Phrase of the day: Bread and Circuses

The phrase "Bread and Circuses" describes one of my biggest concerns:

"Bread and Circuses" (or bread and games) (from Latin: panem et circenses) is a metaphor for a superficial means of appeasement. It was the basic Roman formula for the well-being of the population, and hence a political strategy unto itself. In the case of politics, the phrase is used to describe the creation of public approval, not through exemplary or excellent public service or public policy, but through diversion, distraction, and/or the mere satisfaction of the immediate, shallow requirements of a populace. The phrase also implies the erosion or ignorance of civic duty amongst the concerns of the common man (l'homme moyen sensuel). In modern usage, the phrase has also become an adjective to describe a populace that no longer values civic virtues and the public life.
What are some of today's superficial means of appeasement? Mostly our wars. Our needless military adventures. Our "war on drugs." Our wars against each other --scapegoating. Our wars against (our ridicule of) intellectual excellence. Our war against meaningful citizen participation in government "of the People" (i.e., the Citizens United problem). Our wars against most things that are not "American." I'm sure I'm forgetting some of our other wars . . .

Continue ReadingPhrase of the day: Bread and Circuses

New definition of anti-Semite announced by AIPAC

Glenn Greenwald latest:

Look at what Josh Block told Politico about what makes someone an anti-Semite:
As a progressive Democrat, I am convinced that on issues as important as the US-Israel alliance and the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program, there is no room for uncivil discourse or name calling, like ‘Israel Firster or ‘Likudnik’, and policy or political rhetoric that is hostile to Israel, or suggests that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, has no place in the mainstream Democratic party discourse. I also believe that when it occurs, progressive institutions, have a responsibility not to tolerate such speech or arguments.
So according to Block, you are not allowed (unless you want to be found guilty of anti-Semitism) to use “policy rhetoric that is hostile to Israel” or — more amazingly — even to “suggest that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.” Those ideas are strictly off limits, declares the former AIPAC spokesman.

Continue ReadingNew definition of anti-Semite announced by AIPAC

Proposed Massachusetts law would require corporate responsibility

A new law affecting Massachusetts corporations has been proposed to require corporations to be more than money-makers:

The Code for Corporate Citizenship (the "Code") would amend Section 8,30 (a)(3) of the Massachusetts Business Corporations Act which now requires corporate directors only to act "in a manner the director reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the corporation." The Code will change this duty to add 28 words, "but not at the expense of the environment, human rights, public health and safety, dignity of employees and the welfare of the communities in which the coproration operates."

Continue ReadingProposed Massachusetts law would require corporate responsibility

Conservative Fantasy Role Playing

I wonder sometimes how a modern conservative maintains. Romney has won the New Hampshire primary.  All the buzz now is how he’s going to have a much tougher fight in South Carolina, primarily because of the religious and social conservatives who will see him as “not conservative enough.”  There is a consortium of social conservatives meeting this week in Texas to discuss ways to stop him, to elevate someone more to their liking to the nomination.  And right there I have to wonder at what it means anymore to be a conservative. I grew up, probably as many people my age did, thinking of conservatism as essentially penurious and a bit militaristic.  Stodgy, stuffy, proper.  But mainly pennypinching.  A tendency to not do something rather than go forward with something that might not be a sure thing. I suppose some of the social aspect was there, too, but in politics that didn’t seem important.  I came of age with an idea of fiscal conservatism as the primary trait. That doesn’t square with the recent past.  The current GOP—say since Ronny Reagan came to power—has been anything but fiscally conservative, although what they have spent money on has lent them an aura of responsible, hardnosed governance.   Mainly the military, but also subsidies for businesses.  But something has distorted them since 1981 and has turned them into bigger government spenders than the Democrats ever were.  (This is not open to dispute, at least not when broken down by administrations.  Republican presidents have overseen massive increases in the deficit as opposed to Democratic administrations that have as often overseen sizable decreases in the deficit, even to the point of balancing the federal budget.  You may interpret or spin this any way you like, but voting trends seem to support that the choices Republican presidents have made in this regard have been supported by Republican congressmen even after said presidents have left office.) [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingConservative Fantasy Role Playing