My Swan Song

After long and painful introspection I have decided to cease writing political commentary, something I have been doing for about fifty years.

I do this with a great deal of pain and disappointment, but I have concluded that it is time to stop deceiving myself into thinking that I am making a difference. Theoretically, I am distributing to over 500 people, but how many of those actual read my analysis is anybody’s guess. I suspect not many.

We live in an age when very few are interested in hearing anything that does not fit their predilections and worse their prejudices. An increasing number of people in the age of Obama find themselves most satisfied with the rantings of Fox, or to a lesser extent are happy to listen MSNBC, because it fits their particular predisposition. Fewer and fewer are interested in a balanced view or in the facts, as can be seen from the constant drop in the ratings in the less ideological CNN. I was dismayed a while ago, when a good friend said he no longer listens to the Newshour because he finds it “boring” and other friends who used to read the New York Times from cover to cover are now content to glance over the headlines and move on.

Nor was I encouraged when a number of readers removed themselves from my subscription and/or distribution lists, because I expressed views on the policies of the government of Israel at variance with their own. Rather than take the opportunity to make their own views heard across my megaphone, such as it is, they choose to cover their ears and run away from views that are not in keeping with their own.

I have also become painfully aware that many of the people who used to contribute their insight years, or even months ago, have disappeared from my radar screen, and some claiming to read my commentary have expressed agreement with my views, only to express, in their next breath, contrary views.

Nor was I encouraged when a friend, and a long time contributor, wrote a comment on my commentary entitled, Texas & Identity Politics that seemed to assume that my commentary related to the Texas school board curriculum, when it spoke strictly to the issue of identity politics.

Even people who assure me that they read my commentaries faithfully and wholeheartedly agree with my views, are not encouraging me, for as I said in commenting on an exchange with a Right wing ideologue, in the The Politics of the Big Lie:

“Let me say to my readers that I write these commentaries not so much to express opinions, though that is certainly one purpose, but more important to set the record straight as to facts, which I spend a great deal of time and effort documenting. I often get comments from readers that they agree with my opinions. I hope that they don't just get views they can agree with, for if that is all I accomplish, then my efforts are in vain. It is the underlying facts that are important and there are too many myths, too many misconceptions out there that need to be corrected. I aim to do that.

“During the Bush Administration there seemed to be a tendency to start with an ideological conclusion, and if the facts didn't fit, to change them. Whatever opinions people have the facts should come first. If I can contribute to destroying myths, to set the record straight, then I believe I will have made a valuable contribution.”

And yet I look in vain for comments that indicate that I have provided a fact that they had not known and they find helpful, or even someone adding facts I had overlooked, or had misstated one.

But strangely, in this overly ideological purity I find no passion on my side. We have neglected our problems for half a century, and have the first President during that span of time who is actually is trying to address them, who has saved the country from the looming chasm of a ’29 depression, who has successfully, if not fully, addressed our health care crisis, who has partially alleviated the pain of our gay community, while recognizing that one must move within the framework of what is politically possible, and who has brought this nation back into the world esteem it once enjoyed, to mention only a few of his achievements, but who faces vicious criticism not only from those who are his and my ideological enemies, but from those who supposedly are his and my political soul mates, who instead of directing their fire against those who tell countless lies, are the architects of the economic dilemma that the President has already prevented, direct their fire against the President and his party because they have not achieved all that one might wish in a little over a year.

I said I find no passion on my side. Contrast that with the passion of the Tea Party movement. Where are the angry voices in opposition to them? They are mostly silent, except maybe against the President because there are still many unemployed.

When I published an excerpt from The ”Best and the Brightest” to show how even then people expected miracles from a new President which could not be delivered, I expected many to find that striking and enlightening. Only one person expressed this as being interesting, and that was in an oral conversation, though it was appreciated.

In bidding adieu, I must say that there were a few bright spots recently that I must acknowledge. Patricia Burns of Edgewater, NJ gave me a great deal of encouragement when she let me know how much she appreciated my efforts. Someone on the Right agreed that he wanted to hear contrary views and appreciated my wanting to share a platform with him.

But most have fallen silent, and I find their silence and their self-absorption deafening. I cannot make my voice heard over that deafening silence and I am no longer willing to try.

Letters to the Editor (Continued 2)

On April 29th I posted a commentary: Letters to the Editor (Continued) which I expected would exhaust this subject.

Since then, however, events have prompted me to write another letter to the New York Times, which I think I should share with you. It was written in response to an article on the front page of the May 2 Week in Review entitled: "The Spill vs. a Need to Drill."

My letter is set forth below:

"I am deeply disappointed at the lack of balance in the article “The Spill vs. a Need to Drill." The conclusion that we must drill is supported by, of all places, a quote from the Right wing “American Enterprise Institute” and in the graph by the figure that off shore drilling amounts to 30% of total domestic oil production. It somehow neglects to tell us that this is less than 7% of total consumption, a sum that could be made up by conservation."

While I did not mention the lies that have already entered the discussion on off shore drilling, I was rather shocked to hear Lamar Alexander R-TN and Chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, talk on Meet the Press about $14 a gallon gasoline if we don't do off shore drilling . While a reduction of 7% in oil supply might push the price of gasoline up by 25¢, a suggestion of $14 is so ridiculous as to be ludicrous, yet neither the moderator nor anyone else on the panel so fit to point that out.

While doing letters to the editor allow me to also share with you a letter written by one of my subscribers,  Patricia Burns of Edgewater, NJ to the New York Times and was written in response to David Brooks column entitled "The Geezers’ Crusade."

She wrote:

"As an octogenarian, I obviously qualify as a member of the Geezer Generation described in David Brooks' column.

From the Greatest Generation to the Geezers Who Take from the Young? I don't think so! Rather, I would place the blame for this sorry situation noted by Mr. Brooks on the manipulation and dishonest distortion of facts by politicians and ratings driven media. Geezers may be faring far better in their later years than ever before - but they, and everyone, need access to honest, factual proposals, clearly presented and free of super hyped scare tactics, to come to sane, honorable and, yes, unselfish responses to pressing problems of today and the future. This we have always done through the tough years of Depression, World War, Civil Rights and Antiwar stands. The Geezers of today are the same people. They have not all become by choice the "reverse generativity" culprits, nor can they alone straighten out the deliberate, dishonest attempt to paralyze thought and government by those who put money, greed and self-serving politics ahead of integrity, statesmanship and social priorities.

"Geezers Unite, yes! Unselfish leadership is necessary. But start in the present, with demanding that truth and honest facts prevail in the battle for the future. Those have always been the ground rules. They don't change and I would think neither do we."

And finally one of my subscribers Barbara Valentino of Port St. Lucie, Florida has been inspired to create her own blog entitled Welcome To Barbara’s World where she writes:

"Even before the 2008 crisis, the four biggest banks were "too big to fail." Since then, Wells Fargo has grown 43% bigger; JP Morgan Chase has grown 51% bigger; and Bank of America is now 138% bigger than before crisis. America's four largest banks - Citibank, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, and Wells-Fargo - have assets of $7.4 trillion, equal to 52% of our entire GDP.

The collapse of any one would endanger the American economy, even the world economy. They are truly "too big to fail." They also have too much economic and political power because of their enormous size.

As one would "think," banks are not the victims losing money because of the foreclosure nightmare. NO, they have turned it into BIG BUSINESS (some even argue that it was all a set up), making huge profits from the foreclosure crisis, hoarding immense wealth....they are the "honestiores," the honored; those suffering from the millions of foreclosures, are the humiliores, literally the humble.

According to the New York Times, "The [SAFE Banking Act] would reinforce a 1994 law that bars any single bank from holding more than 10% of the nation’s total deposits, or about $750 billion. In the years since then, large firms have obtained waivers or used loopholes in the law to exceed that ceiling." It would also limit total bank borrowing to 2% of GDP.

The bill has broad progressive support, including Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, Chris Hayes of The Nation, Prof. Lawrence Lessig, Heather Booth of Americans for Financial Reform, Adam Quinn of Credo, David Arkush of Public Citizen, and Jan Frel of Alternet. Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) plan to file an amendment they say will end banks that become “too big to fail” and prevent future bailouts.

The language, titled the SAFE Banking Act, would limit the size of big financial firms and would ensure that banks have adequate resources to cover losses they incur.

This bill would not only prevent bailouts and protect against economic collapse, it will help boost lending to small businesses. 

Due to the length of the post of I am not reproducing all of it. but those who want to read the rest can go directly to the blog Welcome To Barbara’s World.