tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62451882024-03-05T00:09:52.433-08:00James Clay FullerThings We're Not Supposed to SayJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comBlogger339125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-59894215467895230852011-06-16T12:53:00.000-07:002011-06-16T13:07:32.692-07:00What God said to Bachmann (or not)As expected, Michele Bachmann is running for president of the United States, holding that God told her to run.<br /><br />In fact, when God called me for a chat shortly after Bachmann made that claim, S/he mentioned in passing that S/he “told the silly woman to shut up and stop making both of us look like fools.” <br /><br />S/he sighed – sounds like a strong wind rushing through a canyon – and sadly conceded, however, that “Michele has delusions of competence and hears only what she wants to hear.”<br /><br />That's all; we then moved on to other examples of religious irrationality, such as the phenomenon of athletes on opposing teams giving credit to God when their teams make good plays. <br /><br />(Sorry about that S/he thing. God has a husky voice, sort of like those of Marlene Dietrich and Tallulah Bankhead in their later years; it's impossible to be specific about gender without visual clues.)<br /><br />What's that? You doubt me because you don't believe God would take time to chat with a worn out old journalist while on a break? <br /><br />The answer to that is a question: Why would God talk directly to an intellectually dishonest, demonstrably ignorant and nastily prejudiced politician whose stances on major issues are contrary to the teachings of the Christ she claims with every other breath to adore and obey? If her, why not me?<br /><br />(Ignorant? Consider the story she told in Iowa about how the founders of this country “worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States.” That might have amused Sally Hemmings while she nursed the kids she bore Thomas Jefferson. Bachmann also maintained that everyone of every color and ethnicity enjoyed equal opportunity back then, just as soon as they hit our shores. Perhaps someone should point out to her that several of the founders were slave owners, and that slavery was legal in this country until 1865. But it wouldn't help; if the facts are uncomfortable, Bachmann and followers will choose to believe a fiction every time.)<br /><br />Should any of Bachmann's followers see this, they no doubt will accuse me first of blasphemy. God, after all, belongs to them. But if the deluded, cruel and overwhelmingly narcissistic Michele Bachmann is allowed to claim an intimate speaking relationship with God, if she can claim Him as a personal adviser, any small blasphemy I commit here in an attempt to defend the innocent deity surely will be forgiven.<br /><br />Here's what really has put the gravel in my gut:<br /><br />The corporate media decided a long time ago to play the hell out of Bachmann (reference intended) and by treating her as legitimate, they have given her status she does not deserve and has in no way earned. So millions of Americans are taking her candidacy seriously, and other Republicans -- including those whose intellectual reach means they cannot help but recognize the shamefulness of the whole scene –- are pretending that she's respectable and that her nasty and often utterly silly positions are rational and sober. <br /><br />Media have created false legitimacy for Bachmann and the right-wing, billionaire-financed propaganda machine known as the Tea Party. In so doing, they have declared that the stupidities of a radical mob, marginalized throughout our history, now are worthy of consideration. <br /><br />And those irrational extremists, feeling power for the first time, are going nuts with it. They're overrunning all sanctuaries of sanity in both big political parties. Politicians who know better, but who are pants-wetting cowards, are crawling for the support of people who are only a step or two from needing full-time mental health care.<br /><br />We are now treated to the embarrassing spectacle of a Tim Pawlenty, uptight, designed and built on the model of a robot corporate executive, trying to out-Christian Bachmann, although, since she has absolutely no other claim to office, she is the unmatchable ultimate Christian in this race to distort both religion and American politics.<br /><br />Michele Bachmann, in the Monday, June 13, Republican candidate “debate,” was required to answer a question about what is needed to revive the production of jobs in this country. Her answer: Do away with the Environmental Protection Agency because it's responsible for killing the economy and creating all the unemployment.<br /><br />This is a serious candidate for president? <br /><br />Anyone who could make such a claim is a danger to herself and, especially, others. <br /><br />Ed Rollins, a veteran, no-conscience Republican campaigner said in January that Bachmann would be a terrible candidate for the Republicans and can't be taken seriously. But that was before she came up with the money to hire him to run her campaign. Now he talks about how her appeal to the religious right can make her a real candidate. <br /><br />Morals, real morals, have no place in Republican politics. A whole lot of other Republicans who made similar statements about her incompetence also have recanted out of fear of her take-no-prisoners supporters.<br /><br />Anyone seriously trying to understand the Bachmann phenomenon –- we'll leave the almost as illegitimate Sarah Palin out of this for now –- has to ask why the national “news” media have created it. <br /><br />The short answer is this: Today's journalists are an ignorant, pop-culture-addled bunch who lack an understanding, let alone acceptance, of professional ethics. The owners of big newspapers and broadcast outlets stand to profit handsomely from the election of easily controlled ideologues such as Bachmann. A Bachmann, like a major flood or a tornado, is sure-fire attention grabber and very easy to cover, since the coverage follows a simple formula; any new journalism school grad can do it and get great play without straining a single mental muscle. Looka me! I are a journalist!<br /><br />So now the stuff will start to fly in my direction. One aspect of the Bachmann style of Christianity is that it's adherents (not sure we can say practioners) brook no criticism. They demand not just respect but bowing-and-scraping humility from everyone else. <br /><br />Even mild criticism is an excuse for them to claim victimhood, although they control 99 percent of the stories told about them in the corporate media, and the great majority of American politicians live in fear of crossing them.<br /><br />At the same time, they go out of their way -– often far out -– to be disrespectful to and, indeed, to abuse people who do not swallow every nugget of their nonsense. <br /><br />But here's a generally unacknowledged truth: If you don't give a rat's behind what they think, they can't get to you.<br /><br />Pity more politicians haven't the guts to recognize that and act on it.<br /> <br />--------------------------<br /><br />A note to Star Tribune reporter Kevin Diaz and his bosses: Your recent story about Bachmann at the top of page one, headlined “An outsider from the start” and with the subhead reading “Michele Bachmann's hard-hitting conservatism has put her on the cusp of a Republican presidential bid” is a shameful piece of promotional crap, starting with that sub-head and going downhill from there.<br /><br />You and others like you put her “on the cusp” of presidential candidacy by repeatedly presenting the appearance of legitimacy where none existed.<br /><br />---------------------------<br /><br />There is far too much going on in my life now and for the next few months; I can't maintain any semblance of regular appearance here, although I have a great many pieces in the works for this space. Until September, I'll post something new when I can, but it probably won't be often or much. (No serious illnesses or other life disasters. Just a whole lot of other, legitimate claims on me and my time and attention. And I grow old; attention must be paid.)Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-4101539572391467152011-05-14T09:36:00.000-07:002011-05-14T09:48:10.152-07:00Desperately needed: A new political partyCount me among the growing number of people who believe support of the Democratic Party, as such, is not merely a waste of time but, worse, a deeply negative activity.<br /><br />Support for the Democratic Party leads to continued degradation of the United States and great harm to all citizens who are not wealthy.<br /><br />The same has to be said about support for the Republican Party, but that does not mean rational people must therefore throw in with the Democrats. In plain language, they're about equally bad for America and its people.<br /><br />We desperately need a new party, and there is a logical place to begin forming one: With the long list of genuine liberal organizations that were given birth by the Internet. More of that shortly.<br /><br />Barack Obama should not be re-elected. At any time before the mid 1990s, his actions in office would have identified him clearly as a Republican who leans dangerously to the right. What he claims to believe in while campaigning and what he has done while in office have almost no positive connection. He has capitulated on major issues <span style="font-style:italic;">before </span>any “negotiations” have begun; he has, whenever possible, given the money elite what it wants on everything of importance. <br /><br />He is as much a war monger as the younger Bush; he has expanded the Bush wars, put us into the Libyan conflict, inflated the already insanely oversized Pentagon budget, reneged on all of his promises to curb military adventurism and war profiteering. He has enthusiastically supported extension of the grotesquely misnamed Patriot Act and otherwise continued the Bush program of diminishing individual freedoms. <br /><br />Equally bad for all of us who are not very rich, Obama has actively supported or meekly acquiesced in most of the measures that are pushing us at breakneck speed toward the destruction of the middle class and the creation of a class of tens of millions of proles who will be locked hopelessly into a state of perpetual poverty. <br /><br />There are five people looking for work in this country for every job that becomes available. Since the financial collapse of 2008, more than two million Americans have sunk into what is officially recognized as poverty -– which is to say, desperate poverty. <br /><br />More than 43 million Americans now live below the official poverty line. More than one fifth of American children now live in poverty, which is more than twice the percentage of poor children in Great Britain or France. Five percent of Americans live with what is officially called “extreme food insecurity” -- which simply means that they don't know from day to day whether they will have anything to eat, and sometimes they don't. That population is expanding daily.<br /><br />A huge number of Americans have lost much or most of the wealth they accumulated through their working lives, because that wealth was invested in their homes. <br /><br />In Minneapolis, my home town, home values continue to fall, are down 8 percent from a year ago, and almost half of all homeowners are now “underwater” on their mortgages. Nationally, residential real estate has fallen in value by more than $6 trillion (trillion, with a tr) since 2008.<br /><br />Our “liberal” president has yet to offer any serious programs or begin any crusades to turn any of those problems around.<br /><br />He does continue to talk about “compromises” with the Republicans, who are desperately trying to placate and tame a constituency of utter nutcases and clowns, some of whom are multi-billionaires. He's willing to talk about cuts in Medicare, Medicaid and other programs essential for relative security for millions of Americans. His “compromises” thus far have meant capitulation. <br /><br />The great majority of Democrats in Congress are as bad or worse. And a substantial number of them care far more about preventing gay Americans from achieving full citizenship than they do about the millions who are facing homelessness and starvation. <br /><br />(As just one of hundreds of examples, take the Minnesota Democrats' “liberal” favorite, Sen. Amy Klobuchar. Please. She joined with 16 other Democrats and all Republicans in trying to gut the Clean Air Act. She votes for anything pushed by the National Rifle Association, no matter how far outside the realm of sense or decency, and she does the same for AIPAC, the American lobby for the right wing government of Israel. She has never seen a “defense” bill she would not support and has few, if any, quarrels with the big banks. And that's just for starters.)<br /><br />Once again, we're seeing the beginning of the flood of missives telling us that we MUST give money to and vote for the Democratic Party. <br /><br />We are being told again, as we have been told during every election cycle for the past 30 years or more, that the Republicans are just ever so much worse and the country will go entirely to hell if we don't do our part for the Democrats. Never mind that the majority of Democrats in office are in thrall to the corporate elite to the same degree as their Republican colleagues and the country already is headed rapidly to hell – hell for everyone but the rich.<br /><br />Corporations and the very wealthy get everything they want from Democrats, though it may take just a little bit longer than when Republicans control everything. They pretend it's otherwise (wink wink, nudge nudge) so that traditional Democratic voters can go on pretending there is a big difference<br /><br />There still are a few “liberal” Democrats. My own congressman, Keith Ellison – yes, the Muslim -- is a marvel of honesty and courage in supporting positions that benefit the American people rather than war profiteers and other giant corporations. I haven't made a count, but there may be 20 other Democratic members of Congress equally steadfast in doing what is right for the country and the people. Maybe. On a good day, possibly 30 or even 40.<br /><br />The percentage seems to be higher in state legislatures, although those institutions also harbor an excessive number of Democrats who are owned by the economic elite. Again, I am blessed in having an outstanding liberal state representative, Frank Hornstein, and a pretty good state senator in Scott Dibble.<br /><br />That is not enough, and they are too few.<br /><br />We do desperately need a new political party at the state and national levels. And, no, it will not come from the various tiny socialist organizations.<br /><br />“Socialist” is a negative word in this country, made so largely by the hunters for communist witches who held such a grip on this country in the 1940s and '50s and well into the '70s. In fact, the commie hunters are making something of a comeback recently –- see Newt Gingrich -- even though you probably couldn't find 100 avowed communists in the entire country.<br /><br />The right wing long ago successfully equated “socialist” with “communist,” which meant Soviet-style communist, and that remains stuck in the national psyche. And that's true even though a large and obviously growing number of people in this country favor (shhhhhhh) a goodly number of socialist policies and programs. <br /><br />Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, Pell grants, among the surprisingly many. Just don't tell the people who love them that they are practical socialist ideas.<br /><br />Sadly, many Democrats of today are hell bent on joining Republicans in getting rid of as many of those programs as possible, except where it works (for the moment) to their electoral advantage to support them.<br /><br />Anyway, socialist parties in this country generally have been pretty light on political sense, although I've been seeing more of the socialist press of late, and have to say they seem to have considerably more gravitas than they once had. <br /><br />Clear-thinking individual socialists always have offered rational ideas, of course, but the parties frequently have wandered off into obscure byways, arguing odd doctrinal points when they should have been actively supporting workable programs for improved health care and citizen rights.<br /><br />The politically and socially liberal organizations that were born of the Internet have a more obvious claim now to be the parents of a new party.<br /><br />They have the advantage of already having enormous experience and talent at communicating with the public and with organizing hundreds of thousands and, in some cases, millions of people for political action.<br /><br />Unfortunately, they also have the drawback that has been cited in dismissing socialists: Too many egos, with too many people who want to be top dog and are unwilling to take a lesser role.<br /><br />In fact, we almost certainly wouldn't have so many such organizations if it weren't for the egos of their founders, a majority of whom could just as well have joined an existing organization.<br /><br />Still, there are some first-rate organizers among them, and many are people of considerable courage, willing to stand up to the big-money power structure, far more honest than the corporate media moguls and their increasingly dimwitted troops, and eager to fight for what they believe is right for this country and its people.<br /><br />If anyone wanted a list, I probably could name two dozen organizations that would serve the purpose as a starting point, or as a piece of what could be the start, of a new party. And that leaves out the likes of MoveOn and other organizations that are barely camouflaged unofficial arms of the Democratic Party.<br /><br />What I don't know is how to get them together, get them into a conference specifically aimed at the formation of a new party. We need to think about that, but quickly, and to get them moving.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-5495997530624306802011-05-06T12:56:00.000-07:002011-05-06T13:08:37.279-07:00After bin Laden, a reflection<span style="font-weight:bold;">By Lydia Howell</span><br /><br />After hearing that Al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden is dead, I felt relief and hope -- hope like light coming through the crack in a locked door, hope that we can finally end the longest war in United States’ history.<br /><br />The post-Sept. 11 attack on Afghanistan -- a country that never attacked us -- was sold with two supposed goals: get bin Laden and defeat Al-Qaeda. The CIA says that now there are only 50 to 100 Al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan. <br /><br />Isn’t having 1,000 U.S. soldiers for each one of these terrorists ridiculous? Continuing George W. Bush’s drone attacks -- which have tripled under the current administration -- has mostly killed civilians.<br /><br />However, President Obama must be commended for not just bombing bin Laden’s hideout. The seriousness of his announcement of the Special Operations, SWAT-team-like action contrasted sharply with the cheering crowds outside the White House and in New York. <br /><br />Obama’s silent laying of a wreath at Ground Zero on May 5 is the sober response that’s right for this moment. If not for the on-screen captions “Osama bin Laden is dead,” Sunday’s revelers could easily have been mistaken for sports fans celebrating a championship.<br /><br />This event raises critical questions. Almost immediately some media pundits and politicians began crediting torture for gaining the intelligence that located bin Laden. That is factually wrong. In fact, torture of Guantanamo detainees and “high-value targets” only led prisoners to make things up in order to stop the abuses. A near-death experience like waterboarding will do that.<br /><br />For those who still agree with Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, that the United States has engaged only in “enhanced interrogation” that amounts to “fraternity hazing,” consider these facts: the U.S. Army’s Field Manual (as well as the Geneva Convention) forbids the stress positions, exposure to cold and other tactics that have been used. There should be no debate about what waterboarding is: invented by the Spanish Inquisition 500 years ago, it is undeniably torture.<br /><br />International law and U.S. law -- including the 8th Amendment to our Constitution -- forbid torture of prisoners for any reason. There are no exceptions, in spite of what you may have learned from the TV show "24" or executive branch legal apologists. <br /><br />Now is the time for Americans to re-set our moral compass and demand an end to and accountability for torture of prisoners in the “war on terrorism” -- at Guantanamo or at the remaining “black sites” in allied countries. Imprisoning people for long periods without charges, trial or conviction of any crime is a standard action used by colonial powers and military dictatorships to terrorize civilian populations. So is torture. <br /> <br />Unlike the Vietnam War years, the U.S. doesn’t do body counts, so the only casualties we see are the American soldiers’ faces at the end of evening newscasts. However, an estimated one million Iraqis and more 100,000 Afghans have been killed since the U.S. invasions. Countless more have been wounded and disabled and millions have been made into refugees.<br /><br />Now is the time to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing all the troops home and sending the private contractors/mercenaries back to wherever they came from.<br /> <br />Twenty-first century war must be recognized as terrorism. Instead of individual suicide bombers, the mightiest military on Earth uses the most sophisticated weaponry -- including unmanned drones, depleted uranium shells and cluster bombs -- on people’s schools, hospitals and homes. As the tenth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attack approaches, we must see that there are many more victims than the 3,000 who died that day.<br /> <br />With Osama Bin Laden dead, will Americans have the courage to finally look into the mirror of U.S. state-sponsored terrorism and become active, engaged citizens who demand “no more killings in our name?”<br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Lydia Howell is an independent Minneapolis journalist, winner of the Premack Award for Public Interest Journalism. She is producer/host of “Catalyst: politics and culture” on KFAI Radio http://www.kfai.org<br /></span>Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-85751270622518938512011-04-17T10:50:00.000-07:002011-04-20T13:12:50.327-07:00You can bank on them to do you dirtThe big banks that, with the help of other financial institutions and federal and state “regulators,” caused the near collapse of the American economy in 2008 are bigger, richer, more powerful and more arrogant than they were before the near meltdown. <br /><br />What was a lousy experience for the rest of us, and disaster for millions, actually strengthened the big banks that brought all that pain upon us, and made them more free from restraint than they were before.<br /><br />They couldn't have done better for themselves if they'd planned the whole thing.<br /><br />Thanks to easily bought politicians of both major parties and the extreme right-wing activist court of John Roberts et al, they all but own the U.S. government. They fear no one, are beholden to no one and, frankly m'dears, don't give a damn what anybody thinks of them. They continue to cheat Americans by the millions, and to behave as though they are beyond the reach of law, which, in fact, is the case. They are untouchable.<br /><br />I've been thinking about this, watching the progress of their march to imperviousness in anger and frustration since the first days of the big collapse, but in the past week it came home to me in a much more personal way. I'll explain in a bit, and please excuse the use of a personal story.<br /><br />Corporate media refuse to tell many of the stories of bank fraud, as they decline to tell many of the stories that would show the public the corporate takeover of government, but the facts are available to those who recognize that they won't learn much of importance from CNN.<br /><br />The country's biggest newspapers do cover the very biggest, the unduckable stories about the banks, though they're not always prominently displayed.<br /><br />The Root, an on-line magazine published with a black perspective, recently ran a story by Thomas Moore about a late-2010 investigation by the Florida Attorney General's office that found that Bank of America, GMAC Bank, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo and several others are guilty of foreclosure fraud.<br /><br />Moore noted that “nothing has been done by the Justice Department or any other federal officials” to bring criminal charges against the banks. Since I wrote this, the New York Times has printed an interesting commentary: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/opinion/19nocera.html?_r=1&hp<br /><br />The Los Angeles Times – much damaged but still a better newspaper than most – ran an article on April 14 of this year noting that a two-year investigation led the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to conclude that Goldman Sachs Group profited hugely from the financial crisis by “betting billions against the subprime mortgage market, then deceived investors and Congress about the firm's conduct.”<br /><br />Some of that committee's findings will be submitted to the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible criminal or civil action, the L.A. Times said. <br /><br />Don't hold your breath waiting for charges to be filed.<br /><br />On April 12, the New York Times noted in an editorial that JPMorgan Chase profited greatly from an investment that it knew was bad, but sold to clients anyway.<br /><br />On March 31, 2010, the New York Times printed an editorial that rehashed the oft-discussed fact that big banks still owe taxpayers billions of dollars for bailouts, but continue to refuse to make small business loans. The banks pay individual customers almost nothing on savings, and follow other policies that harm the country and individual citizens, but nevertheless got approval from the Federal Reserve to increase dividends and take other steps that increase the wealth of major shareholders (including bank officers, of course). <br /><br />That March 31 editorial also pointed out that Fed approval for bigger dividends came despite the fact that the banks are still on shaky ground on such things as properly valuing their mortgage holdings, and maintaining adequate reserves. <br /><br />They are, in fact, too vulnerable to future economic upheaval to be giving away more money in dividends.<br /><br />Several news outlets noted early this month that the country's biggest banks and federal “regulators” cut a deal which will put “closed” to the outrageous story of mortgage foreclosure fraud. The deal lets the banks off the hook for their blatant crookedness with a finger tap on the wrist, leaves millions of mortgage borrowers utterly screwed, and fails to install tougher rules to prevent the continuation of the abuses. The banks simply refused to stop foreclosure abuse, so the feds gave up without a fight.<br /><br />No officer of a large bank has been charged with a crime, despite now countless reports of obvious fraud and corruption. Dozens of high-level and medium-level bankers should be in prison by now; few, if any, will be tried, let alone convicted.<br /><br />Various government agencies continue to abet the criminals in their deceit.<br /><br />We the people put billions of dollars into the banking system after the collapse. Far more than was at first reported, in fact. Some of the loans by the Fed to banks were kept very quiet, and only recently have started to come to light. The stories, when reported by corporate media, generally are printed on the inner pages of business sections, couched in terms the average citizen wouldn't understand if they could be pushed into reading them. <br /> <br />Billions of dollars of our money was used by the biggest banks to buy somewhat smaller banks, thus further centralizing banking in this country and all but doing away with genuine competition -- not that there was a whole lot of competition before 2008. <br /><br />Too big to fail has become too big to restrain in any way.<br /><br />Members of Congress of both parties and the Obama administration crawl before the bankers. They form barricades of lies and half truths to protect the bankers from angry citizens. And, of course, they pull in billions of dollars in campaign funds, soft and hard, visible and hidden, from the banks. <br /><br />And, oh yes, there's a lot of job mobility between Congress and the White House on one side and the banks on the other. The pieces of the Obama administration that deal with the economy look like a branch office of Goldman Sachs.<br /><br />Given the circumstances, you'd have to be truly silly to expect anything but abuse from any large bank with which you do business. <br /><br />If you have any relationship with a big bank, it is screwing you and, given any opportunity it will do worse. No regulator will protect you, existing consumer protection laws are weak and largely unenforced, and the right-wing extremists in Congress are gearing up to do away with what little regulation is left. <br /><br />One of the biggest scams is entirely legal: <br /><br />Banks pay almost nothing on deposits these days. A one-year certificate of deposit, which paid a paltry 3.8 percent at many banks in 2006, now will get you an interest rate of half of one percent – 0.5 percent – to perhaps 1.5 percent at the most generous of banks. Money in a savings account, if you leave anything there, now draws 0.5 percent, on average – less in some places.<br /><br />On the other hand, most people who have bank credit cards pay upward of 14 percent interest on balances. Some pay 20 percent and even more. It gets worse instantly if you are even a day late with a payment.<br /><br />And banks charge absurd fees on services that cost them next to nothing. Withdraw, say, $100 from an ATM and in most places you'll pay $1.50 to $2.50 – in some high traffic areas $3 – for the privilege of getting your own money. The costs of those machines and their simple operating systems were covered within months, if not a few weeks, of their installation. Servicing costs are next to nothing in comparison with what they take in.<br /><br />Now my personal story:<br /><br />I missed making the March payment on a Wells Fargo credit card. I accept responsibility for that.<br /><br />My simple system for handling most bills involves writing the due dates on the outside of the envelopes in which they arrive, and placing them in a basket on my desk in the order they must be paid. With perhaps three exceptions in my entire adult life – the others because of disputes over the charges – my bills always have been paid on time.<br /><br />But somehow I missed the March bill on that credit card. My first thought was that the bill never arrived, but given that Wells Fargo, like all other major institutions, is infallible in all things, I gave up on that idea. More likely, I mistakenly shredded the bill along with some of the numerous credit card offers my wife and I receive every month. (How I'd like to bill those banks for all the time I spend doing that, not to mention to cost of the quality shredder I bought when two cheaper ones gave out, one after the other.)<br /><br />OK. My bad.<br /><br />But I didn't realize I hadn't paid the bill. Ideally, one should post a list of regular bills and their normal due dates, and check the list regularly, so that one is aware of the fact if a bill should not show up at an appropriate time. <br /><br />Know anyone who does that?<br /><br />I became aware of the error when I received a nasty and threatening letter from Wells Fargo. The bill, at that point, was about 24 days over due. The letter was sent when the bill was just 20 or 21 days over due.<br /><br />Our home mortgage is held by Wells Fargo, purchased by that bank from another company some years ago. Mortgage payments are up to date and always have been.<br /><br />We have had that credit card for a couple of years now, and payments before the one in March, were made on time.<br /><br />The bill was less than a month overdue. And here is a letter from the bank, over the signature of Larry Tewell, senior vice president for card services, ordering me to “send the past due amount immediately to avoid further collection action on your account.”<br /><br />I mailed a check for notably more than the required amount the day that I received the letter. (It has since been cashed by Wells Fargo.)<br /><br />Ah, but that was just the first shot from the bank.<br /><br />Two days after the arrival of the letter, I got a telephone call from an exceedingly rude, harsh-voiced woman who demanded I make payment right then, over the phone. I told her I'd sent a check two days earlier, but that was not satisfactory, she said. “You must make a payment right now, during this telephone call.”<br /><br />Again, I started to tell her that a check had been mailed two days earlier, but she continued to talk over me, demanding immediate payment again and again. In fact, she raised her voice and talked over me, constantly. At one point I said: “Ma'am, please stop talking for a minute and listen to me,” (Note, I did not say, “Shut up,” as I wanted to do.) But she continued to say the same things repeatedly, at a level barely below a shout, refusing to allow me to say anything. Obviously it was what she had been trained to do.<br /><br />After several minutes of abuse, I hung up. <br /><br />The woman on the telephone said several times that the bank would inform credit reporting agencies of our delinquency, and would damage our credit rating. I have no doubt it will do that. <br /><br />I have not yet decided how I will deal with that, but my anger is such I'm willing to expend both time and money to protect our credit rating and, if I can, put some hurt on the bank. Various regulators, members of Congress and state legislators will see or hear my story. I am fortunate in where I live; at least two of the politicians are of that rare type who actually care about the welfare of their constituents.<br /><br />Yes, failure to make payment was ultimately my responsibility. I would not fight a reasonable financial penalty for that mistake. But the penalty won't be reasonable, and damage to my credit standing could do me serious harm.<br /><br />In a sense, I am shocked that a bank, even one of the giants such as Wells Fargo, will so abuse a long-time customer with a solid history of credit worthiness. <br /><br />But I am not really surprised. Wells Fargo is one of the big outfits, impersonal and utterly contemptuous of everyone who is not them, with a history in recent years of doing terrible things to people for the sake of profit. Just like all the other big banks. Officers who were in charge when the worst things happened make more millions now than they did in 2007.<br /><br />Words such as “service” are simply advertising words, without real meaning. The standards that people of my generation accepted as the norm – providing service and and returning value for money, courteous treatment of customers, especially long-time customers, and, in fact, common decency – no longer apply. Given that there is virtually no competition, and that governments at all levels now exist primarily to serve money and power, the individual has no effective way to resist, and exists only to be milked.<br /><br />This is Corporate America, Tea Party America.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-40609038807697510202011-04-01T13:03:00.000-07:002011-04-02T10:07:11.981-07:00God is Bachmann's personal adviser?So Michele Bachmann, congresswoman from Minnesota's weird 6th District, major embarrassment to rational Minnesotans, has set up an exploratory committee and is trying to decide whether to run for president.<br /><br />Actually, as Bachmann has made clear on numerous occasions, she is waiting for God to tell her whether to run for president, as He has instructed her, she says, in all other things political. <br /><br />It is not clear why she needs a committee.<br /><br />There are, of course, several other right wing politicians looking to God with equal confidence for the answer to the same question: Shall I run for president of the United States and share my beauty and genius with the world, or is it not yet time?<br /><br />I can't help it. This plethora of mostly not very bright – and some downright drooling stupid – right wing politicians waiting for God's instruction on whether to run for president gives rise to some questions. <br /><br />(Were the questions planted in my brain by God? Stay tuned.)<br /><br />First, has there ever, in the entire history of the planet, been a politician who has acknowledged that God told him or her to sit down and shut up? <br /><br />Did God ever say to one of them, “You're a bloody jackass, so shut your yap and stop trying to make a fool of me?”<br /><br />Second, has there ever been a politician who found he or she was able to raise the money for a run for office and then decided not to run on the instruction, or at least advice, of God?<br /><br />Third, has there ever been a politician who recognized that the money for a campaign wasn't going to roll in who heard from God that he or she should run anyway?<br /><br />Fourth: In what form does the message arrive? Is it clear and concise, as in “Run” or “Don't run” spoken in a bass voice that makes the windows rattle? Or does it come in the puzzling form used so successfully long ago by the Oracle at Delphi: “Water runs downhill unless it is dammed?”<br /><br />Five: If there is no thundering voice, what does God sound like? Does he whisper in one's ear?<br /><br />Six: How does God ever get anything useful done if he spends so much time fussing about the futures of dimwit American politicians?<br /><br />Seven: Is it possible to be more arrogant than to claim that whatever you do, you are following instructions contained in express personal messages from God?Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-25238087697647002242011-03-25T13:19:00.000-07:002011-04-01T13:14:17.491-07:00Drowning in hypocrisyAmerican democracy is drowning in toxic hypocrisy.<br /><br />It is so pervasive in what passes for public discourse that the average, ignorant American can't tell the phony from real, and even relatively informed individuals often confuse facade with structure.<br /><br />President Barack Obama, pushed by Hillary Clinton and her “tough” wing of the administration, decides to start killing people in Libya. (To phrase it any other way – the ways politicians and the corporate press are describing what's happening, for example -- would be hypocritical.) <br /><br />We don't know the real motivation for our entering the Libyan civil war; we're being fed the usual lines that almost certainly have little to do with reality. Nevertheless, we're in another shooting war to “save civilians from a brutal dictator.”<br /><br />But we, the United States and its allies, stood mute earlier this month as the ruling Khalifa family of Bahrain used everything from clubs to U.S.-supplied tanks, machine guns and tear gas – and, as in Libya, foreign mercenaries paid, probably, with American dollars – to kill and maim protesters whose claims are as valid as those of the people fighting the government of Moammar Gadhafi (one of at least a half dozen possible spellings). <br /><br />Indeed, our dearest “friend” in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia, sent troops to Bahrain to help crush the uprising there. Not one peep of protest did anyone hear from Obama, Clinton or any other western leader.<br /><br />The difference? <br /><br />Not concern for incipient democracy, for sure. As always in that region, it's oil.<br /><br />International and U.S.-based oil companies are eager to wrest control of the oil fields – especially the big oil fields in the area where the Libyan rebellion is strongest – from Gadhafi. <br /><br />No politician or military figure will say that straight out, of course, not even those who pass for liberals in the corporate media. Everybody plays the hypocrisy game.<br /><br />Did you notice, by the way, how little news coverage there was of the uprising in Bahrain – none, or almost none in many newspapers – and how quickly it disappeared from the news in this country? Two days, three at most, and it was almost gone. Very few Americans even noticed that it happened.<br /><br />Oh...And aside from one front page story in the New York Times, March 24, how much have you heard about the fact that at least a dozen companies in the oil racket kicked in to pay the $1.5 billion Gadhafi was assessed a few years back for his role in blowing up Pan Am Flight 103 and other terrorist attacks? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/world/africa/24qaddafi.html?hpw<br /><br />And isn't it interesting that the Times writers specifically wrote about the corruption of the Gadhafi mob, but made no straight reference to the corruption of oil companies that paid out that kind of money to the chief gangster in order to keep their grip on his oil. <br /><br />There will, of course, be no mention of punishment for the oil executives who played that disgusting game, any more than for the bankers who nearly destroyed the U.S. economy, and who are financing the destruction of the U.S. middle class.<br /><br />Ah, but some people of both corporation-backed political parties are standing up and talking straight about the fact that Obama failed to ask Congress for permission to start killing in Libya. <br /><br />Only it's really not straight. Some Republicans who tried to fire up the political right's tea-party suckers by complaining that Obama wasn't doing anything in Libya – Newt Gingrich among others – now are complaining that he took action. <br /><br />Once again, the bad thing from their viewpoint is whatever Obama does, even if it's something they demanded. Hypocrisy on a grand scale. <br /><br />Listen to Newt talk out of both sides of his mouth on Libya before and after Obama acted: <br /><br />http://front.moveon.org/has-newt-gingrich-gone-off-the-deep-end/?sms_ss=email&at_xt=4d8cb781c47e380a%2C0---<br /><br />The critics are right, of course, that a president is supposed to get Congressional agreement before committing the U.S. military to a foreign venture – or adventure. But the fact is that many of the same people who are expressing outrage at Obama found no problem with Bush/Cheney, or the other Bush, when they did the essentially same thing. A whole lot of those weasels are so hypocritically crooked you could screw them into the ground. <br /><br />Hell, presidents of both parties have been getting our young people killed without asking anyone's permission ever since we got into the Korean War in the 1950s.<br /><br />Oh, yes: Let's not forget that most American citizens come down on one side or the other of the debate over Congressional approval for war depending on whether they personally approve of a specific action, or a president. A whole lot of Democrats-for-life who are silent now would have screamed and marched in the streets if what Obama has done had been done by his predecessor. A whole lot of right wingers would like to be screaming now, but they feel that they have to approve all military involvements by this country; they've never heard of an American war they wouldn't support.<br /><br />And about that news coverage:<br /><br />Bahrain came and went on little cat feet. <br /><br />The New York Times continues to run heavily slanted news stories on all sorts of subjects – most favoring the status quo, the existing power structure, the business elite – even as the same newspaper's editorials and op-ed articles take opposing viewpoints on some of those issues. The “news” stories get far higher readership, of course, as they always have in all newspapers.<br /><br />And the hypocrisy is far more egregious in most local and regional newspapers. (Let's not even mention television, which has very little to do with actual news.)<br /><br />Take my local birdcage liner. <br /><br />Please.<br /><br />The Star Tribune recently ran two op-ed pieces on the drive by Republican politicians to dismantle public employee unions and otherwise seriously damage state employees economically. One was a self-serving piece of tripe by one of the leaders of that effort, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. <br />http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/118273074.html<br /><br />The other was by a guy named Scott Chalberg, identified as a teacher at a Twin Cities area community college. http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/118542194.html<br /><br />An opposing point of view? Go fish.<br /><br />In the past couple of days, the Strib, as it is known around here, has run two stories on a newly-named University of Minnesota regent who failed to disclose on his application for the position that he already had an $80,000 a year part time job at the university. The first story laid that out, the second was based on the assertion of the regent, Steve Sviggum, that the application did not call for that revelation.<br /><br />(The people checking him out as a possible regent didn't know or didn't want the public to know about his conflict of interest.)<br /><br />What's interesting from the hypocrisy-watcher's point of view is that neither article mentioned that Sviggum, a rather far-right Republican, spent more than 20 years in the Minnesota House of Representatives, including substantial time as minority leader and as speaker of the House.<br /><br />Regents are named by the State Legislature, of which both houses now are controlled by far right Republicans. Sviggum's appointment was controversial to begin with. It was part of a move by Republican legislators to put members of the political right in charge of the Board of Regents. They even broke a custom of many decades by refusing to appoint a labor representative (or, indeed, anyone of even mild liberal leaning) to the board. <br /><br />When I sent a note to the writer of the two stories complaining about the missing facts of his political and legislative history, she replied, very politely, that she “forgot.”<br /><br />As a veteran of 40-plus years in print journalism, I find that all but incomprehensible. <br /><br />It does fit a pattern that, whether rooted in incompetence or deliberate political leaning, grows ever more obvious. Virtually everything in or on corporate news outlets now is written from the viewpoint of a government or corporate official. Most news stories involving large issues could easily be press releases from whatever establishment organization is involved. And the excuses for that seem ever more lame, more hypocritical.<br /><br />We have to be the watchdogs, to call the “media” and the politicians on every omission or bending of fact, every substitution of myth for reality. It won't change the story every time, but if enough people make noise, it does have some positive effect.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-19644449046979412312011-03-25T13:14:00.000-07:002011-03-25T13:18:12.517-07:00The general takes us for a rideGeneral Electric uses (mostly) legal bribery about as effectively as anybody on this planet.<br /><br />The general, a person by declaration of the Extreme Court in January 2010, makes more money than any of the people in my neighborhood or yours, and pays no taxes.<br /><br />In fact, we, the American taxpayers, pay the general an almost unbelievable sum because his “tax credits” are so huge. (Not to mention that the general has huge income from military contracts, some no-bid and many that go almost automatically to cost-overrun.)<br /><br />Yup, we're paying taxes to the general. Hope he at least gets his wife a nice new yacht for her birthday.<br /><br />I'd invite the general over for a conversation about how he does it – the various methods he uses to buy Congress, not to mention the military of this and numerous other countries – but I'm afraid that with his tens of thousands of bodies, he won't fit in my house.<br /><br />Of all the countless examples of why the Roberts court's conferring of personhood on corporations is false and, in fact, deliberate fraud, this one takes the prize for this week.<br /><br />The New York Times told the story in a front page article on March 25, 2011. Check it out:<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=1&hpJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-66991187986963367752011-03-18T09:26:00.000-07:002011-03-18T09:44:26.459-07:00Unemployment feeds the war machine<span style="font-weight:bold;">By Lydia Howell<br /></span><br /><br />High unemployment is good for war.<br /><br />Whether it’s debt-ridden college graduates working as baristas or small town youth with only fast-food and Wal-Mart as post-high school career options, high unemployment keeps "volunteer" military ranks full.<br /> <br />Underemployment, whether the problem is low wages or part-time hours, makes the National Guard and military reserves attractive for essential cash for (the promised) one weekend a month. Unfortunately, more and more weekend warriors are finding themselves in combat when they thought they'd be helping with disaster relief in their local communities.<br /><br />In spite of the current parroting that “only the private sector can create jobs,” government plays a critical role directly and indirectly. Building roads, bridges and other major infrastructure, running public transportation, creating community-based services from daycare to clinics and schools, investing in new technology such as clean, renewable energy or research, such as the National Institute of Health -- all such government spending includes contracts to the private sector that create jobs. Cut the spending and, inevitably, you cut jobs.<br /><br />So, debates about the federal budget (as well as state and local ones) are labor issues. That includes debating what gets a priority and what does not.<br />When seemingly endless wars and weapons-makers are given sacrosanct status in budget discussions, workers lose.<br /><br />Corporations like Lockheed Martin have made sure that bombers and the parts needed for them are made in as many states as possible, in order to make sure no cuts are made in their bloated, no-bid contracts. When the newest high-tech plane doesn’t work or there’s no real need for a particular Cold War-era weapons system, the cry of “You’re <span style="font-style:italic;">cutting jobs</span>” can always be raised to defend funneling billions into what President Dwight Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex."<br /> <br />Saying “Just put it on the charge card!” for the longest war in U.S. history (Afghanistan) and the latest war-based-on-a-lie (Iraq) has escalated the federal deficit. The Tea Party mantra “cut spending” means, to the politicial right, cutting other (non-military-related) jobs. The “trickle-down” economics produces federal aid cuts to states, then local government aid gets slashed, too, leading to…more job cuts.<br /><br />This is a downward spiral that hurts workers, families and communities -- while not only not contributing to our security but, instead, creating more enemies. How many Americans wake in the middle of the night, worrying about terrorists as opposed to the millions who’ve lost jobs or had their home foreclosed?<br /><br />War is good for Big Business.<br /><br />Corporations like Haliburton/KBR and Parsons have made out very well with their “cost-plus” contracts to “rebuild” in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are guaranteed profits -- whether they finish the job or not. Often, they do shoddy work or simply fail to do what they were hired for, but there’s been little accountability. The Associated Press reported $5 billion wasted in just this way in Iraq. <br />http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/08/ap-iraq-legacy-of-reconstruction-083010<br /> <br />Wouldn’t the money have been better spent at home with contracts going to small businesses that actually create 75 per cent of all new jobs? Fraud-prevention and oversight of small, local businesses would be a lot more possible -- as opposed to huge multinationals working in a country thousands of miles away while deploying their armies of lobbyists and “consultants” in Washington.<br /><br />With Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and other rightist governors and Republican legislators assaulting workers’ rights to union representation and bargaining rights, another kind of war is heating up at home.<br /> <br />Actually, the war on workers has been going on (sometimes covertly) for more than thirty years: Since the late 1970s, corporations have been reversing the gains of the post-World War II American middle-class, largely created by the unionization of one-third of workers in the 1950s. <br /><br />For the first time in the nation’s history, more everyday people than ever could have a fair share of the profits their labor produced. For African-Americans, unionized private sector and government jobs have been the primary way they’ve made economic gains in the last 50 years. Exporting factories and government budget cuts have a disproportionate impact on them.<br /><br />But, when 75 percent of American workers who make $46,000 or less, have lost health insurance, had pensions turned into 401k accounts that are vulnerable to Wall Street speculators, an old saying has new truth: we came over here in different ships but, we’re all in the same boat now.<br /><br />When workers’ leaky row boats are struggling to stay afloat in choppy economic waters, does it make sense to build more warships to attack other countries -- or for that matter to give more tax breaks to the richest 400 people so they can have bigger yachts?<br /> <br />The war being waged on American workers could (finally) open a debate about the wars being waged in our names. Instead of shoveling the annual hundreds of billions to weapons makers, overseas bases, occupations and the who-knows-how-much in corporate welfare and tax-giveaways, national priorities are in desperate need of re-thinking.<br /><br />In a time where the catch phrase used by both President Obama and the Republicans is “shared sacrifice,” working people have already sacrificed too much: jobs, homes, college educations, healthcare -- and for some, a son or a daughter on battlefields they should never have seen.<br /><br />A national call for local protests is happening on the eighth anniversary of the second U.S. invasion of Iraq, this Saturday, March 19, In St. Paul, Minnesota gather for a march at 1 p.m. at the Martin Luther King Center, 270 North Kent, rally at 2:15 p.m. at the State Capitol.<br /><br />Hear Kim Doss-Smith, executive director of Women Against Military Madness and Barb Kucera, editor of Workday Minnesota, talk about the economics a of war and the war on workers, Thursday March 17, 9am on KFAI Radio 90.3fm Minneapolis 106.7fm St. Paul ONLINE: live-streaming and archived for 2 weeks after broadcast on the Catalyst page at http://www.kfai.org <br /> <br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Lydia Howell is an independent Minneapolis journalist. She is producer/host of “Catalyst: politics & culture” on KFAI Radio at http://www.kfai.org. </span><br /> Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-22514796073919461392011-03-16T09:24:00.000-07:002011-04-19T10:15:46.821-07:00Wisconsinites determined, Obama is AWOLWhen Barack Obama was campaigning in 2008, he said in a televised speech that if ever the rights of organized labor came under attack while he was president “I'll put on a pair of comfortable shoes and walk right beside you.” <br /><br />Add one more to the long, long list of promises Obama has broken.<br /><br />Despite at least one serious offer from a state-level politician to buy him new walking shoes if he'd just show up, the president has been conspicuously absent in Wisconsin, in Ohio, in Michigan, in New Jersey, Florida and other states where far-right businessmen and the Republican Party have mounted heavily funded attacks in the class war. <br /><br />Wherever organized labor and the middle class are under serious attack, that's where Obama (aka The Artful Dodger) isn't. Not only won't he go to where the fights are, he won't even talk about them.<br /><br />His one public comment on the major battle underway for the past month in Wisconsin was a mumbled observation that the actions of the right wingers who control the Wisconsin Legislature “sound like an attack on unions.”<br /><br />I don't know who the president listens to these days, and I can only speculate on his reasons for refusing to join a fray that so obviously calls for his deep involvement on behalf of the people who are the core of his 2008 support. My guess is that it goes like this: “Our corporate funders will be annoyed, or worse, if you back the unions, and you don't have to worry about losing the votes because the unions and liberals have nowhere else to go.” <br /><br />Many of Obama's advisers, including Rahm Emanuel (now Chicago's burden), openly made such statements in the past, so it's pretty safe to assume that is still their thinking. <br /><br />After attending the massive rally at the Wisconsin Capitol Saturday, and a much smaller one in Hudson, Wis., Sunday, I have reason to think the presidential advisers are wrong. <br /><br />The right wingers who slid into control of that state's government in 2010 because of liberal voter apathy – apathy at least in part resulting from Obama's absence from battles over issues of prime importance to liberals -- almost certainly are going to be thrown out. Recall efforts against Republican lawmakers have generated almost incredible enthusiasm, and some of them will succeed, while counter efforts by the far right seem certain to fail. And there is no way the extremists will remain in the majority in the Legislature after the next general election.<br /><br />But there is reason to think Obama, who won Wisconsin in 2008, may not hold it in 2012.<br /><br />Neither he nor the national Democratic Party was popular with people I talked to Saturday and Sunday.<br /><br />The 14 Democratic state senators who left the state and stayed away for three weeks in order to block the Republican plan to take away the bargaining rights of public employee unions are heroes on a grand scale. The depth of gratitude and admiration directed toward the “Fabulous 14” at the Capitol Saturday put them in the category of rock stars, World Series winners, Stanley Cup champions, Super Bowl winners and war heroes – combined.<br /><br />You had to be there to fully appreciate the power of those feelings.<br /><br />But, again, they don't translate to feelings for the president or Congressional leaders.<br /><br />There is a great deal the corporate “news” media has not told the American public about what is happening in Wisconsin – and, undoubtedly, all the other states where the middle class is under direct big-money assault.<br /><br />With the one exception of Ed Schultz on MSNBC, in a broadcast Monday evening (March 14), there has been little or no mention of Obama's absence, and no reporting on the feelings, ranging from apparent indifference to antipathy, about Obama and the national Democrats among the union members, farmers and others who have been fighting so hard for their rights in Wisconsin. <br /><br />Most of the corporate media continue to present the story of Wisconsin based on the Republican claim that the gutting of union rights was done to “cut costs” and save the state from a “budget crisis.”<br /><br />In fact, and this should be regularly reported, the taking of collective bargain rights from public employee unions doesn't save the state any countable money. And, anyway, the plain fact is that Wisconsin is not in a “budget crisis.” <br /><br />Truthfully, the state is in pretty good financial shape. The “terrible” deficit Gov. Scott Walker and the legislative Republicans keep talking about exists <span style="font-style:italic;">only </span>because they gave very rich Wisconsinites and corporations a big tax cut just days before mounting their attack on unions. The amount of state revenue lost because of those uncalled-for tax breaks almost exactly equals the amount of that “terrible” deficit.<br /><br />In other words, the Republicans created the deficit just days before they started screaming about how awful it is. CBS and CNN and my local birdcage liner and even the New York Times don't seem to want to tell you that.<br /><br />The corporate press just won't report that, though it should be in every story in which Republicans are quoted bemoaning the supposed deficit. <br /><br />And there has been almost no reporting in other media about a statement made by Republican State Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald on Fox “News” March 9.<br /><br />Fitzgerald, who has made a number of true but arrogant statements, admitted on Fox that what he and his fellow Republicans did by taking away union bargaining rights had little to do with economics and everything to do with destroying the unions' political power. <br /><br />“We fixed it so the money won't be there” for unions to help fund the opponents of Republicans in future elections, and especially in the 2012 presidential election, Fitzgerald boasted.<br /><br />It wasn't until after my wife and I left the big rally late Saturday afternoon that some of the thoughts presented here actually hit me. Especially, I had not given much thought to where Obama stood – or didn't stand – in the picture, or at least how he might stand with the people of Wisconsin who are fighting for their economic survival.<br /><br />Then, suddenly, it seemed shocking that a sitting Democratic president had so entirely distanced himself from literal struggle for survival affecting millions of his key voters. It was, and is, genuinely bizarre that neither the president nor Democratic Congressional leadership is even remotely involved.<br /><br />The rally in Madison was a revelation in another way: I'd expected enthusiasm, and anger, from the crowd, but I have experienced nothing to compare with the emotions and determination in that mass of people since a giant antiwar rally in the early 1970s. <br /><br />Anger against the right wing extremists in Madison was universal and powerful, and yet there was – Glenn Beck and other dribbling idiots to the contrary – not the slightest sense that anyone was going to get out of control. There was no danger, no chance that anyone was going to smash windows or throw things. The anger was entirely channeled toward useful action, especially the recall efforts and elections between now and November 2012. <br /><br />Some of the guys from the trades, men wearing jackets or badges proclaiming their membership in an operating engineers' union or the Teamsters, seemed a bit nonplussed at finding themselves on the same side, cheering and occasionally booing the same things, as members of nurses' and teachers' unions and people looking like leftover 1975 hippies, but then I saw three or four literally shrug and smile and get into it. The trades guys were especially courteous to the teachers. <br /><br />It was a different story Sunday in Hudson, where 250 to 300 people gathered on a bridge over Hwy. I94 to hold signs and wave at drivers on the freeway and crossing the bridge on the local road.<br /><br />The number in Hudson wasn't so intimidating, and some drivers felt free to show their disdain for, and, in a few cases, even hatred for the demonstrators.<br /><br />Something less than half the drivers crossing the bridge during the time I was there simply ignored us, looking straight ahead. That's less of such behavior than one usually sees at demonstrations.<br /><br />The number of people who honked and waved and gave us thumbs-up signs surprised me. It was a much higher percentage than I've ever seen before during a demonstration of any kind.<br /><br />But, of course, there also were those who despised us, and they were interesting. Almost all were obviously relatively low income, driving beaters, clothes by Wal-Mart. (Sorry, but it's true.) I saw maybe a dozen people flash us the middle finger, and of those, about nine were women. Men who didn't like us, many of them driving elderly pickup trucks, generally just gave us a thumbs-down. Guys in newer pickups tended to turn the thumb up, and honk and smile.<br /><br />One man sticks in my brain. He was stopped on the bridge, waiting for the traffic light to change. He was directly opposite me. He was with a woman, and he had a boy of about 9 in the back seat. The boy continually gave us the thumbs-down sign. The man shouted at us, without opening his window, and his face grew angrier and angrier. Just before the traffic began to move, he fully faced the window and shook both fists at us, even pounded them against his window. Then he pointed the index fingers of both hands at his temples – trying to tell us, I finally figured out, that we were crazy, or that we should learn to think or something like that.<br /><br />That guy, in a beat-up car about 15 years old, with the general appearance of someone who maybe makes $9 an hour, was enraged with people who are fighting for the rights of working people and for the survival of democracy. There's your real Tea Party, folks. <br /><br />But he's very much in the minority these days, and the only thing to do is ignore him and get on with the fight where it counts.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-79602737086356450242011-03-16T09:02:00.000-07:002011-03-19T10:23:57.186-07:00More on Wisconsin ralliesAdditional observations from two days of pro-union, pro-middle class rallies in Wisconsin: <br /> <br />* There is one exception to the widely-recognized fact that the national Democratic Party is deliberately uninvolved in what clearly is becoming a fight for the survival of the middle class and of democracy. The party does see it as a fund-raising opportunity: I got an email Monday (March 14) from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). It said that organization is shocked, yes shocked, at the bad behavior of Wisconsin Republicans and that the proper response to such naughtiness is to send the DCCC money.<br /><br />People, <span style="font-style:italic;">do not</span> fall for that. If you want to contribute to the fight for union rights, for the middle class do <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> send money to the DCCC or the DSCC or any other Democratic Party organization with the expectation it will be used to fight for Wisconsin workers. <br /><br />In fact, neither the party nor any of its parts has any special fund for that. Any money you send will simply go into the general coffers, and some of it will be used to support politicians, including right-wing “Democrats” in Congress, who don't give a rats tail for working people or the middle class as a whole. Unless you want your money to go to reelecting the likes of corporation-loving Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson or Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson, who devotes himself primarily to crushing women's rights, send your contributions to specific politicians you know to be on the right side, or to Wisconsin public employee unions or even, in a pinch, the Wisconsin Democratic Party.<br /><br />* The numbers you've seen on participation in the rallies and protests in Madison, especially, are too low, but it isn't because of some conspiracy to hide the truth. The Madison police actually have done a good job of estimating the crowds, but there simply is no way to get the numbers right.<br /><br />While my wife and I searched for a place to park Saturday, and when we finally found one a bit more than half a mile from the Capitol and started to walk to the rally, we saw hundreds of people heading away from the Capitol grounds. It was still almost half an hour before the announced time of the day's rally, and we wondered if we had received bad information. Then I stopped a few people heading away from the Capitol and asked why they were leaving.<br /><br />They were people who already had been at the Capitol for hours. Some had arrived by mid-morning. They were cold and tired and hungry and figured they'd done their bit. At the same time, there were hundreds more, like us, just heading to the rally. So the cops estimated the crowd at what probably was its peak and came up with 85,000 to 100,000. But people had been coming and going all day, so there is no way to guess at the true total for the day.<br /> <br />* Given the apparent lack of respect for Obama and national Democrats at both Wisconsin rallies I attended over the weekend, I started probing for thoughts about that party and possible alternatives. Every one of the five or six people I questioned -- admittedly a small sample -- indicated that they had been thinking about the possibility of a new liberal party forming. <br /><br />After a teacher and I talked briefly in Hudson about President Obama's absence from the issue, I asked “if maybe it's time for a new party.” Immediately, without having to pause to think, the woman said, “Oh, yes. Definitely.” Another woman who had been listening to us, also a teacher, nodded her head vigorously.<br /><br />I don't know, really, what that means for Democrats, but it can't be good for them.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-55453705309281233172011-03-07T13:58:00.000-08:002011-03-07T14:00:18.842-08:00The time to fight is now<span style="font-style:italic;">“Heaven ne'er helps the men who will not act” </span>--<span style="font-weight:bold;"> Sophocles</span><br /><br /><br />One of sharpest of the many good and original signs held by participants at a pro-union rally Feb. 26 at the Minnesota Capitol was this: “There's oil in your tea.”<br /><br />It goes directly to the greatest irony of all the apparent ironies in our escalating war between informed citizens and the irrational deniers of fact who have been suckered into helping the financial aristocracy – including oil barons such as David and Charles Koch -- destroy our poor and take down our middle class. <br /><br />Wisconsin is the present focus of the conflict, but the war is going on all across the northern two-thirds of the country. (The super-rich won easily, long ago, in the deep South and parts of the West; what's going on there is just a mopping-up and maintenance operation.)<br /><br />The spectacle of millions of Americans fighting with passion and rage against their own interests, as well as the interests of everyone who isn't very rich, all but paralyzes many liberals and even sane conservatives. <br /><br />“They can't be serious,” some folks say. “They don't understand what they're doing.” “Don't they get that they'll be ruined along with the rest of us?”<br /><br />In truth, it is stunning to be faced with such total lack of logic, such complete absence of what we (ironically) call common sense as we see in the signs of tea party ralliers who tell us to “Keep government out of my Medicare.” <br /><br />If you can't argue facts, since facts they don't like don't exist for the suckers of the far right, and you can't use logic, a concept they never grasped, how do you fight for sanity in government and fairness in politics?<br /><br />Some gentle types, taking a lead from our craven “Capitulation Are Us” president, want to have a “dialogue” with the dummies rather than fight, hoping that calm discussion will change the minds of at least some of those who worship at the feet of Glenn Beck and believe that the “Tea Party” is a popular uprising of patriots.<br /><br />Some think it's a matter of “framing” the issues in a way that will be understood by the boobs.<br /><br />Well, let's grant that Democrats, to whom many liberals unfathomably still look for help, are lousy at explaining or selling good policy. Even if they could (or wanted) to do that job, it wouldn't win this culture and class war, or even keep us in the battle. <br /><br />People you see carrying the tea party-type signs, the counter-demonstrators (few as they are) in Madison, those who plug in endless “unions are rotten relics of the past” comments on online discussion boards and write searing letters to editors about the “laziness” and general uselessness of all government employees are not even slightly touched by reason.<br /><br />They know what they know and that's what they know, even if it is the most extreme nonsense.<br /><br />That is because the things that motivate them, folks, are fear, envy and worship of those who are rich – the latter a true American religion, more deeply held than the Christianity that many loudly and mostly falsely profess. <br /><br />(How many of the radical right's leaders, clergy and politicians, have been caught almost literally with their pants down in the past decade or so, or with their hands in the till, or both, and how many of those same clergy and pols have devoted themselves to cheating and grinding the poor into the dirt, contrary to what the Bible says were Christ's teachings?)<br /><br />One of the most effective tactic of people like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker – demonstrably a characterless cheat*, by the way – and his owners, the Koch brothers, is to fan the flames of envy that some people feel for others. <br /><br />Envy, I learned long ago, is a powerful human characteristic. <br /><br />I worked once for a very small daily newspaper in a small town in the heart of farm country. Something I learned there, and have confirmed over and over in the ensuing 50 years, is that rural people are sure that the people in cities are cheating them. They believe deeply -- although it is demonstrably the reverse – that cities are sucking up their tax dollars while they get nothing back from their states or the states' metropolitan areas.<br /><br />People in “red” states, where Republicans rule, believe down to their toes that people in “blue” states – where Democrats tend to win elections – are gobbling up their tax dollars when, in fact, the numbers show that states like California and Minnesota pay more in taxes than they get back in government services and people in places such as Mississippi and Tennessee get far more in public money than they pay in taxes. It's been that way for many decades; we in the “liberal” states subsidize the redneck states.<br /><br />People who are barely literate and work, if they're lucky, at strictly physical jobs, are angry that educated professionals make more money than they do. Lots of people are mad as hell that teachers earn middle-class incomes (in some areas; that's often not true in country towns). And – partially because the right wing propaganda mill has been beating out this theme for decades – a great many Americans are absolutely sure that all government employees are grossly overpaid. <br /><br />That Barack Obama committed a shameful act of politicial theater by freezing the pay of federal employees confirmed to many that they were right in that belief.<br /><br />And so there is support for Scott Walker and his counterparts in Ohio, Texas, New Jersey and elsewhere when they set out to destroy the unions of government employees. There is enthusiasm for the idea of unilaterally breaking employee contracts and cutting pensions that people have worked for and counted on for decades. There is joy at the idea of destroying public unions – and thus, inevitably, all unions.<br /><br />And the lies are believed. <br /><br />I'd guess that a substantial majority of Americans believe government employees are paid considerably more than their counterparts in private employ for the same work at the same levels of education. It's flatly not true – public employees, in fact, make almost 25 percent less, on average, than those of comparable education and experience, than do those who work for businesses. <br /><br />In many cases, public employees have had their unions negotiate better pensions than their privately employed counterparts, and they have paid for those pensions through lower take-home pay. (Although their total earnings, including pensions and other benefits, still are generally lower than those of corporate employees.) And now the right wing wants government bodies to break the deals and cut the pensions. Contracts? They're only to be honored if they're between rich guys – and you can't count even on that.<br /><br />It used to be that when people saw a group of their neighbors get raises or improved pensions through collective bargaining, they figured they'd get the same improvements before long. But we've been hammered with right wing “everyone for himself” propaganda for so long that now a majority get angry when someone else's situation improves. “If I don't have it, nobody should get it,” is the obvious popular attitude.<br /><br />OK. That's envy.<br /><br />The fear that drives people to support the right-wing plutocrats comes from many places, in many forms, as everyone likely to read this already knows. <br /><br />Americans love to think we're all cowboys – independent, smart, strong and brave. <br /><br />Somewhere in the back of our heads, most of us know that the majority of Americans are, in fact, ignorant of the world and constantly afraid. <br /><br />Think about it. We've been under “orange alert” for most of the past 10 years. Polls show that many Americans are willing to give up Constitutional rights and freedoms to be “safe” from terrorists, although we've had only one genuinely successful attack in this country by foreign terrorists – and that could have been prevented under existing law and rule if the Bush administration had done its job.<br /><br />Huge numbers of Americans are afraid of immigrants, not for the generally stated reasons, obviously, but because the immigrants are in some way “different.” They're black or brown-skinned, or follow a religion that is considerably different from Methodist, Baptist or Roman Catholic, or simply have different cultural mores. We've never been comfortable with “different,” and many of us are truly frightened by the fact that the country no longer looks as it did 40 years ago. <br /><br />Ye, gods! A black man, a black family, in the White House! That alone makes many people fairly wet their pants in fear, and it doesn't matter what he stands for (or doesn't).<br /><br />It's enough to make millions set their jaws and do whatever the big money manipulators tell them to do to “win back our America.” <br /><br />And here's another truth seen as blasphemy in ostrich America: Many Americans really, deep down, don't want their kids to do better than they have done in life.<br /><br />I discovered that truth while working on the Minnesota Daily, the daily student newspaper at the University of Minnesota, roughly fifty years ago, and have heard it confirmed repeatedly ever since.<br />(See essay below this one.)<br /><br />The fight in the states between right-wing operatives such as Karl Rove and financial aristocrats such as the Koch brothers and their foot-kissing servants such as Scott Walker on one side and the people who work for a living on the other has awakened some people from their television-induced comas, and the will to survive has brought some of those people to cast aside their fear, but most people in this country are just digging deeper into their holes at this point.<br /><br />We've heard quite a lot over the past years about how those good folks in North Dakota and the Minnesota prairies and Kansas simply are not liberals and how we have to pet them and curry their manes to get them to vote for Democrats such as right wing Rep. Collin Peterson, from Minnesota's seventh district, and, yes, corporate servant Barack Obama. And never mind that such people sell us out time and again to big money interests. Somehow a Democrat who takes away our ability to buy our own homes or is eager to kill contractually negotiated pensions is supposed to be better for us than a Republican who does the same thing.<br /><br />Nuts to that.<br /><br />We need to do a hard sell of the facts. We need to rub the noses of the tea partiers and their sympathizers in the messes they have helped to create and show them that if they buy garbage they eat garbage. We have to counter the massive, hugely expensive propaganda campaigns of the super rich who intend to own this country, including all of its people, very soon. <br /><br />The battles taking place in Wisconsin and elsewhere now give us an opportunity to counter the lies – to make some points even through the dimwitted oafs of the corporate press. But we also have to spend – to donate to the outfits that now are running television ads in Wisconsin to counter the ads bought with Koch money. We must give through the nose to other, similar campaigns. And we have to stand up and be heard, in local groups, at social occasions, anywhere we can get an audience of one or more.<br /><br />This is it, I think -- the last chance or pretty close to it. <br /><br />To hell with those nice, dim relatives in North Dakota and Kansas, folks. Raise your voices to be heard by people who can still think, and who can see, or be shown, that the present fight is their fight. Win a few battles, and then the facts will seep through to those who are, for now, so frightened of change they cannot think.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">*In case you missed it, which is more than likely, given how little coverage it has received: Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker gives a variety of excuses for having left Marquette University as a young man without getting a degree. The truth, as was recently reported by Truthout and other organizations, is that he was “asked to leave” the school before his senior year. The reason was that he cheated and defied campaign rules while running for student government president at the university. One of the things he did was have some of the similarly unethical punks who worked on his campaign pick up and throw away almost all of the copies of the school's student newspaper when it endorsed his opponent. <br />This leopard is still wearing its original spots.<br /> </span>Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-89673325306617551592011-03-07T12:44:00.000-08:002011-03-07T12:57:58.323-08:00Tea partiers to kids: Don't get uppityIt is truly strange to see crowds of middle class Americans out to commit economic suicide by fighting for the very rich plutocrats who are carving away their freedoms and draining their pockets. <br /><br />But, then, there are many puzzling aspects to the “tea party” phenomenon.<br /><br />One of the overlooked questions that nagged at me until very recently is the fact that most of those who have been bamboozled by right wing propaganda seem entirely unconcerned that their children and grandchildren are being priced out of a college education. None of the corporate “news” media have asked any of the suckers about that, to my knowledge.<br /><br />In fact, second-rate and even third-rate colleges already are beyond the means of millions of Americans, and the genuinely good universities are priced so far beyond the ability of most people to pay that they are now pretty much reserved for the rich -- and a few awesomely brilliant scholarship kids, of course.<br /><br />No one, least of all university administrators, even remembers the purpose of land-grant universities and how they came to be. I don't hear anyone asking why schools that cannot exist without billions of tax dollars are being priced so that the majority of young people can't afford them. <br /><br />State universities, like private colleges, are increasingly only for the very well off, and rapidly headed for the status of rich-kid sanctuaries.<br /><br />(Land grant colleges-- most of which now are universities -– were established by acts of Congress in 1862 and 1890. Essentially, under those acts the federal government gave states land which the states could develop or sell to raise money to endow colleges. The colleges were to specialize in agriculture, science and engineering, but the missions were greatly broadened over the years. The land-grant laws have been revised at least 20 times to give the schools more breadth and depth. Many, probably most, state universities, including my alma mater, would not exist were it not for those laws. The endowments still function.)<br /><br />People with little money are shunted into community colleges, which, to be blunt, are basically trade schools for people who will, if they are lucky, get middling white collar jobs and never advance beyond the office equivalent of foreman. (I know: It's another truth we're not supposed to recognize.) A few very sharp individuals will transcend that arc, of course, but that doesn't change the basic facts.<br /><br />If things had been in the 1950s as they are now, neither I nor a majority of my closest friends of similar age would have obtained college educations.<br /><br />But the people who ride buses chartered by the Koch brothers and carry signs calling Barack Obama a Nazi very obviously don't give a damn about education.<br /><br />Why?<br /><br />I recently remembered something I learned when I was a 19- or 20-year-old student at the University of Minnesota.<br /><br />One of the many myths of this country is that Americans want their kids to do better in life than they have done. <br /><br />As Ira Gershwin put it: It ain't necessarily so.<br /><br />The fact is that a whole lot of people, generally from blue-collar communities and, especially, rural areas, emphatically do <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> want their offspring to advance substantially, either socially or economically. They won't often admit that, but it's a truth I learned from the offspring of blue collar families, and rural people, of my generation. And from their parents.<br /><br />Periodically, I do a little asking around to see if that has changed. It has not. <br /><br />(I come from an entirely blue-collar family, by the way, and my parents were skeptical about my going to college, mainly but not entirely because even at the very low cost of a public university in those days, money was a very big issue. I paid at least 90 percent of my own living and university expenses through part-time and multiple summer jobs; that is impossible for a poor kid today, no matter how hard he or she works.)<br /><br />My curiosity about lack of parental support among my poorer fellow students began when I had ingested several newspaper stories, printed over a couple of years, that included comments from people in rural areas about how they really didn't want their children to go to the big bad University of Minnesota and their fears about those children taking on the ways of the city and losing their “good, small-town values.”<br /><br />It was a topic that showed up with surprising frequency in stories originating in what Minnesotans call “out state” areas -- that is, outside the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area.<br /><br />So I asked quite a few of the many “out state” kids I knew at the university whether the newspaper stories showed an attitude really held by their parents and people in the communities where they were raised. <br /><br />My fellow students were surprised by the question; the affirmative answer was so obvious, they thought, that it amounted to a universal truth. It was something a majority of them had to contend with.<br /><br />Many parents from rural Minnesota towns such as Crookston and Fergus Falls and Montevideo were willing to have their kids attend one of the little public colleges in those or other small towns. Those with money often were willing to pay to send their kids to very expensive but academically superior small colleges in yet other small towns – Carleton, say, or St. Olaf – especially if they were run by religious denominations. A lesser number would even sanction the substantial and growing St. Cloud State University or University of Minnesota-Duluth, with or without a fight first.<br /><br />But the University of Minnesota's main campuses in the Twin Cities? A whole lot of parents fought against that, often to the point of saying they'd rather the kids didn't go to college at all. And some, of course, just thought that small or big, cheap or expensive, college was “a waste of time,” and would “do more harm than good.”<br /><br />I pushed on the questions when I visited friends out state, or took long weekends in the country, and when I had a summer job in a small town. People, including parents of my fellow students, quite readily confirmed what the students already had told me: College in general “made kids think they're better than their parents,” and “made them get above themselves.” <br /><br />Attending big schools that pushed general scholarship, as opposed to just career training, meant that kids “lost their good small-town values” and “forgot their religion” and “taught them to sneer at morality,” and the like.<br /><br />That has changed some, of course, as people have seen more of the world, mainly through the eyes of television. But those attitudes and that fear of the wider world and wider knowledge still are common. And, as the world seems every more frightening to people who want nothing to change, resistance to knowledge and education seems to be regaining much of the power it lost in the 20th century. <br /><br />It's a scary world to people who think American should be always white, that power belongs in the hands of white men, and that old-time Christian religion should be forever followed by all Americans. <br /><br />And then, of course, there is the dirty little secret that has existed all along, certainly since long before I became a freshman at the University of Minnesota: A surprising number of people are jealous of their kids who learn more and earn more; and they take their kids' new lives as a rejection of themselves and their way of life. <br /><br />That's what I came to understand after much questioning and prying into the thoughts and feelings of others. Also, of course, education tends to scatter families; the kids move to where the jobs are.<br /><br />Though they sometimes won't admit it, some people are happier when the young don't go off to learn different things and to be taught to accept other values and other ways of living. Those who worry that decent health care for all is “communist socialism” and are horrified to see a black man who is not the butler in the White House are almost sure to be the same people who want their kids to stay home and stay ignorant.<br /><br />Kids can't afford college? That's good.<br /><br />One more thing: I've traveled extensively much of my life, and something else I know that applies here: Minnesota is, and long has been, less provincial in many ways, including those discussed here, than most of the deep South, or Kansas, or much of the West. And pockets of such anti-learning bias can be found in every state.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-34711918736480709722011-02-23T14:19:00.000-08:002011-02-28T13:55:18.807-08:00Wisconsin: Overwhelming ironiesIt's impossible to think of another situation so utterly bathed in irony as the battle in and about the attack on unions by Wisconsin's Tea Party millionaire governor, Scott Walker, and other Republicans of his ilk. <br /><br />That is, bathed in irony and wrapped in hypocrisy. <br /><br />Damned near everyone involved, certainly almost every Republican in any way involved, should be covering his or her head in shame.<br /><br />Yet the situation presents us with the first faint glimmer of hope for an awakened American public that we've seen in years.<br /><br />First, there is Walker, whose office was pretty much purchased for him by big-polluting scofflaws David and Charles Koch. Walker just gave away tax breaks to his state's super rich that almost equal the amount of money he is trying now to take from his state's employees. And he says the savings from pay, pensions, health care and such are an absolute necessity if Wisconsin is to avoid bankruptcy.<br /><br />Got that? The already fabulously rich were handed still more wealth, for no reason whatever other than Walker believes in oligarchy, and what they were given must be taken away from people who work for a living. Irony. Hypocrisy on a monumental scale.<br /><br />Now think of Tunisia, Egypt and the rest of the Middle East, where people are fighting and, in many cases, dying to gain basic human and political rights, while in this country our super-rich are doing their considerable best to take all political power from the hands of the people and are abetted in that by many of the people whose rights they are stomping on. <br /><br />Then there are President Barack Obama and a rapidly growing host of Democratic politicians from all over the country who are “speaking out” (as the corporate media put it) to denounce the attack of Walker and fellow Wisconsin Republicans on their state employees. <br /><br />Most of those same Democrats, recently aided by that same president, have been busily helping Republicans gut unions and slash the income and living standards of working Americans for decades. <br /><br />They still are busy as north country beavers working on legislation and policies to make poor and middles class Americans pay for the crimes of big-money bankers and brokers. Meanwhile those same big-money people -- the ones who almost brought down the American economy and did cost the American people billions of dollars and countless jobs -- wallow in multi-million dollar annual bonuses like Scrooge McDuck wallowing in his money bin.<br /><br />Goldman Sachs defrauded the public and crashed the economy? Let's hire those guys for the Obama administration and, in the meantime, do away with government programs that allow middle class Americans to buy homes. Huh Mr. President? That'll show 'em.<br /><br />Irony. Hypocrisy almost beyond comprehension. <br /><br />The plain truth is that the Democratic wing of the Corporate Party does care about unions – as sources of campaign organizing and contributions. And it needs the union contributions more now because corporations need the Democrat sham party less since the Roberts Extreme Court allowed them to buy elections almost directly.<br /><br />But the Democrats want tame unions. They have no choice but to speak in favor of the demonstrators in Madison, but they're undoubtedly pretty worried about those demonstrators. <br /><br />If the Wisconsin union folks should somehow manage to make Little Caesar Walker back down to substantial degree, they may well inspire similar insurrections elsewhere, and insurrections are notoriously difficult to control. The unions could, possibly, decide to become a power unto themselves, backing politicians who actually support them and fight for their needs, rather than just backing any pol who decides to put on a Democrat team jersey. Wouldn't that be ironic?<br /><br />And then there is the powerful irony of seeing some Republicans and “conservatives” cheering popular uprisings in the Arab world and, just days or hours later, decrying the uprising of American workers who have had enough of being screwed over. <br /><br />Of course, the boobs who believe Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox liars won't get caught in that particular irony and hypocrisy. That's because they're already drowning in the hypocrisy of decrying those Arab efforts at grabbing freedom. They've been told by Fox, and so they believe, that all Arabs are Islamic fanatics out to destroy the West and that, therefore, we should be sending in our military, if necessary, to uphold the right of vicious dictators -- “our friends” -- to murder, torture and otherwise repress their own people. <br /><br />I'm not sure that “I'm an utter damned fool” is a whole lot better than “I'm a hypocrite.” <br /><br />But other “conservatives” are in that ironic, hypocritical corner, cheering efforts for freedom in democracy in the Middle East and decrying it at home.<br /><br />I hope that somewhere along the way those Wisconsinites -– and the working people of Ohio, and Indiana and New Jersey and elsewhere -- start backing politicians, including our corporation-loving president, into corners and demanding much, much more from them. It's time they -- we -- told the pols that it is not enough to mouth meaningless phrases designed to appease working people while avoiding any offense to the corporate elite. <br /><br />The folks in Wisconsin should say a hearty thanks to the 14 Democrats who walked out of the Legislature, and add “Now do more.”<br /><br />------------------------------<br /><br />I strongly recommend this column from the New York Times by one of the three honest economists in the United States (well, maybe four or even five):<br /><br />http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1<br /><br />And this one:<br /><br />http://www.truth-out.org/the-betrayal-public-workers67939Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-31968787858227291912011-02-21T12:08:00.000-08:002011-02-21T12:23:12.297-08:00Fighting 'Divide and conquer' in Wisconsin<span style="font-weight:bold;">By Lydia Howell</span><br /><br />The shell game of the corporate-sponsored Tea Party/GOP is being exposed in Wisconsin. That state’s new millionaire governor, Scott Walker, swept into office with very big campaign contributions from the billionaire Koch brothers, David and Charles, who own an oil company known as one of the country's worst polluters. <br /><br />The Koch brothers also own several Wisconsin-based natural-resources companies that are known as major polluters and defiers of resource-protecting laws. They are also bankroll some Tea Party groups.<br /><br />Governor Walker’s first priority was slashing corporate taxes. It’s no coincidence that the $130 million deficit Walker says he’s addressing with his attack on public workers equals the corporate tax cut he pushed through in January. This continues a trend illuminated by the organization Wisconsin’s Future.<br /> <br />Madison is ground zero for resistance to the dismantling of workers’ rights and cutting anything in government budgets that serves human needs while corporate “persons” get subsidies and tax cuts and are in effect made exempt from law supposedly governing such offenses as pollution and worker safety.<br /> <br />This war began when Ronald Reagan fired striking air traffic controllers who demanded better working conditions and has contiued right up to the bipartisan extension of George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the richest 1 percent in December.<br /><br />Now, “budget deficits” are the mantra to justify anything from House Republicans’ plan to slash half of WIC (nutrition for pregnant women and children up to age five) to Wisconsin’s Governor Walker’s assault on public workers. The real agenda is to break unions.<br /> <br />This is an escalation of the 30-year war on workers, conducted whether Republicans or Democrats are in office. Whether it’s race, gender and age discrimination or illegal firing for trying to organize a union, workers’ rights have not been enforced. If Gov. Walker wins, all workers will lose as union rights are erased across the country.<br /><br />Middle class and working people have paid higher taxes -- especially local property taxes -- to make up for corporate tax cuts. Corporate rates are now at 14 per cent or less and about a third of U.S.-based corporations, although moderately to extremely profitable, pay no income taxes. Corporate media keep that largely a secret from the American people.<br /> <br />You have to go to the United Kingdom’s Guardian newspaper to find out about a recent study by three academic accountants at Duke University, MIT and the University of North Carolina reporting on corporate tax-dodgers. One example: General Electric paid a 14 per cent tax rate over the last five years; workers making $30,000 paid 19 per cent. Wisconsin’s Future notes that what corporations pay in state taxes often is hidden from the public.<br /> <br />Add up “incentives” big businesses get supposedly to create jobs: infrastructure paid for by the public, free or cheap land with no property taxes for some years, payments for each job created or, inversely, tax breaks when companies move their factories -- even when they move them out of the country.<br /> <br />A “privatization” mania is cannibalizing government as public functions and services are taken over by big business, from military contractors to corporations that decide who gets social services -- at higher costs, since profits must be made when corporations run your schools or your wars.<br /><br />It’s not public workers -- teachers, firefighters, nurses, garbage collectors or social workers -- that are creating budget deficits in Wisconsin or anywhere else. It’s the relentless demands by corporate “persons” to be exempt from paying their fair share while government is expected to work for them educating the workforce, providing transportation, infrastructure and cleaning up pollution corporations create. Public schools get cut while billionaire sports team owners get public funds for new stadiums with lots of new luxury boxes for corporate executives.<br /><br />These legal thieves are now calling themselves “the job creators” but 75 per cent of all new jobs are created by much smaller business, which don’t get the public subsidies paid to big business. <br /><br />In fact, corporations work mightily to undermine competition from Mom and Pop local businesses. <br /><br />What’s maddening is that many profitable big companies are laying off workers and simply squeezing more out of the frightened, non-union workers that remain. The term “job creators’ is just the latest Ayn Rand mythology and “trickle down” hype.<br /><br />As progressive populist Jim Hightower observes, corporations and the wealthy “see themselves as the Big Dogs and the rest of us are just a bunch of fire hydrants.” <br /><br />For thirty years, workers have endured stagnant pay or wage cuts, loss of benefits and replacing pensions with 402Ks. (The latter, of course, were hit hard in the Wall Street fraud-driven financial meltdown). Unionized workers in the public sector have been more protected from these losses and so the Tea Party crowd misdirects workers’ anger and resentment towards unions -- turning attention away from greedy CEOs with salaries and bonuses in the hundreds of millions, which they are allowed to protect from taxes.<br /><br />Gov. Walker’s sponsors David and Charlie Koch awarded themselves $11 billion in bonuses this year. (Oil companies get big subsides from the federal government; Congress refused to cut those utterly unnecessary subsidies, even as the House passed cuts to clinics serving poor women). <br /><br />Listen to any call-in show and one hears everyday workers say: “I don’t have health benefits on my job and those unionized workers get Cadillac care!” “I haven’t had a raise in three years but those auto workers are making too much!” “The unions along with the EPA demand regulations. They’re job killers!”<br /><br />This is classic divide-and-conquer in action.<br /><br />If those callers knew America’s labor history, they would know that unions brought us an eight-hour day, weekends off, overtime pay, wages above the sweatshop level of the countries corporations now are shipping jobs to, health and safety laws (not enforced as they should be, as the Massey mine disaster and British Petroleum explosions shown). I’ve lived in a so-called “right to work”/non-union state (Texas): without unions you get lower wages, no benefits and little social safety net for anyone. <br /><br />Ordinary people in the Tea Party haven’t figured out what corporations know. So the corporations and their top dogs get bought-and-paid-for elected officials like Gov. Walker to act on their behalf. Desperate workers mean more power for the already too-powerful and more wealth funneled to the already rich from the rest of us. <br /><br />Madison protesters, counted at about 70,000 this weekend, are making new labor history. Only about 2,000 Tea Party opponents showed up, with “Joe the Plumber” flown in. In Hudson, Wis., Minnesotans stood with public workers on Saturday. It’s rumored that similar attacks on labor are planned in New Jersey, Iowa and Ohio, but in Madison a prairie brush fire of resistance has begun.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Tuesday, Feb. 22, at 4 p.m., Minnesotans will rally at the State Capitol in St. Paul to show solidarity with the Wisconsin state employees.<br /> </span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Lydia Howell is a Minneapolis independent journalist. Tune in to her show “Catalyst: politics and culture” Thursday, 9am on KFAI, for updates on this struggle. http://www.kfai.org</span>Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-68044172619052738302011-02-13T11:46:00.000-08:002011-02-13T12:06:07.371-08:00Breathe a sigh of relief about Egypt<span style="font-style:italic;">“I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to the light I have.” </span>--<span style="font-weight:bold;"> Abraham Lincoln.</span><br /><br /><br />As of today, Feb. 13, 2011, sober thoughts on the future are starting to creep in, but the Egyptian people are still blissfully celebrating their victory over the despot, Hosni Mubarak. They deserve every joyful minute.<br /><br />Although nagging fears somewhat restrain some of us, I think most of the world's people want to share that joy, to clap those incredibly courageous Egyptians on the back and grin with them and jump up and down and dance with them. <br /><br />From what I see on television, hear on radio and from my own casual contacts in shops and restaurants over the past couple of days, I think the vast majority of Americans –- the silly asses who follow con man Glenn Beck aside -– rejoice with the Egyptians. “And they don't have to do what we say, either,” said a clerk at my local hardware store, after telling me how happy he was for Egyptians.<br /><br />Yes, OK. Nobody knows how this is going to work out for those gutsy peaceful revolutionaries. But I am optimistic, and I think there is reason to be that way. I also am still sighing sighs of relief: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton et al didn't screw things up, which at times they appeared on the verge of doing. Clinton, left to her own devices, would have made a mess that could have done immense damage to this country. <br /><br />Reasons for optimism: <br /><br />* The Egyptian military, now in charge of government, seems unlikely to want to retain full civil power. It's simply not the style of the top military leaders there, nor have they to date expressed any interest in a military dictatorship. They will, of course, remain the single most powerful force in Egyptian society and government into the foreseeable future; but there is a very good chance they will leave civil governing to civilians if those civilians do a decent job of it. And like Mubarak, who came from their ranks, they have seen the power and determination of the Egyptian people. Also, the military almost certainly would reject a religion-based government.<br /><br />* There are several examples of similar changes in government that have worked. The most obvious, in the region, is Turkey, where a repressive government was overthrown by the military and handed over to civilians. In Turkey, the army has been a solid supporter of secular government.<br /><br />* The nonsense spewers on Fox keep raving about the dangers of the Muslim Brotherhood coming to power. That is so unlikely that only Fox and some of the more extreme Republicans would take the proposition seriously at this point. <br /><br />Egypt has a population of 80 million, give or take a couple of million people. It is widely known and has been widely reported that the Muslim Brotherhood has an active membership of about 100,000, and maybe -– repeat maybe -– that many more who tend to favor them. And, as people who actually know Egypt have said repeatedly over the past three weeks, the Muslim Brotherhood actually, really, no kidding gave up all involvement or contact with violence and terrorists decades ago.<br /><br />A very telling event took place early in the occupation of Tahrir Square by the people. As reported in the New York Times and two or three other places, Iran's extremist Islamic government issued a statement calling for Egyptians to build an “Islamic revolution.” Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood immediately told Iran to mind it's own business; that what was happening in Egypt was a movement by all Egyptians, Muslim, Christian and other.<br /><br />(There was, sadly, very little coverage of some other events in Tahrir Square last week. On Friday, when it was still not clear that Mubarak's thugs wouldn't attack again, Christian Egyptians formed a defensive perimeter around Muslims as they prayed. On Sunday, the roles were reversed, as Muslims protected Coptic Christians celebrating a mass in the square.)<br /><br />* Oh...And the reasons for the Egyptian uprising included economic exploitation and the desire for social freedom. Religion simply wasn't in the mix said all of the experts, there and here.<br /><br />In truth, the success of the Egyptian non-violent revolution is the most powerful rebuke to Islamic terrorists that can be imagined. Osama bin Laden must feel as though a ton of rock has fallen on his chest. Who would want to strap on a few pounds of plastic explosive to go kill himself and a bunch of innocents when it is suddenly clear that the most effective route to freedom is nonviolent? There's a very good chance that the would-be suicide bombers will be more scarce than they were –- except perhaps in Iraq and Afghanistan, so long as we try to force our will on them.<br /><br />---------------------------------<br /><br />There were several times during the 18-day Egyptian revolution when it felt as though the Obama/Clinton bunch was on the very edge of coming down on the wrong side.<br /><br />On Feb. 6, for example, Obama's special envoy to Egypt, Frank Wisner, who enjoys major support from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, said that Mubarak, “an old friend” of the United States, should stay in office during a “democratic transition.” Clinton backed him and agreed with him, judging by subsequent reports from Washington, but Obama was greatly angered. <br /><br />But who, at that point, without later reporting we've now seen, would have been surprised if the president echoed his envoy? <br /><br />The very serious problem with both Obama and his secretary of state is that both tend to get so deep into political calculations that they often can't see obvious truths. They have a propensity to “triangulate” themselves right into the ground. <br /><br />Clinton and about half of the White House coterie of advisers, seem to lack even a fingernail hold on an essential truth applying to any functioning democracy: Sometimes leaders must do something not because of political fallout but because it is the right thing to do. Obama's hold on that truth seems tenuous and sporadic.<br /><br />I feel that we lucked out this time. Their uncertainty about which way the events in Egypt were going to fall kept the Obama administration from doing something terminally stupid.<br /><br />And, yes, I know people running a country have to do some fine calculating, and have to work primarily, if not exclusively, for the interests of that country and its people. (Not that I think “the people” count all that much for Obama and crew.) But the basic principle, as stated above, must sometimes take precedence, and this was one of those times. <br /><br />When you think about it, Obama's constant concern with the politics of any situation –- and his frequent getting it wrong -– is not all that surprising. <br /><br />He came to the political life in Chicago, in Illinois, where voters, alive and dead, know that betrayal is the likely eventual result of any election. They long ago came to expect their politicians to act on the basis of any combination of these forces: greed, power hunger and a desire of “stature” or “legacy.” (They also hope to stay out of prison, something that only slightly more than half of Illinois' governors accomplish.) No one there takes politicians or their campaigns at face value; cynicism is the only reasonable stance. And politicians know no one really expects them to behave with honor.<br /><br />Obama just talks purtier than most Illinois pols.<br /><br />Clinton is not so obvious. Maybe she, like her husband, was simply born a cynic. At any rate, to our almost certain detriment at some point, she will go with power and “stability” every time. <br /><br />After her apparent defiance of her boss -– obviously thinking she knew better than he what should be done –- Clinton should be fired. That won't happen, of course. <br /><br />Anyway, we weathered that one. Egyptians are free to make their own mistakes and shape their own future. And, yes, the odds are that John McCain would have turned the Egyptian revolution into a disaster for this country. That doesn't make Barack Obama a genius. <br /><br />Whew!<br /><br />Now we should get to recovering democracy in this country.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-89847178099290022992011-02-05T18:40:00.000-08:002011-02-05T18:54:21.812-08:00Fox: Madness and seditionFox finally has gone too far.<br /><br />We, the public, need to grab the fox by the throat and cut off its air supply, and by that I mean its money supply. The billions of dollars that pour daily into the pockets of Rupert Murdoch, the megalomaniac who owns Fox and its parent, News Corporation, must be seriously reduced, and only we, the public, can make that happen. <br /><br />In “coverage” of the upheaval in Egypt -- read, as usual, propaganda from an extreme right perspective -– Fox “News” moved during the past week beyond mere metaphorical craziness and hyper partisanship into genuine insanity and sedition.<br /><br />The parallels between the increasingly mad Howard Beale character in the 1976 film “Network” and Fox's Glenn Beck have become too real to be in the least amusing. <br /><br />Day after day, Beck strides his set at Fox and rants, spit sometimes spraying from his mouth, his puffy face often growing red and his eyes crazily wide, waving his arms and looking and sounding more each week like somebody who is about to crack up before millions of viewers. <br /><br />I am no longer sure, as I was sure and as many others think, that this is merely a case of an extreme cynic building his fortune and his power by misleading the ignorant and gullible with the carefully planned theatrics of a tent revivalist. <br /><br />As the unpredictable and riveting events in Egypt unfolded this past week, I turned periodically to Fox to see what it was doing. <br /><br />Until Friday morning, by the far the best television coverage from Egypt came from MSNBC, its coverage guided by the superb NBC chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel. It was followed fairly closely at times by CNN. The Murdoch gang's straight coverage was mostly OK, though the network devoted less time to Egypt than other big outlets. <br /><br />But Beck clearly had lost touch with planet Earth. (He was not entirely alone in his thrashing around in a universe that doesn't exist; more of that shortly.) Anyone still taking him seriously as a source of information now believes that the Obama administration and numerous liberal American and European organizations and individuals planned and organized the spontaneous eruption of Egypt's people and are using it to bring about the destruction of this country and Israel (or Thiscountryandisrael; one word, one entity). <br /><br />And they're GOING TO TAKE OVER THE WORLD IN THE NAME OF ISLAM. BOOGA BOOGA BOOGA.<br /><br />At least that's what Beck seemed to be saying with his flailing and sputtering gibberish.<br /><br />On MSNBC Thursday, host Lawrence O'Donnell, and frequent guest and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson and another guest whose name I didn't get laughed out loud at Beck's ravings, especially the latter's assertion at some point during his diatribes that Code Pink, the woman-run antiwar organization, is behind what Beck is sure is the deliberate destruction of a wonderful ally of Americaandisrael. <br /><br />I understand the impulse. More than once I also burst out laughing while listening to Beck during the past few days, though more out of astonishment at the depth of his madness rather than from amusement. But it's not funny, and it's no longer enough to mock the man. He's demented, but his words somehow still affect and even dictate the opinions of millions of pitifully ignorant Americans.<br /><br />Other Fox "pundits" have compounded the damage done by Fox to this country over the past several days, whether out of true craziness or what I believe is unmitigated cynicism and self serving. <br /><br />Other than Babbling Beck, the worst that I saw was Sean Hannity, who declared at one point that President Obama and other members of his administration are knowingly being guided in their actions toward Egypt by “agents of the Muslim Brotherhood.” No kidding. Hannity said that, and, like Beck, added that the goal fully supported by the U.S. president is an Islamic world government.<br /><br />This goes beyond what rational people normally think of as the “craziness” of Fox and this country's extreme political right, which now includes a frightening number of members of Congress.<br /><br />Large segments of the American public and some of people actually involved in our country's governance have gone into regions that reality cannot penetrate and where facts, no matter how demonstrable, have no weight. <br /><br />There is serious danger that this country will be brought down by an internal army of the ignorant, and Fox is a powerful force in taking us in that direction.<br /><br />Remember: Millions of people believe the Democrat-passed health care reform bill establishes a “death panel” to determine who lives and who dies. Every credible news source in the country has shown beyond doubt that the concept is a deliberate lie, but Fox continues to repeat it daily, and so the suckers believe it. The same thing is happening now with the even wilder lies now told about Obama and Islam. <br /><br />Rational discourse on issues confronting this country is becoming almost impossible because Fox's lies and misdirection have confused and fooled millions of Americans. And no democracy can stand without rational discourse.<br /><br />Like a Jim Jones, or any big-time con man, Fox's gurus frequently tell their followers, “Believe only us, don't listen to anyone else” and the followers obey. They're now at a state in which they are willing, even eager, to undermine the government of the United States at a word from Beck or Hannity or Bill O'Reilly. Fox's big names frequently let Republican politicians know during on air “interviews,” what their stances should be on various issues.<br /><br />(“Don't you think that Obama is playing into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood,” O'Reilly says. “Well, I don't know that that's exactly right,” says the politician. O'Reilly leans forward and stares at the pol: “But don't you think that....” And the politician gets the message and agrees.) <br /><br />The listeners believe, because they are told, it's about saving America. In fact, it's about power and money. Murdoch and his underlings have no more moral core than a narcotics mob boss or international arms peddler. <br /><br />Through News Corporation and various related corporations, Murdoch owns Fox “News,” and 36 television stations in 26 markets, according to the most recent count I could find. He also owns the Wall Street Journal, 20th Century Fox film studio and a legion of other Fox television and print enterprises, including Fox Sports channels. And that's just in this country.<br /><br />In my home town, Minneapolis, and its sister city, St. Paul, Minnesota's capital, he has, in addition to the usual Fox “News” cable channel, two local television stations (KMSP, Ch. 9 and WFTC, Ch. 29) and Fox Sports North, which is the main television home of the Minnesota Twins.<br /><br />All of those outlets make their millions, or billions, by selling advertising. The advertisers are self identified. If the madness is to be reined in, the only thing that can be done is to pressure the advertisers to take their money elsewhere.<br /><br />We need a whole lot of volunteers –- we need to be volunteers -- to sit before our televisions and list as many advertisers as possible on each Fox television outlet and, though it's less important, every Murdoch-owned publication. We need to find the addresses of the company headquarters of the advertisers. And we need to share that information with each other. <br /><br />Then we must, by the tens of thousands, write the advertisers and tell them that no matter how much we like their products, we will not buy them so long as they are advertised on any Fox/Murdoch/News Corporation venue. <br /><br />If you can't face writing a hundred advertisers, or even five, then write one. Please. This is important beyond almost anything else you might do in a given day, and it takes only 10 minutes to write a note with the simple message, address it and send it. You can copy the same note over and over and simply change the adressee. All you have to say is, “So long as you advertise on any Fox television outlet or in any Murdoch-owned publication, I and my family will refuse to purchase your products.”<br /><br />Oh – and the right wingers who may see this needn't bother yelling at me about censorship. Since I, and we the public, have no standing as government officials it is, by definition, not censorship to refuse to do business with a corporation that offends you. Boycotts long have stood as an honorable way for individuals, alone and collectively, to combat the might of corporations and despots.<br /><br />(A very unlikely, but possible, side benefit could be that forcing Fox/Murdoch to act with a modicum of human decency might actually save the life of mad Glenn Beck.)Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-20246431832287725552011-02-05T18:02:00.000-08:002011-02-05T18:07:28.841-08:00There are limits to "civility"We hear a great deal about the need for “civility” in public discourse these days, but have you noticed that although the most abusive rhetoric unquestionably comes from the political right, the admonitions tend to be couched in such a way as to pretend equal guilt on right and left? <br /><br />The major effect of the “civility” campaign so far has been to discourage liberals and progressives from making any sharp criticism of the right, no matter how deserved or how nasty the sounds coming from that direction.<br /><br />Sorry, I'm not playing.<br /><br />The madmen and cynical power-seekers of Fox “News” and their followers, in or out of Congress, deserve no respect. There is nothing to gain by behaving toward them as though their crazy utterances are worthy of serious consideration. On the contrary, to accept foolishness as rationality makes one look foolish. <br /><br />I think the best way to address them is with disbelief and the mockery they have so assiduously earned.<br /><br />To be clear: I am not advocating shouting them down or behaving in any way that might be taken as threatening. That's how the right behaves.<br /><br />If someone tells you they “know” something that is on the face of it untrue and irrational, ask them where they got that idea. If they say Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly or even John Boehner, look at them in disbelief and say something like: “You have to be kidding,” and turn your back on them. <br /><br />If one of the Foxnuts tries to argue, or to insert himself/herself into a conversation on public affairs, tell them that input consisting of Fox fiction is not acceptable because it can add nothing to rational discourse.<br /><br />And, yes, it may cause you some trouble. <br /><br />I told a guy who was sort of a friend – more a friend of friends – that I didn't want to hear from him any more because his Fox-derived attitudes and opinions are unacceptable to rational human beings. That was after he forwarded to me a couple of right-wing fictions about the evils of Islam and how all Muslims are out to destroy the United States and all of Christendom. The conclusion of the diatribes was that we must deny citizenship and even residency to Muslims, even those whose families have been citizens for generations.<br /><br />He also ranted to me about how this country is in immediate danger of falling under sharia law. And he was outraged that I dismissed that fear by pointing out that Muslims make up less than 2 percent of the U.S. population and that, in fact, the vast majority of that tiny minority are demonstrably loyal U.S. citizens, many of whom have served in our armed services.<br /><br />In truth, it's not much of a loss. And I know that others have since felt freer to reject the foolishness of that particular Foxnut.<br /><br />Mockery and rejection are our best defenses.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-12848765473427664152011-01-30T08:39:00.000-08:002011-01-30T08:46:37.210-08:00The Arabs; What will Israel do?The really big questions about what's going to happen in the Arab world haven't been asked yet, at least not by any of the American corporate media.<br /><br />Once it became clear that the Tunisian rebels were going to win, it was inevitable that Egypt would follow. (I did say that to a few people before the demonstrations started in Egypt.)<br /><br />Saturday afternoon, there was a crawl at the bottom of the screen on MSNBC saying that demonstrations had begun in Jordan. No further information was immediately provided. <br /><br />A voice broadcast from Saudi Arabia was cut off before MSNBC's correspondent could begin answering questions about what is going on there. Probably just technical difficulties, as an MSNBC anchor said. By Sunday, we learned that the Saudi rulers have voiced support for Egyptian "president" Hosni Mubarak, though it is not clear yet if that means material support will be provided. Probably not.<br /><br />It is possible that both Jordan and Saudi Arabia soon will be in the midst of revolution, though it is hardly certain. Like Tunisia and Egypt, they are run by authoritarian, extremely repressive governments that have long been propped up by the United States through massive dollar and arms infusions.<br /><br />Saudi Arabia and Jordan are in different positions than either Tunisia or Egypt, both of which have been boiling just under the surface for a long time. So have Arabia and Jordan, of course, but the populations of the latter countries less are victimized by extreme poverty such as exists in the two already exploding countries. And Jordan and Arabia are smaller, easier to control than Egypt. The Saudi “security” forces are, if anything, even more brutal and efficient than those of Egypt.<br /><br />It's a tossup at this moment as to whether the Jordanian and Saudi governments will be thrown out, I think. But what about Yemen and Algeria? No one can say at this point.<br /><br />It is an extremely dangerous situation for this country and its European allies. The odds of it being resolved in anything close to acceptable manner for this country, or at least its politicians, seem small.<br /><br />The countries now in revolt are not extreme Islamist states. The populations, though they tend to be religious, also generally have favored secular government. But that was true of Iran, too, before 1979.<br /><br />Over and over, governments of the United States, whether controlled at any given time by Republicans or Democrats, have created and supported vicious, repressive governments elsewhere in the world, most notably in the Middle East and Latin America. Inevitably, the people trying to live under the heels of those governments explode at some point; they're not always successful at overthrowing their oppressors, but sometimes they are.<br /><br />Our politicians, led, bullied and made fearful by the heads of corporations that profit hugely from exploiting the countries of the dictators and oligarchies, repeat the same mistakes, decade after decade –- or, one could reasonably say now, century after century. <br /><br />The people of those countries know that the United States is largely responsible for their miseries; they may be poor, but they are not stupid.<br /><br />So almost always, when the bullies and “strong men” are overthrown, the new governments are hostile to this country.<br /><br />How could it be otherwise?<br /><br />Today, in the streets of Cairo and Alexandria, Egyptians are holding up the depleted tear gas cannisters that were fired at them by their hated government's security forces and pointing to the “made in the U.S.A.” labels. <br /><br />Also inevitably, the punks, thugs and gangsters that exist everywhere have started looting in the major Egyptian cities. And, just as similar organizations have done everywhere there is trouble in the Middle East, the extremist Muslim Brotherhood is rapidly organizing to protect residents and small business owners against the thugs, and thus establishing itself as an organization to turn to for security and help in dangerous times.<br /><br />If Hosni Mubarak goes quickly, and if his hand-picked Number Two, Omar Suleiman, isn't immediately rejected (or has the good sense to step down in turn), Egypt might come out of the current mess with a rational government. I wouldn't bet the house on it, but it's possible. <br /><br />If Mubarak hangs on too long, or if Suleiman, the long-time “security” chief, decides that he can rule in Mubarak's place, it's pretty clear that an unstable government hostile to the West will emerge. Mubarak managed to kill or drive out all potential opposition during his 30-year reign. There is no opposition party or figure ready to step in. But the mad Islamists are ready.<br /><br />And, again, we could see the same thing happening quickly in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.<br /><br />Turn to the executives of the multi-national corporations and to the weak-kneed politicians of both major parties and say, “Thanks for the chaos and the threat to our safety.”<br /><br />But also give some thought to a big question entirely ignored thus far:<br /><br />Faced with an Arab world turned truly hostile and dangerous, what will Israel do?<br /><br />The plain fact, never to be mentioned in this country, is that Israel could have had peace long before now, but it's leaders never wanted peace as most of the western world thinks of it. From the day Israel was established, it has been governed almost continually by people who want to expand its territory, push out or otherwise eliminate Palestinian residents of nearby territories and control the region, with or without strongman Arab allies.<br /><br />If extreme Islamist governments control two, three, four or more Arab countries in the region, Israel will be faced with a genuine external threat, as opposed to the threats it continually manufactures to gin up support in this country and elsewhere. <br /><br />A genuinely threatened Israel is a fearful thing to contemplate. Its leaders are no more stable than their Islamic counterparts. What might they do? Starting a war of pre-emption is a distinct possibility. That might well include hitting their Arab neighbors with nuclear weapons. <br /><br />That will seem wildly far-fetched to most Americans. I don't think it is. Remember that Israeli officials have pressed this country at times to attack Iran.<br /><br />And if it happens, what will this country do? There is in this country a huge bloc of support for Israel no matter what it does, and the majority of Americans still seem to believe that we must support Israel in all situations. Many Americans still see Israel as the poor little victim of Arab hostility -– despite its massive military might, created through the generosity of our corporations and politicians and billions of our tax dollars.<br /><br />Better think about these things now. At the rate the revolutions are developing, there may not be much time to figure out where you stand and what to do about it.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-91278138481015813962011-01-27T11:05:00.000-08:002011-01-27T11:17:14.854-08:00Fearful "liberals" prolong the corruptionA whole lot of people who believe themselves to be liberals or -- ye gods! -- progressives, watched and listened to Barack Obama's State of the Union speech Tuesday night (1/25/11) and apparently heard something entirely different from what he actually said. <br /><br />From what I've read, they heard a “pragmatic” liberal give a great speech, and they're eager to support him for reelection. They can't imagine why any liberal finds him wanting.<br /><br />Rather than being genuine political liberals and/or progressives, those self-deluding, unquestioning Obama supporters are far more closely related to the members of the various Tea Party organizations than they are to anyone on the political left. <br /><br />Neither group will recognize the existence of facts that don't fit comfortably into the fantasy worlds they occupy. Both are like kids on a playground, with fingers stuck in their ears, loudly mouthing “La,la,la,la I can't hear you la la la la.”<br /><br />The speech was, as Obama speeches increasingly tend to be, mostly smooth-flowing emptiness. It's like the old joke about Chinese food: “An hour later, you're hungry again.” Except that an hour after a fine-sounding Obama speech, people who haven't tuned out reality wake up and try, mostly unsuccessfully, to remember one solid thing he said.<br /><br />In fact, Tuesday's speech was a capitulation to the right -– of a piece with his killing of the public option for health care before he had any conversation with Republicans, and with his escalation of our wars, and expanding “defense” spending and continuing and expanding Bush Administration policies on illegal domestic spying and torture and dozens of other issues.<br /><br />Rather than go point by point, take just one point:<br /><br />Obama talked about how, though it was a tough thing to do, he froze the salaries of millions of federal employees.<br /><br />Yes, he did, and it was and it is a shameful act, a bit of political theater that sacrifices the economic well-being of those employees for the sake of a gesture to the far right –- which will not for a second be appeased. <br /><br />Worse, it strengthens one of the right's major current campaigns to further diminish the economic well-being of working Americans and strengthen the hands of corporate billionaires.<br /><br />Divide and conquer, you know: Lead people who work for private employers to believe that government employees are lazy, overpaid and have retirement programs that let them live like, say, Wall Street bankers. Then you cut the government employees' pay, slash their pension programs and get rid of many of their jobs, farming out the work to private contractors. <br /><br />A few lies are useful: Claim that public employees make far more than people in the private sector, which is untrue to begin with and even more untrue when you realize that public employees are, on average, considerably better educated than the private sector employees to whom the right wingers compare them. <br /><br />Eventually you discover the contractors are paid more over-all than the government employees were, but their employees make less. The real money is in profit for the contracting companies. And, of course, with pay standards lowered, private employers can now say that their employees make too much and must take pay cuts.<br /><br />So with his little bit of theater, Obama made the right wing campaign seem legitimate. He signed on to the claim that federal employees are overpaid – or so it inevitably will appear to most of the public. He strengthened the corporate right's campaign against the middle class.<br /><br />This is a serious campaign, created and coordinated by the Republican National Committee under the guidance of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Heritage Foundation and other strategy centers of the extreme right. And Obama signed on.<br /><br />Think through most of the points in his speech -– those that are not completely empty of content -– and you'll find similar results.<br /><br />Those who simply won't, or can't, face up to the facts call his frequent surrenders, usually before the enemy has been sighted, “practical,” and “realistic.”<br /><br />Nonsense.<br /><br />Obama could openly join congressional Republicans in tearing down all of the safety net features that were built up between the 1930s and the 1990s and get rid of most government regulations of business and those same Republicans would still try to gut him and stick his head on a pole in front of the Capitol. <br /><br />That's because the corporations and super-rich individuals who finance the Republican Party and used to also finance Democrats no longer need Democrats. The Supreme Court (Extreme Court) of John Roberts saw to that a year ago. Why would they help Obama to be reelected or allow Democrats to retain or regain any real power in Congress? <br /><br />Why accept the 80 percent of a loaf Obama is trying to hand them when they are certain of the whole loaf? They intend to rule entirely unimpeded.<br /><br />In pushing that 80 percent of a loaf at them, Obama shows himself to be an articulate fool. He's thrown the American people into a dumpster and is actively trying to crush the people who put him in office –- that is, country's liberals and progressives. And he'll undoubtedly be bitter when they abandon him, as many of us already have, in 2012.<br /><br />Want a true and clear picture of who Obama is and who he works for? Look at his recent additions to his administration:<br /><br />-- Head of his new economic advisory council: Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric (a major finance corporation and defense contractor), a rightist Republican, an executive who has moved thousands of jobs out of the United States, a director of other giant corporations.<br /><br />-- Obama's new chief of staff: William Daley, head of “government affairs” for JP Morgan. Daley also has been a chair of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a major player in opposing regulation of the “derivatives” that almost destroyed our economy and, of course, former Clinton czar on NAFTA, where he worked hard to export U.S. jobs.<br /><br />-- Head of the National Economic Council: Gene Sperling, yet another Goldman Sachs retread, a board member of “Third Way,” a supposedly “centrist” organization that Sperling used mainly to attack “entitlements” such as Social Security and Medicare. He's also a director of one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies and a director of Boeing, one of the largest “defense” contractors.<br /><br />There are more, of course, those are just the newest such appointments.<br /><br />Oh, and for balance, remember the new consumer protection agency that got buried under Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner? Under great pressure from liberals, Obama sort-of named the agency's creator, Elizabeth Warren, to temporarily head consumer protection (with Geithner sitting on her). A deadline for appointing Warren as official head of the new agency is fast approaching and Obama hasn't so much as whispered her name.<br /><br />The mouse-timid liberals who simply can't unstick from the idea that “Democrat” has something to do with political liberalism and a desire to benefit the vast majority of the people, are effectively abandoning the principles the profess to hold. <br /><br />It's been obvious for a couple of months now that the panicky, breathless demands that we all hold fast for Obama have begun much earlier in this new election cycle than they have in the past for other Democratic fakers. <br /><br />“Oh. My. Gawd. He's doing the best he can under terrible circumstances. If we don't re-elect Obama, a terrible, awful, nasty, evil Republican will be elected president and things will be terrible, awful, nasty, evil and not nice.”<br /><br />Hello?<br /><br />To me, that early-onset panic suggests that somewhere in the backs of their heads, the panicked know that they've been hornswoggled and that Obama is taking us exactly where the corporate-owned Republicans want to go. <br /><br />Why does it matter whether he or, say, Tim Pawlenty is at the wheel? We're going to end up in the ditch in a ruined vehicle either way. <br /><br />Even a cursory look shows a rational person that the Obama administration is every bit as corrupt and every bit as subservient to the money elite as its predecessor.<br /><br />Far better to start now to create an alternative to the two wings of the Corporate Party. Perhaps, eventually, we can get back to a point that the outcome of a presidential election does matter. The odds aren't good, but it's possible.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-64119243192973210972011-01-25T15:26:00.000-08:002011-01-25T15:32:48.227-08:00The real state of our union<span style="font-weight:bold;">By Lydia Howell </span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."</span> ....<span style="font-style:italic;">Supreme Court Association Justice Louis Brandeis, served 1916-1939.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">“Power concedes nothing without a struggle. It never has and it never will.”</span>....<span style="font-style:italic;">Frederick Douglass, escaped slave,19th century abolitionist, pro-women and labor rights advocate.</span><br /><br />Two years into President Barack Obama’s first term, you won’t be reminded of FDR’s New Deal or LBJ’s Great Society. We’ll get a re-run of Bill Clinton’s triangulation (without the theatrics of “empathy” that the Comeback Kid excelled at) while imitating George W. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism.” We'll get emphasis on Obama’s collaboration with Republicans and the remaining Blue Dog Democrats. (Oops, I mean “bi-partisanship.”)<br /><br />Expect less inspiration and more of Obama‘s lauded “pragmatism”. <br /><br />There are plenty of issues facing the nation, from never-ending wars to a stalemate on climate change, crumbling infrastructure and the public education crisis. But, all polls agree that jobs and the economy--not the deficit-- are Americans’ top priority across the political spectrum. <br /><br />Obama will aim to further lower his supporters’ expectations. Nine months after taking office, Obama began slamming the Democratic Party’s liberal/progressive base for daring to notice, much less criticize, his corporate-friendly policies and center-right positions. In the wake of his Simpson-Bowles Deficit Commission, Obama will likely make a sober call for national sacrifice. <br /><br />The president’s recent Wall Street Journal editorial was hailed as his “reconciliation” with big business, which opposes him in spite of his support for extending Bush’s tax cuts and refusal to restore the post-Great Depression regulations that protected the economy until the Bush casino era. <br /><br />Continuing the failed policies of the last 30 years, Obama has bowed to the Tea Party resentment of unionized public workers by announcing a freeze on government workers’ wages and that 15 percent of federal employees will be laid off. This adds further injury to Obama’s utter silence on the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have restored American workers’ right to organize; it was something his union supporters expected him and Congressional Democrats to push, but they were stiffed. <br /><br />Before the State of the Union speech, there were rumors that Social Security and Medicaid were to be on Obama’s deficit-cutting chopping block, which is what his Wall Street and insurance company sponsors desire.<br /><br />So who will Obama be calling on to make more sacrifices? Wall Street financiers have collected their latest bonuses, bailed-out big banks refuse to make loans to job-creating small businesses, and profitable multinational corporations continue to lay off workers while paying a 15 percent tax rate, if they pay taxes at all. One-third of profitable corporations pay no income taxes in a given year; ExxonMobil paid nothing for 2009, for example. did.)<br /><br />In the kabuki theatre of American two-party politics, Obama supporters have blamed Republicans for all of the president’s cave-ins to the rich and powerful at the expense of the unemployed and invisible. But, coming into office, Obama filled his economic team with the same Clinton-era de-regulators who helped Republicans create the 2008 Wall Street crisis. His newest appointments reveal the reality of whose interests Barack Obama actually represents and his liberal-progressive supporters must face facts. <br /><br />Obama’s new chief of staff is JP Morgan executive William Daley, who was instrumental in the Clinton Administration in pushing the job-exporting NAFTA. Heading up the National Economic Council is former $5-million-a-year Goldman Sachs bankster Gene Sperling, who Dean Baker, of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, describes as having “a horrible track record of supporting policies that were bad for the country and good for Wall Street.” <br /><br />With jobs (not deficits) the number one concern of 73 percent of Americans, Obama picked General Electric CEO Jeff Immalet to head his Jobs Council. In the last three years, Immalet closed 29 factories and laid-off 3,000 workers. <br /><br />Stacking the table with corporate representatives savvy at gaming Wall Street and shipping U.S. factories overseas while aiming for more “free trade” agreements with places like Colombia is about as tone-deaf as one can get in response to a public experiencing high economic anxiety. <br /><br />Barack Obama got a two-year free ride from the people who worked hardest to get him elected -- labor unions, healthcare activists, feminists, communities of color, environmentalists, youth and anti-war activists. <br /><br />After the election, the Organizer-in-Chief reduced his supporters to celebrity-worshipping cheerleaders. When progressives began belatedly protesting Obama’s hybrid of Reagan-Clinton-Bush II policies, he contemptuously dismissed his base with insults worthy of a Fox pundit.<br /><br />We have a second Gilded Age in the making since Obama’s hero Ronald Reagan came to office 30 years ago, and it is destroying not only the standard of living for everyday people, but, our democracy, too.<br /><br />Congressional Democrats and Obama have been telling liberals to be happy with half a loaf – but even that has been greatly reduced -- often to crumbs. The crumbs frequently come at an insanely high price, like $700 billion in tax-breaks for billionaires and multi-millionaires. <br /><br />As outsourcing jobs continues -- often with the support of government subsidies! -- more homes are foreclosed and any government program that addresses human needs is slashed further. Progressives of all stripes therefore must revive the kind of organizing that made every gain in social and economic justice possible in the 1930s to the 1960s.We can certainly make use of 21st century communications technology---especially as we build alternatives to corporate media that censor almost all progressive ideas and actions. But, to counter the right wing Tea Party’s faux populist narrative, we have to re-learn (and propagate) the “people’s history” of social movements as immortalized by people such as the late Howard Zinn. <br /><br />What might this mean?<br />Some essentials: <br />*Re-build the labor union movement to be far more racially inclusive than it’s ever been, expanding it to speak for the jobless and to challenge corporate welfare and the exporting of U.S. manufacturing. Too many Americans have been brainwashed to think decent wages are a gift to be bestowed from above, while CEO multi-million dollar salaries are a god-given right.<br /><br />*Re-build both the civil rights and women’s movements to be about far more than “firsts” and “success” for a few corporate tokens. Galvanize the most vulnerable and left out---abandoned inner city communities of color and rural/small towns pillaged by Wal-Mart, single mothers and the poor. Make their progress the yard stick by which policies are measured. <br /><br />*Bring together a “blue/green coalition” of labor and environmentalists to work on sustainable ways to meet human needs . Revive the lost ideas of “the commons” and the public interest not only for job-creation but to reinvigorate grassroots participation in our rapidly failing democracy.<br /><br />Progressives must loudly ask the question that President Obama won’t ask: Who is our economy for? An entire society---or a few thousand wealthy people and a sliver of a middle-class? <br /><br />Obama has rewarded billionaire Wall Street speculators and multinational corporations that gut our manufacturing while at the same time telling workers we must “sacrifice’ with wage cuts and lost job benefits in order to be ‘competitive” with exploited workers in foreign sweatshops. <br /><br />After Wall Street gambled away 40 percent of people’s 401k retirement savings, Obama is poised to force us to work until almost 70---even though a huge number of the long-term unemployed are over age 50. The president is listening to those who propose cuts to Social Security benefits and “voluntary privatization,” which would be one more step to a complete reversal of the New Deal. Even his health insurance “reform” was designed by corporate insiders without strong oversight to insure that real changes, such as requiring inclusion of people with pre-existing conditions, will actually happen. But premiums and profits still rise at a great rate. <br /><br />Those still defending Obama as a “progressive” should notice that his tax-cut deal primarily benefited the already obscenely wealthy and the “trade” for that was to temporarily continue unemployment benefits at a time when six people apply for each job opening across the country. Corporate loopholes continue but those making $40,000 will actually see their taxes go up. <br /><br />Remember it was not a Republican but, a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who dismantled Aid to Families With Dependent Children (aka welfare established during the New Deal). The economic aristocracy always has hated Social Security, feeling that people are expendable once they are too old to make profits for the wealthy. Even as layoffs continue and highly touted “new” jobs in November were mostly mostly more temp positions, the oligarchs are now called “the job creators.” <br /><br />Most of the few jobs being created are minimum-wage to $12 an hour service jobs. Like 21st century serfs kneeling before the corporate gentry, more and more Americans are supposed to be grateful to cobble together two or three part-time jobs in order to squeak by or, if more skilled, to go from one six-month contract to another – if they're lucky. <br /><br />News flash: no bank will give you a home loan when you’re a contract worker. This is what many of Clinton’s “knowledge economy” jobs (computer programming, engineering) have become---when they haven’t been shipped outright to India. <br /><br />Where is the economic foundation for people to buy even a modest home and raise a couple of kids? What kind of country makes college an elite privilege or mostly debt peonage with no guarantee of a decent job? How can society make all its decisions based on making the top one percentricher at the expense of everyone else? <br /><br />Progressives have to be willing to look for our inspiration outside the Democratic Party, which has a long history of co-opting social justice movements. From Cold War anti-communism to Clinton’s New Democrats and Obama’s “bipartisanship,” liberals have been bought off with ultimately empty “access” to Beltway power, pressured with fear-mongering about the right wing or, if truly on the political eft, purged outright . <br /><br />Everywhere one looks there’s plenty of real work needing to be done: repair and update of our physical infrastructure, shifting to clean and efficient energy, improving public transportation, cleaning up our environment, raising academic achievement by lowering class size and re-imagining education for a more diverse society and more complex world, creating reliable, quality care for children and the elderly since most women are in the paid workforce. On every level we need to re-design our communities to meet human needs in an environmentally sustainable way. Addressing all these issues would create tens of millions of jobs. <br /><br />We need 21st century Freedom Schools that teach all of us progressive history and organizing skills. Workers must take over their unions and demand independence from the Democratic Party, running either their own candidates as independents or forming a Labor Party. We must combine political organizing with community-based “self-help,” mutual aid and culture as unions did in the 20th century through the 1950s, as the Black Panther Party did in the 1960s and second -wave feminists did in the 1970s. <br /><br />While certainly containing a significant strata of rightwing reactionaries, the Tea Party also has to some extent simply filled the vacuum of political frustration and economic fear that progressives left open while too many waited for Democrats and Obama to reverse the disastrous Bush-Cheney years. Now, we know that was just campaign hype to get our votes. European workers reject “austerity” measures in street protests, Latin American social democracy experiments represent the formerly invisible poor and the recent uprising in Tunisia overthrew a dictator of over 30 years. What will American progressives do to take our democracy into our own hands?<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Lydia Howell is an independent journalist in Minneapolis, Minnesota, winner of the Premack Award for Public Interest Journalism. She is producer-host of “Catalyst: politics & culture”, available online at http;//www.kfai.org</span>Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-24862598183640973852011-01-22T13:39:00.000-08:002011-01-22T15:28:22.806-08:00Extreme right 3, American people 0<span style="font-style:italic;">“There ain't no clean way to make a hundred million bucks,” Ohls said. “Maybe the head man thinks his hands are clean but somewhere along the line guys got pushed to the wall, nice little businesses got the ground cut from under them and had to sell out for nickels, decent people lost their jobs, stocks got rigged on the market, proxies got bought up like a pennyweight of old gold, and the five percenters and the big law firms got paid hundred-grand fees for beating some law the people wanted but the rich guys didn't, on account of it cut into their profits. Big money is big power and big power gets used wrong. It's the system. Maybe it's the best we can get but it still ain't any Ivory Soap deal.”</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">....Raymond Chandler in "The Long Goodbye," published in 1953.<br /></span><br /><br />In one of those odd coincidences that we all walk into occasionally, I spent much of the afternoon of Jan. 21 going through notes, printouts and clippings with a view to writing something about the increasing and probably irreversible corruption of the corporate news media. Then I joined my wife for dinner and turned on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” who told us, without explanation, that it was his last show.<br /><br />The strong but subtly phrased suggestion was that he had been forced out, given a buyout he didn't really want.<br /><br />That was quickly confirmed by several reports on line, although details are still lacking.<br /><br />It was nice of MSNBC to give such powerful evidence to support what I plan to say, but like all genuine progressives, I'd really prefer that Olbermann were still regularly on the air.<br /><br />A number of writers have suggested that Olbermann's canning was part of the already stinking Comcast takeover of NBC. The network denied that, of course, but anyone accepting that denial at face value undoubtedly loses considerable sums to carny games and dealers of three card monty. <br /><br />Not that it matters. Even without a push from Comcast, it's a much-reported fact that the guys at the top of NBC and MSNBC hate Olbermann. <br /><br />Why wouldn't they? They're part of the big money crowd. Olbermann made them plenty of money, and turned MSNBC from a puny operation into the second biggest “news” network in the country. But he was against everything the really big money guys believe in, everything they want for themselves and the country -– which is to say, an oligarchy of the super rich and a docile and increasingly poor and powerless population.<br /><br />MSNBC is left with Rachel Maddow, it's number two star up to now, and Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'Donnell. The network executives, for a time anyway, will be comfortable with that lineup.<br /><br />Olbermann took large bites out of George W. Bush and his gang of crooks, war lovers and profiteers. He was effective. He used facts, unlike the fiction-spouting right-wing evangelicals on Fox News. His facts were devastating in themselves, and more so because the rest of corporate media shied from publishing the most damning of them. <br /><br />And Olbermann didn't let up when Barack Obama became president. He refused to let Democrats slide on their shady deals with corporate donors just because they were Democrats.<br /><br />(Democratic Party: The Judas-goat wing of the Corporate Party, so tame that stake and leash are not required.)<br /><br />Maddow, pulled into MSNBC by Olbermann, was effective in telling some truths during the 2010 campaign season, but she is easily tolerated by the big-money people. She is, first, a part of the Democrat information/propaganda team. She criticizes Obama and the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid gently and only occasionally; mostly her criticisms are softball tweaks of the nose. And she uncritically promotes women Democrats, especially, giving frequent air time to the likes of Minnesota's Sen. Amy Klobuchar, who obeys every command of the National Rifle Association and Israel's Likudnik supporters in this country.<br /><br />Also, Maddow more and more frequently shows that what she loves is the political game; actual policy is much less important in her little world. She swallows a lot of garbage if it's fed to her by Democrats.<br /><br />Given the Democratic Party's role as beard for the Republicans, Maddow will be employed for a while.<br /><br />Very few people pay any attention to Schultz, who demonstrates the intellectual capacity of a moose or a Fox commentator, and O'Donnell is a nice guy badly miscast in his present role. He's trying to be tough lately, but he comes off as merely snarky; he entirely lacks the genuine, admirable toughness of Olbermann, as well as the latter's wit and deep intelligence.<br /><br />So there you have it.<br /><br />The oligarchs have scored hugely in the last week. They've removed from the scene the only truly effective progressive commentator in television, they got a major “news” source put into the hands of Comcast, http://sn143w.snt143.mail.live.com/default.aspx an organization as right wing in philosophy and action as Rupert Murdoch (owner of Fox and a whole lot of other “news” outlets), and the FCC, predictably, approved the tear-down of Internet neutrality, http://sn143w.snt143.mail.live.com/default.aspx which means that Comcast and its extreme right-wing allies, such as Verizon, will be able to control to very large degree what we can see on the Internet.<br /><br />Champagne corks must be popping and billionaires must be getting roaringly, happily drunk this weekend, probably in the company of some of their more prominent servants in Congress and the courts.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-41247082581624755552010-12-11T12:06:00.000-08:002010-12-11T12:12:19.186-08:00Plain truth about politics: We've been had<span style="font-style:italic;">“It’s called the American Dream because you have to be asleep to believe in it.”<br /></span><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">-- George Carlin, comedian </span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">By Lydia Howell</span><br /><br />A brutal reality is undeniable in the fight over the Bush-era tax cuts and expiring unemployment benefits: American democracy isn't working for everyday people -- that is, the non-wealthy.<br /><br />Republican and Tea Party yelling about the deficit, supported by most of President Obama’s sort-of bipartisan Deficits Commission, obviously was just theater, as shown by the continued demand that the richest two percent of Americans get to keep their special Bush tax cuts despite the fact that those cuts will add $700 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years. And that is just a cover for big corporations; most small business owners don’t come close to $250,000 in annual personal income.<br /><br />In agreeing to go along with that huge tax break for the richest two percent, which he opposed throughout his presidential campaign, President Obama continues what has become a pattern of promise-breaking.<br /><br />He also continues to insult those who got him elected, showing increasing anger in his press conferences at the audacity of progressive who dare to criticize his actions. Like other elitists, Obama reveals that he thinks public engagement should be limited to campaign contributions and voting.<br />After the election, we’re supposed to lead cheers for the president or shut up.<br /><br />We’ve seen this show before, in the Clinton years. <br /><br />When Republicans win elections (think G.W. Bush), they get everything they want, and when <br />Democrats win elections, Republicans still get everything they want. When Democrats win, they immediately begin whining that they can’t do anything.<br /><br />Debt is built up during Republican rule, and when Democrats get into office it’s their job to be the janitors and balance budgets on the backs of working people and the poor. President Bill Clinton gutted New Deal welfare programs for the poor and signed NAFTA, escalating the export of well-paying manufacturing jobs.<br /><br />Obama repeats Clinton policies by letting banksters off the hook, allowing home foreclosures and offshore drilling to continue. It's tepid “stimulus” for us, while Obama's “free trade” agreement with South Korea will send more jobs overseas.<br /><br />Adding insult to insult, the companies that send what were American jobs to other countries get special tax breaks for doing so.<br /><br />Republicans are ruthless and Democrats are clueless, and Obama plays his assigned part. The corporations and the rich win while the majority of the American people keep losing.<br /><br />This is the plain truth: big money gets almost anything it demands while everyday Americans are increasingly unrepresented in their government and their needs are mostly ignored.<br /><br />The deficit has grown as the wealth gap has grown, re-creating the situation that existed just before the Great Depression ruined our economy. Corporations, capital gains and Wall Street wealth are taxed <br />at lower and lower rates---or not at all.<br /><br />One third of the biggest corporations operating in this country paid no income taxes in 2009. Bailed out banks sit on trillions of dollars while refusing to loan to the real job-creators (small business). Subsidies for corporations rarely draw close government scrutiny, but social services are constantly under examination: take a look at sports stadia built with taxpayer money or the government largess underpinning the building of the latest Wal-Mart in your area.<br /><br />The public sector gets cut (schools, libraries, infrastructure), while the number of U.S. military bases--now at over 700-- increases around the world. While a particular weapons project may take a cut on rare occasions, the war industries' piece of the national budget grows ever larger, with budget-busting cost over-runs still the norm. Think Halliburton in Iraq; even companies that almost openly defraud the <br />government of billions of dollars reliably have their contracts renewed and expanded.<br /><br />The 400 highest income people in the nation brought in a stunning $87,000,000 a year. Only 2.67 percent of US households make more than $200,000 annually. Meanwhile 55,000,000 made do in 2010 with an average of $46,000 or less.<br /><br />It is those almost unimaginably rich people that Obama and most of Congress are serving while they throw the long-term unemployed citizens of this country – and, ultimately, the vast majority of the population, on the trash heap.<br /><br />Billionaires and millionaires get deficit-busting tax breaks they don’t need, while unemployment benefits must be paid for by cutting something else in the budget --the way food stamps were cut to allegedly pay for some health care. So far, what’s been called “Obamacare” hasn’t kicked in, but insurance premiums already are going up, which is some of why there’s still resentment over Obama dumping the public option.<br /><br />Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats assert that people won’t look for work as long as they get unemployment benefits (which average $300 a week). The absurdity of this argument is obvious and maddening.<br /><br />Consider that Delta Airlines recently announced 1,000 job openings on its website and 100,000 people applied. That’s 100 applicants for each job. Last month, only 39, 000 new jobs were created in the country. That doesn't even keep up with normal growth in the work force.<br /><br />Many of the most profitable corporations still are laying off people -- and demanding more wage cuts from the workers who remain. Best Buy started another trend a couple of years ago: it laid off many of its most senior workers – not including top management, of course – so that it could keep, promote or hire younger, more inexperienced –- and, of course, cheaper -- workers.<br />Communities of color, already at a disadvantage in the American economy, have been hit especially hard by this recession. In inner cities, there's often unemployment as high as 50 percent. Little has been done to target job-creation in those areas.<br /><br />Many long-term unemployed are workers over 45, who regularly face age-discrimination, a fact that has been ignored, especially since now-Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas headed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in the 1980s. There’s bipartisan silence about those who are apparently “too old” to hire, yet too young to collect Social Security (another public service on Obama’s Deficit Commission chopping block). The United States has become a culture that has no respect for experience, which hollows out knowledge, wisdom and problem-solving in favor of producing on the cheap.<br /><br />There obviously are not enough jobs for the unemployed, so, why the “conservative” desire to cut unemployment benefits? (They already cut welfare to a 5-year lifetime limit, with the help of Bill Clinton.)<br /><br />It's basic supply and demand and the desire to manipulate that equation: An oversupply of desperate workers seeking too few jobs means corporations can slash wages and cut or eliminate benefits even as the pay of senior managers soars into the stratosphere. Manufacturing jobs that once paid more than $20 an hour now often pay half that or less, with few or no benefits. That's the template.<br /><br />Threats to move factories long have been bludgeons to keep workers in line as union protection declines. Since the 2008 election, President Obama and the Democrats shelved the Employee Free Choice Act, which would have leveled the playing field somewhat between bosses and workers <br />when it comes to union organizing. <br /><br />Democrats have no problem taking campaign contributions from unions, yet do little or nothing for labor. They do serve their corporate sponsors, however. Republicans (with President Obama’s help) have expanded their war against unions to include government workers and teachers unions<br /><br />The obscenely wealthy are now mislabeled “job creators” even as they export jobs and/or demand public subsidies. CEOs allegedly “deserve” their multi-million dollar salaries, while employees who do the work that creates the profits are expected to make do with lower and lower wages. Everyday people are being priced out of home ownership, are increasingly unable to pay for college for their kids. They are losing ground steadily in the class war.<br /><br />Again, here on Earth, 75 percent of Americans make $50,000 a year or less---often far, far less. With the 2008 financial meltdown and its fallout, millions of working families have lost retirement savings, and millions have lost their homes to foreclosure. The almost 10 percent unemployment rate tells only part of the story; millions of people who used to make decent money at steady jobs now get by on part-time and temp jobs (the latter now are almost 25 percent of jobs in this country) or no longer are counted as unemployed because after years of trying, they stopped looking. <br />The middle-class is being eroded while the poor are eviscerated. This is a basic equity deficit.<br /><br />We could be employing millions in WPA-style: repairing infrastructure, making the transition to clean energy, caring for children and the elderly, and investing in a sustainable future. Obama’s stimulus was a tepid less-than-half-measure. War abroad and increased policing at home get unlimited money while any plans for helping people go begging.<br />There’s a job deficit when there’s so much important work that needs doing.<br /><br />Even with a Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president, Wall Street financiers are riding high, sometimes on ill-gotten gains, but suggestions for a freeze on home foreclosures have been ignored. <br /><br />Goldman Sachs, insurance and pharmaceutical companies got what they paid <br />for in backing Barack Obama<br /><br />The term “bipartisan” should now be understood to mean doing whatever the Republican Party demands as the upfront mouthpiece for the top two percent, the wealthy would-be oligarchs of this country. The role of the Democratic Party is to mollify (confuse) the majority of Americans who <br />are expected to work for lower wages -- hen they still have a job at all -- and to expect less and less in government services in exchange for their increasing taxes.<br /><br />The Tea Party reinforces the reactionary tendency to blame the most vulnerable---the poor, people of color, undocumented immigrants -- when it is (mostly white) wealthy guys at the top who are robbing us blind. <br /><br />For more than 30 years, we’ve been culturally brainwashed to worship the wealthy, to use income and possessions as indices of the worth of human beings. The demonization of the poor also has seeped inward: more and more of us see ourselves as “losers” or project that onto people father down the income ladder that we’re clinging to.<br /><br />Americans have fallen for a materialistic make-believe with their Nike sneakers, high-fashion knock-offs and high-tech status symbols, such as plasma TVs and smart phones. Recently, thousands of people stood in line all night to be among the first to purchase the 4g iPhone (which ironically then failed to work as advertised). I couldn’t help but wonder how many of those people in line had ever participated in a picket line or protest.<br /><br />After two years in office, it’s undeniable: Obama was simply a celebrity candidate intended to reinvigorate the sadly dented Horatio Alger rags-to-riches story -- America’s favorite myth and a useful distraction from the yawning equality gap in a new Gilded Age. More and more everyday people are disposable, and the rest are intended to be corporate serfs, who are supposed to be grateful for any job at all.<br /><br />That top two percent has the money -- but, we have the numbers, which has always been aristocrats’ biggest fear.<br /><br />We must re-discover solidarity with one another, stop living as spectators and wake up from a fake American dream. Ultimately, what it comes down to is a democracy deficit that only We the People can solve.<br /><br />Lydia Howell is an independent journalist in Minneapolis, winner of the Premack Award for Public Interest Journalism. She is producer/host of “Catalyst: politics & culture” on KFAI Radio at http://www.kfai.org<br /> Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-64117834284895458602010-12-02T15:42:00.000-08:002010-12-03T08:47:30.406-08:00Selling us our own economic demiseIf you're still among the employed, or are retired and still getting your pension payments, you may nevertheless be feeling financially squeezed.<br /><br />Cheer up. It's going to get much worse.<br /><br />That Social Security will be turned into a cash cow for the corporate elite and an unreliable source of income for the rest of us is a given. <br /><br />But you ain't seen nothin' yet. With the super rich now in control of the White House and Congress, they have begun an attack on a whole new set of goals, and those people are determined. Sherman's march to the sea was a tea dance by comparison.<br /><br />It has begun with attacks on middle class pay levels and a propaganda campaign. Participants in the latter include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, right wing “think tanks,” the elite's agents within government and the corporate “news” media -- all the usual crowd. <br /><br />So far the messages is fairly low key, but it is picking up intensity and volume at a remarkable rate.<br /><br />In the past year, several highly profitable corporations have demanded that their employees accept substantially lower pay and fewer benefits. Mott's and Harley-Davidson among others, have not claimed financial hardship. They simply declare that because the U.S. economy is lousy for working people, and likely to remain so, they can get other people to work for far less, so their employees better take less or have the can tied to their tails. <br /><br />That take-back movement is growing rapidly. Several other companies are trying it on now.<br /><br />The propaganda began about the same time. As seen in newspaper stories and op-ed pieces, it promotes the idea that the employers are in the right and that American workers must lower their expectations and give up their present lifestyles. <br /><br />On Sept. 6, 2010, for example, Kevin Hassett, writing for Bloomberg Opinion, bragged of his own courage in declaring that “the biggest problem with the labor market right now is that wages are too high.” Employment will improve, he said, if those who are still working accept substantially lower pay. <br /><br />Oh, yes. And our hero said that minimum wage laws must go away because requirements for living wages create unemployment. Never mind that every study ever made on the subject has shown no such effect on employment.<br /><br />See Hassett's fantasies at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-07/your-fat-paycheck-keeps-your-neighbor-unemployed-kevin-hassett.html<br /><br />His is one of three or four such essays, virtually identical in their positions and sometimes in language, that I've seen since early September. None of them suggested that tax breaks for corporations and the very rich should disappear, nor that executive pay and bonuses should be reduced, of course. It is axiomatic to the right that the poor and middle class must pay, while it is the god-given right of the rich to go on getting richer despite the fact that they created our present economic mess. <br /><br />Hassett needn't be too self-congratulatory about his courage, by the way. Someone obviously has his back –- the someone who also is creating the messages and doling out the think-tank "studies."<br /><br />Some of the recent pieces declare that the American economy is permanently changed and “we can no longer afford the excessive pay scales we grew accustomed to.” <br /><br />You will see no mention in such articles of the rapid shift of wealth from the poor and middle class to the very rich in this country, nor will you see any suggestion that the very rich should in any way reduce their expectations. Quite the contrary. The articles will be signed by operatives of various right wing “think tanks” and their wholly-owned “pundits” -- people such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer, who can be depended upon to tell whatever tale the economic elite wants told, no matter how dishonest or deceitful the message.<br /><br />(It's probably irrelevant, but what the heck, here's a little aside: Two U.S. industries, of the few remaining, that have shown the the biggest recovery over the past year are yacht building and the production and sale of private jets. And the Associated Press reported in mid-November that the biggest gains in retail sales this fall have been reported by luxury retailers such as Saks Fifth Avenue, which are finding that their highest priced merchandise is fairly flying out the doors; expensive jewelry and women's clothing are especially hot.)<br /><br />My local rag, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, ran a column on the front page of its business section Nov. 21 carrying another favorite message of right-wing tacticians and strategists. It was written by an in-house water boy for the corporate power structure, who declared that we need to get rid of tax deductions for mortgage payments. <br /><br />It was quite an able piece of sophistry, actually, the general outlines of which have been oozing out of those “think tanks” for quite awhile now. It is complete crappola, but probably easy to swallow if you never learned to think critically.<br /><br />The writer, Eric Wieffering, wrote with great scorn that supporters of mortgage deductions claim that “cutting, capping or dropping” the deductions will, “take your pick: depress home values; make it harder for minority families to buy a house; lower the overall ownership rate, and destabilize society at large.”<br /><br />But, the dismissiveness of Wieffering and others who memorize the talking points of the American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation covers a shortage of factual evidence and some egregious diversionary tactics.<br /><br />The Strib writer said that mortgage interest deductibility will cost the U.S. Treasury about $130 billion in 2012, and deductibility of property taxes will cost another $31 billion and the exclusion of capital gains on the sale of residential property will cut into federal income by another $50 billion.<br /><br />Brrrrrraaaaaacccckkkk.<br /><br />(That's the sound of the bullshit alarm.)<br /><br />First, there is no indication of a source for those numbers. If I had to guess, I'd guess they came from one or both of the aforementioned right wing “think tanks,” or a similar organization, none of which have any more reluctance to diddle numbers than does Glenn Beck.<br /><br />Secondly, one could make a much more solid case for first going after other enormous tax breaks that are far more obviously harmful to the economy and the majority of its citizens. Huge tax giveaways to billionaires who run hedge funds? Special breaks for billionaires created under George Bush? How about the one third of large American-based corporations that pay no taxes despite enormous profits?<br /><br />What about the tax breaks given to corporations – yes, this is true – for moving factories out of this country and outsourcing jobs?<br /><br />The writer also gave no evidence to counter the belief of the great majority of independent economists, academicians and others who, having studied the questions extensively, are certain that home ownership does, indeed, create social stability, that loss of deductions would drive many present homeowners out of their homes and essentially collapse the market for owner-occupied dwellings.<br /><br />He also stated as fact that “most” of the financial benefits of mortgage interest deductions accrue to people in the highest tax brackets.<br /><br />Brrrrraaaacccckkk!<br /><br />Weiffering said that 2008 study in “one economics journal” (Which? Whose? With what bias? Using what numbers?) concluded that households with incomes above $250,000 get “10 times the tax savings” from mortgage deductions than do households with incomes between $40,000 and $75,000. Does that mean that someone with a very high income and much larger mortgage gets a bigger tax break than someone who earns $40,000? If so, duh!<br /><br />That claim is utterly meaningless without considerably more explanation. And even if we know what the real comparative benefits are at different income levels, the information is likely to be much less significant than the writer would have you believe. This fact still remains: Millions of people who have moderate incomes and who own homes in this country –- people who are making their payments, and are not in danger of defaulting -– could not have bought their homes and could not keep up with ownership costs now if they didn't have mortgage interest tax deductions.<br /><br />The writer says that's not true, but don't believe him. As proof that the tax deductions don't affect home ownership rates, he cites Canada, which doesn't have such a deduction as we know it and Great Britain, which, he says, eliminated mortgage interest deductibility in 2000, and both of which have ownership rates comparable to ours. <br /><br />But, again, that is meaningless without a great deal more information. What other breaks do home owners in Canada and Britain get? What's their loan structure like? What interest rates do they pay? What income subsidies might they get? <br /><br />And please note that the residents of Canada and Britain have some very big economic advantages over U.S. citizens. They don't have our enormous health care costs, and they don't have to buy health insurance. They pay far less to educate their offspring, and other services that cost us dearly are covered by their governments. Their utilities cost them less. Even such things as high speed internet connections are free or much less costly than they are here. They can afford to pay more for housing.<br /><br />My experience when looking at costs of various pieces of the economic puzzles in other countries is that the American political right, in going after whatever is its current target, rarely compares apples to apples, and, as with health care, it frequently hands out outrageous lies in the (realistic) belief that few people here will bother to check the facts.<br /><br />There's considerably more to set off that alarm, but this is getting far too long. <br /><br />But I have to say I'd go along with some of the suggestions the Strib writer allowed might be desirable, though they are way down on his list of preferences. <br /><br />One I'd buy is to eliminate the interest tax deduction on loans for second and third and fourth and fifth homes. (Take that, John McCain!) I also would go along with putting an upper limit on the amount of mortgage payments that qualify for a deduction. If you have a $250,000 mortgage –yes, it's a bit high – you get to deduct all of your mortgage interest. If you have a $2 million mortgage, only the interest on the first $250,000 would be deductible. <br /><br />I can hear the screams from John Boehner now. Picking on the rich.<br /><br />But eliminating the deduction for home equity loans? Not entirely. If someone takes out such a loan to finance a couple of months of touring the world, no deduction. But if a homeowner uses a home equity loan to do necessary maintenance on his house, or to, say, rebuild a badly outdated kitchen, let that deduction stand.<br /><br />Here's what's really going on with the building push to eliminate home mortgage interest deductions: <br /><br />It is part of the bigger attack on the economic stability and independence of the American middle class. If we buy our homes, and eventually pay them off, that gives us a degree of freedom and independence that does not sit well with the one percent of the population that now pulls in 50 percent of the country's annual income – the oligarchy, we might say. <br /><br />Inability to buy a home means we lose an extremely important method of building our own modest wealth. Perpetually paying rent means the wealth of the ownership class grows even more.<br /><br />It is a sure bet that the call to do away with mortgage deductions will be repeated and repeated, with the volume growing ever greater, until large segments of the American public accept the message as reasonable. Then we'll lose our mortgage tax deductions and millions of Americans will be shut out of home ownership. That is a goal high on the wish list of the political right. <br /><br />A public that will buy into a “grass roots” Tea Party agenda controlled, financed and promoted by oil barons such as David and Charles Koch, and manipulated by their do-anything fixers such as Dick Armey and Karl Rove, will swallow an awful lot of dung and think it's food.<br /><br />But that's just part of the din that will bang against our ears in the months and years to come.<br /><br />Public transit? We can't afford it, you'll be told with increasing frequency.<br /><br />Health care? We already have the best in the world, they'll say -- a monstrous lie that much of the American public already believes. But, the noise will continue anyway, because “we simply can't afford so much health care, especially for the undeserving poor.” (See Arizona's new Republican-created “death panel,” which says poor people can't have organ transplants.)<br /><br />Schools? All the inadequacies of our public school system are the fault of teachers unions and lazy, bumbling teachers. We're already told that almost daily by those right wing pundits and “think tank” operatives and corporate executives and their hired politicians. Spend on education: No way. That would require tax increases, which are unacceptable.<br /><br />Higher education: If you can pay the ever-increasing costs, you can go. The propaganda machine is well on the way on this one, but still building: Of course “we can't afford” to subsidize college costs for lower and middle income people. A university education is properly a privilege of the moneyed is the message. It is being peddled softly now, but the drum beat will quicken.<br /><br />In fact, you'll find that the cry of “can't afford it” is going to get louder and louder, and far more frequent, and it will apply to everything that the rich don't need or want. It will apply more and more to services we now take for granted.<br /><br />This is, indeed, class warfare, in case you are among the suckers who think that's a new thing. <br /><br />We –- everybody but the super rich -– are losing.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-11237499650449557022010-11-29T07:17:00.000-08:002010-12-03T08:54:40.341-08:00In the land of the supineMost European governments, if not all, are pushing austerity programs that range from harsh to extreme. <br /><br />All of those plans will result in massive loss of jobs, lowered incomes for those fortunate enough to retain their jobs, lost homes, and even genuine hunger for large portions of European populations. <br /><br />None of the plans will adversely affect the very rich who caused the western world's present economic stress; even the most blatantly criminal among them -– Ireland's top bankers come to mind –- will retain their positions. Their wealth and power will be, if anything, enhanced.<br /><br />Here in the United States, Congress crept home for a Thanksgiving holiday without extending emergency unemployment benefits for the millions who are about to lose their last source of income and who are facing homelessness and worse. At this writing, the odds are against their extending those payments in the day or so they have left to do so. Most members of Congress spent much of the holiday break nuzzling big-buck supporters.<br /><br />My local rag, the Star Tribune, had a front page story the day after Thanksgiving that mentioned the Congressional inaction and, as a means of explaining the hardships on the victims of that negligence, told the story of a woman, once a six-figure executive, who now tries to scrape out a living cooking for others and who probably soon will be living in her car.<br /><br />Interestingly, the same edition of that increasingly feeble publication had an article at the bottom of its op-ed page which correctly pointed out that “The rich get richer, with government help.”<br /><br />The Strib's front page story noted that nominal Democratic Congressman Collin Peterson –- one of the original Blue Dogs –- joined the state's Republicans, led by Minnesota's major embarrassment, the dimwitted but loud Tea Party darling Michele Bachmann, in rejecting any extension of unemployment benefits. <br /><br />Those same people strongly favor extending the extra Bush tax breaks for the very rich and even greater spending than at present for the Pentagon and war industries.<br /><br />The Strib did not mention the plain fact that continuing the emergency unemployment benefits would help our struggling economy, because that money is spent (mostly on necessities) almost as soon as it is paid. Nor did it point out that it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that the tax cuts for the wealthy add little or nothing to economic activity.<br /><br />The extreme austerity programs around the world are being pushed hard by the European Union's top money people and by the International Monetary Fund, as well as the more obviously political right.<br /><br />Both of those organizations are led by economic aristocrats whose obvious, passionate focus is on preserving and increasing the wealth and power of the world's richest corporations and individuals. They never have demonstrated any interest in the welfare of those who work for a living. <br /><br />(They would claim otherwise, but not once have they offered a proposal that would benefit the larger population of any country if that proposal would even slightly and momentarily reduce the riches of the world's wealthiest people.)<br /><br />Throughout Europe, sizable portions of the citizenry have demonstrated that they understand that they're being screwed, and by whom.<br /><br />In Ireland, tens of thousands of citizens took to the streets in recent days to protest what is being described as the “toughest austerity program in Europe.” That program is creating massive unemployment, and at the same time drastically cutting social welfare programs; it is causing loss of homes and even severe hunger. It does not punish bankers for their blatantly fraudulent schemes, nor even place a financial burden on them.<br /><br />Worse: Ireland has one of the lowest corporate tax rates anywhere in the world, and the country's government refuses to raise those taxes even slightly.<br /><br />In France, citizens and especially students, continue to protest government austerity measures forced on the country by the government of Nicolas Sarkozy, under the approving eyes of the EU and IMF, to counter the economic problems brought on entirely by the crooked games of bankers, brokers and corporate bigwigs, who will not suffer under the otherwise drastic cost cutting.<br /><br />In Portugal, protests of similar measures by government have involved hundreds of thousands and have continued for weeks.<br /><br />In Spain there have been large public protests even before the harshest likely measures are put in place, and a considerable portion of the population has signaled that it is nearing its limit of tolerance for paying for the sins of rich swindlers. The same is true in several other countries.<br /><br />In Italy, students, especially, have taken to the streets by the tens of thousands in recent days.<br /><br />In England, tens of thousands of students, who quickly recognized that austerity measures will drive them out of colleges and universities and literally destroy their economic futures, have raised hell to the point of occasionally doing some minor damage to property in the past couple of weeks.<br /><br />(I've never favored violence for any reason but, frankly, at this stage of my life, my mid-70s, I have a hard time seeing how some broken windows, a torched police van and spray paint on walls are more terrible than literal economic ruination of hundreds of thousands, or millions, of human beings. The elite and governments insist, however, that those who are being pushed into abject poverty must go quietly and politely.)<br /><br />In the United States of America, where the Census Bureau just reported that the poverty rate has risen to 14.3 percent, the highest in more than 50 years, and where U.S.-based corporations just reported the highest profits in history, and where real unemployment is above 20 percent now, the only sound to be heard from the public as Congress crawled out of town for Thanksgiving was a soft and distinctly ovine bleating. <br /><br />Americans have shut their eyes and their minds to the fact that they've been robbed; bankers, brokers and hedge fund managers continue to live high and to receive public respect, if not adulation.<br /><br />The “land of the free and home of the brave” indeed.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245188.post-48970384458053468922010-11-07T12:51:00.000-08:002010-11-07T20:10:21.017-08:00Getting real about ObamaHere's a fascinating but not readily answerable question: <br /><br />Is Barack Obama one of the most cleverly, cynically corrupt politicians/government figures in history, or is he, despite his obvious talents as a scholar, one of the most stupid?<br /><br />It is one or the other. I go with stupid, but not with any degree of certainty.<br /><br />If you can't buy stupid, try monumentally inept.<br /><br />The inarguable, heavily documented facts: Obama continues to “reach out” to the Republicans in Congress, to seek their cooperation in governing on behalf of the people of the United States. He says “Please” time after time, and with even greater frequency, they say, “We're going to destroy you.” They act on that promise. And Obama offers his hand again. And he makes irrationally big concessions on all issues. <br /><br />Before there was any negotiation whatever, the president secretly gave the far right the promise that he would not seek a public option in improving (one can hardly say reforming) health care. He kept his word. The Republicans in Congress almost literally spat on him, and some of their adherents did, in fact, spit on Democrats who sought real reform. <br /><br />Obama has done that time and again. He gives away everything important on all major issues before a fight begins. With perfect precision, the Republicans kick him in the groin each time by way of thanks.<br /><br />Right now, after the election that crushed Democrats, Obama is giving away any regulation of the increasingly dangerous natural gas producers. He is crawling on his belly before the big bankers, completely surrendering to them everything they want on mortgage foreclosures and claiming with bare face that, in essence, foreclosures are good for the economy. He said in a post-election speech that he's going to “Work harder at building consensus.” <br /><br />He has to know what is going to happen. A dribbling idiot would know what's going to happen. <br /><br />Every half-informed person in this country I've ever mentioned the issues to, or who has ever mentioned the big ones to me, knows the Republicans have no interest in governing right now, certainly none in doing anything for the people of the country. Everyone but a few lost-in-spacers knows that their only interests are to grind their heels on Obama and regain the White House -– and to help the super rich form and solidify the oligarchy they are so swiftly constructing.<br /><br />So why does he go on doing the same idiotic thing every time -– and in the process giving the extreme right what it wants, making sure that the people will be screwed at every turn by the rich?<br /><br />If could be a charade, planned from the very beginning, before anyone wrote Obama's “hope” speeches. Is he a dummy, set up with his own knowledge to draw attention from what's really being done to American democracy and to take the blame for the evils being perpetrated on the people and on what once was a democratic form of government? <br /><br />That is pretty much beyond belief. It would make what we're witnessing one of the most successful, cynical and rotten political shell games of all time, on a par with the Nazi takeover of Germany in 1933 and the earlier creation of Soviet “communism,” which gave a tiny, ruthless elite dictatorial powers over the vast reaches of what became the U.S.S.R.<br /><br />Or perhaps the man is so frozen by the fact that, pretty much for the first time in his life, reality refuses to conform to his expectations that he cannot act. Maybe he is so unable to accept that Republicans never had and never will have the slightest interest in serving the country or the will of the people that he can't get to the point where he recognizes that he must fight -- fight them with every fair and unfair method he can come up with in order to perform just a small fraction of the things he assumed he would accomplish by the force of his charm and wit.<br /><br />Oh. Wait.<br /><br />After I wrote the above, I had a head-slap moment. There is a third possibility, which could work in conjunction with the stupidity theory.<br /><br />Obama's unwillingness to fight for what he ostensibly believes is right and for what is good for the vast majority of this country's citizens may be rooted in a petrifying fear of conflict and confrontation.<br /><br />It may be that he is simply a congenital coward, utterly lacking in even a standard ration of guts when faced with someone who vehemently stands against him. I have known such people, people who would go to appalling lengths to avoid facing or standing in open conflict with anyone who opposed them on any level; some of those half-people rose quite far in professions and/or society.<br /><br />Or it may be that Barack Obama was raised from childhood through youth to avoid conflict, carefully taught to be always amiable, to give way to others who had strong opinions, never to put himself into a position to draw the ire of others and, if he did, to back down and devote his energies to smoothing over the unpleasant bumps, even if it meant demeaning himself. Given his background, that seems a possibility.<br /><br />(Yes, I know. We're not supposed to involve ourselves in what often is disdainfully described is “Psych 101,” but the fact is we all do it, and have to. The person who can't, consciously or unconsciously, get a handle on the motivations of those around him is going to get blindsided regularly.)<br /><br />Oh, well. It is an academic question, fascinating for future generations, if there are any in a position to examine the history of his failures. (Or if there is a future that will allow largely truthful accounts by which to judge.) For now, it is irrelevant. We haven't time for such academic discussions, except for a few minutes in passing. <br /><br />What is abundantly clear is that this Obama guy isn't going to fight anybody for or against anything.<br /><br />Our fight is for the survival of our country, our republic, our freedoms and our economic well-being and one of the obvious facts with which we must deal is that Barack Obama is not going to be of any use in that. <br /><br />We've already wasted far too much time, money and effort on that hope.<br /><br />--------------------------------<br /><br />Three nights after the November 2010 elections, my wife and I were sitting, half watching one of the evening political shows. A very knowledgeable and earnest woman was talking about one of the myriad almost overwhelming problems with which this country is faced. <br /><br />She said, “President Obama must stand up to those who are doing this and take a firm stand and....” <br /><br />And both my wife and I broke out laughing. <br /><br />It was not the kind of laughter inspired by a great witticism or a great joke or some child's antics. <br /><br />Bitter is the word.<br /><br />For two years, Barack Obama has ducked every challenge to a fight, has refused to stand up against those who directly attack what he claims to believe is right, has been firm with no one except the liberals and progressives who put him in office; they are the only ones to whom he has been rude. Yet night after night -– after two years of his ducking and dodging and spinelessness -– the pundits and politicians and advocates for countless programs and populations tell us that “The president has to stand up to these people and tell them firmly that....”<br /><br />People. It ain't gonna happen. We, you, the pundits and advocates and observers have to get a grip on that fact and henceforth act accordingly. <br /><br />Geez.Jameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00259516933809067083noreply@blogger.com