The Racket

I did my taxes today. It's an interesting act in citizenship. It's the only compulsory contact with the federal government for every single person who has the audacity to earn a buck on our continent of a country. Most people don't vote, but we ALL pay taxes.

This time of year I'm always reminded of how thuggish our great republic can be. I'm reminded that there was no income tax before 1916. I'm reminded that the United States somehow managed to become the richest nation in the world without taxing workers' incomes. I'm reminded of how hard I work. And I'm reminded of made-for-TV gangster movies.

It's a bit of a misnomer to say that I "did my taxes" today, because I actually "do" my taxes every single day, save the handful of days per year when I manage to both earn and spend absolutely NO money. Yes, we "do" our taxes every time we spend a buck.

So what we do this time of year is something different. We "do" our Income Taxes. As if it were the most natural thing in the world. We must keep in mind that there was no income tax until my grandfather, who is still living, was in his mother's womb. That's one lifetime. That's not ancient history.

Speaking of ancient history, I recommend the Constitution of the United States. Good read. Among its gems are "taxes shall be direct and apportioned". What this means is that taxes are directed at spent money and that the same rates apply to all. In other words, if you want to buy a bottle of booze, you're paying 3% sales taxes regardless of who you are.

But, here's the key: Until you buy that bottle of booze (or hopefully something more productive) your money is your money. It's yours because you earned it. You don't start to lose it until you spend it. At least that's how it was.

Now, the very act of earning money through direct labor freely given via a private contract with an employer is a taxable offense. It used to be that you'd get taxed for crossing a bridge, buying a pack of smokes, importing a consumer commodity from abroad, or owning land. Now, you're taxed before you ever get to do those things. Now, essentially, you're taxed for living.

Let's consider what the income tax really is. It used to be that I'd go up to a guy with a hole in his roof and say, "hey, I'll fix your roof for a thousand bucks." The guy would then say yes or no. If he said yes, I'd do the work, he'd give me the money. End of story.

Now, imagine if me and this guy are arranging this exchange and some seedy looking guy in a trench coat strolls up and says, "Oh! (like Pauly from "The Sopranos) where's my cut?" Now, normally, you would call this man an extortionist. You'd call him a thug. But what if he's with the Feds, instead of the Family?

The Income Tax is essentially an extortion racket. Protection money. I go to work for someone else. He demands. I supply. But then, the guy in the trench coat demands his cut. And why should we give it to him? Because "an accident might happen" if we don't. And is that not the IRS in a nutshell? A glorified street gang?

The IRS, of course, has its own paramilitary branch, so its clear to the citizens what will happen if they fail to pony up their protection money. And what is this protection money used for? Well, it's invested in such intellectual and moral and logistical triumphs as the invasion of Iraq.

We should remind ourselves every now and again that the American Revolution began as a revolt over undue and excessive taxation. I'm not saying the Founding Fathers were morally better than us (see: slavery), but I am saying that if they were resurrected today and saw how much money working folks were sending to their government, and the pretenses under which they were doing so, they'd wish they'd stayed British.

Passin' Through

I've never posted the lyrics to an entire song on this blog, but I'm increasingly a disciple of the idea that there are no real boundaries between schools or trains of thought or expression, so I've decided to incorporate more blogs about music as a valuable amendment to, rather than a diversion from, my usual subject matter.

My ear for song is limited by many factors. My monolingualism, my limited budget, and so forth. But in the sweep of American music that I've studied, there are a handful of songwriters that stand out above all others. Not all of them are known as singers, but they should all be immortalized as poets.

In this cohort I would place: Bob Dylan (as a totalitarian dictator who rules by something bordering on divine right) Johnny Cash, Kris Kristofferson, John Prine, and Leonard Cohen.

There are two interesting things about Leonard Cohen. The first is that, when he was about my age, he looked EXACTLY like the love-child of Dustin Hoffman and Al Pacino, with Pacino carrying the dominant genes. The second is that this man bled gold through his pen. Consider:

"Passing Through"

I saw Jesus on the cross on a hill called Calvary
I said, "Do you hate mankind for what they've done to you?"
He said, "Talk of love, not hate, there are things to do and it's getting late"
"I've so little time, and I'm only passin' through"

I saw Adam leave the garden with an apple in his hand
I said, "Now you're out. What are you gonna do?"
He said, "Plant some crops and pray for rain, maybe raise a little Cain"
"I'm an orphan now, and I'm only passin' through"

I was with Washington at Valley Forge, shiverin' in the snow
I said, "How come men here suffer like they do?"
He said, "Men will suffer, men will fight, even DIE for what is right"
"Even though they know they're only passin' through"

I was at Franklin Roosevelt's side the night before he died
He said, "One world must come out of World War Two"
"Yankee, Russian, White or Tan", he said, "a man is just a man"
"We're all on one road; we're only passin' through"

It Is Accomplished

The inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama was far less emotional an event for me than his election, which I've (barely) melodramatically called "The November Revolution of 2008". Inauguration Day was just a formality, but it was still the best day America has had since....well, since the November Revolution.

As edifying as the November Revolution was, there was an uneasy interim between its inception and its consummation. Anything could have happened but, in large part, it didn't. So Obama took over a country which at least was still fundamentally the country that had elected him. With the speed at which history now moves, this was no sure thing.

As for the day itself, it reminded me again (and it's never enough) of the majesty of my country. The 44th peaceful transfer of presidential power. That is something we should not dare take for granted.

Throughout nearly ALL of human history, and in most countries to this very moment, the only way a person would give up the power that George W. Bush held a week ago would have been for sufficiently armed and ruthless men to have taken it from him.

Instead, in this country, we exchange awesome power with handshakes and with parades of high school students. In 1800, this was the most radical thing in the world. In 2009, its not quite as radical, but Americans should take pride in the fact that we are precisely the reason why peaceful transitions of government are no longer considered aberrations.

My highest emotion came when I watched the helicopter bearing George W. Bush take off and leave. Again, the fact that a man with the power to destroy the world if he was in the mood would so willingly (if belatedly) fly off into the proverbial sunset was an affirmation of the civic values of a nation based on laws, not men.

And as for Cheney.....well, they don't call him Dick for nothin'. How fitting that he was in that wheelchair, the spitting image of Mr. Lebowski from "The Big Lebowski" or Mr. Potter from "It's A Wonderful Life." The man to whom a man once apologized to for being shot in the face was reduced to a crumpled chump.

One trope I heard thrown around a bit too often was "the new leader of the free world". That's a term that needs to go. Saying that Obama is the leader of "free" people is like saying that Obama is the leader of "good" people.

There is no such thing as an exclusive and hermetic "free world" (nor was there during the Cold War, when this term was most in vogue). Barack Obama is not the leader of the free world. He is the President of the United States, which is a much higher station, because it actually means something.

The President has 3 roles, which are divided into 2 or 3 different offices in the governments of nearly all other countries. The President of the United States is: 1)The commander in chief of the armed forces. 2)The head of the executive branch of the government, which will enforce the will of the dominant political party. 3)the head of state, who represents ALL Americans on the world stage.

Mr. Bush as commander in chief was pretty shitty, I reckon. The only thing he seemed to be good at was USING the military. He never seemed to strengthen it or protect it or accomplish anything with it. As head of government, Bush did what Congress did. Congress sucked. Bush sucked accordingly. As head of state, Bush was an unmitigated embarrassment.

As commander in chief, I am sure Obama will not start an unnecessary and unplanned preventive invasion of another country. As head of government, I am sure that Obama will ring truer and better and more independent that either political party. As head of state, he is already stronger than all the nukes we ever built, in terms of what he inspires in the global community.

Good for US.

The Ultimate Insult

ul⋅ti⋅mate  –adjective
1.
last; furthest or farthest; ending a process or series: the ultimate point in a journey;


By "The Ultimate Insult", I mean "ultimate" not in the usual American sense, which implies best, highest, or most extreme (often spelled X-Treme! on snack and toy packaging). But in this context, I mean "ultimate" to mean "last". And at least Mr. Bush's ultimate insult was his last insult.

As the speech began, which I only insisted upon watching to verify not that Mr. Bush was actually leaving, but that Mr. Bush was ever even there at all, and that my entire 3rd decade on this earth wasn't an episode of "Lost".

As Mr. Bush began his speech I empathized with his acknowledgment of his critics followed by a reminder that none of his critics could possibly fathom the burden he bears. And he was right. And for the first time in a long time I wanted to defend Bush. But then he kept talking.

He began to speak of good and evil, and my ears perked up because I KNEW that he had written this segment of the speech, which is as rare from modern presidents as candor or ethics. Mr. Bush acknowledged that he had often spoken of good and evil, which he further acknowledged had offended many folks. I agreed with those points.

Then Mr. Bush firmly insisted "but good and evil DO exist". I agree with that too, which may shock the president, since his preamble about his doubters was clearly meant to imply that any opponent of the invasion of Iraq must be a moral relativist who is incapable of calling even the most heinous thing for what it is, due to the insipid fear of being labeled "judgemental".

But that is a false dichotomy. Many of Mr. Bush's critics are the worst, most intellectually and morally limp of people, overly-educated, but with perpetually clean hands. But there are also people like myself and my compatriots, who are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

Mr. Bush continued by saying, again with great force and clarity, "Killing the innocent for reasons of ideology is evil. Anytime. Anywhere." Again, I agree. But here is where Mr. Bush's rhetorical balance beam gave way to a pit of vipers.

In a brilliant insight into Mr. Bush's psyche, he defended himself by laying out in plain view the very worst crime he ever committed and using that crime as evidence that he understood the nature of evil. In much the same way, he used 9/11 as evidence that he was capable of "keeping America safe".

So, some sentence deconstruction is in order:

"Killing the innocent for reasons of ideology is evil."

Let's start with "Killing the innocent". Did Mr. Bush not kill the innocent? He publicly acknowledged years ago that "around 30,000" Iraqi civilians had died in the war that he started.

So, does Mr. Bush think that these people were not innocent? Or does he think that HE didn't kill them? Surely the answer is the latter. And that is the Madness of King George.

King George gave a command to start a war with an aerial bombardment upon a nation of 25 million souls that would, even in the most sparing scenario, "kill the innocent". Secretary of "Defense" Donald Rumsfeld was personally tasked with approving bombing raids that were "estimated" to kill more than 40 civilians. Mr. Rumsfeld signed every request he was given.

As a proposition of the most rudimentary logic and the most common of senses, can we not agree that giving an order to rain bombs upon Baghdad, a city of 5 million souls, with the professed intent of defeating "evil" is not itself an act of dissociative but pre-meditated murder, which is just as "evil" as any other killing?

Mr. Bush knowingly and willingly gave an order that would, among other things, "kill the innocent". If he is to be exonerated by his own logic, it could only be if he did not kill those souls for "reasons of ideology". Which raises the question, does it even MATTER why you kill thousands of souls from the air?

But, in good taste, we should conclude our indictment.

"For reasons of ideology". It is clear that Mr. Bush killed for reasons of ideology, because after the charade of "imminent threat" had disintegrated, Mr. Bush continued the killing for the sake of "democracy" or "freedom" or other things which I may be sympathetic to but are still, at their roots, ideologies.

George W. Bush gave an order that could not possibly have avoided the random killing of innocents. How many of those innocents there are does not matter. What matters is why they died.

They died, despite of their innocence, because George W. Bush personally disapproved of the ideology of their government. And so Bush is evil by Bush's own definition.

But there is the true tragedy of the Madness of King George. We can watch him do and say the most absurd and reckless and selfish things we've ever seen, and we can craft the most inspired and sincere pleas to try to alert him to his folly, but we know all along that we're only tormenting ourselves, because in the end, Bush believes in nothing but Bush.

My Library

There are many things about the digitalization of everything that appeals irresistibly to the nerd in me, as well as the historian, as well as the O.C.D. collector. Having digitized my entire music library (save the songs I had only on LP's) I can now catalogue my library in depth and breadth.

Below is a certain snapshot of my music library which, as I age, is a not insignificant indicator of my tastes and attitudes, although one should be careful not to read too deeply. At any rate, below is a list of the musical artists I listen to most, with the number of their songs in my library to the left of their names. This list omits some of my favorites, but it's as broad a view as one might achieve:

(400) Bob Dylan
(150) Johnny Cash
(120) Jay-Z, The Beatles, Ghostface Killah
(90) Nas
(80) Morrissey, RZA, Wu-Tang Clan
(70) CCR, Ice Cube, Outkast
(60) Tupac, Bob Marley, Lil' Wayne
(50) Jack Johnson, Leonard Cohen, Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Wyclef Jean, Talking Heads, Red Hot Chili Peppers, GZA
(40) Mos Def, Natalie Merchant, Mobb Deep, Method Man, Otis Redding, Notorious B.I.G.


As is clear by the fact that he has well more than twice as many songs as anyone else, one can surmise the perhaps inflated place Bob Dylan holds in my conception of American music. To place Bob Dylan at the top of any list is to insult his work by implying that it belongs in the same category as anything else, even if it is always assumed to be at the top of said category; Dylan is his own category.

If Bob Dylan had died in 1964, He would have been regarded as a prophet. In 2009, we can't figure out whether Dylan has died ten times or whether he'll never die at all or whether he ever even existed.

Second comes Johnny Cash, with 150 songs to Dylan's 400. To come second to Dylan is a fortune, but for Johnny Cash to come in second place in anything at all is just further testament to Dylan. Johnny Cash is the most American human being who has ever lived, and the only American talent who could do, say, and sing things that Dylan could not.

If I were to send a history of our country out into the depths of space for aliens to find, I'd have Johnny Cash read it. If someone asked me what America sounded like, or what American represented, or how America felt, I'd say "Johnny Cash".

Jay-Z is a great man, because every Obama needs an anti-hero, which is not to be confused with the "bad guy". Eggheads have talked about who paved the way for Obama, with the de rigeur requisites invariably including Jackie Robinson, Martin Luther King, Bill Cosby, and maybe even Will Smith. But everyone knows Jay-Z belongs on that list.

Aside from my own pet opinions on what Jay-Z represents, in terms of music, I consider him a singular genius. He is the most consistent MC of all time, he doesn't write shit down, and he steers clear of rap's worst instincts. He raps about progress, even if materialistically conceived, while most rappers focus on victimization or exploitation.

The rest of the list speaks more to quantity rather than quality; one's relative place on the list does not indicate my favor of them as much as their profligacy in recording, or in their age. But the list captures a snapshot of what I consider great American Music.

And even if one does not agree with my tastes, we should consider this. When we think of American culture, we must acknowledge that there is no American language, there is no American religion, and there is no American food. What then is our culture?

A quarter of a millenium ago, America had the best politcal theorists on Earth. But things have changed since then. America's greatest contribution to the world in the last 60 years has been its music. We can all take pride in that.

The Trouble With Adults

There is much that is wearily familiar in the latest "war" in the "Holy" Land, and much which is eerily without precedent even in this vulgar theater.

The quotation marks are necessary around the word "war", because when one side has a monopoly on the killing and the other "side" is physically and economically cut off from the planet, waiting for deaths from above with only their hatred to sustain them in the meantime, we should hardly call it a "war".

No, this is not a "war". This is prison guards shooting prisoners at will from watchtowers while the prisoners flee futilely about the prison yard, occassionally pausing long enough to throw a rock against a wall in pointless acts of "resistance."

Why the prisoners are in the prison in the first place, of course, goes to the root of this problem. And there the opinions split into a zero-sum recrimination-fest which mirrors only the abortion debate in its ability to turn good people of all persuasions into intolerant and intolerable little tyrants.

Israel is using a policy remarkably similar to that of the United States in Iraq. It will kill hundreds or thousands of people (or hundreds OF thousands of people), willingly and knowingly destroy government buildings and infrastructure, strangle whole nations with sanctions and embargoes, and then react in shock when they invade to encounter brutalized and radicalized people with surprisingly short attention spans and pitiably little concern for sloganeering, whether neo-liberal or neo-conservative.

Israel, like the United States, will win every "tactical engagement" with their enemies. But, since neither Israel nor the United States are engaged in a "war" as classically understood, their weapons of war are useless. Neither country can use its nuclear weapons, and both countries simply create more enemies when they kill their current enemies with their "smart" bombs.

No, Israel and the United States are not engaged in military war. The United States is engaged in an ideological war which it could survive if it lost. Israel is engaged in a demographic war which it will NOT survive regardless of how many tactical engagements it "wins".

This tiny piece of land, the "Holy" Land, which must surely embarass and dismay any Holy patron, is exceedingly small. My brother and I took a cab from Tel Aviv on the Mediterranean to Jerusalem in the West Bank in 40 minutes.

And in this tiny strip of land is a beautiful country full of beautiful people. Israel is a cosmopolitation society with a clear Jewish majority. But, given current demographic trends among Israeli Arabs, Israel proper (as opposed to the occupied territories, which have always been overwhelmingly Arab Muslim) will be a majority Arab Muslim country.

A similar demographic trend, in degree if not in kind, is taking place in the United States. In 40 years, white folks will be a minority in the United States. The question facing both Israel and the United States is, in the face of clear demographic destinies, "how will the adults lay the groundwork for their cosmopolitan children?"

In Israel, they insist on killing the enemy until the enemy is the majority, with no clear idea on what to do at that point, with the implicit assumption being that the Arab Muslims will either disappear or become pro-Israel. In the United States, politicians peddle hateful invective upon Hispanics, as if all our grandchildren won't speak Spanglish.

Israel, in my opinion, is treated unfairly by most comentators. I think any honest arbiter would find that Israel only wants to keep what it has (not including the occupied terriroties) in exchange for an unshakeable vow of peace from its nieghbors. Its neighbors simply never have, and never will, settle for the same. Until this changes, I defend Israel.

But Israel is a democracy and a nuclear and economic and intellectual and cultural power, and (insert line from "Spiderman" here). So Israeli adults owe it to their children, just as American adults do to ours, to be honest with friend and enemy alike in acknowledging what the future will look like.

And one of the most important lessons any adult can teach a child is that it is the strongest person who seeks peace.