The limb that dare not speak its name

As her orbit in the world of pop music gained altitude, I took notice of an archly costumed female figure stalking throuh her music videos. What I would describe as a conspicuously concealed personal identity, her various appearances smothered in eyeliner, platinum-blonde wigs and sex object-shiny costumes. Her image was more a cipher than singer; conveying more 'sync' than 'lip'.

Besides the mindless mass adoration her singles and videos churned up, I found it troubling that a performer would go to such trouble to banish nearly all uniquely identifying charicteristics. The gawk-seeking, chameleon quality of her public appearances aroused in me a suspicion as to what exactly she could be hiding or attempting to deflect attention from?

One day it finally struck me--how prominently the bridge of her nose stood out from her face. Given Stefani Germanotta's Italian ancestry, her acquiline feature should surprise no one--though it does deviate from the prevailing WASP ideal (without which rhinoplasty would have no talisman).

She has asserted never having submitted to the scalpel on priciple that plastic surgery promotes insecurity. The photos accompanying the April 1, 2011 Harper's Bazaar feature display what appear as protrusions of bone at her cheeks and from either corner of her forehead. What intrigue she summons when stating the newly sprung bones (obviously the prosthetic magic of a make up artist) are her own--indeed fitting the angular thrust of her own Roman nose. Yes, there's promoting insecurity and then there's hemming said insecurity with all manner of visual gimmicks (who wouldn't fancy a meat dress?). Falling short of shocking, her wardrobe only manages to flout already-trampled middle class senses.

Irony swings every which way for this mediocre talent with the stand-out face. The more outrage or shock she attempts to compel, the louder the protest against her own ordinariness.

Voters promise no ballots for CEO-funded campaigns

It's how the headline should have read. Instead the CNN article heading rolled out this way: 100+ CEOs promise no campaign donations.

How encouraging it is to hear from the likes of Warren Buffet and Eric Schultz about taxes and the distorting influence of wealth upon our political system. A couple of ultra-wealthy business types speak out on behalf of the rest of us. Will elected officials take heed how the middle- and working classes are getting the shaft? It is doubtful as voters have yet to speak a language that candidates for public office can understand.

Unemployment stands at anywhere from 15 to 25 million. If a class of (eligible) voters who previously had no reason to pay attention to government decision making, perhaps unemployment and the great economic setback of our lifetime will have to worsen before they rouse from indifference.

This is the very demographic at whom the multi-million dollar TV campaign ads are aimed; those manipulative talking points and absurd slogans. Who pays for these ads? This crucial question leads the discussion to the moneyed interests who enjoy purchasing their place at the table while the 98% remainder of voters are left scratching their heads, 'Hey i thought i voted for change,' and they most certainly expected change. But they did not notice their candidate accepting boatloads of bundled contributions from the top 2%.

What will it take to remind voters of their own responsibilities as citizens in our democratic republic: to stay informed; to continually engage elected officials as well as one another? Understanding the influence gap between voters and their representatives may impress upon Americans how their votes succumb to the force of large check writers pulling strings behind the scenes. The language candidates for election would undrstand require a significant consensus of voters willing to enforce the following terms: to vote only for candidates who refuse any donation greater than $200 per individual per year. As of yet, that determination by voters has to be self-realized.

An American shadow: citizen projection and government dereliction

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(Article first published as An American Shadow: Citizen Projection and Government Dereliction on Blogcritics.)

Speaking to representatives of Future Farmers of America in July 1988, President Ronald Reagan took a moment to remind his listeners of the ten most dangerous words in the English language: "Hi, I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."

Decades earlier near the beginning of his political career Reagan recorded a speech on a vinyl LP excoriating socialized medicine for what he claimed as the gradualist aim of controlling citizens' lives. He went so far as to predict that the government would end up coercing doctors as to where they could or couldn't practice medicine. Even though Reagan called it "one of the traditional methods of imposing statism," he does not mention a single example when a government eventually trampled upon the freedoms of its citizens.

Like other Cold War red-baiting alarmists, Reagan fueled the hysteria of the U.S. succumbing to Stalinist repression; also doing his share to popularize the projection of inhuman, monolithic qualities onto government--an impulse that's wildly popular till today. Perhaps because of these uncertain times people are apt to carry heaps of anxiety and need somewhere or something to unload upon. Given the jobs crisis, crumbling infrastructure and America's loss of prestige world-wide--these days our government is a fish-in-a-barrel shot.

Capitalizing on the anti-government appeal, a significant number of Republicans running for office will season their campaigns with "small government" or "limited government" slogans. Apart from promises about lower taxes, stripping the social safety net or uncaging the "free market", there aren't many specifics about how less government would improve the quality of life for the whole republic.

Regarding the whole republic, the problems we face have little or nothing to do with big government or small government. What afflicts our politics is an influence gap that continually thwarts the will of voters. The gap owes much to the 40% of eligible voters who don't vote in each election as well as a general unwillingness of voters to build a consensus to solve our most pressing problems. Into said gap, moneyed interests (petrolium, financial services and defense industry to name a few) have driven their Hummer-sized policy agendas (war and industry deregulation); an effort that has looted not only the federal budget but also skimmed off the value of middle class labor--all in service to the endless gain of share holders, industry captains and their direct reports.

And all the while their right wing water carriers work to spread antipathy and mistrust between voters and government. They have employed all manner of fear mongering slogans about tyranny and threats to the so-called free market. Conjuring a despotic straw man, they urge that he stands at the threshold of seizing your rifles and relocating you to FEMA-operated death camps. Such apocalyptic talk has had the effect of eroding the bond of accountability between the government and citizens; what should have prevented much of the public- and private sector malfeasance we've seen over the last 30 years.

What voters too often forget or fail to understand is the influence they wield when working in concert. If the 2008 economic meltdown has anything to teach us, it must be how interlinked or mutually dependent our occupational and financial destinies are. Why not accept and utilize that interdependence toward its greatest electoral advantage? As the group granting the "consent of the governed" we insult the purpose of our republic to continue rolling over in deference to wealthy interests.

GOP and terrorists: our way or the highway

The main objection to negotiating with terrorists is that it encourages them to repeat their tactics, the Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) explains in a policy brief dated March 2009. Dividing terrorists into two groups, contingent and absolute, each is distinguished by their end goal. While the contingent terrorist will negotiate with authorities to achieve the desired aim, an absolute one believes only in defending an ideal at any cost--no negotiations.

Recently Vice President Joe Biden and Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa) have bandied about unfavorable comparisons between terrorists and the tactics of the Tea-wagged Republican majority in Congress. This after weeks of frustrating deal posturing between the house speaker and the president about the approaching federal debt ceiling deadline. Avoiding a catastrophic default be damned, the Tea Party wing asserted. Never mind that members of Congress like Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) voted for Paul Ryan's debt inflating budget, yet no draconian budget cut would appease them enough to support raising the debt ceiling.

Last Dec. Sen. Bob Menendez expressed a similarsentiment about working with Capitol Hill Republicans on Bush-era tax cuts. To maintain tax cuts for the top 2% earners they were willing to tie down extending jobless benefits and the new START treaty with Russia to the tracks. No extended tax cuts, no deal.

In the stonewalling GOP you find a fanatic zeal shared with violent extremists of whatever political persuasion. With the determination of an absolutist and the contingentist's aptitude for favorable deal making, Republicans will most likely continue their assault on the consensus building aspects of the democratic process. When will voters summon the will and produce a mandate to end this nation's captivity?