Politics, power, and money

For the past five years or so I've been trying hard to understand the motivation behind the actions of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. Just why do the Bushies do what they do, and why do their Congressional lapdogs follow in lock-step? I pondered various motivations, from Oedipal Syndrome to power-mad "we're going to rule the world" fantasies, and nothing seemed to make sense. And as for the Congressional lapdoggedness, the only thing I could come up with was some sort of large-scale blackmail scheme involving every single member of the Congress -- Republicans and Democrats alike. But that was too farfetched, even for me; something else had to be at work.

Well, with the indictment of Tom Delay, the real motivations are now clear. The actions of the entire Bush administration are based on simple crony capitalism, albeit taken to a heretofore-unthought of extreme. It's a matter of politics being played for the purpose of power and money, nothing more insidious than that.

Here's how it works. Bush has friends (who have friends who have friends) who would like to profit a bit from their relationship to the Prez. Bush uses his power to financially reward his friends, in the form of government contracts, tax breaks, watered-down regulations, and cushy appointments. The more power he has, the more actions he can take without anyone asking any embarrassing questions. Bush's power grabbing has nothing to do with world domination or ideology; he's only grabbing power to better reward his cronies.

I think I would have been more comfortable if there was a truly evil intent behind the re-emergence of the Imperial Presidency, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, and all of Bush's other follies. But it's not evil we're dealing with, it's simple greed. I'd wager that Bush really doesn't care that much about the whole power thing, other than for the perks that come with it. (He certainly doesn't seem to like the responsibilities that come with the power.) A strong Presidential branch is simply in a better position to get its way -- and better serve its cronies.

Examples? How about the whole Iraq war, which ultimately doesn't have much if anything to do with neo-colonialism or nation building or even oil. It's all about the contracts. Bush invades Iraq, demolishes untold number of buildings and facilities, and thus paves the way to hand out contracts to Halliburton and other cronies to rebuild what they've just destroyed. Billions of dollars and tens of thousands of lives down the drain, just so a few big contractors can make a few more bucks. Disgusting.

And what keeps Congress from blowing the whistle on this nonsense? Money. This is where Tom Delay comes in. The Hammer controlled the purse strings for millions of corporate lobbying dollars, which he handed out to those Republican congressmen who went along with the game plan. If you didn't play by Delay's (and, by proxy, Bush's) rules, you not only got your funding cut off, you also found yourself on the receiving end of Karl Rove's Rotweiller-like attacks. It was a carrot and stick approach, with lobbying funds as the carrot and loss of funds (and Rove's ire) as the stick.

Looking at things, one has to wonder who was pulling whose strings. Was Delay working for the Bush administration, or was Bush put in place to be Delay's man behind the scenes? It doesn't really matter; one hand washes the other, whichever way you look at it.

This is, without question, the dirtiest bunch of politicos since the Harding administration. By the time prosecutors get to the bottom of it (and they will; the public loves a good political scandal), this will prove to be an even more flagrant abuse of power and privilege than what led to the Teapot Dome scandal in the early 1920s. The rich and the powerful have been using our country's resources to make themselves more rich and powerful; the public should be outraged.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

More sorry servers

Continuing my previous rant about unprofessional service help, here's another one. I'm at my local sub shop the other day, I'm not the only person in line, and the lady behind the cash register decides to have a nice little conversation with the woman in line just in front of me. But it's not a little conversation, it's a long one. They're gabbing about crystals and healing massages and who knows what, while the line is piling up behind me and steam is starting to issue forth from my ear canals. They talk for a good five minutes, like old pals who haven't seen each other since the last high school reunion, totally oblivious to the other customers in line, before the woman in line finally takes her change and heads off to a table.

I'm all for being friendly with customers (to a point), but his was ridiculous. It was extremely unprofessional and inconsiderate to us other poor shlumps waiting to pay for our rapidly-cooling food. Did this woman -- these women -- totally lack common sense and a minimal awareness of their surroundings? Apparently.

And here's something I've noticed. Foreign-born service staff, or those with ethnic backgrounds, seem to be both more professional and more polite than native-born Caucasians. As an example, the Indian woman at my other local sub shop is unfailingly prompt, cheery, polite, and professional. She always says "thank you" and "you're welcome," and never says "no problem" -- unlike the dumb white kid who serves beside her; he moves so slowly I can see the fresh vegetables wilting while he works, and can always be counted on to mumble "okay dude" when I give him my order (which he then screws up). One suspects it's a cultural thing when the Chinese, Indian, Pakistani, and Mexican waitresses and counterpeople do such an exemplary job while the native-born lunks act as if the whole process is really bumming them out. Yet another sign of American's decline, no doubt.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds might disagree, dude.

Overfamiliarity

My family was eating breakfast at a local Bob Evans restaurant the other day (not my choice), and my 14 year-old nephew got really annoyed at the waitress, who kept calling him "sweetie." He wasn't a sweetie, my nephew protested, which is true. Besides, referring to a complete stranger (no matter how young or how sweet) by such a familiar term is highly unprofessional.

It happens to me all the time. There's one counterperson at my local bagel shop who insists on calling me "hon." I am not a "hon," I have never been a "hon," and I am extremely annoyed if not downright offended to be referred to as such. In this case the countergirl is about half my age (she in her 20s, me in my 40s), which doesn't excuse anything. (At least she didn't call me "gramps.")

Then there's the guy at the sub shop who always asks me about whatever book I happen to be reading. (I always take a book to lunch, in order to keep from getting bored while refreshing my nutrients.) I didn't go to lunch with the expectation of giving a book report, and it's no one's business what I'm reading, what the book is about, or whether or how much I like it. He tends to get offended when I answer his "what're you reading?" question with the curt phrase, "a book," but at least he gets the point. Let me read in peace, bub.

I'm also not a big fan of waitresses and waiters who sit down in the booth with me while they're taking my order. This seems to be standard operating procedure at my local cheap chain steakhouse. This person who I do not know sits down, completely uninvited, and starts conversing with me like I'm some long lost friend. Well, folks, if I wanted a conversation, I'd eat dinner with someone I actually liked, not this stranger who has an uncanny knowledge of the specials of the day. Excuse me for being surly, but I really didn't go to that restaurant with the express purpose of being chatty.

You might think that my dislike of overly familiar waitstaff contradicts my previous rant about impolite waitstaff -- you know, the guys who offer a lackadaisical "no problem" instead of the expected "thank you" and "you're welcome." But they're really two sides of the same coin. It's not so much about being friendly or not, it's about being polite and professional. When you call me "hon" or try to make unwanted conversation, you're not acting in a professional manner. Overfamiliarity is just as much a service-industry sin as not thanking customers properly for their business. What I want is a professional greeting, prompt and attentive (but not overly attentive) service, and then for the staff to fade into the shadows. I don't want to be their friend. I want to be their customer, and be treated accordingly.

But that's just my opinion, hon; reasonable minds may disagree.

Another reason to hate cell phones

I'm taking time off from my continuing criticism of the inept and criminally corrupt Bush administration to complain once again about one of my least favorite technological advances -- the cell phone. I continue to believe that cell phones will lead to the death of civilization as we know it, as you can tell from some of my previous rants on the subject (here, here, here, here, and here).

My latest beef with what the Europeans call "mobiles" comes after a day spent at a big industry trade show. Trade shows are not my favorite places to be, but you gotta go where you gotta go. What I encountered this go-round was that people like to talk on their cell phones while they cruise the show floor. The annoying thing, in addition to being forced to listen to their private conversations, is that most people have difficulty walking and talking at the same time. (Thank heaven they didn't try to chew gum, too.) So what you get is a guy walking down the crowded aisle talking on his cell phone, then abruptly stopping in the middle of everything so that he can make some conversational point with someone a couple of hundred miles away. It goes without saying that when you stop dead in your tracks in the middle of flowing pedestrian traffic, you cause incalculable bodily collisions. A guy walks, talks, stops, and causes chaos in his wake. Multiply this situation by dozens if not hundreds of similar walker/talkers, and you see why I'm particularly peeved.

One other annoyance I discovered at the trade show was the profusion of drag-along briefcases. You know what I'm talking about; the oversized briefcase on wheels with a extending handle, like a airline carry-on but used on the ground. The problem with this particular contraption is the floor space it occupies. One person takes up a certain square footage of floor space; dragging a rolling briefcase behind doubles if not triples the floor space used. The issue, then, is of increased density, as the available floor space is cut in half without the crowd itself expanding.

Then there's the related issue of floor space versus air space. That is, it looks as if you're the proper distance from the person in front of you, but the trailing luggage trips you up. I can't tell you how many times I stumbled over low-riding bags when traffic slowed. Combine the mobile briefcase problem with the mobile phone walk/talk/stop problem and you have a complete breakdown of normal traffic patterns -- and more than a few lawsuits waiting to happen.

My solution? Well, other than staying away from trade shows (which is an excellent suggestion), I keep coming back to a universal cell phone ban in public places. That won't solve the rolling luggage problem, of course, but my question there is just how much shit does a person really need to haul around? I mean, I've never carried such a load that I couldn't heft it with my arm or fling it over my shoulder. If you have to drag it, you need to dump it.

But that's just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.

Reining in the Christian right

The Christian right, which is neither Christian or right, is becoming a danger to our American democracy. It’s one thing to adhere to a set of beliefs; it’s quite another to try to impose those beliefs on others. This is especially so when the beliefs are extremist in nature, held by a small minority of the public, and, quite frankly, wrong.

Can you get any more wrong than claiming that the Hurricane Katrina disaster was the wrath of a God angry about New Orleans’ noted debauchery? That’s what Repent America says, claiming that it was no coincidence that Katrina hit just days before New Orleans’ annual Southern Decadence gay pride celebration.

“Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city,” stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. “From 'Girls Gone Wild' to Southern Decadence, New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge.”

Equally deplorable was the rejoicing by Rev. Bill Shanks, pastor of New Covenant Fellowship of New Orleans, who was ecstatic that Katrina shut down the area’s abortion clinics – thus, to his way of thinking, becoming a disaster that actually saved lives.

“New Orleans now is abortion free,” Shanks said. “New Orleans now is Mardi Gras free. New Orleans now is free of Southern Decadence and the sodomites, the witchcraft workers, false religion -- it's free of all of those things now. God simply, I believe, in His mercy purged all of that stuff out of there -- and now we're going to start over again.”

This just goes to show how similar fundamentalists are across all religions, as Islamic extremists are also praising Katrina as Allah’s revenge on evil Western society. And just as Islamic fundamentalists are a danger to our American way of life, so are these Christian fundamentalists.

This country was founded on individual liberty, freedom of speech, and religious tolerance, and any movement that seeks to suppress any or all of these tenents is a potential danger to the republic. Today’s Christian right, those activist fundamentalists represented by James Dobson and his ilk, want to remake the country in their own image. These are not harmless kooks; these are extremists who are well-organized and well on their way to achieving their goals.

Let us take, as another example, the Christian Exodus movement, as highlighted in a recent article in the Los Angeles Times. This is a movement of politically active Christian extremists who want to establish a government based upon a specific set of fundamentalist Christian principles. If these activists have their way, they will live in a county where abortion is illegal, homosexuality is outlawed, school prayer is mandatory, and all manner of so-called immoral behavior is banned. They want to live in a Christian nation of their own very specific design, one where non-Christian beliefs and behavior are simply not tolerated.

Those in the Christian Exodus movement are starting small. Realizing they might not be able to take over the entire United States in a day, they’re instead concentrating on taking control of local governments across the country. They’re putting their people on city councils and school boards, in local sheriff’s offices and planning boards, just about anywhere they can get a foothold. They plan to pass what they deem as godly legislation, openly defying Supreme Court rulings on the separation of church and state. As one of the group said:

“We’re going to force a constitutional crisis. If necessary, we will secede from the union.”

Now, I ask you, is this the voice of a true American? Do loyal citizens openly defy established law, with the goal of overthrowing the national government or seceding from the union?

I think not. This kind of thinking is every bit as dangerous as what we face from Islamic terrorists. Just like the Islamic terrorists, these Christian extremists want to topple the United States of America. If they have their way, you and I and anyone else who thinks differently from them will be either detained or banished. Their ideal world doesn’t allow for opposing views.

What can we do to stop these Christian fanatics? Our constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech allows them to say what they want to say, think what they want to think, and believe what they want to believe. We are forced to be tolerant of those who are intolerant of us. Outlawing their particular beliefs would make us no better than them.

We do not, however, have to fund their anti-American activities. Religious organizations today enjoy tax-exempt status from the Federal government; in essence, since we don’t tax them on their income, we are helping to pay for these Christian extremist organizations. This can – and should – change.

What I recommend is simple. Any religious organization that engages in political activities should have their tax-exempt status revoked. Whether we’re talking Repent America, Christian Exodus, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, or Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, as soon as politics and religion merge, the religion loses its government support and starts paying taxes. I can assure you, with many of these organizations, that could be a killing blow. (And a great boon to Federal tax coffers.)

We have to tolerate even the most extreme among us. We don’t have to financially support them. No loyal American would knowingly write a check to Al Queda; we must stop our similar funding of these anti-American Christian extremists.

But that’s just my opinion; reasonable minds may disagree.