New Book: Why America Failed

Morris Berman has been a critic of America's current downward spiral.  In the below link, he talks about it in depth.  I feel he is right on the mark at a time when most Americans are oblivious to what is going on.

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/WhyAmer

What Is Wrong With This Picture?

 

Manginas Now Accepting Wives' Last Names And "MENgagement Rings!"

If your man pops the question this Valentine’s Day, or if you’re one of the 2 million people who will get hitched this year, listen up– some of the traditonal aspects of marriage are starting to change.
First we told you how a growing number of men starting to wear “mangagement rings” (male engagement rings.) Now we’ve learned there’s a new trend on the rise: Men in the US are taking their wife’s last name, or hyphenating it with their own.

Taking the Name Change Plunge
Mark Tyler is “man enough” to admit to GalTime that he actually did all of the above. Mark wore a mangagement ring during his engagement, and soon after he and his bride Carol Tyler got married last January, Mark took his wife’s last name. He started the ceremony as Mark Harper and ended it as Mark Tyler. The minister even announced, “Here come the Tylers” as they made their way down the aisle.

Mark says he’s proud. “Shortly before the wedding I decided to make the change. She (Carol) was stunned. Actually, she asked me to reconsider, that it was cool with her for me not to change. But I told her it was too late, and then she said GREAT!”

The couple started talking about it before they got married and decided it was important they both have the same last name so their children would as well.  According to Mark, Carol said, “If we all have the same last name, why can’t it be mine?”

She said it as a joke, but I told her that I’d think about it seriously. So I did. And then I found myself in the position of the typical female. Hyphenate? Too bulky. Keep my name? But then we’d have different family names. Take her name? Yowww. Big blow to the male ego.”

In the end Mark says he thought about Carol’s career. “She is well established in her career and I am not. Our plan is for her to be the primary breadwinner and me to be the primary parent. So, “Carol Tyler” is a well established professional while “Carol Harper” is who? I don’t have the same dynamic going from Harper to Tyler.”

Gayle Brandeis and her husband did the name swap for the same reasons when they got married: Kids and career. “It is a second marriage for both of us. I had kept my name with my first marriage as well, and my kids from my first marriage have long hyphenated last names. I was pregnant when my current husband and I married, and we liked the idea of everyone in the family having the same last name. I had already established myself as an author with my name, and he felt no particular loyalty to his father’s last name, so now my hudband is a Brandeis, as is our son.”

How Many Are Doing The Reverse Name Swap?
The Centers for Disease Control and the Social Security Administration says it doesn’t track these types of name swaps. But an up and coming company called Hitchswitch, which offers newlyweds “a one stop shopping name changing service for a fee” has some interesting numbers.

CEO Jake Wolff says they’ve helped about two thousand couples change their names since June 2011– and 5 percent of those clients have been men. Out of that five percent about three percent of men take their wife’s last name and the remaining two percent create a hybrid or hyphenate their last name.
Jake says he’s seeing this trend increase. “Even though Q1 of 2012 has just started, we have seen an increase in the number of males taking a hybrid name.”

Turning in the Man Card?

Jake polled his male name changing clients for GalTime on why they went against the name grain and they all told him, “They felt weird taking their spouse’s name not because they had anything against using the name of their wife, but because they felt they would be “de-masculized” (is that even a word?!), and teased (seriously) by their friends and family who heard that the groom took the name of their wife. Most of our clients fall in the 22 to 35 age range, so I guess the grooms still had some angst.”

Mark says when he told people about his untraditional name change a majority of the responses were actually negative. “As for the man card issue, I get it. I guess that in many ways I have turned in my man card. Of course, I treat the whole man card thing as a joke in the first place. It’s a satirical term that, to me, describes a physically grown man who has the mind and interests of an adolescent.”

Happily Ever After
The Tylers and the Brandeis’ all report they’re still very happy with their choices. Their kids have the same last name, and all is well in nameville. Mark gushes, “I’m so proud to be a Tyler. My wife absolutely rocks and our family is the most exciting thing that’s ever happened to me.”

Jake Brandeis sums it all up quite nicely from his informal customer poll of men who handed in their man card with class. “The grooms told me that they did this because the couple was starting a new life together, and their new name was their new identity. They saw it as a great compromise.”

Fluency In Another Language Is Now Bad Politics in America!

ORLANDO, Fla. — Newt Gingrich, parlez-vous français?
In a sign that the spat between Mr. Gingrich and Mitt Romney is definitely on the low road, the Gingrich campaign posted a Web ad on Thursday mocking Mr. Romney for, among other deviations from conservative orthodoxy, speaking French.

The minute-long ad, “The French Connection,’’ includes a cheesy bistro accordion tune and juxtaposes Mr. Romney welcoming the world to the Salt Lake City Olympics in French – “Je m’appelle Mitt Romney’’ – with a clip of the French-speaking John Kerry, whose knowledge of the tongue of Molière was used to stamp him as elitist during his failed bid for the presidency in 2004.

“Just like John Kerry, he speaks French, too,’’ the ad says of Mr. Romney, who spent 30 months in France as a young Mormon missionary.

Now comes intriguing circumstantial evidence that Mr. Gingrich, too, may have better than a tourist’s knowledge of French.  He often tells campaign crowds of living in France as a teenager, when his Army father, Robert Gingrich, was stationed near Orléans. A visit to the World War I battlefield of Verdun awakened him to the seriousness of world events and made him aspire to public office, he says.
Mr. Gingrich attended an American school. But an article by Agence France-Presse quoted a biographer, Mel Steely, as saying that the teenage Newton “had enough French to survive.’’

Mr. Gingrich went on to earn a Ph.D. in history from Tulane, writing his dissertation titled “Belgian Education Policy in the Congo 1945-1960.”  Belgium, of course, is a French-speaking country, as were its African colonies. Many of the sources Mr. Gingrich cited in the thesis were in French. He either read the language well at the time or paid someone a small fortune to translate them.

A spokesman for Mr. Gingrich did not immediately respond to a request for edification.  But as Mr. Romney might put it, touché.

The Decline of the American Empire

Below is an interesting take on the decline of America from Al Jazeera English.  It is about 47 minutes long, and its worth viewing.

The decline of the American empire - Empire - Al Jazeera English

American Exceptionalism Has Become American Deceptionalism

By Paul Rosenberg

From the dawn of the colonial era, long before they even had a national identity, Americans have always felt they had a special role in the world, though the exact nature of American exceptionalism has always been a matter of some dispute.
Many have taken it to be a special religious destiny, but Alexis de Tocqueville, the first to consider it systematically, affirmed the exact opposite: "a thousand special causes ... have singularly concurred to fix the mind of the American upon purely practical objects." Ironically enough, the exact term "American exceptionalism" was first used by Joseph Stalin, in order to reject it.  And yet, for 70 years American exceptionalism has been most prominently and consistently associated with imperialism ("benevolent", of course!), via the phrase "the American Century". It was coined by Time-Life publisher Henry Luce in February, 1941, 10 months before Japan's Pearl Harbour attack drew the US into World War II. The history of Luce's coinage provides a depth of resonance for a recent twist: a not uncommon, but particularly telling juxtaposition of four Time magazine covers from around the world this week.

In three editions - Europe, Asia and South Pacific - Time magazine's visually hot, tumultuous cover featured a gasmask-protected Egyptian protester, upraised fist overhead with a chaotic street background behind. The headline: "Revolution Redux". Not so in the exceptional American edition. There, the visually cool, wanna-be New Yorker-ish cover was a text-dominated cartoon against a light gray background: "Why Anxiety is Good For You."  Clearly, Time is whistling past the graveyard. As mostly Democratic mayors clamp down hard on Occupy Wall Street outposts across the land, it's obvious that the US' political class is having none of it. They do not believe that anxiety is good for them and they are doing their darnedest to keep a lid on things. Agitated citizens out in the streets are bad enough. Pictures of agitated citizens are simply too much.
Once upon a time, those pictures coming from a Third World dictatorship in a (hopefully) democratic transition would have been comfortably distant, even reassuring - exotic, other, subsumed in history, striving to become more like us, the transcendent ones at the "end of history."  That, after all, was part of the message of Luce's "American Century". But nowadays, everyone knows that the differences between Zuccotti Park and Tahrir Square are increasingly less significant than their similarities. They are matters of degree more than kind. There is no such place as "outside of history" anymore. Those making history know it, and those fighting history know it just as well.

Democratic mayors to the 99 per cent
In the US, the message from the mayors is simple: You've made your point. Now go to your room and shut up. We've got a lawn to keep up, and you've spoiled it. America's "grown-ups" as the political class likes to think of itself, have never had much patience when it comes to the "children", as its mere citizens are known. And yet, America's democratic revolutionary origins are at the very centre of a radically different vision of what American exceptionalism is all about.

The situation in Los Angeles is particularly exemplary. Although city officials welcomed Occupy LA at first, for weeks on end Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and others have been saying it's time to leave. Villaraigosa - like Obama - is a former progressive organiser turned neo-liberal politician. He was a teacher's union organiser when I first met him in the 1980s, as part of a progressive precinct network aimed at getting disaffected progressive voters to the pols.

Also within the coalition's core was the LA National Lawyers Guild's executive director. When Villaraigosa first took office in 2006, his first big battle was against the teacher's union he used to work for. He took them on with the backing of billionaire real estate developer and education "reformer" Eli Broad. Five years later, as he faces off against Occupy LA, the current NLG executive director, James Lafferty, is one of his major opponents.

With no sense of irony, Villaraigosa thought Thanksgiving weekend was the perfect time for an eviction. "It's clear that this mayor cares more about dead grass than a dead economy," Lafferty responded at an Occupy LA press conference. "The 99 per cent that have been thrown out of their homes, jobless, without proper healthcare and all the rest seem to be less important to him than that lawn."

America's exceptional democracy
As indicated above, the idea of American exceptionalism was always a contested one. But it's hard to deny that the New World in general was seen as a land of opportunity, and the American colonies were the place where the most opportunity was seen for people to actually settle in significant numbers. Yet, the way most people managed to get to this new land of opportunity and freedom was through indentured servitude, and when that failed to provide enough labour, the African slave trade was "Plan B".
The land itself came courtesy of the earliest stages of America's centuries-long series of genocidal wars. And when the American Revolution came, it was lead in large part by slaveholder advocates of freedom - men like Washington, Jefferson and Patrick Henry, whose influence only expanded as the new nation was established.
Although their primary arguments were grounded in universalist appeals, the actual rights-holding subjects of their political system were a relatively tiny minority of well-to-do white males. The promise of rights-based liberal democracy was intoxicating to all, but forbidden to most. Equality was for gentlemen only. And yet, those excluded would not be denied. Scattered state and local battles coalesced into a national abolitionist movement by the 1830s, which in turn spawned a women's rights movement in the 1840s.

In Europe, the US example spawned the French and Polish revolutions, followed by more than a century of struggles in which the example of the US' existence powerfully transformed the Old World in combination with Europe's own internal modernising forces.
And even though the United States itself embarked on an imperialist course sparked by the Spanish-American War in 1898, its example as the first anti-colonial revolutionary regime inspired colonial revolutionaries as well. It was no accident that Ho Chi Minh approached Woodrow Wilson for his support at Versailles after World War I, before turning to communism as his second choice in seeking to rid his country of French colonialism.

From exceptionalism to deceptionalism
But the US had a hard time keeping up with itself, or with the world that it helped create. The European welfare state was a direct response to popular demands for a better, more just, less arbitrary life, demands that were sparked in part by the very existence of the US as an alternative.
As the US itself became more like Europe - more industrialised, more urbanised, less composed of small farmers and more composed of urban workers - the resistance to learning from European advances became increasingly irrational, and at odds with American pragmatism. Our political system lagged behind as well, lacking the fluidity and inventiveness that made parliamentary systems the dominant form of democracy elsewhere around the world.

This perverse refusal to learn from others who have been inspired by us in the political realm is strikingly at odds with Americans' grassroots improvisatory traditions. From food to music to everything in between, Americans have always adopted diverse influences, mixed them together and made them their own, based on the sole criteria of what works.  Yet, with far too few exceptions, we Americans have spectacularly failed to do this in the realms of economics and politics, where powerful elites have emerged to repeatedly stifle the US' spirit of ingenuity. Not only that, they have successfully blinded us as well. Under the growing influence of the 1 per cent, American exceptionalism has become American deceptionalism: a perverse refusal to see what others have done - often inspired by our own earlier examples - and use that knowledge to continue advancing ourselves.

The US' patch-work welfare state is the prime example of this dysfunction. But our lack of industrial policy is even more bizarre, given that we used to believe in it so. Indeed, the same could be said about the welfare state as well. Universal public education was an American idea - outside the South, of course - before catching on elsewhere around the globe. What's more, most of the US was homesteaded through a subsidised process of free or cheap land, supported by public infrastructure - or, in the case of railroads, publicly-subsidised infrastructure.

But when it came to an industrial welfare state, suddenly, everything changed. It's not so hard to understand why: the original industrial workforce was largely immigrant and culturally "other" - Irish at first, then central and southern European, predominantly Catholic or Jewish. It was not until the Great Depression pushed the US economy to the wall that we began to even partially catch up with Germany, which had created its welfare state half a century earlier.  Even then, it took another 30 years for us to add universal health care, but only for senior citizens. The results of creating Medicare were dramatic: Within a decade, American seniors went from being the age-group with the highest poverty rate to the lowest. But that was nearly 50 years ago, 130 years after Germany established its universal healthcare system. Since then, conservative resistance to America's welfare state has stiffened dramatically. Cultural differences between whites of European descent are nothing compared differences with people of colour - which moved dramatic to the fore as legal segregation was finally being dismantled.

Welfare in the US
A 2001 paper from the Brookings Institute, "Why Doesn't the United States Have a European-Style Welfare State?" found a direct correlation between welfare state spending and the size of minority populations - the more minorities, the lower the levels of spending. This held true both internationally (comparing more than 60 different countries) and nationally (comparing all 50 states). The paper did not argue that racial animosity was the sole reason for the US' fragmented and under-sized welfare state. It also cited the US' backwards political institutions - such as our lack of proportional representation - which in turn have roots in our history and geography.  The report stated, "Racial animosity in the US makes redistribution to the poor, who are disproportionately black, unappealing to many voters. American political institutions limited the growth of a socialist party, and more generally limited the political power of the poor."

Among other things, the report offered comparisons across time, which showed the US lagging decades behind Europe throughout the 20th century. The size of subsidies and transfers in the US in 1970 was roughly the same as that in the European Union in 1937. US figures in 1998 roughly matched the EU in 1960.
While American conservatives have long been hysterical about the welfare state in the US, two major points need to be stressed.

First: German conservatives established the first comprehensive welfare state, under Chancellor Bismarck in the 1880s. Second, the American welfare state is the smallest and least comprehensive in the Western world. While American conservatives denounce the welfare state for supposedly strangling capitalism, Germany's welfare state has been crucial to its long-term prosperity, even as the US' incomplete welfare state has harmed us considerably. For example, without a national system, healthcare costs built into American cars were a crucial factor leading up to the bankruptcy crisis of 2009.

Nearly a half-century after Medicare, the US was finally ready to take a modest half-step forward toward expanding healthcare coverage. But President Obama's approach was so compromised, and so poorly argued that it's now opened the doorway for a massive reversal that could actually eliminate Medicare - a major decimation of the US' welfare state that would plunge millions of seniors into abject poverty, deprive them of healthcare and subject them to premature death.

Grand bargains
Obama is obsessed with trying to strike a series of "grand bargains" with conservatives, even though they keep rejecting him. As a consequence, he repeatedly begins his negotiations with positions that conservatives have supported in the past, hoping they will support those positions again. At the same time, he refrains from making energetic arguments for the liberal position.
As a result, his stimulus programme was roughly 40 per cent tax cuts (even though they're less effective in creating jobs than direct spending is) in a vain attempt to get Republican support. And when it came to health care, his approach was based on Republican proposals from the 1990s, developed by the conservative Heritage Foundation. It was the same foundation used by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts.  Obama never used the popularity, efficiency and overall success of Medicare to argue for a government-centered approach, either an immediate full-fledged socialisation, aka "Medicare for all", or a gradualist approach - a public option for those currently without private insurance. Indeed, Obama collaborated with conservative Democrats in the Senate - most notably Max Baucus - to silence those who advocated for these approaches.  Medicare-for-all advocates were reduced to shouting from the audience and getting arrested, despite representing a substantial body of public opinion. Support for the more gradual public-option approach hovered around 60 per cent or more throughout the year-long legislative process. And yet, these proposals - tried and true in the rest of the industrialised world - could not even get a serious hearing.

Such is the power of American deceptionalism: No one else's experience in the world matters to the American political system.  Less than two years after Obama's Republican healthcare plan passed, its very modesty is being used against it. Although it did involve considerable long-term cost reductions, it was nothing remotely close to reducing costs to full-fledged welfare state levels. For example, calculations by the Centre for Economic and Policy Research show that, for example, if we Americans could get our per-capita health-care costs down to the level of most central European nations, we would have a budget surplus of around 10 per cent in 2080, rather than the current projected deficit of over 40 per cent.
By ignoring the example of other countries, the American political class has spun itself off into an alternate reality in which nothing short of catastrophically bad choices remain. (The situation of global warming denialism is an instructive parallel, in which facts have become entirely irrelevant.) And so, fuelled by an obsession with long-term deficits decades in the future, and ignoring the sky-high level of the unemployed, the US congress may well be about to drift toward abolishing Medicare as its so-called "solution".

Of course, Republicans like Congressman Paul Ryan, who originated the plan, won't come right out and say that. And neither will Democrats, now rumoured to be thinking of joining them in search of yet another "grand bargain". Ryan and company say they want to "save" Medicare by replacing it with a voucher system. As one wag put it, it's like killing my dog named Spot, and giving me a cat named Spot instead, then telling me you haven't killed Spot. But a variety of studies have stripped all the pretense away.

Most significantly, the vouchers ("premium support" in Orwellian Newspeak) would come nowhere near to paying the cost of health insurance for seniors, and the shortfall would only grow more severe over time. So instead of the government going broke, the people would. That's the anti-government Republican plan! But at least the plan would keep the private insurance companies making money hand over fist as they deny you coverage.  And since they're private companies, that counts as a win, according to the rules of American deceptionalism. Even if there is no real competition involved, and Adam Smith would have a heart attack if he saw what was being done in his name.

I've concentrated here on healthcare as a key welfare state component. But the same pattern of delusionary grand bargaining can be seen wherever you care to look. Consider "education reform". "America's schools are failing!" we're told. We have to privatise, voucherise, give parents more choice - that alone can save us.
But none of this is supported by evidence, certainly not the evidence of other countries, whose systems are more centralised and less privatised than those of the United States. The US accounts of nearly half of military spending worldwide. The only folks whose overspending ever came close to us was the Soviet Union, and we sure didn't learn anything from them. On the drug war? Don't even think of thinking about it!

The list could be extended indefinitely. There is not a single area in which Republicans won't condemn anything foreign just for being foreign (unless, for some reason they like it, the way Michele Bachmann likes Chinese slave labour). And there's not a single area where Democrats won't be defensive about thinking outside the box that Republicans have put them in.

If all this leaves you feeling anxious, relax. After all, as Time will tell you, "Anxiety is good for you!"
 
Paul Rosenberg is the Senior Editor of Random Lengths News

Lucy Finally Gets Hers!

Remember the character Lucy of Peanuts (Charlie Brown) fame?  She was the feminist-archetype of the domineering and abusive female that was coming into vogue back in the 60's and 70's.

This clip is what we all have been waiting for.  I was so delighted that I watched it over and over again!

Murderer Amanda Knox Will Walk Free Due To The Proverbial "Pussy Pass."

This just in....   Amanda Knox has been released from custody.  The so-called "pussy pass" triumphed in her case even.

If Ms. Knox really were innocent, I would hail this decision.  However, her efforts to lie and change her story around with police indicate consciousness of guilt.  Worse still was her trying to place blame on an African businessman who was later cleared of any wrong-doing.   As I understand it, her release was less a commentary on her innocence, and more a commentary on shoddy police work.

So there you have it.  Amanda Knox will soon be in the USA, on all the talk shows, and mulling her multi-million dollar book and movie deals.

At the end of the day, a criminal is a criminal and she will slip up in due time.  Maybe she and Casey Anthony should do a reality show together!

Men Maimed By Women In America.

This video illustrates what it has come to in the USA between men, women and the law. It is not to be missed.

Observations of American Society From A Recent Returnee

As some might be aware, I was not living in the US for 8 straight years. I have recently returned to spend the next year and I've taken note of some things are quite different:

Positive changes:

-The younger generation of females (25 and below) seems to be rejecting the feminist hatred of the previous generation. This is encouraging, but we are not out of the woods. They still enjoy and partake in female social privilege, but they are less aggressive about it.

-People seem a bit less materialistic than before. This is surely due to the recessionary economy and it needs to translate into a higher regard for knowledge, experience, and relationships with family/friends. We are not there yet.

-There seems to be more ethnic tolerance than ever before. Tolerance does not equate with affinity mind you, but there is a a greater ease with people who are different in most cases. It is yet to be seen whether this is just a more covert hostility or genuine capitulation to changing demographics.


Negative changes:

-There is larger paranoia about men in the US.  I was talking with an attractive bartender and a decent-looking bar patron in Baton Rouge. We were chatting about travel and at one point the bartender remarked that she would love to travel more but she would never travel alone since it is so dangerous out there. The patron agreed with her and remarked that she never leaves the hotel unless her boyfriend is along. I believe this paranoia is self-imposed and derives from the guilt of female privilege in America. In other countries, women 10 times hotter than these two walk the streets alone at night even in areas considered high crime.

-There is a foolish arrogance in American men like never before. Coming off as confidant even in the face of ignorance is very prevalent. Think back to the government officials who balked that a 9/11 scenario could ever happen in the US, or the fools that believe the US is the greatest country in the world for virtually everything, or the dolts that believed our economy will never flounder in crisis because we are in the USA.

-Women here are more fat and unattractive as ever. Hard economic times contributes to a decrease in a population's beauty due to poorer dietary habits and less favorable living conditions. I am aghast at how decent-looking men resort to such unsightly creatures in the US now.

-There are far more immigrants in the landscape than ever before. High-end places that were once WASP and Jewish are now largely Asian, Indian, and White now. On the lower end, there are far more people of third-world origin all around. While this might be a negative in the larger sense, it may be a blessing in disguise as third world nations are the least feminist. This may be the last hope for overcoming feminist orthodoxy in America!

-Crude informality is the norm now. It is rare for young people to have common courtesy and respect for elders in the US. Everything is informal and nothing is sacred nowadays. These flash mobs and wilding youths in Philadelphia will be a recurring and spreading phenomenon as the children of wayward children are coming of age.

-Before we used to rail against the entitlement mentality of females. Now males exhibit this mentality to a lesser degree. This is most obvious in the area of employment. Young people walk around pining for employment, but they refuse to take a job that is "beneath them."  If you are unemployed, there is no job that is beneath you, none. For this reason, the unemployment rate remains high at 9%. People are seeking the job that they think they deserve, not the job that they need. This will change when things get worse however.

-There is also a greater overall lack of sophistication of the US population regarding politics and economics. Most Americans do not know what the Federal Reserve does. Most Americans do not know what the President's role in the economy is, yet a President is elected or re-elected almost solely on the state of the economy. A President can certainly not "create jobs" other than hiring more federal employees. A President CAN assist Congress in creating an economic environment for jobs to be created, but he cannot "create jobs" like most Americans expect. If the unemployment rate dips 5% during the next year, it will not have been because of the President's creating jobs.

-Foreigners are beating native-born Americans at their own game. The children of many immigrant groups are developing financial, educational, and social savvy that our children are failing to develop due to their inability to delay gratification. Look at the freshmen classes of our Ivy League institutions. They are increasingly immigrant, and more power to them.

Conclusion: The world is passing by the US before our eyes. Our people are poorly educated or trained, our children child care castoffs, and our adults are resting in the laurels of former American preeminence. Change is inevitable in a society, especially one a fluid as the US. Simply willing your way to remain at the top without the requisite effort is a prescription for failure as a society. We are failing.

Reflections on the Impossibility of Government

By Fred Reed - July 30, 2011

God it's wonderful—really diverting in a macabre sort of way, at least if you have a diseased sense of humor and enough Padre Kino red. Which I do. As I write the world's only delusional superflower, perennially in love with itself, navel-gazing as narcissistically as ever, ignorant, self-indulgent, gurbling like an insane relative in the attic and fondling electro-trinkets from Japan, is broke. Yes, we see a beautiful dive from the high board, two somersaults and a half-twist, into the Third World. And so richly deserved.

Congress, a collection of whores, con-men, and penny-ante sharpers from East Jesus, Nebraska, ponders the Great Question: Default now, and admit manfully to being the economic lepers everyone else already knows we are? Or raise the debt ceiling, keep spending like a spoiled Swarthmore sophomore with daddy's credit card, and collapse a bit later?

It's just lovely. The World’s Greatest Economy holding out the begging bowl to China. “Alms? Alms for the poor?” Maybe I don't have enough Padre Kino after all. Maybe there isn't enough.

On the lobotomy box, congressmen come and go, not talking of Michelangelo, like mayflies but without the brains, calling each other names. They seem to think that they are in an off-year election. I mean, it's only the future of the country. What, me worry? What if a huge cosmic flyswatter came down on Cap Hill and turned them into barely historical smears? How the hell do you start a cosmic flyswatter?

The Republicans want to protect the wars, the rich, and the military companies. The Democrats want to protect the entitlements. Well, ok, I guess killing Afghans matters more than feeding Granny in Spokane. Unless of course you are Granny. Who really cares? I mean, how many “defense” contracts does she have?

But actually the Dems have the best of the argument of national security. Entitlements are our friend. Welfare is the price we pay for not having the cities burn. Mailbox money is our protection, not gaudy aircraft carriers like the USS Thundertrinket, zooom-kerpow.

It's the Empire, stupid. You want spending cuts? Easy, if you don't want to rule the world for three more years before going down history's cloaca. Pull out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Japan, and NATO tomorrow. Pull out. Pull out. Coitus interruptus. Stop wasting precious engineering talent and non-existent money on pointless funsy weapons of no utility: the F35, the Airborne Laser.

Come to think of it, don't bother. It's too late. The only sensible answer is cheap Mexican red. The US really is poised to enter Central America. You know, continental drift. It can't be stopped. South Korea and Finland among others are far more advanced in their internets. Health care in America is first-priced and second-rate. The country is thirty-third in infant mortality. Schooling would be pathetic if we could raise it to that level, the universities largely farces. The Russians and Chinese have manned space programs; we don't. Industry flees Gringolandia or has fled. The great moiling gerbiltry out there hasn't figured it out. Wait.

I hear babbling about “the recovery.” Which recovery is that? There ain't none, boys and girls. There won't be one. We are not in a temporary recession or correction or what have you. We are going poor. The last dance just finished, and the band is leaving.

And it is self-inflicted. There is, I grant you, a pleasing monumentality about truly phenomenal stupidity. A certain brilliance is needed to be so witless. In this sense the American political system is a work of genius, relying on the principle of Sufficient Ditz-Rabbitry.

You don't need to fool all of the people all of the time. Enough of the people, enough of the time is entirely adequate. Lincoln knew this but, being a politician, didn't point it out. Here is the basis of what Americans believe to be a democracy. Curious: Mexicans know they have a corrupt government, but Americans don't. In the US, books are written about the scams and cons and rips practiced on the public. Few read them, though, and those who do already know what is in them. Enough of the people, enough of the time. If the talking heads on the blinking hamster-diverter don't talk about the swindles, the rubes never know.

The country is in fact ruled by the interlocking directorates of Wall Street, Washington, and the media, Triamese twins joined at the head and aimed at sucking money from the easily fleeced. We're not talking Senior Civics and the Federalist Papers. It's straight drain-the-dullards. And it works. Boy does it.

Can you name anything in America today that is not a disguised fraud? Credit cards are not a convenience, but a way of luring suckers into borrowing crippling amounts of money at usurious interest. The sub-prime circus was carefully designed to do just what it did. There's the student-loan racket, and Big Pharma: A tiny bottle of ophthalmic salt water from Bausch & Lomb, called Muro, costs $23 in Washington, and about $6 in Mexico. That's our government, fixing prices that weren't broken. Pure Third World.

I dunno. What's going to happen when what's left of the cream-flow dries up? Maybe it's the Padre Kino, but...in the last depression of '29, most of the country was rural or close. People, many of them, lived on farms, and didn't need much money.

Today most of the population is utterly dependent on remote mechanized farms winch are dependent on supplies of gasoline and chemicals and then on trucks to take the crop to cities that, if the foregoing chain broke down, could not possibly support themselves. The discovery that food doesn't really come from Safeway will astonish.

I guess I'm paranoid, and no real unrest and disruption could really occur. I guess. I mean, probably. I think. And that's a good thing, because with so many people dependent on entitlements, to the extent that they can't eat without them, and everything dependent on intricate systems that can't handle chaos—hooboy. Think: What happens to skyscrapers if there's no electricity for elevators?

I say invest in drug cartels. Some say gold, but you can't smoke gold. When times get bad people want booze, grass, crack, scag, crank, Oxys, and maybe shrooms for the more advanced. Investment is low, and governmental interference has proved minimal.

I hope I'm crazy. I'd better be.

A Man Is An Unmitigated Fool To Marry

By now most are aware that Jennifer Lopez's and Mark Anthony's marriage is ending. Given the fact that Jennifer is a known kook when it comes to her love life, few men acknowledge the fact that marriage in general is a losing proposition.

In our current recessionary economy, why would a man want to take on a wife and kids to while most jobs teeter on the edge of insecurity? Why would a man want to sign up for a second full time job when most employed men already work more than any men in the world. Why would a man want to participate in the great "buying things" spree that is marriage so that he is a debt slave all of his life?

I know that there are many reasons for men to still willingly slide down the marriage road to ruin in spite of all the evidence staring them in the face.
Parents from a pre-feminist era are culprits that inculcate their sons with the marriage=success mentality.

Hollywood imagery is the next reason. Hollywood never shows the wife gaining weight and smelling up the bathroom after unloading a pile of bowel movement matter. Hollywood never shows the wife's bad breath, her hysterics, her spendthrift habits, or anything else but mythical bliss.

But the primary culprits are women themselves. Anyone with half a brain knows that when a man is in love or infatuated with a women, his normal logical thought process is suspended. Have you ever listened to the lyrics to "When A Man Loves A Woman?" It is women that bamboozle most men at their most vulnerable to their detriment.

It is high time for men to wake up to this marriage scam that dooms them to misery beyond reversal. On the other hand, the Mark Anthony's of the world are superb examples to the younger men of what NOT to do.

The IMPERIAL SUICIDE of America

By Bill Bonner

Now, what we see is the whole kit-and- kaboodle of life in the US giving way to desperation, delusion and an irresistible impulse to commit imperial suicide. The economy turns sour. The military becomes malignant. Households are corrupt, bankrupt and dependent. Even the churches sing their hallelujahs to Caesar now.

What's "imperial suicide?" It's what empires do. If no other empire arises to kill them...they kill themselves. China will probably eventually crush the US militarily. But that is far in the future. The US can't wait. It lets the zombies run wild.

At home, Congress debates a "debt ceiling" measure, as if it made any difference. They've raised the ceiling 93 times since they first imposed a debt ceiling 94 years ago. What are the odds that they will hold the line this time?

Zilch. Instead, they'll continue borrowing and spending until the nation goes broke. Count on it.

The US economy was a free-market success story for a hundred years...from the end of the US War Between the States to the end of the Vietnam War. It was the richest, fastest-growing, most innovative, most competitive, and most admired economy in the world. But then, in 1971, Richard Nixon replaced a more-or-less solid dollar, vaguely backed by gold, with a pure paper dollar, backed by nothing but the good intentions of government employees.

As the money went, so went the nation. Our friend and colleague Byron King opines:
The problem with the US over the last 40 or 50 years is that there's too much free money...

We raise three generations of population who are untied from the basics of monetary education - millions of minds poisoned by Economics 101 in universities across the land. "Elastic currency," courtesy of the Fed.

Media & political classes are no smarter than the dummies who walk the land, so they make policy based on "free" money from the Fed... Deficits don't matter.

Currency circulates and inflates the general price levels... People learn to live with it. Even make a virtue of it, doing things like "buy as much house as you can afford; the market will rise and you'll make money." That kind of idiocy.

There's all this excess currency sloshing around the economy, leading to people doing stupid things like drugs, too much alcohol, divorce (Cherchez les femmes), food (obesity), theft, etc...

"Wars cost much silver," wrote Sun Tzu. [Lack of money] kept a lot of nations out of a lot of trouble over the years. Not any more. Who needs silver when you can just print up bricks of paper cash and fly it over to Iraq and such.

Kind of gives a whole new meaning to the term American Exceptionalism... yep, we're exceptional. That's for sure. More prisoners in jail than anywhere else. We fight longer wars than anyone else...and don't win. We give more welfare to more idle people than anywhere else on earth...and we're proud of it.

There's so much money that we don't know how to say no. No limits. Just raise the debt ceiling...spend until you can't spend any more. Then spend some more.

Well, there are no limits until there are limits. Per Ayn Rand... "You can avoid reality. But you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality."

In the space of 40 years the US lost its winning ways. Real, hourly wages stopped growing in 1973. Stock prices, in real terms, peaked out in '99...about the same time that real, per capita private sector growth came to a halt. The number of full time jobs topped out about two years later...and housing hit its peak in 2007.

Abroad, US armed forces continue to squander the most magnificent advantage that a military has ever had. The Pentagon spends 7 times as much as the next biggest spender. And it doesn't even have a worthy opponent. Where does it get the money? It borrows from the Chinese!

And what does it do with all that money? It engages in pointless, blood sucking zombie wars. Its three current engagements alone are expected to cost $4 trillion, according to the latest independent estimates - about as much as its trade deficit over the last 10 years.

Ask your neighbors. What strategic advantage does the US gain from fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq or Libya? They will have no good answer. Probably some claptrap about 'fighting terrorism' is the best they will be able to do; that's what they were told on TV.

A 94-year-old retired Army colonel came over to our house for the 4th of July festivities. A Silver Star winner in WWII, veteran of the Korean War too...we asked what he thought of the Pentagon's strategy in North Africa and the Middle East.

"I am disgusted," he replied. "Those guys just don't know what they're doing. We have no business getting involved in these things...especially in Libya. They're just traps. I have arguments about it when I go into the VA hospital. The young guys - you know, they're in their '80s - are in favor of these wars. Wave the flag. Rah rah...let's go in and do the job. Teach them a lesson... That sort of thing.

"But real war is not a football game. And nobody learns anything...except not to do it again."

Who - with the exception of a 94-year-old veteran - objects to squandering the national treasure, blood and honor on these wars? Almost no one. Why not? Because they've all drunk deeply from the intoxicating cup of imperial power. An ordinary nation fights wars to protect itself. An empire fights wars because that is what an empire does. And it continues fighting until it finally beats itself.

Why didn't Rome pull back its troops from the Rhine or Anatolia or North Africa...in order to protect its homeland from the barbarians? Why didn't Alexander retire to Macedonia, while he still had breath? Why didn't the Germans retreat to the banks of the Oder when they still had the means to resist the Soviet onslaught?

Why doesn't the US bring home its troops, cut its spending, balance its budget and protect its future? Ha...ha...you know the answer. Because the system has been taken over by zombies...people who want to see the spending continue, no matter what the cost. Zombie wars. Zombie social spending. And zombie finance.

And every time we look at it, we see more evidence. California, the West Coast Greece, is going broke. Any guess why?

America’s WASP Rot

By Henry Allen, Published: June 17

I know why America is falling into a cataclysm of debt and can’t get out.

I know because I’ve seen the cataclysm before on a smaller but no less poignant scale while growing up in New England. A Boston friend calls it WASP rot: a squalor of doom and debt that prompts the best sort of people to spit sarcasms at each other during cocktail hour, to weep and rage the way Congress is doing as the debt limit looms on Aug. 2. Of course, losing a summer house isn’t losing a war or America defaulting on its debts. Yet to me, at least, the feeling is oddly the same. I worry that America is becoming a character in a story by John Cheever or F. Scott Fitzgerald.

My ancestors arrived early in North America, founded towns, fought at Bunker Hill, built railroads and cornered markets. But that day was long done when I was growing up. We were not unusual — in so many families, the money had been made, the money had been spent.

What made these families exceptional, the way America is exceptional, is that they believed that standards had to be maintained at all costs, a moral obligation, even though there never seemed to be much difference between the material and the moral. Houses in the right neighborhoods, alumni donations and keeping one’s word all seemed to have the same value.

As John Kennedy said in 1961, quoting John Winthrop’s speech to the Puritans aboard the Arbella: “We must always consider that we shall be as a city upon a hill — the eyes of all people are upon us.” To maintain the city, he’d say later, we had to “pay any price, bear any burden.”

If the trust fund played out or Aunt Cornelia turned out to be broke when she died, the rotting WASPs believed they had no choice but to bear the burden of borrowing to maintain their place in the world.

There was nothing wildly luxurious in their spending, no polo ponies or pearls, just the obligatory private schools, Bloody Mary brunches at the Inn, station wagons with yachting flags, silver wedding presents, lots of dogs, the whiskey. They borrowed from banks and relatives to keep the city shining. They borrowed against their houses. They sold Aunt Cornelia’s breakfront. They ignored bills and they despaired.

Imagine a cocktail hour.

“I hate living like this,” says a wife — we’ll call her Martha. She rattles the ice in her glass.

“Do we have any choice?” asks her husband — we’ll call him George. “Do you really want to pull Ted out of Dartmouth? Do you want to move into an apartment?”

“I could get a job,” Martha says. “I could manage a bookstore, like when you met me. It’s odd — we were poorer then, but we seemed so much richer.”

“We didn’t have money, but we did have a future,” says George. “Freshen up that drink for you?”

The conversation usually goes this way: proposals for impossible cuts in spending are met by equally impossible refusals to make them. Slash Medicare? Stop saving oppressed foreigners from tyranny? Raise taxes? The rock and the hard place. It’s a question of standards.

“We have to face the facts,” says Martha.

“I’m so goddam sick of the facts,” says George.

“If your brother would come to his senses, we could sell Seely’s Cove,” Martha says, referring to a summer house with porches and a mossy roof and photo albums from the days when men wore neckties as they sailed.

“We have to sell it or put a new roof on it, but Buell is happy just to let it molder,” George says. “He says keeping it in the family is a matter of principle.”

“You could call Tom about getting another loan from the bank. “

“We’re at the point where we’re just using loans to pay off other loans.”

This is what the American government is doing, too. Whether the problem is summer places or wars, sailboats or health care, the despair and folly feel the same. So does the decline in power and prestige, and the poig­nant denial of decline, prompted by the fear that if we don’t live and spend a certain way we’ll cease to be us — we’ll lose our place in the world.

Cheever writes: “Where had they lost their competence, their freedom, their greatness? Why should these good and gentle people . . . seem like the figures in a tragedy?”

It’s WASP rot. They drop out of the country club. The drinking eases the pain. They don’t pull Ted out of college; he quits and says he wants to be a chef. The daughter ends up living with a jazz musician who beats her.

It’s as if they, and the United States, have lost their luck.

As for America, magical ideas float through the media: Sell the gold in Fort Knox. Sell the federal government’s land to the Chinese. Maybe the Wampanoag Indians could turn the city upon a hill into a casino resort.

The troops may come home, not because of casualties or futility but because they cost too much. We might have to impoverish the old and ignore the poor and sick, not on the principle that we’re creating welfare dependency but because they cost too much. How sad. How vulgar.

I know the ending of George and Martha’s story, but I won’t depress you with it. I have no idea what will happen to America. It’s impossible to imagine Americans starving to death or the Chinese owning Yellowstone. Next thing, we’d be tossing the bodies of veterans into common graves, though this has already happened at Arlington National Cemetery.

Well-trained in situations like this, I try not to think about it, the goddam facts of it all. Freshen up that drink for you?

Henry Allen, who won the Pulitzer Prize for criticism in 2000, was a Post editor and reporter for 39 years.

How Should Men Define Personal Success?

The question came up on the Mancoat forum about redefining male success. We need to be careful about the term success, because it means different things for different people.

Ask yourself what would give you lifelong personal fulfillment. Are you at the point of personal fulfillment? If not, you are not a success just yet.

Personal fulfillment comes in many forms. Mother Theresa was personally fulfilled by living in poverty to help the less fortunate. Donald Trump is personally fulfilled by making successful business deals and appearing in the media. The hick from West Virginia is personally fulfilled by catching his dinner each night in the woods, and cooking it up on the wood stove.

The problem is that American culture, via Hollywood and Corporate advertising, put out the notion of success being the "American Dream" and most silly Americans bought into that. Many suffer from that mistake today.

What is success for me? Living abroad on a good salary, early retirement at age 50, and having serial relationships with women half my age. I don't need to be a millionaire, but money enables my success life so it is important. I don't want to be married, I don't need kids, and I don't buy into the nonsense that traps too many other men into wage slavery. In that sense, I'm a success too.

Success is a deeply personal assessment and don't let anyone determine for you what constitutes personal success for you.

Must See Video: Barbara Kay On Femo-Fascism and Misandry

Congresswoman Shot By Deranged Gunman. Judge Killed Too But He's A Man So Who Cares?

This occurance is one of those times that makes me get off my duff and post again after several months.  It is quite horrifiying to learn that a public servant has been shot while doing the people's work.

I do not know much about Congressman Giffords, but I do know this is not a good thing.  The rhetoric of the Tea Party has claimed it first victim.  Most of us remember Sarah Palin aluuding to "Second Amendment solutions, and "Reload."  Well it likely played a role in the current anti-government environement we are seeing.

Another troubling aspect to this tragedy is the fact that  United States Judge John Roll was killed in the incident yet, most of the press coverage and outpouring of concern is for Congresswoman Giffords even though she is still alive and expected to recover.  Misandry is a difficult habit to break it seems.

Whatever the case, I wish a speedy recovery to all the injured and my condolences to the family of Judge Roll.  Let's hope this does not encourage any copycat attacks because this nation can ill afford it.

Americans Are Socially Disconnected From Each Other

Still don't believe me?  Well here is Bernard Chapin's take on the decline of America.

How to Destroy America

Still don't believe me?  Well here is Bernard Chapin's take on the decline of America.