Merry Christ’s Day, to one and all. May your heart be full of joy and your world know peace. Mourn with those who mourn and share the burdens of others, that in the sharing of pain we uncover strange joys.
Sing We the Virgin Mary
Leave a reply
Author Archives: deanwebb
Joyeux Noel
I love this film. It has been criticized for a sentimental bent and for not being as biting as Kubrick’s Paths of Glory, but the film still has a punch to it, before and after the quiet dignity of a moment of peace celebrated in the middle of a war.
There really was a Christmas Truce in 1914, and I see it as one of the most glorious moments of history, no matter how brief it may have been. The film looks at the consequences of the truce, and that’s the part that speaks volumes in its subtlety.
Basically, after the truce happened, the generals in charge realized that fighting would not happen, which would spoil their lovely little mindless war. There was absolutely no point to World War One, remember that. It was not a war to save anyone from anything. It was the ludicrous conclusion of jingoistic nineteenth-century nationalistic bombast. It was Europe attempting to commit suicide. It was a war that should have been cancelled. There was no justification for it at all, and there the soldiers were at the end of 1914, cancelling it. And that made the generals furious.
Soldiers were transferred to different fronts, units were disbanded, and officers were disciplined. In the film, all that is shown. It’s easy to shrug that off and say, “Oh well, no good deed goes unpunished. So what else is new?” The repercussions, however, are juxtaposed with the reverence and quiet joy of a mass celebrated in no-man’s land. That makes a key difference.
If peace on earth and good will to men are the words of Jesus – and truly, they’re also the words of Moses, Buddha, Zoroaster, Mohammed, and Lao Tzu – then what of the notion of “kill them all, every one?” Even if one rejects the notion of the existence of a Satan, the notion itself is a Satanic one. The governments and their state religions, educators, and civil servants in uniforms present an enemy to peace and good will. The men in those places hold power, and they use the threat of violence to compel otherwise good people to do things that maintain that power while exploiting or harming other people. This is something that was not unique to the world of the Great War. It is something that is a standard condition here on earth.
In essence, government is naturally the enemy of peace. In a blissful anarchy, it is the man who grabs a weapon to enforce his will that shatters the tranquility with the ugliness of despotism. Therefore, it is the duty of the righteous to provide an alternative to despotism in which justice and peace can prevail as much as possible for the people so governed. Sadly, what men can no longer seize from without they corrupt from within and what men created to ensure liberty and order becomes the very thing that destroys both. This message is conveyed quite clearly in the film.
Looking at the world of today, it is quite evident that no politician in the USA, not even my locally-elected representative, is truly working for the people. Each is beholden to interests that form a plutocratic oligarchy that I have no access to. To preserve the special privileges for those at the top, we here down below are made to suffer. It matters not who is in Congress or the Presidency or the Supreme Court: only those who will betray the poor in a Satanic bargain with the rich will be permitted to rule. The film shows that they will continue to do so, but hints to us all through the scenes of peace that there is a higher power and we are all accountable to it.
While those that promote the ideals of peace and good will are the dread enemies of the worldly power brokers, it is still worth promoting the ideals of peace and good will. One will never see massive wealth or great power through a policy of peace and good will, but why would one want that massive wealth or great power if it meant harming one’s fellow man? It is the Satanic bargain of murdering – even if only a little, through a lie or a cheat – to get gain versus the Godlike covenant of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you in order to have peace.
Educate Yourself, If You’ve Got Any Guts
When I was in the 8th grade, I found a biography about Frank Zappa. I read it and it changed my life. It changed my life because of this quote:
“Drop out of school before your mind rots from exposure to our mediocre educational system. Forget about the Senior Prom and go to the library and educate yourself if you’ve got any guts. Some of you like pep rallies and plastic robots who tell you what to read. Forget I mentioned it… Rise for the flag salute.” – Frank Zappa
I already didn’t like pep rallies, so this resonated with me. Then I thought about the “drop out… and go to the library” part. I knew dropping out wasn’t an option, but the library was right there. I took Mr. Zappa’s advice that day and resolved to educate myself. I decided I had the guts to do it.
30 years later, I’m glad I took that advice to heart. Never mind my college degree: my real education happened whenever a teacher went on a tangent, when I got a chance to listen in on a discussion, and when I got to hit the library. The best thing about the University of Texas at Austin was its massive library system. I used it. If there was something I wanted to learn, I made the time to get to the library and to read all about it. I didn’t necessarily need a class in a subject: after all, a class was pretty much reading books, listening to a professor rehash his own book, and taking a test. If I read the books on my own, what need was there to test to see if I’d read them? And if I read enough books, it would be like a graduate course, right?
With the advent of the Internet, I found it that much easier to continue my education. I hate seeing people sit and wonder about answers to questions while they wait for someone else to Google up the answer. Start with Google and Wikipedia, and see where it takes you, if you want to know the answers. They’re great places to start, but please make sure you don’t finish there.
Another key part of my self-education was the original 10-part series of James Burke’s Connections. The episodes are as vital today as they were when they first came out. If you haven’t seen them, you need to. Burke shows how anyone can teach himself or herself anything and then use that information to make his or her life better.
By “better,” I don’t necessarily mean making vast fortunes with huge inventions. I do mean keeping the wolf from the door through clever thinking and innovation. I mean having a good life through constant learning.
$7.77 Trillion of Your Money
Bloomberg has obtained documents under the Freedom of Information Act that show guys like the Bank of America executive lying through their teeth. The banks were telling customers and investors that they were sound and solvent and doing just fine while they were, collectively, desperately borrowing trillions to cling to life. And, you guessed it, the execs kept their bonuses coming with those dollars.
The Federal Reserve is supposed to help provide liquidity in distressed financial markets. I get that. But these documents show that the Fed was picking winners and losers as they made their loans. They kept some firms solvent just long enough to complete buyouts – Wachovia and Bear Stearns were two such Fed-sustained comatose corporations. The Fed and the banks kept the loans a secret during the crisis and only released their information under a FOIA request.
The question is if these revelations will result in real regulation for the branch of organized crime we euphemistically refer to as “the banking industry.” Given the fact that the banks still have loads of cash to pay armies of lobbyists and you don’t, I’m not very optimistic about this leading to changes.
Little Ivory Lies
The New York Fed posted an apology for not predicting the economic catastrophe that began in 2007-2008. Better late than never, right? Except this apology dodges responsibility…
The article describes how nobody could have foreseen the catastrophic events of 2007 and on. To be sure, nobody in the rational behavior, efficient market ivory towers could foresee them because their own ideology required that they be blind to market failures. They were weather forecasters that denied the existence of tornadoes and hurricanes; geologists that refused to admit that earthquakes can happen; doctors that could not imagine the possibility of an epidemic. They were useless, in a word.
No, they were worse than useless. They got politicians and academics alike to deny reality and to strip away protections that were necessary to keep disaster from happening. They encouraged a host of policies – subprime lending, home equity loans, no regulation for credit default swaps, et cetera, et cetera – that people not in power said would lead to disaster. Those who were in power became the biggest gang of criminals the world has seen by using their money and influence to have legislatures make their actions legal.
Many of us outside the government and outside the ivory towers saw the reality and knew we were in for a disaster. The double bubble in housing and government debt would lead to a major economic collapse. We called it. We couldn’t say precisely when, but it was obvious it was going to happen, and it did. We also made the call that Europe was coming apart economically and, well… see for yourself.
We live in an age of irresponsibility. People that hold power deny their mistakes with an arrogance that transcends logic. Heads do not roll. The intelligence failure of 9/11 cost more lives than jobs. The same can be said for the terrible destruction of New Orleans in the 2005 Hurricane. In this latest, economic disaster, the perpetrators of the crimes were, for the most part, rewarded. Madoff is doing time. Who else?
So the New York Fed issues its non-apology at 6PM on Black Friday… it’s even dodging the attention it should be enduring for shutting its eyes to the greatest financial disaster in 70 years. Worse, as an Economics teacher, I’m supposed to teach the stuff that got us into this mess like it’s accurate and useful. The establishment’s refusal to recant is particularly galling.
Irving Fisher was the biggest bull market booster in 1929. When he realized he was dead wrong, he abandoned his wrong ideas and developed a workable model for analyzing economic depressions. I can appreciate that. The current crowd has no such ability or desire to recant. It’s as mentally paralyzed as the Chinese Communist Party in the midst of the Great Leap Forward: ideology is more important than reality. We see this in the Fed and we see this in Congress. They tell us their little ivory lies, and even if we don’t believe them, we are bound by their vision.
Happy Thanksgiving, Wherever You Are
Not everyone is with family on this day we here in the USA take stock of our blessings and things to give thanks for. Take some time today to say hello and share a message of hope and gratitude. I know I’m thankful for the joys I’ve had this year and the obstacles I’ve overcome. Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Pelosi and Boehner: Speakers That Fall Silent
While they’re ready to blather on about their policy agenda, as soon as they’re asked about getting rich with actions that constitute insider trading for the rest of us, they lose their silver tongues. It’s legal for Congressmen to trade shares based on information they’re privy to through hearings. Why is it legal for them? Look at who makes the laws. Yeah.
While it’s legal, it looks sleazy. Neither Pelosi nor Boehner don’t want to own up to it, but their bank accounts and asset portfolios tell a different story. It’s both sides of the aisle, too. If anyone tries to turn this into some kind of partisan debate, I’m going to respond with a blast of his or her favorite Congressmen and all of their peccadilloes. ALL of them are crooks until proven innocent.
The fact is that this is only one aspect of the corruption that is endemic in all of Congress. Lobbyists, pork barrel spending, iron triangles, and revolving doors make a more complete picture. The real kick in the head is that I have to call corruption “other contributuions” or “other services” when coaching my students on how to write for the AP exam. Our curriculum is essentially blind to the fact that there is a gravy train that starts at Capitol Hill and extends clear across the Washington Mall and intervening streets to the White House.
A Three Stooges Guide to the Republican Presidential Candidates
If you’re not familiar with the Three Stooges, this whole article will go right over your head. If you’re a fan, this will make everything about the 2012 crop of GOP candidates make total sense.
I got this idea after seeing Rick Perry’s “Cornerstone” speech in which he really started to cut up. I thought, “wow, he really looks like Moe with a better haircut…” The similarities did not end there, so that’s where I’ll start.
Rick Perry as MOE
The similarity is uncanny. Both think they’re in charge of things, but the chaos surrounding them says otherwise. They like a firm approach to law and order and Perry’s execution record matches up eerily with Moe’s catchphrase, “Remind me to kill you later.” Both think they’re smarter than they sound.
Herman Cain as CURLY
Both have a lack of hair, both have a charming personality, and both are the most unpredictable members of their ensemble. Cain chants “Nine nine nine!” and Curly goes “Nyuk nyuk nyuk!” Cain was never a trained politician, and Curly was never trained as an actor. Cain has his accusations of impropriety and Curly also has a weakness for the ladies… Both are prone to bouts of rhyme. While Cain has had a few sharp outbursts to the press when they press him on matters he’s not comfortable, it is currently unknown if Cain will spin on the floor and attack bystanders like a berserker if he catches a whiff of Wild Hyacinth perfume or hears “Pop Goes the Weasel,” but if he does, Rick Perry and the Larry-Equivalent Rick Santorum should keep either a tassel or some Limburger cheese on hand to calm him down.
Rick Santorum as LARRY
Like Larry, Santorum has a dazed look, like he’s not completely aware of his surroundings. Yet, he’s there. By no means the most entertaining, it wouldn’t be the same without him. He lingers around, never challenging those around him without incurring massive retaliation… so he keeps quiet most of the time. Of all the candidates, Santorum is the one most likely to accidentally put his paint brush in a sandwich and drink paint like coffee without noticing the difference. That makes him the Larry of this gathering.
Mitt Romney as SHEMP
Of all the Stooges, Shemp had the most professional acting experience, and that seems to be the case with Romney. Shemp’s known as the “thinking man’s Stooge,” and Romney certainly appeals to the intellectual wing of the Republican party. Shemp never really caught on with the rough and tumble slapstick Stooge fans, and Romney definitely hasn’t ignited the imaginations of the rough and tumble base of the GOP. Even so, Shemp was part of the Stooges’ act before they made their short films and, like Shemp, Romney was a GOP candidate for the presidency back in 2008. Yet, when Curly disintegrated and couldn’t perform, Shemp was there. Should Cain fall away, guess who’ll be there… that’s right: Shemp Romney.
John Huntsman as JOE
While there are those that will argue about the merits of Curly vs. Shemp, Joe has few defenders among Stooges fans. He didn’t fit in with the other Stooges and, well, neither has Huntsman. Joe came from a different tradition, like Huntsman, and his style never quite dovetailed with the others. The least popular of all the Stooges, Joe shares a popularity rating in common with Huntsman. He’s a lot funnier on his own. So is Huntsman.
Newt Gingrich as CURLY JOE
Curly Joe came in very late to the Stooges lineup, when they were too old to slap each other around. He appeared in the live-action shorts with the Three Stooges cartoons and in the Stooges feature films. Curly Joe was both an elder statesman of the Stooges and completely irrelevant to what made them successful. That would be Newt Gingrich to a T.
Michele Bachmann as MISS HOPKINS
Incredibly good-looking, but there’s that crazy in the eyes… Both Michele Bachmann and Miss Hopkins (as played by Christine McIntyre, above) could win your heart while breaking your nose. Miss Hopkins is a character in the Stooges short, “Brideless Groom” and first appears around 7:00. But when she opens her mouth and starts talking around 9:57, it’s a massive barrage of crazy, kind of like what we know Bachmann’s capable of. She savages Shemp – kind of like how Bachmann really lets Romney have it – and finally lands a haymaker that sends Shemp reeling. Kind of a metaphor for how Bachmann, darling of many in the GOP base (at one time) acted as the base’s agent to show the door to Mr. Romney. Feisty, attractive, confused, and crazy, our Miss Hopkins is definitely the archetype for Michele Bachmann.
Ron Paul as EMIL SITKA
What’s this? You’ve never heard of Emil Sitka? Well, if you only watched the news, you’d know Ron Paul’s face, but you’d never hear his name. Nevertheless, Sitka appeared with the Stooges in so many shorts, he was known as “The Fourth Stooge.” He never got full credit as a Stooge, however. Paul has been in many political contests and has faithfully supported the Republican party but, guess what… he’s never gotten full credit as a presidential candidate. In the short posted above for Ms. Bachmann, Emil Sitka appears around 11:30 and soon utters his most famous tagline, “Hold hands, you lovebirds!” He repeats it over and over, in fact. Kind of like how Paul repeats “Audit the Fed!” over and over. That’s about all we remember either of these kindly old gents ever saying.
Well, that’s the GOP roundup. In my research for this article, I reviewed the full version of “Brideless Groom” and realized that it’s a powerful, powerful metaphor for the GOP presidential nomination contest. I plan to write a full breakdown of the symbolism and prescience of that short in a follow-up article.
Thank you for your time and nyuk nyuk nyuk,
Dean Webb
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Madoff,
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Madoff,
How are you? I am fine. I heard on the news that you were both very sad after you found out that Mr. Madoff’s fraud was going to be public. Sudden publicity can be shocking, so I can understand why you both might be depressed. What bothers me is that you did not feel sad enough to not perpetrate the fraud in the first place.
I’m not saying that I’m perfect. We’re all human, and it’s human nature to make mistakes. It’s also human nature to sometimes do bad things. When we do a bad thing, though, we’re supposed to be sorry for it and to try and undo what was done. You both, however, used the court system to try and keep some of the money you had basically stolen from others. Because the US Government accepted the plea, you both now get to keep some of that money. This is bad because it is not good.
Your scandal made lots of other people very sad. Many of those people are still sad. They are deeply and profoundly sad. Some of them thought that the deep and profound sadness was behind them after they got out of the Auschwitz murder camp, but you found a way to shatter their peace and security in their last days on earth. When I tell people about how life can be unfair, I will be sure to use that as an example, Mr. and Mrs. Madoff.
I don’t think I’m being overly judgmental to say that what you did was bad and that you need to try harder to make it right. You’ve still got some of that money and before you say you need it to live off of, think about what the people that you made very very sad are going to live off of. They were planning to live off of the money you are living off of.
I hope you both choose to make things right while you still have time. As long as you’re alive, you can change and do the right thing.
Please try harder,
Dean Webb
Dear Michele Bachmann,
Dear Ms. Bachmann,
How are you? I am fine. I saw you on the news this morning, talking to Bob Schieffer. Your hair looked very nice. You said some things, though, that made me worried. You said that Barack Obama failed the USA and Iraq by withdrawing all troops that were not attached to a diplomatic mission. This makes me think that a President Bachmann would have kept the troops there. This would be a huge mistake.
Iraq’s government refused to grant US forces immunity from prosecution. This would leave the US soldiers there wide open to all sorts of legal hassles. Even if our forces made no mistakes, locals could still sue the deep pockets of the USA whenever they felt lucky. Should a soldier make a mistake, he or she would be fully liable for damages. That is bad because it is not good. If you kept soldiers there, Ms. Bachmann, you would put them all in legal jeopardy.
It’s not like the soldiers are going that far away, either. Kuwait still keeps a huge US military presence in the region. Kuwait is next to Iraq. If we had to invade Iraq again, we could do it like we did the last time, and use the troops in Kuwait to do the job.
But then you criticized President Obama for getting the US involved in two more conflicts, so that got me confused. Do you want the US Army involved in foreign conflicts or don’t you? You criticized him for the US’ involvement in Libya, but that involvement is pretty much over. There’s no need to prop up Qaddafi now that he’s dead. The other involvement sent 100 troops into Uganda to help end a reign of terror imposed by the Lord’s Resistance Army, which does horrible things.
As a side note, I find it extremely ironic that right-wing commentators questioned Romney’s Christianity but were quick to defend the Christian connections of the LRA, even though the LRA engaged in mass rape, dismemberments, and other atrocities. To the best of my knowledge, nobody has ever accused Mr. Romney of mass rape, dismemberment, or other atrocities, unless one considers provided broad-based health care to be an atrocity. But I digress.
Obama got the US involved in a war that is now over and another conflict in an advisory capacity. You complained that when the US troops leave Iraq that there would be fewer troops there than in Honduras. I want to know why you think it’s necessary to keep US troops in Honduras. You said that every time the US deposed a dictator, it left troops behind to keep a handle on things. Actually, Ms. Bachmann, the US troops helped to prop up a different dictator until he was able to establish his own death squads and other security apparatus like that. Iraq is trying to not have death squads, so maybe that’s for the best.
You also accused Iran of being ready to pounce on Iraq and snap it up. Iraq won’t let that happen. There are many reasons why the Iraqis, even though most of them are Shi’a, won’t agree to domination by Iran. Biggest among those reasons is that the Arabs of Iraq know that the Persians of Iran have a very hostile opinion of them.
Turkey won’t let it happen, either. They’re active in northern Iraq, fighting the Kurdish PKK there.
Besides, Ms. Bachmann, the war in Iraq pretty much did end about 3 years ago when the Sunni Iraqis decided to stop working with al-Qaeda. Since then, the violence in Iraq dropped by about 90%. Northern Mexico is now more dangerous than Iraq.
You also said we’re being kicked out by the people we liberated. Those people don’t see the US regime as a liberation. While Saddam Hussein was deposed, the subsequent occupation and the rules that went with it were hardly up to the standards of the good ol’ USA. At best, we were protecting Iraqis from their own nasty elements. The Iraqis will have to enact laws and agree to live in a civil, corruption-free society on their own in order to liberate themselves.
What really got me was when you demanded that the Iraqis reimburse the USA for the cost of the invasion and occupation. I suppose they would if they were in turn reimbursed for the hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties killed in US military actions. Or is that ingratitude?
Trying to understand your logic is really starting to make my head hurt. Maybe I should just stick to commenting about your hair, which really is nice. Who does it for you?
Also, one more thing: since there’s no way in the world you’ll win the nomination for the GOP’s presidential candidate, who do you endorse? Or are you going to do the “crazy” thing and stay in the race? Just curious.
Sincerely,
Dean Webb