Dear Superman...

Dear Superman,
You probably aren't used to getting letters from adults. Usually, by the time someone has reached my age you are no longer as mystifying as you were when we were children, and you are instead something as dependable as the sunrise; an accepted part of the American landscape which can never change as you are so firmly integrated into it.

American. More on that in a minute.

Anyway, I am not someone who sees trouble and immediately looks up to see if there is a streak of red coming faster than the eye can follow to save the day. I have a job where I am responsible to taking care of trouble, and for making the world a better place. It's something I am proud to do because it is inherent in my role as a protector, and a privilege conducted in service to the nation of my birth. Ostensibly, I work as a protector of that country, but in said role I often protect others in different nations. My role as protector is often misunderstood or misinterpreted. That is all right, because I do not protect people for recognition, but rather because it is the right thing to do. I do it in the name of my country, because I love this country and feel ideals like truth and justice are inherent to what we are supposed to be. As a super power, America will have to act in situations where no one else can, and I think we have a moral obligation as a nation to do so. Any superpower has an obligation to improve the condition of the world.

I am not an "America: right or wrong" kind of guy. I am an "America: let's do it right" sort. I know my nation both as a collective of individuals and as a state makes mistakes, and sometimes as a result of those mistakes, innocents die. I don't believe you stop trying to help though, I believe you just have to do a better job when you do offer help.

America, and the protection thereof, means a lot of different things to people, evoking both blind patriotism unwilling to see the nation's mistakes, and blind fury unwilling to see the nation's good. Both such extremes are wrong. America is made up of all of us, our victories, our foibles; our loves and our hates. Above all, this nation founded on principle-not on ethnicity or faith-is about opportunity for all. Again, we have made mistakes in the past, and will do so in the future, but for the most part we are a nation of immigrants; founded by immigrants, built by immigrants, fought for by immigrants, and all one needs to be part of it really is a profound belief in Truth, Justice, and the American Way. Some differ on the definition of "American Way," but most will agree it is that anyone in America can become the best of America. With ability, drive, and passion, America should give us the opportunity to become anything. That may apply to the poor, the lost, the downtrodden. It may apply to a child cast into the night who by the grace of God or fate ends up not in death or ocean or tyranny, but in America.

I don't know where you were raised, Superman. You seem to make your home in one of our greatest cities, yet when I see you in interviews your manner is almost like people I know who grew up on a farm. I don't know if you had powers as a baby or not. There's rumors you exhibited strange feats early on, and others that say the radiation of our sun almost killed you before it empowered you. Your greatest asset though did not come from the yellow sun or the ground or the sky. Your greatest asset, came from America; your ethics.

You've been around since 1938. Imagine if you had landed in Hitler's Germany or, like a story I once read in Stalin's USSR. Would you have become arrogant as one worshiped if you had landed with an aboriginal tribe with no understanding of science, labeling you a god? Had your ship landed anywhere else in the world, would you have become Superman, or instead The Superman ruling us as might makes right? It doesn't matter, because you DID land here, and you DID learn American core values, and you DO have a moral code which makes you a protector and not a dictator. You are the epitome of the cold, hungry immigrant washed ashore in America who rises to exceed their origin. As I say, you are a constant to me; a part of America as much as the flag, or a fair deal, or Teddy Roosevelt riding a Bull Moose across a river.

Now, as I understand you are afraid you will be confused with America. God, I hope you are right. I hope children the world over see you stop a volcano, or rescue innocents from the path of war, or change the course of mighty rivers and say, "look at America at its best." In that way you provide not only a sign to them that our nation can be great, but a sign to us that it should be great. We make mistakes, but to get better we need hope, we need inspiration. We need to know that as horrible as the things we have done are, we can still be good, and still make the world a better place. More powerful than anything is the need to believe what we can be, to have a symbol, we can look to and aspire to be.

I spend a lot of my life looking at the flag for that, and wear it on my own uniform while I am out trying to make the world a better place. I know at times that flag is all someone across from me sees, and that is why it is so important I wear it well. When I am out to make the world a better place, I recognize I am a citizen of the world as well as a citizen of the most just nation in history; being a citizen of the world and a citizen of the United States are not mutually exclusive. Don't give up one for the other; be both. The world does need you, and so do we. When I think of the tragedy that could have been had you landed somewhere else, I think there is still a level upon which you need us too.

Don't walk away from America out of fear, because you think the world will confuse you with us. Instead, wear that flag in the best possible way, and show them, and America, all it can mean; all it should mean.

You were quoted as saying, "I'm an alien...born on another world. I can't help but see the bigger picture." See it then, and tell your fellow Americans what you see. Help us see it too. We will help you see what Truth, Justice, and the American Way can do on the small scale; the Red Cross worker in Haiti, the American soldier keeping peace in Bosnia. I don't defend the misguided imperialism some would want to see this country practice, but I vehemently stand up for us as a light to the world...as millions of immigrants before you have done by making this nation great. Let those who would fight against freedom and opportunity for all confuse you with America; then, help America be a country which can be easily confused with you.

Thank you for your time, Superman. I hope to see you out there as a comrade,

An American Soldier

My hooch, Baghdad 2004.

Post Game Commentary

Like a thousand other would-be commentator blogs out there, it's time for Black Owl to give the post game assessment of the 2010 mid-terms. They were ugly, and spiteful, and not always particularly honest, but I think there are some winners and losers out there, and I don't necessarily think they are obvious.

Big winner- John Boehner. He is now ringmaster in that circus known as the House, and will be on every website and TV channel he can get his mug plastered upon. He's all about changing Washington... this 20-year Washington politician. Let's hope he takes Michael Jackson's advice and starts with the man in the mirror.

Kinda winner- the Republican party. They made great strides in the House, and have all kinds of an agenda to push: repealing Health Care, fixing the economy (whose troubles have roots in the Clinton presidency while those troubles blossomed in the Bush years, and BO was supposed to already have it all fixed), keeping gays out of the military. They have a lot to do in the next two years. Of course they have absolutely no chance of getting any of it done without the Senate or the White House, but I wish them the best.

Not a winner, but we're saying they are- the Tea Party. They did get a couple of big wins in, but as the Red states have reminded those few Blue states, there's the whole rest of the country. Less than a third of Tea Party backed candidates won. Further, some people are saying the TP lost the Republicans control of the Senate. Ouch.

Losers- The Democrats. You guys did a lousy job of running a campaign. You didn't use facts to counter the half-truths of your opponents, and frankly, the Country has a real right to be mad at you; you swept in with BO and then decided that just having a majority wasn't enough. Despite everything the Pres has made happen, he had to cajole and prod you into action, and it showed. I know, I know, you never REALLY wanted that dude to be President; you were ready for Hillary. You not standing behind your president however has cost you the House, and got you close to losing the Senate. Ouch.

Surprise winner- Barack Obama. The man is still President, and suddenly has something now he didn't have the last two years; Republicans willing to talk. Yeah, I know, they are going to come in like gang-busters, but again, if they actually want to look like they are doing something they do have to appease the Senate, and if I remember my Schoolhouse Rock correctly, the president has to sign their bills into law.




Yep, thought so. That two-thirds veto override is going to be tough too. So to get anything accomplished (here comes the C-word) Republicans will have to compromise; like the President has been trying to get for 24 months. Further, if they don't, the Republicans look like the bad guys in two years. And, I think Barack Obama would like to personally thank the American people for getting Nancy Pelosi the hell out of his way.



Biggest Loser- The American People. More than likely we have a grid-locked Government which will throw insults and rhetoric for the next two years until they can try to completely disparage one another in the next election cycle. That means nothing getting done on either side, and a quagmire which keeps us from growing, improving, or fixing anything...regardless of the side of the aisle one supports. The politics have become far more important than the actual issues. We lose.

Should have voted for this guy. At least he's honest.

A Sarcastic Thank You to the American Media and People

Why am I dipping my thanks in a deep irony sauce seasoned with a fresh grind of hostility? Because you (and by you I must indeed include me, as we are “We the People”) and the media we allow to taint our thoughts have successfully managed to befuddle and obfuscate every issue this election cycle. At times, it's been downright lies, but most often it's half-truths interpreted through our ever more polarized worldviews. I have been labeled, rightfully, in one such discussion as a “Centrist Intellectual.” (Let me wipe off the irony sauce and say thank you to my dear Deborah, who though we may disagree, calls them as she sees them, and this is I hope exactly the political persona I hope to project.)

As such, I now have no one for whom to vote. In order to receive kudos from the vocal of either side and their media masters, any show of intellectualism makes a candidate out to be not of the people. Candidates are CLAIMING IGNORANCE as a positive characteristic. Please think about that for a minute, and honestly assess of you want to support someone who claims to be no smarter than you. I can't balance a checkbook, I certainly hope the people for whom I vote are smarter than me. I want them to be smart... but I am apparently in the minority.

Secondly, there's no benefit in moderation today. Be a little in the middle as a Republican, and you are labeled a RINO and some Tea Partier will come along and kill you in the Primary. Be a little in the middle as a Democrat, and websites like “AlterNet.Org” will decide you are just part of the machine carrying on Bush policy. We have become enslaved to our false left-right political spectrum (where does anarchy fall on that spectrum may I ask?) and have paid corporate giants millions to have their talking heads on both sides stop informing us and start simply confirming what we already think we know. Obama's a Socialist? Beck said so, and that's just what I thought, so it must be true. Reagan's the devil? You bet Keith, tell it like it is! We take it and we feed our confirmation bias, and if we do flip to the other channel, it's just to see how wrong the other guy still is.

And that's if we even bother to go to a “news source.” Usually it's just a forwarded email we won't bother to confirm because it falls in line with what we think. Of course, we must then share this with our like minded friends and perpetuate those half truths ourselves.

So here I am, with no candidate to represent my thoughts except ones already in power whom I would like to replace with someone better, or hear the truth about once in a while. I can't; there's no one better running, and no one who's on the side of truth, on the side of America. If you think your political part represents true America, the simple truth is you are wrong. There is no party representing America, because there are too many of us to break into two easily definable groups, and the fact we keep trying is a detriment to our nation and our future.

I am about to make a confession. I am a Liberal. There, I said it.
Oh, you think I mean PELOSI Liberal? Oh hell no. I am a Liberal like Thomas Jefferson, the classical definition, the idea that LIBERTY should be the first consideration. The rights of the people. I see both slides wrapping themselves in that flag, and neither truly representing it. LIBERTY does not mean the Government doing everything for you. LIBERTY also does not mean a powerless Government. We have a Bill of Rights to protect us from an overzealous Government so that that Government can protect us from overzealous Businesses. Indeed, we seem to be on a path to eliminate the governments ability to do anything, and will instead sentence ourselves to slavery to banks and corporations to whom we will be indebted as long as we shall live. The corporation does NOT represent unfettered capitalism. The government MUST keep them honest, and not be enslaved to them. Simply ask Republican President and Monopoly breaker Theodore Roosevelt:

“Probably the greatest harm done by vast wealth is the harm that we of moderate means do ourselves when we let the vices of envy and hatred enter deep into our own natures. But there is another harm; and it is evident that we should try to do away with that. The great corporations which we have grown to speak of rather loosely as trusts are the creatures of the State, and the State not only has the right to control them, but it is duty bound to control them wherever the need of such control is shown.”
Speech at Providence, Rhode Island (1902-08-23), Presidential Addresses and State Papers (1910), p. 103

For there to be true freedom, we must be independent; independent of Government, of Corporation, of Political Party. There was a time Democrats preached that, as did this other Roosevelt:

“True individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence.”
Franklin Roosevelt

I have another confession to make; I am a Conservative. There I said it.
Oh, you think I mean a PALIN Conservative? Oh hell no! I mean the one who wants to leave the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as our ruling ideal. We have to understand what that means. If we want to be Constitutionalist, our government doesn't establish a State Religion, we don't keep people from saying what they think, we leave guns in the hands of the people, and we let some bad guys get away in order to secure Liberty and privacy. Yeah, I know privacy doesn't appear in the Constitution. Primarily because the word in the 1700s related specifically to using the toilet. (Look it up- ever hear the term “using the privy”? Surely you can see the etymological evolution of usage here).

See, I think about these things, and you should too. Think, don't feel. Think, learn to cooperate, because it is what we have in common, which is a hell of a lot more than we disagree on, that will protect us from those who are jealous of what we have. Don't underestimate the internal threat though; we are more of a threat to our own Republic, either through over-legislation, or under-regulation; through taking advantage of an already ailing system, or destroying it so it cannot help those with legitimate need. The answer to America's future lies in the middle, and in thinking so we can differentiate real problems from banner issues meant to get our party elected. We indeed must all hang together, or surely we will all hang separately.

Now, I would like to think I haven't promoted a specific side's agenda here, particularly since I am pretty put out with both. Their posturing as left an impression of doom. Despite the S&P500 showing great progress since January, despite two years of tax cuts from withholding (which leaves money in your paycheck which you spend rather than sending you a check you put in the bank which only helps... the bank), and a severe slowdown on job loss. Also, no one came to take my guns, no one forced me to house soldiers in my home (except of course the one who pays the rent) and I am not a headless body left in the Arizona desert...yet. Also, I have not been locked in prison for my repeated use of the term “aham' d'Allah” or my possession and occasional use of Islamic prayer beads (usually while reciting the Shema and singing hymns or sitting in a lotus position). We are not as bad off as either side says, and neither side is really as bad as their detractors tell you.

But don't take my word for it. Put aside your feelings, read a lot, and THINK about it all. If you change your mind on nothing, you haven't done it right. We all are wrong about something. Go find out what YOU are wrong about. Stop letting the parties tell you it's all the other guy, because you know who's fault it is?

Ours.

And that's why I am mad at us (and me too).

Deyz in yur government mezzin' up yer medizin!

My dear congressional Republicans, there is a problem in this country which needs your action. Right now, Federal bureaucrats are preventing doctors from making medical decisions regarding their patients. A specific treatment which has proven beneficial and cost effective is being blocked by big government, and some committee which thinks it know better than physicians how patients should be treated. Seeing as how that's one of the major arguments Congressional Republicans have against the Public Option, I am looking forward to seeing some brave Conservative get up and say it:

It's time to repeal the Federal ban on medical marijuana.

Seriously, regardless of my Centrist views, I also do NOT want some committee deciding who gets particular treatments. However, if we're not going to let a death panel decide an 80 year old can't have a new liver, then why are we still allowing the FDA to say doctors can't prescribe marijuana? I am not talking about legalizing it for recreational use (that's another argument). I am talking about a doctor prescribing to his or her patient who is undergoing chemo, or suffers from glaucoma, or has breast cancer, or even as some studies show, Alzheimer's- a natural remedy which is easy and cheap to produce, and has far less ill effects than the pharmaceutical alternatives.

I'm talking about a treatment supported by the American College of Physicians, the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Psychological Association, and of course Chris Robinson of The Black Crowes.

I'm talking about an easily delivered treatment which some evidence shows may treat or alleviate up to 250 different ailments.

Now, let's be fair- this list was assembled by a doctor who may not be totally objective about this subject, but if it works for even ten things on this list, isn't it worth using? Five? Even one, if it can bring relief for a single ailment, and doctors want to use it, why are we letting the Federal government say otherwise? They're the doctors right? And not just some quacks, but real doctors (see the list above).

So, what is the government's argument against it? The hazards of smoking. No really, you can't have relief for your nauseous reaction to the chemo you have treating your cancer because the period you smoke the MJ might give you lung cancer. Well, what if it becomes a gateway for the patient? According to the Rand Corporation, the Gateway concept is bunk, and so say these doctors.
Even the 1999 study the FDA cites on usage in general only says:

"The gateway analogy evokes two ideas that are often confused. The first, more often referred to as the 'stepping stone' hypothesis, is the idea that progression from marijuana to other drugs arises from pharmacological properties of marijuana itself.

The second is that marijuana serves as a gateway to the world of illegal drugs in which youths have greater opportunity and are under greater social pressure to try other illegal drugs." (Institute of Medicine in its Mar. 1999 report titled "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base")

Not really a damning statement. Here's how Lynn Zimmer, PhD, Professor Emeritus at Queens College at the City University of New York put it:

"In the end, the gateway theory is not a theory at all. It is a description of the typical sequence in which multiple-drug users initiate the use of high-prevalence and low-prevalence drugs.

A similar statistical relationship exists between other kinds of common and uncommon related activities. For example, most people who ride a motorcycle (a fairly rare activity) have ridden a bicycle (a fairly common activity). Indeed, the prevalence of motorcycle riding among people who have never ridden a bicycle is probably extremely low. However, bicycle riding does not cause motorcycle riding, and increases in the former will not lead automatically to increases in the latter.” (his 1997 book “Marijuana Myths - Marijuana Facts”).

More than that, 13 States have voted to use medical marijuana- aren't the Republicans the party of State's Rights? Why aren't Republicans screaming about the Federal Governments insistence on imposing their will over these States' decisions? Who's going to be the brave Republican to get up and call for the end of these laws? John McCain, whose state is one of those who passed a local proposition? Sarah Palin, who is vehemently against Federal controls and bureaucratic interdiction in medical decisions? Joe Wilson, who obviously feels very passionately about health care. Who?

I am not trying to be a smart ass here- this is exactly WHY I want to see two parties in government. Any argument however must follow to the logical consequences. Opposing Government Health care on the grounds of bureaucrats not being allowed to countermand doctors has to apply to any reasonable medical decision. The facts are in- MM is reasonable, with the FDA's stats being spurious at best. Further, wanting to shrink Federal power in favor of State power means allowing States to make certain decisions on their own. The tenth amendment says they can do that, if there is not an existing Federal law- Federal Laws came from the control of recreational use- you know what? I can't use Vicodin for recreational use either, but no one in the Federal Government is asking to ban it as medicine.

So as a citizen, I ask a Republican to take advantage of the argument about health care right now and do the right thing. You would have doctors, States, facts, and logic on your side. Be the party of Smaller Government and put this tool back in the hands of doctors.

So I been thinkin'...

I just watched a really good TV series from Great Britain, called “Torchwood.” For those of you who don't know, it's a spinoff of the venerable “Doctor Who” tv series, and plays a bit like a British version of “The X-Files” though is at times a bit more grown up, and certainly allows darker things to happen to its characters, which British SF is kind of famous for (Blake's 7 anyone?). It stars the delighful John Barrowman as Captain Jack Harkness, the indestructible leader of the extra-terrestrial-investigating group Torchwood, and Eve Myles (who has the best hair in television history) as Gwen Cooper, the former cop turned alien hunter (I might have written this entire posting as an excuse to post a picture of Eve Myles).


I specifically watched the third season, a special five part miniseries within the series called “Children of Earth.” I don't want to give away too much here, but the basic premise is what happens when an alien race comes and threatens to wipe us all out, unless we give them ten percent of every pre-pubescent child on Earth (I specifically won't spoil the 'why' part).

As the story plays out, the British leadership does some pretty heinous things, and eventually puts troops in the streets to gather up the undesirable children to give to the aliens. “Undesirable” pretty much equates to those who are eventually just end up on welfare or in prison, or those who were children of immigrants denied asylum. The scenes were the politicians are justifying this decision to themselves, while not offering up their own children are especially chilling.

The show is written by Russell T. Davies, who is also responsible for the Doctor Who revival, and the Showtime show “Queer as Folk.” The man is obviously a Liberal, and uses this venue as a method of pointing out how easily those who are supposed to serve us will offer us up to the wolves. He also makes a great show of pointing out how the Government, particularly in London, makes use of the “security cameras” to exploit or spy upon their citizens.




Now, this got me thinking about “V for Vendetta.” Decent film, but much better graphic novel about tyranny which takes hold while no one is looking, under the auspices of security and defending the people from terrorists. In the case of that film (pardon spoilers), a manufactured terror attack allows the powers that be to be those powers for life, and a despotic Orwellian nightmare ensues. Again though, this is a warning about the misintentions of government from a liberal source. Lots of that was really going on under the Bush administration for the last eight years, driven by things that even I have talked about: The Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, warrantless wire-tapping, willfully ignoring the FISA laws, etc. It goes back though; the original V for Vendetta was written in the late 1980s, and was specifically talking about Margaret Thatcher's government. Frank Miller did something similar in “The Dark Knight Returns” with a Ronald Reagan who had become President for life. Liberals don't want those damn Conservatives creating a police state.

Have you checked your e-mail lately? Conservatives don't want those damn Liberals creating a police state. President Obama is backing public health care to weed out the old white folks (majority conservatives), and wants you to report to his political officers the names of people who disagree with him. Apparently he is also prepping to declare all Christians to be extremists, and possibly has the secret cabal backing of the Hawaii state Records division. Think though- this didn't start here! Bill Clinton was in office when the ATF went after innocent Christians like David Koresh, and he stripped down our military to make us weak before the UN. Remember all the people he and Hillary had killed to ensure their place in the Oval Office? (I bet Al Gore wishes they'd killed a few for him.)



So what's my point?

Maybe it's the idea they are all actually out to get us, and secretly in cahoots. It wouldn't matter who you voted for, it's whoever THEY want to win to keep the people thinking they have a say in a Democracy which is long dead.

Maybe each side is vying for their own power, so THEY can rule without dispute. We The People would still be screwed, because by that reckoning, each side still wants to enslave us, just around different agendas.

Maybe it is the natural way of all governments to tend toward tyranny. Again we would be screwed, because it doesn't matter what the actual intentions are of any given politician, so long as we keep legislating we will eventually create a state with so many rules anything is a crime.

Maybe each side is just doing what they think is for the best, mostly based on honest intentions (always some bad apples), and we have all descended to this sorry point where it is easier to spout one side's rhetoric than to actually look for a solution which is mutually beneficial. It's easier to believe the other side is evil than to admit you may be wrong about something and the truth may lie somewhere between.

Maybe it's always been this way. Have you looked at old political cartoons calling FDR a Commie, or anything in the late 1800s by Thomas Nast (the Mormon/Roman churches as “Reptiles” slithering on America is my favorite), or the rhetoric from John Adams' enemies regarding the “Intolerable Acts.” (The fact we remember them as the “Intolerable Acts” I think demonstrates some pretty powerful swaying of public opinion!)




Maybe... hell, I don't know. I was just thinking in Word. I do wish I was hearing more reasoned arguments and less fear mongering. What have YOU done to make things better? Something positive, not stopping someone else from doing something, not neglecting to do something out of protest; what was the last thing you got out and DID for your country, your state, your town, or your neighborhood? If you have something good, cool. If you had to think through all the negative things you did, even for the right intentions, maybe you should rethink it. Maybe it's time for all of us to research before we vote, be active in the community, and actively try to find a middle ground.

Or don't. We'll just pass more laws until passing laws is illegal.

Not really gonna tie this one up neatly; I think it's just a rant.

Not with a bang but with a whimper.

Why a whimper? Fear. Fear is what drives people these days. Fear of the economy crashing, fear of the terrorists, fear of change. Fear drives hate. Fear drives paranoia. Fear drives bigotry.

This last couple of weeks, I have been poking fun at our society with some TS Eliot, and have been waiting for that funny little story to post to fit the title of this post, something full of snark and absurdity.

Instead, I got this:


Sorry, TS- there were bangs signalling the end and they were gunshots in a Holocaust museum.

See, this is where fear leads. It leads to ideas of us and them, and once we have us and them, we have to be better than they are. Then they have to be bad. Then they have to die. In this case, it's a White Supremacist, and like so many intloerant bastards, he claims God is on his side, and he's working for Jesus.

Hey asshole, Jesus was a Jew who claimed everyone on Earth was a child of God.

The White Supremacist movement wants America back to its core values.

Hey asshole, America was founded under the principle that all men are created equal. Forgive the irony that time and place of authorship paints that statement with, but this is America, and we are all in here together.

There are a lot of honest Conservatives out there who just genuinely want to maintain their faith and values while honestly being part of the solution. Here's a chance; denounce this man now. Right now. Make sure Neo-Nazis don't become the face of Conservatism in America. Talk about how we can acknowledge we have different beliefs, but we don't have to resort to violence over it.

There are a lot of Liberals out there who will equate this to Conservatism as a whole. Don't do it. Acknowledge the good honest Conservative movement out there, and reach out to it in order to work together to put aside the fear this man tried to sow.

America. Put aside your fear. E Pluribus Unum- it's the only way America survives this Century.

Otherwise, it goes out with a whimper of fear.

Much better.

This young lady needs to be the future of the Republican Party.



Perhaps one day I will vote for a McCain again.

John Galt who?

“Who is John Galt?” That's the question Ayn Rand opens the novel Atlas Shrugged with. Why do I pose it now? Well as of late I keep hearing people on the Conservative side saying Rand should provide a model for society, particularly this novel. Michelle Malkin recently cited the strike of the prime movers, or “Going Galt” as a way to stop the path of nationalization and socialization she sees sweeping the country. Stephen Colbert, in his usually hilarious irony, talked about the book, but used the description of the story as the one the Malkins of the world are hanging on to- The Government sets out to make sure the lazy can live off the fruits of the talented and these “Prime Movers” leave to start their own society where everything is pure unadulterated capitalism. Well Stephen and Michelle, now that we've discussed the Cliff's Notes summary of Atlas Shrugged, let's talk about it from the perspective of someone who actually read the book. I think both sides are going to be a little surprised by what they find.

Before I begin, let me state something quite bluntly: regardless of what fans of the book say, Rand's version of Capitalism is every bit as Utopian as Marx's Communism. I think there are some phenomenal ideas in this book, but as with any philosophy, it has to be filtered pragmatically through the real world for actual application. The thing is, the book is exceedingly Libertarian, and not Conservative, despite conservative efforts to claim John Galt. Indeed, looking at the recently departed administration, John Galt would be every bit as contemptuous of Bush era economics as he would the current lefty folks.

Take the characters of Orren Boyle and Wesley Mouch. Mr. Boyle is the head of a steel conglomerate which really makes an inferior product. However, he uses Washington lobbyists like Wesley Mouch to get contracts and help to keep his business going. Indeed, when one of the novel's heroes, Hank Rearden, creates a superior steel product, rather than actually try to compete with Rearden, Boyle uses lobbyists to try to alter the laws to give him control of the new alloy. Now, which side of American politics is using their lobbyists to protect corporate interest? To circumvent honest competition for contracts, and playing along with the no bid? Haliburton would be one of the “Looters” in Rand's novel, out to secure their financial futures at the expense of the country.

How about inheritance? How many people running the Republican Party today are self made millionaires? Obviously, the Bush family goes back a ways. John McCain took favors from his in-laws. This book is against all of that. Indeed, the Prime Mover Francisco D'Aconia gives up the money and business he inherits from his father, runs his father's business into the ground so he can rebuild it himself. So he knows HE was capable of even being a Prime Mover. No one gave him a baseball team. Or as the book says:

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who
would make his own fortune no matter where he starts his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him.” (page 314)

How about war? Obviously, based on my chosen profession I understand the necessity of war. Philosophically and ethically there are times you just have to go put metal into bad guys. The Prime Movers in this book are against war as being wasteful. In the same speech I quote above (and this book has a LOT of speeches, not just John Galt's 68 page broadcast) D'Aconia talks about money making war irrelevant because it provides a system of fair value exchange eliminating the need to capture resources... unless you are one of the Looters. Unless you are someone incapable of producing something of value to provide fair capital. In the book, John Galt's literal solution to oil shortages is to create alternative energy sources, specifically and engine which pulls static electricity from the air. Where was that thinking from either side of the aisle, except of course for the Green Freaks like Al Gore, since our first oil crunch nearly 40 years ago? Instead, we fought wars to keep the juice flowing. Galt would be ashamed.

Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand have a very different take on family values as well. The female lead in the book, Dagny Taggert, wants nothing to do with being a mom, has no consideration for the next generation, she wants only to run her business and be coupled with the best possible man. She pretty much shags her way through the cast of Prime Movers. And as she leaves each one of them for the better pure capitalist specimen, each of them look fondly on the next lover and say, “yep! I can't compete with that guy, he's way better than me!” What? Is that how family is America is supposed to be? I don't think that's what Conservatives are arguing for. I don't think ignoring the idea of future generations, or for that matter the book's illustrating the idea inheritance is bad sits in line with the Pro-Life crowd. Rand herself had no children, and at least one lover (allegedly) to go along with her husband of 50 years. Not exactly the ideal home environment the Conservative movement wants to promote.

How about educating the next generation? Actually, there is a little bit in the book on the subject:

From the first catch-phrases flung at a child to the last, it is like a
series of shocks to freeze his motor, to undercut the power of his
consciousness. "Don't ask so many questions, children should be seen and not
heard!"—"Who are you to think? It's so, because I say so!"—"Don't argue,
obey!"—"Don't try to understand, believe!"-—"Don't rebel, adjust!"—"Don't
stand out, belong!"—"Don't struggle, compromise!" (page 757)

Don't stand out? Obey? Believe and don't question? Isn't this a paragraph railing against conservative thought in education? For that matter, isn't this a little bit of a rail against religion?

No, because Ayn Rand's contempt for religion and the existence of God is blatant throughout the book. In this book, and in Rand's philosophy “Objectivism,” the highest thing in existence is the human mind. That's what drives the near deification of the Prime Movers in the book. Their creations, be it Galt's engine, or Readen's steel, or Dagny's bridge, or D'Aconia's mines are from the fruits of the mind of great people- therefore the ultimate expression. When Galt gives his 68 page speech he says:

"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who
claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs
to your neighbors—between those who preached that the good is self-sacrifice
for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is
self-sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say
that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.” (page 769)

“What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin?
What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider
perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of
knowledge—he acquired a mind and became a rational being.
It was the knowledge of good and evil—he became a moral being. He was
sentenced to earn his bread by his labor—he became a productive being. He was
sentenced to experience desire—he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment.
The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy—all
the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of
man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they
hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was—that
robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values,
without labor, without love—he was not man.
"Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues
required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin.” (Page 780)

Are these the ideas Michelle Malkin wants to use in a modern conservative movement? Four Thousand years of Judeo-Christianity are completely flawed, and Religion has no proper place in either the mind of man nor his government? You can't claim Objectivism as Conservative without taking the whole shebang- you can't say you want to use Atlas Shrugged as a model without looking at the model as a whole. I don't think the majority of conservatives would sit well claiming the Atheist Ayn Rand as their new guru. Rand herself sets up the point of the book in one sentence which appears as an inscription in the new paradise the Prime Movers build in their hologram concealed valley in Colorado:

The door of the structure was a straight, smooth sheet of stainless steel,
softly lustrous and bluish in the sun. Above it, cut in the granite, as the
only feature of the building's rectangular austerity, there stood an
inscription: I SWEAR BY MY LIFE AND MY LOVE OF IT THAT I WILL NEVER LIVE FOR
THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE.

I don't think that syncs well with “Love they Neighbor as yourself.”

So, what is my take on the book? Well, I DO parse it out. I can do that, because I am saying there are aspects I enjoy and think are fine philosophy and not trying to claim it all unread. However, as I said it is quite Utopian. I agree with Objectivism that my motivation should be to take care of myself so no one else has to- but it ignores those who CANNOT take care of themselves. Unless we want to go all Spartan and start tossing imperfect babies into windswept crags (not particularly pro-life that- it's like abortion in the 5th trimester!) we have to make allowances for those who can't. It is up to us to make sure those systems are not abused by those who “won't” as opposed to used by those who “can't” but the systems need to be in place. Maybe that's my point with this whole blog. See, we already had someone who followed Ayn Rand making financial decisions for the country- Alan Greenspan. He was an avowed Objectivist, and in on Rand's inner circle while she was writing Atlas Shrugged. He made rules and reduced regulations based on the idea these companies would be doing the right thing. However, when asked by Congress what happened, he had to admit he was partially wrong about deregulation. Why?

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity -- myself especially -- are in a state of shocked disbelief.” So then, Rep. Henry Waxman presses him on the issue.

“In other words, you found that your view of the world, your ideology, was not right, it was not working,” Waxman said.

“Absolutely, precisely,” Greenspan replied. (New York Times)

See? Just like Marx felt the worker would always work for the good of the social commune, Greenspan thought the American Corporations and banks would act in their own best interests in such a way as to benefit the system. Instead, they tried to get rich quick, at others' expense. Not fair competition, not by EARNING your value (possible the most basic principle of Objectivism) but by abusing the system meant to allow them to work unfettered. Given the opportunity, they chose to be Rand's Looters rather than her Prime Movers. Economic utopia eludes mankind again. Rand claims greed is good, but ONLY if you have the ability to earn your wealth fairly, with your own gifts. Before anyone right or left claims this book as a guide, remember, it has been tried.

I think the most telling point is actually the end of the book (spoilers ahead!). It's the part which makes me most sure neither Malkin, the majority of Conservatives, or a whole lot of Liberals ever got that far. This perfect man, John Galt, who has never allowed anyone to live their life for his sake, has to be rescued from the Looters by the other Prime Movers. He is captured and tortured (which is also portrayed as bad, Mr. Cheney), and cannot in the end free himself. The others risk their lives and limbs to save him. In the end, the collective has to work to preserve the individual. Rand's Utopian personality doesn't make it whole to the end of the book- other people have to live their lives for his sake. As a young Libertarian I was devouring all 1200 pages of this book, loving every moment. Even at that naïve age, the ending left me with a sense of Rand deciding to negate the previous 1100 pages in the last 100. Galt can't save himself, he gets by with a little help from his friends.

Take another look from the Right before you hoist the Randian banner, and take another read Left before you dismiss her ideas that reason and rationality should drive everything. There's stuff to be gleaned, but I want to make sure everyone understands it before they hide behind their interpretation of it. Humans have done that with books before...

Before I end this ridiculously long tirade which is I think for no one but myself, I want to point out this cartoon: