by Clio Bluestocking | 10/10/2008 03:02:00 PM
That title is meant sarcastically, of course. Yet, to watch the debates, you would think this is the Republican solution. The Democrats, however, don't explicitly call bullshit on this attack themselves.

Having once held a job that was funded (when it was funded) primarily by both the NEH and the NHPRC, you could say that I'm a bit biased on the issue; but, really, do the people who criticize government spending (and I'm using the term broadly to include federal, state and local governments) realize what they are saying? Is government spending really that hideous?

First of all, I'm kind of shocked that Obama and Biden did not make an explicit connection between government spending, government deficit, and an ever-expanding war and decreasingly-popular war on foreign soil.



Maybe they have and I'm too dense to recognize it without one them explicitly saying so. They get to it in a roundabout way by referring to the dearly departed surplus; but I desperately want them to look at McCain and say, "you dumbass, don't you think all of this money going to this ridiculous war might have something to do with how broke our country is?" Or: "we spend lots of money on a losing war and now we have lots of debt so maybe we should re-think this war thing as a means of using our financial resources more efficiently." Or "maybe we should move the costs in the line that says 'war' to the line that says 'health care' or 'schools,'" or something of that sort.

I digress.

Second, I wish someone important would ask what our country would look like if there were no government spending. No -- actually, I want to cut closer to the bone than that -- what would an individual person's life look like without government spending?

Indeed, if I were an investigative reporter, I would go out and gather the specific data of the ways that any individual's life benefits from government spending. Then, I would find a subject to use as the human interest angle. I would make sure that this subject was unimpeachable to the opposition -- a white, home owning, college educated, male living in the suburbs with a job in the private sector. I might even choose a Republican who cheers McCain's odes to the Evils of Government Spending. I would find the ways in which government spending has enhance or enabled this person's life. I would want to show how American lives are subsidized by government spending in ways they may not even realize.

I'll use my own life for example; although I will grant that we had many government employees in our family, which would skew my own personal data toward more government money in my life.

In my own life, my father worked for the government. First, he was in the service, then he was in the bureaucracy. A part of the bureaucracy, by the way, that was formed in the New Deal and supplemented by the Great Society as a way to help the working and middle class move into home ownership.

My mother was a school librarian in her second career. Both she and my father went to state schools as undergraduates, and she went to a state school to get her graduate degree. She then worked in public school libraries. Both of them are retired and a bulk of their retirement funds come from the government.

My grandmother also was a public school teacher and principal, and educated in public schools and state universities. She once told me that her family, sharecropping in Mississippi in the Depression, sent her to live with relatives in Louisiana because Huey Long was ensuring that public school children did not have to buy their own textbooks (I still have to check out this story -- she's been know to play a little loose with historic facts in her reminiscences.) Her retirement funds are also from government spending.

Her husband, my grandfather, an unskilled worker with an 8th grade education before his service in World War II, was able to get training as a skilled worker from the G.I. Bill after the war. He spent the next 30 years working on the locks on the Intracoastal Waterway. Government spending helped him to do this. Their position in the post-war middle class gave them the prosperity to send my mother to college, and lay a foundation for my own good fortune in living a materially comfortable life.

My other grandfather did not benefit from the G.I. Bill because he had finished college before the war. He did, however, attend a state college. He also volunteered for a government funded charity that taught adult literacy classes. As a paid employee, he worked as an Exxon executive. Do we want to go through the ways that the government subsidized the oil industry now?

My aunt worked at a university press, at a state university, and she now works at a publicly funded museum.

I attended public schools from first grade through my PhD. We didn't have kindergarten in the public schools in those days, so I did attend private institutions for kindergarten and pre-K. My mom wanted me out of her hair so she could deal with my baby brother, and my parents could afford that arrangement from my father's salary, paid for by the government.

Then, when I went to a private graduate school, I paid my tuition with government-subsidized loans. Thus, the private school received government money. Additionally, in that program, I served as an intern at institutions that received government funding to operate and to conduct research.

Government money has been ever present in my professional life. As a teacher, I have worked at public institutions from community colleges to public universities. My brief foray into administration was at a public university. As an editor, I worked at projects funded by the NEH and NHPRC. As a researcher, I used institutions also funded by those agencies and funded by public money, such as the Boston Public Library, the National Archives, the Library of Congress, and the National Parks Service.

I have always driven on public roads, from the moment that I received my license. The U.S. and interstate highway systems were both products of government spending, and are maintained by that same government spending. I seriously doubt that anyone outside of the military regularly thinks of them as part of a defense measure anymore, and everyone gets really pissy when the roads aren't maintained or cleared of snow in the winters.

I have also used the T, the Subway, and the Metro, as well as the Monorail; all three being public forms of transportation that got me to school, work, and research, and which enable whole populations of people to live without cars.

These are only a few very direct examples of the ways in which I use government spending to my advantage. They only apply to me, but the institutions that I attended and at which I worked, as well as the facilities that I have used, all point towards the patronage of thousand or even millions of other people in this country who benefit from government spending.

So, I'm asking all of this out of curiosity, and a potential research project (but not for me, since I have about a thousand other projects -- maybe a collective blogosphere research project). How much of our individual lives are affected by the spending of government funds?

We could also extend this question to private corporations and businesses, as well. Furthermore, since these government funds come from tax dollars, what is the difference between what a person (or business) pays in taxes and what they receive in benefits from public services?

I think I myself come out way ahead on that one.

Crossposted at Clio Bluestocking Tales.

Labels: , , ,

 
by Real_PHV_Mentarch | 7/19/2008 05:20:00 PM
The increasing erosion of our constitutions, civil rights and democracies as they are being gradually subjugated by Authoritarian Security Surveillance States. The bloating no-fly lists and terrorist watch-lists. The continuing inhumane and barbaric renditions, "enhanced interrogations" and indefinite detentions - of children, teenagers and adults alike. The continuing standing of Military Commissions, which are nothing more than politically-driven, rigged, kangaroo courts. The seemingly unending wars of choice and occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq - both based on lies to justify a vengeance operation for 9/11 and the securing of foreign oil resources. The ever mounting toll of civilian deaths, displaced refugees and soldier casualties.

This is the overall state of things today with regards to our so-called "Western civilization" - especially with regards to the U.S.A., the U.K. and Canada.




Through it all, much of the currently occurring discourse and debating on these above-mentioned, self-evident evils deal largely with semantics and quaint legalese gymnastics in order to defend and justify not only their perceived necessity, but to actually establish, maintain, or cement, their legality as well.

The following exchange cristallizes the sheer insanity which is now prevailing over what passes as reason these days (h/t):
American News Project notes that in yesterday’s House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on torture, Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) asked Doug Feith if a 20-hour interrogation involving “hooding” and “removal of clothing” was “humane.” Feith hedged, curiously claiming that “removal of clothes is different from naked”:
NADLER: : Let me ask you. How could you force someone to be naked -

FEITH: It doesn’t say naked. It doesn’t say naked.

NADLER: Removal of clothing. Removal of clothing doesn’t mean naked?

FEITH: Removal of clothing is different from naked.
This, coming from that same Douglas Feith who has claimed to have championed a policy of respect for the Geneva conventions during his tenure in the White House (ri-ight).

Let's have another example (h/t):
The controversial interrogation technique of waterboarding has served a “valuable” purpose and does not constitute torture, former Attorney General John Ashcroft told a House committee Thursday.

I believe a report of waterboarding would be serious, but I do not believe it would define torture,” Ashcroft said, responding to questions from Rep. Maxine Waters, D-California.

He added, “the Department of Justice has on a consistent basis over the last half-dozen years or so, over and over again in its evaluations, come to the conclusion that under the law in existence during my time as attorney general, waterboarding did not constitute torture.”

Waters asked Ashcroft whether such techniques would be regarded as “totally unacceptable and even criminal” if they were used on American soldiers. “Well, my subscription to these memos, and my belief that the law provides the basis for these memos persisted even in the presence of my son serving two tours of duty overseas in the Gulf area as a member of our armed forces,” Ashcroft said …
Let's have more (h/t):
During a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee today, former Attorney General John Ashcroft falsely claimed that waterboarding has “consistently” been defined as “not torture” and refused to agree that the use of enhanced interrogation techniques — including waterboarding — on captured U.S. soldiers is “unacceptable” or “criminal.”
REP. MAXINE WATERS: Do you think that if these techniques were used on American soldiers that they would be totally unacceptable and even criminal? (…)

ASHCROFT: My job, as Attorney General, was to try and elicit from the experts and the best people in the Department definitions that comported with the statues enacted by the Congress and the Constitution of the United States. And those statutes have consistently been interpreted so as to say, by the definitions that, waterboarding, as described in the CIA’s request, is not torture.
Which in turn must be followed by this (h/t):
Today, during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) dismissed the torture of prisoners at Guantanamo and other U.S. detention facilities. According to Issa, “we treated our hospital patients worse” than we treat al Qaeda detainees. Former attorney general John Ashcroft chimed in, joking that doctors “were poking needles into me”:
ISSA: It is sort of amazing that as a member of the permanent Select Intelligence Committee, I’ve never heard any allegation of any detainee being denied food or water for a week. It’s clear that we treated our hospital patients at times worse than al Qaeda.

ASCHROFT: What’s more, they were poking needles into me all the time time.
Now comes the logical outcome (h/t):

Appearing on Shepard Smith’s Fox News show yesterday, O’Reilly explained that he “held (the released footage of Rev. Jesse Jackson criticizing Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) before an interview) back” because “it was not relevant to the general subject — one civil rights leader disparaging another, over policy.” Towards the end of the interview, Smith asked O’Reilly, “do we know who leaked it?” “No,” replied O’Reilly, adding that he would find out because he had “the waterboard over here”:

O’REILLY: So, we held it back, and then, some weasel got the whole thing, leaked it out to the internet, and here we are.

SMITH: Do we know who leaked it and what’s happened to that person?

O’REILLY: No, but I have the waterboard over here, and we have a couple of people that, you know, we’ll dunk. We’ll find out.
When Smith said, “we don’t allow torture here,” O’Reilly replied, “well, you talk to some of my guests.”
All of the above reminds me again of this:
(...) whether you call it "frathouse pranks", "enhanced interrogation techniques", "water treatment" or "waterboarding", torture has been going on, and is still going on - even after the revelations of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. In fact, many detainees have actually been tortured to death. Even children and teenagers ("child soldiers" and civilians) have been likewise tortured. Why, torture has become so mainstream that the U.S. is now in the business of torturing for, or helping in doing so ... other countries like China! Thanks to another of Bush's signing statements, the new motto is: "torture - it's not only legal, it's all good".
Indeed - Gitmo is really more like a boy scout camp than it is a prison camp. Why, it is practically Disney Land!

Not. At. All.

Nevertheless, there you have it. From first denying any torture, we've come to redefining torture as not torture, to trivializing it and, now, to make it a subject of asinine jokes.

Never mind the dirty little secrets that torture by the military is not really new, and that torture of detainees of the Global War on Terror(TM) began well before Bush and Co. decided to undertake the necessary legalese gymnastics in order to justify it "legally" after-the-fact,

And never mind that torture techniques currently being used (yes - torture is still going on) came from China, and that privatizing torture can be good business.

No, never mind all that because the new truthiness of the day is: torture is A-OK.

No wonder, then, that there are politicians who still think that torture techniques, such as those used in Gitmo or those revealed in Abu Ghraib, are nothing more than hazing pranks from some Fraternity.

No wonder, then, that U.S. politicians are doing their best to close down hearings on torture.

No wonder, then, that radio loudmouths can proudly say - and without any backlash whatsoever - that they would hang any lawyer doing their job in defending Gitmo detainees.

No wonder, then, that the President can claim with a straight face that critics of Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and renditions are slandering America.

And it is no wonder, then, that Bush allies/emulators (like my Prime Douchebag of Canada) actually support implicitly the use of torture, by either mendacious denial or by using the same types of euphemisms, obfuscations and sleight-of-hand double-talking in doing so.

Once again, as I previously wrote:
There is no going deeper into the pit of savagery and perversion here, folks. This is the very bottom, the lowest of the lowest, level of inhumanity.

No civilization allowed here - when the debate is about the efficiency and validity of torture in getting solid intelligence and confessions, as things are now, instead of being about the inherent immoral nature of torture, then you know you have lost any semblance of human rationality and grace.

Case in point.
All the while, we keep on ignoring the following simple, self-evident verity:
I also think of those dozens (hundreds?) who have been tortured over the years, thanks to the Bush administration's policy which has ever been supported - if not encouraged and staunchly defended - by pundits, lawyers, justices, politicians, warhawks, chickenhawks and all assorted fear- and hate-driven neocon enablers, supporters and apologists - including all those ostriches who would rather bury their heads in the sand rather than face the awful, ugly truth:

The U.S.A. has become a rogue state which practices indefinite detention and torture.

And who cares if some of those "evil Muslims" die in the process, right? After all, indefinite detentions, secret tribunals and enhanced interrogation techniques torture are valuable means and tools for the defense of freedom, liberty and democracy ...

(...) I humbly assume that I will be forgiven if I do not appreciate the "courageous" work done over the last seven years by the Bush administration and its cheerleading supporters - because from where I stand, they have spat upon and irreversibly sullied every precept of human dignity, of human respect, of Humanity, which used to be held as unassailable and uncompromising, sacrosaint values.

And it doesn't matter however much they try to justify/legalize/spin their actions - for indeed, nothing justifies indefinite detention, secret tribunals and torture.

Nothing.

Period.

Every single one of these fear- and hate-driven incompetents have pushed us from the moral high ground of justice, freedom and human rights into the bottomless precipice of barbarous and savage injustice.
And this other one:
That. Is. Justice. For. You.

All in the sacro-sanct name of Security.

Doesn't it make you feel so proud and patriotic?

God bless America and God bless Canada, f***ing indeed.

But the ugly truth is that all of us are guilty for our silence and absence of outrage. All of us have been irremediably stained for such a sociopathic lack of basic human decency, empathy, compassion and contrition.
In the meantime, the apparent majority of our fellow citizens either approve, remain complicit with their silence, just don't want to know, or simply don't care - as they are being conveniently distracted on a daily basis by the whims and vagaries of vapid and insipid (if not asinine) traditional media outlet accomplices (yet one more example here).

Thus I ask again:
(...) what does it say about a society where those who are the most pro-war and pro-torture can only change their minds after undergoing waterboarding?
I think it is now safe to say that the answer to that question is the following: simply read again the very first paragraph of this essay.

That is what "it says" about our societies.

Not entirely convinced? Then glance over these few headlines:

8 million Americans are now listed as potentially suspect;

FBI might use profiling in terror investigations (h/t);

Terrorist Watch List Hits One Million Names (h/t);

Court Backs Bush on Military Detentions (h/t);

CNN reporter criticizes TSA, finds self on terror watch list;

Prosecutor turned up on US terror watch list;

Torture and the rule of law;

RCMP slammed for storing secret files on Canadians
(see also here);

CSIS keeping tabs on Olympic protesters (see also here);

U.K.: What do we do now? (see also here);

Homeland Security blocks voter drive (h/t)

Council used terror law to spy on fishermen;

Congressman still faces airport screening problem.
And I could go on and on and on and on.

If we can accept something so inhuman and barbaric as torture, and if furthermore we become so accepting/used of it that we can trivialize and even joke about it, then we can accept anything.

And so we have.

And frankly, I've used up all my outrage and my contempt on these matters. I wrote letters (newpapers, elected representatives), I've written blogs, I've been discussing this over and over in the public place (in RL) ...

Still, most people seem too self-absorbed, or too fearful of them "terrorists", or actually approve, or remain simply in denial, to be outraged or even give a damn about the slow destruction of our democratic principles, as well as our values of civil rights, human rights, human dignity and human respect.

And I - at least on this day - just don't know what to do about this anymore.

We have been losing ourselves since the day after 9/11.

Looks like we have crossed the threshold of ever being able to find ourselves again.

So we keep on riding fast and hard onto that road to perdition ... well beyond redemption.


(Cross-posted from APOV)


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,