RSS

Category Archives: Society, Culture and Politics

The Meaning of “Support Our Troops”

3-helicopter bombing copy

I can’t remember the last time I went through an entire day without seeing some variation of the “Support Our Troops” message. While the flood is a bit stronger on Memorial Day, Independence Day and Veterans Day, the American obsession with the military is now pretty much a 24/7/365 affair.

It’s a mindless message that never answers the questions it creates. Support our troops to do what? Why do we have so many troops to support? Why aren’t we doing more to ensure that we don’t have to put human beings in harm’s way to achieve our goals? What are our goals, anyway?

Up until World War II, the United States was generally a pacifist, isolationist country that followed George Washington’s advice to avoid foreign entanglements. The two exceptional events were the brief reaction to yellow journalism that resulted in the Spanish-American War and Woodrow Wilson’s manipulation of events that led to American involvement in World War I. After the First World War, Americans wanted nothing to do with war or with foreigners, and FDR’s attempts to bring the country around to a less neutral stance was met with strong resistance every step of the way.

After World War II, the leaders of the United States felt they had to maintain the overseas presence they had gained during the war in order to restrain communism. It made sense at the time, but it also created the monster of the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address. The military now had a mission of protecting U. S. business interests, which is why we wound up supporting all sorts of unsavory dictators in complete violation of our alleged belief in democratic principles. Even after communism tumbled into the dustbin of history, the U. S. continued to maintain a large military presence throughout the world. The best estimates indicate we have 900 military bases or missions in over 130 countries.

This presence is self-perpetuating. Our presence often angers the people in the countries where we are stationed or appears to threaten other countries in the region. Our military presence therefore the risks of war and terrorism, thus justifying the need for an even stronger military presence.

I don’t want to support our troops to do that job. I don’t want to support our troops when they’re put in harm’s way because of our own stupid policies. I don’t want to support our troops when their mission is to support the right of American business to make a buck at the expense of other people.

Although I hate war, I recognize it is sometimes a necessary evil. In WWII, we had no choice: Hitler and the military clique in Japan had to go. Most Americans accepted that in the spirit of “We’ve got a job to do. Let’s do it and get our boys home.” Delight in our status as a military power only manifested itself when we became a paranoid country during the Cold War, a state that is still the dominant mindset today.

The only thing Ron Paul got right in the 2012 primaries was to point out the absurdity of our addiction to military power. We don’t need the military presence we currently have. All evidence indicates that presence increases the likelihood of violence and war, and perpetuates the military-industrial complex that is poisonous to the democratic way of life.

Do you really want to support our troops? Then vote for candidates who will bring them home.

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

The Fame Fetish

63-interviewsmall copy

I’m convinced that the human race will never make any progress unless it conquers its fame fetish, or more accurately, the worship of allegedly superior human beings.

Fame-worship exists in nearly every field of human endeavor. People worship movie stars, pop stars, rock stars, rap stars, TV stars, sports figures, writers, artists, business leaders and monarchs. Their every move is catalogued in photos, videos, tweets, interviews, rumor mills and gossip rags. Average people drop the names of the famous with great frequency to raise their own meager status. They often justify arguments by quoting one of these masterful marvels of human evolution.

The primary criteria for worship in modern times is wealth. The logic is that if someone makes a lot of money, they deserve our humbled respect. Beauty helps, or at least the appearance of beauty through various forms of plastic surgery or flattering camera angles.

Still, some people who are spoken of in hushed tones of awe, particularly the icons of the past, were neither wealthy nor particularly attractive. This is particularly true of dead literary figures, whose cult status owes more to mythology handed down from generation to generation than any rational appreciation of value. We believe they are better than us because that’s what they taught us in school. Therefore, Shakespeare has attained near godlike status despite the fact that he is also the author of such crap as Titus Andronicus, Love Labour’s Lost and Henry VIII. The same godlike status is given to artists in other fields such as Charlie Parker, Charlie Chaplin and Pablo Picasso, again despite legacies of uneven work and seriously flawed personalities.

I was hoping that the democratization of communication via the Internet would have weakened this fetish, but it’s actually made it worse. Bloggers and tweeters spend more time adding to the chronicles of the rich and famous than they do producing original work. The ones that do attempt to find their voices are shamefully ignored anyway, because they’re neither rich nor famous, a Catch-22 if there ever was one. The barriers between the common folk and the high-and-mighty have never been thicker, and the odds of breaking through into the stratosphere are similar to the odds of winning the Powerball jackpot.

I’ve personally known many musicians, writers, actors, thinkers and even athletes who were far more talented than those who we have turned into gods. I’ve studied the works of many authors, poets and composers, and while I’ve found some of their works enlightening and uplifting, all it means is that they had a particularly good streak. It doesn’t mean that they’ve turned water into wine or raised Lazarus from the dead, and it certainly doesn’t mean that everything they ever did should be treated as sacred. There’s the Paul McCartney who wrote the great songs on Revolver, and there’s the Paul McCartney who has been making himself wealthy on trivial tripe for the last forty years. Like the rest of us, he’s another flawed human being. The only difference is that he happened to catch a break.

It’s bad enough that the comings-and-goings of the British royalty, who have failed to produce anything of value  since the days of Elizabeth I, are avidly followed by millions of Americans whose country was born primarily because the founders wanted nothing to do with useless, wasteful monarchs. It’s tragic that we worship anyone at all. Our obscene fascination with wealth and power, supported by an economic system that forces us into envious competition with each other, causes us to devalue our own talents and ignore the truly meaningful work that artists, teachers, caregivers and common people engage in every day.

In the end, we worship those who frequently display the worst qualities of the human race (narcissism, greed and the fervent belief in their own superiority) while treating those who represent the best qualities of the species (community, curiosity and the fervent belief in human potential) with relative disdain.

I think we’ve turned the world upside-down, and we need to flip it back into place. Social distances of the kind we are experiencing now always lead to social disaster.

Photo via Dreamstime.com

 
 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Corporate Oppression

freeimage-2366770

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Sometimes the stupidity of the American people is breathtaking.

Over the past few years, those on the right have issued dire warnings about America turning into a socialist paradise. They claim that Obama and his cohorts are on a mission (Muslim-influenced, no doubt) to take away our sacred rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion and the freedom to shoot one another from the safety of one’s home. We hear again and again how Obamacare is a badly-disguised ruse to strip us of our freedom to choose whatever incompetent medical professional we want and to deny us our right to pray that the one we choose wasn’t one of the medical professionals responsible for one or more of the 300,000 deaths caused every year through medical errors.

Okay, so I’ve editorialized a teeny bit here, but what I really want to address is the fact that these pundits and politicians actually believe that the Obama government is hell-bent on taking away our freedoms.

What’s so stupid about that notion is that the corporations who pay their salaries or contribute to their political campaigns have already taken away more freedoms than the limited imaginations of those in government could ever conceive.

Corporate health plans now routinely penalize the overweight and the nicotine-addicted by either jacking up their  insurance premiums or by not hiring them at all.Many corporations have personnel policy manuals loaded with rules that deny all kinds of freedoms: the freedom to wear what you want, the freedom to bring your kids or pets to work, the freedom to eat at your desk, and above all, your allegedly inalienable right to freedom of speech.

Although I regularly read the annual polls that tell us that Americans don’t know dick about their history or their form of government, I’m still astonished by the attempts of some employees to assert rights that do not and never have had legal standing in the American workplace. A short while ago, I actually had an employee defend some comments he’d made that amounted to sexual and racial harassment by claiming his constitutional right to “freedom of speech.”

“Have you ever actually read The Bill of Rights?”

“Of course I have!” he replied, lying through his teeth.

“Hmm. Maybe you missed the introduction. The First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn’t say anything about corporations or other private institutions. Corporations can restrict freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association and freedom of the press within the corporation. They do it all the time. Plus, if you’ve read anything about The Founding Fathers, you’ll remember that most of them were Masons, an organization that has always had strict rules restricting freedom of speech in order to protect their secrecy. Those guys knew exactly what they were doing when they wrote that little phrase “Congress shall make no laws” into the First Amendment.”

I could have gone on to tell him that a corporation’s right to restrict various freedoms is somewhat limited by laws designed to facilitate unionization and by the need to consider an employee’s religious practices in relation to scheduling work, but for the most part a corporation is given a great deal of latitude to do what it takes to manage the business and the people in it. This is why you can’t do certain things in the workplace even if they are First Amendment rights. You can’t tell your boss he’s an idiot or that you’re not going to do the stupid thing he asked you to do: that’s insubordination. You can’t tell someone that their butt looks good in those jeans: that’s harassment. Many corporations forbid wearing religious icons or “offensive” t-shirts with religion-tinged slogans. You can’t publish an alternative newsletter on the company network sharing your belief that the executives are a bunch of no-talent losers. You can associate with others for the purpose of discussing working conditions and the possibility of unionization, but even that right can be limited to specific times and places.

Corporations also have more power to promote social conformity. Despite the press about all the really cool places to work, most companies still have dress codes, fixed work schedules and both rules and norms about how one should behave in the workplace or interact with co-workers. Modern work life imposes a routine; routines become fixed patterns; fixed patterns deaden the brain. At the end of the work day, once you get through a commute that inevitably worsens with the passage of time, the last thing you want to do is think. You want a few hours of escape before the cycle repeats itself the following morning . . . and the morning after that . . . and the one after that.

The worst part of it all is that unlike the government, corporations have real power over you. They control your paycheck. They control whether or not you make your mortgage payment or feed the kids. Of course you’re going to conform, limit your self-expression and behave appropriately—you need the money!

The reason why businesses are allowed to order people around and shut them up in a country that proclaims the inalienable nature of certain rights is because America is a capitalist country first, and a democracy second, third or fourth. Democracy has never really gained a foothold in the workplace, despite various movements and initiatives that fall under the headings of “employee empowerment” and “workplace democracy.” Even those initiatives are pretty limp; I’ve never heard of one that gives the employees the right to vote on who’s going to be their boss or on who’s going to be the next CEO.

I would love to have an intelligent conversation about freedom in America, but such a conversation would force people to look at some fundamental contradictions in American society that people really don’t want to deal with.

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,277 other followers

%d bloggers like this: