One of National Public Radio’s news features this morning was a “well-balanced” report on the frequent attacks on government support of scientific research that takes the form of a denunciation of what on the surface appears to be a stupid or meaningless study.

The NPR reporter, Nell Greenfieldboyce, presented several examples of right-wing politicians or associations condemning a specific project because of the ostensible absurdity of the topic: shrimp on treadmills; link of the size of a man’s penis size to the risk of getting sexually transmitted diseases; toenail exposure to nicotine. 

In all cases, NPR showed that the critic had overblown the example by taking it out context, in two ways: 1) how the research topic related to solving problems; 2) the cost of the studies (always much less than the number the right-winger had thrown around).  In each case, the story included the reply of the conservative accused of taking things out of context.  And in each case, before going on a diatribe against government waste, the right-winger shamelessly pointed out that he/she/it never said that the absurd study represented the total cost of the broader grant whose cost he/she/it had mentioned.

For example, it turned out that the shrimp on a treadmill study cost about $1,000, although part of a $500,000 grant to study how shrimp respond to changes in water quality.  A spokesperson for the right-winger in this case, Senator Tom Coburn, responds by saying, “our report never claimed all the money was spent on shrimp on a treadmill.”

So what NPR presents is a “he said she said” in which science gets the win on points.

But what NPR doesn‘t address is the broader topic of the value of government support of scientific research.  The reporter lets the other side moan on about government waste when so many people are out of work.  For example, Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition angrily condemns the National Institutes of Health for funding the toenail to nicotine study (part of a larger effort to improve prediction of lung cancer) with these words, “They used recovery money, money that was meant to more or less stimulate the economy.”

The hidden assumption behind both the criticism of individual projects and of government research in general is that it’s a waste of money that doesn’t help the economy.

But in fact, government funded scientific research is a major creator of jobs, in two ways:

• Government support of scientific research creates jobs immediately. Universities and research institutes hire scientists, engineers, technicians and administrators to conduct the research, all relatively high-paying jobs. Those jobs have as much of a trickledown effect on the economy as most service and many manufacturing jobs. For example, most research needs sophisticated equipment, the manufacture and sales of which creates additional jobs.
• Government support of scientific research creates jobs in the future. The results of scientific research create new products, technologies and even industries that create many future jobs, sometimes millions of them.  For example, the shrimp study will likely have industrial applications.  Personal computers, airplanes, the Internet, contemporary agriculture (the good and the bad) and artificial fabrics are some of the industries and products that would not exist if the government had not supported basic research.  Each of these industries account for millions of jobs.

Governments have supported scientific research since the time of Alexander the Great, who commissioned scientists to tag along after his marauding armies to study the lands he subdued.  The signers of the Constitution affirmed the role of the government to support scientific research by mandating that the federal government conduct the national demographic study we call a census every 10 years. 

When we cut government support of research, we in effect eat our future in the same way that we eat our future when we cut funds for public education.  In both cases, we choose not to make the investment in knowledge and people that our future economy needs.  In the current situation, the “we” eating our future are the wealthy who have enjoyed more than 30 years of historically low taxes on their income and wealth. 

Instead of cutting scientific research funds, we should double or even triple the amount of money we make available for research and technology transfer.

We should also realize that scientific research helps companies before it helps individuals, helps companies more than it helps individuals, and helps the company executives and owners far more than it helps most of the other employees.  We should make sure that those who benefit the most pay the most to support scientific research.  Thus, as with so much that we must change to fix our struggling economy and prepare for a future threatened by diminished natural resources and global warming, bringing support of government research to appropriate levels comes down to reinstituting the equitable tax system we had in the 50’s, 60’s and most of the 70’s.   In other words, we have to raise taxes on the wealthy.

Texas Governor Rick Perry didn’t take long to establish himself as the leading presidential candidate of the know-nothings.  Maybe he decided to hit the ground running with misinformed opinions to make up for the fact that his ignorance does not really clear new ground, but rather follows in the footsteps of the Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin.

Here are some of the ignorant remarks Texas Rick made last week, each delivered with his usual combative sense of self-assurance:

1. Called Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke a traitor and intimated that Bernanke would be subject to a lynching in his state. 
2. Said all abortion should be illegal everywhere in U.S.
3. Said that the existence of man-made global warming is not proven.  His global warming comment came with a lie of Bachmann-like proportions: “And I think we are seeing almost weekly or even daily scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”  Don’t ask Texas Rick to name any of these scientists, though, since it’s a complete invention.  Virtually all climatologists and other scientists believe that there is more than sufficient evidence to state without question that the earth is warming and humans are the primary factor.
4. Said that the theory of evolution is unproven and has gaps, and that he believes in intelligent design.  Again, the overwhelming evidence has convinced virtually all scientists that Darwin’s theory is correct and that intelligent design is not.
5. Called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme,” which means that you pay early investors with the money collected by later investors.  If you accept the definition of “Ponzi scheme” that Perry proposes by using it to describe the Social Security Trust Fund, then every defined benefit pension plan is a Ponzi scheme.
6. Implied that working class and middle class people aren’t paying enough in taxes.  His exact quote, “we’re dismayed at the injustice that nearly half of all Americans don’t even pay any income tax,” neglects the fact that the low- and middle-income people not paying income tax still pay payroll (Social Security and Medicare) taxes and that most of their incomes are at or close to poverty level.
7. Defended abstinence only sex education, which every reputable study on the subject has found to be ineffective in decreasing HIV infections and does not decrease rates of unplanned pregnancies.  By the way, sex education that includes contraception does reduce HIV infections and unplanned pregnancies.

These comments, all in the first week of Perry’s candidacy, remind me of that lunatic Governor—wait, wait, I’m blocking on the name—who a couple of years ago said that his state might want to exercise its legal right to secede from the union (even though such right does not exist). Oh yeah, it’s the same guy!

We also learned during the first week of his candidacy that making ignorant statements that go against the facts is not the only right-wing tradition that Texas Rick upholds.  He also continues the long-line of hypocrites about sexual politics, like Larry “Wide Stance” Craig and Newt Gingrich.  It turns out that the self-righteous, holier-than-thou Perry once owned stock in a video distributor known for selling hardcore porno tapes.  And guess who spent years on an anti-porn campaign targeting the company? Surprise, surprise, surprise, it was the American Family Association, the ultra right-wing Christian organization that helped organize Texas Rick’s recent stadium prayer rally.

His smarmy porn investment aside, it’s clear that Perry is shouting out right-wing untruths and absurdities to attract the attention of the 25% of the country that buys into his fact-starved distrust of government, dislike of taxing the wealthy and eagerness to impose morality on others.  He is telling Tea-Partiers and the Christian conservatives that he is the Knight of Faith who will win the White House for them.  By doing so, I believe he hopes to solidify the ultra right’s support and thus win the nomination.

But the nomination is not the election.

I imagine that President Obama’s campaign staff broke out a few bottles of Dom Perignon when they heard that Perry was running. A candidate who wants to end abortion, dismantle Social Security (for future generations only), is ready to get the hangin’ rope for a mild-mannered and well-respected government official and is anti-science?  This kind of religious know-nothing doesn’t have a chance with the general population.  Texas Rick is expressing opinions so far to the right of the mainstream so often that even if the news media treat him with kid gloves, he is going to scare a lot of people into voting for President Obama. 

Most elections are decided by turnout: which party gets more of his/her party’s stalwarts to vote.  In Republican primaries, Perry will bring out the righteous right.  But in a general election, I think he’s going to bring out the other side, those who will be so frightened by the prospects of eight years of a Bush II clone-without-tone that they’ll hold their noses and vote for the President despite disappointment at his accomplishments.

I recently stumbled across a new book by Boston-area university professors Cynthia Enloe and Joni Seager that I highly recommend to everyone: The Real State of America Atlas is a series of charts, graphs, surveys, facts and snippets of text that attempt to give a picture of present-day America. 

Enloe and Seager use a series of two-page spreads to cover a  broad range of topics, including women’s reproductive rights, gun control, climate change, the militarization of society, prison politics, education and foreign affairs.

The book is wonderful, if only for the factual nuggets on every page.  Here are some of the most amazing, odd or fear-invoking factoids I found:

• Starbucks sells 70% of all coffee consumed in the Peoples Republic of China.
• Fewer Americans believe in global warming or the need for gun control than did 10 years ago.
• In the last 40 years, the number of people getting to work by mass transit has fallen from 9% to 5%, and the number who walk to work from 10% to 3%.
• Although 62% of all Americans believe that no country should have nuclear weapons, the U.S. still has 9,600 atomic bombs.
• We incarcerate more people per 100,000 residents than any other country in the industrialized West, and three times as many as any other country except Russia and Georgia.
• About 43% of all American households have guns.
• We spend about twice as much per citizen on healthcare than the nation in second place.
• The richest 1% of all Americans own 35% of all wealth, while the poorest 40% own a mere .2% of all wealth.

Perhaps the most striking map is the one on page 39 of counties won by each presidential candidate in 2008: While garnering 53% of the vote, Obama took perhaps 15% of all U.S. counties spanning across maybe 20% of the country’s geography.  Obviously, he won the metropolitan areas with the greater population and lost the sparsely-populated rural areas.  The map shows that among the greatest of the many divides in our country today is the one between the cities and close suburbs and the rural areas and far suburbs.  

The authors introduce each topic with short essays, and these tend to put a welcomed progressive spin on the issues.  I particularly liked their analysis on climate change: “A peculiar climate change denial movement has been forged in the past decade in the US.  A few key conservative financiers and energy companies, along with rightwing popularizers, have launched ambitious campaigns to produce uncertainty and doubt in the minds of many Americans about climate change and our responsibility for it…At the policy level, the US has been a poor partner to its industrial allies in crafting international solutions to climate change.”

For the most part, though, Enloe and Seager let the charts speak for them, and they tell a story of an America divided in its opinions and its condition between white and non-white, rich and poor, men and women.  They depict an increasingly militarized society dominated by large corporate interests and products.  They show an America out of sync with the rest of the industrialized world when it comes to healthcare coverage, climate change, capital punishment, deaths by guns and gun ownership.  And they hint at a broken government whose elected officials tend to ignore the will of the majority of the people, except on the issue of gun rights.

The book is a very quick and entertaining read, and it will leave you with a bunch of “gee-whizzes” you can share with your friends and family.  You’ll also have a ready reference guide when you want to refute some nonsense that a right-winger is trying to fob off as factual information. Buy and enjoy!

If he were still alive, I would want to ask Karl Marx a question about his clever, but enigmatic old saw that “history repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.”  

Dr. Marx’s phrase comes to mind as I read the reaction of the news media to the naming of the members of the Congressional debt panel charged with addressing our self-inflicted fiscal wounds.  Self-inflicted, because the primary cause of the growing federal debt is a conscious policy to keep taxes at historically low rates for the wealthy. (We could also label the secondary cause—spending for two foolish, goalless wars—as another self-inflicted wound.)

My question for Dr. Marx is, What about if it’s a farce the first time?

The original farce was the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, put together by President Obama to balance the budget.  Like the new debt panel, the National Commission membership comprised ultra-Conservatives or establishment types who tended to look rightward from a centrist position.  And like the new debt panel, many members had a long record of advocating political actions that take money from the poor and middle class and give it to the wealthy.

The National Debt Commission farce ended last November, when it published its report, which advocated a number of tax moves having nothing to do with balancing the budget but which would have lowered taxes on the wealthy while raising taxes on everyone else.  The report also advocated draconian cuts to most programs that create jobs or help the poor, elderly, young and disadvantaged.   The final clownish pratfall of the report was the realization that if we followed every suggestion, the rich might be richer and everyone else a whole lot poorer, but we would still have a deficit!

If the first time is a farce, is the second time tragedy?  Of course, we could go from farce to “gross-out film,” which is a farce heavily dependent on jokes about bodily functions. Or perhaps, we’ll repeat the “Perils-of-Pauline” cliffhanger of the recent debate on whether or not to raise the debt ceiling?  Or maybe a quiet Chekhovian drama in which nothing seems ever to happen.  I can only imagine Pat Toomey, Jon Kyl and Jeb Hensarling sitting around the parlor sewing and moaning in despair over the loss of the temporary tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000 as if it were the family cherry orchard.

All discussions of genre aside, I think that the debt panel is a bad joke from the start, since it focuses on lowering our debt instead of focusing on fixing our economy and helping the millions of people suffering because of 30 years of a free-market, no-tax regime.  The awful punch line of this bad joke is that the very action that will create jobs and lower debt—raising taxes on those who haven’t been paying their fair share—is off the table for so many Republican members of the new debt panel.

The news media is presenting the naming of the debt panel members as if it were the final act of a drama of reconciliation.  The central question posed in the coverage in the mainstream news media is, Will people compromise? Most of the stories look for hopeful signs that the members have demonstrated their willingness to compromise in the past, including those in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Arizona Republic and San Francisco Chronicle.  The Journal, for example, wrote, “Republican House and Senate leaders named six conservative diehards Wednesday to the new deficit-cutting committee, but the appointees’ histories suggested they might be open to striking a deal with Democrats.” The tone was wary but positive, similar to the calming and reasoned approach affected by financial experts whenever the stock market declines a few hundred points.

Some mainstream mass media, such as the Associated Press and Miami Herald, were more pessimistic.  For example, here is a quote from the Associated Press story, the one that most newspapers in small towns and rural areas will use: “Members of both parties said the job of whittling down the government’s enormous debt was urgent, yet critics expressed little hope that the bipartisan panel would be able to overcome stark political divides.” 

For the most part, though, the mainstream news media reflects an unwarranted cautious optimism.  I see little coming out of the debt panel or other special committees until our elected officials on both sides of the aisle resolve the inherent contradiction that drives their actions:  The good of the country and the will of the people tell them to raise taxes and create jobs, but the large corporations and ultra-wealthy that feed their campaigns and provide their incomes after their political careers want them to keep taking more from the poor and middle class to give it to the already well-heeled.   

Depending on if you like him or hate him, Texas Governor Rick Perry became either a cause célèbre or a bête noire this past weekend.  His brave and/or ignoble act was to give the keynote speech before an estimated 8,000 people at Response, a Christian prayer rally that took place in Houston.  The event, which attracted extensive national publicity despite drawing fewer participants than many high school football rallies, has been seen as a defining moment for Perry and his Christian, faith-based politics.

The argument over Perry’s religious fervor has taken precedence over a discussion of his political stands, which is the way the national news media rolls nowadays.  Why discuss economics and civil rights, when personalities are so much more fun?

But apart from the entertainment value of focusing on Perry’s devoutness, the news media quietly helps him with this approach to his possible candidacy.  If the argument is should someone this devout run for office?, Perry has a better chance of garnering votes than if his stand on issues were to be the focal point of his potential candidacy.  We have freedom of religion and separation of church and state, which means there is only one answer to the question, should a man this religious run? Yes, why not!  By posing the Perry candidacy in terms of his devotion to his lord, the media helps all of us to justify and approve the candidate.

As usual, though, the media posed the wrong question.

The right question would be: what are his stands on the issues?  Now perhaps his brand of religion affects those stands, but it’s not the religion that matters, it’s the opinions.

Here, then, is what Texas Governor Rick Perry’s thinks about key political and economic issues:

• Consistently supports lower taxes and fights higher taxes, especially higher taxes on the wealthiest citizens.
• Wants to solve the U.S. debt problem by cutting government spending and lowering taxes on the wealthy even more.
• Does not believe in global warming and opposes all regulation of greenhouse gases and other emissions.
• Supports school vouchers, which bleed the public schools by giving money to parents to send their children to private schools.
• Supports the teaching of the disproved theory of intelligent design in science classes.
• Voted against health care for community college faculty in Texas.
• Opposes abortion and gay marriage and supports the death penalty.
• Has spoken of the possibility of Texas seceding from the union.

With a platform as ill-informed and right-wing as Perry’s is, who cares what religion he practices?  It’s not his faith that stinks like a fish from head to tail, it’s his politics.

Reverting to the last election now: Finally the academic world has caught up with OpEdge.  Regular readers will remember that I said the 2010 election cycle would come down to who voted and who didn’t.  I said it frequently before and after the election, which gave Republicans seven new Senators and control of the House of Representatives and 29 state legislatures.  I kept pointing out that the news media was overestimating the strength of the Tea Party and that all Democrats had to do was figure out a way to get their non-voting constituencies—the young, poor and minorities—to the polls to win the election.  They didn’t and they lost.

Now Professor Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia has written a book, Pendulum Swing, which backs me up.  Professor Andrew Hacker of Queens College analyzes and agrees with Sabato’s findings in the latest New York Review of Books.  Nice work, guys, but try to remember for next time—winning an election has always been and will always be about who turns out.

On the surface, three stories in today’s New York Times seem completely unrelated, but all reflect the underlying theme of our epoch: the politics of selfishness.  In each story, someone or some group acts in its own selfish best interests, disregarding the interests of the nation. 

Let’s start with the simplest example of selfishly acting in one’s own interest: “N.R.A. Sues Over Bulk Gun Sales Rule.” The beginning of the first paragraph says it all: “The National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit on Wednesday challenging a new federal regulation requiring gun merchants along the border with Mexico to report bulk sales of certain semiautomatic rifles…” The NRA calls it “a blatant attempt by the Obama administration to pursue their gun control agenda…”

Obviously, it’s in the best interests of the NRA and the two gun dealers it represents in its lawsuit to be able to sell as many guns as they like to whomever they like with no restraints whatsoever.  But the greater security of the United States and our neighboring ally Mexico is at stake.  The Obama Administration is trying to stop drug cartels from loading up on weapons for their wars against each other, the police and innocent victims.  The sales that the Obama Administration is trying to prevent shouldn’t be made, and the NRA knows it.  But they are too selfish to care.

Moving on now to a story on the Times front page symbolizing the last shoe dropping in a national rip-off of historic dimensions. This time, the headline conveys the essence of the story: “Even Marked-up, Luxury Goods Fly Off Shelves.”  In this article, we learn that the rich “are again buying designer clothing, luxury cars and about anything that catches their fancy. Luxury goods stores, which fared much worse than other retailers in the recession, are more than recovering — they are zooming.”

The article focuses on luxury shoes, one pair costing $2,495, up from $1,575 in 2008.  I understand that a good custom-made pair made of shoes for a diabetic or someone with foot abnormalities can cost $500 or $600.  But when the cost of footwear exceeds $2,000, much if not most of the cost comes from the perceived added value, aka the sizzle— the brand name, sense of exclusivity, treatment by the sales staff.

And where are the ultra-wealthy getting the extra bucks to spend on these frivolities?  It’s from the low tax rates on their incomes and wealth, which have increased the federal deficit and impeded job creation since they were enacted in the Bush II years. 

The way the wealthy got their most recent infusion of extra cash reminds me of an old soft-shoe dance routine.  The first shoes on the ground were the cuts to federal spending at the beginning of the year and the Republicans’ recent price for raising the debt ceiling.  The final step is this giddy spending binge described in the Times. 

Studies show that tax policy has led to a transfer of wealth from the poor and middle class over the last 30 years.  Other studies show that nations decline when wealth is transferred up the economic ladder.  Surveys show that the will of the people is to raise taxes on the wealthy and continue and grow government job-creation and social safety net programs.  But these facts mean nothing to the ultra-wealthy and their many elected factotums.  Again, they’re just too selfish to care.

Speaking of factotums, what do you think of the good little soldier Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta balking at cuts to our bloated military budget?  Again, let’s let the Times article, titled “Pentagon Sounds Alarm on Threat of Budget Cuts,” tell the story: “Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta and top Pentagon officials said that large cuts to the Pentagon budget — which has more than doubled since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — would imperil the nation’s security.” With Osama bin Laden out of the way and no really large or powerful enemy at hand (except perhaps North Korea and our own ally, Pakistan), do we really need to be spending twice as much as before 9/11?  These numbers, by the way, don’t include any of the trillions of dollars that we have diddled away fighting goalless and useless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Panetta is a long-time Democratic operative who goes where he’s needed.  His past positions have included Head of the CIA and White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton.  Surely he knows that federal government spending created the Clinton boom years and a budget surplus (before the housing bubble).  And where did the Clinton Administration get the money?  It came from raising income taxes and cutting defense budgets.  It was called the “peace dividend,” and it worked.

Panetta knows these facts, but instead of acting in the country’s best interest, he protects his turf and the military contracts of private companies that spend millions of dollars a year in lobbying and contributing to the campaigns of elected officials.  Panetta, the Defense Department and the contractors collectively pursue their own best interests, no matter what it means to the country they are supposed to be protecting.

The commonly stated theory behind the almost criminally selfish acts described in these articles is that if everyone in society seeks his or her own best interests, society as a whole will thrive.  This bunk is a misunderstanding of out-of-context statements by the Scottish 18th century economist Adam Smith, but it justifies the predatory behavior of the wealthy and the powerful.  And it won’t stop until we stop electing politicians that place the interests of the wealthy above those of the other 95% of us.

For those looking for actions of their own to stem this tide of selfishness, I suggest that you do not support any official who does not explicitly advocate raising income taxes on those earning more than $250,000 and on most capital gains.  We should also be insisting that candidates support moves that strengthen unions and public schools, rebuild our infrastructure of roads and invest in alternative fuel technologies and mass transit.  But at this point, raising taxes on the wealthy has to be the litmus test.

Congress has now passed and the President signed the anti-growth, anti-jobs program that resulted from Republicans blackmailing the country about raising the debt ceiling.  And lo and behold!—the stock market tumbles and the rumblings about losing our Triple A credit rating increase.  Do you think maybe large institutional investors know a little something about the impact on any economy of reduced government spending?

Now here comes the happy face crowd to tell us that it won’t be such a big deal if the U.S. bond rating deteriorates a little.  So far, most of the stories diminishing the impact of a lower rating say that interest rates will only go up a little bit.  As usual, the New York Times is leading the mainstream news media, with an article by Eric Dash on the first page of today’s business section titled “AAA Rating Is a Rarity in Business.”

The premise of the Times article is that most businesses don’t have AAA ratings and they get along just fine.  Paying the slightly higher interest rate of a slightly lower credit rating opens up new business opportunities for the companies.  The article quotes the analogy of a senior bond manager from a company that sells bonds: “It’s like going from a Rolls Royce to a Mercedes—not from a Rolls Royce to a Yugo.”  The article goes so far as to claim that many companies see the gold-plated AAA rating as a “financial straightjacket,” because maintaining it means they have less access to funds.

The failure of logic in the salesman’s analogy and Dash’s broader article is to compare a government to a business.  First of all, a business can cease to operate, but if a government ceases to operate for any other reason than annexation by another government, then anarchy soon ensues: no security force, no emergency services, no judicial system, no infrastructure repair. 

Furthermore, no business has the size of the United States economy and no business represents so large a share of the world’s economy.  It’s not even close.  When a company sees its credit rating drop a little, it pays slightly higher interest rates, which means goods and services for which it borrows money cost more.  But when the interest rates rise on a country’s bonds, every one of the country’s businesses, nonprofit organizations and individuals borrowing money will find themselves paying more.  Because most businesses borrow for cash flow or capital needs, the prices that consumers pay for goods and services go up.  Even a quarter of a percentage point boost in government bonds can constrain an economy.

As illogical as the happy face argument about losing the AAA rating is, another comparison Dash makes in the Times version of this canard is odious:

“Just as many consumers relied on their credit cards to finance a higher standard of living, companies took on more debt to reap bigger returns.”

As an anti Dom Irrera might say, he means it in a good way.  To support the idea that lowering your credit rating leads to good things for countries as well as companies, Dash invokes the idea of consumers living and spending beyond their means.  Haven’t many consumers faced hard times these past few years because they spent beyond their means with money they borrowed on severely overvalued houses?  A good business borrows for one of two reasons only: 1) To invest in expansion, product development and renovation; 2) To meet short-term cash flow needs.  The analogy for consumers is to borrow for education.  The business equivalent of “spending beyond your means” is to borrow money to pay key executives more money.  We all know some big companies did that and still do, but we wouldn’t consider it a good business practice. 

What I find so objectionable is to advocate that it’s okay for people to finance their high life with debt.  It makes sense, though, that in a Pollyannaish and Panglossian article about the possibility of the United States losing its status as the very least risky investment in recorded history, the writer would find space for a subtle reminder that taking on debt to consume is a good thing.  After all, in our society the primary goal in life and path to happiness is to spend, spend, spend, spend!!

Consider these numbers:

• Approximately 2,225 people killed a day on average: That’s the number Stalin killed if we accept Robert Conquest’s high estimate of 20 million total Stalin victims over his rule of approximately 25 years.
• Approximately 6,000 people killed per day on average: That’s the number we get if we accept Timothy Snyder’s estimate of the number of people the Nazis slaughtered and arbitrarily say that it all occurred during World War II (which raises the average per day).
• Approximately 30,000 a day: That’s the number of people who died in Mao’s Great Famine, caused by the Great Leap Forward, between 1958 and 1961 if we take the high estimate of 32 million; the low estimate, by the way, is 18 million.

Two more numbers: One act on one day—the dropping of a rudimentary atom bomb— killed 140,000 at Hiroshima.  Three days later, another atom bomb killed 80,000 at Nagasaki.  Virtually all the victims were civilians: children, mothers, elementary school teachers, factory workers, hair stylists, florists, senior citizens.

It’s both horrifying and shameful to contemplate that “the land of the free” debased itself by magnifying the barbarism of Hitler, Stalin and Mao in two one-day orgies of mass killing. 

I was reminded of what I believe are the two most shameful moments in recorded human history when I saw “Hiroshima Ground Zero 1945,” an exhibit now showing at the International Photography Center in midtown Manhattan.  The exhibit displays some of the 1,100 photographs that the U.S. government had 7 photographers take of Hiroshima in the aftermath of the war.  The government ordered the photos as visual evidence for a report on the impact of atomic bombing and the changes to buildings and civil defense procedures needed to prepare for a future attack. 

In the exhibit we see only destroyed infrastructure: schools, homes, factories.  But each photo seems to whisper the pain of the dead and injured.  The collective impact of these lifeless photos reminds us that certain acts are so horrific that the act itself puts those who committed it in the wrong, no matter how just the cause or rational the reason.

Those who try to justify the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki argue that more Americans would have died winding down the war if we had pursued more conventional options. Their argument falls apart, though, when you consider that the Japanese were already pressing for surrender and remember that at the time the U.S. was engaged in a massive program of conventional bombing of the island nation.

The trump card in the debate is the inhumane nature of the act itself.  Even if we were to believe that the U.S. government was not fully aware of the destructive power of the atom bomb before Hiroshima, they certainly knew of it immediately afterwards and should have stopped any plans for Nagasaki.  As many historians have noted, the real reason to drop the bombs was to show the Soviet communists that we had the power to level their country.  For these somewhat suspect geopolitical ends, we as a nation resorted to savage butchery of our fellow human beings.

The construction and deployment of the atom bombs involved many people, but only one man made the decision to drop them, and that was President Harry S. Truman.  By doing so, he should have guaranteed himself a dishonored place along side Hitler, Stalin and Mao as one of the worst villains in history.  Instead, he is generally rated as one of our greatest presidents.  For example, among 17 recent surveys, Truman rates on average as the 7th greatest U.S. president.  But I rank him dead last, by virtue of his decision to use the ultimate weapon of mass destruction and then continue to develop even more vicious weapons during peacetime.

In a few days we are going to celebrate the 66th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing.  There are many things we can do to commemorate the day.  We can attend a rally, sign a petition to dismantle all nuclear weapons, contribute to organizations lobbying to end nuclear weapons and write our elected officials about the issue.  But let’s not forget to curse Harry Truman for defiling our country with the sin of mass murder and making a mockery of our public ideals. 

And let’s also not forget to feel a personal sense of shame.  Even if most of us were not alive at the time, it is still our country and our history, and that makes it our moral responsibility to remember and to ask the rest of the world for forgiveness.