BLOG
ARCHIVES

MAY 2008
APR. 2008
MAR. 2008
JAN-FEB. 2008
JUL-DEC. 2007
JUN. 2007
MAY 2007
APR. 2007
MAR. 2007
FEB. 2007
JAN. 2007

DEC.  2006
NOV. 2006
OCT. 2006
SEP. 2006
AUG. 2006
JUL. 2006
JUN. 2006
MAY  2006
APR. 2006
JAN-MAR. 2006

JUN-DEC. 2005
MAY-JUN. 2005

APR. 2004
MAR. 2004
FEB. 2004

BACKLOG
Of Unorganized
Diatribes

Monday, 28 July, 2008

ALTERNATIVE ENERGY. MISSING THE POINTS?

Back in the early 1970s, when we got our first major wakeup call with regard to our increasing national energy dependence, Pridger made a prediction. Alternative energy, he said, will not catch on until mega-capital figures out how to effectively monopolize the systems that harness alternative energy sources. Then mega-systems will be created to keep all people locked into the grid, and dependent on the big energy producers and big oil.

For a while, it looked like we might be heading in the right direction. There was a "back to the land" movement on, and along with it a movement toward food and energy self-reliance at the individual and local levels. In the wake of the 1973 oil embargo and long gas lines, President Carter actually made it easy for individuals to get alcohol producing permits, and government incentives were put in place to encourage both individuals and businesses to develop any other alternative energy systems they could think of.

The oil companies, in conjunction with the oil producing nations, however, soon had gas prices down to where people forgot that there had been an oil crises, and the international oil orgy resumed. The 55 mile an hour speed limit, put in place to help conserve fuel, finally ended and the age of the gas guzzler continued, though Japanese car makers continued to gain United States market share with their smaller, more fuel efficient cars.

One reason that we have come to depend on foreign oil resources is because we apparently decided to use "their" oil first.  We sent our oil giants multinationals out into the world to discover, drill, develop, and exploit foreign oil resources. This was part of our "national energy strategy," which was really a "global energy strategy." It was part of an even greater "global strategy" which was part of the backdrop of our global Cold War national security strategy, which finally transcended into part of today's new international economic order agenda.

As we began running low on easily extracted domestic oil resources, it made sense to exploit and use "other peoples' oil" rather than tapping into our own decreasing reserves. It's sort of like the accepted business practice of using "other peoples' money" (OPM), to realize one's own business goals.

Pridger was a small player (a very small player, as an oilfield supply boat captain), in the great oil boom in Southeast Asia. At the time, he wondered why we were helping countries like Indonesia tap into and expend their oil resources before they were economically developed enough to need them for themselves. Pridger reasoned that by the time Indonesia really needed its oil resources, most of them would be gone – much of it used to fuel American cars half a world away. Somehow this didn't seem to be a very far sighted way to "assist" an underdeveloped nation.

Pridger suspected that when the time came when Indonesia needed it's oil, it would find itself having to purchase its oil from the very same foreign multinational oil giants that had tapped their own, or perhaps buy new energy technologies from the United States and other developed countries.

The mega-systems that were put into place so that Arabian and Indonesian oil could fuel American automobiles are part of the mechanism upon which globalism was built and continues to expand. Arabian and Indonesian oil was cheap – at least until OPEC raised it's hoary head and discovered that oil producing countries could combine and raise the ante. Cheap oil, of course, allowed for huge profit margins – and though foreign oil is now a lot more expensive, big oil has not suffered from a drop in profits. In fact, their profits have soared right along with prices.

The same sort of corporate mega-systems that developed foreign oil fields and wooed us into dependence on foreign oil, have now got us dependent on foreign produced consumer goods, and an increasing percentage of the very food we eat.

The mega-systems that make all of this possible are a form of corporate collectivism and centralization of socioeconomic, and political, power. And this centralized power is as much about holding onto, and increasing, that power as it is about insuring its own perpetual profits. It's also about destroying individual, local, and national self-reliance and independence. Dependence is the name of the game, with the word "interdependence" used as the warm and fuzzy attraction.

Now that we're supposedly trying to go "green," the green industries are in the hands of corporate big boys rather than individuals and "localities." While we should be decentralizing energy systems, we're continuing to centralize them and construct new mega-systems. We're seeing massive wind farms going up, rather than a windmill on every farm and solar panels on every roof, as should be the case. 

Perhaps we need mega-systems to power our megalopolises, but common sense should tell us that power generation should be as local as is feasible. Every town of any size should have the ability to produce its own power, whether by coal, wind, solar, or other source.

More importantly, individual home owners and farmers should be encouraged to generate their own energy, though wind, solar, or other green technologies. And farmers should be both encouraged and free to produce their own fuel, without the requiring a federal license to do so. Home grown alcohol used in personal and farm vehicles should be exempt from all state and federal taxation and red tap.

Rather than turning to massive wind farms and huge windmills exclusively, there should be many factories producing modest sized electric generating windmills for "people" to use. There would still be plenty of room for the big boys, of course. A viable small windmill industry, as is the case with solar power units, would naturally be more efficient if don't on a large scale. But to encourage the big boys up to serve only the big boys.

Doing these things at the individual, community, or local co-op level, may be technically "inefficient" when compared to mega-systems, but they are much more "national security" efficient.

Not only should the nation be energy independent, but individuals should be much more energy self-reliant.

John Q. Pridger

SPEED IS THE DEMON

"Speed" once became a drug of choice in the drug culture, and speed has also been the drug of choice for automobile manufacturers and the transportation industry. If we can't have speed, we don't want it. But speed is demonstrably our greatest enemy, but nobody sees it. The need for speed cripples our efforts to devise truly fuel efficient means of transportation. Speed has been at the core of our industrial development throughout the automotive age. And, of course, it literally fueled the air transportation industry.

If we, as a society, learned anything during the twentieth century, it was to be in too much of a hurry for everything. Everything speeded up, and naturally, everybody became increasingly dependent on speed. Now, because we continue to be hooked on speed, we are still hooked on foreign oil – and we're hooked on Chinese consumer goods.

We learned it was a small world, and we raced to make it even smaller. What we really needed, of course, was a much bigger world to accommodate a mushrooming population. But we got everything backwards.

We (the government, in the name of national security), built a national automotive infrastructure to accommodate cars that could cruise from one end of the country to the other, hardly even slowing down for the cities, at 80 miles an hour. Then, for a few uncomfortable years, we had a national speed limit of 55 miles an hour in a nation populated by cars engineered to race smoothly along at 80 mph. That caused a lot of frustration, and we finally got back up to the speeds we'd become accustomed to.

Trains, passenger ships, and public bus transportation, increasingly fell out of public favor, and fast cars and and jet airplane service became necessities. We were a nation and a world increasingly on the go – and everybody wanted to get there "now," if not sooner. Fast cars made the hundred mile commute possible, and made local stores and businesses obsolete.

If we could just learn to slow down considerably, most of our oil and energy problems could easily be solved. Mostly, they would solve themselves.

Cars that travel at 80 miles an hour have to be heavy enough not to lose traction with the pavement and become airborne at high speeds. They have to be heavy and strong enough to pass 35 mph crash tests.

With today's technologies it would be a snap to design and build ultra-light cars that could run on any number of fuels, including solar power. The hundred mile per gallon of gas test might even be a snap. But ultra-light personal vehicles (ULPVs), would have to be limited to safe speeds. Maybe 35 miles per hour on average, with a top speed of maybe 50, to accommodate those perennial speedsters.

We made a mistake when we raised the speed limit. We should have lowered it further, and encouraged the production and use of very light, extraordinarily fuel efficient, vehicles (VLEFEVs).

We led the world in developing big, fast, luxury cars. Now we should lead it in transforming to slower and more sustainable automotive technologies. Slowing down would lead to many more positive developments. People would tend to live closer to work, and local economies, and maybe real communities, would develop once again.

With the great highway systems we already have, even small highways would be spacious for ultra-light vehicles, and there would be room for bicycle lanes. And some people in the country might even discover that horses can be both useful and very fuel efficient again. The highways would be relatively safe again for bicyclists, horse riders, and crossing deer.

And what about that wonderful Interstate Highway system? It would serve ultra light vehicles too, of course. But, more importantly, it would serve as the road bed infrastructure for a fantastic national rail transportation system. And it wouldn't have to be a super-fast system either. If we learned to slow down, efficient trains could carry passengers from coast to coast in ample comfort, at reasonably safe speeds. What's the hurry?

With computers and modern electronic networking, a lot of unnecessary travel can easily be avoided. There's plenty of speed in the Internet, but we need less of it on our highways and byways.

Huge jet aircraft are recognized as a major ongoing threat to the environment. There's no solution in sight. If we could just slow down, and allow time for real meaningful travel, trains and ships could once again fit the bill. River travel might even come back. Just think what a wonderfully existing world it could be once again if we had to take time to travel! We'd no longer need those gaudy cruise ships that take people nowhere but on "conspicuously consumptive" joy cruises. It would be possible to take a ship "somewhere," or "anywhere" in the world, at a leisurely pace.

Wouldn't it be great to be able to board a regularly scheduled steamboat at places like Cincinnati, Shawneetown, Paducah, or Memphis, and go down to Natchez or New Orleans? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to board a train in the hometown again, and take a trip to another local town or across the nation?

Amtrak is great, but it is the merest skeleton of a passenger rail system. It's services are so limited in most of the country that it is non-existent for most people.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to ride a bicycle or a horse safely on the public highways, so those modes of transportation could be practical again?

Travel should be something that is enjoyed in its own right. If you haven't got time to enjoy an ocean passage, maybe you shouldn't be able to help pollute and debase such once enchanting places as Bali.

Pridger is tired of hearing what a small world it is. As he's said before, "The world is getting so small that he's becoming ashamed of it." It's time to start making the world a bigger place again. And the bigger it is, the more wonderful and diverse it will be. The amalgamization and homogenization of cultures will slow down. Extinctions of all kinds will slow down.   

Tuesday, 21 July, 2008

OBAMA'S MEDIA EXPOSURE

CNN tells us that Obama is getting about twice as much media exposure as John McCain. Since that media coverage is mostly positive – if not glowing – and since the media makes or breaks candidates, it seems Obama is the anointed one at this stage of the game. And it is a game – as silly as it is serious.

No alternative or third party candidates – the only ones with any fresh ideas – get any exposure at all. The media concentrates only on the two major party candidates.

With his current Middle East trip under his belt, Obama will undoubtedly gain enough Middle East foreign policy and military experience to trump McCain in November.

This is somewhat ironic, since John McCain was the one who suggested such a trip was necessary. Now McCain will presumably have to make at least two more trips to the Middle East before the election in order to regain sufficient foreign policy experience to beat Obama.

Voters are certainly in a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. Whether one votes for the man or the party, it makes little difference. Both parties lost their way some time back. So it's not surprising that the candidates never get it all together. It's funny, but hardly surprising, that they lose their way absolutely only when they gain the presidency, and offer a modicum of hope only when the opposition holds the White House.

Right now, McCain seems to be the hopeless candidate. He may as well sign on as the next Viagra ad boy. But it's black vs. white, youth vs. maturity, exotic candidate vs. All-American candidate. Change vs. the familiar, cut and run vs. hope for glorious victory. 

We can't quite define what "winning" would be in Iraq. But if McCain can convince voters that there is light and glory at the end of the tunnel, he may still have a chance.

Anything can happen but, thanks to media fixation, Obama is becoming more familiar to the public at twice the rate of McCain. We're learning more and more about Obama, but the only thing we are really learning is that he is a very slick and talented politician. 

John Q. Pridger

Friday, 18 July, 2008

TEMPEST IN THE TEAPOT REVISITED

Jesse Jackson accused Obama of "talking down" to Black people the other day – as if Barack had been standing on some sort of elevated platform addressing a black audience as "you people!"

That was bad enough! Now they're telling us that in making that accusation, Jesse articulated something infinitely worse than "you people." He used the greatest pejorative term of all times – the "N" word! Talk about the sky falling! He not only accused Obama of talking down to Blacks, but telling "N(bleep)s how to talk!" It was Jesse, not Obama, who used the super-forbidden word.

The implication was, "No black political upstart like Barack Obama is going to tell THIS n(bleep) – Jesse Jackson – how to talk! And he shouldn't presume to tell other n(bleep)s how to talk either!"

This isn't a tempest in a teapot any more. It's serious business! Or, at least one would imagine that it must be serious business from the media reaction. Jackson is all the more red-faced at having been "caught" mentioning the word because he has said that NOBODY – NO-BODY! – SHOULD EVER, EVER, USE THAT WORD! Whites like Imus, of course, certainly cannot articulate it without practically being threatened with GITMO. Jackson, however, only suffers the inconvenience of moderate embarrassment and being tarred with the "hypocrite" brush.

Some time ago Jesse Jackson and other Black leaders got together and got serious about banning even blacks, including themselves, from using the N-word. Jackson was front and center on that ban. The fact is, blacks (including comedians, hip-hoppers, rappers, etc.), have continued to use the term with impunity. They banter it around as if it was a normal word like Whitey or Honky, or even the F-word and mother(bleep)ers.

The only problem with blacks using the N-word was that it gave whites an excuse to ask, "How come blacks can use the N-word and we can't?" That was a somewhat embarrassing question, since there's not supposed to be any linguistically privileged class in this country. We're all supposed to speak the same languages – adult English and jive.

Clearly, Jesse Jackson wasn't committing a hate crime when he used the N-word. After all, Jackson is black, and also Obama's friend. So what's the problem? Why the double-standard? How can it be a hate word for whites but just an innocent, self-deprecating, word for blacks? Obviously, the way Jackson used the word, it was just a somewhat snide term that means "negro" or black man. Other black men are "brothers" – no real racial hate offense intended. 

That's strange! Many white people used to use the word that way too – without hatred or any malice whatsoever. But they can't use it that way any more – at least without practically being forever branded as a hateful racist.

Jackson is being called a hypocrite. Of course, he is a hypocrite. But the N-word isn't the substance of it. After all, the N-word is just a word – once a very common word. At one time, almost everybody thought they had the right to say just about any word they wanted (though blasphemy and obscenities were frowned upon in public or in the presence of women and children). After all, this is a country that prides itself on freedom of expression.

The N-word (though objectionable slang), simply means "Negro," "black man," or (in times past), any dark complexioned person of any other non-white race. In recent decades, its "innocent use" has been largely confined to ill educated or ill mannered white people, and lots of black people. Only when the user possesses a personal racial revulsion or aversion, is the connotation anything commensurate with hatred. Of course, the word had a derogatory connotation when used as an insult or slur – there are "white n(bleep)s as well as black ones – but this depended strictly on the context and manner in which it was used.

Insults sting or hurt, of course, whatever words are used. But what's the difference between being called a "lowdown n(bleep)!" and a "dirty, lowdown Negro!"? Or (to put it into even darker vernacular, albeit now in "good use") "a f(bleep)ing mother(bleep)er!"? Something has happened in our society that now says the latter expression is less offensive than the first.

When it was in "good usage" (as most dictionaries put it), the N-word was usually merely used as an informal, or "familiar" term, in place of the more formal sounding "Negro" or "person of color." Blacks didn't like it perhaps, but usually there was no insult intended.

Blacks are hardly any more fond of being called "Negroes" than n(bleep)s – but the word "Negro" has long been accepted as the formal, even scientific, dictionary definition of their race. Blacks prefer to be called simply Blacks, Soul-Brothers, or African-Americans. Similarly, whites prefer to be called "white" than the more formal "Caucasian."

But the N-word is just like "Whitey" and "Honky" – both of which carry race-based negative connotations. Most whites don't like being called either – just as women don't like to be called bitches. White men seldom ever call themselves Whitey or Honky, but Blacks often call themselves or other blacks n(bleep)s.

Some blacks delight in calling whites Whitey or Honky – and sometimes do so hatefully. But that's usually considered humorous speech rather than hate speech. But what white man or woman would even think of banning the words Whitey and Honky? After all, they're just a words.

Blacks are a lot more sensitive and touchy than whites – supposedly because of the legacy of slavery and institutionalized discrimination. But perhaps they are just more sensitive and touchy race. After all, they have defined themselves as "Soul People," and whites as "Ice People."  

The N-word had gained a general negative connotation over the centuries only because the Negro race itself enjoyed a negative image in the eyes of many whites – indeed most whites – whether they owned up to it or not, or ever used the term.

This, naturally, is due to what we call racism. Here again we run into serious definition and usage problems because of modern sensitivities, some of which are pretty superficial. What is racism but the same thing as "patriotism" or "nationalism" applied to race rather than country? Racism is the result of pride in one's race – carried to the level of hatred for another race. But pride in one's race is not necessarily hatred of other races, any more than patriotism is rabid nationalism or hatred of other nationalities.

Darwinism tells us that all species and sub-species have evolved through the processes of natural selection. Environmental factors have a major bearing on those processes. Every species has a natural propensity toward self-defense and self-preservation. Species lacking in those attributes and abilities, are eventually "selected" out of existence.

Humans set themselves apart and above all other species. If one is of a religious persuasion, perhaps we would say God set them apart. Mankind (humans), is a specie. Whether it's politically correct to mention it or not, differing races of people are very closely related sub-species that have differentiated themselves and developed within the human specie for one reason or another.

We hear a lot these days about white supremacy. But racial supremacy is quite a natural human attribute. One is supposed to favor his own kind, and this is what thinking one's own group superior to others is all about. It's a factor of self-preservation.

Now that we're engaged in a war on terror, we're supposed to be patriotic as hell. It's us against them – and we, as Americans, are the good guys. Al Qaeda, and the members of its alleged global network of radical Islamic terrorists, are the the bad guys. Our Crusade has nothing to do with race or religion, of course. That would be politically incorrect – and our government is sworn to political correctness. It just happens that all the bad guys are Islamic extremists of mostly Arab extraction.

As for feelings of racial or tribal superiority, Pridger would be mighty disappointed to learn that Massai and Zulu tribesmen didn't have the very same natural racial superiority complex as many whites do. In fact, they clearly do! The fact that the Massai and Zulu continue to survive is ample evidence that they have a cultural and tribal self-preservation instinct that survives to this day.

Races and sub-species all have the very same naturally ordained drive to survive and perpetuate themselves. Warring has been one of humankind's means of self-preservation. Just as in the animal world, it's been a dog eat dog process.  Racial sub-groups, tribes, linguistic groups, and cultures, did likewise. All had the very same Darwinian propensities toward natural selection and survival.

Throughout the ages, the stronger tribes beat down the weaker tribes and dominated them in Europe, the Americas, Africa and everywhere else. The dominate tribes tend to rule even in modern African states. That's just the way things work – they call it the survival of the fittest. Unfortunately, the fittest are not always the best. But even small minority tribes and cultures, that really believe in themselves, manage to survive, and often thrive. Those that do not believe in themselves to a sufficient degree are certain to pass into history and oblivion.

In a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural nation-state, nationality trumps race, color, and creed in the national collective. As a nation, we are supposed to be One People, regardless of color, creed, or national origin. But self-segregating "identity groups" still retain a will to survive and, hopefully, prosper within the national political unit.

Ordinarily, even the modern nation-state is dominated by a majority culture and race. That's just the way things still work. If it is a dictatorship, the machinery of state favors the ruling class, whether it is based on race, religion, or wealth. In a democracy, the majority supposedly rules by the very principle of majority rule.

But times change. Empires weaken and eventually fall, running a course from birth, maturation, decline, and death. Nations are no different. Certain groups continue to dominate throughout the course of decline, whether based on race, religion, or wealth. It makes little difference whether it's a dictatorship or democracy. In fact, historically, dictatorships and kingdoms have enjoyed the greatest longevity. Wealth generally tends to be the governing factor, for in wealth, there is power and strength – and might has always made right (right or wrong). But when the core values that brought the nation into being have eroded, even the power of wealth will prove insufficient to secure the future.

We're at the stage of our "democratic" history where human life in the womb has been judged non-consequential, God is being removed from the national identity, same sex marriage is coming into vogue, and a small minority, aided by other small minorities, has gained the power to ban a word. Consequently, the N-word has been banned.

It's pretty ironic, and somewhat telling, that the N-word was withdrawn from common usage at about the same time the F-word and all it's derivatives became the adult language currency, along with all the other "seven dirty words." We had a rebirth of freedom – another enlightenment – with regard to obscenities, but we muzzled the N-word – because it has been adjudged obscene.

The N-word has racial connotations, of course. And the black leadership, together with liberal do-gooders and the entire political correctness establishment have redefined it as the most unspeakable hate word in the English language. They went far out of their way to re-define it so. Why not just admit that it is an impolite word to use, like Whitey and Honky, and leave it at that?

Something is wrong with our entire national culture. We have a black man running for president. If we were One Nation, and One People, race would not be an issue. But much of the focus of the campaign has been on superficial racial issues – pandering to minorities rather than to a nation of One People. Unfortunately, we are not "One Nation" – under God, or otherwise. The white candidate is particularly burdened with the requirement of toeing a politically correct line. Use of the N-word by a black "spiritual leader" has become an issue, albeit a side issue (both irrelevant and VERY IMPORTANT). Something is obviously wrong, and we're a long way from actually addressing the problem, much less, fixing it.

John Q. Pridger

TRIPPING OVER COMMON WORDS

Pridger never used the N-word, though he was raised during a time when it was still considered to be in "good use" by an embarrassingly large percentage of white people.

One of the worst things a guy could be called Pridger's neck of the woods, was a "nigger lover." But Pridger has been called that a couple of times. Not that he's overly fond of the race – but he does believe in giving all men the benefit of the doubt when it comes to pegging them one way or another as a group. And he believes in judging individuals on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. And when occasion arises, Pridger believes in defending right rather than prejudice.

Pridger admits he avoids Black neighborhoods in American cities, and would cross the street when a gang of Blacks happens to be in the offing. And, to tell the truth, it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference if it were a Latino or white gang. He'd still cross the street – maybe even turn around and choose another route.

Pridger has only been mugged once. It was a very exciting experience, but not much fun – not to mention the cost of a wallet. The perpetrators just happened to be black, and that one experience was enough to reinforced the modest amount of racial prejudice Pridger retains. 

Still, though it was in good usage, calling someone a nigger was pretty well understood by all to be an insult. (Excuse the omission of the "bleep" – but it has already been overworked above to make a point.) For this simple reason, Pridger simply avoids using the term, as all considerate people do. Use of the word as a label for people is simply bad manners. This is not to say, however, that the word should be banned as if the word itself is hate manifest. It still has its uses – as in merely speaking or writing on the subject of, say, racism.

Being a sailor who spent many years in Asia, Pridger ended up marrying an Asian woman – a Vietnamese. Consequently, Pridger's children are Eurasians. As the result of the fall of South Vietnam, and the way all regional Asian nations discriminated against Vietnamese refugees, and because Pridger owned a farm in the land of his birth, after a couple of years in Guam, he brought his family back to the American heartland. He feared his children would meet with at least a modicum of racial bias when they attended the local school.

This move took place in the enlightened year of 1977. "Multiculturalism" and the doctrine of non-discrimination had already been taught in the schools for several years. The local kids knew that it was unkind to call anybody a nigger.

The local kids in this lily-white school district could immediately tell that Pridger's kids were "different" – they were perhaps a shade darker than the rest. In general, the kids were considerate. Some were actually sort of "proud" that they finally had a couple of "multi-cultural" fellows in their midst. It made the school a little more cosmopolitan. But there were incidents, of course.

One of the first incidents was when a well-meaning little girl proudly announced to Pridger's children, "You are the very first 'Blacks' in our school."    

Though Eurasian, Pridger's children had always assumed they were just about as white as anybody else – they certainly weren't black! They were not quite white enough, however, in the lily-white world to which they had come. They were perhaps a shade darker than the "regular" Teutonic strain prevalent in the area.

Another, even more cutting, incident occurred to Pridger's son a couple of years later when we were visiting relatives in Pontiac, Michigan. He was on the sidewalk in front of a house when a little red headed girl, of about five years of age, came out into the yard and address him saying, "What are you doing here? You're a nigger!" That hurt.

In truth, is was not the particular word that hurt, it was being considered "Black" that hurt. But the terms "nigger" and "black" were applied to all "people of color" except the lily-white or pink varieties.

To Pridger's kids, being called Black was just as cutting as being called a nigger. The meaning was the same, though the latter is more often taken to be an intended insult.

"Boy" is another word that causes problems. Here again, it's a matter of how the word is used that can cause a problem. We can call boys boys, and we can call a group of men boys. Cowboys are called boys. The gang is called "the boys". Teenagers and young men were traditionally called boys by older men. But don't call a Black man boy. It reminds him of his days of servitude and oppression.

Some black men are pretty touchy about the word boy. Even some white men take exception to it. It's as bad as "you people" in the collective context. "Don't call me boy, boy!"

Pridger once slipped and said, "Boy! You'd better be more careful with that hammer!" The man, who happened to be black, had just smashed his finger while driving a wedge while battening a hatch. "Who are you calling Boy mother(bleep)er?" was his immediate response. A nice adult response.

Had the guy been a white man, his reply might have been, "Boy! You can say that again! It smarts like hell!"

After Civil Rights, we sailors took pains to quit calling the niggerhead a niggerhead. The niggerhead was a winch drum on a capstan or anchor windless. So we went to calling it a gypsyhead, which was an alternate term. Then we dropped gypsyhead in deference to Gypsies. We fell back on just calling it a winch. But then, when women started showing up in the deck crew from time to time, we had to drop that word. It sounds too much like wench. Some of the girls didn't like the sound of "Put the line on that wench, and heave!"

Nothing too bad about being called a wench, of course. It just means "young woman, girl, or maid" – but somehow it has come to sound demeaning. And seawomen don't like to be associated with mere "young women," "girls," "maids," or "maidens." Those terms all have "weaker sex" connotations.

Thurday, 17 July, 2008

FORTY YEARS OF THE "FAITH DOLLAR" AND THIRTY YEARS OF "VOODOO ECONOMICS" IN A NEW WORLD ORDER

As the most Reverend Jeremiah Wright would say, "The chickens are coming home to roost." In fact, the sky seems to be falling.

Since we abandoned all pretense of a gold standard, finally leaving the global monetary system in the hands of the gurus at the Federal Reserve, we came into a era where the dollar was, and is, based exclusively on faith. That faith, of course, was nothing other than the "full faith and credit of the United States government."

When gold was abandoned, Congress finally abandoned all pretense at balancing the budget and practicing fiscal responsibility. Their primary fiscal role has been to steadily increase the debt ceiling in order to permit increased borrowing to fund their increasing deficits. Naturally, the "full faith and credit of the United States government" is increasingly discounted, along with the faith that backs the good old American greenback Federal Reserve Note.

Globalization of the U.S. money supply, the stock and bond markets, and "American" industry, has insured that Congress and the Fed no longer have a credible grasp on anything that effects our domestic economy. Our present dependence on both foreign producers and creditors to drive "our" economy and fund our wars is a situation unique in American history. In fact, there has probably never been anything like a close parallel to this situation in the history of either nation states or empires.

We're in totally new economic territory. And we're about to have some totally new types of economic experiences, where we meet up with one "damned if you do, and damned if it don't" situation after another.

In short, globalism, the New World Order, and Voodoo Economics simply don't work – and anybody with any common sense knew that they couldn't work for long from the very onset. But commons sense was stomped down and out anywhere it raised its hoary head. We were in a new era, we were told. Things are different. And, anyway, how could the smartest men in the world be wrong?

Perhaps they weren't the smartest men in the world. Or, perhaps, their agenda just wasn't really the one that we repeatedly heard about. Maybe there were ulterior motives. Could we dare calling it a conspiracy?

Much of the hype surrounding the booming economy, soaring stock market, housing boom, unlimited cheap imports, and unlimited government borrowing and spending, was to sell globalism and the New World Order to an unsuspecting public. The wonder of it all is presently breaking out all around us. Soon we'll learn what it was all about.

There's one thing for sure – things like "New World Orders" don't just come about by accident. Such things require the careful planning and nurturing that can only be accomplished by a fairly large group of powerful like-minded people working as a team for a mutually desired goal.

You can be sure of one thing. As the prospects for the greater public become more and more grim, the fortunes of the key planners and inside players are secure. Their wealth and influence will not evaporate during any housing or stock market meltdown. They may suffer some embarrassment, and if things get too far out of hand, they might even suffer some vindictive reprisals from those they have helped ruin. But in general, they will be well insolated from the hardships and suffering their program has caused.

Common sense vacated Washington some forty years ago, and all of us will be victims. The handwriting has been on the wall all the while, but few saw it. We had faith in the dollar, faith in our leaders, and faith in everything they told us. We believed we had a "robust economy" regardless of all the warning signs. The signs have been around for some time. But Thomas Jefferson had warned us when the Republic was brand new:

"If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied."

The banks control issuance of our money. Inflation and deflation have transformed the nation. The Great Depression was the great "deflationary" wipe-out. This was one sustained extreme of the "cycle." Since money was freed from gold, inflation has been unrelenting, and will probably become the alternative sustained extreme. 

Inflation, by use of either more or less of it, is the primary monetary "control" mechanism. The corporate culture that has grown up around the credit money system is the very thing occupying the drivers' seat of globalism – keeping our Wal-Mart shelves loaded with the cake and circuses that make us happy and keep our attention from what is really happening to us.   

"Cultivators of the earth are the most valuable citizens. They are the most vigorous, the most independent, the most virtuous, and they are tied to their country, and wedded to its liberty and interests, by the most lasting bonds." (Jefferson)

The farmlands are still productive – but almost all of the independent farmers are gone – gone to the cities to find a better life. And most of those who did are now retired on pensions and Social Security.

"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as in Europe, and go to eating one another as they do there."

"The mobs of the great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body." (Jefferson)

We're piled upon one another in large cities and megalopolises, and we've gone to eating one another even more than they do in Europe. The urban population, of course, always cries out for government protection – more police, more government, more entitlements.

"...to preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusement, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mis-managers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers..." (Jefferson)

Obviously, we've made our elections in favor of profusion and servitude. Our government has opted for perpetually increasing perpetual debt. We have ran into such debts that we are taxed on literally everything we use, consume, or do. We are taxed in our labor, and (though we are still too over-fed to think), we have no means by which to call the mis-managers to account. Elections are a farce. Look at what gets elected. Look at our present choices! But we content ourselves riveting chains upon our own necks, as well as those of our fellow sufferers.

In the same era Jefferson was giving timely warnings and advice, English historian Alexander Tytler warned:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury – with the result that democracy collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."

Tytler pointed out that the average age of the world's greatest democracies has been about 200 years. Their history generally follows a predictable sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

We haven't got a traditional dictatorship yet, but this is a new era. Circumstances now dictate – increasingly dire circumstances will demand – a strong, ironclad, federal hand. "Democracy," of course, did not totally overtake the Federal Republic until the Civil Rights era. But then it made up for lost time.

"Throw money out there. Call it an entitlement, and extend voting rights to illiterates and the irresponsible youth. Now how crazy can one government get? Now, what rational person would not deduce from this that our national suicide is not carefully thought out and planned?" (Voodoo Economics, B.S. Degree, in One Easy Lesson, William G. Camden)

We have ignored the warnings and fulfilled every dire prediction. We have been betrayed by our leadership. The electorate hasn't helped much either. The chickens are coming home to roost, and maybe the sky is falling at the same time.

John Q. Pridger

Tuesday, 15 July, 2008

OBAMA'S IMAGE PROBLEMS

As if Obama wasn't having enough image problems. Now even the New Yorker magazine has hit him where it hurts. In an attempt at constructive satire, the New Yorker's current cover illustration has reinforced the perceptions many already have of Obama and his wife Michelle. Barack doens't need enemies when he has friends like Reverend Wright and the New Yorker.

It's inexplicable why the image was published by a presumably Barack friendly, liberal oriented, magazine. Had the cover been on a magazine like The American Conservative, or even the Weekly Standard, it would have been much more understandable.

With one look at the cover illustration, the most unflattering suspicions of many will at once be confirmed. How many who see the cover will actually read the magazine?

The humor of the satire fell completely flat – at least as far as Obama supporters are concerned. Even John McCain took pains to criticize the magazine. For the rest of us, its ironic humor at its best. But maybe there's more to it than meets the eye, and more than anybody at the New Yorker is likely to mention.

The reality is, despite Obama's seductive charm, many really don't yet know who he is and why he was selected to be a Democratic presidential candidate. Maybe the New Yorker is sending a subtle message in the guise of satire aimed at Obama doubters. What would the message be? Perhaps an Obama presidency would entail a little too much change. Check out the cover at: http://www.nydailynews.com.

John Q. Pridger

AUCTIONING BABY PICTURES

Apparently some Hollywood celebrities have a new baby and have been auctioning off baby pictures. A TV commentator asked, "Why do the rich and famous do this?"

The answer is obvious. They want to be richer and more famous.

CLEANING UP THE AD

The American Himalayan Foundation has been running TV ads lately soliciting donations for assistance to the people who inhabit the Himalayas. The ad initially pointed out that, though things were getting better (thanks to them, apparently), young girls are still being sold into bondage and prostitution.

Recently, the same ad has dropped the "prostitution" part. Now it's just "bondage." Maybe the ad had been attracting international sex tourists to the area, looking for a new high.

Sunday, 13 July, 2008

THE CULTURE WARS – IN THE YUCATEC MAYA LANGUAGE

Pridger watched part of Mel Gibson's Apocalypto last night. He happened onto the movie somewhere in the middle and an electrical storm turned it off before the end. But Pridger saw enough.

Mel Gibson, who is a great movie maker, loves graphic violence and plenty of blood and gore, in ancient historical settings, and brings it to a high art at Hollywood's most spectacular best. Apocalypto was R-rated, of course, since the entire movie was a celebration of Native American brutality and violence (Pridger missed the part where the Spanish arrived!). But thinking it might have sufficient redeeming historic and literary value to be worth watching, Pridger watched.

Since all the dialogue was in the Mayan language with English subscripts, Pridger at least figured they wouldn't be able to work the F-word into this movie. He was disappointed on this score, however. It had to be put in – after all, this was a Disney movie for adult audiences. (Pridger can see Walt turning in his grave.)

It appeared in the English subscript. One of the Mayan royal murderers met with an untimely death and his friend commented "He's a goner." At least that's how Pridger probably would have translated it. The English subscript, however, read, "He's (screwed)," only they put it into real "American Adult English" just in case there were children watching. That was undoubtedly to let the kids know that ancient Mayas talked just about as adult as we do today in Eurocentric America. In fact, the story is actually supposed to be a metaphor for the state of our own society.

Of course, this F-word thing just happens to be one of Pridger's pet peeves. The movie had a lot more wrong with it than that. The fact that it depicted Mayan culture and society as absolutely and unredeemably demonic and brutal, was its worst offense. Pridger didn't see one morally or culturally redeemable depiction of high Mayan culture, though it had some great depictions of a Mayan city as a pretty impressive backdrop to all the brutality.

It did show, however, that the evil priests had an accurate knowledge of when to expect and exploit a solar eclipse, in order to terrorize and fool the people and facilitate human sacrifice and murder.

There was at least one "good guy" in the movie. Though the hero was a Mayan, he wasn't a part of the higher culture. Jaguar Paw, as he was called, was a child of the forest who, along with several others, had been captured for holy sacrifice. He alone escaped – which is what resulted in several of his savage pursuers "getting (bleeped)." He was still being pursued when the a thunder storm came over Paradise Ridge and blanked out the satellite signal, sparing Pridger from viewing the conclusion of the movie.

Disney and Mel Gibson certainly didn't score any points with the Mayans and other Native Americans with the movie. Many are quite understandably outraged. Just have a look at the "Mexica" Movement's take on the movie, at: http://www.mexica-movement.org/APOCALYPTO.htm. The Mexica Movement, of course, like several other radical Mexican and Native American groups, hold that "they still own" the American continents and that we, of European descent, are the only illegal immigrants to be found here.

We say, "No to occupation!"
We say, "This is still our continent!"
We say, "Europeans are the illegals--since 1492!"

Pridger has to admit they've got a valid point (though it will be a while before they can take it all back). The Mexicans don't seem to advocate reconquista however. They would just be satisfied with full and unrestricted access to the entire hemisphere. Take a look at their point of view, and agenda, at: http://www.mexica-movement.org.

For a slightly more balanced Eurocentric scientific point of view, with some proper historical context, Traci Ardren, an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Miami, did a pretty good number on the movie in her article, "Is 'Apocalypto' Pornography?" A few of her observations:

Exerpted from "Is 'Apocalypto' Pornography?" December 5, 2006
by Traci Ardren

...With great trepidation I went to an advance screening of "Apocalypto" last night in Miami. No one really expects historical dramas to be accurate, so I was not so much concerned with whether or not the film would accurately represent what we know of Classic period Maya history as I was concerned about the message Mel Gibson wanted to convey through the film. After Jared Diamond's best-selling book Collapse, it has become fashionable to use the so-called Maya collapse as a metaphor for Western society's environmental and political excesses. Setting aside the fact that the Maya lived for more than a thousand years in a fragile tropical environment before their cities were abandoned, while here in the U.S, we have polluted our urban environments in less than 200, I anticipated a heavy-handed cautionary tale wrapped up in Native American costume.

What I saw was much worse than this. The thrill of hearing melodic Yucatec Maya spoken... during the first ten minutes of the movie is swiftly and brutally replaced with stomach churning panic at the graphic Maya-on-Maya violence... the entire movie never ceases to utilize every possible excuse to depict more violence. It is unrelenting... Pure action flick, with one ridiculous encounter after another, filmed beautifully in the way that only Hollywood blockbusters can afford, this is the part of the movie that will draw in audiences and demonstrates Gibson's skill as a cinematic storyteller.

But I find the visual appeal of the film one of the most disturbing aspects of "Apocalypto." ...its visual appeal makes it all the more dangerous. It looks authentic; viewers will be captivated by the crazy, exotic mess of the city and the howler monkeys in the jungle. And who really cares that the Maya were not living in cities when the Spanish arrived? Yes, Gibson includes the arrival of clearly Christian missionaries... in the last five minutes of the story (in the real world the Spanish arrived 300 years after the last Maya city was abandoned)... Gibson's efforts at authenticity of location and language might, for some viewers, mask his blatantly colonial message that the Maya needed saving because they were rotten at the core. Using the decline of Classic urbanism as his backdrop, Gibson communicates that there was absolutely nothing redeemable about Maya culture, especially elite culture which is depicted as a disgusting feast of blood and excess.

...I am not a compulsively politically correct type who sees the Maya as the epitome of goodness and light. I know the Maya practiced brutal violence upon one another... But in "Apocalypto," no mention is made of the achievements in science and art, the profound spirituality and connection to agricultural cycles, or the engineering feats of Maya cities. Instead, Gibson replays, in glorious big-budget technicolor, an offensive and racist notion that Maya people were brutal to one another long before the arrival of Europeans and thus they deserve, in fact they needed, rescue... To see this same trope about who indigenous people were (and are today?) used as the basis for entertainment... is truly embarrassing...

Read the whole article at:

http://www.archaeology.org/online/reviews/apocalypto.html

Ms. Ardren made no mention of the use of the F-word in the subtitles. Perhaps she knows a little more about the way the Mayans expressed themselves, and thought the use of the word was perfectly appropriate. Or maybe she's too modern to have even noticed or questioned its use.

SPEAKING OF HOME ENTERTAINMENT...

Sex enhancement devices and drugs are among the most highly promoted consumers commodities these days. Drugs like Viagra and Cializ are even promoted on hometown network TV these days. Pridger wonders what sort of a message these slick TV ads send to our children. They none too subtly putting the desirability of being properly able to perform sexually "whenever the time seems right," right front and center before the family entertainment center. The kids are bound to notice.

"Be ready when the moment is right," is the pitch for the male enhancement drugs, as the man whisks the little lady into the bedroom. The small print is included, that goes something like "Consult your physician to make sure you are healthy enough for sex. Stop using (our wonder drug), and consult your physician, if you experience a sudden loss of vision or hearing, or if you experience a erection that lasts more than four hours, or if you pass out, experience seizures, cardiac arrest, stroke, or sudden death, etc., etc."

Of course kids see these sorts of commercials all the time these days, from infancy on up. Most learn all about the birds and the bees at an age when Pridger's generation were still learning to articulate words like "What's that mommy?"

Pridger would have had a lot of questions to ask mommy if he'd seen such adds when he was a child. He would have wondered about such basics as "What's sex mommy?" "What's an erection mommy?" "What is erectile dysfunction?" "Why does he look at her that way mommy?" "Why is she so excited when he takes Viagra and looks at her that way?"

The first time such a commercial made its appearance on TV back in those days, in our household, the magic box would have gone out the window never to return. In other households, the TV might have been removed to the master bedroom and kids prevented from watching Howdy Doody.

But, for the sake of conversation, mommy's answers might have been, "Well, Johnny, women are of the female sex, and your Dad is of the male sex. It's just a word that means men and women and the differences between them. Women wear dresses and long hair and men wear pants and short hair." "An erection is something you build with your erector set. You erect towers and other things. It means to build, or put something up." "Erectile dysfunction is the reason your Dad had to read the instructions before he could show you how erect things with the erector set. He didn't know how to do it, and was thus dysfunctional in that respect. It means he couldn't do it – at least until he read the instructions." "He looks at her that way because he's proud of his erection and she is eager to go into the bedroom with him where they both play with the erector set."

"Mommy, I know why the man would go to the doctor if he was going blind or deaf, but why is he supposed to see his physician if his erection lasts for than four hours?"

"Well, Johnny, that's why he takes Viagra. He is mechanically dysfunctional, like your dad, unless he takes his Viagra – and the stuff only works for four hours. It is important to put your erector set away after you're done playing with it."

"Mommy, do you think I need to take Viagra? I think daddy needs some too. And you always scold me when I don't put my things away after playing with them."

Of course, these days mothers can be much more direct with inquisitive children. "Sex means (bleep)ing Johnny." "An erection is when your wanger stands up straight and hard." "Erectile dysfunction is when when you can't get that little (bleep)er hard." "The woman looks like that because she's in a hurry to hit the sack with him and get (bleep)ed."

"Oh. I thought it was something like that. When is Daddy going to get some Viagra so he can finally (bleep) your head off and make you feel better?"

John Q. Pridger

Saturday, 12 July, 2008

THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS

The recent Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment was reassuring. But Pridger wonders whether the State of Illinois will finally be forced to do away with it's "Firearms Owners Identification" (FOID), system.

It's obviously unconstitutional, as it requires Illinois residents to pay $5.00 every five years in order to have "legally" have their supposed Second Amendment rights. The price – a dollar a year – isn't the issue. And it's not just the principle. It's the fact that the state requires us to pay for an inalienable constitutional right (or that right is unconstitutionally infringed). And it makes outlaws and potential felons out of gun owners who neglect to be FOIDed.

Some time ago, Pridger discovered he was an outlaw. He pulled out his FOID card and discovered it had been expired for well over a year. Pridger had been an armed outlaw (a potential felon, had he been "caught"), for over a year! He'd been going about his business thinking he was a law abiding citizen all the while!

Naturally, Pridger he had to think twice before applying for another card! He could imagine the following scenarios:

SCENARIO NO. 1

Pridger sends in his FOID application with his $5.00 check.

Weeks pass, and no FOID arrives in the mail.

The SWAT team arrives and batters down the door in the middle of the night.

There Pridger stands, sleepy-eyed in his night shirt, with his 12 gauge at ready.

This is the point where things can really go very wrong. Fortunately, Pridger recognizes that the black-clad intruders are not ninjas or ordinary burglars. They're actually just peace officers doing a public service – serving a summons on an illegal combatant.

Pridger drops his gun and drops to the floor with his hands behind his back even before the kind officers curse ad yell at him.

SCENARIO NO. 2

Since Pridger is locally known to be more or less peaceable, maybe a knock would come during business hours.

Pridger answers the door and sees two towering Illinois State Policemen.

"Mr. Pridger?" One of them inquires.

"Yes. What can I do for you?"

"Do you have any guns in the house?"

"Well, yes. I've got a shotgun, a varmint gun, and a bb-gun."

"Get down on the floor with your hands behind your back! Do it NOW!!!"

Next come the cuffs, then the Miranda Rights spiel. "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you."

Then good-bye to the hysterical wife. I'm on my way to GITMO – or the Illinois equivalent.

EMBARRASSING ALLIANCE

It's pretty embarrassing seeing the government of Iran and Iraq forging independent economic and political ties. It's also fairly embarrassing that "our" democratically elected government in Iraq has expressed the desire to see a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of American troops from their nation.

Damn! What is the Iraqi government thinking? Don't they realize that we did not build the Green Zone for nothing. We're there to stay – even if Obama becomes president! Don't they realize Iran is their enemy and we're their friends? Haven't they heard that Iran is a Rogue State, and a sponsor of terrorism? And that we want to bomb Iran, not make friends with them – that Apex of Evil?

John Q. Pridger

BOMBING IRAN BACK INTO SANITY

There has to be a rationale for our desire to do a little war with Iran. Nobody wants a nuclear armed Iran, of course. But nobody wants $10.00 gasoline either. Or do we?

Perhaps we should look at it another way. If Persian Gulf Oil were cut off, and gas prices shot up to $10.00 a gallon, that would cause an economic calamity. So maybe our leaders have something bigger in mind. Maybe they aren't as short-sighted as they appear.

Ten dollar gas would be the least of the fallout from an attack on Iran. Iran, (like Iraq), has never threatened the United States, but if we attacked it, Israel would definitely be in their cross hairs. Everybody knows that. When the entire region blows up, it will become a matter of American national security to secure Iranian oil fields in order to get them back into production. Maybe, as in Iraq, Iranian oil production will be used to underwrite the costs of a major war to secure the entire Middle East.

Since a major global oil shortage would collapse the economies of most of our European Allies, perhaps we could get a more persuasive "coalition of the willing" together, and re-colonize and occupy all the Middle Eastern oil producing nations. (The attack on Iraq simply didn't do it, but Iraq was just the prelude.) We would finally have a compelling reason to impose freedom, liberty, and democracy on the entire region in return for cheaper oil.

Spoils of war doctrine can be resurrected (after all, these will be extraordinary times), and commandeered Middle East oil revenues could start whittling down our now out-of-control national debt. Most importantly, the security of Israel (hopefully it will survive the fallout from all the "shock and awe"), might finally be insured for all time. Something approximating all-out war in the Middle East will probably provide the Israelis with "just cause" for legitimately employing a final solution to the Palestinian problem.

There may be other benefits too. There is no reason to believe Russia and China will stand idly by on the sidelines and do nothing. It might provide them with excellent opportunities to consolidate their regional power and expand their spheres of influence.

A new Russian Empire may emerged so we'll have another Cold War to look forward to after the major hostilities have ended. (Back to the good old days!) As we busy ourselves with a new "Western Empire," China, in return for continuing to keep Wal-Mart and Harbor Freight supplied (and maybe the Defense Department too), may wish to finally bring Taiwan to heel, expand its influence in south and east Asia, and increase its ties in Africa.

We get $4.00 gas (you wouldn't expect $1.00 gas, would you?), new superpower enemies, and probably hoards of new Middle Eastern refugee immigrants to boot. Everybody comes out winners!

John Q. Pridger

REVEREND JESSIE JACKSON'S TEMPEST IN THE TEAPOT

Jesse Jackson shot himself in the foot when he said he'd like to neuter his friend Barack Obama. He accused Obama of "talking down" to Black people – as if he'd been standing on some sort of elevated platform. You'd think Obama had called a black audience "you people" or something!

Obama is Black. He could get away saying "you people" rhetoric if he wanted to! He can talk up, down, sideways, or diagonally, to whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or children. It's a free country to him. (It's McCain who really has to watch his step.) What was Jesse Jackson thinking?

(There's only one group none of them dare talk down or diagonally to.)

Jesse immediately apologized, of course, and all is forgiven. After all, Obama is big enough to take it, and everybody knows how Jesse is. The funny thing is the way such things as Jackson's "private comments" can take wing and fly in this age of electronic communications, the Internet, and U-Tube. Much adieu about nothing in presidential politics always mushrooms into – well, much adieu.

If a young upstart politician with a name like Barack Hussein Obama can be selected as a presidential candidate in "War on Terror" America, and weather the Reverend Jeremiah Wright firestorm, and still win the Democratic presidential nomination over Hillary Clinton, no snide remark from Reverend Jessie can dull Obama's finish or ruffle his feathers. Obama is not only unflappable, he's bulletproof.

John Q. Pridger

Thursday, 10 July, 2008

IRANIAN MISSILE TESTS

It seems the Iranians have tested missiles twice in the last two days. Woe! We consider this provocative as all get-out – an aggressive gesture aimed at warning the United States and Israel that any aggression against Iran will have consequences.

Of course, we've been threatening to bomb or otherwise attack Iran for a matter of years now. Israel is doing the same thing. But that's different. The U.S. and the Israelis are the good guys, and the good guys can do just about anything with impunity.

We've told Iran to cease and desist developing nuclear weapons capabilities and allow Israel to maintain a nuclear monopoly in the region. Iran doesn't think that's fair.

The United States (guarantor of freedom and liberty everywhere), and Israel (made up of God's chosen people), can test, maneuver, and threaten all they want to. Iran, however, as the last standing Axis of Evil nation, isn't supposed to brace itself for an almost promised attack. Defensive maneuvers and missile testing are clearly matters of concern.

We've invaded and occupied two nations on Iran's borders (bringing freedom and democracy to both). We have troops and bases throughout the region, including other bordering states. We've been talking of invading, or at least bombing, Iran for several years now. Israel has threatened to bomb their "nuclear" facilities soon, if we fail to act before they lose patience. Israel practices for an attack on Iran every once in a while. And Israel has already built a sizable (illegal), nuclear arsenal. So what's Iran's problem?

It leaves us wondering why Iran would want to hone its defenses and send a message that an attack would answered by a healthy response. Who do they think they are? Imagine a nation (a Moslem nation, at that), that frets about national defense and national security! Apparently, that's just the way those Persians are. Strange people.

John Q. Pridger

SIGNS OF A RENEWAL OF AMERICAN JUSTICE

Pridger recently commented on the landmark Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment, but has thus far failed to mention the Court's June 12th Ruling with regard to the Guantanamo Bay prisoners, which is just as far-reaching and perhaps of even more fundamental importance in a purely "human rights" sort of way.

"...The high court ruled that foreign terrorism suspects being held at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in Cuba, some for as long as six years, have the constitutional right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy sided with the court’s four non-conservative justices and wrote in a poetic majority opinion that “The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

"To hold that the political branches may switch the Constitution on or off at will,” he wrote, “would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, say 'what the law is.’ “

The ruling means that, for the first time, 270 detainees may soon be able to sit in court, witness evidence and help defend themselves. It means we return to the most basic tenet of American criminal jurisprudence: innocent until proven guilty. That is an American right and should be the right of any prisoner held by Americans.

We seem to have, with this president and with this war, forgotten some of the most American values that have sustained this country through its many incarnations.

Either we are free all the time, or we are free none of the time. Remembering what best defines our country makes it easy to dismiss an apoplectic Justice Antonin Scalia, ultraconservative friend of Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, who claimed that today’s decision “will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Scalia should be as ashamed of that temper tantrum as Bush should be ashamed of invading Iraq.

(By Rochelle Riley, columnist for, The Detroit Free Press (http://www.freep.com), emphasis added)

Pridger would add, "Either all of us are humans, or none of us are humans."

Since long before the beginning of the war on terror, the executive branch of our government saw fit to manufacture a whole new class of humanoids. They are called "enemy" or "illegal" combatants – a totally new sub-human species never before recognized under the American system, or any government for that matter. Not being totally human, they have no human rights, much less, civil, or constitutional, rights. At least that's how the Bush administration sees them.

Though President Bush claims to be a Christian, enemy combatants do not qualify for Christian treatment. Bush would give them the same sort of treatment the ancient Israelites were commanded to afford Canaanites. To put it in modern colloquial terms, "Kill'em all like rabbits," but (in the case of modern enemy combatants), only after they've been tortured into spilling their guts. 

Enemy combatants don't rate human consideration. They are not considered people under Bush's War Powers authority, and thus can be dealt with as sort of a special kind of rabid animal. Thankfully, it isn't quite Hoyle to kill them outright, but they can be quarantined indefinitely and tortured at will before finally being executed.

Who are these "suspected" enemy combatants – these alleged "illegal" fighters?

1. They are mostly men who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Many were sold to us as "suspected terrorists" by their local enemies, some of whom were probably selected at random off the street for the promised reward. Thus they were determined by "our forces" to be guilty of not being either "with us" nor certifiably "neutral" when we invaded their country. 
   
2. The "guilty ones" are mostly men who are willing to sacrifice, fight, and die, for a cause they believe in – and which our executive branch doesn't approve of. Some may have actually have been trying to kill members of our invasion forces.
   
3. The guilty ones are also "irregulars," guerrilla fighters, or militiamen, unaffiliated with a "bona fide," recognized government standing army – thus (in the administration's opinion), they are not subject to Geneva Convention prisoner of war status.
   
4. The very worst of them might have even been plotting to inflict some collateral damage on innocent Americans in the United States and elsewhere – terrorism to us, but merely a tried and true form of warfare to them (After all, we are among the great pioneers and experts at inflicting massive collateral damage on the innocent populations and infrastructure of our enemies [but nothing as craven and cowardly as suicide bombing, of course]).
   
5. By our own former standards, and the continuing standards of just about everybody else in the world (many of whom learned them from us), they are humans, fully entitled to human rights, including the full array of rights granted "all people" (not just Americans), under our own Constitution. 

It's somewhat embarrassing that Justice Scalia, who delivered the Court's correct Ruling on the Second Amendment, erred on the side of blatant injustice in his minority rebuttal. It's not just embarrassing, it's downright ironic to boot. Let's take a look at some Americans who were "illegal" combatants.

1. The entire Continental Army during the Revolutionary War were illegal enemy combatants. Many of them were irregular militiamen who engaged in guerilla style offensive and defensive warfare – all of which was directed against the duly constituted governments of British North America, and the 18th century super-power. Every American fighter, along with their leaders, were considered traitors and "rabble."
   
2. During the American Civil War, the entire Southern defense establishment was comprised of illegal enemy combatants. Abe Lincoln and the duly constituted government of the United States denied that the Southern peoples had a right to self-determination. The militiamen called up to preserve the Union became an army, but the militias called up and organized into an army in the south became illegal enemy combatants.
   
3. If the duty of the Citizens' militia is to defend against tyranny and oppression – and the present government becomes the instrument of such tyranny and oppression – every American who takes up arms against it, in defense of freedom and liberty, will (naturally) become illegal enemy combatants. They will remain illegal enemy combatants, in the eyes of the tyrants and oppressors, until their cause is won.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. ...it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security..." (The Declaration of Independence, 1776)

Those are the traitorous words of the founders of this nation – the ones that presumed to take on and fight the duly constituted rule of the British Crown. They formed an army of illegal combatants for that purpose. Had their cause been lost, their fate would have been commensurate with what the George Bush administration had in mind for the Guantanamo detainees, though it is likely the British would have only hanged the leaders and pardoned the illegal combatants – giving them credit for what they were, i.e., soldiers fighting for a cause they believed in.

"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (The operative clause of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

The citizen's militia is made up entirely of potential illegal combatants, just as every man, woman, and child, is a potential terrorist.

If this were a Christian nation, we would have one over-riding rule by which we would deal with anyone within our power:

"...(A)ll things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them..." (Matthew 7:12) "...(A)s ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." (Luke 6:31).

As our government does to the most lowly illegal enemy combatant, that is the measure of justice our government reserves to all people.

John Q. Pridger

EMAIL BAG

Speaking of our coveted doctrine of presumed innocence, the following email found its way to Pridger's inbox yesterday.

URINE TEST

Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work and they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem. What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. 

Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their butt, doing drugs, while I work.... 

Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in our country -- and soon! 

Ah, the urine test! The writer of the email makes some good and valid points. Pridger would add a category or two. Our Federal Judges and lawmakers are paid by the taxpayer too. Why aren't they subjected to random drug testing? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If they fail the test, let them step down. If nothing else, they should set the example – proving, at least periodically, that they are drug free.

As a retired transportation worker, Pridger has had an abundance of experience with with urine testing – peeing in the bottle. In Pridger's case, a 140 mile round trip to "the clinic" was required before he could even think about shipping out. Then he had to wait for the almighty "Federal Drug-free Certificate" to arrive in the mail (good for six months). Free at last – to work! Pridger had to pay the costs of his travel, but the public or the "industry" kindly paid the heavy freight on the expensive test itself.

Pre-employment drug testing is ridiculous any way you look at it. For one thing, it's expensive. Another is that any halfway competent person can arrange to be drug free for the mandated test. All the test can do is prove is that the individual was competent enough to be drug free at the time of the test.

Imagine the federal government (in a nation of allegedly free men and women!), mandating urine drug tests for certain workers to become gainfully employed in their chosen professions! Or in order to retain his job. It's unthinkable on the face of it. But that has become one of the almighty laws of the land!

The very foundation of our system of jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence. Even suspected murders and rapists have the benefit of that arrangement. Some workers, however, no longer do. Federally drug testing laws for workers, however, are based on the opposite principle – presumed guilt! Workers subject to the drug testing laws are burdened with "proving" they "are not guilty" of being druggies in order to be considered for employment.

If Pridger remembers correctly, a drug impaired train engineer, who caused a deadly Amtrak train wreck, set the stage for the "guilty until proven innocent" reversal of presumed innocence doctrine. Transportation workers across the board no longer enjoy the presumption of innocence or competence. And the requirement has been expanded to include a lot more than just transportation workers, of course.

Yes, there is a "public safety" rationale behind the law – just as there is a public safety rationale behind gun control laws and the seat belt laws. The same rationale might even mandate urine tests a requirement for obtaining a driver's license. It would even make a lot more sense to require a daily urine and breathalyzer tests before anybody is allowed to leave his home and get out into public. Private, individual, drivers kill more people in this country than anyone else – even trumping doctors and hospitals!

The same rationale might used to require everybody to occupy padded cells and wear straight-jackets for their own safety and the protection of society.

Mandated tests after an accident are just about as ineffective as pre-employment testing. They might make it possible to charge a hapless druggie with first degree murder rather than just negligent homicide, however – making one a more permanent, non-productive, ward of the public. Haven't we already got enough of these?

Random testing at any time of the day or night might be slightly more effective in weeding out drug abusers – but that's impractical. Besides, it would impinge on the right to privacy (if we still have that).

By definition, a serious drug user is incompetent to do most jobs. Most of them wouldn't even apply for a job that required competence. Most who do apply can easily be spotted and weeded out either at the employment interview or shortly thereafter. The primary exceptions might be white collar jobs and elective or appointed high office holders – none of whom are required to be tested as a requisite to employment. Their responsibilities are too great for such treatment.

There was a time when personnel managers could be more discriminating in who they hired to do critical jobs. They could reject applicants if they didn't like their looks or demeanor, or if they just didn't look trustworthy. And they could fire them at the first hint of incompetence. But this is no longer the case. Discrimination for any reason other than drug use is illegal. Too many applicants of certain appearances would be rejected or soon fired. Discrimination would be claimed and expensive court cases might follow. So, to make it possible for anybody to get the job "they deserve," the government has mandated drug tests for everybody in critical job categories. It's still okay to discriminate against anybody who has illegal drugs in their system at the time they are tested. 

John Q. Pridger

Wednesday, 9 July, 2008

SUPPLY AND DEMAND IN A CASINO ECONOMY

The free traders have always said, the market forces of supply and demand should rule. Supply and demand always rule economies, but our problems come from the casino factor. Our so-called "free market," which, of course is an international market rather than just a national market, is subservient to a whole massive layer of speculative market machinery.

Speculative markets respond to a whole array of market signals that would not be a factor in a truly free market system, or "simple" circumstances of supply and demand. Besides actual supply availability and simple supply and demand forces, whereby resources, producers, transportation, wholesalers, and retailers would be the major factors, we have multiple thick layers of market traders carving out a huge pieces of the action.

The markets are set up to served speculators rather than consumers. The speculators are "investors," but not necessarily the investors required for productive purposes. They are the investors who are simply "playing" the markets like some people play at the various casino games.

The speculators get first cut in the supply and demand price chain, and they thrive on market volatility. Volatility is often artificially injected into the markets by hype of various kinds. Rumors, innuendo, and complicated speculative calculations based on innumerable "possibilities" play major roles, as do natural market factors.

This is why gas prices can change so radically at the pump overnight even though there has been absolutely nothing "real" to cause a price change. The oil fields haven't been bombed, production is steady, no tankers have been blown up, the oil continues to flow at a steady rate, the refineries continue to produce steadily – but prices are up an down as if all sorts of terrible casualties are interrupting the supply and demand chain on a daily basis. Demand doesn't go up and down like a yoyo. 

The supply machinery continues to work steadily. Everything is "cool," as they say, but prices go up and down like a yoyo caught on a hot air balloon – always going up much more than they go down. The price changed are merely the result of speculative trading where any rumor or "idea" can change prices for no real reason at all. And vast amounts of money are being made.

One of Pridger's favorite examples illustrating how speculators gain at the expense of both producers and consumers is the Hillary Clinton cattle futures coup. Pridger doesn't know the details of the "trades" of course, but there is little doubt that Hillary came out way ahead on her "investment" in cattle futures – and she wasn't even a regular player!

The story goes that she invested about $1,000.00 in cattle futures and walked away a year later with $100,000.00. Whether these figure are accurate or not is immaterial. Even walking away with $2,000.00 would have been a pretty favorable gain.

The point is that Hillary, the "speculative investor," got into the cattle market somewhere between the cattleman and the consumer and took a huge cut of the pie right out of the middle. The cattleman must not have received what the cattle involved were worth, and the beef consumer must have ultimately paid way more than simple "supply and demand" would have delivered in a truly "free" market.

The cattleman probably got a piece of the crust, the consumer got his steaks and hamburger (at a price), and Hillary got most of the money. The same sort of thing goes on in all the other "markets" including oil.

John Q. Pridger

SPEAKING OF CASINO ECONOMICS

What a boon casinos have been to many state governments! Illinois is a case in point. Illinois lawmakers, like their federal counterparts, have forgotten how to balance a budget or keep spending with the ordinary means of traditional taxation. The tremendous taxing power of the State – sales taxes on literally everything bought or "used" in the State, gas taxes, property taxes on every square inch of real estate and improvements, income tax on the sweat on the brow of labor, various licensing and registration fees, and fines and traffic tickets – have proven insufficient.

The Lottery and Casinos have proven to be a great way to impose lucrative "voluntary" tax revenues. But the state doesn't yet have enough Casinos to close the deficit spending gap. The governor wants more, so he can continue to pay the State's hired help. Many lawmakers, on the other hand, are still captive to the perception in many in their districts that it is immoral to fund government by encouraging more and more people to play the slots and roulette wheel.

To allow more casinos is to encourage gambling – something most Christian people believe is harmful and addictive to many who cannot afford to squander their money.

Since buying Lottery tickets and gambling at casinos is voluntary, Pridger doesn't have a problem with it. What does bother Pridger, however, is that we are coming to depend on the Lottery and gambling in order to educate our children and keep State services ticking.

Another thing that bothers him is the increasing perception that casinos add something to the economy. They may add something to local economic activity, but there is no net gain to the overall economy. In fact, the actual business of the casino is to fleece their customers and ship their money elsewhere.

Unlike Wal-Mart, where everybody who spends money there at least leaves with some products, the casino "customer" leaves with nothing – unless he was lucky enough to actually win more than his lost. The casinos wouldn't be in business long – and certainly couldn't fund themselves and pay taxes – if many people where allowed to do that.

Casinos have become very good at making sure the public they draw to their location don't spend much money in local businesses and shops. The casino is the fantasy "seamless solution." The crowds flow in from around the country, go directly to the casino, and then leave when they are done – bypassing the town itself. Pridger's local riverboat casino town has remained a literal ghost town.

The town gains some in taxes from the casino, but local businesses simply can't make it. All the wealth just passes through on its way to the casino. The casino, which is one of a large nation-wide chain of casinos, ships the profits elsewhere after paying its small tribute to the state and local government. 

John Q. Pridger

THE CHEAPENING DOLLAR

We like cheap goods and services and bargains in general, but a cheaper and cheaper dollar is a rip-off. Anyone who has kept their savings in gold and silver, however, can go and buy dollars at increasingly bargain rates. Fifty years ago an ounce of gold would purchase thirty-five in Yankee dollars. Now an ounce commands about $900.00 or more. We've come a long way in half a century!

Oil units command a lot more Yankee dollars than it used to also.

The dollar is losing value to two reasons. First, Congress abandoned fiscal responsibility almost half a century ago. Money had to be cheapened to keep up with the spending – otherwise we could not have afforded our national extravagance.

Secondly, since the dollar is the world's reserve currency, all of the past, present, and future, spending extravagance in the entire world must be facilitated by printing and "loaning into circulation" of more and more dollars.

The world economy must be funded, and the only way to fund it is with Federal Reserve money. There's no way to keep a handle on such a volume of currency. The only imperative is that it must be furnished forth in unlimited supplies.

Naturally, we're talking multiple trillions of dollars. It's a little difficult to keep tabs on how many trillions of dollar are out there and how many more are needed. These days, most of it is merely in the form of electronic bookkeeping entries, of course. The paper currency makes up only a small percentage of the dollars "out there." But each and every one of them, whether paper or electronic data-entry dollars, has a "consequence."

One of the obviously consequences is that it's impossible to tell whether there might be a few trillion too many making the rounds. Another major consequence is that the nation that "produces" all those exchange tokens on behalf of the global economy is $9.5 trillion dollars in debt to the rest of the world, and it's spending is totally out of control. The consequence of debt, of course, is that compound interest increases it even if minimum monthly payments are made on schedule. If spending isn't controlled, eventually making even the minimum monthly payment may become impossible on the income available.

As we all know, in the case of personal credit card debt, the thing to do is get another credit card and pay off the other credit cards with new debt. When that expediency is no longer available, you take out a second mortgage on the farm, or maybe get a reverse mortgage and let the farm provide a second income. Whichever way you go, the farm finally belongs to somebody else. The hope is, of course, that you will be allowed to continue to occupy it until death relieves you of all obligations.

Economics used to be so simple. There were a few basic principles that everybody knew. Principles such as: Live frugally – within your means; Work hard; Save for a rainy day; Accumulate some capital; Spend only income, never your capital; If you borrow, pay debts promptly.

The same basic principles applied to nations as well as individuals. Now that we are drowning in modern complexities, however, it's so easy to stray from those basic principles that it can be believed they no longer even apply – at least until foreclosure.

When the laws of nature are neglected there is always an eventual foreclosure. It might be put of by complex maneuvering, verbal sophistry, creative bookkeeping, and person denial. But in the end the chickens always come home to roost.

Of course, the United States is in a very unique position. Never before has there been a nation in the position of the United States. History seldom repeats itself in exactly the same way. But the inevitable consequences for repeating mistakes of the past are always marching nearer. No nation is immune to them.

We increasingly experience the inevitable consequences piecemeal, of course, but at some point they may become overwhelming. A nation that has engaged in obviously suicidal policies certainly cannot avoid some degree of eventual success.

The full ramifications of abandoning rational economics, along with most of our natural national advantages, remains to be seen. The present generation, Pridger fears, is destined to live in even more interesting times.

To paraphrase what Thomas Jefferson said of the vile institution of slavery, one could repeat of our present economic reality, "When I reflect that God is just, I tremble for my nation."

John Q. Pridger

Sunday 6 July, 2008

EMAIL BAG – OBAMA'S CITIZENSHIP QUALIFICATIONS

Anti-Obama forces are grasping at straws and trying to split hairs in order to make it appear he is technically not qualified to become president. The following email is presently making the rounds on the Internet:

Subject: Obama May Be Illegal To Be Elected President!

I can only hope this is true.

This came from a USNA alumnus. It'll be interesting to see how the media handle this...

Barack Obama is not a legal U.S. natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between December 24, 1952, to November 13, 1986. Federal Law requires that the office of President requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents. This is what exempts John McCain, though he was born in the US Panama Canal Zone.

US Law very clearly states: '. . . If only one parent is a U.S. Citizen at the time of one's birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for minimum ten years, five of which must be after the age of 16.' Barack Obama's father was not a U.S. Citizen is a fact.

Obama's mother was only 18 when Obama was born. This means even though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen of Hawaii being a territory), his mother fails the test for at-least-5-years- prior-to Barack Obama's birth, but-after-age-16.

In essence, Mother alone is not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, 2 years elapsed from his mother turning 16 to the time of Barack Obama's birth when she was 18. His mother would have needed to have been 16 + 5 = 21 years old at the time of Barack Obama's birth for him to be a natural-born citizen. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at the time his mother would have needed to be to allow him natural citizenship from his only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama should have been naturalized as a citizen . . . but that would disqualify him from holding the office.

The Constitution clearly declares: Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, any other information does not matter because his mother is the one who must fulfill the requirement to be a U.S. Citzen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16.

Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the USA for some time frame to protect any citizenship he might have had, rather than living in Indonesia. This is very clear cut and a glaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Governor Schwarzenegger of California should be very interested in discovering if Obama is allowed to be elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, since this would set a precedent. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.

Pridger isn't an Obama man, but this email appears to be much adieu about nothing of any real substance. If Obama is not qualified to be president it wouldn't be because he is disqualified for any of the reasons given in the above email.

U.S. Immigration law is pretty clear. For better or worse, anyone born in the United States is a natural-born American citizen. Period. The nationality of parentage is immaterial.

Hawaii became a State in 1959, and had been a U.S. Territory since 1898. Even persons born in the "Republic of Hawaii" became U.S. citizens as of April 30, 1900. Barack was born in 1961. Regardless of the nationality of either of his parents, he's a citizen by birth.

Of course, Barack's mother had been born in the continental U.S. Since she was a natural-born citizen, no mathematical sophistry with regard to age and years of residency have any bearing on her or Barack's citizenship qualifications. Such devices might be applied in the case of a naturalized citizen, but it clearly doesn't apply in this case. It makes no difference since Barack was born a citizen.

The wording of the Constitution (Article Two, Section One, E) is: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President, neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained the the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Barack qualifies any way you look at it. He's a citizen by birth, is over thirty-five, and has been a resident within the United States for over fourteen years.

The irony of Barack becoming president of the United States is that his father – the parent which would ordinarily determine nationality had he been born abroad – was a Kenyan citizen. (This has traditionally been the case in most countries). And he was not only a Kenyan citizen, but one who did not aspire to become an American. His visit to the United States was a short mission to gain an education so he could become a government official in his native country.

During that visit, Barack's father's temporary liaison was a young white libertine who probably thought it was quite exotic, "cool," and very progressive, to have an affair with a bona fide African. He impregnated her and had a child before moving on – abandoning both mother and son –  in pursuit of more important business at hand.

Pridger doesn't know whether Barack's parents were married or not. Chances are, Barack, Sr. already had at least one wife in back in Kenya. In that case, he could not have been "legally" married to Barack's mother whether they had "officially" tied the knot or not. That, of course, no longer presents a problem in this country. Almost half of the African-American children, and an embarrassingly large percentage of white children, are born to unwed mothers. It's a pretty harsh reality to relate to, but we are technically, and otherwise, becoming a bastardized nation – quite literally.

Perhaps the superficial ironies with regard to a possible Barack Obama presidency can be summed up thus: A Luo tribesman from Kenya briefly visited the United States and planted a seed that may "Change" the nation – perhaps beyond recognition.

Clearly, Barack Obama was not "selected" to become a presidential candidate for nothing. There are always reasons behind such choices. There are powers behind the scenes that are intent on changing our nation in the most fundamental ways. "They" have been succeeding for a long time already, and they will continue to succeed – whether our next president is Barack Obama or John McCain. But an Obama presidency would amount to a particularly gratifying accomplishment to them.

John Q. Pridger

Friday, July 4, 2008

INDEPENDENCE DAY

We still celebrate Independence Day, though we're no longer an independent nation by any economic measure. We – the most richly endowed nation in the world – can no longer support ourselves. What would we do without China and the poor workers in a dozen or more other developing nations? What would we do if Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and a select few other oil exporting nations, failed to produce? Our economy would sink like a lead cannon ball tossed into a pond.

Independence is a lot more than having a framed Declaration of Independence and the world's most powerful armed forces – capable of waging war anywhere in the world.

Of course, there are two basic types of "independent" nations. First, there are those nations which are politically independent but are incapable of being economically independent. Secondly, there are those that are capable of both political and economic independence.

The first type of nation is not truly independent at all, and can never be truly independent. The primary measure of true independence is the capability and ability for a nation to produce enough food to feed its' people. Inability to do this dictates that such a nation can only be nominally independent, in a political sense. But as long as other nations must provide the wherewithal to feed their people, their independence depends on their ability to trade for the necessities of life. Such nation can survive only through trade and the good will of stronger nations.

Singapore is an example of a very successful nation in this category. It's a beacon on economic prosperity and requires no economic gifts from any other nation in order to survive. But, given its limited landmass, it couldn't even begin to feeding itself. If Malaysia cut off Singapore's primary water supply, the population would immediately have to go on severe water rationing. If food couldn't come in from Malaysia or elsewhere, Singaporeans would go hungry. If international trade were cut off, the economy would collapse like a leaden balloon.

Malaysia, just across the Johor Straits, on the other hand, has the land and resources to permit it to feed itself and provide for all of its most essential national needs.

Before the industrial era, and its own modernization, Japan was also a politically and economically independent nation. But as it grew and modernized industrially, it could no longer support its own economy with its own resources. Thus it's attempt to acquire an overseas Empire (in the tradition of European colonial empires), with it's invasion of China to gain access to the resources it needed to develop an industrial economy.

Many of the nations of Europe are analogous to Japan. But they enjoyed the benefit of several centuries during which it was not "politically incorrect" to conquer foreign territories and peoples and colonize them in order to gain access to the resources they desired to develop their own national economies beyond the limits of their own domestic resources.

The United States is an example of a large nation with all the resources necessary for both political and economic independence. But, in our our leaders' rush to create a New World Order based on free trade and a global marketplace, we have aggressively repudiated and undermined our most valuable national advantages, including the protection of our own domestic markets – the very keys to national security.

While we are still the world's greatest agricultural producer, incredibly, we're nonetheless on a fast track to becoming a net food importer. We have long been a net oil importer, and increasingly import the entire array of consumer goods required to sustain the living standard to which we have become accustomed.

This, of course, can only be likened to willful national suicide. The leaders of the greatest, most productive, and prosperous, nation on earth have chosen to transform the nation from an independent, largely self-reliant, nation, to a dependent nation. President Reagan announced it – we were to enter into a "post-industrial" era, and become a "service economy" in a "new international economic order."

"International interdependence" (for world peace), was the rallying cry for this perverse change in national direction. All of our former national ideals, goals, and strengths, have been intentionally abandoned. We're no longer anything close to an economically independent nation. In fact, we are now more dependent on China alone than the American colonies were dependent on the Mother Country on the eve of the American Revolution.

Our balance of trade position with a whole array of "poorer developing nations" is an unmitigated national disgrace. Between our balance of trade and balance of payments deficits, our entire national economy has effectively become dysfunctional.

Our nation is only 232 years old. It was predicted that 200 years is the lifespan of a democracy. Apparently that figure was pretty close. The nation was 204 years old when the Reagan administration announced the new order of things. That, of course, was only the official announcement – which came several years after the "great plan" was finally set into motion in its final "workable" form.

Our surviving productive industries are increasingly on the ropes. They simply cannot compete in the New World Order our leaders have delivered – certainly not while paying American wages, health insurance, and retirement benefits. So, others elsewhere now must produce most of the goods required for the American way of life. Government, however, is now expected to provide the things that industrial employers once provided.

A service economy simply doesn't produce anything. It merely shuffles what others produce – yet all the goods and services must be paid for. Since actual production is no longer available to earn the necessary income for the good life, credit has become the primary source of wealth.

The "official" national debt is now pushing $9.5 trillion and increasing at the rate of $1.67 billion per day. No matter how conservative and frugal a person may be in their own personal spending habits, his government is plunging him into un-payable debts. The national debt currently amounts to about $31,140.00 for every man, woman, and child in the nation. There's no solution in sight for this problem.

Public spending for "entitlements" has been on auto-accelerating auto-pilot since the advent of the welfare state. The Welfare State was implemented in the 1960s, primarily as the result of Civil Rights and civil unrest. It was called a "War on Poverty" – at a time when the nation was not only solvent, but the production dynamo of the world. It seemed we could afford it. Ironically, shortly after these spending programs came on line, the national leadership set about killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

We fret about the price of gas at the fuel pumps. But this is merely a bellwether of things to come. We really have no right to bellyache. We got our energy wakeup call way back in 1973. Nobody woke up. We got our monetary wakeup call about the same time. Nobody woke up. As the most Reverend Wright might say, these higher prices are just some more chickens coming home to roost. The only solution Congress has ventured has been to raise the debt ceiling at every step of the way. 

The New World Order, free trade – globalism – was proclaimed the solution. And here we are.

The problem the New World Order was really supposed to solve was that of Third World poverty. The rich nations of the West were producing too much, retaining the benefit of too much of what they produced, and exploiting more than their rightful share of global resources.

So now we have a different model. We're exploiting global resources at rates that make our heads spin and (supposedly), fully expect everybody in the world to become just as conspicuously consumptive (and wasteful), as we continue to be. This is being done by transfers of wealth from the traditionally wealthy nations to the developing world, while attempting to maintain and increase living standards in the traditionally wealthy nations – "on credit" in the case of the United States.

Just since the New World Order plan was "perfected" and fully implemented, our nation has gone from being a solvent and productive nation to a technically bankrupt nation. Somebody should be waking up by now. But neither presidential candidate seems to have a clue.

Our national credit (if you could even call it that), is still good only because (1) we consume such a large percentage of global production, (2) we print and "provide" the world with its primary reserve currency, and (3) we maintain the worlds most formidable and pro-active military machine.

In short, we've got ourselves into an impossible position, with problems that are impossible to resolve under the caliber of leadership that is selected to run for high office and get elected and re-elected. Our choices for elective office are usually confined to choices between the lesser of two evils. Every way we turn, it's damned if you do and damned if you don't.

These are things we should think of as we celebrate this Independence Day. We are no longer anywhere near independent. We are a dependent nation of people who are dependent on the government's deficit spending to make our lives whole. We no longer have a an economy productive enough to support itself. We have a service economy – and still the government is expected to supply an increasing share of the services.

Gas prices have finally got us thinking of the need for a national energy policy (again!). But we need more than an energy policy. We need a national economic policy.

As for the wonders of the service economy which was supposed to be progress personified, it is significant to reflect on the fact that the words service and servitude share the same root.

Happy Fourth of July!

John Q. Pridger