The Sky Has Fallen... (or was that just the dollar?)

WE all know the American economy is suffering. Just how bad it's going to get is a question on everyone's mind. Turn on the news and see how long it takes for a reminder of our plight. Wait for the latest announcement of huge corporate layoffs. Listen to the terms "stimulus package" and "bail-out". Suffer through the poor attempts at poetry. Check out the Dow Jones Index. If you can make it to the end of the broadcast, kick back for the human interest story. Can they still put a happy face on their product? This is not your father's evening news (unless you are a senior citizen). The fear is palpable, no matter how well-coiffed the news anchor is. This is a bigger security story than "terrorism".

Great. Now you know the truth. We have dug ourselves a very deep hole, and it has widened into a chasm. People are gathered around its periphery, trying to determine if it will be less painful to skirt around the edges or simply dive in headfirst. There is a huge industry devoted to making sure your choice is the latter. Throw a penny into the darkness and find out when it hits bottom. Now try it with a dollar, or a trillion of them. There are hundreds of "experts" and talking heads trying to fathom the depths. Some are nearsighted, and some are the opposite. They will tell you their predictions. They will help you make an informed choice. Maybe they will push you into the darkness.

I know that the picture is far from rosy. It just seems that everyone is trying to outdo each other with their Cassandra calls. Are there going to be people dying in the streets? Will they be expiring from hunger or loss of blood? Will China or India overtake the United States and become the next superpower? Will Bin Laden proclaim his victory over the West? Will your ancestors rise out of their mouldering graves and remind you that they told you so? Will your children stare at you in mute accusation? Do they know that their destiny is one of panhandling and indentured servitude? What compromises will you have to make to feed your family, or pay your mortgage? Will you have to serve fries at McDonald's?

There's just not that much useful information available. Do you have any relatives that are old enough to remember what it was like to live during the Great Depression of the 30's? Don't you wish that you had taken the opportunity to have that little chat? Were you too busy laughing at their strange little habits? Was it the way they ate leftovers? Was it the fact that they never threw anything away? Who would live like that in a time of abundance? Maybe (in high school) you heard about what they had lived through, but it never seemed quite real enough for you, did it? What did it have to do with your life, and your grand prosperous future, and your free markets of infinite growth?

Perhaps it's time to turn off the television, and start thinking about how your life may change. It just may be a time for reassessment. What is it in your life that you cannot lose? I'm already starting to think about ways to ensure my (and my family's) well-being. And I've come to the conclusion that the corporate media isn't helping very much. It's alarmist, which probably reflects the reality of the situation, but they aren't offering much useful information. I've talked to my friends about the things they know well. I've looked at my lifestyle and thought about the things that would be possible to give up. The funny thing is that a lot of what I have cannot be depreciated along with the value of currency. I'm finding it enlightening to gain that perspective.

David Hajdu, "The Ten-Cent Plague" (2008).

I was a bit surprised a week or so ago to learn that my father had bought me a "pre-Xmas present". He told me to look for a package, and explained that he sent me the gift because he thought I would be particularly interested in it. I had no idea what to expect, and so I awaited it with anticipation. When it arrived, I can honestly say I was puzzled. It was a a book by David Hadju (with whom I was completely unfamiliar), and it was entitled The Ten-Cent Plague. By scanning its jacket (which featured a great drawing by Charles Burns, one of my favorite cartoonists) I learned that it was a history of a period during the early development of the comics. It focused on the 1930's through the 50's, during which the new artform came under increasingly intense criticism.

While I am certainly a fan of (what I can only refer to as) "alt-comics", I didn't have a lot of curiosity about genre comics, with superheroes and the like. Still I resolved to plow through Hajdu's study, and hoped that it would give me some insight into the stuff I choose to read now. It started off with a fairly comprehensive look at the invention of the form, and an explanation of how a brand new industry sprouted to produce these "picture books". At the very start, comics did not necessarily focus on men in tights at all, but rather tended to reflect the existing genres of entertainment- horror, crime, war, romance, early sci-fi, and comedy. They were almost exclusively targeted to adolescents.

Hajdu did a good job at conveying the spirit and the attitude of the early comic creators. Fortunately for his book, many of the major players from the beginning were still alive for him to interview, including Will Eisner, Charles Biro, Bill Gaines, Al Feldstein, Bernie Krigstein, Will Elder, Harvey Kurtzman, etc. These now iconic figures spoke of their free-wheeling approaches to a brand new entertainment medium. As comics reached the end of their first decade of existence, they were so novel that the field was wide open, and for all intents and purposes without limits other than market-driven concerns. This freedom allowed sales to increase astronomically and individual creativity to flourish.

Many of the businessmen, artists, and writers that made comics were from minority groups that had nowhere else to become successful. As a result a lot of the content reflected an outsider perspective that tended to glorify facets of society that many conventionally-accepted adults found troubling. But the kids loved it! The more extreme, the better- gore, lust, perversity, violence, and general mayhem prevailed. And then the authorities noticed, and a reactionary backlash followed. The Catholic Church, professors of education, psychiatrists, and some of the more prudish politicians began to bemoan the general lack of respect for authority exhibited in comics. They began to accuse the comic companies of contributing to juvenile delinquency.

Obviously there are modern-day parallels to other forms of youthful amusement. Over the years, movies, television, cartoons, rock-and-roll, and videogames have all taken their turn at being vilified. Society is always looking for a scapegoat for the "wicked ways" of its members... especially the kids. However the level of vitriol and shrill hysteria over comics was amazing to read about. It didn't take long for the powers-that-be to work together with the cultural guardians, and crush the independence and sheer fun of comics. It took decades for the form to recover even a smidgen of its relevance and energy. Ultimately The Ten-Cent Plague tells a larger story about who we are, and who we've been, as a nation.

Be Good For Goodness' Sake.

You know we've officially entered the Holiday Season when "conservative" talk radio starts its annual ranting about the supposed "War on Christmas". The tip-off for me came yesterday when local host Fred Honsberger started bitching about a new ad that's been appearing on public buses. Apparently it reads "Why believe in God? Be good for goodness' sake". It's a fairly innocuous message as far as I'm concerned, but it's reportedly quite offensive to a segment of fragile Christians. Honsberger is rolling out the lamentations about what he perceives as "attacks" on Christianity. He wants to know why folks would want to pick on these God-faring citizens. He's challenged the audience to come up with examples where Christians have harassed non-believers*.

Only a complete wingnut would try to make the case that Christians are persecuted in this country. Despite the protections of the 1st Amendment, people of "faith" are continually trying to get government to adopt their beliefs and language. It's obvious to me that religion has a much better chance of encroaching upon our public life than it has of being repressed by our leaders (or marketers). I'm fine with giving the flock a wide berth. They should be able to do anything they want (within the bounds of the law) in their places of worship. I don't even mind the occasional reference to "God" in political speeches. But I don't want anybody forcing their doctrine on me. I was raised as a Christian, and I've had plenty of time to either embrace or reject it on my own.

I don't understand how a secular humanist reminder to value good for it's own sake is particularly threatening to anyone in society. Not everyone is going to accept your own personal savior. And if you study the holy books, you find out pretty quick that the God they speak of wanted humans to make their own choices. It's not that impressive to commit to fate. If your salvation or damnation was decided for you at birth, then it really wouldn't matter how you behaved in life. I would think that this is an essential argument used quite often in the push for conversion. I know for a fact that it's an important underlying premise for those practicing within evangelical sects.

So what happens to "the lost"? There will always be a certain proportion of people that refuse to be "saved". What is to be done with those that recognize no divine parameters? If they aren't concerned with avoiding sin, or with the consequence of eternal suffering as a punishment for ignoring "The Word", what could we possibly do to influence their moral decisions? Surely we need to socialize them somehow. On what foundation can we build our ethical edifice? Fortunately we have the preserved writings of plenty of artists, writers, and philosophers that have grappled with these issues without relying on God for their authority. There is a wide range of approaches that can lead to the desired outcomes. There is no single path, as far as I'm concerned.

Honsberger claims that the aforementioned advertisement (which is illustrated with a Santa Clause character) somehow denigrates his beliefs. We can only assume from his reaction that he is convinced that his is the only way. He considers December 25th the birth date of the the only son of God, and therefore one of the two most sacred days of the year. I can respect that, but I disagree that the appropriation of the Santa Claus iconography for this ad cheapens anyone's faith. There is a long tradition of consumer manipulation based around this fat jolly guy dressed in red. What he has to do with the historical figure that died on a cross completely eludes my grasp.

When Walmart offers you a Merry Christmas next month, they won't be concerned with sharing the love of Christ with you. They are more interested in sustaining a marketing mythology that they have determined is helpful in reaching their sales objectives. Fred Honsberger would be better served confronting that whole mess, rather than a small secular group that is trying to promote cooperation and civility.


* I'll leave this task to the readers of Serendipity. I feel no need to insult your intelligence or historical awareness.

Malcontents Already Trying to Impeach Obama?!

In the case of American presidential elections, it's been typical to give the victor a bit of a honeymoon period before launching into the typical partisan criticism. This is especially the case with individuals who are entering their first terms in office. It's not totally out-of-line to expect that Obama's opponents would moderate their opposition until the man actually makes a couple of decisions related to the job. Unfortunately his case seems to be developing into a notable exception. Obviously there is a significant amount of voters for McCain that aren't willing to respect his position, regardless of whatever claims of patriotism they used to espouse. There's just something that sets this President-Elect apart.

The sad thing about this situation is that Barack Obama seems to genuinely want to earn the respect of his opponents. He would like to define his relationship with that group in the past tense. The words that he chose to reassure these malcontents are still ringing through the mediasphere, and I fear that they will someday be used to attack him- "To those Americans whose support I have yet to earn -- I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president too". I think more than anything else, that claim will be used as a weapon with which to bludgeon his administration, rather than the invitation it so obviously was. I suppose that is indicative of the times we live in.

Would you be surprised to learn that the efforts to stymie Obama have already begun? Yesterday several media outlets reported that "Impeach Obama" websites have already been started. There are apparently several Facebook groups dedicated to this end, including one with over 700 members (and that was before all the new publicity). But in searching for those sites today, I ran across mention of similar pages that had been posted months ago. There's a place (for instance) where you could sign a petition for impeachment as early as August 4th (a date no doubt intentionally coinciding with Obama's birthdate). It's reasonable to wonder what exact crimes the man could be guilty of that would justify such a measure.

The specific petition I wasted my time reading accuses Obama of adolescent drug use, associations with people like Tony Rezko, money laundering while working at his law firm, "vote-rigging" in Chicago, lying, and an inconsistent relationship to the Freedom of Information Act. Granted this effort was dedicated to his removal from the US Senate, but I have no doubt the charges will be rolled over to be used in any assault on his presidency. It doesn't particularly matter that these accusations are baseless, unsubstantiated, vague, ridiculous and laughable- but it does trouble me that these wingnuts have been so proactive in their campaign to ruin Obama for purely partisan reasons.

One of the Facebook groups I mentioned earlier actually cites policy positions as reasons to have Obama removed from an office he has yet to even assume. It whines that Obama "has voiced support for various unconstitutional programs such as the assault weapons ban, universal healthcare, and various schemes for wealth distribution." The melodrama is palpable in the breathless rhetoric of these deluded nitwits. But I do believe that they should be taken seriously. We ignore them at our own peril. These are folks that are dedicated to opposing any form of democracy that doesn't lead to their own narrow vision of America. It doesn't matter that Barack Obama was fairly elected to represent this nation. He is their enemy.

Fright Night and the Polls.

Whoever decided that election day should be held in the first week of November had a very cynical sense of humor. If the prospect of change in the political realm isn't frightening enough for many people, the celebration of the darker side of life that occurs on the weekend before the polls open should help raise anxiety levels. I have always loved Halloween. The holiday is the one throwback to the wild Pagan festivals that history suggests were so much fun. From early childhood I have learned to expect the offering of either tricks or treats. There is the sense that anything is possible. The same dynamic applies to politics. Strong opinions abound, and some will find their hopes met, while others will find them thwarted.

So in the spirit of this special day, I'd like to ask the reader about what they fear most on this coming Tuesday. It should come as no surprise that voters all along the spectrum have plenty of nightmare scenarios to choose from. Obviously they range from the realistic to the perverse. For some reason this cycle has presented us with an inordinate amount of speculation regarding worst-case situations, regardless of who wins the presidency. From my biased position, I would suggest that the McCain campaign has worked harder to stoke fears on their side. Like it or not, he occupies the establishment position during this contest, and so he has been forced to paint his opposition as the manifestation of particularly scary change.

Some of the predictions emanating from the Far Right are so breathless that they seem absurd. I've seen and heard multiple accounts of how Barack Obama will change the United States into a Socialist Republic. He'll make rich people cede their wealth to welfare recipients, and no one will have any incentive to make money anymore. Among the Christian Right, a common sentiment is that the Senator from Illinois will reveal his secretly-held devotion to Islam and make Christianity illegal forever hereafter. The Christian Reformationist Dr. James Dobson (founder and leader of Focus on the Family) predicts "hardship," "persecution" and "suffering" for Christians if Obama becomes president.

Interestingly, religious leaders have also been enflaming the fears of Jews who are still undecided about who to vote for. They have made repeated attempts to link Obama to supposed "associates" who have been perceived as vehemently anti-Israel. No matter how many times the candidate has reasserted his support for our Middle Eastern ally, wingnuts like "Joe the (Tax-Dodging) Plumber" continue to issue grave and unfounded warnings. Obviously such tools of the Republican Party get their marching orders from the top. John McCain's fear-based politics have been intentionally crafted to bring out the very worst paranoid delusions in his followers. I could fill up at least a hundred posts with more examples.


Even if John McCain were to mount an increasingly unlikely comeback, some of his supporters fear a widespread uprising and riots among African-Americans. On the opposite side, McCain's detractors worry that the Arizona senator might die in office, leaving the nation in the hands of his singularly unqualified running mate. Others are afraid that he will signal his approval for Israeli air attacks on Iran, which would likely lead to World War III. My own horror involves McCain prevailing and giving an acceptance speech that culminates with him tearing his own leathery face off, only to reveal that he is actually George W. Bush. Finally, the only prospect of an Obama presidency that provokes my anxiety is the small minority that may wish him harm.

Who is Hal Turner?

My friends continue to send me intriguing YouTube videos that alternatively make me laugh, prompt feelings of nausea and disgust, or add just a hint of extra anxiety to my life. Among these little nuggets of the American mental landscape was a short featuring a man named Hal Turner, who is convinced that our government is planning to introduce a new currency. Turner claims that the "Amero" will replace the US dollar sometime in the next six months. This substitution, he claims, will be a significant step toward a consolidation of the North American Union, which will include the United States, Mexico and Canada. Turner's message seems to be assisted in its perpetuation by the current crisis on Wall Street.

But who is Hal Turner? Wikipedia characterizes him as a white supremacist, anti-gay, anti-immigrant, Holocaust denier, who is dedicated to promoting far Right "conservatism" and "libertarianism" through various radio and web-based information outlets. He was a "warrior-host" of the airwaves during the limited run of the program The Right Perspective. Sean Hannity regularly used him on his program, and used to consider him a friend until being forced to denounce him after Turner's extreme beliefs were exposed by "New Black Panther" Malik Zulu Shabazz. In 2006, Turner advocated for the assassination of candidates running in a state election. He's also called for violence against a Massachusetts school superintendent.

I feel comfortable in pronouncing Hal Turner a despicable man. Still, some of his supporters might suggest that the government has prosecuted a "black ops"-type campaign to discredit him. Others, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, have seemed to suggest that Turner is a paid FBI informant. But regardless of the truth, does the type of man Turner is disqualify what he says about the Amero? Truthfully, I'll admit that it makes me resistant to believe anything that he says. However, I still want to investigate any claims that the feds plan on introducing a currency to replace the current one. The main piece of evidence Turner uses to advance that accusation is a gold coin he presents in his video.

When I watched his clip, I wondered why Turner would attempt to back up his position with a coin he asserted was diverted from its path to the Chinese Government. It was particularly telling that the "Amero" he held out for the viewer was blurred to the extent that all of its details were obscured. Was Turner really that technologically incompetent, or was he trying to fool those who are naturally suspicious of anything the government does? Perhaps this site could suggest an alternative source for Turner's hazy coin. The problem is that there is so much stuff to pay attention to nowadays that few have the time to look for alternative explanations. If you are generally distrustful of the national government, then you are more likely to accept Turner and his arguments at face value.

I understand why my fellow citizens would believe that our leaders are deceptive, manipulative, and self-serving. The proof is all around us. No one seems to truly know what is happening with our economy. The majority of Americans felt like fools (or should have) when they finally realized that they had been taken in by the Bush Administration's strident warnings that Iraq under Saddam Hussein was tied to Islamic terrorism, and that it was a threat to the United States. But in our cynicism, we shouldn't fall prey to those who would exploit that quality within us. Everyone has an agenda, and that includes people that are not agents of the government. Take the time to learn about those delivering the message.

The McCain/Palin Commitment to The Bush Doctrine.

What an amazing day John McCain had Friday. He finally confronted a couple of his (or Sarah Palin's?) rabid followers at a "Town Hall" style rally in Minnesota. Surely you've seen the video by now? He's officially set the record straight. For one thing, he finally admitted that his opponent is not an "Arab". That is remarkable. Now all he has to do is share that information with his staff. Apparently they haven't been sure about Obama. Is he some kind of "Manchurian Candidate"? Is he a "socialist"? Does he "pal around with terrorists"? Those have been the messages for (at least) the last week, and it was starting to get really ugly among the "faithful". The secret service even had to investigate a possible threat against Obama's life.

Now we don't have to ask ourselves "Who is Obama?" anymore. Because John McCain has found one of the last vestiges of honor and dignity buried beneath his capitulation to the basest elements of the GOP. If anyone brings up Barack Obama's character to you, you can simply quote McCain: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States." You know, if McCain wasn't running against Obama for president, I'd have to say that this was an endorsement. Or... how about "I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments"? That sounds unequivocal. Even when he got back on the attack, he sounded kind of moderate- "He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."

But what you have to ask yourself is why did McCain wait so long to tell the truth? Why did he give in to the tactics of Karl Rove-protégé Steve Schmidt? Did he forget what he famously said about negative ads during his failed bid for the presidency in 2000? Why did he hire the exact same folks that smeared him with ungodly rumors eight years ago? Maybe he made a Faustian bargain. This is undoubtedly his last shot at his most coveted dream, and he's seeing it slowly slipping away. If he is honest with himself he's probably wondering how the hell he got the nod from the Republican Party in the first place. Somehow the neocon wing of the party took control of the maverick, and we are seeing the results. It's an open secret that the cabal's head "intellectual" picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.

So what does that mean in terms of philosophy for the McCain/Palin team? Consider these now famous words:

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

-George W. Bush, September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress.

I think that all the political observers that accused Sarah Palin of not knowing about the Bush Doctrine need to reassess their beliefs. She may not have been able to communicate the principles intelligibly, but she has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she has internalized an understanding of the tactics that the approach involves. The McCain/Palin ticket is simply applying the Bush Doctrine to its political opponent. The accusations that Palin and McCain have made by insinuation (and in some cases quite directly) have very real consequences, and they need to be held accountable for them.

So if John McCain really wants to retain his "maverick" status, he needs to do what the 2000-era McCain would have done- jettison Sarah Palin*, Steve Schmidt, and the rest of their cronies. If McCain was truly uncomfortable with going negative (as some pundits have suggested), he needs to realize that he was forced to buy into a losing strategy. It's probably too late to turn the race around, but it would be an incredible move that would restore the faith a lot of people used to have in McCain's decency. It would be a game-changer, and not just a transient one. It might also go a long way in rehabilitating the dishonored Republican party. At this point, it looks like the old war hero has very little to lose by throwing one last "Hail Mary". Hell, maybe he can ask Hillary if she's available.


* Now that Sarah Palin has officially been found guilty of an "Abuse of Power" ethics violation by the Alaskan legislature, McCain has the perfect excuse to get rid of her. After all, he is the "reform candidate".

Obama VS. McCain, Round 2.

The two presidential candidates met in Nashville last night for Round Two of their three-part match. This time the event was moderated by NBC's Tom Brokaw, and featured a "Town Hall" format. It seems to me that this style of debate should entail more interaction with the audience, but the eighty observers on hand appeared intensely somber, if not plain uptight. They read their questions off of cue cards, and there wasn't a moment of spontaneity during the course of the evening. John McCain did seize the opportunity to do a bit of bonding with a Chief Petty Officer in the Navy. While this might play well to McCain's diehards, I don't think it will add much to the understanding of the undecideds. McCain has ties to the military? No way?!

In assessing the outcome of this second debate, we must once again return to expectations. Obama had the easier task last night. All he had to do was continue to look presidential and consolidate his lead. By all accounts he did just that. He reassured me by identifying alternative energy as the number one priority of his prospective presidency. He deftly fended off attacks (most of which were repeated word-for-word from the 1st debate), and even made a point of directly addressing some of McCain's distortions. The old warrior himself needed a game-changer, and I couldn't find a single media source (no matter how biased) that suggested he achieved that objective. Meanwhile, mainstream media sources have been quick to point out that the dynamic of this race remains the same. They did seem hesitant about proclaiming Obama the outright victor, despite what viewer polls indicate (this one in particular seems telling).

There weren't a whole lot of new ideas introduced in the debate. McCain tried to hit for the fences with a suggestion that the government should buy subprime loans directly, rather than dealing in mortgage securities. There were a few problems with that proposal. To start off with, one wonders where this idea was when McCain was making his high-profile visits to DC (during his so-called "campaign suspension") to negotiate the bailout bill. The reality is that John McCain didn't favor this approach previously because it was actually Barack Obama that first suggested it. Also, it's clear that the national will would likely not support spending another $300+ billion of taxpayer money to purchase what many have characterized as loans to folks that couldn't afford them in the first place. This is a fundamental contradiction of the GOP's message of personal accountability.

And while we are on the subject of accountability, John McCain notably failed to level the kind of charges that both his running mate and his campaign have been flinging at Obama this past week. There wasn't a single insinuation of treason, nor any suggestion at all that Obama likes to "pal around with terrorists". In fact we didn't hear any mention of names like William Ayres or Jeremiah Wright. Nor did McCain go into specifics when he spoke of his opponent's purported links to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But Obama wasn't shy in his response. He was upfront in pointing out that McCain's own campaign chairman, Rick Davis, was a paid lobbyist for that very corporation up until a few months ago. Actually, I think Obama showed unwarranted mercy in not mentioning the fact that McCain currently employs at least eight other former Fannie/Freddie lobbyists. But he obviously wanted to deliver a different message.

While we heard a lot of the same lines we've been hearing for weeks, it's notable that there were a few things that went completely unmentioned. John McCain didn't mention the name "Sarah Palin" a single time during the debate. Perhaps that is because he feels a need to distance himself from his attack surrogate, who has been extremely irresponsible on the stump since her handlers decided it was time to "take the gloves off". Palin has been appealing to the lowest common denominator of the Republican base- the embedded racism and the abject fear of people that differ from them. In doing so, she is treading on very dangerous ground. I was appalled yesterday to see videos of her smiling without comment as her supporters shouted cries of "treason", "terrorist", and "kill him" in response to Barack Obama's name.

One has to wonder- is this the position that McCain thought he'd be in a month before the election? Did he know that his loyalists would stoop to this level of hateful invective in the absence of a substantial counterargument to his opponent's platform?