now fears us even more than we fear the spectre of terrorism. Worse, the rationale extended for this event was a series of lies; lies told to the American people and to the world at large. And from Bush World, there will never be an apology or even the hint of second thoughts. Self righteousness, after all, is a stentorian hallmark of this president and his White House toadies.

And this administration survives because we were too dumb, and too uninterested, to vote it out of office. Too many of us believed the lies and the propaganda, and too many more of us did not watch the evening news, did not read our newspapers, and sat dumbly on our hands while Bush World grew up and engulfed us. And now, even with fading popularity, the administration continues its pursuit of an agenda doomed to failure. Be it the war in Iraq, Social Security, no child left behind, health care, or any of numerous issues on the president's plate, success is most unlikely.

And while Rome burns a frighteningly sizeable percentage of its citizenry concerns itself with Desparate Housewives, The Survivor, and a multitude of other inanities. And that is dumb, dumb, and dumber........................................

Garrett500
10/27/2005

GETTING GASSED

Three weeks ago, at a time when Katrina, Rita, and the Bush administration were thrashing about with impunity, I paid $3.09 for a gallon of unleaded "premium" gas. Today, with Wilma fulminating on the east coast, I filled-up for "only" $2.79 a gallon. I'm no mathematician, but I believe the difference is thirty cents a gallon. Of course, just a year ago, the price for the same gallon of liquid gold was a mere $2.09.

The oil industry, essentially unregulated by anything more than the vagaries of corporate greed, knows its onions. You don't generate thirty-five billion dollars of quarterly profits if you can't do simple arithmetic. And the guys at Chevron/Texaco, Shell, B P, Arco, et al, are masters of mathematic manipulation. They know, for instance, that the psychology of the American consumer is such that a thirty cent drop in the price of their product at the pump brings smiles to the beleagured owners of SUVs, sedans, pick-ups, and gas guzzlers in general. And they know, also, that most of us have short memories; that the fact that today's price is still sixty cents a gallon more than a year ago is less resonant than the prospect of paying less today than we did a week ago.

But the point, of course, is that while they are doing it cleverly (even blaming the raging winds of a handful of hurricanes), they are continuing to raise prices. And when we complain too much they simply remind us that it could be worse; we could be living in England and paying six dollars a gallon. Worse, we could be experiencing shortages at the pump. Never mind the fact that Mexican and Russian oil reserves have been barely touched (which they tell us is because the quality of the crude is too crude); we should feel most fortunate that fuel is available, that it is "reasonable" compared to other places, and we should just shut our mouths, pay the price, and "enjoy the ride".

So, while we rejoice at prices lower than they were a month ago, we are not expected to wonder what they might be a year from now. And while we savor the moment (forgetting about the recent past), the oil industry aims for forty billion in quarterly profits. Like I said, these guys know their onions. And we are getting gassed...........

Garrett500
10/25/2005

ABORTION ON DEMAND--A NECESSARY EVIL!

Let's begin with the premise that life is sacred, that taking it (regardless the reasons) is sinful; and abortion is a method of taking life. But, we are left with a dilemma. Everyday, in every nook and crannie of the world, unwanted babies are conceived, subsequently born in to lives of abject misery, and left to fester in an already moldering planet.

For the right to lifers the answer can be found in the Bible. Unfortunately, however, the Bible simply provides no answer for this ever worsening problem. Faith, in and of itself, simply does not feed the hungry, does not educate the illiterate, does not clothe the poor, and does not provide parenting for kids brought in to the world by those who neither can, nor, will raise the products of their passion. Those who believe otherwise are well intended, but, for the most part, they are seeing the issue through rose colored glasses.

The very term "unwanted babies" goes against the grain of everything most civilized people are reared to believe. In America, we grow-up believing (or at least we used to) that adulthood brings marriage and family; that life's paramount joys include producing offspring who will mature in to the next generation of scientists, doctors, sports stars, or even the president of the United States. But the age old dream of the middle class is now all too often the nightmare of far too many poor, undereducated, under (or un) employed citizens who's prospects are bleak and dreary. For these folks (and their numbers are huge, and growing disproportionately), the notion of raising kids is little more than ephemeral. If the women of this group become pregnant it is largely the result of no planning. And for those who's pregnancies result from rape or incest, the likelihood of a good outcome is too statistically minute to speak of.

We now live in a country in which fully half of the kids are being reared by one parent households. That is, of course, unconscionable, but that is part of the contemporary problem. Our collective, and individual, consciences are no longer sufficiently active as to impose moral consequences for things like pregnancy out of wedlock. Indeed, some celebrities even proudly announce being in a "family way" well in advance of being in a family way. Actress, Katie Holmes, recently announces that she is expecting Tom Cruise's child, and most of our society applauds their accomplishment. At least in their case, they can afford to raise the youngster. In all too many other circumstances involving what, for lack of a better term we will call premature pregnancies, the unmarried parents have no plans for a baby; and bringing it in to the world, and caring for, rearing it, and assuring it a reasonable future has not even occured to them. Indeed, their pregnancies are the unfortunate result of doing what comes naturally even when doing so should not have been done. But try to spout that logic in this day and age and you find yourself in a closet with no one to talk to. Ironically, the right to life folks advocate this position, but most of them are, in reality, loathe to practice what they preach. But then the right to life clan are generally well enough educated, and well enough off, to provide for their mistakes. And for those, regardless other circumstances, for whom right to life is a religious precept, faith will suffice. And there are probably some cases where it works. But in a changing world, in a culture as complex as the one we inhabit today, such spiritual idealism may have to give way to a harsher reality.

Birth control is preferable to abortion. But many right to lifers also object to this kind of intervention. Harking back to their religious training they observe that the Bible likens birth control to a defacto form of abortion. For them, therefore, abstinence is the only means of avoiding unwanted pregnancies. And there is a certain nobility in that position, but in the world we now live in it is undeniably pollyannish to suggest that you cannot have your cake, and you cannot eat it either. Back in the days when most of us practiced that kind of morality the number of unwanted pregnancies were far less than they are now. But, as observed earlier in this treatise, that kind of morality has gone the way of spats and high hats. It should not have, but it did; and the idea that it will be somehow revived is absurd. Not even the Catholic Church, for all of its seemingly noble canons, can reinstitute the days when premarital sex, and unwanted pregnancies, were societal taboos. Going to confession, and being assigned a penance of twenty Hail Marys is about as strict a penalty as there is for those Catholics who sexually transgress. And to that is added the remonstrance that abortion is unthinkable, that marriage should ensue, and that the impending offpspring be raised Catholic. And we do not disparage this process; we just think it contemporaneously ineffective. After all, when forgiveness is no more distant that the nearest confessional, the reprisal of sin seems assured.

But the issue, which is hardly confined to the U.S., has far reaching global implications. All kinds of arguments can be advanced in support of the idea that the planet simply cannot have too many people. But the facts contravene those arguments, and it becomes increasingly clear that the unfettered growth of the human race will utlimately result in disastrous shortages of natural resources. And it seems, like it or not, that such problems are already evident. Global warming, as a case in point, appears to be a manifestation of human intervention in the natural climatological process. There are, like or not, too many people on this planet. And further populating an already over populated world seems likely to further damage its eco-systems, and to result, unavoidably, in serious consequences for people everywhere. No, we do not suggest aborting all pregnancies. Nor do we propose anything approaching an end to the propagation of the human race. But we do believe measured steps to contain the population will soon become essential, and part of that process must, logically, entail the curbing of unwanted, unplanned, pregnancies. To object to wide-spread dissemination of birth control information, and methods, is, under the circumstances, criminally negligent. Every woman who does not want to get pregnant (and everyone who should not get pregnant for reasons of age, economic deprivation, or any other reason) should be educated in the means of preventing pregnancies. And while abstinence should be taught as a desireable alternative, all other healthful means should be instructed as well.

As for abortion, it should be available to those whose lives are endangered by pregnancy, to those whose pregnancies are the result of rape or incest, and to those whose ages or economic circumstances reasonably presuppose their inability to provide for their progeny. And, we also support the availability of abortion to those women, regardless other factors, who just plain do not want to be mothers. In most instances wherein abortion is contemplated we also suggest the availability of adoption as an alternative. And we believe society has an obligation to provide for, and to establish, this alternative. But in its absence (and let's face it, we are not doing well on this front), abortion on demand should be the law of the land. If and when the right to life folks offer alternatives to the obvious miseries of unwanted pregnancy (and they must do so in realistic, concrete, terms) alternatives to abortion will become logical and attractive. But if and until that happens, women (regardless their circumstances) should have the unilateral right to terminate pregnancies they do not wish to continue. They should be obliged to undertake such actions as early as possible ( we do not object to the illegalization of so-called late term abortions), and married women should make such decisions in concert with their husbands. But, ultimately, the decision should be theirs. And those men who think they know better should keep their counsel.
Until they can become pregnant, and experience all that the gals do, they should remain compassionate and silent.

We can all agree that abortion is less than desireable. Yes, we can even define it as evil. But, in the world we live in now it is a necessary evil. And countenancing it, at least until other reasonable alternatives become regularly available, is a no brainer.

Let us add this euphemistic postscript. If everyone who should not have sex abstains. Or if everyone who has sex without wanting pregnancy will use proven birth control methods, the abortion issue will resolve itself. But what do you suppose are the chances that these events might develop? We think slim and none. And slim has already left town...........

Garrett500
10/19/2005

MODERN COMMUNICATION, THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY!

While I was growing up I was aware that my mother was a prolific letter writer. She had friends and relatives from one end of the country to the other, and she wrote most of them regularly. And her letters were long, informative, steeped in humor and pathos, and often creative. And she would await the replies with baited breath. And, invariably, she was disappointed. To a news filled six page letter she would most often get a response of no more than a few lines. Sometimes, she got no reply at all. But the point, I suppose, was that she enjoyed writing. So, even with minimal responses she would perservere. Time, she thought, was limitless when it came to the joy of writing her annals of day to day living, and she could not imagine that her correspondents were anything less than thrilled to hear from her. After all, she was not saying, "Hi, how are you, I'm fine". She was expanding, at length, on the vicissitudes of all things important. That anyone could be blase about such matters was unthinkable. And when someone to whom she had penned an epistle would reply, a month or so later, that they had "read your interesting letter; sorry I have no time to answer with anthing more than greetings", she would excuse their behavior by noting (more or less accurately) that their busy lives did not permit them the luxury of anthing more than the most cursory communication.

And so it is with email. The pen, even the typewriter, have given way to the clackety-clack of the on-line instant memo; and the notion of long, newsy, letters is an art form relegated to the mists of memory. People no longer rush, daily, to the mail box to get that long awaited letter from Aunt Sue, Uncle Bob, or even their sons in Iraq. They need only to check their email; and their among the volumes of spam and other unwanted piffle they might find a line or two from a friend or relative. But virtually no one expects to find carefully composed prose. Indeed, given a paragraph, maybe two, we have come to expect spelling errors, grammatic assaults, and prose often so abbreviated as to be indecipherable. Ironically, as we improve the technology of communication we simultaneously degradate its quality.

I recall thinking (wistfully I now realize) that email would help us reinvent communication; that somehow it would encourage us to more carefully compose and edit our thoughts and ideas. But now that the jury is in no such developments have occured. And just as email has supplanted paper, the cell phone is now eradicating personal email. The endless ads--most of them shabby and dashed together with the internet equivalent of baling wire--continue to proliferate, but sitting down at the keyboard and writing the contemporary equivalent of a letter is fast giving way to endless chatter on wireless cell phones.

The good news is that we now have the ability, world-wide, to instantly communicate with almost anyone. Be it email or cell phone we can connect in nano seconds. The bad news is that we do it poorly. We murder the King's english, we abbreviate to the point of distraction, and we have damn little of substance to say. And what is ugly is that this obnoxious process is the by-product of our insistence on shortening every moment in a peculiarly twisted attempt to somehow lengthen them.

My mother went to her grave without ever getting that long letter she so generously sent to others. And were she alive today she would have found no one to write those letters to. And if she had written long emails the disappointment at the replies would have been even more palpable. As for the cell phone, she probably could not have gotten a word in edge wise.

Incidentally, does anyone know where I can find a simple old fashioned phone; the kind you dial easily and just answer when it rings? I hate to admit to ineptitude, but these phones which signal a call with a playing of the Battle Hymn Of The Republic, which allow you to watch TV, which take pictures, (and transmit them), and which have buttons too tiny for all but the smallest hands, are far too complicated for me. Hell, I would even listen to a telemarketer if I could figure out how to answer him.

Is it just me, or is our technology beginning to outstrip our ability to use it?

NO INFLATION? WHO ARE THEY KIDDING?

From Alan Greenspan to Milton Friedman to every so-called expert in the country, inflation is not happening. In fact, to spur the development of such an event we have the Federal Reserve raising interest rates on a quarterly basis. This, Mr. Greenspan assures us, will ward off inflationary tendencies. It appears, however, to just about anyone with a pocketbook (and the need to buy necessities), that the dreaded ogre of rising prices is with us, has been with us for some time, and is plodding along without regard to the Fed's presumed defense mechanisms.

Let us examine reality; the kind of real world experiences most of us have almost daily. Begin with housing prices. Can anyone honestly suggest that a sizeable percentage of the American populace have not been shut out of the American dream? Sure, with a myriad of creative mortgage programs home ownership is still within reach of some members of the so-called middle class. But most of those who jump in where others fear to tread discover, sooner or later, that their dream might be a nightmare in disguise. And with housing prices, and their concurrent month to month costs, rising precipitously, it is no secret that a frightening number of home owners (with mortage bankers as their managing partners) are in well over their heads. Values may be rising, but the accompanying debt is escalating even faster.

But housing costs are only one of the more visible symptoms of the inflationary spiral. And at least a few folks (those willing to sell in favor of even more expensive digs) can sometimes manage a momentary profit.

Other, even more irritating price escalations, are regularly evident to everyone with a car, a need to buy groceries, clothing, heat, air conditioning, restaurant meals, an occasional movie, or--heaven forfend--a clandestine candy bar. And if you have a credit card, and use it for anything more than the occasional purchase of something cheap, heaven help you.

In the past year gas prices have risen to levels which, for many of us, are prohibitive. The government assures us that current prices, when adjusted for inflation, remain lower than they were in 1973. Swell, but in 1973 we were paying roughly a buck a gallon. Today we are paying circa three bucks a gallon. And that means that if the government is correct, we are all earning three times more now than we were then. No doubt some of us are. But it is also true that many of us are not. People do not gripe about the cost of a commodity when it is within reason. Today's gas prices (the government's stance be damned) are not reasonable. More importantly, the oil conglomerates are making unprecented profits; upwards of thirty-five billion dollars a quarter. But that, according to conservative economists (and our current administration) is a sacred cow. They need those profits, we are told, to enable them to develop alternative fuels, to continue the search for more fossil fuels, and to reward their stockholders. Baloney, scotch the first two incentives and place the greatest emphasis on the last one. The answer is probably to buy oil stocks. But, like the price of their products, their share prices are out of reach for all but the well healed. The real answer, of course, is for Uncle Sam to apply the brakes to these robber barons. But that is not going to happen. And, sadly, a sizeable percentage of those most affected by this kind of inflation would argue, ignorantly, against controls. It is not unlike the country's most vehement opponents of collective bargaining. All too often those who rant the most are among the ones who would most benefit from being union members. It is a peculiar irony; the result of the kind of corporate propaganda which is so ingenious in its construction as to convince a naieve work force that the sun comes up in the west.

If you have been to a grocery store lately, and if you monitor the prices of the items you regularly purchase, you know that inflation is no joke. Meat prices, for instance, are absurdly inflated. A cut-up chicken for ten bucks? How is that possible? There are so many chickens in this country they cannot be counted. Or how about five bucks a pound for pork chops? Pork is the second most plentiful meat avalilable, but when you add in the lengthy list of contributors to its price at the meat counter it is not difficult to see how it has gotten gourmet expensive.

Less than ten years ago a five ounce can of Tomato paste sold for circa fourty-seven cents. Today, that same can garners an output of sixty-nine cents. Inflation? Of course!

A sugar laden bubble gum ball used to go for a nickel (as recently as ten years ago). Today it takes a quarter to wrestle that ball from its machine. Why? Why not?

A year ago a month of winter heat (natural gas) cost about sixty percent less than it is going to cost this winter. And those who air condition their homes with electricity are paying more than 100% more than was the case just two short summers ago. How can this not be called inflation?

Two years ago the price of a movie in the local multiplex went for about seven bucks. Now the price of a ducat is getting perilously close to ten dollars; and no end is in sight. (And Hollywood is making some of the worst films of all time.) And Lord help anyone who supplements their movie ticket with a coke or a box of popcorn. For a family of four a night at the movies can easily cost more than fifty bucks. And theater owners are wondering why attendance is down. Surely they jest...............

It was back in the sixties when a couple of clever banks invented the all-purpose credit cards we now know as Visa and MasterCard. Several travel and entertainment cards (American Express, Diner's Club and Carte Blanche) were already extant at that time but they were the more or less exclusive providence of the wealthy; and they had to be paid-off every month. But with the advent of Visa and MasterCard, just about everyone, and anyone, could get a card (or a fistful of them), credit limits well beyond their means, and instant access to the "good life". And back in those days interest rates were manageable. In fact, usury laws (which have since been expunged--except for mortgages) kept things sufficiently in balance as to preempt the spiral of debt which is now all too thoroughly ingrained in the domestic landscape. Indeed, a conspiracy of greed (the banks, and ours) have produced a situation, today, which legally enables financial institutions (both respected and otherwise) to assume the role once relegated to old time shysters. Who could have imagined a time when the issuers of credit cards could, with a straight face, charge upwards of 30% per year for their allocation of what were originally perceived as short term loans? And now, what with record delinquencies and over crowded bankruptcy courts, the banking industry, and issuers of retail credit cards, have convinced Congress to essentially wipe out bankruptcy as an alternative to confiscatory interest rates and the spiraling debt it causes. Inflation? What else? And this may be the most egregious of all the inflationary forms mentioned thus far. And how does the government help us? It conspires with the progenitors of our credit ladened economy to make it even more difficult for consumers to bridge the gap. Yes, credit is an optional aspect of life in America. Presumably, no one has to have a credit card, and no one who has one has to plunge in to debt. But, for most people, the matter is just not that simple. We are wooed, lured, and enticed, twenty four seven with non-stop invitations to spend our money. And much of what we are cajoled in to buying is available, to the masses, only with credit. And the notion of just saying no is realistically credible only to the extent that one's will power is more powerful than the incessant media messages. Keeping up with the Jones's, afterall, is an American tradition. And only the strongest among us can resist the clarion call to buy, buy, and buy more. And the credit purveyors know that better than anyone. What is more, they count on it with absolute certainty. And to cover their already well padded backsides they hike their charges, with not so much as the hint of an apology, to levels which insulate them from everything but customer bankruptcy. And now even that eventuality is covered. Can the reinvention of debtor's prison be on the horizon?

Inflation is not an ephemeral concept easily buffeted by quarterly raises in the prime interest rate. It is day to day fact of life and we are doing virtually nothing to prevent it. And the "we" referred to is the government. And lest we forget (or get hoodwinked in to thinking otherwise) "we" are the government. And "we" have a lot of work to do. And that work should not be the continual shrouding of the legitimate issues of the day. When oil companies profit to the exclusion of any concern for their customers (us), they should be reined in. When the cost of credit parallels the cost of doing business with the mob its purveyors should be regulated. And when a twenty-five cent candy bar starts costing a dollar someone should wake up and smell the chocolate. No inflation? Who are they kidding?

10/12/2005

Dick Morris writes another book and, almost three years before the next presidential sweepstakes, we have Hillary Clinton facing off with Condoleeza Rice. And political pundits from coast to coast are quickly swathed in speculation. That neither of these ladies is likely to be our next president seems far less important than setting the game afoot. After all, given an otherwise lackluster political climate now, what could be more fun than positing the notion of an all girl's campaign three years hence?

It is not that either of these gals should be discounted as potential candidates for the country's most prestigious (and difficult) job. Indeed, such speculation is harmless and diverting. But, at this early stage of the game, neither has publicly announced any interest in the job. Ms. Rice, in fact, has said, categorically, that she is not interested. But to that simple statement of current fact Mr. Morris says, as though he has an insight no one else possesses, that Condi, if asked, will serve. As for Senator Clinton, Morris assumes her candidacy. She will run, he states emphatically. And he even concedes the likelihood that she will win. And he goes even further in admitting her qualifications.

As for Condi's alleged qualifications, Morris notes that she is a piano virtuouso, an accomplished ("world class") figure skater, and a most competent negotiator. He even goes so far as to observe (which is surely his opinion, not established fact), that she is the architect of the Bush administration's foreign policy. (That would not, in this writer's opinion, give her points for expertise in diplomacy, but that is a subject for another time.)

For those of us still smarting from the stunning debacles, in 2000 and 2004, that resulted in the Bush presidency, the notion of another campaign season is less than appealing. And, regardless the candidates, it seems somehow unfair for the process to begin this soon. For better or worse, Bush's second term remains less than one year old. And while it may be understandable to dream of better times ahead we remain, for now, mired in the muck of the present. That electing Bush, under any circumstances, was a mistake is clear. That we are stuck with him for three more years is also apparent. But, he was our choice, he has three more years to right the sinking ship of state, and confusing the already muddled issue with thoughts of who might succeed him is, in our opinion, wasteful and wistful. Brother Morris, give us a break. The mudslinging will commence soon enough. In the interim let's give it a rest.

Garrett500
10/11/2005