The problems of the western "democracies" (so-called in
the U.S.)
just got an additional jolt when the real Vladimer Putin showed himself
by the invasion of Georgia, though anyone paying attention should not
have been surprised. This has been a hot spot of contention, ignored by
Bush, for years.
For those who care to remember, Putin was hand picked from the KBG by
former Russian president Boris Yeltsen to safe guard his retirement.
Putin quickly took advantage of the chaos and deprivation that was the
post USSR collapse to marginalize all opposition (including the murder
of dissident reporters) and control all significant media. His tactics
against the breakaway Chechnia province demonstrated a care not
attitude about civilian wants and needs. Since Chechnia was actually
part of Russia, little outside objection was raised.
But now a new step has been taken, one that shows that there is no
restraint on Putin's ambition to recolonize all of the former republics
around Russia--for starters. Using the South Ossetia pretext, Russian
troops have marched well past that region's borders, despite his
blatant lies, and into Gori, threatening the capital of Toblisi itself.
A second incursion has sprung from the Abkhazia region on the Black sea
coast, cutting off any help that might come from ships. While the tank
led forces cordon off the captured territory, South Ossetian para
military goons "cleanse" the region (read kill, torture, rape, pillage
and destroy) behind its shield. When one has the total power, as Putin
has, he incurs total responsibility for any outcomes.
President Bush, Defense Secretary Gates, Secretary of State Rice and
others in the administration bluster and bluff but are obviously
helpless. Gates even gave a tacit green light to the incursion by
rushing out to state that we would not put up any military resistance;
another case of America's befriend and abandon foreign policy.
Capturing the oil pipe line that supplies fuel to Western Europe will
effectively neutralize any willingness on its part to stand up to this
and continued aggression. Just the threat of cut off is sufficient. We
have a new Stalin in our midst and he should be recognized as such. The
difference is that Putin's Russia has the economic/oil power the old
USSR didn't. The largest transfer of wealth in human history, from west
to producer nations, is in the process of turning the world's power
balance upside down, with the worse guys on top.
America's twilight as a super power has been rapidly approaching as it
is, given the export of our manufacturing base, the failure to keep up
our physical and soft infrastructure, our monstrous debt load (federal,
financial, trade and personal), the thorough corruption of our
leadership class and the feckless character of the American people, led
by an irresponsible media. Given our weakness, we will undoubtedly be
treated to more Nevil Chamberlain impersonations. After all, we have
already been looking the other way from Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma and
Tibet partly because of our subservience to China. The Georgian outrage
is just another step down. The only question now is how many more and
how fast.
One may come to wonder just what we have been doing with all the
military spending we have done since the USSR broke apart at the end of
the Reagan regime. Clearly we have had too few troops available even
before this latest crisis, even with all the private contractor
employees hired. It may be that the only potent defender of human
rights in the world can not maintain civility with only an all
volunteer military but any politician who campaigns to restore the
draft will lose his next election bid. We would rather hunker down with
our computer games and watch the Olympics and the new football season.
And don't forget, we're broke.
August 15, 2008
JBM
December Surprise
James K. Galbraith
Mother Jones 7&8/2008
Foreclosure Phil
Davis Corn
Mother Jones 7&8/2008
Two insightful articles concerning America's economic
predicament and housing crisis appeared in the July/August MJ
magazine along with a running time line (by Nomi Prins) recounting the
steps that got us to the housing bubble and collapse. If you care about
either and are under informed, pages 38-43 will be worth your while.
Galbraith posits that interest rate cuts by the Republicans to goose
the economy before an election hasn't had the desired effect, this time
even when the stimulus checks were added. Too many unsold houses remain
in the market and there is still too much distrust in the lending
world, given all the packaged sub-prime potential defaults still to be
uncovered. Even prompt paying home owners are getting financially hurt
by their declining housing values. With decreased property values,
state and local governments will have to raise taxes or decrease
services. Interest rates can't fall without fueling inflation.
Consumers will consume less, driving up unemployment.
Galbraith is concerned about the stability of the dollar. Will
foreigners rush to get out before they lose even more due to its
decline? The economic turmoil of such a rush could well cause a world
economic nightmare. And we're in enough trouble as it is.
During the presidential campaign, attention has been paid
to the
candidate's associations. But there are associations, like reverend
Wright and there are advisors. And until Phil Gramm was taped
complaining about "whining Americans" he was an out front, leading
economic advisor for John McCain. And even after he was supposedly let
go, Gramm has appeared again nearby. Gramm was a Senator who was
primarily responsible for the housing market deregulation that has led
to the sub-prime mess. He made his money flacking for big business
which wants to rape and run our economy into the ground. Corn
specifically refers to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act which
opened up all kinds of trading schemes for business. The Fed was either
over its head in understanding these new deals or didn't care enough to
investigate and rub Gramm the wrong way. Tax payers are now doing the
bailing.
The time line runs from 1913 to the present. 72 dates describe how we
got from there to here. Senators Garn and St. Germain got us the
savings and loan mess with their Depository Institutions Act in 1982.
Gramm had his hand in gutting the Glass-Steagall Act so that banks and
security companies could merge. And so it went.
Keeping Gramm around should, by itself, be sufficient to reject McCain.
August 15, 2008
JBM
As we head into August it has become clear that the
campaigns for
president continue to avoid the truths neither side wants to tell and
the mainstream media that doesn't want to inform the public about.
These are questions raised on this site repeatedly so it is not that
they are inconceivable--in fact they are issues the next president will
have to deal with or ignore at our peril. The indictment is true of
Senators Obama and McCain specifically and their surrogates.
Much of the campaign has revolved around the conduct of the war in Iraq
and the economy here at home. In truth, although both Obama and McCain
want you to think that they have divergent approaches, in fact their
positions are quite similar and close to the current administration's.
The troops are coming out of Iraq and some will shift to
Afghanistan--as conditions warrant. All sides are working on a loose
time table, although Republicans won't call it that. McCain keeps
harping on Obama's supposed error about the benefits of the surge while
omitting the contributions of the Sunnis kicking out al-Queda, the
separation of Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad and the consolidation of
the latter in southern Iraq. Iranian influence in that region is
unreported although this was a great concern early in the war. McCain
has even asserted that the surge began 6 months before our additional
30,000 troops got to Baghdad. It is doubtful that any but a handful
(maybe even less) of Americans understood that. Or do now.
But the housing down turn and credit problems have become the biggest
issue now that the violence in Iraq has lessened. There is much
contention about cutting taxes. McCain has changed his position about
Bush's tax cuts and deliberately misrepresented Obama's tax cut plan.
In truth, both hope to buy votes with government hand outs from a
treasury that is insolvent. But here is the question that McCain is
never faced with: his position, the conservative Republican position,
is that tax cuts are needed to stimulate the economy. The increased
buying power of the public will provide business profits and jobs even
though some of that preserved income might go to wasteful consumer
purchases from foreign producers with the profits going overseas. Some
of that money, considering that the tax cuts are aimed at the well off,
is likely to be invested--overseas. Or to create another market bubble.
On the other hand, if the government kept that money, and even raised
taxes, that revenue could be invested solely in America, in ways that
would not only stimulate the economy progressively by providing better
paying jobs but would result in efficiencies and future productivity,
compounding the benefits. Instead of buying copious Xmas toys for the
kids, flat screen TVs, SUVs, designer clothes and jewelry,
entertainment tickets, fast, fat foods etc. we could be spending on
health R&D, energy research and development, transportation
upgrades, health insurance for all, better teacher pay and inner city
schools and the like. Why isn't that better? "We are eating our seed
corn Senator....Ah...Senator McCain, you didn't answer the question.
I'll try it again."
The truth is that the government is spending money on some of these
needs with funds it doesn't have. Republicans in particular, are
handing off a debt load that is unconscionable. Democrats, as usual,
are standing back.
Given that McCain has no national health care plan (at least he hasn't
promoted one), Obama's position has to be considered superior. However,
Obama has never been pinned down about tolerating the blood sucking
insurance industry which "earns" its living by making across-the-board
health care less affordable. Thousands are dying unnecessarily each
year as a result. Government single payer plans are less confusing,
more egalitarian and more efficient. They are the preferred plans in
all other advanced countries. Why not here?
And while it has been brought up, neither candidate has had to face a
tough confrontation about their FISA votes. Obama sanctioned the Bush
administration's warrantless wire tapping, a clear illegality. The bill
sanctioned not only the invasion of privacy but attacked the separation
of powers. If either or both candidates could condone that, what would
be next? And why won't they pledge to investigate and prosecute all
Bush administration officials, including Bush himself, if criminal
and/or unconstitutional acts were committed?
Issues like the destruction of marine biology and species extinction,
what to do about Putin, Hugo Chavez, the Chinese leadership, Mugabe and
Basheir, get scant attention. The focus on meteor deflection capability
is never even mentioned. Neither candidate, nor the mainstream media
mentions John Edwards' "Half in Ten" campaign to reduce poverty. And so
on.
The dumbed down public won't demand answers to these and other
questions but they'll vote (or not) in November. Then they will be
"shocked" by what the new president does (or doesn't do) and wonder why
some of these issues weren't raised before the election.
July 30, 2008
JBM
Bad Money
Kevin Phillips
2008
This book follows up on Phillip's previous work, American
Theocracy
but confines itself to updating the financialization of our economy and
the recent fallout. It is a bland, abstract subject involving numbers
and Phillips' syntax isn't the easiest to get through so only a few
won't dodge this analysis. But since economics is the back bone of any
culture, understanding it and making course corrections is vital to
long run prosperity if not survival.
The thesis is that empires have fallen as a result of, or concomitant
with, the conversion to financialization. Phillips chronically compares
our situation with the down fall of the Spanish, Dutch and British
empires. It is a subject that is getting no attention amidst all the
cited causes for America's economic bubbles (dot.com, credit and
housing), the gulf between the rich and the rest and the onset of
stagflation.
Insufficient attention has been paid to the role of the Republican
administration's (including Clinton's) treasury secretary and Federal
Reserve in propping up a sagging economy by deceptive means over the
last 30 years. This has assuaged our concern over the export of
manufacturing jobs in order to capture international corporate market
share and maximize short term profits (and let's not forget the
associated top executive compensation increases). What we have turned
to is using our wealth to invest in buyouts, using too much leverage
and debt in the process of churning ownership. Taxpayer bailouts have
increased risk and undermined the credibility of the economist Milton
Freidman's mantra that the unregulated marketplace will solve all of
our problems. New debt instruments have made understanding risk almost
unpenetrable. Securitized Debt Obligations, (the packaged sub prime
mortgages etc.) have loaded the financial world with booby traps that
are not only causing lenders to restrict loans, compounding recession,
but have damaged America's financial credibility. Throw in the falling
dollar which has robbed foreign investors of billions and it isn't any
wonder that oil prices here have skyrocketed and that this country is
unpopular.
Phillips discloses that a Financial Working Group was set up by Reagan
which was to act as a Plunge Protection Team in order to maintain
investor confidence and limit any stock market run. It is unclear how
intrusive the Team has been in manipulating the futures market but with
all the concern about speculation in oil futures, there is need for
investigation. However, it is likely that the subject is too
politically sensitive even for a Democratic congress.
/Phillips contends that real (M3) statistics would reveal a runaway
inflation over the last year so the CPI understates the problem. He
concludes that "American financial capitalism...[has]...financialized a
[formally] more diversified economy...using massive quantities of
debt..follow[ed] up a stock market bubble with an even larger mortgage
credit bubble...roughly quadrupling U.S. credit market debt [over the
last 20 years], a scale of excess that historically
unwinds...consummating these events with a mixed performance of
dishonesty, incompetence and quantitative negligence."
If you want to really understand the underpinnings of our economic
problems then check into this book and wade through it.
June 30, 2008
JBM
The sudden death of Tim Russert, moderator of Meet
the Press
for almost 2 decades, has
elicited effusive tributes from TV network
co-workers and competitors alike. The citations for his family ties,
his enthusiasm, collegiality, copious knowledge of Washington politics
and hard hitting interviews have been numerous and heart felt.
However unsurprising, it is, or should be, a distressing sign that no
one in his business had the honesty and/or integrity to tell the truth
about how he let us all down. In truth, Russert didn't ask many of the
questions he should have, didn't ask the harsh questions of the
powerful, or certainly not enough of them, and he didn't come out with
his condemnation of the causes of America's decline. In effect, as a
leader of the TV news bureaus, he sat by and enabled the US to convert
to a plutocracy in the last 30 years. He kept his mouth shut as we
transformed into a second gilded age. He not only didn't go after the
corruption that pervades Washington, he didn't expose the nation's
second biggest problem--the inadequacy of our civic
comprehension--which he contributed to. He fiddled while the country
rotted for the benefit of the ultra rich.
It demeans the concept to call Russert a journalist because a true
journalist goes to where the evidence leads, without convenient
blinders on. Yes this means that one won't get the big name guests on
their shows because the bad guys won't face the public with the
fallacies and flaws in their positions, policies and agendas. In any
case, a journalist keeps his distance from his subjects. Caving in
means selling out. No one brought this up because--you guessed
it--they've all sold out. And they have been compromised for so long
that some probably don't even realize it.
There was a glimmer of revelation when George Stephanopulous asked John
Edwards what they could do better and he answered that the revealing of
real issues was being sacrificed by all the concentration on the horse
races, campaign tactics and irrelevancies. And last week Keith Oberman
lit into Senator John McCain's Iraq stance with the thoroughness and
passion that should be more commonplace. In network programming, no
serious self criticism comes out from within.
Critics of Russert only have to go back to his hour long interview of
President GW Bush in 2004. Instead of ripping into Bush's egregious
priorities he tossed him sponge balls to hit out of the park. There
wasn't even any mention of the Medicare drug plan which prohibits the
negotiation of prices.
/In the October 2007 editorial posted on this site there were 20
questions that Russert didn't ask the presidential candidates. Two more
could be added: "What are you going to do about heading off our growing
clean water crisis? and "Are you going to transfer NASA and Air Force
funding from space exploration and military operations to finding and
preparing to deflect incoming asteroids or comets which just might
destroy much of the world (see the June issue of The Atlantic
magazine)?" Given the tightly restricted number of campaign issues
talked about on TV, it is highly doubtful if he ever would have.
Representative Dennis Kucinich read off a 65 page indictment of
President Bush (for the purpose of trying to start impeachment
proceedings) last week and it got no network coverage at all. Given
Russert's track record it is doubtful that the subject would have been
brought up on his next MTP.
So let's get the final record straight; Russert and his colleges in
network news may be fine fellows but they aren't journalists, they are
facilitators of our decline and historians will hopefully judge them so.
June 16, 2008
JBM
The Age of American Unreason
Susan Jacoby
2008
Susan Jacoby fires a shot at a vital, almost entirely
ignored
target but for the most part, she just grazes the rim. Too much space
is wasted on personal and anecdotal cases when broader evidence is
required. Too much space is given to our 20th century history when the
same point could be delivered more concisely. Too much emphasis is
given to the importance of learning about old fiction as a measure of
intelligence. Today's "intellectual" must spend more time and attention
on the real, non-fiction world because it is so much more complex.
Having said that, this is a book that takes on the scope of our
ignorance and the stupidity it spawns. The problem is so wide and deep
that she isn't sanguine about recovery, and there is plenty to support
that contention. TV driven "infotainment" and "junk thought" lead a
credulous public to uncritically accept whatever is shouted the loudest
and longest. Fundamentalist religion, an uneven but at best a mediocre
education system and the disappearance of fair minded intellectuals
with access to the general public share in the causal decline of
dissemination of important knowledge. Even a growing body of scientists
are being compromised by corporate sponsors while they are being
discredited by ideologs.
There are bright spots here also. Jacoby isn't afraid to link
diminished understanding to the accent of fundamentalist religion. She
traces how, particularly in the South and Midwest, this plays out in
acceptance of creationism, which denies scientific method and in some
cases even causes belief in an impending Armageddon. Poor schooling
results in low math and science grades even as state standards are
dumbed down. TV and computer games and entertainment sites sap precious
reading time. This isn't new material but many don't recognize it. And
which political leader(s) will step up and tell us the truth about this
crisis when a huge segment of the population resents anyone even
seemingly intelligent?
There are a number of enlightening passages: "When the dumbing down of
culture is seen as a collection of largely unrelated problems,
concerned leaders...can only offer solutions that nibble at the edges."
"Americans must recognize that we are living through an over arching
crisis of memory and knowledge involving everything about the way we
learn and think. Such a recognition would have to come from ordinary
citizens as well as their elected representatives, from
nonintellectuals and intellectuals alike. ...we must give up the
delusion that technology can supply a fix for a condition that,...is
essentially nontechnological." Finally, "The nation's memory and
attention span may have already sustained so much damage that they
cannot be revived by the best efforts of America's best minds." "There
is little evidence to indicate that Americans have either the desire or
the will to lessen their dependency on the easy satisfactions held out
by the video and digital world..." The dumbing down is ingrained. It
leads to bad economic, political and social decisions. We'd rather have
a beer with our president than spend time with one that has a much
better command of the issues. Real learning, and communicating, is
work, and we aren't up to it. Our fat bodies are being matched by our
fat heads.
You can pass by this book but not the message it delivers.
June 1, 2008
JBM
The Democratic campaign for the presidential nomination
between
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama slogs on with each side ripping the
other while John McCain quietly tours the country trying to emphasize
his character and patriotism because he loses on almost all the issues,
just as President Bush has.
And the major media talking heads continue to dumb down the electorate
by concentrating on "gotcha" incidents which are of minuscule
importance compared with the tremendous problems the Bush
administration is leaving us with. Charles Gibson and George
Stephanopolous were rightly chastised for wasting nearly half (if you
count commercial time) of the 2 hour ABC debate digging at Obama for
Reverend Wright's comments, Obama's contention about ruralites
resorting to guns and religion and why he hasn't worn a flag pin.
Apparently the response was so critical that Gibson even brought it up
on the following ABC nightly news.
But Tim Russert didn't learn anything from that rebuke. He wasted
nearly 20 minutes on Wright when interviewing Obama on Meet the
Press on May 4th. Meanwhile Stephanopolous started right off
grilling Clinton on the concurrent This Week...,
opening with her gas tax relief proposal. She again defended it,
contrasting her idea with McCain's which wouldn't charge the profit
bloated oil companies for the revenue loss. Even though a consensus of
economists thought the idea was insignificant and Obama denounced it as
a political pandering ploy, he never offered any short term relief plan
of his own, ducking the question altogether on CBS. But none of the
candidates were ever asked, nor did they volunteer answers for the
contribution of the weak dollar to our higher oil prices. Nor did any
of them address the NIMBY problem when it comes to citing any new oil
refineries. Focusing on such a limited relief plan to the exclusion of
underlying factors gives us no clue to what any would do when in the
oval office.
One has to wonder if certain questions are precluded by the candidates
or if the network anchors and hosts are that oblivious to the many
issues never raised. Are they also that ignorant of the fact that they
can drive public opinion by calling sufficient attention to a subject
as opposed to just reflecting poll revealing public sentiment? Given
that corruption is the number one problem holding this country back,
why hasn't the issue been raised and the candidates been forced to deal
with it? Too many super delegates would be threatened and would vote
against the staunchest supporter of real reform? Or is it that the
network executives might have their corporations threatened if their
lobbyists couldn't control congress with their bribes? Don't forget
that the networks, and affiliates, rake in the political spot ad loot
each election season and the figures keep going up. You would think
that NBC could at least afford to televise original programming on
prime time weekends like they used to.
Now that Billary couldn't close the delegate gap after North Carolina,
pundits have declared Obama the winner. Still she carries on drawing
increasing ire from Democrats who think she is hurting Obama's chances
in the fall. And we still don't know what either would do about China,
or the foods shortages etc., let alone the Marshall Islands' poverty.
May 8, 2008
JBM
Better Off
Eric Brende
2004
Subtitled Flipping the Switch On Technology,
this 233 page
book, with no index, is a narrative of the author's journey (with his
wife Mary) from the Boston region to an undisclosed Amish type
community somewhere in the Northeast. It is also a journey back in
time, to when farmers were more self sufficient. The experiment lasted
something more than a year.
The Brendes rented a small farm and proceeded to plant with the
generous help of the landlord and many in the area. The narrative
details the adjustment to less technology and how the community coped
with doing without electricity and mechanization. What comes through is
the correlation between downscaling and increased cooperation. Every
one pitched in with the plowing, the planting, the harvesting, the
manufacture of goods, the barn raisings and so forth. All seemed to be
out of debt. Brende also found out that despite the apparent dawn to
dusk manual labor there seemed to be more free time than working
urbanites have. He also got in good physical shape even while there
were temporary concerns about his laziness.
Much of the book dwelt on relationships with neighbors and more distant
"Minimite" community members. Some were more religious than others,
some more strict than others. This was not an Amish community.
Outsiders, like Brende himself, who wanted to get away from the rat
race brought their priorities and beliefs with them.
The Brendes became more converted as they meshed with the others and
gave up their last amenities, finally trading in their car for a horse
and wagon. This didn't work out too well as Mary was allergic to horse
dander. She had a home birthed baby after lots of preparation but such
deliveries are scary as something can occasionally go wrong. But they
go wrong in hospitals too.
The Brendes eventually bought a farm on the other side of the region
but didn't keep it long. Suddenly they were gone--back to the Boston
area where he drove a cab then bought a rickshaw. He converted his new
house to a low cost B&B for added income. More children were added
to the family. They home schooled the kids but the parents spend less
time together. They barter their home made soap.
Brende's findings: it is generally better to find a simpler, less
technological solution for accomplishing objectives. 3 reasons: a
machine costs more, machines atrophy human capacities, a mechanical
entity readily overwhelms or subverts its purpose. Exceptions occur
when mechanization saves labor, transports more efficiently, especially
over longer distances and telephones are necessary (but TVs, computers
etc. apparently are not).
There is not much to take away from this book and with so many more
important ones out there to read, this one can be consigned to
frivolous escape. Brende found another way to make some income.
May 5, 2008
JBM
Nemesis
Chalmers Johnson
2007
Nemesis is the 3rd book in the Chalmers trilogy
dealing with the rise of the U.S. to empire status. Blowback
and The Sorrows of Empire
preceded it. "Nemesis" is the goddess of retribution and we are in the
process of being paid back for our ill considered expansion, military
and otherwise.
Chalmers describes our addiction to bases around the world (over 700
Main Operating Bases, Forward Operating Sites and Cooperative Security
Locations) and the "Morale, Welfare & Recreation" (MWR) facilities
which often accompany them. He documents some the abuses perpetrated by
our overseas personnel on foreign populations and our high handed
attitude which is part of the reason that they hate us. Okinawa is a
prime example. Given that we have no foreign bases here, Americans have
little appreciation for what others have to put up with. And since we
can get other nations to pay at least part of our over seas bases
costs, there is little incentive to bring our boys home to annoy our
own populations at our expense.
A chapter is devoted to describing and comparing our status with that
of the Roman and British empires. A distinction is that Rome became a
dictatorship and still couldn't hang on to its holdings while the
British gave up their empire to save their democracy. We still don't
know which way America will go but with more power being accumulated by
the President in the face of a fully corrupted and compromised,
moribund congress, the outlook isn't good.
CIA black ops, renditions, torture, indefinite detention, invasions
such as Iraq, space control (missile defense systems don't work and
just waste $billions), executive secrecy, domestic spying and
"privatization" are all heading us down the dictatorship path. Spending
to create billionaires and indebtedness to foreign lenders will
inexorably determine decline if not implosion. The multiplicity of
problems and demands for redress will overwhelm our "representative"
government. In a triage situation the only question is who will be hurt
most, and how will they react.
Not much of this should come as a surprise to those paying attention to
what is going on. It is worse than most Americans realize, or want to
understand. However, our head in the sand response will only insure the
unwelcomed outcome.
October 15, 2007
JBM
For national columnists, Susan Estrich and Lenore
Skenazy seem
rather unsophisticated about the fundamental differences between men
and women regarding our sexual drives. Both wrote columns in the last
month decrying former NY governor Eliot Spitzer's judgmental lapse
concerning his hooker patronage. Some common assumptions that these 2
writers implicitly or explicitly expressed need to be better examined.
First though, let's get our agreements out of the way. It is agreed
that hypocrisy and lack of discretion in such matters is not excusable.
You don't bust prostitution rings while paying for play yourself. You
don't risk spreading STDs or pregnancy. You don't lie. And, especially
if you are prominent and married, you don't get careless about privacy
unless you want to lose your family and/or your job.
On the other hand, women have long fought to control, and have
successfully won the battle, at least in the US, over what is morally
wrong in the arrangement of sexual partners. However, a contrasting
male view shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.
Lifelong monogamy is the gold standard no matter how much it conflicts
with a man's sexual nature. It is understandable that women want the
life long security of a devoted husband (who they may "cheat" on to
have better physical offspring), even with our longer life spans. It is
understandable that they frequently take that security for granted. It
is understandable that they ignore the complexities of spousal
relationships, equating companionship with love with sexual desire. But
just because it is understandable doesn't mean that it should be
unassailable.
Men and women are different (apparently some reminder is needed). They
are basically different regarding sexual needs. Those differences have
contributed to the survival and eventual success of the species. That
shouldn't be conveniently overlooked. Men usually want more sex then
their partners, especially those who attach love with copulation.
Unlike women, men have almost unlimited chances, well into advanced
age, of begetting offspring. We climax almost every time (with or
without love), which reenforces our greater sex drive. Men can achieve
gene succession by impregnating multiple partners and moving on, or one
partner, which they stay with to insure the development of their
children into procreating adulthood, or something in between such as
with polygamy. That bottom line, basic drive difference from women
sometimes obscures or overcomes the overlay of modern culturally
acceptable norms, norms that spring from American religious neurosis.
And powerful men, confident men, winning men, often have more (sperm)
to give and drive to give it. Conquest, in business, warfare or bed, is
an aphrodisiac. Women fall for powerful men so it works for some of
them too. All these things go on mostly at the subconscious level. Some
women get all this and don't condemn, others don't and do.
Already liking variety, it shouldn't be surprising that some husbands
wander when their wives flag, in appearance, interest, and/or spice, in
sexual relations. This is rarely mentioned in the chorus of
condemnations. And what these 2 columnists don't apparently get is that
without using hookers men would more likely take mistresses, with which
they might develop more encompassing relationships, to the detriment of
the wives and children involved.
Clearly, the Mann act was, or should have been, meant to prohibit the
transport of prostitutes against their will across state lines (as with
organized crime) which wasn't close to the case with Spitzer. The law
is either outdated or overly encompassing. It, like prostitution
itself, should have been taken off the criminal books long ago (forcing
someone anywhere is kidnapping, forcing sex is rape). Spitzer can be
almost entirely excused for not taking Mann seriously in this
situation.
Women turn to prostitution because they have nothing better to turn to,
otherwise they would be doing something better. Some women even like
their work. It can make some feel desirable and even powerful. And
"dehumanized" (Estrich), quicky, sex for money is just the ticket,
compared to some alternatives, to hold a weak marriage together. No
other attachments are involved. And some men can't get young, sometimes
attractive women to have sex with them, even if they are powerful. The
otherwise assumption Estrich makes--that attractive, willing women are
always available to powerful men when desired, is ridiculous. Anyway,
what busy man always has the time to wine and dine a strange admirer?
We have lived in a religiously puritanical, sexually repressive society
which tolerates hypocrisy (think Vegas and the Internet etc.) because
it is so antithetical to human sexual drive. It is long past time that
we stop letting others make people feel guilty because they indulge in
consensual adult behavior. Spitzer should have lost his job because of
his outrageous hypocrisy and any misspent public funds. Nothing more.
April 4, 2008
JBM
Free Lunch
David Cay Johnston
2007
reaction and response: E-mail JB Masters at: jzkingjz@coosnet.com
The Future of Capitalism by
Lester Thurow
Peoples History of the United States by
Howard Zinn
Rich Media, Poor Democracy by
Robert McChesney
Bowling Alone by Robert
D. Putnam
Primal Scream and other works by
Author Janov PhD.
Who Will Tell the People and Secrets of the
Temple
by William Greider
America: What Went Wrong and
America: Who Really Pays the Taxes by Bartlett
and
Steele
The Overworked American by Juliet Schor
The End of Work by Jeremy
Rifkin
Ingenuity by Thomas
Homer-Dixon
The World Is Flat by
Thomas
Freidman
The Big Con by Jonathan
Chait
Deer Hunting With Jesus by Joe
Bageant
ACKNOWLEDGMENT: This Web page would not have been possible
without the generous technical help from Bruce Moon. He
unexpectedly
died on 5/Jan/1997. This page has continued with the help of
others.
YOU ARE INVITED TO CHECK BACK FROM TIME TO TIME FOR NEW LEAD ENTRIES AND NEW REVIEWS. YOUR COMMENTS WILL BE APPRECIATED.