It’s probably unnecessary to note that, for at least the last decade, we US residents no longer live in a democratic republic. Thanks to a series of business-friendly Supreme Court decisions, our representative government is now filled with employees of a plutocratic oligarchy. And, as of November 2016, the political party their employers co-opted completely in 2009 own all three branches of government. The checks and balances established by those who wrote the Constitution to ensure We the People remain free and independent are the victim of corporate raiders.
Thom Hartmann’s book, first in 2004, emerged at a time when the above was a threat observed mostly by independent journalists and those who were awake to the danger. The second edition, updated in 2009 when Charles and David Koch held the first of their semi-annual “conferences” that gave birth to the Tea Party and consolidated the GOP into their weapon of choice for the destruction of government as we know it. That the government hadn’t been what most people believed for at least 30 years and probably longer is a testament to what happens when people’s traditional source of information—the mainstream media—has been debased into a corporate propaganda.
Mr. Hartmann’s book traces the history of the corporate takeover of the US government from the triggering event, the 1886 SCOTUS decision Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, to the pivotal 2010 Citizens United decision that opened the previously controlled floodgates of cash from billionaires and corporations into our election process. On the way, he discusses the relationship of the country to corporations, making clear the Founding Fathers were, with some exceptions, opposed to their having any hand in the government process. Ironically, one of those who thought otherwise is the protagonist of a current musical much beloved by the Democratic liberal establishment—Alexander Hamilton. That Hamilton firmly believed the rich and powerful should be in charge of the US government tends to get lost in translation.
This isn’t an easy book to read, which is as it should be when you’re trying to educate people unaware of the subject in a way that will enable them to both understand the problem and begin what has become an increasingly difficult fight to correct it. I don’t recommend trying to read it quickly, even if you’re one like me who can do so if need be. This is important information anyone willing to pick up the gauntlet and take back the country needs to not just understand but know well enough to persuade those who still don’t understand. My copy is studded with pink Post-It flags so I can find the bits I consider most telling, and that might be the best way to read it.
Eight years ago, the situation was bad; it has since become dire. There is no question the only way to bring down the neo-feudalism taking over the country is to amend the Constitution so corporations are once again reduced to the artificial constructs they are. There is another irony that isn’t addressed in the book, since it’s of recent birth, which is that the same billionaires responsible for the corporate takeover are now paying to convene a Constitutional Convention of the states for the alleged purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment but which will actually be open to becoming a Wild West aggregation of right-wing zealots whose actual goal is likely to gut the document entirely.
Unequal Protection is an important book for those who refuse to sit still in the face of a plutocratic revolution to overthrow the republic. It needs to be on bookshelves right next to Mayer’s Dark Money and Klein’s Shock Doctrine.
As usual, despite having received a copy of this collection for advance review, life interfered so I’m late doing said review.
The first novella in this triad of tales—two novellas and a short story—set in the World War II era is “The Incidental Spy,” which is reviewed elsewhere. It sets the tone for the rest of the book, which is about how war affects even those living far from combat and danger. It’s also about women who, in an era when independence wasn’t encouraged, are forced to become so when they are often unprepared to make the choices independence requires.
“The Incidental Spy” features a single mother forced to commit treason against the country she thought would protect her from the dangers of her homeland. “P.O.W” could have been yet another syrupy tale of love between those supposed to be enemies. It isn’t, and while I could probably say more without spoilers, I’m not going to because it needs to be read with no expectations.
The final offering, “The Day Miriam Hirsch Disappeared,” is yet another take on the underlying theme of the collection, this time from the viewpoint of a young man from a privileged background who too early must confront the realization that what might seem like adventure has consequences beyond his experience.
The stories all contain an element of the kind of excellent thriller for which Ms. Hellmann is known, but it’s a component, not the purpose. These are stories of people whose common, everyday lives are disrupted by war in places they consider safe. They remind us that innocence, for all we like to admire it, can be hazardous when it allows us to convince ourselves everything is or will be just fine if we ignore the moments that make us uncomfortable and dismiss them as our imagination running wild.
If you haven’t read Ms. Hellmann’s work before, this book is an excellent introduction. She is an expert at working what is clearly detailed research into the narrative, something many writers never manage to perfect. Most important, as with her two series, the characters are alive and breathing people the reader immediately feels as if they know intimately; and despite their bad choices and foolishness—or perhaps because of them—we can’t help but recognize something or ourselves in them.
In the February 5, 2016, debate, Hillary Clinton rebutted the accusation she was influenced by the huge sums of money donated by corporate and Wall Street financiers. Proudly, she shouted down Sen. Sanders with the affirmation that she represented “my constituents,” with the implication “despite all the money I received from Wall Street.” It wouldn’t occur to most people to pause and consider that, as the Senator from New York, Wall Street financiers were her constituents.
Now, more than a year and one catastrophic defeat later, it appears avid Clintonites are still incapable of seeing through obfuscation. As a result, the quickest way to be accused of being a “Trump supporter” is to suggest:
- There are more important issues than obsessing over every ridiculous thing our new president says on Twitter.
- The President of the United States can neither make or eliminate laws, and any executive orders he issues have to be backed by established law; in other words, he can only choose how those laws will be implemented, not change them arbitrarily.
- No one is required to say who they voted for last November, and demanding they do so or be accused of the above is a violation of their right to cast a secret ballot. To assume by their refusal they voted Republican violates the rules of logic, in that correlation still doesn’t prove causation.
- Declaring people had no right to vote for a third-party candidate or to choose not to vote at all if there are no candidates for whom they can do so in good conscience is a violation of the Constitution. Worse, it’s dictatorial and condescending.
- People who did vote Republican may have had good reason, in their estimation, for why they chose to do so, which is precisely what the Constitution intended.
In addition, mentioning any of the above in conjunction with invoking item #3 will automatically label one a “Hillary hater” if, at the same time, one suggests that (a) there were very real reasons why she was a toxic candidate and (b) insisting people should have voted for her anyway because Trump is as totalitarian as what the GOP has in store for the country.
And then there are the ones who attack any woman who dares to say she sees no purpose in marching through the streets wearing a pink hat when there is so much that needs to be done. And just for the record, I find it painfully ironic that those who purport to be protesting women’s inequality choose to do so wearing the color the culture has dictated belongs to girls. I would think equality of the genders would have been better served by purple.
I suspect I shouldn’t be surprised that it appears most of those who engage in the above behaviors are rarely among those actively engaged in fighting the current regime in whatever manner possible. One never finds them on social media groups for activist organizations. One never sees them talk about what they’ve done or plan to do about changing the status quo. When, after having gone into defense mode at the drop of anything that contradicts their cognitive bias, they are presented with sources to support the contradictions, their invariable response is to ignore the information in favor of repeating their assumption one is a “Trump supporter.”
Thousands of little Neros, fiddling the corporate media’s tune while the GOP and the New Democrats burn the Constitution and raze the republic to the ground.
I do understand. The economic disaster that caused so many voters to flip from Democrat to Republican last November doesn’t impinge on their comfortable existence. Yet. They either never knew or have conveniently forgotten what it’s like to be so poor you have no idea whether you’ll have a place to live or food for your kids next month, or whether the water will be shut off because the car broke down and you needed to get it fixed so you could get to work. Sadly, not even calling them out for their classism does any good; the only “-isms” they acknowledge are racism and sexism.
The stubborn unwillingness of too many people to break away from the media manipulation that’s a constant stream 24/7/365 and understand the dire consequences of keeping on with what has gone before is a danger to everyone. We can no longer afford willful ignorance, and it becomes increasingly clear there is plenty of that on both sides of the discussion. The committed Trump people are convinced the disastrous measures he and his keepers in Congress are undertaking will fix what they think is wrong with the world. The other side is committed to believing the Russians ruined their anointed’s chance to continue the policies of the Obama administration, which the aforementioned media have convinced them were a rousing success. One individual I respect highly posted a graphic of Obama in a cape a la Batman to her Facebook timeline, along with a worshipful comment worthy of any fan.
Again, for this kind of cultist, telling them people who actually understand what happened over the last eight years know the Obama administration was, by and large, a disaster for anyone but the plutocrats, mitigated only slightly by a hugely popular health care law, is pointless. And that delusion will allow the New Democrats, who over the last eight years have all but made it possible for the states controlled by the same Republicans who want to resurrect the Articles of Confederation to call for a Constitutional Convention by pushing corporate shills for candidates, to continue doing so.
Fortunately, there are an increasing number of people who have seen the corporate media propaganda for what it is, and who either ignore it or actively resist the narrative. They do so with the full understanding they could be in danger as the oligarchy our country has become moves closer and closer to fascism. They don’t have time to waste checking to see what the Tweeter-in-Chief posted this morning, and they understand even one shared issue is enough to embrace people who otherwise may be our philosophical and political opposites.
Benjamin Franklin is said to have remarked after the Declaration of Independence was signed that “If we do not hang together, we will surely hang separately.” The men who wrote that document differed widely in ideals and goals, but they understood they had no choice but to set their differences aside to achieve freedom from what was, ironically, corporate tyranny. Those who continue to condemn anyone who chose to vote against Hillary Clinton, or who chose not to vote at all, or who they simply decide voted against her because they don’t adhere faithfully to the establishment narrative, are like the colonial loyalists who were certain revolution was unpatriotic and economically unsound. At best, they are something to work around. At worst, they are likely to undermine the efforts of those who understand the republic is crumbling, and only We the People can fix it.
As I mentioned last fall, I established a Facebook group to which I post articles, blogs, and other information either overlooked or under-reported by the corporate media. The content is public, so one needn’t join the group to read it. I won’t pretend I don’t have progressive bias, but I do endeavor to stick to facts, and when I can’t I identify opinion for what it is.
It’s one way I can try to keep the sleeping giant Bernie Sanders stirred up from falling back under the hypnotic sway of the mainstream narrative.
First, let me be clear I am aware this book was written in the mid-1980s. However, that doesn‘t mitigate the opinion I developed after the first chapter, and didn’t change after reading the rest of the book, that this is a prime example of upper-middle class WASP academic male privilege in action. The author’s vision of the past he finds so glorious is colored by that privilege, and it’s that vision he holds up as the preferred lifestyle we are all being deprived of by the evils of television.
It also, one suspects, is the basis for his inability to consider that the evils that so horrify him aren’t a natural outcome of the medium he detests but rather a carefully designed propaganda machine utilized by a government-corporate oligarchy to cause the very “dumbing down” of the general population he insists television creates.
To refute all of the holes I found in his presentation would require another book. His alleged conclusions are often based on his personal, unsupported interpretation of another author’s commentary, which are presented with weasel-words like “we can assume” and “I feel justified in concluding.” For example, on page 71, he includes a quote by Daguerre defining the photograph then proceeds to tell the reader “what Daguerre meant.”
That’s not how an attack on an entire medium of communication is supposed to be done, and doing so flies in the face of his own oft-stated yearning for a return to the carefully designed discussions of yesteryear is ironic. His conclusion is further undermined by the 30 years that have passed since he wrote his book, especially his attack on Sesame Street as having no educational value and, in fact, being dangerous to the development of young minds.
In short, Mr. Postman’s argument, which is apparently revered by those like him as a dire warning that we’ve become (or at the very least are becoming) like the mind-numbed denizens of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, reveals to someone not of his world a great many gaping holes through which his conclusions sink. The condescending tone that escapes into his prose doesn’t help. In the end, though, my problem with the book is that Mr. Postman is blaming the tool for the problem instead of the wielder—blaming the hammer that’s been thrown through the window, if you will. Any medium, be it print or photography or TV or the internet, is constructive or destructive based on the intentions of those who are using it.
So, with shameless hindsight, I’ve only given this book three stars, because I’ve had those 30 years I mentioned to study television and so can fault some of the conclusions offered. However, I do recommend anyone interested in the effect a medium as pervasive as TV is can have on the population in general, and to initiate consideration of just how easily it has been used to channel narratives in directions other than might be good for us, read it and ponder.
I went looking for a good book on John Quincy Adams after reading about various points in his history here and there. His unique position as the only US president to have continued his political career in Congress struck me as fascinating, and the fact that most of the positions he took during that career were extremely progressive, not just for his time but in ours, made him seem to me someone worth knowing more about.
Since I had absolutely no other guide, I relied on the reviews to select this particular biography. Well, that in the fact that the author based it mainly on an in-depth analysis of Mr. Adams’s own journals sounded like an excellent choice. I wasn’t disappointed. For any reader looking for an insightful and easy-to-read biography of one of our least known presidents, this is definitely the book to choose.
Perhaps the greatest irony in the career of this talented man is that despite spending his entire life from early adolescence on in politics he refused to be a politician. It was his firm belief that elected officials should become so only if they are the choice of the people they are to represent, and that therefore running for public office was dishonest. In other words, he abhorred political campaigns and refused to engage in them. If the voters wanted him, was his position, they would elect him without his having to ask.
Here is a man who was attacked by his fellow members of Congress for refusing to stay silent on the subject of slavery, and who for much of his career there cleverly managed to bypass their efforts to mute his voice using the one weapon he was willing to apply—the rules. He deserves to be brought out of the dismissive obscurity into which he’s been tossed and held up as the model to which all those seeking or planning to seek public office should aspire.
“The road to a sustainable future is clear,” writes Ms. Hauter at the conclusion of her superb history of the fracking industry, “and the technologies are ready and cost efficient. The only thing holding us back is the lack of political will.…We must move forward fearlessly to build a mass movement with the political power necessary to crate a truly sustainable energy future. We must do this—it’s a matter of life and death.”
If you’re still wondering why so many people are opposed to fracking—hydraulic fracturing, a method used to extract oil and natural gas using high-pressure liquid injection—you need to read this book. And then you need to find a copy of Josh Fox’s 2011 Oscar-nominated documentary Gasland, because that film provides a visual rendering of the life-threatening pollution fossil fuel companies are spewing into our water and our air.
And those whom they’re poisoning have no recourse, because the fracking industry was completely exempted from all three clean air-and-water laws in 2005.
This is not a book full of technical jargon, because it’s not about the process. It’s about what the process is doing to the resources we literally can’t live without, and the history of how the fossil-fuel corporations have, in fact, bought the government so as to have free rein to pursue their greed. I had no idea just how totally our federal and state governments have surrendered to their demands—and I’ve spent the last nearly two decades in Texas, where that concept is an accepted part of the culture.
The worst part of the book for me personally was learning how the major environmental organization in the US have collaborated with the industry on the grounds that natural gas, which is no better for the environment than any other fossil fuel, can be a “bridge” to more sustainable and less polluting fuels. Maybe they inhaled too much methane fumes.
If we don’t fight back, the dire consequences of climate change won’t matter, because there won’t be a potable drop of water anywhere. Period. If you think that’s an exaggeration, watch Mr. Fox’s film; and if the sight of people’s kitchen faucets catching fire doesn’t make the danger clear, bless your heart.