bureaucracybusters

Posts Tagged ‘PLUTARCH’

TRUMP: SPITTING ON THE GRAVES AT ARLINGTON

In Bureaucracy, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on August 21, 2017 at 12:08 am

The ancient historian, Plutarch, warned: “And the most glorious episodes do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men.

Sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles.”

On August 15, President Donald Trump gave just such an example.

He did so by equating Nazis, Ku Klux Klamsmen and other white supremacists with those who protested against them in Charlottesville, Virginia, over the weekend of August 12-13.

Related image

Donald Trump

“I think there is blame on both sides,” said Trump in an impromptu press conference in the lobby of Trump Tower, in Manhattan, New York.

“I will tell you something. I watched those very closely, much more closely than you people [news media] watched it. And you had a group on one side that was bad and you had a group on the other side that was also very violent. And nobody wants to say that. But I’ll say it right now.

“You had a group on the other side [those opposing the white supremacists] that came charging in without a permit and they were very, very violent….

“Well, I do think there’s blame. Yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at both sides. I think there is blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it. And you [news media] don’t have doubt about it either.”

Apparently, some of Trump’s fellow Republicans do doubt there was blame on both sides.

“There’s no moral equivalency between racists & Americans standing up to defy hate& bigotry. The President of the United States should say so,” tweeted Arizona Senator John McCain.

“Through his statements yesterday,” said South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham, “President Trump took a step backward by again suggesting there is moral equivalency between the white supremacist neo-Nazis and KKK members who attended the Charlottesville rally and people like Ms. Heyer. I, along with many others, do not endorse this moral equivalency.”

Heather Heyer was the 32-year-old paralegal who was killed on August 13 when a car plowed into a crowd protesting a white supremacist “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville. Nineteen others were injured in the incident.

“Mr. President, you can’t allow #WhiteSupremacists to share only part of blame. They support idea which cost nation & world so much pain,” Florida’s Senator Marco Rubio tweeted.

And Arizona’s other Senator, Jeff Flake, tweeted: “We can’t accept excuses for white supremacy & acts of domestic terrorism. We must condemn. Period.”

Ohio Governor John Kasich, who had opposed Trump as a Presidential candidate in 2016, said on NBC’s “Today Show”:

“This is terrible. The President of the United States needs to condemn these kinds of hate groups. The President has to totally condemn this. It’s not about winning an argument.”

Related image

John Kasich

During the Presidential primaries, Kasich had run an ad comparing Trump to Germany’s Fuhrer, Adolf Hitler:

“And you might not care if Donald Trump says he’s going to round up all the Hispanic immigrants, because you’re not one.

“And you might not care if Donald Trump says it’s OK to rough up black protesters, because you’re not one.

“And you might not care if Donald Trump wants to suppress journalists, because you’re not one.

“But think about this:

“If he keeps going, and he actually becomes President, he might just get around to you. And you’d better hope that there’s someone left to help you.”

That point was forcibly driven home on the night of August 11.

That was when hundreds of torch-bearing Nazis, Ku Klux Klansmen and other white supremacists marched on the University of Virginia campus.

Their faces twisted with hatred, they repeatedly shouted:

“You will not replace us!”

“Jews will not replace us!”

“Blood and soil!”

“Whose streets?  Our streets!”

For the vast majority of Americans, such scenes had existed only in newsreel footage of torch-bearing columns of Nazi stormtroopers flooding the streets of Hitler’s Germany.

The fall of Nazi Germany came 72 years ago—on May 7, 1945.  Today, veterans of World War II are rapidly dying off.

But their sons and daughters are still alive to pass on, secondhand, the necessary for standing up to such barbarism.

And so can films like “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List.”

At the end of “Saving Private Ryan,” a dying Captain John H. Miller (Tom Hanks) tells Private James Ryan (Matt Damon) whose life he has saved: “Earn this.”

Image result for Images of Saving Private Ryan

A dying Captain Miller tells Ryan: “Earn this.”

Returning to Miller’s burial site in France decades later, an elderly Ryan speaks reverently to the white cross over Miller’s grave:

“Every day I think about what you said to me that day on the bridge. I tried to live my life the best that I could. I hope that was enough. I hope that, at least in your eyes, I’ve earned what all of you have done for me.”

Those are sentiments wasted on those who mounted the “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville.

And they are equally wasted on a President who condemns those who stand up to Fascism.

AN ANCIENT WARNING THAT APPLIES TODAY

In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Politics, Social commentary on May 3, 2017 at 12:10 am

The ancient historian, Plutarch, warned: “And the most glorious episodes do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men.  

Sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles.”

It’s well to keep this warning in mind when judging the character of Rick Perry, the former Texas governor who is now Secretary of Energy for the Trump administration.  

Five years ago, he was a candidate for President himself.

Anita Perry, his wealthy wife, wanted voters to know she sympathized with the plight of the unemployed.  

Anita and Rick Perry

For her, unemployment meant that her son, Griffin, had resigned from his job at Deutsche Bank to campaign for his father.

“He resigned from his job two weeks ago because he can’t go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations,” she said in a Pendleton, S.C. diner on October 14, 2011.

The Securities and Exchange Commission had recently adopted stricter rules for investment advisers undertaking political activity.

Anita Perry’s comment came in response to a question from a middle-aged voter who had lost his six-figure job and now worked as a handyman.

“My son lost his job because of this administration,” she added.

Griffin Perry

Blaming the Obama administration is, of course, second-nature for those on the radical right. But Anita Perry may have forgotten that, on October 13, 2011, she said that her son had eagerly resigned.

She recalled that her husband assembled the family to discuss his run for the Presidency last May.

“So, our son Griffin Perry is 28. He loves politics, and he just couldn’t wait. He said ‘Dad, I’m in!  I’m in! I’ll do whatever you need me to do. I’ll resign my job. I’ll do what you need me to do.’” she said in a speech at North Greenville University.

Anita Perry might have considered that there is a difference between voluntarily resigning from a job and being involuntarily fired from it.

And she might have consoled herself with the truth that, having a family fortune and the income of his attorney-wife to rely on, Griffin Perry wasn’t in danger of standing in a breadline anytime soon.

So why would Anita Perry stoop to mingling with those she considers her social inferiors?  And why would she pour out her woes to people she would otherwise cross the street to avoid?

Simple.  She needed them.  Or, to be more accurate: She needed their votes.

True, her husband was hauling in huge campaign donations that dwarfed those of his rivals. But money can’t vote.

And with an estimated 14 to 25 million Americans unemployed, the Perrys had to reach beyond the minority of voters who would qualify for their country-club membership.

Of course, the voluntary resignation of her son wasn’t the only complaint Anita Perry had to make.

“We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party,” she told a South Carolina audience on October 13, 2011. “So much of that is, I think they look at him, because of his faith.

“He is the only true conservative–well, there are some true conservatives. And they’re there for good reasons. And they may feel like God called them, too. But I truly feel like we are here for that purpose.”

Actually, it was Rick Perry–through his surrogate spokesman-pastor, Robert Jeffress–who had repeatedly attacked the Mormon religion of his then-campaign rival, Mitt Romney.

Jeffress told reporters at the Values Voter Summit in Washington he believed Mormonism was a “cult.” While Perry has said he didn’t agree with the charge, he refused to repudiate the remarks–or support–of the influential Baptist pastor.

It was the same strategy favored by demagogues like President Richard Nixon: The “respectable” Nixon took the high road, while ordering his subordinate, Vice President Spiro Agnew, to attack the patriotism of anyone who dared disagree with him.

Why is all of this important?

Because the priorities of the leader of an organization usually determine the priorities of that organization.  And those priorities, in turn, derive from the character of that leader.

So consider the character traits that Perry has so far revealed:

  • He used surrogates to attack the religion of his opponents.
  • He holds his own religious beliefs sacred.
  • He sought to slash programs for the poor.
  • He piled up millions of dollars for himself.
  • His family believes he has been chosen by God to redeem the nation from becoming “soft” and “Godless.”
  • His family believes themselves entitled to ignore laws that are supposed to govern all Americans.

It’s fascinating to imagine the verdict Plutarch would deliver on American politics today. After all, he did shrewdly analyze the ruthless political maneuverings of such despots as Alexander and Julius Caesar.

No doubt, would-be despots like Donald Trump and his self-righteous cronies like Rick Perry would find Plutarch’s verdicts highly upsetting.

And Americans who believe in liberty would find those verdicts incredibly frightening.

TREATING ADULTS LIKE CHILDREN

In Bureaucracy, History, Politics, Social commentary on February 18, 2016 at 12:15 am

In the 1992 courtroom drama, “A Few God Men,” Jack Nicholson, as Marine Colonel Nathan Jessup, utters a line that has since become famous. 

When his prosecutor, Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) demands the truth about the murder of a fellow Marine, Jessup shouts: “You can’t handle the truth!”

Related image

Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men”

Apparently, many of those who work in the television news business feel the same way about their audience.

[WARNING: This column contains some words that some readers may find offensive.  Read on at your own risk.]  

On February 9, businessman Donald Trump scored a new blow at his Rafael “Ted” Cruz, his closest rival for the Republican Presidential nomination.  

Speaking at a rally in Manchester, New Hampshire, Trump attacked Cruz, the United States Senator from Texas, for being unwilling to support the widespread use of torture against America’s Islamic enemies.  

“He’s a pussy!” yelled a woman in the crowd.

Apparently a certain portion of the attendees didn’t hear–or misheard–the insult. So Trump–pretending to be shocked–repeated it for them: 

“She said–I never expect to hear that from you again!  She said: ‘He’s a pussy.’ That’s terrible.”  

“What kind of people do I have here?” joked Trump, clearly playing to the boisterous crowd.

Donald Trump

The incident went viral on social media. But all the major TV news outlets–for ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC–bleeped the word and/or coyly referred to it as “the P-word.”

It was as if they assumed their viewers would of course know what had been said despite the networks’ censorship of it. And if viewers didn’t already know what the woman–and Trump–had said, the networks weren’t going to enlighten them.

Of course, “the P-word” could just as easily have been “prick” or “pervert.” So it’s understandable that many viewers might have thought a very different word had been used.  

No doubt the networks hoped to avoid offending large numbers of viewers.  

But when the use of certain words becomes central to a news story, editors and reporters should have the courage to reveal just what was said. It should then be up to the audience to decide if the language was offensive–and, if so, if its user deserves condemnation.  

The evening news is–supposedly–aimed at voting-age adults. And adults need–and deserve–the hard truth about the world they live in. Only then do they have a chance to reform it–if, in fact, they decide it needs reforming.

Those who wanted to learn–rather than guess–what Trump had repeated had to turn to the Internet or to a handful of news source such as Vox: Policy and Politics.

In their defense, the networks could argue that the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates radio and television, does not usually permit the word “pussy” to be aired between 6 am and 10 pm.  

On the other hand, immediately after the 9/11 terror attacks, all the major TV networks endlessly replayed the destruction of the World Trade Center, with the resulting deaths of hundreds of men and women.

Censorship, then, tends to center on two types of subject material:

  1. Sex, or “obscenity,” which is sex-related; and
  2. Race, meaning racial slurs that would offend some minority group. 

An example of race-related censorship occurred during the short-lived administration of President Gerald R. Ford.  

During a lull in the 1976 Republican convention, entertainer Pat Boone asked Earl Butz, then Secretary of Agriculture: Why was the party of Lincoln having so much trouble winning black votes for its candidates? 

“I’ll tell you what the coloreds want,” said Butz. “It’s three things: first, a tight pussy; second, loose shoes; and third, a warm place to shit.” 

Image result for Images of Earl Butz

Earl Butz

Unknown to Butz, a Rolling Stone reporter was standing nearby. When his comments became public, Butz was quickly forced to resign. 

Meanwhile, most TV and print media struggled to protect their audiences from the truth of Butz’ racism. Many newspapers simply reported that Butz had said something too obscene to print. Some invited their readers to contact the editors if they wanted more information. 

TV newsmen generally described Butz’ firing as stemming from “a racially-offensive remark,” which they refused to explain. 

In short: A high-ranking government official had been fired, but audiences were not allowed to judge whether his language justified that termination. 

Forty years later, TV news viewers were again prevented from reaching their own conclusions about Trump’s repetition of the slur aimed at his rival.  

Nor is there any guarantee that such censorship will not occur again. 

Censoring the truth has always been a hallmark of dictatorships. It has no place in a democracy–despite the motives of those doing the censoring. 

The ancient historian, Plutarch, sounded a warning that remains timely: 

“And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever.”

In a democracy, citizens must be alert for those tell-tale expressions or jests. And this demands that the media, in turn, have the courage to bring those truths to their attention.

THE SENSUALITY OF REPUBLICAN HATRED

In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Politics, Social commentary on June 29, 2015 at 1:07 am

And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever.

–Plutarch, The Life of Alexander the Great

On June 25, for the second time in three years, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), widely known as Obamacare.

Thirty-four Republican-led states have refused to set up state health insurance exchanges so their poor and medium-income residents can obtain affordable medical care.

In those Republican-governed states, citizens can obtain their health coverage only through subsidies given by the federal government.

A handful of words in the ACA suggested the subsidies were to go only to consumers using exchanges operated by the states. In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said those subsidies did not depend on where people live.

But three years earlier, Republican suffered another setback in their efforts to deprive their fellow Americans of access to healthcare.

Republicans expected June 28, 2012 to be their day.  The day when the United States Supreme Court struck down the ACA.

It would be a day to celebrate–and to revel in the sheer ecstasy of their hatred for the country’s first black President.

The United States Supreme Court

The previous President, George W. Bush, had lied the nation into a needless and destructive war with Iraq by repeatedly claiming that:

  • Saddam Hussein and Osama bin laden had teamed up to bring on 9/11;
  • Saddam was trying to get a nuclear weapon; or
  • Saddam already had a nuclear weapon and intended to use it against the United States.

That war cost the lives of 4,486 Americans and well over $1 trillion.

And Bush–taking a “hands-off-business” attitude–had presided over the 2008 Wall Street “meltdown.”  By the time Obama took office in 2009, the unchecked greed and stupidity of wealthy businessmen threatened to bankrupt the country.

But for the American Right, these weren’t crimes.  They were simply incidents to be ignored or arrogantly explained away.

Yet when President Obama sought to provide full medical coverage for all Americans, regardless of wealth, that–-for the American Right–-was a crime beyond forgiveness.

“Obamacare,” at all costs, must be discredited and destroyed.

As President Obama’s best-known achievement, its destruction by the Supreme Court would discredit the reputation of its creator. And this would arm Republicans with a potent election-time weapon for making Obama a one-term President.

Mitt Romney, the party’s presumptive nominee for President, openly boasted that the Court would overturn the Act.

Among those Right-wingers poised to celebrate on the morning of June 28 was Ohio Congresswoman Jean Schmidt.

Wearing a white dress, she stood in front of the Supreme Court waiting to hear about the healthcare ruling–-when the joyful news came:

The Court had ruled the Act was not enforceable under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution!

Although this was in fact true–-and reported on CNN and Fox News–-it was far from the whole story.

A cell phone camera-wielding onlooker spotted Schmidt on her own cell phone.

“Yes!  Yes!” Schmidt screamed.  “Oh, what else?  Thank God!  No, they struck down the individual mandate!  They took it away!   Yes!”

Jean Schmidt

Her fascistic joy manifested itself in ear-splitting screeches and air punches.  Her entire body rocked up and down, shuddering with the ecstasy of passion. She resembled, more than anything else, a woman caught up in the frenzy of an orgasm.

In this case, an orgasm of pure, undisguised hatred–-

  • for the Affordable Healthcare Act;
  • for those millions of uninsured Americans needing healthcare coverage; and
  • above all, for the President himself.

It is a lust so demonic, so characteristic of the all-out, lethal hatred that Republicans aim at Obama, that words alone cannot fully describe it.  It must be seen for its full, revolting quality to be felt.

Click here: Rep “Mean Jean” Schmidt Wigs Out Thinking Supreme Court Struck Down Health Care Reform – YouTube 

But then came the bad news:

The Court had ruled that the Act was Constitutional under the power of the Congress to levy taxes. Thus, the hated individual mandate–-requiring the wealthy to buy insurance–-was legal after all.

And suddenly the Right saw its orgiastic fantasies disappear.

Later in the day, Schmidt posted a conventional press release: “I’m disappointed by the Supreme Court ruling….”

Some commentators mocked Schmidt’s moment of orgiastic hatred, comparing it to the famous scene in When Harry Met Sally: Seated in a diner, Meg Ryan’s Sally fakes an orgasm to show Billy Crystal’s Harry how easy it is to fool a man.

But there is a huge difference between Sally and Schmidt.

Sally was clearly faking to drive home a humorous point.  Schmidt’s joy wasn’t faked–-it was primal, and fueled by pure hatred.

On March 6, 2012, Schmidt was defeated for re-election in the GOP primary by Brad Wenstrup.

After World War II, the United States occupied West Germany and rooted out those former Nazis who had so arrogantly and brutally ruled over the lives of millions.  And America helped to set in power a government equally determined to stamp out a return to Nazism.

It remains to be seen if Americans, as a people, have the courage to do the same for themselves.

ENTITLEMENTS OF THE RICH

In History, Politics on November 8, 2013 at 12:09 am

On September 20, 2012, Ann Romney appeared on Radio Iowa to help her husband, Mitt, carry the state.

Many Republicans feared that Romney had forfeited his chance for victory in November.  His videotaped comments to wealthy donors–in which he dismissed “47%” of Americans as non-tax-paying government dependents–had drawn criticism from both Republicans and Democrats.

So when the interviewer asked Ann to respond to Mitt’s Republican critics, she was ready.

“Stop it. This is hard,” she said, in a tone that sounded like an angry mother defending her son’s slipping grades at a PTA meeting.

Mitt and Ann Romney

“You want to try it?  Get in the ring. This is hard and, you know, it’s an important thing that we’re doing right now, and it’s an important election.”

Then she aimed her ire at those Americans who hadn’t yet accepted her husband as the Coming Messiah.

“And it is time for all Americans to realize how significant this election is and how lucky we are to have someone with Mitt’s qualifications and experience and know-how to be able to have the opportunity to run this country.”

Click here: Ann Romney defends Mitt – Anderson Cooper 360 – CNN.com Blogs

Maybe Ann simply felt her husband deserved uncritical loyalty from his fellow Republicans.  Or maybe she felt mounting dismay at seeing her chances of becoming First Lady going down the toilet.

After all, on April 16, she and Mitt had given a joint interview to ABC News that pulsed with hubris.

Asked if he had anything to say to President Barack Obama, Mitt replied: “Start packing.”  As if the most powerful leader of the Western World should snap to attention at Mitt’s command.

And Ann gushed: “I believe it’s Mitt’s time. I believe the country needs the kind of leadership he’s going to offer… So I think it’s our turn now.”

Click here: Mitt Romney Tells President Obama to ‘Start Packing’ | Video – ABC News

So now, after a series of potentially fatal gaffes by her husband, it may be that Ann feared it wasn’t their turn after all.

During a May 17 private fund-raising event, Mitt Romney addressed a roomful of wealthy donors.  Toward the end of his remarks he scorned “entitlements” for those Americans who didn’t belong to the privileged class:

“Well, there are 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what….

“Who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they’re entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

But the Romneys aren’t the only members of the pampered set to feel entitled to holding the most powerful office in the world.

Earlier in 2012, Anita Perry, the wife of Rick Perry–Texas Governor and Presidential candidate–had indulged in her own moment of self-pity.

Rick and Anita Perry

She said she knew what it was like to be unemployed–because her son had resigned from his job at Deutsche Bank to campaign for his father.

“He resigned from his job two weeks ago because he can’t go out and campaign with his father because of SEC regulations,” she said in a Pendleton, S.C. diner on October 14, 2011.

“My son lost his job because of this administration,” she added.

But only a day earlier, Anita Perry had said that her son had eagerly resigned to help his father run for President.

“So, our son Griffin Perry is 28.  He loves politics, and he just couldn’t wait.  He said ‘Dad, I’m in!  I’m in!  I’ll do whatever you need me to do.  I’ll resign my job.  I’ll do what you need me to do,‘” recalled Anita Perry.

There is a difference between voluntarily resigning from a job and being involuntarily terminated from it.

Nor was the voluntary resignation of her son Anita Perry’s only complaint.

“We are being brutalized by our opponents, and our own party,” she had told a South Carolina audience on October 13, 2011.  “So much of that is, I think they look at [Rick] because of his faith.

“He is the only true conservative–well, there are some true conservatives.  And they’re there for good reasons.  And they may feel like God called them, too.  But I truly feel like we are here for that purpose.”

Perhaps the final word on the revealed character of these entitled would-be rulers belongs to Plutarch (c. 46 – 120 AD), a Greek historian and biographer.   In the foreward to his biography of Alexander the Great, he wrote:

And the most glorious exploits do not always furnish us with the clearest discoveries of virtue or vice in men; sometimes a matter of less moment, an expression or a jest, informs us better of their characters and inclinations, than the most famous sieges, the greatest armaments, or the bloodiest battles whatsoever.

It is well to remember such truths when assessing the characters of our own would-be Alexanders–and those who would be their queens.