Thursday, July 7, 2011

Is Obama Serious?


The news in this morning's paper was not awe-inspiring or encouraging for those of us who'd hoped President Obama would stiffen his spine, or at least find a semblance of one in dealing with the bad faith repukes over the debt ceiling. We now see he's preparing a "sweetening" deal to give up at least $2 trillion in spending cuts, including "major changes to Social Security and Medicare cuts" - this despite the fact we know damned well we can't "cut" our way out of this deficit mess. TAXES MUST BE RAISED in one to one proportion to any spending cuts! And that means not merely closing loopholes!

As I noted in a previous blog:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/how-gop-could-destroy-economy-by.html


this is a god-awful, terrible idea! The reason is simple economics! The economy is fragile now and in a state of spinning its wheels because too many supply side fixes have been provided, and not nearly enough on the DEMAND side! The latter implies MORE spending, not less, and that means not removing the basis for middle and working class people to do so! When you advertise cuts, any kind of spending cuts, you are threatening the demand side with instability, because people will then pull back personal spending in proportion. Since personal consumption contributes 60% to the GDP this is a very dangerous and stupid action, but one which the disgusting vile repukes are more than happy to desire - since they know the devastated economy by next year will hurl Obama's re-election chances into the proverbial crapper.

Does he see any of this? One wonders! Especially after he literally gave away the country store and then some with his allowing the extension of ALL the Bush tax cuts to the tune of nearly $900b last December! If he'd just had the balls then to say 'NO!' - to all the extensions- we'd have been nearly $1 trillion less in the hole. If he'd even made raising the debt ceiling THEN part of the package (as Nicholas Kristof suggested to him yesterday in his Twitter conference) we wouldn't have to be talking about major changes to the social insurance programs (NOT "entitlements"!) now!

In that earlier blog I quoted from the essay, Our Greek Tragedy, appearing in TIME (July 4, p.. 26) by Rana Forhoohar:

"There's still a belief that the government can cut spending wholesale and expect consumers to pick up the slack. This is magical thinking!"

Which is exactly the core issue. Obama appears to have taken the Repukes' kool aid that the deficit problem can be saved by massive spending cuts. This is bald ignorance and monstrous codswallop! As I also noted, the problem is that aggregate demand is low (based on a tabulated rate of 9% unemployment and more like 16% real unemployment). Aggregate demand is composed of two parts: 1) demand generated by consumers for goods and services, and 2) the demand for investment goods.

In the case of (1), apart from the affluent who can afford to buy Marilyn Monroe dresses for $6 million and 100k blood diamonds for $20m, consumer demand remains low, falling almost quarterly! This is because the wages that support it are too low! The average worker's wages have remained static or gone down since the recession theoretically ended. Thus, consumers are buying less, and resorting to more saving.

16 million remain unemployed and more than 38 million are underemployed - so obviously they can't spend more, and as time goes on will plausibly spend less. Then there are the millions of seniors hurt by the lack of COLAs (cost of living allowances from Social Security, the past two years) so effectively they are already suffering from major cuts - since part of their Social Security payments are taken to pay for Medicare premiums! And Obama wants to cut more, by altering the COLA basis from inflation protected to consumer price index (CPI)? You have to be kidding me! This cuts seniors' income by 10% or more each year, if and when COLAs resume! They can afford neither more extended lack of COLAs, OR specious ones or higher Medicare premiums! If that happens they will pull back spending entirely adding to rapidly dropping existing demand on the side of (1). C'mon, Obama, wake up!

In other words, the demand side of the landscape looks so poorly for consumers they are hunkering down...likely expecting another shoe to drop. That "shoe" - when they pay attention to the news, sounds like a severe cut in possible social services, thanks to the Republicans' rhetoric. We expected Obama to stand up to these shit wipes and not give in to them again, as he did last December on the Bush tax cuts!

Meanwhile, investor demand for investment goods is largely hinging on their optimism or not. But when they see consumer confidence always stagnant or dropping, because of LOW demand, they have no incentive to start new businesses or invest in any! If investors are pessimistic (as many are now...because of the volatility of stocks) then they will withhold their investments- meaning the total aggregate demand drops!

Here's a numerical example of how this all works. Assume we have "full employment" (e.g. 4%) and it generates a total of $1,000 worth goods and services in a day. This is also the sum total of the profits and incomes the employees and employers share. Let households comprised of workers and employers use a large fraction (e.g. 90% or $900) of their income to purchase goods and services for consumption. The remaining 10% or $100 is saved but eventually purchased by investors as investment goods.

Now, say an agent or effect appears (e.g. states cutting pensions and benefits) which causes consumers to pull back on their spending such that the $1,000 becomes $900. Then, with an income of only $900, the consumption is also reduced, say to only $800. $200 in "savings" accrues but inveestors are so pessimistic and traumatized by the consumption decline that they only purchase $50 of the $200. In this case, the aggregate demand has shrunk 15% from $1000 ($900 consumption + $100 investment) to $850 ($800 consumption + $50 investment). The reduced investment- by a factor 2 ($100 to $50)- means that employment will drop, plausibly by the same factor. Therefore unemployment will reach: 4% x 2 = 8% for a 15% drop in aggregate demand. Similarly, if the consumptive demand is reduced to $500, and purchases are only at $450 - representing a 50% drop from what they were at 4% unemployment, with investment (out of $500 available) still at $50, then we can see that the jobs loss will increase by a factor 10 ($500/$50) rendering unemployment at: 10 x 4% = 40%. (I am assuming government spending cuts also cause nearly half the loss in consumer demand)

In this way, the stage is setting up for a major financial disaster, and a new recession or even depression. Granted, Obama wants to avoid a default on the government debt, but is it worth tossing the whole U.S. economy into the crapper to do it? (As a result of the R's extortion.) How about standing up to these assholes like Clinton did in 1995?

If as I showed, Obama really does implement a $2 trillion cut in spending, this a projected net loss of aggregate demand in the neighborhood of 40-50% by next summer! This translates into an unemployment level of more than 18% this time next year (30% real unemployment) and a new recession bordering on depression. Think the repukes will be happy? Hell, they'll be having wet dreams at the prospect of such an abomination (which they deliberately created) within months of the general election!

Are the Dems so stupid, so bereft of their own arguments and narratives that they're compelled to go along with this insanity? Are they remotely aware of the electoral and other consequences?

It doesn't seem so, nor would I have ever believed (before this) that the Dems would have allowed themselves to be so held to extortion by the Repigs that they'd sell FDR's and LBJ's major social programs down the river to appease bond pirates and political terrorists.

The bottom line here? Asking progressive citizens to agree to cuts in social safety nets in exchange for Repukes agreeing not to extend Bush tax cuts next year is a FOOL'S Errand! It's a cocklemamey "heads, I win- tails you lose" gambit that no sane or rational person would agree to. My point? If you're going to fucking demand $2 trillion in actual cuts, we need to see $2 TRILLION INCREASES in TAXES in addition to the purely PASSIVE act of not extending the Bush tax cuts (which ought to have sunseted THIS year!) Wake the fuck up, Demo-dweebs or you LOSE next year!

I am still hoping most of Obama's rhetoric is just that, and not intended to be taken seriously. If it is, and he makes the cuts to social programs being threatened or intimated, I am afraid his re-election chances will be about what Jimmy Carter's were in November of 1980.

Footnote: As of this latest edit (7:07 EDT), at least House Leader Nancy Pelosi has demonstrated some cojones, and asserted that her House caucus will have NO part in parlaying more Bush tax cuts on the backs of the elderly. She told Obama at the meeting today that Social Security will NOT be used as a "piggy bank" to finance tax cuts for the wealthiest.

Good for you, Nancy! Now let's hope that bold voice of the People, Harry Reid, also gets it - so Obama's plans lie dead in the water...where they belong with the Repuke-licans.

Introduction to Basic Physics (the Oscilloscope)- Pt. 24







We now turn to one of the most fundamentally important devices found in any high school physics lab: the Cathode ray oscilloscope. At Harrison College in Barbados, we regularly used this device to precisely measure voltages, as well as analyze, diagnose and record rapidly changing electrical phenomena whose frequencies often varied from less than 1 c/s (cycle per second, or Hz) to thousands of megacycles per second (Mc/s, or MHz). The versatility of the 'CRO' is such that it can be used in everything from electronics, to missile technology, though many of these have been displaced in the modern era. Nevertheless, the CRO remains a highly useful teaching tool!

The front face of one oscilloscope is shown in Fig.1. with its circular screen (and grid) as well as controls below. Basically, the heart of the machine is a cathode ray tube, which is sketched from my old Harrison College notes in Fig. 2. This is an elongated vacuum tube with an electron gun at one end (left) which acts as a supply for high velocity electrons. By means of an electron 'lens' system these electrons are brought to a focus (e.g. into a narrow beam) and accelerated along the axis of the tube. From there various controls are used (along with differentially applied voltages) to alter the outputs. (A power supply provides the necessary voltages to operate the electron gun and focus the beam).

In reference to the components of the CRO illustrated in Fig. 2:

- The cathode is raised to a high temperature by a heated filament

- the accelerating anode is maintained at a high positive potential relative to the cathode, so a storng E-field obtains between the two.

-The control grid regulates the number of electrons leaving the anode.

- The focussing anode ensures electrons leaving the anode arrive at the same spot on the screen.

- X and Y plates (pairs) are used for deflection. Separately, the Y -plates are used for up and down motions and the X-plates for side to side motions'

- The amplitude scale is along the vertical scale and the time along the base.


Fig. 3 shows the arrangement of the X and Y -plates in a frontal view and their grounding. The graph in 3(b) shows the linear relationship between the magnitude of deflection (vertical axis) and the voltage applied.

Our CROs at Harrison College typically had a sensitivity of 50V/cm (of course all CROs have amplifiers built in to amplify signals too small to be read otherwise). In performing calibrations, typically a vertical line 1 cm long would be produced by this a.c. input of 50 V (peak-to-peak) thus, 25V peak maximum so the rms voltage (root mean square voltage) would be: V(max)/[2]^½ = 18 V. Students found that on setting the gain to 0.1 the gain of the amplifier was greatest and small potential differences could be measured.

Some initial observations:

a) Connect the Y1 plate to a positive d.c. potential, the spot observed in Fig. 4 appears.

b) Connect the same Y1 plate to an a.c. potential and the vertical motion of the spot depicted in Fig. 5 is seen.

Calibrating the instrument

1. Connect the output of an audio signal generator to the Y input terminal.

2. Set the signal generator at 100 Hz (c/s) and by adjusting the sweep frequency controls, obtain one complete cycle on the oscilloscope screen.

3. Repeat with the signal generator set at 250 and then 500 cycles/s.

4. With the signal generator set at 100 c/s set its output at 2.0 V.

5. With the (scaled) grid in place over the oscilloscope face, set the vertical gain control to give a 20-unit vertical amplitude.

6. Reduce the signal generator output so the amplitude is now 10 units.


For Displaying General Waveforms

The signal to be examined is connected to the Y-plates (e.g. via the audio signal generator) and the time base to the X-plates. As the CRO spot is drawn horizontally across by the time base it is deflected vertically by the alternating signal potential. (Time base must have a linear sweep of the waveforms will suffer distortion).

The ratio of the frequency for the signal amplitude to the time base will be:

f(a) / f(tB) = 1

Lissajous Figures

The creation and examination of Lissajous Figures (see Fig. 6) is also very popular with H.C. students. The particular pattern formed depends on the frequency, amplitude, and phase relationship of the two inputs (X and Y). Basically, these figures are formed when two differing signal generators (generating different frequencies) are connected to the vertical and horizontal inputs. (The controls must be changed so that the oscilloscope accepts the output of the signal generator instead of the horizontal sweep!)

The objective is mainly such that the frequency ratio of the two inputs, (e.g. f(v)/f(h)) can be determined from an analysis of the Lissajous figure produced. If enclosed in a rectangle whose sides are parallel to the formation axes of the figure the frequency ratio is determined by counting the points of tangency to the sides of the rectangle enclosing the pattern. The ratio of the tangency points is the inverse ratio of the input frequencies.

Practical Problem:

Fig. 6 shows the Lissajous pattern produced when the frequency ratio = 2/3.

if the frequency of the vertical input is 300 Hz, then what is the frequency of the horizontal input?

We first confirm the frequency ratio is correct, and note there are 3 vertical tangency points along the sides of the rectangle - made by the figure. There are two horizontal tangency points, so the T-points ratio = 3/2.

The actual frequency ratio f(v)/f(h) is the inverse of this so:

f(v)/f(h) = 1 /(3/2) = 2/3

Now, we have f(v) = 300 Hz, then:

f(v) = 2/3 (f(h)) or

f(h) = 3/2 (300 Hz) = 450 Hz


Other problems:

1) If in a test of an oscilloscope the Y2 plate is connected to a positive (d.c.)potential, sketch what would be observed.

2) The time base is connected to a positive potential (X-plates only involved). Sketch what would be observed.

3) When the time variation of a quantity is to be studied, an alternating p.d. representing the quantity is applied to the Y-plates via the Y-amplifier to the time -base. This generates a "saw-tooth" pattern. Illustrate such a pattern, and label its "sweep" and "flyback" aspects.

(Hints: The sweep must be linear so the deflection of the beam is proportional to the time. The 'saw-tooth' results from a combination of the alternating input p.d. and the steady speed of the image spot going left to right)

4) Say a 2 cm long line (peak-to-peak, from above to below reference horizontal) is generated on the screen in a lab oscilloscope by an a.c. input of 60V. What would the peak voltage be? What will the rms voltage be?

5) A signal generator producing 1,000 Hz is connected to the vertical Y-input of an oscilloscope while a 2nd signal generator producing 500 Hz is connected to the horizontal. Sketch the Lissajous figure that would be produced. Explain why you sketched it as you did.

6) The frequency ratio analyzed from a Lissajous figure is found to be:

f(v)/f(h) = 1

Sketch how this pattern would appear on the oscilloscope screen.

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Don't Get Scammed by Teen Magazine Sellers!


Four days ago, two teens came to the door and continued pressing the doorbell, driving my wife up the wall as she implored me to answer it. I didn't want to but the buzzing persisted as if they believed someone was home and weren't about to leave. So I opened it, to be greeted by two fresh-faced teen girls, chatty and smiling. After lots of babble and small talk, I cut to the chase and asked what they wanted.

They became somewhat evasive and began babbling some more about collecting "points" for some objective or other, and the way they did this was by selling assorted magazines. The main talker then produced a list of all the ones I could buy to help her gain points. I regarded her with narrowing eyes, now fully aware of the hucksterism, and said I don't buy magazines from door to door salespeople, whoever they are. Also, I was scammed out of a magazine purchase three years ago!

The chatty one then asked me to elaborate and I did, recounting how a pretty 18 year old who claimed she was "bound for college" needed some extra money, and she would get it if she earned enough points. All she needed was for me to purchase one magazine from her list. The only one I saw of any remote interest to me was the political left journal Mother Jones so selected that, and paid her with a check for $19.99. I asked how soon the subscription would start and she became rather ambiguous saying "it could be from a month to six weeks".

I took her at her word, but one month passed, then two, then three and then a whole year and nothing. Nada. I went to the Better Business Bureau but they said they could do nothing without her full name. (The only name she gave was 'Penny' and that may not have been real). I then called 'Mother Jones' and they assured me they'd never ever use door to door sellers. Well, you live and you learn!

Only later, after some research, did I discover that the teen magazine selling racket was just that, and run by assorted nefarious groups who exploited down on their luck teens (mainly females) desperate for work, and money for college. They took them into brief selling seminars, then turned them loose in neighborhoods to ply their wares, usually magazines.

Most turned out to be scams, and no magazines ever arrived.

Readers can read more about these operations here:

http://listofscams.blogspot.com/2010/01/door-to-door-magazine-sales-scams-tips.html

See also this warning from the BBB:

http://www.travelingsalescrews.info/magazine%20scams%20and%20rip%20offs.html



So, as I told the current ones at my door - no way, no how, and not ever. Having once been bitten, I am not about to risk it again. So, hasta la vista!

They then packed their folders under their arms and ambled down the street.

Again, why cop to their money grubbing fraud and scam if I wouldn't even do it for a brother? I hate, detest all such scams and all money grubbing. People who are taken then become easy marks for the next round on others (elderly people) who may not be able to parry their amiable bullshit.

So people, wherever you are, be wary of these young teens walking door to door and their assorted "magazines for points" pleas.

Best option? Don't even open the damned door!

More on the Reich Wing Conflation Syndrome


As I showed in the previous blog, deliberate conflation serves a multitude of nefarious purposes, mainly for disinformation, misinformation and propaganda in the right wing blogosphere and media. Thus, they conflate Obama's policies with "socialism" - despite the fact the two have nothing in common as I will show. They also conflate German National Socialism (which was really Fascism) with Soviet or Chinese Socialism - Communism, despite the fact that Hitler not only dispossessed and brutalized leftists: Marxists, Socialists and commies, but dispatched them for "final solution" in concentration camps as well.

I showed, when one accesses serious resources, as opposed to comics and Faux News, one can see Hitler couldn't have been a real socialist by his very actions and policies most of which were totally antithetical to Socialist values. Thus, he didn't use trade unions to parlay them into any "workers' paradise" - he squashed them like bugs! This was needed to ensure total conformity under the Reich laws, as former members of the German Wehrmacht relayed.

Why did Hitler hate Socialists so much, with such intensity? Robert Payne in his biography of Hitler (The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler)) acknowledges it was because the originator of Marxism, Karl Marx, was a Jew. Hitler thereby erroneously inferred that Socialism was an inherently Jewish economic philosophy and its practitioners were also Jews. Hitler, like so many Americans today, committed the logical error of imputing guilt by virtue of mere association - compounded by reckless generalization.

It never occurred to Hitler or his officers to question that sort of 'cartoon' logic, even when at other times they were railing against "Jewish ownership" of the media, banks and so on. I mean, this is contradictory, since socialists don't own banks...and their media tend to be tiny with small circulations! But no one exercised an ounce of critical thought to question the contradictions of narrative!

Now, what about the conflation of Obama with a Socialist, or Socialism? This is idiotic on its face and only employed because the bloggers who do so rely on the ignorance of their audience not to be able to discriminate. But as ‘Democratic LEFT- the main organ of the Democratic Socialists of America observes, Obama is about as far from being a Socialist as I am from being a Martian. Readers can see an extensive article on this here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/22/opinion/main5180886.shtml?tag=cbsnewsLeadStoriesAreaMain;cbsnewsLeadStoriesHeadlines

Socialism and the Politics of Fear

And a YouTube interview with a Temple University Professor (and REAL Socialist) here, on why Obama is not one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A_ZOWI1aLU


Why isn’t Obama a Socialist in terms of his 'Affordable Health Care Act'?

FIRST, because the bill actually isn’t new, nor is it truly universal health care (nearly 23 million stand to be left out for whatever reasons)! It was actually a recycling of the Republican alternative to what they called 'Hillary Care' proposed back in 1993. But the Goopers are too damned dumb, or ignorant of recent history, to know it! As usual, Goopers have short memories when it suits them.

In that original Republican health alternative- market exchanges would be set up to allow limited bargaining between health consumers and insurance companies. That is also a central aspect of this plan, which retains a major role for insurance companies.

In a real Socialist system, all insurance companies (as profit leeches for capitalism and market shares on Wall Street) would be eliminated! Thus, what Obama has on offer is the furthest thing from a genuine Socialist health care plan, which more normally would be based on a single payer plan such as in Canada. In this plan, the government is the SINGLE payer for insurance of the population, as opposed to over 400 insurance companies with differing rules, standards.

In this way, the single payer plan SAVES more money than any plan based on hundreds of private insurers. Since the Reeps and their toadies are always screaming about the debt, I'd have thought this would be a no-brainer for them, but evidently not. I guess they like their higher cost private insurance system which eats up more of the national income each year.

In truth and fact, it is our privately controlled health system which is hyper-charging the national debt to ever higher levels. Until that health delivery system is under control, the debt will never be managed or lowered, no matter how many spending cuts the Repukes demand. The annual inflation from health care alone is 14% a year, including drugs and isn't getting cheaper. Rationing care can only do so much, so the whole structure and pay system needs to be seriously addressed.

Oh, one more thing! When these Reep bloggers holler long and loud over "Socialism" to do with health care (including telling those of us who endorse it to "leave the country"- despite the fact the U.S. signed a UN Declaration making health care a RIGHT in 1994), I do hope they bear in mind that the biggest true element of Socialism in the American theater is Social Security! In fact, it exceeds even Medicare in this sense, because one still has to pay some large monthly fees with Medicare. So, if these bloggers are going to yap and howl over "socialism" then I expect them to forego their Social Security! If not, they're hypocrites plain and simple! You cannot reap the benefits of what little token socialism there is in this country, then howl about it and have the absolute, confounding chutzpah to tell real citizen socialists to "leave"!

Second, in doing his banking bailout back in 2009, Obama acted nothing like a real Socialist! A real, red blooded Socialist would have TAKEN over the banks! Removed all their board members and replaced them with government officials! This never occurred! The same exact thing applies to the auto company bailout (of GM, Chrysler) whose board also would have been taken over in a true socialist system and no shares issued via Wall Street - all sold and distributed to workers!

Again, this never occurred!

Third, in terms of the Bush tax cuts, a REAL Socialist never would have extended them as Obama agreed to do back in December. They would have ended one time!

Fourth, in these current debt talks, a REAL Socialist wouldn't be talking about "entitlements" being in for spending cuts as part of the mix. Oh no! IN fact, the term "entitlements" is a right wing (Reich wing) buzzword and Obama plays right into their terminology landscape when he employs it while raising the hackles of his liberal base.

Further a REAL Socialist wouldn't have ANY spending cuts period, but demand ALL tax increases!

The amusing thing to me is that there is already rampant socialism in the US of A. It’s just that it’s corporate socialism – not socialism for the masses (whose only token socialism is Social Security - which doesn't even cover all their retirement needs). In every way – using every kind of dodge, hollow law and loophole, corporations are protected from the “free market” they so readily espouse. As when the Savings and Loans were bailed out in 1989, then Long Term Capital Management was bailed out by taxpayers, in 1997. And the airlines were bailed out with billions from the public purse in 2001-02. Plus the banks in 2008 without also making their aid contingent on conditions (like no more dabbling in credit default swaps).

It is clear to the most dense denizen of these United States that all the uproar showing Obama as "Hitler", a "Stalin", etc. - all amount to camouflaged racism when all is said and done. The tea baggers know how unbecoming it would appear to have signs of Obama with the N-word emblazoned on them - so they use Hitler and Stalin, etc. depictions instead. Nice try, but we can see through it! And don't even try to BS us using a whole bunch of revisionist history pud about what Hitler allegedly did and Obama allegedly did. You just make yourselves look even more pathetic and ignorant than you are!

Tuesday, July 5, 2011

Want to KNOW about Nazi Germany's REAL History? Go to REAL Germans!



Some bloggers on the Right it seems, are wedded to their 1950s Superman comics. You know, the ones where some super hero (Superman? Green Lantern?) takes on Hitler and the Nazis. That has to be the only explanation of where they dredge up their endless, unsupported comical bilge and codswallop - especially in seeking to conflate Nazism with Socialism or Liberalism. But what this lot really needs to do, if any of them can summon the energy, is to make a pigrimage to Germany and try to talk to actual Germans who were alive at the time of Hitler's short-lived Reich, or better, who actually fought in it! (I suggest they hop to it before the last of these die out!)

My good fortune has been that on two occasions - one in August of 1978, the other in May of 1985, I was enabled to meet and talk to actual flesh and blood Germans from the WWII era: one who had been a member of Hitler Youth (forced to at the point of a gun to his mother's head), and two others who had fought for the most fearsome army on the continent - the German Wehrmacht. At different times, they used their own photographs, films and archives to show me - a visiting American - just what Hitler and Nazis were about. Looking back, I'm glad to have had the opportunity, because it allows me to skewer any nonsense written now.

Let's look at some of the bollocks that has been written in a certain right wing blog:

1) Hitler believed TRUE Christianity had no place in his 1,000-year Reich, so he erected a figure of the Norse god Odin and urged Germans to celebrate the season as a holiday of the ‘winter solstice’, rather than Christmas.

The TRUTH: The German Protestant Church prevailed in strength, and as German author Konrad Heiden notes (The Fuehrer, pp. 497-98), this Christian Church demanded that only Aryans be admitted, especially to the ministry. (Note: writing or talking of 'real Christians' in the historical context- in terms of modern evangelicals - is baloney, since they were never more than a tiny sect at the time, known as "the German Church of the Brethren". Much of this research I owe to my wife, who tracked my own family lineage into three branches that all featured these "German Brethren". All amscrayed to America by the mid 1800s!)`

Heiden, an ex-journalist and the only author who was alive at the time of his writing about Hitler (1930s) also points out (p. 536) it would have been "foolishness" for Hitler or any German leader to have asserted "Christianity had no place" in his Reich! Indeed, Heiden observes that up to 1918 Germany was dominated by religious communities of some type. Unbelievers were as scarce as chickens with teeth! When Hitler arrived, the same religious communities continued only now under STATE sponsorship. I.e. the German Protestant Church became Germany's state church, analogous to the Anglican Church in England.

As for the Odin bit, that wasn't anything novel that started with Hitler, but always part of the Volkisch movement that had persisted in Germany since the Middle Ages. It extolled a kind of phony Aryanism and invested much of it in myths traced back to ancient Nordic origins. It also incorporated Christian rituals, such as the Passion Play at Oberammagau, in which the Jews were featured as "Christ killers". In other words, the Volkisch movement embodied a cultural anti-Semitism that had gone on for centuries, Hitler merely exploited it, partly out of pure laziness (he didn't have to create whole new themes and legends) and partly because German anti-Semitism had existed for centuries as a societal undercurrent (I even encountered some of it my 1978 trip to Germany when some Germans in Hemsbach questioned the "Jew ownership" of the American media).

The same goes for the "Germanization" Hitler sought, which was to create a single German mythos detached from all other European stock or memes. Thus, he emphasized the dramas of Frederich Schiller, the Operas of Richard Wagner, and the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer. These were MUCH more important and crucial than any "Norse gods"! Hitler was smart enough to know, like his chosen few (Goebbels, etc.) that he wouldn't be able to pawn any ancient idols over on a people who were among the most intellectual and talented in Europe. All my German friends concurred with this, especially Kurt Braun (see photo)in Frankfurt-Am-Main, who showed films of the Nazi parades and marches, as well as others of the S.A. beating up Socialists and Marxists in the streets.

More nonsense!

Of course , liberals like to associate Adolf Hitler with the right because Hitler has been the historical villain in movies and TV for decades (a reputation Hitler richly deserves.) By liberal logic, anybody who is a villain in a movie MUST be a bad-guy.

This is what I mean by cartoon logic! In fact Hitler is associated with the RIGHT because he espoused FASCISM, which is RIGHTIST! In addition, as documented by Ian Kershaw in his magnificent account of Hitler’s rise to power (‘Hitler Nemesis’) is that the pre-Reich Weimar Republic constituted a weak democracy which had little or no control over the most radical Rightists, especially Hitler’s (actually, originally Ernst Röhm's) NSDAP party. They would regularly beat Marxists, socialists, and any leftists on the streets while holding up signs that read: “Tot dem Marxem!” (Death to Marxists!) Kind of a damned funny way to show kinship with REAL Left Socialists!

Now, if these geniuses who insist Hitler "wasn't of the Right" are correct, then WHY beat up on Marxists, Socialists and Commies of the LEFT? Huh? Kurt's films from his archives also showed the same thing! Hundreds of gangster S.A. (enlisted by Hitler) swooping in on a crowd of union workers, Socialists and Marxists and beating them half to death.

THIS IS HISTORY, ACTUALLY DOCUMENTED! If the American Right doesn't wish to be associated with this, I fully understand, but to try to revise history because you abhor the Rightist link is both pigheaded, and disingenous. Take ownership, then move on!

He goes on:

After all, who would want to be associated with a mass-murdering dictator who spread war, misery, genocide and tyranny? Certainly not the American right who made up the vast majority of the US troops that fought and died fighting against the Nazis.

This is more utter nonsense. For example, he just tosses this one out without a single validating fact! FROM WHERE, i.e. what journal or source did he produce this factoid? He doesn't say! He merely assumes most soldiers were of the "American Right". In fact, at the time of WWII service the preponderance (85-90%)of soldiers were from the political middle (unlike today, when most ARE from the Right, because Christanoid-ism has been interwoven with militarism, look at the AF Academy and their rituals the past decade, including the "heathens' run" - banging new cadets over the head with bibles if not "saved". Look at Gen. Jerry Boykin's famous and stupid remark to all Muslims that: 'My God can beat your god!')

Also, in those times, most American soldiers didn't eat, live and breathe politics and there wasn't the political polarization there is now, and has been since the Right had MLK and JFK killed (look up the architects, namely Haroldson Lafayette Hunt). Polarization didn't exist with political extremes because there was no "FOX News" to delude the mass of people, nor was there any Reich Wing Talk Radio such as from Lush Limburger and clones. People all gathered round the radio and got their news from the same sources (e.g. CBS Radio), and the same voices such as Edward R. Murrow. Thus, political division didn't exist as it does now. Sure, you had the German-American Bund in places like Milwaukee (who largely sympathized with the Nazis and Germany) but they were a small niche group and didn't join the military.

But again, the issue isn't whether the American fanatical Right "wants to be associated" with a mass murderer, but rather the historical facts about Hitler and his absolutely positive Right wing political bent! Kershaw again (‘Hitler Nemesis’, p. xxxiii):

“Leaders of big business, though often harboring private concerns about current difficulties and looming future problems for the economy, for their part were grateful to Hitler for the destruction of the left-wing parties and trade unions. They were again ‘masters in the house’ in their dealings with their work force”

Note carefully: It wasn't Hitler destroying right wing parties but LEFT WING PARTIES and TRADE UNIONS! THIS is why the German capitalists, such as Krupp, Volkswagen, I.G. Farben (infamous for later manufacturing the Zyklon B gas used in the gas chambers) etc. threw their lot behind him and provided the political ballast, without which he could never have become 'Der Fuehrer'.

As Dieter, former Wehrmacht soldier (see photo) put it:

"It was disgusting how far the big businessmen went to support Hitler! Had it not been for them I doubt he'd ever have been Chancellor or even gotten 15% of the vote in the 1932 elections.

Hans, the other former Wehrmacht soldier (who had pinned American troops down in the Teuotoburger in 1945 but didn't press the advantage) was more colorful:

"The Big Businessmen just kissed Hitler's ass! They wanted him in power more than a drunken sailor wanted a whore in shore leave!

Beyond all this, we now have very solid evidence, thanks to released FOIA files, of how close the Republican Party has been to the Nazis of Europe. We have to thank author Russ Bellant (Old Nazis, The New Right and The Republican Party, South End Press, 1990), for meticulously documenting how and when Nazi-SS elements and cliques infiltrated the GOP and insinuated themselves into the national political framework. (Which makes one wonder how many of their current policy formulations, e.g. Paul Ryan's Medicare "plan" are Nazi-based, or hatched originally by Republican Heritage groups.)

The key link are the Republican Heritage Groups, which attained major ascendancy after Reagan became president. Bellant notes (p. 4):

"In a sense...the foundation of the Republican Heritage Groups Council lay in Hitler's networks into Eastern Europe before World War II. In each of those Eastern European countries the German SS set up or funded political action organizations that helped form SS militias during the war."

He cites, for example, that in Hungary the "Arrow Cross" was the SS affiliate. In Romania it was the "Iron Guard". In Latvia, it was the "Latvian Legion". And members from ALL of these - and others - obtained passage to the U.S. and found a home in various groups after the War. Under the umbrella of the Republican Heritage Groups Council and later its "Ethnic Division". Their main purpose was in Republican campaign fund raising but they were also used for assorted "dirty tricks" against Democrats and may well have come up with the noisome plan to bargain with Iran to keep American hostages there, until after Reagan was elected (as opposed to Carter, in 1980).

No connection between the Nazis and American Right? Hell, they're freakin' bedfellows!

Now on to more bunkum:


2. As previosuly mentioned , Hitler hated Christianity...just like the SD's. Hitler would use religious symbols to manipulate people but in his own words and deeds, Hitler hated the Judaeo-Christian morality code.

And as I noted, this is bollocks. Hitler himself was a Christian, born and baptized a Catholic (whether this blogger calls Catholicism 'Christian' or not is immaterial, given that 99.9% of all religious scholars recognize it as the oldest Christian faith). Hitler also never renounced his Catholicism but even signed a Reich Concordat with the Vatican, through Eugenio Pacelli.

Further, if Hitler truly "hated Christianity" why did he not eliminate the German Protestant Church? In fact, it grew stronger than ever during the nine Reich years! Some theorize (e.g. Robert Payne in 'The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler', and Konrad Heiden in 'The Fuerher') because Jews or former unbelievers sought to join in record numbers for protection.

He does get one thing correct, that Hitler did use some PAGAN religious symbols to manipulate people. But this was not so much religious manipulation as political-psychological.

Hitler knew the psyche of the average German was at a nadir following the Versailles Treaty and all the war debts. (Germany was held almost solely responsible). He knew the only way to expiate that guilt was via a national resurrection, which saw the German people as staunch über-heroes as opposed to warmongering criminals. THIS is why he continually held pageants, with stirring speeches, and littered the airwaves and theaters with propaganda from Leni Reifenstahl. The aim was almost single-handedly to build German national self-esteem which the Versailles Treaty had demolished.

Moving on to more bilge:


3. Hitler loved big-government...just like the SD's. NAZI is a German acronym for 'Nationalist Socialist'. Hitler first gained power in elections promising 'hope and change'

Actually, 'NAZI' is an American corruption of the correct term, from the acronym: N.S.D.A.P. for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and the party was founded by Capt. Ernst Röhm, NOT Hitler, as Konrad Heiden notes. (I thank Dieter for providing the correct acronmym and spelling). He also chose the name not because he was fond of workers or socialists, but because it was one of the few names not already taken! (Again, smart people don't go simply by party names! After all the Democratic Republic of North Korea is neither a republic nor democratic! DOH!)

The other aspects are more bollocks. For example, he insists "Hitler liked Big government" but avoids saying that Hitler liked it in the form that most of the Amerikkan Right does; to interfere in people's lives, choices and personal business! Thus, Hitler under the Reich Laws made it a capital crime to have an abortion (confirmed by Kurt!) Any woman, normal German stock, who did so was guilty of treason against the Aryan State and dispatched to a concentration camp. Hitler also forbade pornography, and history tells us that during the Weimar Republic, German porn had attained a reputation for diversity and out-doing all other forms on the continent.

By the time of Hitler's ascent it was all but wiped out, much like the American Right sought to do under Reagan with his appointed Attorney General- Edwin Meese- at the Justice Dept. Meese set up a "Pornography Commission" and determined it was responsible for sex crimes, thereby launching a crusade much like Hitler did after the fall of Weimar.

Moreover, under Reich laws all homosexuals could be sent to concentration camps, something the American Evangelical Right has also aspired to do, as noted by Joe Conason in his terrifying 'Playboy' piece With God As My Co-Pilot. Therein several hardcore fundagelicals are quoted concerning a desire to set up "concentration camps" in which to send "homosexuals, abortionists, atheists and pornographers".

Thus, the meddling of the American Right has always gone hand in hand with the sort of Big Government meddling of the Nazis. Oh, and the Nazis forbade all use of "controlled" substances as well!


We proceed to some more disingenuous tripe:

4. Hitler was obsessed with race...just like the SD's. The liberal movement of 'multi-culturalism' reduces people to their race and ethnic origin. The multi-culti teach that we are not Americans, we are African-Americans, Mexican-Americans and Irish-Americans which flies in the face of traditional American culture

In fact, as both Kurt and Dieter affirmed (in my respective visits to Germany in 1978, and 1985) Hitler's preoccupation with race was chiefly to single out those who diverged from his vision of a SINGLE ARYAN race! Thus, he pointedly obsessed and ridiculed Slavs, Poles, Gypsies, Muslims and many others for opprobrium. In other words, he sought to build ONE uniform Aryan people and disdained diverse groups, the exact opposite ot what this guy claims! He reduced people to different ethnic origins to justify exterminating them! (Note: this blogger also shows an image of Hitler with an Islamic Mullah trying to make a generalization - through this image- that Hitler and Obama are similar. Of course, this is faulty logic, based on false analogy. Hitler despised Muslims as "Untermenschen" but never failed to make treaties with them if he believed he could garner oil, or other resources for the Reich. So the image proves nothing. The Obama= Muslim crap also basically died after he sent out Navy Seals to kill Osama. But maybe this blogger hasn't caught up yet!)

But Hitler saved his most ferocious attacks for German Marxists, Communists and Socialists - who he automatically consigned to "racial traitors, non-German, non-Aryan". (In most of Hitler's writings he asserts Marxists are Jews based on the fact Karl Marx was a Jew. In other words, he uses false or superficial associations to paint a case like this blogger does!)In one of his worst tirades, a radio speech on October 15, 1933 (from Konrad Heiden's book) he shouted:

These ruinous and inferior characters have succeeded in arousing a world psychosis

This was tied to those he perceived as "Jews" in the American press, working in league with communists and Socialists in Europe to spread rumors about Hitler and demonize him.

It also highlighted, as Hans pointed out, the fact that Hitler very dimly regarded the valuation of separate ethnic groups in Germany, on their own. He could not countenance or abide separate ethnics celebrating being Slavs, Poles, Greeks, Gypsies, or anything else different from the single "Aryan German" on which he built his Reich. Thus, his mindset was exactly LIKE this wingnut blogger's - who demands a single Aryan Amerikkan race!

We move on:

5. Hitler wanted to use government control as the instrument to create his worker's paradise...just like SD's. Hitler wanted more power to 'right the wrongs' suffered by the Aryan people at the hands of the 'villainous and exploitative Jews'. Just like liberal SD's demonize white Christian males,

Again, Hitler wanted NO "worker's paradise"! Why would he IF the capitalist German companies congratulated him for destroying the trade unions? Logic anyone? A worker's "paradise" is only possible if workers' benefits are available, and these only emerge when unions fight for them. This was totally disallowed under the Reich laws, as both Dieter and Hans pointed out. As Hans put it to me in May, 1985:

That was one reason I joined the Army (Wehrmacht). The ordinary jobs were so poorly paying across the nation, the work and hours so long and the benefits so few, that I thought I'd fare better in the Wehrmacht.

As for "righting the wrongs" suffered by the Aryan people, yes - up to a point. As earlier noted, the Germans were rendered the sacrifical lambs, or more accurately - the scapegoats of Europe after the First World War. Hitler knew he would never be able to build a Reich, 10 yrs. or 1,000 on such beaten people, still paying war debts. So he had to change the game. He did it by elevating all the German people (barring Jews, Slavs, communists etc.) to one conquering race he imagined (the "Aryans") and invented propaganda around it to resurrect the nation to an unrealistic level of expectation, but beholden to his will.

More rot, or is it tommyrot?

Hitler demonized the Jews as the cause of his ethnic group's problems and wanted to use the government to take 'affirmative action' against the Jews. This same ideal is taught by every left-wing cultural institution today, they just changed the target of their hatred. Instead of 'Jews' they target 'white Christian hetero males'.

More idiocy! In fact Hitler needed a national scapegoat, so chose the Jews for that purpose, but again, this built on a pre-existing Volkisch, anti-Semitic tradition! There was no "affirmative action" (which he uses in the wrong sense). What happened is that the Jews - like ALL Socialists, Communists, and Marxists- were dispossessed of their worldly goods and bank accounts. By 1936 virtually no German Jew (just as no German Socialist, or Marxist) could own a business, or even own a personal bank account. Worse, if sighted on the streets they risked terrible beatings by gangs of S.S. thugs. Communists were often killed on sight.

As for "white male Christians" they were at the TOP of Hitler's cadre in doing this! It was all those good white Christian men that joined the S.S. and took delight in beating in the heads of Jews, or commies, to make the Reich safe for Aryan babies. Hitler fed into this hatred, again, using the "Jew as Christ Killer" meme. (Which many American evangelicals also are honest enought to adopt when not praising Israel for being the site of the battle of Armageddon to pave the way for their Messiah's "Second Coming".)

Note, he also makes a specious comparison to what's going on today, implying that liberals (socialists?) want to dispossess "white male American Christians" of their jobs and give them to...blacks? That's a joke! Black male unemployment is at an all time high (~ 17%) nearly twice the white male rate! Moreoever, those blacks who are working earn some 50-60% less on average than a white with similar skills. Thus, the exceptional black earner is now rare in this context. We also see far fewer blacks able to go on to college, as university costs have skyrocketed and academic admissions boards are applying more rigorous standards and actually devaluing affirmative action in many places. Blacks are thereby left out in the cold!

Of course, he is correct that many white males are also left out in the cold, especially in college settings as their enrollment had declined. But who's to blame for that? As noted by numerous publications which have featured recent articles ('The Atlantic, The Economist, Mother Jones, TIME etc.) it is WHITE FEMALES who are now the beneficiaries! They now make up the majority in most university campuses, and also are now graduating at significantly higher rates than males. If he has a bone to pick, therefore, he needs to pick it with the women folk not "liberals" in general!


One more outright lie:


7. Hitler hated Jews...just like SD's.

Of course, the truth is we (democratic socialists) don't "hate" Jews at all. Why would we when Karl Marx himself was a JEW! (One reason Hitler hated him!) What we hate is white evangelical Christians using Jews for rapture fodder, and to justify and create vile narratives around their end of the world schemes- to pave the way for a Second Coming! Indeed, the evangelicals reserve an even more terrible fate for all but 144,000 special Jews - dispatching them to HELL!

More to come....

Was the Space Shuttle Worth It? Of course!


As we wind down to the final Shuttle launch (of the Atlantis), and the end of history for the first ever re-usable space craft, one beholds the usual naysaying pundits second -guessing it all and questioning the program's worth. They draw attention to the $196 billion spent over some three and a half decades, and the 14 lives lost, then carp that only half the actual number of planned flights occurred...at enormous cost. But no one ever goes into the background of this.

It began with the Nixon administration, which - faced with a Vietnam War it was unable to simply pull out of - decided to cut all remaining Apollo Moon missions instead. Thus, the one time dream of a lunar colony and steppingstone to Mars was totally dashed. As a substitute, NASA offerred the Space Shuttle, designed as a ferrying craft to go back and forth with supplies to the planned Space Station. The trouble was no Space Station had yet been constructed, so the Space Shuttle ended up as a space craft with no place to go.

Worse, the designers, in order to try to avoid pre-emptive budget cuts, lowballed the overall costs of the missions and vehicles, and asserted they'd "get lower as more missions were launched". Instead the costs got higher. But the time Reagan became president, cost cuts were the only thing between keeping a Shuttle at all in any form or mothballing it. Alas, the cuts also occurred in the sphere of safety planning, and the useless "O-Rings" were a case in point. Because they'd not been designed to withstand frigid temperatures (such as before liftoff of 'Challenger' from Cape Kennedy on the morning of January 28, 1986) they lost resiliency and the 7 brave crew of that mission paid with their lives.

Oh, the blame game still persists, hell it's inevitable with flawed, egoistic humans! But physicist Richard Feynman, a member of the Challenger Disaster investigating commission, showed by a simple experiment that the O-rings were to blame. They were the immediate cause. But telling it truthfully, had it not been the O-rings some other element or device might have been the cause of another crash - and we only need look ahead to 2003 and the fate of the Columbia Shuttle which was doomed from liftoff. A piece of tile had broken off of one wing and struck the craft causing damage that would prevent a safe re-entry. The Columbia burned up somewhere over Texas with a loss of another 7 lives.

So what was the basic problem with the Shuttle program? In a brief synopsis, it was a hybrid craft that was the product of differing engineering designs, and this complexity showed up in its flaws. Moreover, with higher and more honest cost estimates, it might have been possible to design a proper shuttling space craft which also had an astronaut abort feature, so the crew could be shot off to safety in the event of any problem - much like test pilots can do with their craft.

As to whether it was worth it, I will take the Shuttle program any day and twice on Sunday, even at a cost of $196 billion and 14 lives lost, to the Vietnam War with its $269 billion cost and 58,000 lives lost - from which we gained absolutely nothing!

With the Shuttle, perhaps the ultimate contribution was the insertion of the Hubble Telescope into orbit. Hibble is the most ambitious, stupendous optical telescope ever conceived and it has paid off in spades. It has given us new clear eyes on the cosmos, with images of distant galaxies and nebulae never beheld before by human eyes - since humans were compellled to observe from beneath a murky pile of atmosphere. The data Hubble has generated has been just as profound - and much of this has been thoroughly documented in the monograph: Hubble's Science Legacy: Future Optical, Ultraviolet, Astronomy from Space.

Perhaps the most popularly known contribution of the HST has been in assisting in the discovery of hundreds of extra-solar planets: other worlds, orbiting dozens of different stars.

The Shuttle's other major contribution has been in ferrying supplies to help complete the International Space Station. (ISS). Now, with the Shuttle program mothballed, we will have to depend exclusively on Russian craft to make the regular supply runs.

The end of the Shuttle program ends a brave chapter and one which will be recalled as important in the history of astronautics. However, it will also be remembered as a sad ending for a once proud superpower that had visions of sending men to other worlds to colonize. However, the monstrous expense of being bogged down by military overstretch, eventually bled its treasure to the point of having to rely on private contractors.

What is their greatest ambition at this point? Well, not going to Mars, but rather expediting short sub-orbital jaunts to maybe 75 miles altitude for those people with enough money to afford them.

A real pity!

Monday, July 4, 2011

Damned Right Freedom Isn't "Free"! SO RAISE TAXES!


On this 4th of July we'd all do well to seriously consider the words of one senior Master Sergeant: Patrick Olson of Des Moines, Iowa, currently serving with the Air National Guard at 'Camp Leatherneck' in Afghanistan. He has a message for the folks back home.


"Well, I just tell you, I guess, that freedom isn't free," says the sergeant. "A lot of people don't like that we're still over here, but the mission isn't quite finished yet -- and you know freedom isn't free. I guess that's the main message."

It should be the particular message, not only to the PEOPLE (who since 9/11 have been enjoined to "go out and shop" by GeeDumbya Bush) but also those congress critters that adamantly refuse to pay for the military occupations in those far off places, including providing the personal armor for individual protection, as well as on the vehicles which ply the highways and byways.

The sad thing is, as my dad told me (before he passed away two years ago), the country ignores any sacrifice now while everyone sacrificed during World War II! Everyone from the corner grocer, to the auto repair mechanic, to the pawn shop owner. He was in New Guinea (see photo, taken with Papua, New Guinea headhunter tribesman) and the Philippines fighting against the Japanese Empire, but he knew that back home the folks were also sacrificing, not skating by! He knew they were paying higher taxes, and also subject to rationing of petrol and certain food stuffs.

Indeed, Sec. 8 of Article I of the Constitution clearly states:

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises to pay Debts and provide for the common defense and General Welfare of the United States"

In other words, it was expected that taxes would be used to pay for military operations regarded as "common defense". Thus, the only reason not to have increased taxes since these operations commenced in 2001, is because congress doesn't regard them as contributing to the common defense. But in that case, all those troops are left hanging out there- and no wonder they suffer from lack of personnel and other armor, as well as supply problems.

The sad, sorry and despicable fact is that by cluelessly and recklessly allowing the George W. Bush tax cuts and their extensions, the mass of citizens in this country have been sheltered from being asked to sacrifice for two large military occupations. In this way, the majority of citizens (other than the immediate famiies) have basically vacated Iraq and Afghanistan from their minds, and acted as if those sacrifices no longer exist...or have any reality to them. Why should they if they aren't being made to sacrifice in some way?

As my Dad put it back in 2004 in a letter he wrote (this was after Bush won the 2004 election):

I just hope after Bush re-enters the White House he takes those damned tax cuts out of the picture and RAISES taxes!

Alas, he didn't, the cuts continued and were even extended for another year last December. This despite the military committment to Afghanistan being extended another 4 years, to 2014. This is effing insane! It shows a total disconnect between the cost of these operations, and the fiscal reponsibility to pay for them OURSELVES....i.e. not borrowing from the Chinese!

All Americans should get it into their heads "freedom isn't free", and if that means anything it means paying higher taxes so long as service men and women are in far off places carrying on military operations. Not to pay taxes for those, is to essentially devalue what they mean, as well as excusing the rank and file of our citizens from any responsibility!

On that note, either raise taxes to pay for their continued participation - OR bring all the troops home and admit we're cheapskates that only use the term "freedom" when the rhetoric is expedient and entails no personal pain or other sacrifice. If we are keeping more than 150,000 troops out there in harm's way, we have a national DUTY to PAY for that involvement, else bring them home! By continuing to borrow money from the Chinese for foreign military entanglements, we're only making a mockery of our own Constitution and responsibilities.