A victim in a system about cold cash
If you don’t make it then they treat you like trash
Dispose of you tonight if not in the morning
This is not a prophecy, this is just a warning

The Coup - Foul Play

The midterm elections are approaching.  So, what is really going on?  Conservative ads are flooding social media.  Politicians are spending unprecedented amounts of money on mid-term elections.  What’s at stake?  What could this all mean?

SUBVERSION OF DEMOCRACY

First of all, we have evidence of a subversion of the electoral process.  A story ran in the New York Times recently with the title: “Republican Runs Street People on Green Ticket.”  Many people respond with “So what?“  Well, this already came up in South Carolina with Alvin Greene.  This case in Arizona is even more egregious because there is evidence.  So what?  Well, this is a subversion of democracy.  Manipulation of elections is anti-democratic.

What really happened in Arizona? Well, it would appear that the GOP decided to elicit homeless people to run as (unqualified) Green Party Candidates.  We saw in the 2000 Presidential Election that a Green Party vote can diminish the turnout for a Democratic Candidate.  The people that are running on the Green Party ballot have a very unlikely chance of actually winning.  They are inexperienced and ineffectual.  This almost assures a Republican win in these elections.  It is also dishonest and manipulative.

When a politician can win an election by manipulating the voter turnout, or the voting results, the result is not democratic.  Democracy only works when people vote on representatives for their concerns.  The winner of an election is supposed to be the candidate that best represents that majority of voters. (Checks and balances provide for protection from the “tyranny of the majority.”)  If a politician is elected because they subverted this process, they do not represent their electorate.  (This also throws off the checks and balances.)

ECONOMIC BLACKMAIL

At the same time, we have a federal government that is refusing progress.  There are enough Republicans and “Democrats In Name Only” (DINO) that a large amount of proposed legislation by this Presidential administration is not getting passed.  This is hindering any progress made for recover on the national economy, and any other area that needs reform.

People are already forgetting that the current situation was born out of the 8 years in which the last administration had control.  Now, as time marches on, people are blaming this administration for the current economic and political climate.  This is in tandem with the wealthy refusing to spend.  In a system that is design for wealth to “trickle-down,” it works both ways.  If the wealth does not trickle down, the lack of wealth trickles down.  Today McDonald’s announced a price increase – they removed the dollar menu.  The lack of wealth has “trickled down” to the homeless.

People are angry about the lack of jobs and the lack of wealth.  They should be.  The GOP and their elements have run an effective campaign convincing  the American people that it is the fault of the current administration.  The reality is that this is not true:  There is plenty of blame for everyone.  The decline of the middle class has been going on for nearly half a century.  Robert Reich posted “The Real Lesson of Labor Day” on Friday, September 3.  In it, he describes the origins of the current economic crisis.  So, who is at fault for the situation we are in?  Technically, the answer is:  everyone.  Majority of the population participated in the events that led to this.  Blame and cause do not run along party lines.

Reich also mentions the widening wealth disparity between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy:

Where have all the economic gains gone? Mostly to the top. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty examined tax returns from 1913 to 2008. They discovered an interesting pattern. In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in about 9 percent of the nation’s total income; by 2007, the top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income.

source article – robertreich.org

I go a step farther than Reich.  I am beginning to believe this is more calculated that we originally assumed.  It seems that the refusal to let the wealth “trickle-down” is purposeful.  The GOP candidates have pretty much stated that their policies will be tax cuts for the top 2%, (or top 20%) less regulations on industry, and “smaller government.”  (More on “smaller government in a few days.)  What motivation do corporations have to create more jobs and influence economic stimulus?  If they create more jobs now, they won’t get their tax breaks and deregulation.  If they make the situation more grim, more GOP candidates will win elections.  If the GOP candidates get enough seats, businesses will get what they desire.  (This is on top of the Supreme Court ruling that corporations can donate to political campaigns as individuals.)

This was made abundantly clear by the opposition to health care.  Can someone please tell me why there was so much opposition to health care reform?  Seriously.  Did single-payer, universal health care destroy the UK?  Or Germany?  China?  Economically, these are the United States’ biggest threats.  They have health care.  As far as standards of health care, I have mentioned previously, that only the top 1% of Americans get world-class health care, the rest of us get substandard care.  How exactly does this hurt the population of the United States by attempting to provide health care for those that cannot afford health care themselves?  I mentioned the other day that the average unemployment check is $293 per week, and COBRA cost an average of $12,000 annually.  Now, I really hate maths.  But, $293 per week is just $15,236 in one year.  Subtract the cost of COBRA for the family, and we have $3,236 left over.  Maybe if their mortgage is under $20 a month, they can afford food, too.  This is what average unemployed citizens are living with, and politicians are sitting in Congress calling them lazy for not working.  They say that unemployment insurance is letting them live comfortably without having to provide for themselves.  That 3 grand a year is such an extravagant amount to live on for a family!  And providing them with health care is such a disservice.

If they are lucky enough to not be unemployed:  According to the US Census Bureau, the average income in the United States in 2008 was $52,029.  As far as current insurance costs, I didn’t really find a great number, but according to a broken link to the Office of the Actuary in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services it cost about $7,439 per person for insurance in the United States.  That’s about 14% of the average American’s income.  (If my math is off, my apologies.  I really hate math.)  I found more than two sources that stated the public cost of healthcare is higher in the United States than in European countries that have single-payer healthcare.  (US Census Bureau, WHO)  Why are we outraged at health care reform?  I did not really see any protesters that stated they only disliked the current plan of health care reform.  Instead they have nicknamed it “Obamacare” and carry signs of socialist implications.  Well, enough of that… my point was really that the concern for health care just seems to be misplaced.  I have no seen one compelling reason from the Right on why this is a bad thing.  (On the Left, I have seen a few good complaints, including not being inclusive enough, or pandering to big Pharm.)

A Plutocracy (rule of the wealthy) is not democratic.  Allowing the wealthy individuals and corporations to dictate policy is counter to a democracy.  If this is what is happening, it is a serious concern.  If corporate interests are stalling economic recovery, at the cost to the population, than this runs counter to the will of the country, and counter to democracy.

Who exactly is against tax cuts for the rich?  WalMart employees have a stake in tax cuts for the top 20%?  Who is against Universal Health Care and regulations to stop insurance companies from increasing cost exponentially?  Someone who is spending 30% of their income on insurance?  Who is it that is against regulations that try to prevent oil spills?  Are the fisherman in Louisiana against regulations on oil producers?

NEO-FASCISM MOVEMENT

I know.  Many people find my labeling of the Tea Party as “Neo-fascist” to be divisive and disingenuous.  [There are Radical Leftists that I also critique.  For example, I often point out that Anarchist have valid complaints against the power structure, but very rarely offer and valid solutions.  Instead they just want to make things messy and do not care who gets hurt in their way.]  I really do have rational reasons for this label.  The Tea Party movement has no shortage of intense nationalism and symbolism.  They tend to espouse a social Darwinistic attitude, want to have an indoctrination process, and define citizenry on a racialist scale.  Indeed the racial element of the fringe movement is quite strong.  (I will refrain from calling it ‘racist,’ but racialism is definitely there.)  The scapegoating element against Muslims has reached a particular climax recently.  And economically, well, here’s a line from Mussolini:

I do not respect — I even hate — those men that leech a tenth of the riches produced by others.

p. 26 My rise and fall, Volumes 1-2,
Benito Mussolini, Richard Washburn Child, Max Ascoli, Richard Lamb

Freedomworks is one of the primary facilitators of the Tea Party Movement.  They were born out of Citizens for a Sound Economy, which was established by David Koch, 42% owner in the conglomerate Koch Industries.  [It should be noted that I have read that Koch Industries denies funding Freedomworks after 2005.  An immediate source was not available.]  All of this information is verifiable.  Feel free to research it.

The reason I bring all this up, is not some “scary shadow government secret conspiracy to turn us into batteries or alien food.”  What I contend is that it is likely that the Tea Party Movement was an orchestrated movement.  There are too many continuous themes within the movement to have been an organic and spontaneous creation.  It is even more concerning that there is no immediate source for this movement.  Dick Armey was definitely involved.  David Koch was definitely involved.  Glenn Beck played a small part in spreading their message.  But the reality is that the whole Tea Party Movement is so vague on actual principles that it is hard to pinpoint exactly what is going on with it.  But here is what we do know:

• The Tea Party Movement hates President Barack Obama. No matter what he does, it is a failure in their eyes.  Whatever he proposes is wrong.  If he were to contact aliens and have us join an intergalactic confederation that could supply us with endless amounts of food and cure all disease, they would condemn it.  In fact, they hate all democrats and will only be happy to see them all fail.
• The Tea Party Movement hates health care. Why?  I’m still not sure.  But they marched on the nation’s capital, some with weapons to show how much they hate poor children getting medical care.
• The Tea Party Movement loves tax cuts for the rich. Again, I do not know why.  But they do.  They find increasing taxes on the top 2% to be Communist.
• The Tea Party Movement hates Communism. And socialism.  And anything they think may be Communist or Socialist.  Except Jesus… who practiced Socialist ideals (according to Gorbachev).
• The Tea Party Movement loves guns. So much, they protested this president, who expanded gun rights, by showing their support of the second amendment against him… because, I have no idea why.
• The Tea Party Movement hates illegal immigrants. that are from Mexico.  They only care about the illegal immigrants from Mexico and they hate them.  They want to alter the Constitution to take away their chances of becoming citizens.  For some reason, Mexicans are suddenly the enemy of America and allies of “Liberals.”  Even though illegal labor is often employed by big, conservative organizations.

Everything else in the Tea Party Movement is really not coherent.  I will say, they sound much less crazy than LaRouche, and even less organized than LaRouche, too.  But, I do not see them as very rational.  Their platforms are varied,  they are more like common themes . . . like they typically are against allowing gays to marry, they are for Christian legislation, they a pro-nationalistic laws . . . and things like that, but it is nuanced from person to person.  They do not concern themselves with in depth analysis of anything.  Buzz words rule the discussion, talking of “progressives, Libs, Liburals, Socialists” and “second amendment solutions” and declaring their followers to “Reload.”

So back to Freedomworks.  Dick Armey sponsors much of Freedomworks.  Freedomworks sponsors much of the Tea Party Movement.  Well, Armey and Freedomworks support a Flat Tax or a Fair Tax.  Even Libertarian think-tanks have dismissed these as invalid options of taxation.  The reality of a flat tax is that it benefits the wealthy tremendously, and punishes the less wealthy.  (It is working tremendously well in Estonia and Russia.)

PRECEDENCE

In 2007, the nation of Kenya exploded.  On December 27, 2007, there was a Presidential election between Mwai Kibaki (the incumbant) and Raila Odinga.  Both declared themselves the winner.  A the time, Kenya was in an interesting predicament.  Odinga was the choice of many non-Kikuyu people in Kenya.  (Kibaki was Kikuyu and Odinga Luo, with a coalition of other ethnic groups.)  Both sides alleged the other side had manipulated the election results.  (International observers agreed that both sides had done this.)  The result was chaos and death.  The country plunged into civil disorder for nearly a year.  This is one possible result of subverting democracy.  The other is Putin’s Russia.  Either choice is less than pleasant.

INDICATORS

If a doctor examines a patient and find they have the indicators of heart disease, they treat the patient accordingly, to attempt to save them from cardiac failure.  If a dentist finds a patient has early signs of gum disease, they treat them accordingly, to prevent gum and tooth loss.  If a meteorologist sees the signs that a dangerous hurricane is likely to make landfall in a populated area, they warn accordingly in an attempt to minimize life and property loss.  Military commanders look at scenarios and current situations and decide on which plans will minimize loss and maximize gains.

This is what a Political Scientist does.  We examine the conditions and look at the possible results.  And yet, no one wants to listen.  The conditions are all present for disaster.  Yet, when the political scientist points that there is concern of democratic subversion, they are treated as if they are Chicken Little screaming that the sky is falling.

It is time we started making informed decisions on these matters.  Economists disagree on the best way to resolve the current economic crisis, but none of them are espousing “down home wisdom” to resolve it.  They deploy economic analysis and theory.  Majority of them indicate that we need some type of economic levers and programs to stimulate job growth.  Even economists that worked for Ronald Reagan have spoken out against extending tax cuts.  From Alan Greenspan to Robert Reich, the tax cuts are a bad idea.  The GOP and the Tea Party are for tax cuts, especially cuts for the wealthy.

None of this was meant to be in defense of President Obama, or the Democratic Party, or anyone else.  Pointing out what the GOP is doing, what the Tea Party is doing, and what the wealthy are doing is a separate issue than the faults of the Obama Administration.  There have been significant shortfalls in this Administration’s response to situations.  But, the problems I see arising in anti-democratic forces are concerning.  One should take note, that in the case of stalling economic recovery in order to pass more business friendly policies, no single party was singled out, only ideology.

What is going to happen in November?  If we are lucky, it will just be a test to democracy.  If we are unlucky, democracy will be severely wounded.

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

“Who are the oppressors? The few: the King, the capitalist, and a handful of other overseers and superintendents. Who are the oppressed? The many: the nations of the earth; the valuable personages; the workers; they that make the bread that the soft-handed and idle eat.”

~ Mark Twain

Labor day was made a federal holiday after the Pullman Strike.  It was a national strike of railway workers.  The Pullman Strike ended in a bit of tragedy.  The President sent the National Guard and US Marshals to end the strike.  Death and injury resulted, as well as large amounts of property damage.  Eugene V. Debs led the strike.  He was eventually incarcerated on a minor charge.  It was while in jail that Debs read the works of Karl Marx.  Debs became a socialist and ran for President in 1900.

Those who produce should have, but we know that those who produce the most – that is, those who work hardest, and at the most difficult and most menial tasks, have the least.

~ Eugene V. Debs

We owe a lot to these organizers, of unions and protests, in the 19th and 20th centuries.  It was these brave people who stood up to corporate thuggery and government force.  They paved the way for workplace safety standards, fair wages, fair conditions, and many other labor laws that save thousands of lives every year.

While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free.

~ Eugene V. Debs

Today is Labor Day.  Let us not forget what “Labor” means in Labor Day.  It means the worker.  Labor day is not “Production Day.”  It was a national holiday created in support of the labor that keeps society going.

Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.

~ Abraham Lincoln

As I have stated recently, many prominent men have stood up for labor in America’s history, as well as the history of the world.  Men like H.G. Wells and Mark Twain.  Men like Karl Marx.  Women like Helen Keller and Susan B. Anthony.  Even the creator of the Pledge of Allegiance was a socialist.  Even non-socialists and non-communists often stand with labor.  Sometimes they exploit the labor, but still make statements that show the true value of labor.

Legislation has been and is still directed towards the protection of wealth, rather than towards the far more important interests of labor on which everything of value to mankind depends.

~ Leland Stanford

I dispersed quotes throughout the post in celebration of Labor Day.  To celebrate the Labor.  This is not about bickering, or politics.  It is about the labor.  The labor that produces our food, our clothes, our phones, the computers that we use to go on the interweb.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor – not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.

- Albert Einstein, The World As I See It (1949)

On April 20, 1914, the National Guard attacked 1,200 striking coal miners and their families in Ludlow, Colorado.  The fight lasted all day.  2 Women and 11 Children died.  5 coal miners were shot and killed.  The Ludlow Massacre was prompted by the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) due to a lack of ability for the owners of the mines to meet several criteria.  (I pulled them off of Wikipedia due to being tired.)

1. Recognition of the union as bargaining agent
2. An increase in tonnage rates (equivalent to a 10% wage increase)
3. Enforcement of the eight-hour work day law
4. Payment for “dead work” (laying track, timbering, handling impurities, etc.)
5. Weight-checkmen elected by the workers (to keep company weightmen honest)
6. The right to use any store, and choose their boarding houses and doctors
7. Strict enforcement of Colorado’s laws (such as mine safety rules, abolition of scrip), and an end to the company guard system

Woody Guthrie’s song, “Ludlow Massacre” is about the incident.  Incidents such as the Ludlow Massacre are not typically taught in school.  Folk singers like Woody Guthrie were the persons who got the informaton dispersed.  And this is just one instance of tragedy that struck those who stood up for fair labor laws. These people did not want to “destroy democracy” or bring any harm to the United States.  They just did not want to be exploited, or see their children exploited, as production.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

~ Karl Marx

Today Unions still fight employers against discouraging them.  Sometimes, a place such as Whole Foods will give their labor great working conditions as to negate the necessity for a union.  Personally, I think this is wonderful, and is a function of unions.  Employees get fair-living wages, health insurance benefits, and many other perks.  Other companies, such as WalMart use intimidation tactics and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to keep unions from accessing their labor.  They give their employees wages lower than the poverty line, with little-to-no benefits.  In other parts of the world, there are even less labor laws that protect labor.  The fight for fair conditions for the labor of the world is far from over.  On this labor day, let us take some time to recognize how critical labor is for our society to function, and even for the production of our sustenance.

Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!

~ Karl Marx

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
~ Albert Einstein

“Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”  Well, dinosaurs laid eggs.  (Unless you are Sarah Palin, it is pretty accepted that dinosaurs came first.)  The chicken or egg dilemma is really an example of a circular argument of cause and consequence.  Not taken literally, it presents a good example.  Today, we seem to have a psychological problem with identifying cause and consequence.

I saw an advert for American Solutions, and I clicked it.  American Solutions is a tax exempt organization created by Newt Gingrich.  If anyone does not know who Newt Gingrich is, go look it up.  He’s been in the US Government since the end of the 1970s, and is a Tea Party supporting Republican.  He has written several publications.  His latest is To Save America:  Stopping Obama’s Secular Socialist Machine.

According to America’s Solutions, we are at “The End of Obama’s ‘Recovery Summer’.“  The entry is pretty concise.  It relabels “Labor Day” as “Unemployment Day.”  It states that the lack of jobs is due to uncertainty to tax increases and healthcare costs.

Several problems arise in this.  I am going to begin in the end, and then go back to the end after I do the beginning in the middle.  Now that I have explained that well, let us continue. . .

Why is it “Obama’s Recovery Summer“?  There is a difference in this label than “America’s Recovery Summer.”  This is all about President Obama, not America.  If the recovery fails, it is all the fault of President Obama.  If it succeeds, well, we do not have to worry about the success of the recovery.  Any level of success will be marginally and easily dismissed.  The reality is that President Obama has a job right now.  He has a salary.  He has accumulated wealth.  This ‘recovery‘ is not about Barrack Obama, it is about the American population.  It is almost like President Obama’s opponents are creating a Cult of Personality for him.  Everything is about the man, not the policy, not the nation, not the voting public.  Just the man.

While Obama’s recovery summer is coming to an end, it is the American people who are suffering.  The same people that some Republicans have responded to with statements such as:  “Tough Shit!” Some of them have even stated that Unemployment Insurance is for lazy people who want to do nothing.  And, since 1999, the GOP has stated that they want “bipartisan politics.“  When G.W. Bush ran for President, part of his platform was an end to bickering, party politics.  And, yet, during the past decade, they have made divisive statements at every opportunity.  The statement about the ‘recovery‘ is no exception.  This is “Obama’s Recovery.”  Meaning, wanting to recovery to fail is not directed to the American people, but to the man who sits in office.  They want it to fail so they can get the Democratic Party out of office and put the GOP back in control.

In this piece about the ‘Recovery Summer,”  they go into detail about tax breaks for those in the top 20% of income and wealth.  How these tax breaks will benefit everyone.  Supply-side economics have been the mantra of the GOP since the 1970s.  This recurrent theme took firm grasp during Reagan.  Since Reagan, the wealthy have increased in wealth and the middle-class has shrunk.  The disparity between rich and poor has been growing exponentially for the past five presidents.  Exactly when does this supply-side policy “trickle down”?  The American Conservatives just keep trying to do the same thing, over and over, until it finally works.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein said this.  Einstein said a lot of wonderful things, like “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”  Anyway, according to Albert Einstein, the Republican Party is insane.  The United States has been giving the economic top 2%, and top 20%, tax incentives and wealth growing initiatives for several decades.  The middle class is poorer now than it was ten years ago (even adjusting for inflation).

American Solutions, most Conservatives, and just about everyone else admits that those with the best ability to create jobs and increase economic production are just sitting on their hands.

In its most recent Small Business Survey, American Solutions entrepreneurs cited the federal government as the #1 culprit when it comes to imposing the most burdensome taxes or fees. In addition, twenty-seven percent (27%) of small businesses lose more than 10 hours per month complying with state or federal government requirements or regulations.
American Solutions

The solutions provided in the same piece are pretty simple:

The plan is straight forward. Lower taxes and make the United States the most competitive country in the world for new business investment. The legislation reduces payroll taxes by fifty percent for both the employer and employee for one year, allowing for greater take home pay for individuals and more money for companies to hire new employees and make new capital investments.

To spur manufacturing, the plan allows small firms to expense 100 percent of the cost of new purchases. To make the U.S. more competitive, the legislation reduces the corporate income tax rate to 12.5 percent and completely eliminates the capital gains tax. These two bold tax reforms will be an enormous boost to productivity and stop jobs from going overseas by making the United States — not India or China — the best place in the world to start and run a business.
American Solutions

So, let us look into this.  Businesses say they find the federal government’s taxes and rules the biggest hindrance into their means of producing wealth.  These American companies want to continue to do business in America, utilize NAFTA and everything else that entails being an American corporation, or business, but they want lower taxes and less regulations.  If they do not get what they want, they are going to sit and pout. The Conservative answer is to give them what they want.

Basically, the top 2-20% are saying, “If we do not get what we want, we are not making any new jobs!”  If they lose their tax breaks, a corporation is going to make $1.5 billion, instead of making $2 billion dollars.  Or a ‘small business‘ may only see a $200 million profit, instead of $300 million.  Oh, that is just terrible.  And I thought it was bad that “Josh the Plumber” has to pay $12,000 a year for COBRA even though his unemployment check is $293 a week.  (MSN used for numbers.)

We better give the top 20% what they want or they might leave.  If they find investing in the United States is too expensive, they might to go Europe for lower tax incentives.  Or maybe they will go to China.  Or they might even go to some underdeveloped country in Africa, South East Asia or Latin America.  (The risk of a socialist revolution or civil war is such a trivial concern.)  And it’s not like we can tariff the hell out of them to reach our enormous consumer market.
[The preceding paragraph was so sarcastic, it should be evident.]

(I looked it up a few hours later.  A business that operates in China with foreign investment is taxed at 33%, and a foreign enterprise is taxed at 20% + plus business and enterprise taxes.  Does the United States really need to offer 12.5% tax rate to keep companies from going to China?  Plus, the world saw with Google, that operating a business in the People’s Republic of China does not afford a high level of autonomy.  The regulations required to operate in China are pretty intrusive.  I think, the only way to be more intrusive is to force full body – cavity searches. – 09/04/2010)

Here’s the thing:
If all companies have to do is refuse to create jobs, cut back on jobs, decrease their spending, and other such tactics, and they get their own way, who is really in charge?  It is Corporate America and Financial Institutions that can cripple the country until policies are passed that benefit them.  This is called a Plutocracy.  A Plutocracy is NOT a Democracy.  The financial blackmail that is being perpetrated on the American People is insane.  It is insane precisely for the reason Einstein stated.  To continue to do the same thing over and over and expecting it to work.

I debate against supply-side economics with my Conservative counterparts all of the time.  The problem I have with supply-side is pretty simple.  It is a two-fold problem.  One problem I have is when is the wealth going to “trickle down”?  The second is that it trickles down both ways.  When the wealthiest members of our society are unhappy, they can withhold finances and the poverty trickles down to everyone.

According to Forbes.com, Warren Buffet has a net worth of $47 billion.  (That is $47,000,000.00)  He now only makes a $100,000 salary.  A hundred thousand dollars is a pittance compared to his wealth.  It also farther complicates things because, when using a progressive tax, he pays a smaller income tax than many small business owners.  So, when is his wealth going to “trickle down”?  We had 8 years of Reagan and supply-side economics, 4 years of H.W. Bush, and, after a hiatus with Clinton, 8 more years of supply-side with G.W. Bush.   We also had Supply-side policies under Richard Nixon. – The wealth in America did grow under Clinton, and one could argue that it was from the “trickle down effect” from his predecessors.  Or you could argue that it was the “bottoms up” effect of the Secretary of Treasury under President Clinton.

Why are we still doing this?

Gingrich’s comments (and book title) speak volumes, too.  “Obama’s Secular Socialist Machine.”  Buzz words and sound bites.  What do they mean?  The GOP and Tea Party have been doing their psychological homework.  These words elicit emotional responses in the American electorate.  I contest that you can call every American politician a “Secular Socialist” on some level.  The Separation Clause and the Supremacy Clause make the United States government “secular.” The egalitarian qualities of the Constitution make socialist implications.  This elicits a negative response.  But the creator of the Pledge of Allegiance, Francis Julius Bellamy, was a socialist.  So was Mark Twain, H.G. Wells, Susan B. Anthony, and Helen Keller.  Ho Chi Minh was a Communist that was inspired by the United States Constitution.  Simply slapping a label on something does not make it a bi-polar dichotomy.  There is no zero-sum game in ideology.  The setup of the United States government makes every President since George Washington a “Secular Socialist” on some level.

A little known tidbit of information:  The reason many Muslims have a strong level of contempt for Marxism, and most Western governments, was in the earliest translations of these theories.  The word “secular” was replaced with “Satanic.”  This word-play makes any “secular” government appear “evil” in many aspects of Muslim culture.

Gingrich is also outspoken in his stance against Sharia Law.  In August of this year, he did “assert the principle that where sharia and American law conflict, it is American law that must give way.”  That makes sense, in a secular sense.  Didn’t the Establishment Clause and the Supremacy Clause already enforce this?  In times when religion and the Constitution conflict, the religious law must yield.  How secularly progressive of Mr. Gingrich.

These constant attacks on the President and his non-existent Cult of Personality are tiring.  These attacks on ideology based on whimsical fancy are just as tiring.  What is the real motive behind these attacks?

When tragedy strikes, people get scared.  When the fear dissipates, it gives way to anger.  With not enough jobs, people got scared.  Now that the fear is dissipating, it is giving way to anger.  We have seen where these heightened levels of social anger can lead.  It leads to Hanoi.  It leads to The Long Walk.  It leads to the Bolshevik Revolution.  In the most tragic cases, it can lead to Auschwitz and the Democratic Republic of Congo.  (On a rare, good instance, it can lead to the fall of Apartheid, or the Orange Revolution.)

EVERYONE in the government knows they need to placate this anger.  There are really only two ways to do this.  One solution is to have the economy rebound.  Increase personal wealth for the masses, increase standards of living, give the people what they need, or even want.  The other way to placate the anger is to displace it.

If the anger is displaced, the cost to the top 20% is marginal.  Enter the enemies: the “secular, socialist” Obama Administration and the Muslims (to capitalize on anti-Islamic sentiment).  Right now, a few issues dominate the Tea Party landscape:  immigration, Islam, government and jobs.  The first three are all “others.”  Immigrants are destroying America.  Islam wants to destroy America.  The government is growing out of touch and out of control.  And we want jobs.  Well, we can make the first three “enemies,”  why not blame the enemies on the fourth?

Sound bites, buzz words, and clever puns are being deployed by everyone in the entire political spectrum to elicit an emotional response and redirect anger.  Nobody is mad at the corporations, businesses or the wealthy.  Meanwhile, the wealthy are refusing to create jobs and stimulate the economy.  Gingrich basically called Obama a “secular socialist” to elicit an emotional response.  “He’s different and in a bad way.”  The opposite of a secular, egalitarian society would be Saudi Arabia.  Is that what Gingrich and American Solutions are advocating?

(I’m not even going to go down the path of creating enemies and how this has led to the atrocities committed by the Nazi Party and the Khmer Rouge.)

What they want to do is place the anger on the Democratic (Party) President and the current administration.  They want to get back into office and pass legislation that will increase tax cuts and decrease regulations.  They actually state this as part of their platform!  They also come right out and admit that Corporate and Financial America are not hiring because they do not want to lose their tax breaks or have increased regulations.  They want to pay the smallest amount and have the highest level of freedom.  They do not want higher EPA standards, workplace regulations, safety regulations, etc.  They tell us this! Corporate and Financial America are basically extorting the American people.  They said, in so many words, “put officials in office that will help us continue to collect wealth, or we will let you starve!”

So what happens if they do not get their tax breaks, income shelters, increased profits, decreased regulations?  Someone needs to tell them to stop acting like spoiled brats and grow up.  Why should you pay higher taxes, give everyone healthcare and create more jobs?  Because if you do not, people are going to get more angry, and the results could be even worse.  Do we want to create a situation where the people storm the Bastille?  Where people go on The Long Walk?

And the people that support the nonsense that not giving corporations what they want need to really look at the situation.  Do you want a real Socialist Movement?  It wasn’t very pretty in the early 20th century.  The alternative to a Socialist Movement is a real Fascist Movement.  Is that what we want?  These are the options that the wealthy have given us:  Give them what they want, or slide backwards.  We have had these economic policies in place for several decades and the result is an increasing debt, shrinking wealth for the general population, and unfettered control of the society in the hands of corporate interests.

We have been doing supply-side over and over again.  It is insane to believe that doing it again is going to yield different results.  And, when that is what created this mess, what is there to make us believe that it will fix it?

(Fixed for typographical and grammatical errors on Sept. 4, 2010 @ 23:03.)

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Every time there is a story on the Huffington Post about the downturn in the economy, increase in unemployment, a stupid bill, political corruption… any of these types of stories… the comments section is flooded with an immediate deluge of anti-Obama, anti-Democratic comments.  I noticed in an unofficial capacity that this phenomena has been increasing over the past few months.

I can’t help but wonder “why”?  I mean, trolls are trolls.  You cannot avoid trolling on any website.  And I’m sure plenty of right-leaning sites get their fair share of leftist trolls.  I have even seen a troll or two on the racist websites, like Stormfront.  But when the trolls out-number the regular subscribers, what is going on?

So, first, I’m wondering if these people sit and wait, or just wake up and start posting on the Huffington Post.  I’m wondering if they are getting any incentives, or doing this of free will.  Are they being prompted by Fox News and FreedomWorks?  Like I said, I go to racist websites and peruse the content.  I even go to Lawrence Auster’s website and read, and sometimes comment on here about them.  I can understand that.  But dozens, if not hundreds, of people going to sites that they are typically opposed to?  Are they addicted to animosity?

And then, I notice too, that there are several central themes.  They refer to President Obama with disrespectful names, such as “Barry” or “Barry Hussein Obama” or something similar.  They make references to “Change.”  And they comment on how all of the problems in America are the fault of this administration, with no mention of the previous administration.

I often comment about how the United States got in this economic mess, and point out that President Bush started passing the stimulus packages, and how President Bush signed the Patriot Act.  I point out that President Bush gave tax breaks for the wealthy and the middle class shrunk.  Debt for the bottom 80% of America grew during Bush.  Jobs were disappearing before President Obama was elected.  And I ask why there is no anger or hostility towards the corporations and wealthiest 20% who are sitting on (hoarding) their money instead of letting it “trickle down.”

The response is always that I’m trying to defend President Obama.  I don’t see how that is really the case.  I’m just giving other people blame, too.  But even more the case, if they are so blind that any blame outside of President Obama is defense of President Obama, are they really just corporate sycophants?  or Republican sycophants?  Or both?  Do they love the wealthy and Right so much that any complaints against them is blaspheme?

What is even crazier to me, is the way they deluge the comments page with anti-Left propaganda.  According to people like Sarah Palin, this is a violation of the First Amendment.  On Halloween of 2008, Sarah Palin accused the media of violating her First Amendment Rights by calling her complaints against Candidate Obama “negative.”  (Here is the article on ABC News.)  Palin has continued this logic, complaining that those protesting her speaking engagements were violating her First Amendment rights.  (Not too long ago at UC Stanislaus.)  Well, aren’t these people filling up the Huffington Post (or this site) with anti-Left comments violating the Left’s freedom of speech?

What is really concerning is this false sense of the sentiments of the American public, and the purposeful shifting of sentiments.  Do people really feel this way?  Or this this some Carl Rovian way of directing sentiment?  I really don’t know.  But I do know that this is odd.

It is similar to how the Right derided Obama for using “grass roots” organizational skills, and utilizing student groupds, Facebook, Twitter, email campaigns and the like, and now you have Glenn Beck and every other New Right ad on all of these sites.  Palin doesn’t even update her website, but makes comments to everyone via Twitter and Facebook.  How’s that for “grass roots”?

And in a similar area, these are the same people that want to “kick the bums out.”  They are tired of “partisan politics” in DC.  Really?  Because it really appears that anyone who disagrees with you is a “Leftist” or a “Communist” or a “Liberal Fascist” or whatever dismissive term you can throw at them.  No need to accept complexity of issues, I guess, when we can turn them into an “US vs. Them” issue… but then to turn around and accuse your opponents of using the same tactics.  It’s not a phenomena of an entire group of people getting Borderline Personality Disorder.  If you are really tired of partisan politics, why don’t you stop making me defend everyone on the Left?  Why don’t you stop assuming the Left has any cohesion at all?

Indeed, the Right is not that simple.  The GOP has been tearing into the Tea Party for a little while now.  It is pretty obvious that there are several rifts on the Right.  So, I guess, this is my way of saying, forgive me if I give the impression that I believe the Tea Party Movement, The Libertarians, The GOP and the DINOs (Democrats In Name Only) are all one ideology, or cohesive movement.  I accept the nuance of difference and identify that every person has their own views, whether shaped by another or not.  If anything, the GOP looks like the Weimar aristocracy that just realized what a bad idea it was to give the Sturmabteilung any power or political mobility.

I also will not accuse dissent of violating my “First Amendment Rights,” nor will I suggest in “Second Amendment Solutions” in protecting these delusional rights to “freedom from disagreement.”

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

Anyway, I was reading his entries, and he had one that was entitled, “Black woman throws acid in face of white woman.”  (Do we italicize online articles or put them in quotes?  I don’t know the protocol.)  I really wanted to respond to his entry, but he only accepts email comments and selectively adds comments at his discretion.  I figured, since he has already tried to dismiss me as a “knee-jerk liberal blogger,” that I would be better suited addressing my concerns here.

So, there’s an article on MSNBC.com about the “Acid attacker,” in which a woman in Oregon had acid thrown on her face.  It was an especially heinous crime because the girl who received the acid was particularly pretty.

Mr. Auster only added this as a preface to the article on his site:

The assailant was a stranger and the attack was unprovoked. MSNBC does not mention the race of the assailant until the last sentence of the article.

When you read the article, this is indeed correct.  The last line of the article states:

Police said the assailant was described as a black woman between 25 and 35, who wore a green shirt and khaki shorts, The Columbian reported. She had medium-length black hair that was pulled back.

[If you are wondering, The Columbian is the newspaper name.  It is not an olive skinned man with an impeccable suit and shoes that sits at the end of the bar with an unlit cigarette dangling from his lip and manages to observe, through his Latin mistique, all types of things that other people tend to miss.]

They described her race as part of her physical description.  Where is the problem with this?  Well, my problem with this is simple:  The same people who claim minorities are always “pulling the race card” tend to have the same things to say in these situations.  How can we win?  Do you want us to judge people as individuals, or be predisposed of racial judgments?

Mr. Auster contends that he is not a racist.  He was rather upset that I compared him to Stormfront.  (The Nazi website.)  But, my comment to Mr. Auster is this:

Mr. Auster,
Why are you bothered that MSNBC did not mention the woman’s race until the end of the article and why do you feel the need to headline race in the topic?  Is it not possible that the acid attacker was just a mentally deranged person?  Do you really want a world without preferences to race?  Or do you just want people to stop challenging white preference?

On one of the pieces regarding Glenn Beck, Mr. Auster stated the following:

How many times have I condemned George W. Bush for going to Africa and saying that the racism that drove slavery is still operative in America today? How many times have I excoriated his pal Condoleezza Rice for saying that America still hasn’t reached racial justice for blacks, and has much further to go?

Wake up, Beck supporters. White America owes nothing to black America. The debt has been paid in full, and more than full. Any person who believes that whites still must repent for slavery and discrimination is locked inside the suicidal liberal mindset–and lost to any meaningful conservatism.

Coupled with the recent complaint that MSNBC did not disclose the perpetrator of a crime as “Black” until giving her physical description, this has a more than a tinge of racism in theme.

But that’s not all.  I have to admit, this anti-Muslim slant is a bit concerning, as well.  Auster states:

However, I regard Islam as a permanent, deadly threat to our civilization and everything we are; but I don’t have an emotion of hating Muslims. I simply believe that they do not belong among us and should be returned to and isolated in their own world where they can’t threaten us.

I constantly talk about context, so I will put the above statement in context.  The piece was about hatred of Jews.  I actually commend Auster on pointing out that hatred and belief someone is an enemy are not the same thing.  And I agree with this.

Farther, I think it is important to acknowledge that racism is not hatred; no more than hatred is racism.  It is possible to be racist and not hate people of another race.  If you simply feel one race is superior to another, then you are a racist.  On the same hand, when people hate those they perceive as their oppressor, they are not racists.  Whether the feeling is warranted or not, if Black people feel as though they are oppressed in America for being Black, that feeling is not racism.  It may be contempt, and even hatred, but it is not racism.  There is no implied belief of superiority.

Now, why the problem with Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece stating she has a problem with ‘White privilege’?  I see on his site that Auster claims white guilt has superseded white privilege, and that is a debatable topic.  But to call contempt for white privilege anything other than contempt would be in err.

And what is the cause of this feeling that Muslims should be isolated?  The history of manifest destiny and divine providence in regard to Christians are sufficient evidence to make the same claim about them.  And there are more non-Christians than Christians in the world.  Shouldn’t the Christians be delegated to their own corner, and let the Muslims, Hindu, Buddhists and Jews have the rest without fear of them?

I also want to give credit to Mr. Auster on his piece entitled “Clueless, cowardly whites.“  There is a picture of two white men at Glenn Beck’s rally with signs saying “Do I look racist?” standing on the sides of a Black man wearing a fanny pack.  (I think the Black man in the photo is drunk and confused.)  [The photo was from pandagon.net.]  In reference to this image, Auster states:

George W. Bush would literally say, “How can I be a racist, since Condi, my National Security Advisor / Secretary of State, is black?”, while Condi, as clueless, tone-deaf, and lacking in taste as her boss, participated in the idiocy. And in addition to being pathetic and weak from a conservative point of view, these eagerly non-racist whites, whether Bush or the white men in the photo, don’t see how offensive it is from a liberal or just a human point of view—how condescending it is to use a black person as a prop to demonstrate one’s own virtue. So these whites degrade both their own dignity and that of the black people whom they treat as badges, while the blacks who willingly join in the charade, whether Condoleezza Rice or the black man in the photo, are blind or indifferent to how they are degrading their own dignity. That’s what right-liberalism does to people–it takes away their humanity and makes them see themselves as symbolic abstractions.

I literally had to read that three times.  Laurence Auster actually pointed out that this degrades everyone involved, including the Black people who participate?  I wholeheartedly agree. I felt it would be prudent to mention the positive things I see, as well as the negative, in the interest of being fair.  (Even if Glenn Beck himself says something I agree with, I will admit it.)

On the whole, I have to admit, at least Laurence Auster does see the lunacy that is Glenn Beck for what it is.  And he does seem to have a degree of concern for non-Whites.  But I do not see the reason to be so concerned that a brief media article did not make a big deal about the race of a Black assailant in a heinous crime.  I also fail to see the rationale in debasing Islam over any other religion.  To a Buddhist or a non-Theist, all Abrahamic religions have a pattern of violence.

And what of this claim that America “owes nothing” to Black Americans? I assume this also applies to the indigenous populations and the Asians, that also contributed and received little reward for their contribution?  Surely this does not apply to those of Germanic and Gaelic descent in Appalachia, right?  I mean, at least they are the right color, aren’t they?  Did Germany owe the Jews anything?  Do they today?  Oh, wait, they actually made reparations.

This whole tangent was spurred by one sentence.  Regarding how they did not mention the  alleged assailant’s race in the article.  And then I go on to read that there is some reason and logic in these opinions.  So, why the selective application?  Why can you not apply your rationale to people and situations that might slightly differ from yourself?  Is it possible that non-Whites just believe they are not treated fairly and react accordingly?  Is it possible that Muslims and East Asians fear cultural hegemony as a form of domination as much as you fear them?

Is it possible that I am Gay, Black and Married?  (Or is that just an album title?)

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

It seems to me that, as a society, we ignore issues that are uncomfortable, or even contradictory, to the way we wish to view society today.  Even more specifically, I’m talking about the House Un-American Activities Committee, Fascism in Europe and the build-up to WWII.  It would be easy to describe the selective amnesia over specific parts in this area of history as reactionary. But I think it really lies deeper than that.

Sure, there is a nostalgia of the past.  Every society suffers from some type of reactionary nostalgia.  When looking at the history of China, you see this occur at the end of each dynastic cycle.  When the empire begins to degrade, everyone recalls the “good ole days” of the “Mighty Empire.”  And there is definitely something to be stated about the all-too-human existential crisis of chasing the past.

What I feel is troubling is the way in which our selective memory of the past is shaped by those in power.  It appears, to me, that there is something to be said for the way the power structure shapes our recall of past events.

In my mind, I wonder what it would be like to go to Detroit, or Cleveland, or Flint, or West Virginia, or Kentucky, or Texas, and discuss with the laborers there how they feel about Unions.  To ask them if they realize that in the 1930′s, Unions were viewed as a part of the “Communist Threat,” and how police were used by the Robber Barons of the time to keep labor ‘in order.’   (I say in my mind, because I do not have the resources to do this presently.)   It’s not that I believe these people are very different from me.  Indeed, I’m sure many of them would understand  and even have stories from the period, either from themselves or from their relatives.  But I also do not think it would be a majority, as we view that many people in these regions appear to be pro-Union and anti-”Liberal.”  Any places with large amounts of Industrial labor tend to be GOP strongholds.  (I just want to be clear that I am not trying to be divisive or condescend, just that I do see strong GOP/Tea Party support in the working-class, industrial populations.)

Once upon a time, the “Left” was the party of the poor.  It seems a bit twisted now.  The media and society portrays the American-Left as Ivy League snobs:  “The Educated Elite” or the “Liberal Elite.“  And the GOP is the party of the “Working Class.”  These are unofficial party lines.

We are reminded, on occasion, that the Republicans were the “Party of Lincoln,“  the “man who freed the slaves.”  And that the Democrats were the pro-slavery, pro-south, pro-every evil thing in the American past.  This is, indeed, all too true, but we never want to discuss how there was a dramatic shift in party lines and ideology.

Like I pointed out to the shift of the use of “Progressive” in contemporary discourse.  Progressives were pro-prohibition.  How can “Progressives” also be the pro-cannabis ideology?  On the same hand, how can the pro-regulation ideology also be supportive of ‘big business’ and ‘corporate greed’ ?

In the 20th Century CE, the anti-Communist movement in the United States had particularly high fervor.  We all know at least a little about this.  We hear about Senator McCarthy and his “hearings” on “Communist activity.”  But we rarely discuss the root cause of all of this, outside of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia or the Civil War in China.

The reality of the anti-Communist sentiment is that it was born out of the Industrial Revolution in the previous centuries.  Volumes have been written on the impact of the Industrial Revolution(s), and I do not contend to be able to succinctly summarize them in one entry.  But, the advent of mechanized production lead to incredible growth in industry as well as growth in education and standards of living.  The down-side to this growth was the growth of labor and the exploitation of this labor.  As production increased, so did motives for profit growth.  With this growth increased the need for unskilled labor.  The incentives to exploit labor were tremendous.  The exploitation was horrendous.  Working 18+ hours a day in sweatshops with little to no regard for safety for very low wages was common in this era.  If an employee refused to accept these conditions, they were replaced.  It became an environment where most laborers had no other options.

It is very odd the way the pendulum swings.  The Socialist, Communist and Anarchist movements that grew out of these conditions were just as tremendous.  They swept through Europe into Russia.  Civil unrest continued to grow as laborers grew uneasy with the situation.  And just as these movements grew as a backlash to Industrial greed, they spawned counter-reactions across the globe.  As the Bolsheviks took over Russia, Hitler and Mussolini seized the opportunity for power as “anti-Communist” protection.  Although the United States did not see the fascist takeover that Europe saw as a response, the House Un-American Activities Commitee did grow in force.

In the 1930′s, prior to the War, much popular sentiment leaned towards Mussolini and Hitler, as they stood opposed to Communism.  (They probably would have supported Sun Yet-Sen if they had properly understood the situation, as well.)  Just as well, in the United States, the International Workers of the World (IWW) and other Union organizations were seen as a “threat” to the nation.  They subverted the power of the wealthy.  Any talk of “strikes” or “protests” or penalizing greed were condemned as “Communist.”

The reason for this scattered history lesson is simply that I feel we selectively recall this era.  Just as Country, Rock, Blues, Jazz, Rockabilly, and most other American forms of music were deemed “Negro music” at their conception but are regarded as simply “American” today, many of the methodology of the “Communists” and “Socialists” of the past are ignored.

On Saturday, we saw Glenn Beck organize a rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.  Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and the rest of the Tea Party Movement claim to be a “grassroots movement.”  They talk about how they are tired of the Elite, although they claim to support a moderately “classless” society.  In reality, they organize much like groups did under the IWW, Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, and the Green Party.  They espouse similar themes towards the “elite” as to Michael Parenti and Hannah Arendt, while claiming they are devout Ayn Rand zealots.

Life is much simpler when there are only two sides to every issue.  It is plain reality that there are many sides to many issues.  Unions protect laborers from exploitation.  The means they use to achieve that end can be varied.  The Tea Party Movement is constantly debasing the “Liberals” and “Progressives” as the “Liberal Elite,” claiming they are out of touch with the middle class and working class.  The Democratic side is busy trying to paint Conservatives as racist corporate henchmen.  And we are ignoring how much the current situation resembles the past, and how these issues were born out of the past.

I would not be surprised if many of the people who attend Tea Party rallies were Union members, or some type of Artisans that were members of Trade Unions.  Just like the Democrats choose to ignore the fact their party used to chant ditties like “N*gger Doodle Dandy” and, even, “All De Way Wif LBJ!” complete with pregnant a pregnant pickaninny.  The New Right chooses to ignore how the people who won the right for them to have these Unions were slandered as Communists and “un-American.”  Union organizers were treated much worse than supporters of Universal Healthcare are treated today.

Selectively, we seem to have forgotten that Catholics, Germans, Italians, and Irish were not “White.”  (More specifically, not WASPs.)  We choose to ignore how long racism and antisemitism have flourished in the United States.  We choose to ignore that it was not long ago that females were not allowed to vote.  In our not-too-distant past, there were no labor laws, no child labor laws, no protection for non-Protestants, and no universal suffrage.  Indeed, there is even talk of “going back” to the way things “used to be.”  Does that mean revoking suffrage or allowing Unionized labor?  Back to Robber Barons and servitude?

What does this all mean?  I really do not know.  One point I intended to convey is that it may be easier to believe that there are hard-lines that separate ideologies.  It may be easier to believe that it is “us against them,” but is that really the issue?  And, are these really all the issues we are concerned about today?  Or are they vestiges of a cultural leftover?  Could it be that half of our disagreements lie in propaganda of a by-gone era?  Do we selectively choose to ignore history, or are we taught to ignore specific aspects as to not upset the balance of power?

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

What I really wanted to discuss today is this misuse of terminology, mainly by the New Right, the Teabaggers, Libertarians and everyone else marching around angry that a Black President wants to give people health care.

The term “Progressive” is being thrown a lot.  I fear that many people do not even know what a Progressive is, or what Progressivism really was.  The Progressive Era started in the end of the 1800′s and lasted until the 1920′s.  Progressivism is marked by several characteristics:

• Progressives were against corruption.  They had “muckrakers” that exploited corporate and government waste and abuse.  They stood against any form of corruption.
• Progressives believed in education, science and technology.
• Progressives believed in the power of democracy over the elite.
• Progressives were for Prohibition, and wanted to alter the Constitution to promote ‘morality.’
• Progressives believed in government regulations against monopolies and unfair wage practices.

Many today use the word “Progressive” to mean something similar to “Socialist” or “Communist.”  Does that sound like a Socialist agenda?  I really don’t feel it does.  But, what does seem interesting, is when you look at Glenn Beck U:  The tagline is “Faith, Hope and Charity.“  The “Faith” is teaching of history, the “Hope” is teaching of Economics, and the “Charity” is political science, connecting the Constitution, Federalist Papers and “the U.S. as a charitable nation.” (Time Magazine)  The motto on the ‘coat of arms’ is latin for “Revolution against tyrants, submission to God.”  Sounds pretty “Progressive” to me (in accordance to the beliefs of American Progressivism).

Progressives did institute social programs, such as Child Labor Laws and Unionized Labor practices… those radicals!  They also changed the Constitution to inhibit freedoms.  Who wants to do that today?

Likewise, as I say ad nauseam, Liberalism is the belief in liberty and equality.  To some extent, everyone in American Politics follows Liberalism. (In context of Classical Liberalism, the Constitution is very focused on liberty and equality, over monarchy and authoritarianism.)  Social Liberalists are what Americans call “Liberals” today.  These people are really Center-Left.  The believe that social harmony benefits the individual.  They believe the government should protect Civil Rights and address economic concerns.  Tradition Conservatism opposes change and maintains the “old order.”  Technically, in America, the Conservatives are actually “Liberal Conservatives.”  They do not support an aristocracy, monarchy or theocracy (verbally).  These are really not very far apart from themselves.

But to hear the Sarah Palins of America, you would think that the American Left and the New Right are like Socialists and Shi’as.  And a large amount of the animosity and hatred really does pour from the Right, from the Glenn Becks out there.  (But there is some unfair animosity from the Left, that unabashedly stands against anything GOP for no reason other than Party Lines.)  It’s almost like people have taking sports rivalries and applied them to politics.

Today another poll was released that asked if people believed President Obama was a Muslim:

Some people have alleged that Barack Obama sympathizes with the goals of Islamic fundamentalists who want to impose Islamic law around the world. From what you know about Obama, what is your opinion of these allegations? (Newsweek)

52% of Republicans/Lean Republicans believed this was ‘true’, or was ‘probably true.’ (14/38)  That is more than half.  Why is this so important?

Well, does anyone recall, in 2008, there was a man in the news named Reverend Wright?  There was a big stink about the fact that then Candidate Barack Obama had attended this Reverend’s Church for two decades.  Many in the opposition to this candidate were afraid he shared all of the sentiments that were partially displayed by Rev. Wright.  (Most of his comments were taken out of context, but that’s another issue.)  Well, which is it?  Do you believe he is a Black Baptist that follows Revolutionary Theology, or do you believe he is a Muslim?

The reason this is important is simple:  How are we (those not affiliated with the New Right) supposed to take anyone on the New Right seriously when they cannot seem to utilize any terminology properly, or even believe simple items such as President Obama being a Muslim?  When has Barack Obama ever unequivocally stated he followed the faith of Islam? (He  never has done this.)  And does it even really matter?  Even by the same poll, most people stated they had a favorable view of Muslims.  So why the inability to understand even something so simple?  And how are we to believe you listen to Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and Michelle Malkin critically when you simply parrot their misinformation?

I could be wrong.  Maybe the same people who believe President Obama is a Muslim are not the people who were outraged that he attended Reverend Wright’s services.  Maybe those calling President Obama a Fascist are not the same people calling him a Communist/Socialist.  Maybe the people who want to call everyone whom is Left of Margaret Thatcher a “Progressive” did not pick that up from Glenn Beck University, or a Sarah Palin sound bite.

What is even more frustrating is that I spend so much time on things like this that I cannot even voice my real complaints with this administration or this situation.  Can we at least all start using the same language?  How are we ever going to communicate when we keep making up our own definitions for words?

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

The President and Congress passed a bill that opened up ability for government surveillance, restricted rules on opening bank accounts or transferring money, gave the government more access to private information.  (Expanded government control over civil rights.)

The United States was attacked under the watch of this President.

This President ran on a platform of limited international involvement and less bi-partisanship.  The same  President went to war with a foreign nation on false pretenses.  Congress was actually lied to before approving the war.

This President said “Bring It On” to people who were trying to kill American soldiers.

This President that claimed to be “bi-partisan” in his campaign made statements such as “you are with us, or against us.”

Enron.

This President gave large tax breaks to the wealthy, claiming it would help invigorate the economy.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the real GDP grew at an average annual rate of 2.5%.  (Lower than had been in the past 50 years.)  The DOW Jones Industrial Average dropped from 10,587 to 7,949.  “Adjusted for inflation, median household income dropped by $1,175 between 2000 and 2007, said Elizabeth Warren, professor at Harvard Law School, in written testimony before the Joint Economic Committee.“  (Resource)  In the last year of his office, the U.S. entered the longest post-war recession since WWII, due to a housing market bubble, mortgage crisis, and high oil prices.  (Reuters, Xinhua)

This President passed an educational bill known as the No Child Left Behind Act, which has so many criticisms, they cannot all fit in one passage, but included underfunding and increase in access for military recruitment, and most importantly, increased segregation in public schools.

This President relaxed environmental standards, while claiming to want to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

This President called to allow 12 million illegal immigrant workers to stay in the United States as part of his “temporary guest worker program.” (ABC)  (Many in the Republican Party opposed this President’s bill because of the massive amounts of amnesty and legalization provisions for illegal immigrants.)

The worst natural disaster in US history struck during this President’s watch.  The same President that presided over the worst attack on the United States.  The disaster in New Orleans was actually preventable.  Response to the disaster was limited because, not only was the United States engaged in a foreign war to remove a leader of a country that posed no immediate threat to the United States, but because he appointed a personal friend with no experience to head the agency to deal with such situations.

Under this President, United States Attorneys were dismissed on political grounds, rather than performance related issues.  “In August 2009, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers testified before the House Judiciary Committee. A Justice Department inquiry into the firing of U.S. attorneys concluded that political considerations played a part in as many as four of the dismissals.“  (dead link from AP not posted)  And the DOJ decided the firings were political but not criminal. (Yahoo News)

According to Gallup Poll, when this President took office, he had below a 60% approval rating and had below a 40% approval rating when he left office.  His disapproval rating was above 60% when leaving office.

This President, in September of 2008, presided over the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack and watched the collapse of the Lehman Brothers.  He also presided over the federal bailout of the American International Group (AIG) for $85 billion.

According to the Bureau of Labor and Statistics, 2.6 million jobs were lost in the last year of this President’s term.

Now.

No one had a problem with this President, but when a Black American is elected and wants to give everyone health care, there is outrage?

People complained about the legitimacy of Bush’s appointment to office.  These are not the same people that are claiming President Obama is a usurper.

People complained about the No Child Left Behind Act and the Patriot Act, but these are not the same people who are complaining about Universal Healthcare and whatever other complaints there are currently.

And these people want to know why we believe they have racist motivations?  Or ethnocentric at the best?

Where were the “Don’t Tread On Me” flags when President Bush passed the Patriot Act?

Where were the people marching on Washington when schools were de facto re-segregated?

Where was the protests against the amnesty President Bush wanted to give illegal immigrants?

Where was the outrage when the wealthy continued to increase their wealth while the middle class actually dropped in wealth?

Where was the protests to the “Socialist Nationalist” takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?

Where was the outrage at the stimulus bill passed by President Bush?

Where was the outrage during President Bush?  It was from many of the people who voted for President Obama.  And these are likely many of the people who have legitimate complaints about this current administration.

But what is to convince us that the complaints the Tea Party, the GOP and the Libertarians have are legitimate?  I will admit, Ron Paul was highly critical of President Bush. His support before the election of Barack Obama was severely lacking.  (I’m pretty sure a gun rack and a pack of Skoal were required to support Ron Paul prior to November 2008.)

President Obama actually expanded gun ownership rights.  Why were the people marching around Virginia not carrying their guns in the parks during President Bush’s office?

You have New Right politicians today talking about “Second Amendment Solutions” and “Reload” as political discourse.  They are actually referencing shooting people who disagree with them!  This is rational?  This is debatable?

Seriously, just think about it rationally for a moment:  How are we to take you seriously when you have no complaints during the past 5 Presidents, and now you are furious that the Black guy won the election and wants everyone to have health care?  That he is not inciting other countries?  And there is this much anger over this President and not the previous one?

I honestly don’t even think anyone who disagrees with me will read this entry for what it is.  Instead you will dismiss it as an attack on Former President Bush and blind defense of President Obama.  The reality is that none of that is in here.  This does not condemn, nor condone, either President.  I just presented facts about the previous President.  There are plenty of criticisms of the current President, and every previous one.  What I’m trying to point to is the extreme outrage of the current President by people who were not outraged by the previous President, who actually did EVERY SINGLE THING THESE PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT TODAY!

I’m sure many GOPers that are complaining are the same people that said nothing when Bill Clinton blew up an Aspirin factory but went bonkers when he got a blowjob from an intern.  The same people who actually cheered when he made Aid for Families with Dependent Children harder to access, but claimed there was a murderous conspiracy about him and some crap real estate deal.  But, I don’t think those are the people that are carrying pictures of the President dressed as Hitler, screaming for an insurrection, insisting on indoctrinating the Protestant God in politics, and crying that the President is not a citizen.

Today, Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck were in D.C. spouting off at the mouth.  Beck was even saying things very similar to what President Obama had said during his campaign speech.  They are having a rally on the anniversary of Martin Luthar King Jr.’s “I have a Dream” speech.  Beck actually said that his DC Rally will “reclaim the civil rights movement.”  Reclaim it from whom?  So, White people are reclaiming the Civil Rights Movement?  I can’t even pretend to understand that concept.

If you want the rest of us to listen to you, you need to come up with something better than “The Black guy with the Muslim name wants to give everyone health care” as a rallying cry.

**note: This may be a rough draft.  I’m not completely satisfied with it.  Maybe I’ll come back and rewrite the same entry for tomorrow.**

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

There are several models of government and all of them are valid in one way or another.  What is the central role of government? And does this hinge on the type of government?

If we look at all governments through time, there are a few central themes to the role of government.  Primarily there is the protection of borders and the interest/security of the state.  This requires organization and defense capabilities.  Even in ancient times, the government had a duty to protect itself from outside forces.  Farther, governments need to maintain infrastructure and maintain order.  This has been one of the main tenants of government in China (and all early civilizations) for five thousand years.  Governments are also expected to maintain its citizenry.

This is not a comprehensive study on the role of government.  There is far too much information to compile it all into one entry.  We can look at Confucius, Legalism, Cicero, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Lenin, Jefferson, even Freud, and hundreds of other men and ideologies that have been documented throughout human history.  Each one lends their own unique ideology to the central role of government and the precepts behind it.

I really want to focus on the role of government in contemporary society and how it is fundamentally viewed today.  I think there are really two types of government in existence today:  Authoritarian and Democratic.  Just about all other forms branch from these two.  Republic, Constitutional Republic, Liberal Democracy, Anarchism, Communism and Socialism are all forms of Democratic government (in theory).  Theocracies, Dictatorships, Monarchies, Plutocracies, and Oligarchies are all forms of Authoritarian government.  (This is not a strict definition of terms, but simply clarification.)

In the modern world, especially in the West, Authoritarian governments are not looked at as positive.  Today we hold freedom much higher than security.  Let’s be honest, though:  Authoritarian governments are effective and efficient. They serve all of the basic needs of a government.  They allow for military protection of the state.  They allow for high maintenance of infrastructure.  The lack of dissent allows the government to move quickly and resolve issues immediately.

In the West, we add another quality to the role of government that we hold in high regard.  This is across party lines.  In addition to providing protection for the state and maintaining infrastructure, the role of government is to provide for its citizenry.  The reason I singled this out is the high regard we hold in the West to this concept.  (This is not to say that it is a quality only desired in the West, I’m just not ready to make a blanket statement for the entire globe.)  We expect the government to provide for the people it governs.

Anarchism is probably the most focused on this, as it desires a stateless society, or at least one with full consent of all of the governed.  Socialism has a strong component of providing for the governed, but with the least concern for actual consent.  Just about everything else falls somewhere in between.

Most Western Democracies are Constitutional Republics or Constitutional Monarchies.  (Typically the component of the Monarchy is somewhat limited compared to more authoritarian monarchies.)  The role of government in these societies is outlined in their constitutions.  Which brings me to my point of the day:  The United States is a Constitutional Republic.  What is the role of the American Government?

Well, the role of the government is outlined within the Constitution to some extent.  There are the rights of the population as outlined the Constitutional documents, and the limit of powers of government.  There is a lot of talk of the limitation of powers in the United States.  But not to much talk about what the government is supposed to do.

The reason I bring this up, is that it has all become so muddled.  Many of the same people who are claiming they want a “limited government” also want to institute religious laws for the population of the United States.  And many of the people who want “expanded government” also want to place limits on religious and cultural rules.  What do we really expect from our government?

I think we all expect our government to protect us.  Americans are appalled at governments that fail to protect their citizens.  We are even more appalled at governments that inflict harm on their people (including our own). There is a lot of debate on the issue of the Southern border of the United States.  This has become a contentious issue.  I think it would be in err to claim there was no need to maintain this border.  Every government in human history had to maintain its borders.  (The debate should be on how to best accomplish this, and to what end.)

We all expect the government to protect our rights as outlined in the Constitution.  This is one of the tenants of the American Constitutional Republic.  The role of Constitutions is to protect against the “tyranny of the majority.”  This gets confused, as we also expect our government to be elected representatives.  Americans expect their politicians to be elected representatives.  We tend to also want laws to be elected representatives.  This is something Americans expect, but it is not the role of government.  The rights of American citizens are not defined by a popular, or electoral, vote.  They are determined by the Constitution and common law.  Many expect this as the role of government, until they disagree with it.  (Ok, enough with the civics lesson.)

So what is the role of the American government? To maintain the state and protect the citizens?  To observe the Constitution that defines the Republic and respect the rights of the governed?

How do we accomplish this? Well, the United States has components of accountability within the government.  There are checks and balances.  If we remove these components of accountability in order to become more efficient, then we lose part of the role of the government.  Authoritarian polities are extremely efficient.  “Mussolini made the trains run on time.”

The role of the government is not to “turn a profit.“  Running a state is not like running a corporation. The accountability of a Capitalist Corporation lies in the profit margins and the shareholders.  The accountability of the American Republic lies in the rights and prosperity of the people of the United States.

Anyway, the purpose of this exercise was not to really define one aspect of the role of government, but to ask people to think about how they define the basic role of government before they make assertions on what the government is “doing wrong” today.

If the role of government is to provide basic medical care for all of the population, why is that?  If universal health care violates the role of this government, why is that?  To what extent does the government need to provide and protect its population?  Can a limited government provide all that is necessary?  Can an expanded government be properly held accountable?

One question I always seem to contend with is how one can reconcile a theocratic government with the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  The role of government, in this sense, is to provide a secular governance.  There are plenty of countries that have religious rule, the United States is not one of them.

My answer to the initial question of “what is the role of government” is:  It definitely depends on the individual government.

This leads me to ask:  What is the role of the American government?

Bookmark It

Hide Sites

” * Thus, because it can happen that everyone at some time fries a couple of eggs or sows up a tear in a jacket, we do not necessarily say that everyone is a cook or a tailor.“

I will be discussing this in the near future.

I am currently redesigning this site from the ground up.  I will be back shortly to elaborate on whatever I so desire in the very near future.

Please be patient as I am literally coding this entire site on piece at a time.

In the meantime, remember:

“TO TELL THE TRUTH IS REVOLUTIONARY!”

~ Antonio Gramsci

Bookmark It

Hide Sites