Rethinking a Paradise Lost

Washington creating our Confederation - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
Imagine a USA with no President, no executive agencies, no judiciary and no tax base. In this America, states can send in a suggested amount of tax dollars but there’s no requirement. The Congress must have unanimous buy-in from every state to ratify any treaty or pass any law. Every state is sovereign with regard to its commerce and trade policies… It sounds like the pipe dream of all conservative Republicans, former Dixiecrats and Libertarians everywhere. In some ways it sounds like the current European Union which has foundational cracks and fissures from one rogue member country, Greece, running up a large national debt.

In fact what I’m describing actually did exist – from 1777 until 1789. In 1777, the Articles of Confederation were drafted and sent for approval by the 2nd Continental Congress and were fully ratified by all states in 1781. They were essentially in effect for a dozen years from ratification until replacement with the U.S. Constitution in 1789. They were created at the urging of Thomas Paine, among other prominent colonists, who thought they would give legitimacy to what would otherwise be seen as a scruffy band of rebels. The Articles as written in fact gave us the Confederated States of America – 80 years ahead of the die-hard Southerners who tried to resuscitate it, like Lazarus from the dead, in 1860. The Confederated States could declare war, negotiate treaties, and resolve conflicts between states. For such a noble idea, there were problems…

There was no tax base – tax money was given voluntarily as a “suggested amount”. Not surprisingly, little money came in. Some states wouldn’t even pay off their own Revolutionary War debts. Other states failed to kick in for food and supplies or pay pensions to war veterans. States disbanded their militias as soon as eminent threat went away – laying themselves open to future attack. Sometimes the attack was internal, as with Shay’s Rebellion in 1786 – a group of farmer’s angry at the depressed market struck out at the state government. After the 1783 Treaty of Paris, various countries (primarily Great Britain) declared trade war against the fledgling United States. The United States couldn’t enact any navigation or trade laws to counter the trade threats – when Massachusetts observed a suggested tariff, Connecticut would rake in money by ignoring the same law.

The Confederation was an odd bird in several ways. There was only one house of Congress called “Congress”. The Congress had a President who was more of a figurehead, a Parliamentarian. The most powerful official in this United States was arguably the governor of the most populous, prosperous member state. The Congress itself resolved disputes between states, thereby suspending (on occasion) its legislative duty to serve as a de facto executive branch. A group of Federalists (including George Washington) were starting to see the need for some backbone and order to their bold-but-fledgling Democratic experiment.

By 1787, things were visibly falling apart. States were ripping in to one another with law suits, military veterans were rioting for back pay and Barbary pirates were threatening Americans who refused to fund a US Navy. Trade-wise, foreign governments were playing states against one another and gaining a decided advantage. This dismal state of affairs brought top aide Alexander Hamilton to prominence – he argued successfully that the Articles should be replaced by a U.S. Constitution and that a strong Federal government should be established. Even the most devoted States’ Rights supporters had to admit the Articles were not cutting it... It’s a great statement about our founders that they could admit a mistake and right the situation early on. How many other countries have such a capacity for humble self-correction and redirection? While the USA hatched out a bicameral legislature, France had a Reign of Terror followed by an Emperor.

It’s amazing that Southerners, Dixiecrats and many of the current “Tea Party” look fondly to this questionable Paradise Lost. The European Union of 2011 appears to be held together with Scotch tape and Elmer’s glue … it may suit them to read some American history. To borrow from a 1990’s cliché – we’ve been there and done that. The other very necessary shoe didn’t drop until 124 years after the 1789 Constitution was drafted. In 1913 the Federal Income Tax and Federal Reserve System was put in place to help secure the money supply, protect against panics and fund the Federal government. It may not have served all these purposes as expertly as we'd like, but it has helped immeasurably in strengthening a robust, truly United States that acts as one power when it matters.

© 2011 blogSpotter

The M Word

Romney at Battle Creek - Picture courtesy of Wikipedia

by blogSpotter
I haven’t done an election piece for a while. Thought I would weigh in on a few things as 2011 draws to a close. Today’s topic is Mitt Romney but I’d like to address a couple of small “nits” first …

Dallas' NBC 5 and its love affair with Rick Perry

I’ve noticed that NBC 5 and the Dallas Morning News run prominent Rick Perry stories every day now. These are nice, softball pieces that show up in on the front page of DMN or the top of NBC 5’s news hour. I’d like to inform these two news agencies that Rick Perry being from Texas does not mean that all Texans are pulling for him. I felt sorry for Perry when he had his (now historic) brain freeze in one debate, forgetting which federal agencies he’d cancel. But more generally when the man opens his mouth he says something appalling – that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme or ending Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell is a violation of Christian morality. I think that if DMN and NBC 5 want to continue running commercials for Rick Perry they should either (1) charge him standard rates for the coverage or (2) give equal time to other candidates. A Texas upbringing is a minor, negligible factor in which candidate is best.

Mark Davis and his hatred of immigrants

Mark Davis, in his 11/30 DMN editorial railed against illegal Mexican immigrants. He compared an illegal immigrant to a bank robber or other serious felon. Really Mark? You’re going to follow that line of illogic? A poor Mexican father of four is probably doing what any “market actor” does – he looks for the job that offers the best salary and benefits. That’s probably what Mark Davis does when signing on with a news program or talk show. Yes, the immigrant may violate US immigration law – does that make him equivalent to a bank robber? Our (Anglo) forefathers came from Ireland, England and Western Europe for much the same motivations as Mexican immigrants. There was a huge, paranoid outcry at the turn of the last century, much like now. I will close this topic by saying that immigrant contributions far exceed what they might cost in social services. Conservatives need to quit looking for hapless scapegoats when Wall Street is much more the problem with our current economy in the dumps. Pick on someone your own size. And President Obama -- tear down that fence along the Rio Grande.

The Trouble with Mitt

Now that Newt Gingrich has overtaken Romney in all the polls, people are wondering how and why. Newt has been described as an ego-maniacal, grandiose windbag with a short fuse, no less. He’s also said to be charming, brilliant and fascinating – none of these traits preclude each other. The essential verdict from pundits who know Newt is that he’s an amazing man who probably shouldn’t be President due to a non-Presidential temperament. Mitt Romney on the other hand is like the devoted High School valedictorian – he’s a picture of discipline, self-control and temperate thoughts. He’s done all the homework. Romney has also succeeded well in business though he modestly keeps his $200,000,000 net worth out of his “humble” biography.

Magazines and talking head shows have pointed to a couple of main things in analyzing Romney… he’s a flip-flopper on issues, he prevailed over a “socialist” government health care plan (“Romneycare” in Massachusetts), and he’s seen as too liberal by the extreme-right GOP. These things may all be true, but we’ve put other flawed men into office – men with heavy baggage and far less to recommend them (e.g., Nixon’s 2nd term, Bush after the Iraq fiasco). What people (and the media in particular) tip-toe around is the fact that Romney is a devout Mormon. “M” in my title is not Mitt – it’s Mormon. Mainstream deep-south Protestants view the Mormon Church as a cult. This might not be as it should be – how unpleasant is the topic of intolerance. This is what is.

When JFK ran for President in 1960, his Catholicism was an issue – would he be taking orders from the Pope? Political Correctness hadn’t yet put the stranglehold of an overfed boa constrictor on our society. The topic was allowed to be broached and even discussed at length. When discussion was allowed, the silliness of the original proposition was fully apparent. Kennedy made it clear that he would be foremost a U.S. President, for all Americans. What is disturbing in 2011 is that a significant viewpoint probably knocks all the ex-Confederate states out of Romney’s support column. And that viewpoint is a forbidden topic. Conservative Texans, when asked why they don’t like Romney, will pussyfoot all the way around the sagebrush… he’s “too liberal…a Rockefeller Republican”.. Translation …. “There is no way in Hell that I’d ever vote for a Mormon cultist”. This blog’s author sees Christianity and Mormonism as similar types of cults. One simply has more history and infrastructure surrounding it. In 2012, we’ve closed the door on the discussion because it might lead to another discussion about religion. Now is the PC moment for all of us to clear our throats uncomfortably and change the subject.

But let’s just put the 2012 GOP race into perspective. Because of all the weirdness in this year’s candidates it’s indeterminate what will happen. Bachman developed crazy eyes, Rick Perry forgot his lines and Herman Cain had bimbo eruptions. But it’s looking like Mitt will not be the guy either – for a reason that in 2012 “dare not speak its name” – religion and cults.

© 2011 blogSpotter

When Breaking Bad is Good

A touch of evil? - Picture courtesy of AMC

by blogSpotter
On my Apple TV, I frequently surf over to Netflix and check out what’s new. New on Netflix means new to Netflix. I stumbled upon the 2008 AMC television series Breaking Bad, and was intrigued by the disheveled image of Bryan Cranston on the series publicity poster. How did this humdrum sitcom dad from Malcom in the Middle fetch 3 Emmys as a “broken bad” teacher-turned-meth-cook? I watched the first episode and was hooked.

Let me preface that crime dramas are not my usual thing – I find them usually to be very cliché and the characters struggle to get past two dimensions. Breaking Bad breaks past many of the crime drama limitations in a most pleasing, daring way. The director, Vince Gilligan, is a young “artsy fartsy” film school grad from NY University whose previous writing credits are X Files, Hancock and Home Fries. X Files is probably the unlikely progenitor of Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad isn’t sci-fi but it ties our mundane reality into a surreal landscape of grizzled drug lords, cold-blooded, axe-wielding hit men and mid-air plane explosions.

The stunning, stark beauty of Albuquerque New Mexico provides the backdrop to this series, strongly flavored with Hispanic culture. The stucco buildings and azure, southwest sky offer a strangely precise punctuation to all that happens – every chilling, twist and turn in the life of Walter White – our chemistry teacher turned drug aficionado. I’ve been to New Mexico a few times and long to go back after watching this show (albeit not working in the meth business).

Breaking Bad will challenge your many precepts about right and wrong or good and evil. You find yourself rooting for the meth dealers and seeing law enforcement as plodding, pedantic pains in the ass. In some ways the show is a black comedy and the moral role-reversals call to mind the authority-dinging dialog in a John Waters movie (say, Female Trouble) or a David Lynch miniseries (such as Twin Peaks). The sly, crooked lawyer Saul Goodman is like an archangel who alights just in time, every time to save Jesse and Walt from jail or worse.

Of course every Faustian bargain begets another, larger one and one can’t help but know down at the bottom of it all – selling meth is wrong. Something bad is going to befall these men who are breaking bad; it’s the law of the cinema but also the law of common sense. None the less, you’ll want to climb into Walt’s beat up Pontiac Aztec and go for a criminal joy ride. The acting in this series is both subtle and superb. I can’t single out everyone or each actor’s name. Let’s just say that wife Skyler, son Walter Jr., lawyer Saul and brother-in-law Hank all add very convincingly to the action. I entertain in my head where they might steer the next episode – it’s very witty, fast-paced and intense.

I’m only on Season 3, so am not wanting to see spoilers or delve too far ahead. I know that when the series is done I’ll put everything back into its proper perspective… “Meth is bad. DEA agents are good”… I hear that Walt becomes more maniacal and greedy in future episodes. Power corrupts, and so it probably must be with our main character. I’ll hold on to see what happens – a reported Season 5 (2012) finale will bring it all to a conclusion. If you have AMC or Netflix, tune in to this most amazing series (dubbed by some critics as the best TV drama ever) and you won’t be disappointed.

© 2011 blogSpotter