Which Banana Republic?

I read an article in the New York Times about the riots and unrest due to the vast income disparities that have left so many discontented and disenfranchised.  A nation with a billionaire President and a 1% elite who strongly feel that any call for any kind of taxation upon them is Socialism.  No, no, relax, it's Chile.  I don't know why you all took a moment to look out your window.

The advertisement on the same page of the New York Times was from the Banana Republic.  You can ponder the full irony of that particularly chose brand name at your leisure.  The smart among you already see the underlayer of that, the still smarter the many layers.  It was a rich vein of irony the New York Times ad editor mined when he did that.  Not since an oven company sponsored a TV special on the Holocaust has such a mass of irony been dug out to be thrown up for such brazen display.

The ad featured, as such ads always do, the Fortunate Ones.  The ones that supposedly are the average John and Jane Doe of the United States.

They were outside their country cottage, in outfits that you may confidently assume exceed the average week's earning power of the class of Americans so poor that they honestly think $15 an hour is a lofty goal to be dreamed of.

Take a look at the picture.  Yes, I know, they look like cheesy actors in some Scifi movie, where they've come from a distant future of Prosperity and Abundance and are slumming about visiting in our dark time.

That's how they look even to those who actually get $15 per hour, which still works out to less than $30,000 per year.  Like time travellers from a utopian future of ease and plenty.  And it's definitely how they look to those who can only dream or protest that they should get $15 per hour, instead of the $8 or $9 which is the best too many Americans can hope for.

But that's not how they look to Banana Republic's demographic.  Those who are pulling in - even if both husband and wife must work to achieve it - that $75,000 per year that sociologists say is the base to have security and happiness in this nation.  A sum more than twice as much as what our workers are asking to have as minimum wage.  And ten times as much as the actual minimum wage is.

Remember this, the next time you see some Repubican/Conservative talking head, politico or "analyst" asking foolishly rhetorical questions like, "Well, if we're going to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour, why not $1,000?"

The reason is because when there is a cooperative venture between workers and owners, there should be limits on how much each get.  I would not advocate a $1,000 per hour minimum wage while the owner had to receive food stamps.  But nor do I advocate this policy of the unlimited profits for the owner, with his two yachts and a private plane, while the workers must walk to work each day as they cannot afford car or cab or even bus to get to their posts.  Or count themselves as blessed with a bus pass or beater car.

You may wonder, what touched off the riots in Chile?  Oh, they'll have plenty of folks allegedly wiser than I to tell you what the proximate cause of the riots were.  But your buddy the Amicable Anarchist (me) knows what the real cause was.

The insufferable arrogance of the 1% and the 19% below them who enjoy aligning themselves with the elite.  The arrogance of the ones who can even rent a country house for the weekend daring to pretend in their clothing and three day shadows that they are some how "workingmen" and daring to offer anecdotes about how they started at the "bottom".

Which in their top 20% world means their Dad had them work in the mailroom of his company for a token period of time before bumping him up to management.  Or that they actually had a part time gig one summer during their tenure at a private college that your kid isn't connected enough to clean toilets at.

No, in Chile, they've apparently, for the moment, had enough of such insufferable arrogance, though no doubt our own nation will "aid" Chile in keeping control.  How far the dispossed there will go with their frustration, who can tell, but I guarantee the uppers will attempt to be a bit more respectful for a bit in the hopes of the pent up outrage dying down.  Well, that and fire hoses and tear gas.  Yes, still speaking of Chile, which I assure you will be no less thorough in putting down such uprsings down then our own government would be.

And Chile - and the rest of us - will be treated to all the soothing and calmative propaganda railing against violence and desctruction.

And then it will be back to normal.  Where the 1% elite of Chile retain control over 28% of the wealth of that nation.

And things will of course, where controls are tighter and government propaganda better, stay the same here.  Except that here, the 1% of the people in the U.S. control 42.5% of the nation's wealth, the 19% control 32.5% more, and then the rest of us in the "bottom" 80% get to squabble over the last 25%.

Yeah, you read that right.  No nation on Earth has our income disparity.  No nation on Earth exceeds Chile's massive income inequality except for the United States of America.  A nation so used to that now that a liberal newspaper sees no irony in having a clothing ad from the "Banana Republic" sponsoring an article about how maybe we might draw parallels. 

Well, actually, it will change here.  You see, it will be changing to be even more unequal.  As it has since Unions were smashed and crushed into submission in the eighties.  As it has since all the exceptions and loopholes in the tax code let billionaires like our President pay zero in income tax for over a decade while you must cut a check to the IRS because you're so "wealthy" that you pulled in a whopping $35,000 last year.

Pity.  If you hadn't had to write that tax check, you might have been able to afford a Banana Republic outfit for your wife.  So she could have something to wear while you drove your 10 year old car past the country house you'll never even stay a weekend in.

You of the "bottom 80%" who make do on only 25% of the nation's wealth, and are told you are Socialists and Communists for daring to imagine that you could own a bit more - like maybe even as much more as those suffering in Chile do.

The Last Swing

When I was in third grade, it was the nineteen seventies. In social studies, there was a picture in the book, a black and white sketch.

It showed the last tree on Earth, a swing hanging from it, and a long line of children waiting to swing on it. This was said to be because of the failure of our government ot regulate big businesses, and the coming Ice Age that would soon be upon us.

Our teacher, Mrs. Yates, was a fervent Democrat - and ask yourselves why we in the third grade should have ever needed to know that.

She also gravely informed us that none of us would ever be able to drive a car, because by the time we were old enough, all the oil and gas on Earth would be gone. Because, you guessed it, government wasn't saving us from big business.

Later in High School, while I was learning to drive on a car that ran on gasoline that the world still had in abundance, equally fervent and politically motivated teachers told us all about global warming, and how the government's failure to regulate big business would have the Earth a foodless cinder before our kids could grow up.

What are the lessons that I learned from all that, now that I'm all grown up, a fifty year old armchair anarchist, who's politics, if translated into normal terms, would be considered "left-leaning libertarian"?

1. Teachers do not need to express their political opinions in school.

2. The reason the same type of teachers are now railing about "climate change" is because they finally learned that they don't have a clue "what" change is coming, just that they're very sure "that" a change is coming.

3. The scientists they cite probably are right, this time at least, just like Peter was telling the truth the last time he cried "Wolf!"

4. And that while I believe climate change is coming, I cannot give too much grief to conservatives who deny it, because I know they were raised on the same politically motivated lies I was raised on.

LIberals, please note that since the current "solutions" offered are the same - more taxes and more regulations - that it's natural for some to dare to imagine that such is really the only point to the repeated cries of "Tiger...no Lion! No, bear! No, wolf!"

Liberals, please realize that if your only solution is "Let's do everything to make tech and industry more expensive, thus as less people can afford to use it, Earth will be saved!", that's going to be a tough sell.

This may surprise you, but poor people can't afford $40,000 hybrid cars, and organic foods and solar panels that cost more than their rented homes. And the poor know this. And they know that you who speak the loudest about it can afford it.

And they aren't willing to live even worse off so you can feel warm and cozy about Mother Earth. A "Mother Earth", by the way, who is not a "mother", not even sentient, and thus could care less whether "she" is a frozen ball, a burnt out husk, or anything else.

Now, all that said, there are two lessons for the conservative republicans.

1. Peter was actually telling the truth the last time.

2. You're just parroting the BS soundbites of Corporate America, who unsurprisingly, do not wish to be taxed and regulated more whether it is false...or real.

Final lesson for all:

Ultimately, climate change can only be cured by more tech. Any other "solution" is going to result in some given percentage of poor people dying. Because when you make energy more expensive, the pain accumulates at the bottom.

The rich can afford the hybrid car. You can afford a higher utility bill..but it hurts a bit.

The food bank for the poor can't afford another refrigerator.

And the village clinic overseas closes for not being able to Go Green.

You think everyone "doing their part" means "belt tightening in a good cause". It really means "sacrificing the weak" because we'd rather use governmental force now then trust in advances in tech later.

Freedom of Press?

I'm a reporter for my own blog.  If I went to a shareholders meeting at CNN and refused to yield my microphone so others could speak, they'd boot me out.

That would not be them restricting my 1st amendment rights, that would be them maintaining order.

Also, when has CNN or others with a "Hard Pass" to access the White House ever stood up for little journalists like me to also have access?

Why is there such a thing as a "Hard Pass" in the first place, if not because it restricts the "freedom of press" to those who are of big organizations that already agreed to follow certain rules?

Trump sucks.  But he gets to take questions from other reporters without one - Acosta - insisting on holding the microphone for as long as he likes.  That is against the rules, his rudeness  and/or contact with a random female intern debatable or not.

And no, this is hardly about the freedom of asking questions "aggressively".  And really, when has CNN been about that?  Did they "aggressively" grill Obama on when Gitmo would be closed or him drone bombing more kids than Bush did?  Do they even now grill Elizabeth Warren on when she's going to call for the enforcement of the Emoluments Clause?

No, this is just CNN giving the Right all the ammo they need to convince their followers that the mainstream press is biased.

The Breakfast Club Rape

The "attempted rape" scene in "The Breakfast Club".  Kavanaugh is not guilty of a crime, he's guilty of time passing.  That is, if anything happened at all. 

This, by the way, was one of the movies that both he and his "victim" would have watched in that era.  This, is what was acceptable back then, and good for a laugh.  Now picture if they'd both been drinking, and in the bedroom.

Yeah.  Like that.  Two dumb kids, not knowing nothing about nothing, but she not wanting it, and he being slow to get the message.

But "rape"?  "Attempted rape"?  Hardly.  In this scene, and in what that lady Ford described, a guy tried, she rejected him, and he did NOT pursue it further.

Ladies - particularly ladies on the Left?  I know - Trump sucks.  His judicial appointment most likely sucks, too.

But rape is actually a real thing, and terrible, and what happened to Claire in this kid's movie, and what Ford says happened to her is NOT rape, nor attempted rape.

I will pray that none who think otherwise ever have cause to find out what "rape" really is.  Because it involves a lot more than you'll see in that movie, and a lot more than Ford described.

Arrest Professor Ford!

So this one time, in band camp, at my high school, over three decades ago, I was at a party drinking, and this girl, who'd been totally drinking too, but more than me, goosed me.  We called it "goosing", but it was really "unwanted and uninvited sexual contact", which is assault.  Sexual assault. 

I was embarrassed.  Hurt.  It might even have left a bruise, or at least a red mark.  Well, reddish.  Well, kind of.  I left the bathroom, cursing that I could not see my left buttock better, and I left the party, and went home, and I didn't tell my parents, as I'd have been in trouble for drinking, and I didn't tell the police, because I felt ashamed that I'd not been able to defend myself. 

For years then, while staying silent, I wrestled with issues of self-doubt and self-loathing.  Had I somehow invited that attack?  "Asked for it", as it were, due to my rockin' of my Metallica t-shirt, gym shorts, sneakers and tube socks up to my knees?

The woman who raped me?  I mean, because that's what sexual assault is, right?  Her name was Christine Ford.  That's right, the very Professor Christine Ford who now claims - hypocritically - that she was the victim of assault, at some other drunken party, when a teen boy, was briefly on top of her, fully dressed, wanted to be with her, and when rejected did not pursue it.

But I'm not coming forward now because of any political reason, or news reason, but just because only now, with the support of my spouse, do I feel comfortable with finding my voice, and letting it be heard.  I refuse to stand shuddering in the closet any more, hiding and ashamed from my abuser. 

I add my name to the growing throng of hundreds who have been brave enough to speak up about these terrors that we will no longer endure in silence.  I call at once for an FBI investigation into what happened that night, back when Reagan was facing down the Commies, to find out who was at the party, who saw what, who did what, and why we let our kids be abused in such a fashion, too fearful to come forward!

Because that's what the FBI is for, right?  To listen to those old enough to qualify for the AARP recount their kiddy keggers back in their childhood days on the playground or behind the gym? 

And when the FBI investigates my claims then, they can at least arrest her for underage drinking!  Which - like her sexual assault upon my young teen bottom - is a crime!

How do you tell a racist?

Ever notice how even racists don't want to say they're racist?

You'd think there were no racists in America.

And if by "racist" we mean only those dozen or so losers who show up at a Klan rally to wear silly robes and carry about Nazi, Confederate and obscure White Nationalist flags, then yeah, I suppose racism is dead in America.  By that standard, the one where a person genuinely wants all minorities to be killed, enslaved or deported, and loudly and proudly says so, then there are an insignificant number of racists in America.

But if by "racist" we mean those who consistently espouse views, ideologies, beliefs and positions that consistently have a negative effect principally upon minorities, then I assert that racists are a vast percent of the white population of America.  As in at least half.

How do you tell a racist by that standard?

Well, don't look for them to go about saying "Hitler was right".  But do look for how they come down on a variety of issues pertaining in the main to minorities.

Almost any issue can effect minorities, and one can hold some positions that might harm a minority without necessarily being racist, but when all the positions held harm minorities, then yes, it is safe to say the person is racist.

How many positions must one hold that hurt minorities to be a racist?  Only each of us can judge that.  Certainly holding "none" of the positions that would harm minorities would tend to have us all agree that the person is not racist.  And certainly holding "all" of the positions that would harm minorities would tend to have us all agree that they are racist.  Well, all of us but the conservatives who hold an alarming number of positions that hurt minorities.

Where's the cut off?  Again, each of us must decide.  But oddly enough, one of the surest indicators of a person being racist would be the person who is already saying, "You can hold all those positions that might harm minorities and still not be a racist!"

Immigration.  One is for more people coming in or not.  When those who are not in favor of more coming in principally speak about those south of our borders, as opposed to all those who come from the north, east and west, then yes, that is a possible sign they are racist.  Not enough by itself, but it is one position in which they are espousing a position that harms minorities.

Affirmative Action/Quotas.  One is in favor of it or not.  If one is not, then like with immigration and all other issues listed, they'll have great reasons for it, but that side of the position is still harmful to minorities.  

Voter ID.  One is for something that tends to disenfranchise minority voters or one is not.  No good reason for being "for" this changes the fact that it does harm minorities.  

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing/Three Strikes.  One is for it or not.  That it hurts minorities disproportionately is a fact whichever side they take.  If they are for it, they may cite good reasons.  But it hurt minorities all the same.

Death Penalty.  One is for a system that disproportionately executes African Americans or one is not.  I actually get that this one issue could have non-racist supporters.  But they need to educate themselves to the fact that the death penalty is destructive of minorities all the same.

Black Lives Matter.  Does the person support Cliven Bundy using guns to occupy a Federal facility but go on and on about unarmed black kids blocking traffic?  Does he love memes about running over protesters with cars?  Well, he may have a book worth of explanations to give you, but that stance still hurts minorities.

Law Enforcement Officers.  Is every shooting a justified shooting?  If one thinks so, then maybe they were raised by cops and married a cop and are a cop.  But it still is a stance that harms minorities.

Prosecutorial discretion.  Does the person see nothing wrong in every black man being charged if he fired a gun, even in obvious cases of self defense?  And nothing wrong in almost no policeman ever being charged or indicted for firing a gun, even in the most outrageous of cases?  Then no matter what he then says about "worse" things like "black on black" crime, his position still harms minorities.

Sports Teams.  In a nation that for the most part names it's teams after animals, does the person you're talking to think that naming a team after Native Americans is a sign of respect?  

Minority Concerns.  Does a person label every minority concern "PC" or "reverse racism" or "entitlement"?  Is there never a minority concern that has any validity?  It should make one wonder.

Welfare.  Is this a person who believes that you can never spend too many billions of tax dollars on Veterans, the Elderly, Wall Street bankers and CEOs, but is furious at how food stamps and Aid to Families with Dependent Children and Section 8 housing is bankrupting America with godless socialism?  One might respect the conscience of any who simply advocate "no government spending on anyone", but when it just happens that the only stuff that is "evil socialism" is used by a lot of minorities, then it can be suspect.

Socialism.  Is every program for them - street lights, college loans, social security, VA bennies, and such "earned", but every program that aids minorities "welfare"?  Closely related to the welfare example, but distinguished by this "I earned it"/"You mooched it" dichotomy.

Confederate Statues.  Is this person long on speaking about the importance of preserving "heritage" - but also long on why statues of slaves and Underground Railroad operators and such are "PC crap"?  Are they the first to scream about the darker skinned Muslim officer Nidal Hassan who killed 13 people at Ft. Hood, but the first to defend America's greatest traitor, Colonel Robert E. Lee who was responsible for killing 600,000 plus Americans?  Then that might indicate some racism.

If by "might" I mean "does".  

Crime.  Which crimes are they speaking of, in conversation and on social media?  If it is always about some minority doing this or some Muslim doing that, but never a word of any white or white collar criminals, then yes, that could be a sign of they being racist.  And if they think they're making a triumphant intellectual point by pointing out that the faith of predominantly brown and black nations is not a "race", then yeah, that's a racist.

Politics.  Are they in a party that at least pays lip service to helping the disadvantaged and downtrodden who - for obvious reasons - include many minorities, or are they in a party that pretends that we've had a level playing field here since either 1865 or 1964?  It does not mean that they might not be in the more minority harming party for reasons of the old ideals that such a party might once have had, but it is another indicator.

Civil War.  Do they believe - and love to bore you with - how the war was over "State's Rights", while deliberately not understanding which "right" those State's were fighting to have?  A very sure sign.  Do they look blankly at you when you point out that the southern states had NOT supported the right of northern states to fail to return runaway slaves?  Then they're an ignorant racist.

Just sayin'.  Are they self-avowedly not racist, but always "just sayin'"?  And then trotting out something that lets all know why they'd have to preface their comment with the "You know I'm not racist, but..." intro?  A very sure sign.

Protests.  Do they boldly proclaim that they'd have marched with the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, but now they never see a single protest that they don't find to be over the top wrong, offensive or inappropriate?  Maybe they think that bent knees truly harm the apparently very delicate American flag, or that it somehow gives disrespect to the troops, 33% of which are black, but more likely, that they always find fault with another race protesting, no matter what, makes them...racist.

Language. Are the same code words being used as were in the 1920s during the height of the Klan?  America First, diseased foreigners, dirty immigrants, criminally minded, illiterate hordes and such?  One might charitably assume a terrible coincidence in characterizing those outside our borders - and some within - with such dehumanizing language.  Or one could assume the obvious - that the same types speak the same ways. 

Presidents.  Could a black President do no right, even when he was pursuing to the letter the goals of the previous White Republican President?  Was the black President's rather middle of the road eight year administration over-sold as the "worst in history"?  Was his good and decent Christian wife of decades called names, and accused of being everything from a transsexual man to a monkey?  All in good humor, of course?  Then that is a real sign of a racist.

This Article.  Is the person who read this mad as this is "really just describing conservatives" while missing the point that it's also describing a variety of positions that do - in every case - harm minorities no matter what the good reasons stated?  Then that says a lot.  Especially as conservatism as it is today is NOTHING like it's roots, and that the author of this article is more conservative - pre-Goldwater - than any alive today who claim the name are.  Most who couldn't tell you who Goldwater was to save their lives.

The N-Word.  Can the person say, "If President Trump used the n-word, then he was disgustingly racist and wrong" or will they say anything else but that?  Will they treat you to a lecture on what rap singers say, or will they simply say it was wrong?  Will they say it should never be used, or wish to hear more of the "context"?  If they can't just say that it was wrong if it was used, then yes, that speaks to being racist.

Trump.  Enough said.  It's an "indicator", not sufficient by itself, but it sure gets you a long way down the road.

Antifa vs. Nazi Flag wavers.  Do they always defend one as free speech with some outside agitators making it violent?  And which one is that they always defend?  A no-brainer here.  For while both groups have their issues, the defense or condemnation of one and not the other is damning.   

Religion.  Do they support prayer in schools but hate the idea of kids learning about Islam?  One could defend both, and one could oppose both, but supporting one without the other is of concern.

Tally this list up.  Take your own score.  And if you're a conservative, and don't like the score you got, then I suggest you discover the Libertarian Party.  It's a lot more like old fashioned conservatism than the racist vomit that passes for it today.

Mercy is for the Donald

I wish Conservative Christians treated me like they treat Trump.

Thus any bad about me they ever heard of about me, they'd first, pretend they'd heard nothing, second, if they had to admit they'd heard it, they'd call my accusers liars, third, if it was pretty much found out that my accusers hadn't lied, they'd downplay it as something that others had done more of and worse, and fourthly, if that didn't fly, that it was all exaggerated and took out of context, and that Dean just needed to be left alone to keep up his great work!

I mean, that is a breathtakingly large example of Christ-like mercy in evaluating any gossip you hear about a person.  And the Conservative Christians ladle out that amount of mercy towards Trump every second of every day.

Yet, Trump does so much crap that needs such mercy that apparently he uses up all the Christ-like mercy that Conservative Christians have, leaving none left over for they to apply it to their friends, their family, their fellow church members, their co-workers, or just a random citizen.

Can't wait till Trump is out of office.  Then maybe the Conservative Christians can restock their Mercy Reserves and start giving us ordinary sinning schmoes a break or two.