Heinlein and the Problem of the Present

Having read the new biography of Robert A. Heinlein, I indulged myself in dipping back into some of the novels. Heinlein worked out a Future History in which he set many of his stories. Obviously, any writer who attempts predictions is usually in for a bit of embarrassment---it's difficult at best to know what might happen next week let alone next century. But Heinlein had more than the usual "horse sense" when it came to sociology and the way in which history unfolds and he often nailed the essence of a coming period if not the specifics. (He tagged the Sixties the Crazy Years all the way back in the Forties.) One of his chillier stories is a short novel called If This Goes On--- in which he depicts the Second American Revolution. This time it occurs in response to a homegrown despotism---a theocracy, established by the First Prophet, a combination of Huey Long and Billy Sunday named Nehemiah Scudder. (You can find it published with two other stories in the book Revolt In 2100.) I reads this in seventh grade, while attending a Lutheran school, and it had a lasting impact on me. In the early Fifties certain publishers started packaging the better SF novels in hard cover for the first time and this was one of Heinlein's. He wrote an afterword to it and I just reread that. In view of our current social circumstances and in light of so much that gets discussed here at Dangerous Intersection I would like to quote two paragraphs in particular. Mind you, Heinlein wrote this in 1952.

Nevertheless this business of legislating religious beliefs into law has never been more than sporadically successful in this country---Sunday closing laws here and there, birth control legislation in spots, the Prohibition experiment, temporary enclaves of theocracy such as Voliva's Zion, Smith's Nauvoo, a few others. The country is split up into such a variety of faiths and sects that a degree of uneasy tolerance now exists from expedient compromise; the minorities constitute a majority of opposition against each other. Could it be otherwise? Could any one sect obtain a working majority at the polls and take over the country? Perhaps not---but a combination of a dynamic evangelist, television, enough money, and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make Billy Sunday's efforts look like a corner store compared to Sears Roebuck. Throw in a depression for good measure, promise a material heaven here on earth, add a dash of anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Negroism, and a good large dose of anti-"furriners" in general and anti-intellectuals here at home and the result might be something quite frightening---particularly when one recalls that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as pluralities in enough states can constitute a working majority in Washington.
I was very much struck by that. Looking around, it made me even sadder, since obviously there have always been people with foresight enough to see what might happen and how and yet they are often ignored. In Heinlein's case, because he was just one of those "Buck Rogers guys" with all the cookie ideas about space and aliens and such like. But obviously even then the shortcomings of our "voting system" raised a possible red flag for some. Anyway, I thought I'd share that little near-forgotten gem.

Continue ReadingHeinlein and the Problem of the Present

Our overreaction to 9/11

Ted Koppel reminds us that we have been tricked into destroying ourselves, and wonders whether we will ever have the courage and wisdom to stop:

The goal of any organized terrorist attack is to goad a vastly more powerful enemy into an excessive response. And over the past nine years, the United States has blundered into the 9/11 snare with one overreaction after another. Bin Laden deserves to be the object of our hostility, national anguish and contempt, and he deserves to be taken seriously as a canny tactician. But much of what he has achieved we have done, and continue to do, to ourselves. Bin Laden does not deserve that we, even inadvertently, fulfill so many of his unimagined dreams. It did not have to be this way. . . . Could bin Laden, in his wildest imaginings, have hoped to provoke greater chaos? It is past time to reflect on what our enemy sought, and still seeks, to accomplish -- and how we have accommodated him.

Continue ReadingOur overreaction to 9/11

The real cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

What is the cost of the U.S. invasion of Iraq? The cost, which will continue to mount for decades, is staggering, even insane. It wasn't $50 B, as W stated; it's already in the trillions. Here are the numbers from the Washington Post. The reason for the U.S. invasion and occupation? Unknown. The deleterious effect on the soldiers, their families and the U.S. economy? Long term and devastating. For the hawks, it was fun going in with all those fancy weapons blazing, but they are not offering any ideas as far as cleaning up this catastrophic mess. And those hawks have absolutely nothing to offer to the massive number of Iraqi refugees, who have spilled all over the Middle East, placing an enormous burden on Syria and Jordan. And combat is not "over," per the recent lies of the Obama Administration. And the corrupt corporate media is, for the most part, not calling out the Obama Administration for this recent fabrication any more than they confronted the U.S. for the fictitious "reasons" for invading in the first place. The media excels at serving as official stenographer for U.S. politicians whenever the topic is war (and see this piece on a documentary by Phil Donahue, and this article regarding Amy Goodman's views about the additional failures of the media). The corporate media bears thus much of the blame for the bleak economic future of the U.S.

Continue ReadingThe real cost of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

It’s STILL the economy, stupid!

Former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich has it right.

Democrats should propose eliminating payroll taxes on the first $20,000 of income, and making up the revenue loss by applying payroll taxes to incomes above $250,000. This would give the economy an immediate boost by adding to the paychecks of just about every working American. 80 percent of Americans pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes. And because lower-income people would get most of the benefit, it’s likely to be spent.

It would also give employers an extra incentive to hire because they’d save on their share of the payroll tax. And most of the incentive would be directed toward hiring lower-income workers – who have taken the biggest hit on jobs and pay during the recession.

It wouldn’t add to the deficit. Lost revenues would be made up by applying payroll taxes to income exceeding $250,000. This is certainly fair. As it is now, the Social Security payroll tax doesn’t apply to any income over $106,000. Having the tax kick in again at $250,000 would draw on the top 3 percent of earners, who (as noted) now rake in a larger portion of total income than they have in more than 80 years.

Call it the People’s Tax Cut, and let Republicans explain why they’re against it.”

The other ways that we could improve the economy are simple, may be targeted and could lead to long term employment by many of the some 15 million Americans currently out of work. I recommend the following proposals: - Expansion of the federal bi-partisan HIRE program which has led to many new job hires by a cross-section of businesses in America.

Continue ReadingIt’s STILL the economy, stupid!

On the current attempts to bludgeon innocent children with a Constitutional Amendment

The arguments for the proposed amendment to strip innocent children of citizenship by altering the Fourteenth Amendment do not pass muster from the viewpoint of long-standing American values. An unspoken and insidious agenda is being pursued under the alleged concerns of “saving tax dollars” or “protecting our borders!” Most of the 27 Constitutional Amendments passed so far limit the powers of the government or expand or protect the liberties of the people. The proposed anti-immigrant change does neither of these things. I would also oppose the proposed changes to the Fourteenth Amendment as unnecessarily cruel and punitive to an innocent class of persons, infants and children who have done no one any wrong. Yet some are now arguing for a Constitutional change to exclude from U.S. citizenship those children born to one or more illegal aliens (or to foreign visitors). For this reason some supporters of the constitutional amendment call the children “anchor babies.” To be sure, this term is a code word most often referring to children of Mexican descent. The process of becoming a citizen based on the fact that at least one of your children is a US citizen is lengthy and it cannot begin until the child is 21 and makes earnings of at least 125% of the US poverty threshold. [More . . .]

Continue ReadingOn the current attempts to bludgeon innocent children with a Constitutional Amendment