Subjugation Theology

“...the church ought to be a community of liberated people, committed to the liberation of all....”

• Fr. Bernard Haring

* * * *

“Congratulations on the success of your most recent book, Rev. Verkslaven,” I said.  “I appreciate your willingness to grant me an interview.”

“Not a problem,” he said, glancing at his watch.  “It’s free publicity, and publicity sells books.”

“I’m pleased to meet you too,” I said.  “Look, this is a bit awkward, but I haven’t been able to read Subjugation Theology in advance.  My editor assigned me to meet with you, but he wouldn’t approve the $249.95 for the book, and I couldn’t afford to buy it myself.  If you don’t mind my saying so, that price seems a little steep.  Don’t you think it might cut into sales?”

“Not at all,” he sniffed.  “It’s priced for a niche market.  My  buyers have the wherewithal.  In fact, the book has been sitting at the top of the Forbes Best Sellers List for more than twenty weeks.  Many people buy multiple copies to bestow upon their friends.”

“So a lot of people are reading it?”

“Oh, I wouldn’t quite say that.  The good news is that, among the upper class, it’s become another status symbol--like a Cartier diamond-encrusted crucifix, dangling from a gold necklace.”

“Then it doesn’t bother you if people don’t open it once they have it?”

“People who own the book don’t have to read it.  The book is simply a systematic explication of what they already believe--a theological validation of the way they live their lives.”

“Well, I guess that works out well for both you and them,” I said.  “But I have to admit I’m on the outside looking in here.  I don’t know where to begin. It’s hard to ask intelligent questions when I haven’t been able to read the book.”

“That’s one factor, I’m sure,” he said with a grimace.  “Fortunately, I’ve prepared a brief ‘cheat sheet,’ if you will, that I keep for just this kind of situation.  Not a new concept, for a person of your type, I suspect.”  And he handed me a couple of laminated pages.

“Thanks,” I told him gratefully, “that’s a big help,”  and he stood there while I hastily skimmed the notes.

* * * *  

Subjugation Theology:

Main theological tenets: 

• Wealth is a sign of God’s favor, bestowed upon those whom he loves most
• Worldly authority accrues to God’s favorites
• All people are created unequal
• Creation is God’s gift to humans, to manage, dominate, and exploit

Core operating principle:  “A preferential option for the rich” 

Biblical highlights:

• “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”  Genesis 1:28, King James version
• “The blessing of the Lord brings wealth, without painful toil for it.”  Proverbs 10:22, NIV /  “The blessing of the Lord makes rich, And he adds no sorrow to it.”  Proverbs 10:22, King James version
• “The LORD blessed the latter part of Job's life more than the former part. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys.”  Job 42:12, NIV

Other sacred texts:  

• The Wall Street Journal 
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission 
• Trump: How to Get Rich; see also Think Big and Kick Ass in Business and Life  [both by Donald Trump]
• Collected works of Ayn Rand 

Sacraments: Incorporation, mergers and acquisitions, appointment to Boards of Directors, military coups

Holy sites:  Gated communities; banks; investment firms; corporate boardrooms; U.S. Supreme Court; cathedrals; country clubs; Wall Street; the Pentagon; Washington, DC

Prayer list:  tax cuts, tax shelters, tax breaks, military spending [for]; tax hikes, entitlement programs, unions, whistleblowers, government spending for housing, health, and education [against]   

Saints: The Forbes 400 (“The Richest People in America”); Alan Greenspan 

Existential focuses:  Net worth, success, security, power, social status

Primary symbols:  Walls, weapons, precious metals and gemstones, trophy wives, multiple homes, private schools, servants (gardener, nanny, cook, cleaning person, dog walker, personal trainer, etc.)

Style:  Hierarchical, triumphal, centralized, authoritarian, exclusive, aggressive, repressive, abusive, punitive, manipulative, secretive, dogmatic, opaque, violent, intolerant, self-indulgent

TV evangelization: The Apprentice

Compatible economic and political themes: 

• Privatize, privatize, privatize
• Tax breaks for the wealthy spur the economy
• Poverty is caused by individual weaknesses and failings, and by genetic inferiority
• Social Security, unemployment payments, and other entitlements rob people of the necessary initiative to work and succeed
• National security trumps humanity
• Monarchs and right-wing dictators make the most reliable allies
• The best firms are too big to fail and too big to be held accountable
• Forgiveness is for the rich, punishment for the poor
• The American Dream is to rise from poverty to wealth within a free market framework
• Extremism in the defense of wealth is no vice

* * * *

“This is pretty heavy stuff,” I said when I had finished reading.  “It’s a lot of theology to take in at one swoop.  But let’s start with the title of the book--‘Subjugation Theology’--and the subtitle, ‘A Theology in the Service of the Powers That Be.‘  Could you elaborate on that for me?” 

“Certainly.  ‘Powers that be’ are the traditional ecclesiastical and secular authorities.  Subjugation theology simply acknowledges that God has given people unequal skills, abilities, effort levels, and ambitions.  Over the course of human history, a natural sorting out has taken place, resulting in a hierarchy, with the most able at the top and the less able below.  Subjugation theology recognizes this as God’s plan, which concentrates decision-making power, authority, and fiscal benefits at the top, where they rightfully belong.  ‘The Divine Right of Kings’ gets at the idea, but it’s too narrow in compass.  Subjugation theology applies the same concept throughout all human endeavors--in governance, in business, in the arts, in the church.”

“I think I see.  So those at the top subjugate those below because God has designed it that way.  And the duty of those below is...?”

“To know their place. To obey.”

“And if the people below get resentful or jealous or restless or something...?”

He nodded.  “You can call it ‘communism,’ you can call it ‘socialism,’ you can call it ‘rebellion,’ you can simply say ‘the Devil made me do it.’  Whatever you call it, it’s evil and needs to be stamped out.”

“‘Stamped out’ as in...?”

“God doesn’t pull punches.  You’re talking about Someone who flooded the entire planet and wiped out all of humankind except for one family when He lost His temper.  Remember the Book of Deuteronomy, 28th chapter, too, where God pledges vast sicknesses and plagues, and condemns people to lives of exile and fear and sorrow and despair.  When God loses it, He means business.”

“When you say ‘business,’ do you mean ‘business’ as in ‘business’ or...?”

“This is theology here; let’s not get lost in semantics.”

“Uh, sure.  So if I get you right, you’re saying that when the people at the top are carrying out God’s intent, using God’s behavior as a template, it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy?”

“Exactly.  The gloves are off.”

I hesitated.  “Look,” I said, “don’t take this the wrong way.  I’m certainly no Biblical scholar.  But did you ever consider the possibility that there’s something self-serving about your theology?”

He stared at me, obviously puzzled.  “Of course not,” he said.  “What makes you ask a thing like that?”

                                © Tony Russell, 2013

A Whole Different Class of People Here

I was flabbergasted when the the Congressional Research Service reported on May 17 that the Pentagon didn’t have a clue what the 108,000 contractors the Department of Defense (DOD) has in Afghanistan were actually doing--let alone how well they were doing it.

Fortunately, my Uncle Jimmy, who works at the Pentagon, was in for the weekend, and I got a chance to ask him about it.

“Jimmy,” I said, “is this true?  You guys really don't have any idea what these people are doing?”

He laughed.  “Take it easy, Ace,” he said.  “You know how you media guys blow things out of proportion.”

I felt better already.  “Great.  Could you put it in proportion for me?”  I glanced at my notes.  “According to the report, DOD spent $160 billion with contracts in Afghanistan and Iraq these past six years. That seems like a lot of money to go unaccounted for.”

“Not a bit,” he scoffed.  “We actually save money by eliminating oversight.  We have over 40,000 more contracted employees in the country than we do troops!  Do you know how many people it would take to actually keep track of over a hundred thousand contract employees and monitor their work?”  

“Gee, I don’t know,” I said.  “A thousand?”

“Guess again,” he said.  “More like ten to sixteen thousand.  So we’ve saved, off the top of my head, somewhere in the neighborhood of $15 to $20 billion by eliminating supervision.” 

“That’s a high-priced neighborhood,” I joked.  “But I’d think you’d be worried about theft and corruption and inefficiency and work going undone and people goofing off.  Things like that.”

“You’ve got to be kidding,” he said, shocked.  “Ace, these are U.S. defense contractors you’re talking about.  They’re the biggest and the best.  If you can’t trust KBR, DynCorp, Fluor, Washington Group International, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and corporations like that to give you an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, who can you trust?”

I was silent for a minute, and he looked at me.  “I know that look, Ace.  You’re actually thinking.  What is it?” he asked.

“I was thinking about ‘corporate welfare,’ and just remembering those news stories back in the 70s when Ronald Reagan and Reader’s Digest hammered the welfare system and ‘welfare queens’” I told him.  “Cities and states have kept an eagle eye out for welfare fraud ever since.  You see governments zeroing in on welfare clients all the time.  Charlottesville cracked down on more than a dozen in April for taking money they allegedly weren’t entitled to.  Most of them were charged with siphoning off a thousand to four thousand dollars.”

“Defrauding the system.  That’s outrageous, isn’t it?” said Jimmy.  “But what’s your point?  I don’t see any connection.  We’re talking about a whole different class of people here.”

© Tony Russell, 2013

Privacy Died, and People Didn’t Even Know It

Author’s note:  The KGB alumni portion of the following, which sounds realistic, is actually fiction;  the NSA portion, which sounds like science fiction, is actual news from the real world.

It’s June again, and around the globe, in the northern hemisphere, alumni groups are gathering.  In Russia, the KGBAA (KGB Alumni Association)--former officials of the Soviet Union’s “Committee for State Security”--held their annual reunion this week at the Black Sea resort city of Sochi, nearly 22 years after the agency’s dissolution in 1991.  

The prevailing mood was surprisingly upbeat, full of nostalgia for “the good old days.”  In their heyday, KGB agents monitored and infiltrated dissident political, artistic, and environmental groups.  Agents not only spied on the members but urged them on to illegal and even violent acts which would justify harsh crackdowns by authorities.  The KGB also tapped phones, opened mail, paid informers, arrested people without charges, held them indefinitely, tortured them, and occasionally killed them.

This year the KGB alumni have watched events unfolding in their old enemy, the U.S., with heightened interest.   

The tone was set a few months prior to the reunion, when documents were released showing that FBI “counterterrorism agents” spied on the Occupy Wall Street movement nationwide.  Not only that, but they shared their information with the very banks, corporations, and Wall Street firms people were protesting against.

“The government’s response was stunningly effective,” marveled Andrei S.  “You had spontaneous nonviolent protests against the corporate stranglehold on government springing up all over the country, with the potential to change everything, and government security forces, coordinating with corporations, municipal governments, and local police, absolutely crushed the movement!”

“It was like old home week!” exclaimed Leonid Z.  “Anyone who objects to something done by the government is an enemy of the state, and thus a potential terrorist.”  

Even more entertaining to the ex-KGB men was breaking news that the U.S.’s National Security Agency (NSA) has been gathering the telephone records of millions of Verizon customers.  This was followed almost immediately by a report that AT&T and Sprint customers had also been spied upon.  And to cap off the week, it was revealed that the NSA has access to e-mails, search histories, websites visited, links followed, and live chats for customers of Microsoft, Apple, Google, Yahoo, and Facebook.

“We thought the breakthroughs were spy cameras in satellites, and drones with surveillance cameras to fly over houses and yards, checking to see who’s coming and going,” said Boris P., “but comprehensive, unfettered access to people’s phones and computers....”  He shook his head in admiration.  

“Technology,” nodded Mikhail B; “it’s wonderful.  Let’s face it: compared to these guys, we were dinosaurs.”

The KGB alumni, to a man, were envious of the NSA’s ability to spy on even the most casual, private, and intimate communications of virtually every citizen in the U.S.  

“Can you imagine the possibilities for blackmail?” chortled Yuri G, who had started in early on the vodka.  “I would have given my eyeteeth--well, not my eyeteeth but somebody’s eyeteeth--for access like that.  Privacy died, and people didn’t even know it!  It’s like being God--if there were a God.  You get to see and hear almost everything a person is saying and thinking, while they’re totally unaware.”

Public reaction in the U.S. to the unfolding stories has been muted--not surprising, perhaps, as members of the public begin to realize that their reactions, public or private, will be monitored by the FBI and immediately collected by the NSA.  

Citizens might also be worrying as they try to recall what they have looked at online, e-mailed, or said on the telephone.  That will require an exhaustive memory.  Vadim M. reminded his colleagues that California senator Diane Feinstein had basically called the revelations a non-story, since the massive domestic spying has been going on for seven years, during both the Obama and Bush administrations.  

Feinstein justified the spying because it is carried out under the authority of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.  It comes under the business records part of the PATRIOT Act; “therefore it is lawful,” she emphasized.  Unspoken was the obvious corollary: that it is unlawful to even reveal the existence of the surveillance.  

By yet another bit of lucky timing, this latter point has been dramatically underlined during the reunion by the showcase trial of whistleblower Bradley Manning, which highlights the unprecedented rate at which the Obama administration is prosecuting whistleblowers in general.

“I wish we’d had a PATRIOT Act,” said Vasily K., somewhat wistfully. “I always felt as if I had to be a little furtive when crossing the line.  But look what you can do when you have a legal blank check!”

P.S.  Here is a link  http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/09/edward-snowden-nsa-whistleblower-surveillance  to a news item in today’s The Guardian about Edward Snowden, the man who is revealing the extent of NSA surveillance.  (Follow it at your own risk, understanding that your act is being monitored.)

© Tony Russell, 2013

We Are Family

This one contains a tongue-in-cheek look at the wealthy "decision makers"  who are deciding to "fix the debt" by cutting services to ordinary people rather than take simple steps like closing tax loopholes designed by and for the benefit of the rich, raising the current cut-off level on the Social Security tax, eliminating offshore tax shelters, going after income tax fraud, and raising corporate income taxes, which have plunged over the past few decades.   My apologies to any political figures I may have inadvertently shamed among their peers by low-balling their net worth.  I will gladly make any needed corrections. 

                                                            - Tony

June 3, Washington -

Administration officials and congressional leaders moved swiftly today to allay rising public fears that top government figures might face hardships in their retirement years because of impending cuts in Social Security and Medicare.  

The most recent polls show a rapidly growing public concern that our nation’s leaders will struggle after leaving office in view of slashes to retirement benefits and health care coverage.

“We have a responsibility to see that the quality of public servants’ lives isn’t jeopardized by worries about their old age or disability,” said Art McGrady, an unemployed factory worker.  “We have a moral obligation to them--simply because they’re fellow human  beings, of course, but also because they’re people who labor tirelessly on behalf of all the rest of us.”  McGrady’s sentiments, according to the polls, are widely shared. 

Chuck Browning is a retired coal miner whose guaranteed health care benefits from Arch Coal disappeared when the company adroitly unloaded the bulk of its pension obligations onto a company it created, then kept a straight face as the new company went bankrupt and all those “guaranteed lifetime benefits” vanished.  Browning said, “I know what it’s like to lose that sense of security.  For me it has felt like falling down a mine shaft.  So I can’t help worrying about our nation’s leaders.  They’re human beings who don’t deserve to be used by the public and then simply discarded and forgotten when they’re sick or old.  We are family, and family members care for one another.  We’re all brothers and sisters in this world.  ”

Members of West Virginia’s Congressional delegation--Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (maximum net worth in 2011 of $2.8 million), Rep. David McKinley (maximum net worth in 2011 of $13.1 million), Rep. Nick Rahall  (maximum net worth in 2011 of $2.97 million), Sen. Joe Manchin (maximum net worth in 2011 of $11.7 million), and Sen Jay Rockefeller (maximum net worth in 2011 of $116.4 million)--issued a joint statement to the Hur Herald expressing their gratitude for the outpouring of support.  “We are moved and humbled by your concern,” the statement read.  “We hope we can continue to deserve your trust.” 

Secretary of State John Kerry (estimated net worth more than $200 million) declared, “We always have the people’s best interests in mind, of course.  I can’t tell you how gratifying it is to know that the good intentions are reciprocal.”

Eric Holder, Mr. Obama’s Attorney General (estimated net worth of $11.5 million), echoed the sentiment.  “As we go about making tough decisions to axe programs, it strengthens our conviction we are doing the right things when we find the public has our back,” he declared.    

Penny Pritzker, Mr. Obama’s nominee for Commerce Secretary (estimated net worth of $1.6 billion), said in a prepared statement released by her press secretary, “We’re just ordinary people, with the same burdens and concerns as everyone else.  It’s touching to know that the public identifies with us and is stepping forward to assure that our needs are met.”

New Treasury Secretary Jacob “Jack” Lew, one of the most vulnerable of Cabinet-level members with a net worth of only $1.7 million, has called the groundswell of good will “heartwarming.”  

Mr. Obama himself (maximum net worth estimated at $11.8 million) and new Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel (maximum net worth of $10.9 million) recently won the hearts of millions of unemployed and underemployed citizens when they announced they are voluntarily surrendering 5% of their government salaries in a show of solidarity with the most vulnerable Americans, who have borne the brunt of recent budget cuts.  

The 5% cut means Mr. Obama will have to manage on an annual salary of just $380,000.  Per capita income for West Virginians in the past 12 months was $22, 010.

In an echo of Bill Clinton’s famous remark, Mr. Obama told a group of disabled and unemployed veterans from the Iraq and Afghan resource wars, “We share your pain.  Thank you for sharing ours.”

© Tony Russell, 2013

Note: The public probably shouldn’t be too worried, as congressional pensions are vested after only five (5) years of service.  Members can collect their full pension at the age of 62 with 5 years of service.   Presidential pensions start immediately after a new president is sworn in.  In 2011 it was $199,700 per year, supplemented by staff and office allowances, travel expenses, Secret Service protection, and other perks, including free medical treatment at military hospitals for themselves, their spouses, their widows, and their minor children.

Shopping Bags Full of Money

Afghan president confirms he received tens of millions of dollars from the CIA in suitcases and sacks 'for access to Karzai's inner circle'       

      - Headline, The Daily Mail, 29 April 2013

Each year the Hur Chamber of Commerce confers its coveted “Golden Scissors Award” to that federal department or agency which has done the most to cut through government red tape.  The award is normally not conferred until December, but this year the Chamber judged that one agency has already distinguished itself so markedly that the outcome of the competition is no longer in doubt.

In announcing that the Central Intelligence Agency is the 2013 winner, Robert Spinner, the Chamber’s president, heaped praise upon the agency, calling it “a model for the entire federal government.”

“We in the business community have long decried government bureaucracy,” said Spinner, “but the CIA has shown that it is possible for government to transcend itself, working with the same ‘can do’ attitude that distinguishes private enterprise.  Our hats are off to them.”

The announcement comes less than a month after the New York Times revealed that for the last decade the CIA has handed out tens of millions of dollars to Afghan officials in monthly payments.  Wads of money were delivered in backpacks, suitcases, and plastic shopping bags.  

The cash--variously described as “payments,” “bribes,” and “assistance”--is apparently not subject to the oversight, restrictions, and accountability of official American aid.  

“That’s the beauty of it," said a CIA official.  “Nobody on our end asks what we do with the money they give us, and we don’t even count it when we’re packing the shopping bags.  The money all goes directly to President Karzai and whomever he wants to share it with, and he doesn’t have to account for it to anyone on that end either.”  It was this chain of creative shortcuts that drew special praise from the Chamber.  

Disgruntled Afghans who didn’t get their own shopping bags full of money complain that the payoffs have “fueled corruption and empowered warlords who may be linked to the Taliban as well as politicians with ties to the drug trade.”  

Equally bitter are American officials who didn’t get an opportunity to pass out money bags themselves.  They have gone so far as to charge that “the biggest source of corruption in Afghanistan has been the United States.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, however, described the bags of money as “multi-purpose assistance.”  

“It really hasn’t been that much money,” Karzai added.  “Most of it went to providing assistance to the wounded, the sick, and the disabled.”  He was unable to supply documentation for this assertion, of course, since he too has been cutting red tape.

A CIA spokesperson said that the agency stood ready, if asked, to provide training and technical support to the Department of Defense in developing streamlined financial disbursements of the sort for which his agency has just been recognized.  

“You have to remember,” he said, “that the cost of the war in Afghanistan--our CIA cash not included--runs about $60 billion a year.  The military’s expenditures make ours look like a drop in the ocean.”

Despite the popularity of the Chamber of Commerce choice, not everyone has been so positive about revelations of the CIA’s so-called “ghost money” payments.  One elderly county resident, claiming to remember “a time when the Constitution still meant something,” denounced the CIA ‘s actions as “yet another sign that in the Founders’ system of checks and balances, the checks have been replaced by cash.”

Full disclosure:  a former correspondent for the Hur Herald is said to be attempting to organize a march of the unemployed on CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.  Marchers will carry their own empty shopping bags to the headquarters, hoping to have them filled, while singing “Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?”

© Tony Russell, 2013

Hundreds of Them Living in a Single File Cabinet

George Town: May 20

Authorities in the Cayman Islands reacted swiftly today in the wake of a scathing exposé of housing conditions in this small island territory.  The world’s conscience has been shocked by reports of more than 80,000 corporations crowded into office tenements under the most deplorable conditions.

Teams of housing inspectors scoured the financial district, motivated by a concern for the safety of the teeming hordes of immigrant corporations who have fled here, seeking shelter from taxes at home.   Confronted with this mass migration, the Caymans are struggling to house the refugee firms, which vastly outnumber the islands 55,000 human residents.

One of the inspectors, speaking anonymously because he has not been authorized to discuss his work publicly, described the office tenements as “worse than anything I’ve ever seen.”

“We found 18,857 corporations crowded into a single five-story building,” he recalled with a shudder, his eyes closed as if to shield himself from memories of the wretched scene.  “There were hundreds of them living in a single file cabinet.  Corporations were sleeping in their own feces.  The place was crawling with vermin.”

“We have helped them launder their money,” he said, “but in other ways sanitation is non-existent.” 

A member of the Caymanian Legislative Assembly, speaking yesterday on the floor of the chamber, said  “It’s a scandal, in a land as rich as the Caymans, to have immigrant corporations packed into offices that are nothing more than glorified warehouses.  We can no longer turn a blind eye to their welfare; this report is a wake-up call to our territory’s conscience.  We give these firms glowing titles like ‘corporate subsidiaries,’ but in reality they exist only as a few sheets of notarized paper, stuffed into a manila file folder, going year after year without seeing a single soul.”  

“Overcrowding of the kind that has been discovered is a disaster waiting to happen,” he declared.  He termed it “an affront to humanity” that these legal fictions were subjected to such minimal living conditions, and proposed strict new limits on how many corporations could be filed in a single drawer as well as how many could be housed under one roof.

An earlier proposal would have required each corporate headquarters be allotted at least one square foot for itself, but it drew little support and was withdrawn.  Opponents derided the measure as “regulatory overkill” and “a colossal waste of space,” pointing out that none of the headquarters had personnel, furnishings, equipment, or supplies on the Islands. 

Despite their squalid quarters, the corporations--which include banks, hedge funds, structured financing, investment firms, captive insurers, and offshore law practices--were described as looking “fat and well-fed.”

The CEOs of numerous U.S. firms, already struggling to fix their own nation’s debt by persuading Congress to slash Social Security, Medicare, environmental efforts, and other programs devoted to the common good, have nevertheless vowed to help fix the Caymans’ housing crisis as well.  

Their motive, a spokesperson admitted, is “not entirely altruistic,” as 83 of the top 100 publicly traded U.S. corporations have subsidiaries in the Caymans or other tax havens.  

The Caymans have no annual reporting, accounting, or auditing requirements for companies incorporated there, and the Caymans’ government provides a 30-year guarantee of no corporate taxes, no capital gains taxes, no payroll taxes, no property taxes, and no withholding taxes.

© Tony Russell, 2013

Revisiting ‘Shutting That Whole Thing Down'

Patty and her friend Helen met at Bodo’s for lunch on Thursday, and as it does with many close friends, their conversation strayed to what was eating them.  “Did you see that the president of the California Republican Assembly lost her office last week?” asked Helen.

“No,” said Patty, “I missed that.  But I don’t follow California politics.  Why did they dump her?”

“Apparently they were reacting to the public backlash after she claimed a couple of months ago that few women become pregnant when they’re raped ‘because it’s an act of violence, because the body is traumatized’.”

“Sounds as if that remark was an act of ignorance, because the mind was neutralized,” Patty said.

“It does have that abstract, theoretical, detached-from-real-life quality.  It reminds me of when Paul Ryan referred to rape as a ‘method of conception’ that didn’t change the definition of life.”

“What is it with these politicians and rape?” Patty wondered.  “Are they slow learners?  I thought we’d heard the last of that after all those controversies leading up to the last elections.  It seems to have some weird fascination for them.  The topic’s like a tar-baby!  They just can’t resist grabbing the opportunity to talk about it.”

“Maybe they’ve bought into their own wishful thinking,” Helen said.  “You know, if you want to oppose abortion in all cases, and you also want to avoid dealing with the hard issue of post-rape pregnancy, then claiming that raped women don’t get pregnant is a way out of the trap you put yourself in.  It’s that old-time magic.  If you want a thing to be true, it’s true.  Abracadabra. Suddenly raped women can no longer get pregnant.  Just doesn’t happen.”

“That’s pretty much the same position that senatorial candidate took in the last election... what’s his name?” Patty asked.

“Uh huh.  Todd Aikin in Missouri.  Remember when he said, ‘If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”?

“I still cringe when I think about it.  That ‘legitimate rape’ line certainly didn’t help his cause.”

“No, it sure didn’t.  The first defense of a rapist is to claim that the sex was consensual and the woman ‘wanted it.‘   And when Aikin specified ‘legitimate rape,’ it implied that a lot of women are making bogus claims they’ve been assaulted.  By itself that was enough to really tick women off.  And then they could see the next logical step.  ‘She claims she was raped?  Oh, but she got pregnant?  Well, no way that’s a legitimate rape, then, because, you know, a real rape victim’s body would have just shut that whole thing down’.” 

“You have to wonder when somebody’s language starts to wander into a Never Never Land of vagueness and imprecision, don’t you?  The body has ways?  To shut that whole thing down?  Or something?  Seriously, does that sound like somebody who has the faintest clue what he’s talking about?”

“It doesn’t, but as unfounded and illogical as it is, it seems to have taken root.  You know, once a bat-crazy notion flies through enough belfries, it morphs into conventional wisdom in some quarters.”

© Tony Russell, 2013

I'm as Heartless as the Next Guy

6 o’clock evening news.  Closing business wrap-up; voice of reporter/script reader

Turning now to the business news, an innovative movement is drawing serious interest from corporate governing boards and investors, as more than a dozen of the nation’s Fortune 500 firms have moved to dismiss their CEOs in the past six months.  

In each case, the CEO has been replaced by a vast number of workers hired at the average wage in the company--many of them experienced, highly motivated, and well educated people who have been out of work for as long as two years, vainly searching for employment.  The phenomenon has been dubbed "The Robin Hood Revolution" and "Dump the Chump."

One corporate board member, who asked not to be identified, summed up the results of the movement as "Amazing!”  

Insert: Interview clip from anonymous board member

“We were able to hire an additional 1,795 workers for what we were overpaying one person, our CEO--who wasn’t doing that great a job in the first place.  Almost two thousand additional employees, and it didn’t raise our personnel costs one thin dime!  Those 1,795 are outperforming him on several orders of magnitude.  It’s been a real shot in the arm for the company.  Our costs have stayed level, production is way up, and morale has skyrocketed.  I don’t know why we didn’t think of this before!”

Return to narration by reporter/script reader

The movement is unexpected bad news for CEOs, who have been riding high during the current Great Recession.  At least ten CEOs reportedly took in more than $50 million apiece during 2012, at the same time they were closing plants, slashing workforces, raiding employee pension funds, and dramatically lowering wages for new entry-level employees.  Ford CEO Alan Mulally, whose pay is 2,500 times that of a new Ford plant worker, cashed in on $61 million, and Apple’s Tim Cook $139.7 million.  Both have been described as "nervous" about the recent development.  

Salary is only the tip of the iceberg with modern CEOs, who also commonly receive corporate stock, incentive payments, executive life insurance, financial and tax counseling service, and generous supplemental retirement plans.  One unanticipated problem has arisen with the departure of deposed executives--what to do with their other perks.

Insert: Interview clip from second anonymous board member 

“When we canned our CEO, we were left with the corporate jet and pilot; the company limousine and chauffeur at his disposal; the bodyguards and electronic technicians who provided his personal security; and the luxury apartment maintained for times when he was forced to remain in the city overnight.  We debated whether to make these available on a rotating basis to the 1,795 people who replaced him, but eventually decided the logistics were too cumbersome.  So we sold them off and used the income to supplement the inadequate pensions of the new hires.”

Return to narration by reporter/script reader

In areas impacted by these corporate realignments, the strategy has had the unintended consequences of increasing consumer confidence, reducing unemployment,  boosting retail sales, raising tax revenues, cutting mortgage foreclosures, and slashing crime and homelessness.  

“Not that we cared about any of that," said one corporate insider.  "I’m as heartless as the next guy, but you can’t buy PR like this."  He paused.  "Well, you can," he amended, "but nobody would believe it.”

© Tony Russell, 2013

New Deal, Fair Deal, ... Raw Deal!

If the rich paid taxes, there would be no poor.

If the rich paid taxes, they’d know what money’s for.

It’s not for furs and diamonds, and a great big fancy car.

It’s not to pay our government to let them have a war.

Oh, where is the justice in this great big land of ours?

It’s in the hands of the chosen few, the schemers and the liars.

If they made the rich pay taxes, we’d have no national debt.

The poor could live and work and eat ‘cause there’d be no rich, I bet.

- from Elaine Purkey’s song “If the Rich Paid Taxes”

               *                    *                    *                    *

When Franklin Roosevelt was told that he had been chosen as the Democratic nominee for president in 1932, the country was in the grip of the Great Depression.  He flew to Chicago and told the crowd at Convention Hall, “I pledge you, I pledge myself, to a new deal for the American people!”   

It was a new deal, and he delivered on his promise.  Once elected, Mr. Roosevelt acted swiftly to give people not just a rhetoric of hope, but ambitious new efforts to lift them out of their desperate straits and forge a better life.  Despite Wall Street’s opposition and Herbert Hoover’s attempts to force him to abandon his “socialist” notions (that sounds familiar, doesn’t it?), he and his administration swiftly created and set into action a virtual cascade of new agencies and programs.  Together, they provided security, stability, and opportunity to people who had never known such things before. 

The New Deal set out to protect workers like my parents against the common cruelties of the capitalist system, and assured them a more just share of its benefits.  Government acted on common people’s behalf.  It could be argued--and has been--that its reforms actually saved the capitalist system from itself, in a time when its greed and callousness had driven workers to the brink of revolution.  

A program known as Social Security, for the first time in history, enabled us ordinary citizens to enjoy our retirement years rather than be forced to work right up to the waning moments of our lives.  It also provided for those of us who were disabled, and for dependent women and children.  Unemployment insurance kept us from losing our homes and belongings and the life we had painstakingly built for our families when our jobs disappeared.  

We were guaranteed a minimum wage, and the hours we could be forced to work were actually limited.  We were guaranteed the right to form unions.  Child labor was abolished.  Huge public works programs were designed to create jobs and build useful things for our common benefit--highways and bridges and sidewalks and parks and schools.  The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was created as a public utility, with the goal of providing electricity to one of the most dismal, depressed regions in the U.S.  It spurred economic development, controlled floods, created recreational areas, enabled navigation on the area’s rivers, provided fertilizer, and taught farmers how to control erosion and increase crop yields.

All of that has been around so long now that we take it for granted, just as casually as we expect water to flow when we turn the handle of a faucet.

That was the New Deal, the greatest leap forward in promoting the general welfare that has ever occurred in this country.  It was carried out in the face of vitriolic opposition from the financial elite and the upper class.  Hatred for Roosevelt and his programs immediately became an article of faith for the wealthy oligarchy, and their efforts to repeal the New Deal have been unrelenting in the eighty years since it was launched.

Mr. Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman, followed the New Deal by calling for a Fair Deal in his 1949 State of the Union address.  The Fair Deal was to expand on the social programs of the New Deal, adding things such as national health insurance, civil rights legislation (this in 1949!), public housing, an increase in the minimum wage, and federal aid to education.  A good deal of Truman’s program was stalled in Congress by a growing coalition of conservative Republicans and Southern Democrats, who denounced them as socialist (there we go again), but the minimum wage was eventually increased--from 40 cents to 75 cents an hour--and a Housing Act was passed, funding 800,000 new homes.

Now, in a sorry sequel to Roosevelt and Truman’s efforts, we’re seeing a historic third “Deal” by yet another Democratic president--but this time it’s a “Raw Deal.”  In a grand stroke of historical irony, it’s a Democratic president who is collaborating with Wall Street and the Republican leadership in a carefully-orchestrated scheme to begin tearing down what his predecessors worked so hard to build.  Instead of fighting to preserve or even expand on Roosevelt and Truman’s vision, Mr. Obama is simply making a gift of victory to their opponents, rewarding the right wing’s eighty-year effort to repeal the New Deal.

Mr. Obama’s Raw Deal was preceded by propaganda about a “grand bargain” that would keep us from going over a “fiscal cliff.”  The truth is, it’s a great betrayal intended to stampede us over nothing more than a political barrier.  

After years of campaigning as the party that would protect Social Security and Medicare from the evil clutches of Republicans, here’s what Democrats are rewarding their supporters with.  The administration’s 2014 budget, unveiled April 10, outlines huge cuts in Social Security and Medicare.  Medicare is to be sliced $400 billion over 10 years, at a time when the poplulation is growing and aging.  A new, stingier way of calculating the cost of living will effectively slash $130 billion from Social Security.  These cuts are in addition to $1.4 trillion in spending cuts already enacted over the past two years.

Mr. Obama also plans to privatize the TVA, selling it off to private utilities which will jack up rates to 9 million people in 7 states (as a public utility, TVA is a nonprofit) and are almost certain to dump worker pensions and other retirement benefits.  He proposes to slash environmental programs such as the EPA, Clean Water and Drinking Water enforcement, and the Superfund program by hundreds of billions of dollars.  He will also use a federal commission as a smokescreen behind which other social programs can be dumped. 

But perhaps those cuts are unavoidable in tough times, you might tell yourself.  Surely the Democrats to whom we’ve given our votes and campaign contributions wouldn’t do this if it weren’t absolutely essential. 

Unfortunately, that’s the furthest thing from the truth.  

There are numerous options to avoid hurting ordinary people.  One would be to simply increase the figure at which Social Security contributions are capped.  Another would be to deal with the ruinous costs of our for-profit health care and health insurance system.  And a third would be to restore some fairness to a tax system that the rich and powerful have unrelentingly gamed to their advantage over the past thirty years.  

Some of the most obvious ways the system has been rigged to fatten the wealthy include: 

• Special subsidies in the form of tax credits, exclusions, capital gains, and other loopholes which benefit the richest among us to the tune of $1.25 trillion dollars. 
• Underpayment of taxes, generally from those in higher brackets, amounting to over $450 billion per year.  
• At least a quarter of a trillion dollars squirreled away by rich Americans, untaxed, in offshore tax havens.  
• A sharp decrease in corporate taxes from 22.5% twenty years ago to 10% now, even though corporate profits are skyrocketing.  

In short, it’s not at all difficult to identify several trillion dollars being siphoned out of the system to further fatten the gluttonous among us.  And rather than disturb them as they feed happily at the public trough, the Raw Deal chooses to take more from those who have much less.  

In presenting his budget, Mr. Obama portrayed himself as a leader “willing to make tough choices,” glossing over the fact that his choices are only “tough” on the poor and middle class, not on the privileged class to which he belongs, and which is doing extremely well, thank you.  Instead of protecting people from an increasingly predatory economy, he serves as the predators’ enabler.  This is a man who campaigned as a champion of “Main Street, not Wall Street,” and on vague themes of “hope” and “change.”  People who voted for him and are paying attention must rightly feel betrayed as they see the actual changes he and his party are delivering.

© Tony Russell, 2013