The American Patriot

Posted on Paul Krugman’s The Conscience of a Liberal

Aye, decadant corporate culture and dwindling ethics were the root of problem.  We need a new spirit of progressive regulation to counter future abuses such as these, but that won’t dig us out of the hole that were in.  As far as solving our current economic problems, I would advocate a relatively Keynesian approach: a large increase of governmen -targetted in strategic places such as infrastructure and alternative-energy development.  The government’s approach to send everyone a tax refund check will only provide a termporary bump, in my opinion, as so few consumer goods are produced here in America.  Rather it would be much more efficient for the government to directly invest in America.

http://ronburgandy.learnerblogs.org/2008/02/24/which-score-is-worth-more/#comment-25

http://sheeqmeister.learnerblogs.org/2008/02/20/no-country-for-old-employees/#comment-12

http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/11/125821/542/12#12

http://ithink.learnerblogs.org/2008/02/05/clockwork-christians-and-presidential-politics/#comment-104

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Al_Gores_vote.html#comments (awaiting approval)

 ”I agree with the possibility of Al Gore being nominated at the convention.  Right now I think the chances of Clinton or Obama reaching the apx. 2000 delegates very slim.  Al Gore is one of the great statesmen of the Democratic Party, a giant of the great issues of the day, especially the environment. 

Quite a while back the famous satirical fake news publication, The Onion, released an article announcing that the EPA (or Environmental Protection Agency) was dropping the “E” and “P” from its name. Its administrator Stephen L. Johnson justified the decision by explaining “We’re not really ‘environmental’ anymore, and we certainly aren’t ‘protecting’ anything,” and that “‘The Agency’ is a name that reflects our current agenda and encapsulates our new function as a government-funded body devoted to handling documents, scheduling meetings, and fielding phone calls.” The joke underlies a sad truth about the EPA during the presidency of George W. Bush. It has failed in its mission to protect Americans and our posterity from abuses of the environment.

The EPA was created in 1970 by Richard Nixon who sought to create an independent entity of the United States government that would “make a coordinated attack on the pollutants which debase the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that grows our food.” As a part of the executive branch, it sets and enforces environmental regulations throughout the country. Thus the problem of the EPA under Bush is twofold, first is the setting of lax standards, and 2nd is the lack of enforcement of the standards that are set.

Studies have shown that lax standards exist in regards to potent pollutants such as arsenic, tritium, ozone, and formaldehyde present in the environment.  These and other chemicals can serve to cause great damage or even lethally harm humans.  In one occurance the EPA have allowed power plants to exploit a loophole in mercury regulations, allowing the leakage of mercury into the environment at levels directly outlawed by by the Clean Air Act.  And even the meager standards set by the EPA in this era are not being matched in practice, because of poor enforcement of rules and regulations.   Violation notices have dropped 58% compared to Clinton’s Presidency, and penalties in the forms of fines, referals, and civil prosecution dropped significantly in the beginning years of Bush’s presidency, as the transformation of the EPA was affected.

The problem is not a mere apathy towards environmental problems on behaf of President Bush but often instances of direct intervention by him to manipulate the EPA to serve business interests.  Robert Kennedy discussed several instances of putting business before environment in his essay on the failures of the EPA.  It points out the administration saw that Halliburtor, the former company of Vice President Dick Cheney and important GOP campaign contributor, was exempted from oversight over their hydraulic fracturing process, which was found to leak the highly carcinogenic benzene into the water supply.  Another example is the new EPA policy of giving credits to developers who drain wetlands and replace them with golf courses, houses and other suburban sprawl, as a result of a study sponsored by, amusingly, developers, which claimed that wetlands discharge more pollutants than they take in.  This ridiculous thesis contradicts everything ever concluded on wetland effect on the environment; any environmental scientist can expound upon the crucial role of wetlands in cleaning toxins and impurities from the water supply and also beign a key center of biodiversity.  Environmental advocates within the organization are in despair over the innability of the EPA to affect positive environmental change, with one employee who felt he was being pressured by the upper levels of the organization to stem enforcement of environmental regulations stating “It’s very discouraging.  We’re concerned about people’s health. We have a job that we’re supposed to be doing and we’re not doing it. And we should be.” 

Especially egregious is when the EPA becomes an engine for ending environmental protection by other groups.  This has accelerated in the past few years under the administration of Stephen L. Johnson.  Bush seems to have decided that his first administrator Christine Todd Whitman’s incompetence on environmental issues (see 9/11 pollutant scandle) would not suffice and that he wanted someone who would directly attack the cause of environmentalism.  Early in Johnson’s administration the EPA delayed the release of a report on loopholes in car fuel efficiency regulations to right after the passage of the controversial 2005 energy bill.  Likely this report would have caused the amendment of the bill to reform fuel efficiency regulations, and thus its delay seems a direct attempt to undermine this.  In the news recently is the EPA decision to block California and 16 other states from implementing restrictions on C02 emissions.  In these stories the EPA seems to live up to the comical depiction as the ”The Agency” as portrayed by The Onion. 

President Bush’s subversion of the EPA underscores a general adversion and disrespect to the institutions of science during his Presidency.  The pattern of replacing scientists and practical-minded civil servants with business interests and aloof bureaucrats has occured again and again.  It is part of a cynical business ideology that the people, out of their ignorance and apathy, will sit idly as big business rapes our resources and pollutes our environment for their own gain.  For the sake of our nation, we must take action.  Luckily for us, all of the major contenders for President in 2008 -Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama, and John McCain- promise to be great improvements on environmental matters over the previous President.  With their choice of (hopefully) a progressive-minded EPA Administrator on Day I of the job -and thus a new direction in the department-, we will see their commitment come to fruition.

With the words “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America,” a loose and diverse confederation of states enacted a new constitution creating a federal union of states. Times were changing, and the former colonists realized that a new form of government was necessary to face these new problems. While a confederacy could actually sustain a fight against the seemingly titanic struggle against the British, establishing economic stability and national defense after the British were defeated would prove too much for it; this is because in the struggle for independence most people and states submitted to the common cause of defeating the British, wheras when the British were repelled competing political factions and states saw no need to maintain this virtuous character. Thus, popular uprisings such as Shay’s Rebellion arose, states engaged in economically destructive behavior such as levying tariffs on each other and wildly printing paper money, and also individual governments left war debts unpaid. However, as stated above, our leaders endeavored to establish a better government, suceeding with the constutition ratified in 1789. We should be very grateful that our nation’s political leaders possesed the statesmanship to move from the revolutionary phase to the nation-state phase, with was not sucessfully accomplished in countless other such situations. Now in 2008, I call upon another great show of statesmenship from our leaders. Because of the nature of the problems that confront us today, because of great benefits that could be reaped from such a plan, because America is the world’s best hope, I believe that we should form a Northern American Union, a democratic republic formed primarily from the nations of The United States, Canada, and Mexico.

There are many arguments for a North American Union, and even though this idea is a bit outside the mainstream many influential political groups advocate a much greater level of continental cooperation.  The Council for Foreign Relations, a towering force over U.S. foreign policy, has long advocated some North American integration.  It released a report recently entitled Building a North American Community, which broadly pointed out that the challenges of the 21st century require concurence in action and policy among the nations of North America.  The report notes that the security concerns of the post 9/11 world affect all three of the major nations of North America, and that we should shift our focus towards securing the external borders of North America as a whole.  It mentions that because of the flow of people (for example illegal immigrants moving from Mexico to the U.S.) economic problems within one nation can quickly become the problems of the rest of North America.  In addition, in the new economic world, fast and efficient movement of goods and people from place to place gives an economy a crucucial advantage.  Recognizing these realities in our new globalized world, the group proposes, among other policies, the establishment of a common security perimeter by 2010 and the development of a universal biometric border pass; the conversion of NORAD into a multiservice defense command and greater sharing of information between law enforcment agencies; the intensification of economic development and political reform in Mexico the expansion of the North American Development Bank; the development of a unified energy policy and the preservation of natural resources; the adoption of a common external tariff and the reform of NAFTA; the unification of regulatory policies and the creation of a new, more efficient transportation network.  If implemented, these policies would mark a great step in the right direction and pave the way for eventual unification.  They would secure our continent in the immediate, put it on track for a new golden age of economic prosperity, and leave a environmentally-stable world for our posterity.

However, I argue for an outright North American Union, which confers many advantages beyond cooperation between the three nations as seperate, sovereign entities.  Monetary policy is one such area, which Herbert G. Grubel expounds upon in his “The Case for the Amero.”  Adoption of the “Amero,” a term coined to represent a new currency eclipsing the U.S. and Canadian dollars and the Mexican peso, would benefit the continent in two basic ways.  First, there is the reduced need to trade currencies and thus also freedom from exchange rate uncertainties.  Any business done between two or more different nations must necessarily involve an exchange from one currency to another.  Business decisions, and also individual consumers and travellers, waste much time in the task of currency exchange.  More importantly businesses, because of the need for accurate forcasts on the value of the currency they hold as compared to others, rely upon large offices and even independent firms to predict currency flunctuations.  This currency market utilizes high skilled labor and much capital that could be put towards useful goods and services. Grubel, writing to fellow Canadians, estimates that the effect of the Amero on currency exchange would save his country about $800 Million dollars annually.  The U.S. would likely save even more.  Second, consolidation of insitutions providing for more efficient economic processes.  There is the matter of trade, which even though NAFTA is in place would likely expand further between the three countries with a streamlined currency.   Also, consumers will be more able to purchase goods from a larger market, thus forcing businesses to become more efficient in order to survive.  Furthermore, a larger currency base means a more stable one, and would help mitigate the forces that our causing our U.S. dollar to fall recently.

The specific case of the amero is the advantage of union most developed by research, but to it I will add several other arguments.   Economics would be profoundly affected by matters beyond those touched by currency unification.  The consolidation of redundant governmental agencies would save perhaps billions of dollars.  There’s also the benefits reaped by a government operating on a continental basis rather than three national ones, as we have the best minds of the continent working together to bring out the full potential of each former nation.  Enhanced security effectiveness could also be affected by transfering patrols protecting the borders between each country to protect the borders of the continent as a whole.  The political health of the entire continent would also be improved by unification.  James Madison, in his Federalist No. 10, masterfully rebuked the argument that democracy can only function at a small level by pointing out the potential damange to democracy created by the existance of factions, groups advancing a particular self interest rather than the common interest.  He pointed out that as diversity, numbers, and the distance over which a democracy operates increases, the influence of indivdual factions diminishes.   Thus a North American Union would push government towards submitting to the common good, rather than individual interests.

In terms of achieving the practical transformation of institutions and governments, we do have a ready model in the development of Europe into a modern superstate, which began with the formation of the European Economic Community in 1957.  In addition to free trade, Europe has also created currency unification and regulatory and judicial unification to some degree.  The benefits of this are obvious, as the Euro has soared past the dollar in value and Europe’s economy is also in excellent shape.  London is overtaking New York for the status of world economic capital.  If we wish to take a place among the great powers of the new, global era we must imitate their efforts.  And while currently Europe is still composite of sovereign states, its progress in unification in the economic and judicial sphere point to a model by which North America can advance, and perhaps by the time we begin planning for full unification Europe will have already completed the process.

I was suprised to find that running the phrase “North American Union” through google yieled a long slew of isolationist rants and conspiracy theories that overwhelmed the serious discussion or research.  A typical result is this World Net Daily article, reacting with horror to the words of American University Profesor Robert Pastor on a potential union.  Authors use fear-inspiring demagouguery to attack the idea.  They claim that it is an attempt by the elite to subvert America’s democratic institutions and suppress the middle class, that it will destroy American’s cultural institutions by releasing “hordes of immigrants,” and that it will result in a great loss of America’s wealth.  All of these concerns are mistaken, in my opinion.  Regarding the allegation that this change is one propagated by an elite group for their own benefit, I would argue that history tends to show us that the opponents of progress are that entrenched elite who benefit from the inefficiencies or injustices of the current system.  As to the pernicious attitude among many Americans that leads to such conclusions as “a gain for Mexico is a loss for the U.S.”  We have to realize that the truth is quite the opposite; that our economic relations with our neighbors are not zero-sum situations.  Rather, as a continent, as an economic community, we will suceed together or we will fail together.  And as to rampant Mexican immigration and degredation of American culture, I would argue that the bringing of more competent governance to Mexico will greatly stem the side of emigrants seeking solace from Mexican corruption and poverty, and that with the unification of our nations we have the best chance at bridging the divisions between hispanic and anglo society and creating a “melting pot” situation.
Robert Pastor declared that a new 9/11 scale disaster could force the formation of a North American Union, but why should we wait for such a crisis?  Instead, we should take the initiative today and unite to not only avoid economic, environmental, military disaster that potentially awaits us but create a new society which will be greater and more prosperous than ever.

Anyone who listens to the mainstream media knows that American politics is defined by a sharp division between left and right, liberal and conservative, democrat and republican.  One side is characterized as in favor of social spending, high taxation, environmental protection, gun control, seperation of church and state while the other side takes the opposite positions.  A politician, and generally even a voter, takes a place on this one-dimensional chart of political opinion.  The left right dichotomy itself dates back to the convening of the estates at the eve of the French Revolution, with reactionary supporters of the nobility on the right side and radical members of the bourgeios on the left.  Politics in that era, though certainly of a high intellectual calibre, was not as refined as became in the suceeding centuries, and could indeed be described as a contest between republicanism and monarchism, in its many forms, whether it be federalism vs. republicanism in the early U.S., Tory vs. Whig in Britain, or First/Second Estate vs. Third Estate in France.  However, since then government has transformed greatly, with scores of new political philosophies and ideologies erupting, making left vs. right an anachronism.  I’m not sure why the media and culture has latched on those terms so fervently.  Perhaps it is a matter of simplicity; some say the corporate overlords of the media use it as a method of skewing national political dynamics in order to propogate their own interests.  Either way, I think it is quite deleterious to our democracy to pigeonhole politics in such a way, as it has contributed to voter apathy, public cynicism, and poor government in the few decades.

One alternative to the 1-dimensional political approach is a 2-dimensional approach, most often one that divides the economic and social (or cultural) spheres.  Issues such as abortion, gun control, civil liberties are set apart from issues such as taxes, education, and healthcare.  David Nolan formed such a chart, shown below.

Nolan used this chart as a propaganda tool in furthering the Libertarian Party, and it has since become very popular with other libertarian advocates.  They would portray libertarianism as standing for freedom in all sceptres, as opposed to the current political parties advocating only “partial freedom.”  Libertarianism is set opposite to totalitarianism, a word with strong negative connotations in the minds of Americans.  The Libertarian Party itself is a small politial movement, however they claim, through slipshod polling based on Nolan’s chart, that a great proportion of Americans share their views.

Now, in my opinion, libertarianism is inherently flawed in that it views the state as the only vehicle for oppression. Libertarianism also ignores an entire side of liberty. It only considers negative liberties such as the right to property, the right to free speech, etc.., so called because they are liberties that can be stolen rather than granted. It failes to consider positive liberties, such as the right to an education or the right to equal opportunity, which are granted rather than stolen.  I would, from a communitarian perspective, argue that ensuring these positive liberties are as essential to a person as ensuring negative liberites, and that without the existence of a strong society and community, negative liberties can never be protected.

Returning to the point about our national political dynamics, the general tenor of American politics in the last two decades has been a contest between the left (upper-left quadrant) and the right (bottom-right quadrant).  Before that period it was more so a contest between populism vs. libertarian, with the Democrats representing the former and the Republicans representing the latter.  With the shift in political alignment we have seen a dismal era of politics and government, being responsible, in my opinion, for the election of many incompetent politicians who were elected out of the political paralysis.  When wedge issues such as abortion and gay marriage dominate the debate, we see a decline in real quality of policy.  In 2006 we saw some hope, however, as a coalition of Democrats united by economic populism made sweeping gains in the midwest and mountain west.  It is my hope that the Democratic Party will return to its former position in its choice of Presidential nominee in 2008, and thereby gain the confidence of the American people and lead our nation into new prosperity.

January 21, 2008: a mysterious internet hacker group known as “Anonymous” announced the destruction of the Church of Scientology.  The announcement was made via youtube video, and has since been viewed over 1,500,000 times.  Anonymous claimed that Scientology would be systematically expelled from the internet in all form, and it would then proceed to wreck havoc on the internal structure of the church.  Indeed for two days after the beginning of the attack the Scientology official website was shutdown.  Internet based attacks have been temporarily called off, and February 10 has been set as the date as which a number of protests will be held at Scientologist Churches across the U.S., perhaps coupled with a renewed internet attack.  Regardless, most people would probably be confused by this entire conflict, knowing little about the mysterious Church of Scientology other than what they hear about Tom Cruise on the news, and also not understanding this coalition of hackers, online communities, and ordinary system that has arisen to combat the church.  By disecting the history and nature of the Scientology church and also the psychology and ideology of its most fervent opponents I will explain how this conflict came into existence, evolved into all out war, and its impact on society in the future.

First, to the history of the Church of Scientology itself, an enigma of an organization.  In 1950 L. Ron Hubbard, a failed soldier and science fiction author, published the book Dianetics in which he presented a sweeping alternative to modern medicine and psychiatry.  Dianetics utilized bizarre techniques centered around the process of “auditing” which used an “E-meter,” a device which measures electrical resistance in the human body (and was declared in 1971 by the Supreme Court to have “no proven usefulness in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease”). 

Dianetics was soundly rejected by the mainstream science community.  With the failure of presenting his ideas in the context of a medical care system, Hubbard met with his supporters in 1953 and declared the creation of a new Church of Scientology.  This group espoused most of the same practices of Dianetics, coupled with new theology and doctrine.  Each person is an immortal being, called a Thetan, according to Scientology.  The source of all evil the corruption of a person’s body with alien spirits, who have lingered on earth ever since Xenu, an evil leader of a Galactic Confederacy brought billions of people to the volcanoes of earth and then detonated hydrogen bombs.  The Scientologist Church is very rigidly structured, and one must obtain the rank of “Operative Thetan Level III,” to discover the divine truth that is the story of Xenu (naturally money helps in advancing up the ranks).  Such were the promises of this new religion that at its inception Hubbard proclaimed “a civilization without insanity, without criminals and without war, where the able can prosper and honest beings can have rights, and where man is free to rise to greater heights.”

So far I have painted Scientology as a organization of fools, but benign fools none the less.  The truth is worse than this, though.  Scientology is scarred by a long history of malicious actions toward innocent individuals and manipulative, dangerous tactics.  The organization has abused copyright and trademark laws in order to consolidate their control over their “religion” and also to silence criticism in the press.  In 1995 they sued the Washington Post after the newspaper printed an article describing the inner practices of the church, claiming copyright infringement.  Masquerading as a religion, this organization has gained tax-exempt status from the IRS, furthering its wealth.  They continue to use freedom of religion as an excuse for some of their more questionable practices.  But Scientology’s methods are not just in the perversion of the law, but also in the full subversion of it.  In 1967 L. Ron Hubbard declared FAIR GAME, meaning that the declared enemies of the Church, called “suppressive persons…may be deprived of property or injured by any means….may be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.”  Later Hubbard would on record recant on this position, but the precedent was set, and FAIR GAME continued in practice.  Critics of Scientology have been harased, financially ruined through conspiracy and, according to some critics, killed.  Press, groups, and individuals publicly criticizing the church are slandered or libeled by the church in order to discredit them.  Scientology’s many practices and “medical services” are wrought with fraud, and Scientologist outposts accross the world have been convicted of bribing public officials, embezzlement, coercion, and violating labor laws.  Their own members are often horribly mistreated, and the hidden financial obligations of the lower echelons of the organization make Scientology seem like a pyramid scheme.  Years before he started scientology, Hubbard reportedly said “I’d like to start a religion. That’s where the money is.”  Scientology exceeded his wildest dreams.

Scientology vs. the Internet began in 1994 a series of anonymous messages were posted on the news discussion forum “alt.religion.scientology.”  The newsgroup was a place of criticism of Scientology.  The messages, supposedly from a member of the organization, outlined the story of Xenu as described previously.  In response to this a church lawyer peitioned the usenet server to shutdown the group.  Though this was ignored by the server, it prompted an uproar in the internet community.  The internet sensation became a real life conflict whenever on February 13, 1995 federal marshals accompanied by scientologist lawyers raided the homes of several individuals who had posted internal documents and files.  However no one was sucessfully prosecuted and the website only saw its popularity explode.  Scientology then began trying to shut down it and other discussion groups, spamming it with fake articles.  This petty internet effort expanded into flooding internet search engines with pro Scientology pages, so that sites critical of Scientology would be unfindable.  The pattern of internet leak of Scientology information or some other form of ridicule followed by Scientology legal proseuction or threats also continued for a decade.

Then on January 16, 2008 a video was leaked which featured a secret interview with Tom Cruise for members of Scientology.  Church lawyers responded by issuing a copyright violation claim against Youtube for hosting the video.  This action prompted the shady Anonymous group to appear out of the shadows and announce to the world that it would no longer tolerate the what it described as “campaigns of misinformation; suppression of dissent…. litigious nature.”  Anonymous had been previously known only for technological pranks, but in this action the group takes upon lofty goals such as freedom of speech and rectifying other moral injustices committed by Scientology.  They combined with Project Chanology, a group more oriented towards non-hackers, who encouraged such actions as prank calls, black faxes, and phony letters to lawyers and politicians postmarked to local Scientology offices.  On January 24, a major assault was launched against the official Church of Scientology website and also those of local chapters.  The attack was clumsy, however, causing collateral damage in the form of a few innocent websites and servers being targetted, and was ended two days later.  On January 28 another video was released, which argued against claims that Anonymous was merely several hackers engaging in bullying and pointed to the broad nature of the people supporting the movement.  It  set the February 10 date mentioned earlier as the time for widespread protests.  Who knows whether this movement will fizzle over, or whether it will explode into a cyberwar and consumate legal battle.

I bring up this story not because of the gravity of the situation, though I personally would like to see the “Church” of Scientology collapse, but rather because it parallels a situation that is beginning to be played out on the world geopolitical scale.  The People’s Democratic Republic of China (which is neither of the people nor a Democratic Republic) is growing rapidly in power.  Coinciding with a dismal era of leadership over the United States right now, some claim that the country will soon rival the U.S. in power, and end our status as sole superpower of the world.  To some degree, they have gained this newfound position through questionable tactics.  Economically, they take a coercive approach towards neighbors and manipulate their currency in a way that deepens the U.S. trade deficit.  Their foreign policy is very aggressive, pursuing alliances and arms and trade deals wherever they can be found, regarldess of the morality of the situation.  Their nation itself is very repressive politically.  With this new era of economic growth, however, I would have thought China would have westernized.  They have not.  They have cell phones and McDonalds, but their people seem to be content in servility, and this worries me.  The nation is like a machine, like the oriental empires of old, and what forces of freedom and liberty are there to stand against it?  Combined with the forces of radical islam (which they have united themselves with to some degree), Chinese power is a force to be reckoned with in this new age.  The Islamo-Chinese is a resurgance of the old eastern ways, trying to reclaim ascendency over western civilization.  We are in an environment of globalization right now, on track to a New World Order based upon reason, prosperity, and opportunity for all -a higher calling for manking.  Perhaps in the end, to obtain uptopia we will have to defeat this waxing power.

Also worth mentioning is the army of hackers and cyberwarriors that China is gathering right now.  The U.S. has no such counter operation, and I thought perhaps this recent uniting of the computer gurus of America would be an excellent opportunity for the U.S. Defense Department to modernize itself and form an official arm of operations relating to cyberwar.  Perhaps the Salamis or Marathon of the future will be fought in cyberspace.

Sina delenda est.

The failure of the Auberge de Jehan Cottard job to materialize into a more comfortable, secure job for Orwell and Boris was sadly predictable.  It is incredible that the dreary world of the Hotel X can be looked at fondness from the perspective of this new pit of a lifestyle.  The hours are unbearable and the lack of pay are leading to approaching starvation for Orwell.  As the ship is sinking Boris is caught up in his delusion of achieving a position of relative prestige in the hotel and restaurant. 

Hope would seem to appear as Orwell contacts a friend for a job, and an escape from the slumlife and chronic poverty, in England.  Before this takes place Orwell launches into a discourse upon his experiences in the life of a plongeur, and reveals some very piercing insights.  He compares their place to that of slaves, and convincingly so, and also in these statements reveals something of his fledgling political opinions, which would be strongly relfected in latter works such as 1984 and Animal Farm. 

Once arriving in England Orwell comes upon a horrible reality, and that is the life of affluence he was expecting is not present.  This, for me, has a stronger impact than the conditions at Paris, because while at Paris he always had the trump card of returning to London and utilizing his intellectual abilities.  However he has revealed his cards, and has come up empty.  London poverty was a different sort of experience for him.  It is certainly more stable a world than that in Paris, but having less of the revelry and rich companionship and therefore somewhat more bleak.  I am gladly awaiting to see what kind of experiences he will find and interesting characters he will meet here.

1. How convincing do you think Orwell’s efforts to place himself in a situation of poverty are, considering that he has many talents that he could utilize to regain comfort and affluence back in England?

2. What do you think of the prospects of The Auberge?

3. What do you think of the way Orwell has portrayed the fluidity and seeming shallowness of the political allegiences and views held by the commoners?

I don’t know why that in an election season where the candidate dwarfing the others in proposed policy reforms is the symbol of status quo, the candidate advocating a regressive transformation of our tax system is the next William Jennings Bryan, and the two candidates with the most foreign policy experience were ignored by the major pundits, I should be suprised to see a phrase as foul as the “Bush-Clinton years” emerge.

Of course the mistakes and distortions made by the mainstream media this election season are the continuation of a trend of declining quality of news.  And the media has rarely treated Clinton in particular in a fair light in her history of politics, erupting with glee over her loss in Iowa.  Still, I can’t help feeling a singular frustration every time I hear the phrase “Bush-Clinton,” refering to the alternation of either a Bush or Clinton in the Presidency or Vice Presidency from the years 1981 to 2009.  28 years of history -and Presidential administration- are brazenly combined under a single appellation designed to link Hillary (and Bill) Clinton to the dismal status that our nation is currently in.

You see, the “Bush-Clinton” years are really a tale of two Presidencies -two distinct eras.  The Presidency of Bill Clinton was marked with comparative peace, domestic tranquility and and the longest economic expansion in U.S. history, atonishingly balancing low unemployment and low inflation.  He accmplished all of this while eventually bringing the federal budget into a surplus, putting us on track to substantially reduce the national debt.  The notion that Bill Clinton and his Presidency are baggage to Hillary Clinton is ridiculous - fairy tales invented by the media.  The American people know the difference between the two -they can feel it in their wallet, and the vast majority of them approve of Clinton’s presidency.  George W. Bush, on the other hand, derailed our nation’s journey towards a new age of prosperity.  He somehow squandered Clinton’s surplus while sending the American economy into several years of dismal performance.  The Iraq War, with all of its blunders, can be described as one of the greatest foreign policy fiascos in American history.  4 out of 5 people want a new direction from the Bush administration, so it is natural that the opponents of Hillary Clinton would want to link her to him.

Far from continuing on this desolate road, Hillary Clinton has proposed plans that would allow the middle class to renew itself stronger than ever, plans that would achieve a new era of alternative energy, plans that would revitalize the national economy, and plans that would ensure access to quality healthcare and education to every American.  After her decisive victory in the New Hampshire, she declared a new “American Comeback.”

It is ironic that the phrase originated in the right-wing, representing their dissapointment over the halting of conservative advances during the term of George H.W. Bush and early in Bill Clinton’s term.  And if the phrase is continued to be abrasively employed by the media, it will serve to drive massive droves of people away from Clinton in the general election, if she is nominated.  Considering that she is the one with the clearest and most feasible plan for steering our country from the disasterous course set by the Bush administration, such a misconception causing her loss would be a tragedy.

American history provides many striking examples of great words uttered to move to the minds of men. Oratory -the art of public speaking- is a tediously crafted art that involves a vast plethora of rhetoric devices. These devices enrich oratory and give it the impact to sway opinion and emotion. The following are 5 exerts from famous American orations that contain rhetorical devices.

Anaphora in Patrick Henry’s “Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death” speech delivered March 23, 1775
If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon, until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight!

Parallelism in Alexander Hamilton’s “On The Adoption of the Federal Constitution” delivered June 24, 1788
It should be so formed as to be the center of political knowledge, to pursue always a steady line of conduct, and to reduce every irregular propensity to system.

Parenthesis in Andrew Jackson’s 2nd Inaugural Address delivered March 24, 1833
So many events have occurred within the last four years which have necessarily called forth—sometimes under circumstances the most delicate and painful—my views of the principles and policy which ought to be pursued by the general government.

Scesis Onomaton in Thomas H. Benton’s “On the Expunging Resolution” deliverd January 12, 1837
Great is the influence, great the power, greater than any man ever before possessed in our America, which he has acquired over the public mind.

Analogy in John C. Calhoun’s “On The Clay Compromise Measures” delivered March 4, 1850
It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be effected by a single blow. The cords which bind these States together in one common Union are far too numerous and powerful for that. Disunion must be the work of time. It is only through a long process, and successively, that the cords can be snapped until the whole fabric falls asunder. Already the agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the most important, and has greatly weakened all the others.
If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increased intensity, as has been shown, will finally snap every cord, when nothing will be left to hold the States together except force.

Each of these speeches had marked impact upon the times and settings in which they were delivered. Henry incited patriotic feelings among the colonists, Hamilton delivered the important New York to the federalist column, Jackson endeared himself to the common man, Benton struck chords of respect among his Senate colleagues for President Jackson, and Calhoun impassioned the Southern “fire-eater” faction that eventually sought secession. Such eloquent oration as employed by these statesmen is rarely seen in today’s democracy, to the detriment of the health of it as an institution in this nation.

New topic is “The Promise of Nuclear Power in America.”

 http://blog.tomevslin.com/2005/04/its_time_to_go_.html

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1280884,00.html

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-56/iss-12/p34.html

http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/04/greenpeace_foun.html