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. You used to be able to get a 390-calorie McDouble for 99 cents, said Nicholas Newhart, a 29-year-old with a Confederate flag tattooed on the back of his head. Without the Dollar Menu it now costs $1.49. Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/05/BA7H1F4J2T.DTL#ixzz0yuwEClKi 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. . . . → Read More: This Is Not A Prophecy, This Is Just A Warning
|
||||||
|
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 is 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. 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.] 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 without finances and the poverty trickles down. 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 of the Obama Administration and the anti-Islamic sentiments. 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 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? . . . → Read More: “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” I was reading the Huffington Post this morning. I usually skip the celebrity gossip stories and most of the pieces on TV shows and entertainment. There were a few interesting stories to note. Sharon Angle claims Unemployment Insurance ‘Really Doesn’t Benefit Anyone’. A puppy saved a boy from a bee swarm. And Glenn Beck admitted to lying (which is really like reporting that the sun is hot). I read the entry on how Unemployment Rate Rises In August For First Time In 4 Months As Labor Force Expands. And then I went to the comments. 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? [More...] 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.” . . . → Read More: First Amendment Solutions I was watching Cradle Will Rock last night. Although I thoroughly enjoyed it, that is not what I intend to discuss today. I was thinking about many of the topics of the film and how they relate to contemporary issues. Some issues are historical and not directly relevant. Other issues are associative. But then I started thinking about the period itself. The movie takes place in the 1930′s. More specifically, I was thinking about how Lukács describes history and class consciousness in his work titled History and Class Consciousness. 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.’ It’s not that I believe these people are very different from me. Indeed, I’m sure many of them would say they did understand that 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.) 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.” 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 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. 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 or more a day in sweatshops with little to no regard for safety 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. 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 “grass roots 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!” 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. 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? . . . → Read More: contemporary selective amnesia Glenn Beck University is NOT an accredited University. It is a series of classes that anyone can “take” for a fee. It is an “unaccredited online education program.” Judging by the use of terminology by those in GlennBeckistan, I hesitate to even mention it as an “education program.” It can be found here: http://www.glennbeck.com/becku/ 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? . . . → Read More: Glenn Beck Dictionary |
|
|||||
|
Copyright © 2010 SIGHED EFFECTS - All Rights Reserved |
||||||
Recent Comments