Why We Should Listen to FDR and Larry Flynt

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

We have heard this statement from Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1933 inaugural address so many times it might seem like cliche. That does not stop it from being one of the most profound statements ever made. In fact I cannot think of a sentiment expressed in any political speech that has ever been more true.

Fear is by far the most complicated of emotions. We need it like we need lungs. Without it we would jump into the fire and burn ourselves up. I personally would have jumped off a tall building a long time ago just to see if the tree would catch me. Yes, logic and reason certainly play a part in these types of decisions, but fear is what stamps out that first impulse to do something really insane.

Unfortunately fear is also the thing that so frequently kills the human spirit and keeps us from doing things that might really help us. A little fear can seriously impede our progress. A lot of fear paralyzes us. It makes us do stupid things and then try to rationalize our cowardice as thoughtfulness. Being careful is a good thing. Refusing to move forward or try new ways to accomplish our goals out of fear is not only ridiculous but can be incredibly damaging to ourselves and those around us. Let me cite a couple of examples of what I mean.

Why did we elect George Bush for a second term? (When I use the term "we" I mean the American people. I never voted for him.) The first time he was not even elected by popular vote, but if he had been, it would have been at least somewhat understandable because we couldn't see into the future to observe the train wreck that would ensue. By 2004 most people knew that he was a terrible president, and anyone who did not must have been living under some kind of delusion. The awful decisions he made are too numerous to list, but we are painfully aware of the the very worst of them. He brought us into the most idiotic war in our history. The war is largely responsible for our enormous deficit and something that, in itself, serves as an example of irrational fear.

There was nothing at all wrong with John Kerry. Senator Kerry was a qualified person with a distinguished career in both the military and the senate. Maybe he wasn't all that exciting as a candidate, but if we had elected him in 2004, we would likely be in a much better place. So why in the world did we re-elect someone we already knew was doing an awful job? I don't know how it happened. Perhaps it really was the whole swift boat fiasco, but somewhere along the line, people developed an irrational fear of John Kerry. It was a crazy fear. He simply was and is not a scary person, but what do people do when they are afraid? They choose not to act, and to stay with the status quo no matter how distasteful. This must be how George Bush was elected to a second term.

Here is another example of a fear campaign that I think was a little more orchestrated. In November of 2008, California voters passed Proposition 8 which removed the right for same-sex couples to get married. I have written about this in earlier blog posts, so I will not go into great detail about it here. I will just say that it is another instance in which people feared something that was completely fabricated or imagined. Choose your fear. Jesus will hate you. Your kids will be corrupted. Roaming bands of homosexuals will take over the world. The institution of marriage will die. This was total insanity, but Prop 8 still became law.

I, of course, am not immune to the irrational fear that plagues us all. I am cringing as I write this paragraph even though I like to write. I wanted to become a writer way back in high school, but I believed that I couldn't do it. I was afraid of what? I don't know. Perhaps, it was failure. I have finally reached the point where I have realized I should try to write a book. However, I still am deathly afraid of letting anyone read what I have to say. Why? Maybe someone will hate what I write so much that they will take out a big sledge hammer and beat me over the head until I die, but that is pretty unlikely. This blog is part of my attempt to conquer that fear.

So what is all my blather about fear about? It is about my fear of......well, fear itself. I am concerned that this pervasive fear we live with will once again overcome every shred of common sense we might have had. Most of us clearly want healthcare reform AND a public option, for instance, but will fear choke the life out of it in its early days? Our president seems wishy-washy (although I haven't given up on him because I suspect that if we are a little more patient, we will find that he has his own subtle way of getting the job done.) Those Republicans of the blue dog/Lieberman variety that like to call themselves Democrats are trying to water down the bill so heavily as to prevent any real change. The "real" Democrats are, perhaps, the worst of all for allowing the bill to be railroaded. I believe in compromise up to a point, but this is too important. The system is broken, and they all know it. We tried it the other way, and now it is time to plunge in and try something different. Instead the whole debate is all centered around fear. There is the fear that the new system will not work, fear that we will somehow lose our choices, and fear of stepping on anyone's toes. I am confident we could do this if only we were not so afraid.

Here is where Larry Flynt, the producer of Hustler magazine comes in. Mr. Flynt is an irascible individual. He frequently acts inappropriately, expresses himself in a rude and shocking manner. He's not someone most people would hold up as being of the highest moral character. He is not someone with whom I would choose to be friends. Basically, he is a disgusting ass. In some ways he is reminiscent of Rush Limbaugh, but here is how he is different. He is frequently right, and he does not use fearmongering to get his point across. We can count on Larry to say what needs to be said.

Recently, he told the president and congress to "grow a pair" of gonads. It isn't the way I would have phrased it, but it needs saying. Perhaps I should put it this way. We should take to heart what FDR told us so many years ago. We should start being afraid of fear.

Disjointed Ramblings About Sotomayor, Walter Cronkite, and Boring News

As expected Obama's nominee Sonya Sotomayor is likely to be voted in as the 111th Supreme Court Justice sometime in the next week or two. Last week's four days of testimony went as smoothly as could be with no big revelations that would lessen her chances of being confirmed. Sotomayor has wide Democratic support and growing support by Republicans. While some members of the GOP remain opposed to her nomination, there is no sign that they will filibuster or attempt to block the inevitable confirmation.

Last week, while I was painting my kitchen wall, I listened to parts of the confirmation hearing. It was about what I would have expected. Sotomayor was grilled on a number of different court cases and several interesting points of law were discussed. She answered the questions with calm deliberation. When they asked her about specific cases, she commented extensively. When they asked her opinions on very broad issues that have come up before the Supreme Court , she stated that she could not answer because law is typically decided on a case-by-case basis and might be applied very differently depending on the circumstances. I learned a few things, and, yes, I did find it to be a little boring.

What I really want to comment on, though, is what I heard on MSNBC in between and following segments of the hearing. Chris Matthews was talking with some other pundits. They were all talking about how absolutely dull the confirmation hearings were. Sotomayor has sometimes been known to be somewhat of a hot-head in the courtroom, they said. Why were her answers so measured? Why was she glancing at her notes from time to time and treating the confirmation hearings like a job interview? After all, she's a shoe-in for the job. Why didn't she show the public some of that fiery passion? How boring! To be fair to MSNBC I heard this sentiment expressed by other news agencies after the hearings.

At the risk of sounding like a Jerry Seinfeld parody, I have to ask this question. How ridiculous is that? If a Justice's confirmation hearing goes well, it should be boring. The process is about determining whether this person has the experience, demeanor, and ability to analyze the law and make decisions that are based on the law. Yes, there might be a few emotions involved in the process. Compassion might be a consideration. Supreme Court Justices are not robots. However, I personally don't want someone sitting up on the highest court in the land who flies off the handle when put under pressure. The last thing we need is someone putting on a show. We need people who think carefully about each decision and how they express those decisions. The confirmation hearings were just what they should have been. There was a great deal of substance and little fanfare.

This brings me to another point I have thinking a lot about lately. Does everything need to be entertaining? Sometimes I really just want news, and the recent death of Walter Cronkite made me consider this more than I might have otherwise. In case you don't already know this, Mr. Cronkite was a serious and respected news journalist that was an anchorman on CBS for 19 years. He had a lengthy career before that as a newspaper man and reported on several famous historical events. He was a big believer in objectivity and the idea that his job as an anchor was to simply report the news without bias. For the most part he stuck with this formula although he was known to insert his opinion on occasion. What I am wondering is if Walter Cronkite might have been one of the last of the "real" news people.

A lot of what calls itself news today is not really what I consider to be news. Standard news outlets are dying, and what they are being replaced with is a different animal. It seeks to constantly entertain or to make a point. (You might think this is pretty funny since that is what I am always doing in this blog.) There are so many different opinions out there. Whoever you are and whatever you believe, you can pretty much find news that is tailored to your viewpoint.

There is a positive side to this. Information is abundant. Freedom of information is a part of democracy. We are in the know, and we can all express ourselves. Because of wider dissemination, it is more difficult for totalitarian regimes to hide their brutality and to keep a firm hold on their subjects. We are witnessing this in Iran.

The flip side of this, however, is the absurdity that we see on a daily basis when we turn on our televisions. I won't even discuss Fox News except to say that it is so inaccurate and biased as to be beyond ridiculous, and I think many of us already know this. Think about some of the other shows you see though. The silliness exists everywhere along the political spectrum. I find it harder and harder to find a standard old news report. I used to watch MSNBC a lot. I still watch it sometimes, but it is increasingly becoming less about dissemination and more about Chris Matthews and Pat Buchanan trying to outdebate one another. In other words they are trying really hard to entertain, and I'm afraid it's a vicious cycle because if they don't entertain, they won't get ratings. If they don't get ratings, they will be booted off the air.

I'm not saying that news always has to be strictly about informing us, and that editorializing cheapens a news show. I spend a great deal of time listening to National Public Radio. NPR presents a great deal of interesting information and thought-provoking discussion. It has been mocked as being overly mellow in much the same way people criticized the Sotomayor hearings. It has also been accused of having a liberal bias, and I strongly disagree with this assessment. NPR presents many sides of many different issues. It's commentators do have serene voices. They talk about popular issues. They also choose unusual stories and ask questions that result in quality broadcasts that make you think. I can remember hearing a story about how bagged salad is manufactured, and it was, surprisingly, very interesting. There is almost no showmanship, with the exception of comedy shows they have on the weekends, and even these are more clever than most.

What is my point here anyway? I guess it is this. I'm tired of the general way that the news media operates lately. I miss the Weekly World News, a funny old tabloid that didn't ever present itself as real news. If real news is boring, then I guess I want boring.

Also, I'm really sorry if you found this boring! Next time I'll make up for it by talking about Brittany Spears and all of the Senators and Governors who have cheated on their wives.

Image courtesy of quirkypixel.com

Looking for Silver Linings

These are dark days. The U.S. deficit has quickly passed the $1 trillion mark. It will likely climb much higher before the year is out. It might even reach $2 trillion, and we could soon be faced with higher interest rates, inflation, and a further weakening of the dollar. The worst aspect of this is that our children will inherit our massive debt.

As bleak as this picture looks, it is basically unavoidable. A majority of economists agree that our government will have to take a Keynesian approach to clawing its way out of this depression. (Call it a recession if you want. At this point its merely semantics.) There is no way around the need to inject income into the economy by investing in infrastructure, focusing on job creation, and fixing such underlying problems as our disastrous health care system. Otherwise the next generation will be left with the fallout of a Great Depression AND saddled with serious debt.

You have to admit that the situation looks pretty bleak, especially with the massive job losses. Any recovery will be slow and painful, and it is going to require a great deal of patience and resilience. However, as someone who likes to try to find the silver linings beneath the blackest of clouds, I wonder about what good things might possibly emerge out of the beating we are taking as a society. I keep wishing there had been an easier way to go about it, but maybe we have learned some things. Could we be on the brink of a paradigm shift in the way we view several components of our world? Here are a few positive things I think might come out of this mess.

Changing business models

Could it be that while large corporations are dropping like flies, the little guys will make a resurgence? It is becoming increasingly clear that the world of huge conglomerates is not what it was once cracked up to be. Regulation was practically non-existent, and several CEOs ( a.k.a. Robber Barons) ran rampant with shareholder money. While this was occurring, quality suffered enormously. In the simplest of terms companies just became too large to be efficient. GM, for instance, just filed for bankruptcy and serves as an excellent example of a poor business model. It grew into an enormous corporation with poorly made, redundant cars until it simply fell apart at the seams.

What is GM doing to save itself? Its downsizing. It has promised to shed its unnecessary brands and become a leaner, meaner company. Unfortunately, this means greater job losses, but maybe this is something that had to happen in order for GM to sustain itself. These people are hurting, but maybe they will ultimately be better off if we can find something better for them than working for a company that could not make a profit because people no longer wanted to buy its crappy cars.

Here's an example of what I mean by a better business model. Think about Trader Joe's for a minute. Compared to other grocery chains, it is a tiny store. It offers a small selection of environmentally friendly, healthy products. Several items are from its own private label. If you have ever been to Trader Joe's, you know that its products are of superior quality. A few things are priced higher than other stores, but most are priced significantly lower. The company pays its employees generously, contributes to a retirement plan, and automatically offers health benefits to part-timers. The number of consumer choices offered is small, but what it lacks in variety, it more than makes up for in quality and great customer service. Did I mention that Trader Joe's has seen huge economic success? It's profits are not the largest in the business but enough to ensure plenty of wealth for its owners.

Perhaps in the future we will end up with more companies that follow the Trader Joe's model. Maybe it will become more difficult to find a store that offers a hundred varieties of wine, but we won't care because we will have happy, pleasant people selling us really delicious wine.

The end of supply-side economics

Maybe we will finally get it through our thick skulls that giving the bulk of the tax incentives to the very rich simply does not work. What has happened in recent years has clearly shown that economic health is not created from the top down. The rich became richer, the poor became poorer, and everything came crashing down. The only place where I have ever seen pure self-interest naturally resulting in loads of heroic rich people making everything peachy is in the fictional universe of Ayn Rand.

Regular people, the vast majority of consumers, are what power the economy. Regular people spend money. What is the point of tons of goods and services if a vast majority people have little money to spend on them? If our first priority is to concentrate on making regular people safe, healthy, employed, housed and able to care for their families, regular people will have money to spend and the economy will become healthy once again. Think of it as a form of long term self-interest. Working toward such goals will benefit everyone.

No more senseless wars

The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the "War against terrorism" are not only a major cause of our climbing deficit but have severely damaged this country. Scores of our bright, young people are dead. Our reputation around the world is severely tarnished. In some ways we have become what we were fighting against. The wars were the start or our spiral into an economic tailspin, and it was all for naught. Terrorism was always a problem and has actually become worse due to our invasion of other countries.

Maybe we will revert our earlier policy when we had to be dragged kicking and screaming into a fight. Maybe we will stop declaring war unless it is absolutely necessary for our defense or the defense of our close allies. If senseless casualties isn't a good enough reason, maybe economic collapse will be the incentive. What? It could happen.

The Circus Comes to Town

The circus comes to Los Angeles this week at the Staples Center sports arena. It's free to attend but so crowded that you can only get in by lottery. Do not expect any elephants, high wire acts, or clowns although I wouldn't, at this point, be surprised if such things were included as part of the spectacle.

Up until now I avoided commenting on the death of pop star Michael Jackson. I knew that we would all be up to our eyeballs in Michael Jackson related commentary, so why should I annoy myself and whoever else happened to read my blog with yet more discussion about that "king of pop"? It was only after reading about the public memorial service that my feelings of disgust became strong enough to demand a blog entry. I apologize.

Why are they even bothering to call what is happening on Tuesday a memorial service? I thought memorial services were quiet ceremonies attended by the departed person's family, close friends, and acquaintances. The sideshow they are calling a funeral involves thousands of people, many of them giddy with excitement, clamoring for tickets in huge lines. The winners are twittering statements like "OMG, OMG, I'm so happy I got tickets to Michael Jackson's memorial." Such persons sound far more like children who have just won a trip to Disneyland than grief-stricken fans.

Of course public funerals are nothing new. Every time a world leader dies there are crowds of people that come to pay their respects in some form of public procession. The death of Abraham Lincoln affected a great number of people, and throngs of mourners attended his funeral. However, the key word here is "respect." Even when funerals are public, I would think they would be subdued events where people quietly and respectfully gather to remember a person they admired.

I didn't personally know Mr. Jackson, but, perhaps he would not have wanted his passing to be viewed as if it was the latest Ringling Brothers act. We do know that he was a very private person in his last years in spite of his great fame and eccentricity. What Michael Jackson would have wanted, though, is probably beside the point. I believe that funerals are for the living and not for the dead. While I am not a religious person, I do think memorial services are a way to help people mourn loved ones who have passed. It would be perfectly natural for Jackson's family and friends to hold a memorial service for themselves. Even if the family decided to hold a wake to celebrate the man's life instead of a traditional memorial service, it seems prudent that the occasion should belong to those who truly loved Jackson, remaining free of gawkers and curiosity seekers.

So why is a city with a $530 million dollar deficit sponsoring an opportunity for all of these crazed and jubilant fans to cram themselves into a sports stadium? Something about this just seems terribly disrespectful to Jackson's family and friends. These thousands of other people might have great enthusiasm for Michael Jackson's music, but they did not know who he was. They only know what he did while in the public eye. It's as if they do not realize that he was actually a person just like you and me. Perhaps they looked up to him as a role model and entertainer and just want to show their admiration for his achievements, but is there not a more polite way of doing this than creating a bigtop extravaganza out of what should be primarily a gathering for those that knew Jackson? There are a lot of other ways individual groups could pay tribute to his career.

I was not a huge fan of Michael Jackson. I thought he was among the world's most talented dancers. I felt sadness when I found out that he had died so young just like I felt sadness following the death of Heath Ledger who's work I probably admired more than Jackson's. I also know that Mr. Jackson was a human being with people who loved him. They deserve greater respect in their time of sorrow.

Image courtesy of quirkypixel.com