Class warfare may make for good politics, but it makes for rotten economics. We don’t need a system that seeks to divide people. We don’t need a system that seeks to prey on people’s fear, envy and anxiety.

While he is correct about class warfare not necessarily being good politics, his statement is one of misdirection. President Obama finally stated, “This is not class warfare. It’s math.”  He is completely correct, on most accounts.  But, I’m not really focused on President Obama’s speech today or his new fiscal proposals.  I’m really focused on the rhetoric, tactics and aims of the GOP, especially the Tea Party.

Class warfare is taken from the title of a book of interviews with Noam Chomsky in 1996.  Prior to this publication, the term was “class conflict.”  Class conflict is a Marxist term.  There are several forms of class conflict:  direct violence, indirect violence, coercion, or ideology.  All of these ideals are concerned with poverty, labor conditions, union power, starvation, government propaganda, and similar themes.  All of these ideals are concerned with the wealthy forcing the less wealthy to support their system of power.

Even this whole “Big Government is the problem” ideology is antiquated and unsubstantiated.  The Tea Party and their candidates continually insist, “the government is the problem.”  Or that “Big government is the problem.”  They constantly claim that taxation should be minimal.  So, they want a nonexistent government and almost no taxation?  They are seriously advocating that the United States be run like Somalia?

As of July 2003, Somalia had no national government.  In 1986, income tax in Somalia was between 0% and 19%.  In 2003, the sales tax rate was 10%.  Really?  This is the nation we want to aspire to be?  Somalia?

They also claim that National Health Care is oppressive and destroys freedom and financial growth.  They claim that unions and labor organizations stifle the economy.  They claim that outsourcing labor is responsible for the destruction (or erosion) of the middle class.

There is a country that has no “at will” employment.  Employees are guaranteed 24 paid vacation days per year, though most get 4 to 6 weeks.  Maternity leave and working conditions are legislated at a high level.  This country also opened up six more factories in a cheaper country this year, so far.  Germany is hardly the same picture as Somalia.  They make cars that automatically avoid accidents (if the driver isn’t paying attention) and parking lots that automatically stack cars underground.  Germany also has 6.1% unemployment.

Are we really to believe that there is “sound reasoning” behind the GOP/Tea Party ideology? And back to the Conservative rhetoric:  Class warfare?  Really?   They also claim to be against “Big Government” – yet, they want the government to legislate who can get an abortion, who can get married, what religions are valid – and they want the state to execute people.  How much more power can you give the government over the right to take people’s lives?  The point of all this is not to turn the American Democrats into saints, or even to validate them as effective or even validate them as valid… only to point out that the American Conservatives are full of empty rhetoric.

A few weeks ago, the American Conservatives claimed that Congresswoman Waters advocated violence by stating, “The Tea Party can go straight to hell...” in response to a Tea Party members’ statement that the Democrats were plantation overseers.  On Sunday, Andrew Breitbart stated that the American Conservatives/Tea Party were armed and ready for conflict with the “Liberals” – and claimed American military would support them.

I’m under attack all the time. They call me gay, there are death threats… There are times where I’m not thinking as clearly as I should, and in those unclear moments, I always think to myself, ‘Fire the first shot.’ Bring it on. Because I know who’s on our side. They can only win a rhetorical and propaganda war. They cannot win. We outnumber them in this country, and we have the guns… I’m not kidding. They talk a mean game, but they will not cross that line because they know what they’re dealing with.

….

And I have people who come up to me in the military, major named people in the military, who grab me and they go, ‘Thank you for what you’re doing, we’ve got your back.’  And, so … So…

They understand that. These are the unspoken things we know, they know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHslkhZWzUQ

Just to be clear… Breitbart elaborates more here:

He says, “… to be clear … I’m talking about civil war … ”

If American Military officials are telling him they will support an armed insurrection against American citizens, they are committing high treason.  If he is complicit in the act, he should be tried for it, too.  This is a high crime.  One of the highest.  And this guy is an asshat.  He edited videos that destroyed community service organizations and sabotaged Shirley Chisholm’s career, by selective editing.  He is not a journalist, he is a propagandist.

When Breitbart states that military officials have confided in him that they would support an armed insurrection, where is the support of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security procedures that the Tea Party so consistently endorses?  I think Dick Cheney should Waterboard Breitbart until he names every single military officer that confided in him to endorse high treason.

At the very bottom of it all… the Tea Party and the GOP are all empty rhetoric.  We already know they hate science, so there is no science behind their claims.  They hate half of America, at least.  They consistently espouse Marxist rhetoric to condemn Marxism, Communism, Socialism, and even most forms of Capitalism… really, the Tea Party prove more every day that they are nothing but contemporary, American Fascists.

Finally, what ever happened to Sarah Palin?  I know I shouldn’t care… but Palin quotes are the gift that keeps on giving.

Nahan

I find the story of Lu Xun and the May Fourth Movement are highly relevant today.  So, first we take a short trip to revisit a quick overview of the May 4th Movement.  The root cause of the May Fourth Movement was the Treaty of Versailles. During WWI, China had joined forces with the Allies, on the ground that Germany would relinquish Shandong (山东) back to China.  Shandong was the birthplace of Confucius and, therefore, a special place in China.  Despite this, in the Treaty of Versailles, Shandong was conceded to Japan, instead of China.  (Eventually, Shandong was conceded to China, with special privileges to the Japanese.)

The problem with the handling of Shandong did not go over well with the population of China.  It caused the government to be viewed as ‘weak.’  This is especially problematic in China, with the concept of the Dynastic Cycle ( 朝代循环) and the Mandate of Heaven (天命) –  (which is too much to detail here).  The Qing Dynasty was overthrown in 1911 by the XinHai Revolution (辛亥革命) over anger of corruption and abuses by the Imperial Dynasty . . .  the May Fourth Movement, or the New Culture Movement, quickly followed the XinHai Revolution.  This was a massive student uprising that eventually led to the birth of “Chinese Communism.”  It was also a pivotal point where China turned its back on Western Liberalism . . . because of feeling slighted by the Shandong problem and lack of proper enforcement of Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.”   More or less: Chinese culture felt as though Western Imperialism would never accept Chinese culture.

What is really interesting in the May Fourth Movement, is that Chiang Kai-shek (or Jiǎng Jièshí) – a close ally of Sun Yat-sen, had decried Marxism as “Western interventionism” and “counter to Chinese ideals.”  Chiang and Sun Yat-sen would go on to be an important figures in the formation of the KMT (KuoMingTan) in Taiwan.  I find this interesting because we tend to look at Chinese Communism as the “foreign” or “oriental” philosophy, instead of the Imperialism of the KMT.  It really is a matter of perspective.  (Thank you, Nietzsche.)

I covered all of that to point out that the West is in similar peril.  We, in the West, are in a cultural war similar to those in the Xinhua Revolution and the May Fourth Movement.  We are at a crossroads of the new and the old, with little room for compromise.

Last night, I wanted to watch a Chiddy Bang video on YouTube.  I was subjected to a 2 minute video clip/commercial.  Typically I just ignore them, but this one . . . well, this one was funded by the Charles Koch Foundation.  It was pure propaganda.  (The same thing Glenn Beck, the TP, and every Right Wing, reactionary nut claims the Left is doing constantly.)  It falsely concluded that economic freedom led to civil and political freedom.  It ignored ALL information that may be contradictory, such as GINI coefficients.  It even had a subtext of racism, oddly enough.  (“Look at all these poor mud-race countries, compared to these wonderful White dominated systems.”)  But, the video really isn’t the crux of my point today . . . just an example.

It became abundantly obvious to me that we are being immersed in a war:  a war of information.  But. no, not just a war of information – a war of perspectives and a war of concerns.  The Koch brothers, and the “old guard” are pretty much acting as the Imperial Dynasty, trying to lay claim to their ineffective, corrupt system that has endured but is ineffective in dealing with the modern world . . .

I visit this topic frequently, and especially, when dealing with the history and politics of China.  I find similar trends when I study South Africa.  It really disheartens me that we do not feel was can learn from other cultures.  We want to cram our culture down others’ throats, but refuse to look at the lessons they have learned.  China in particular, because this is a culture that evolved in a different manner than the West.  There is a different perspective in almost every aspect of Chinese culture.

I often have this debate (and I promise I’m not digressing) about music.  I point out that Black Americans originated just about every form of American music:  from Blues to Jazz, to Rock to Country, Soul, Bebop, Bluegrass, and Hip Hop.  Many people respond to me that “you can’t own music,” or, more appropriately, “you cannot own a genre.”  Well, how can you own an idea?  In the West, you file a patent and the idea belongs to you.  In China, it doesn’t really work that way.  (Re:  faux Chinese Apple Stores.)  The same can be said for the Chinese perspective on economics, government, and social responsibility.

And too often, people try to correlate “different” with a value judgement.  Different does not necessarily mean “inferior” or “superior.”  It just means, “Not the same.”  The Eastern perspective on Capitalism is as different as the Eastern perspective on Marxism.  It has been co-opted and adapted to fit a culture that evolved in a different manner.

As I try to tie this all together, I go back to the current climate of culture war that is being waged in America today.  That is not to say it is only in America, this is actually a global movement, but I do believe that America is the focal point, currently.  The Imperialists are manipulating the reactionary forces to support their hold on the power structure.  They are adopting new forms of communication and manipulating them to alter public perception.  They are utilizing blanket terms to manipulate opinion in the most transparent manner.

The clip I saw last night, produced by the Charles Koch Foundation, went on to show to lists of countries.  It related List A to countries with “more economic freedom” and claimed this allowed greater political, personal and economic freedoms for all; and List B were autocratic states with limited economic freedom.  They completely ignored the GINI Coefficient – meaning, they ignored the disparity in wealth between the rich and the poor.  They did this because the countries they listed have huge disparities (on both lists).  Their claim that “small governments” led to more profitable economies and more personal freedoms is fallacious at best.

They point out that Hong Kong has “high economic freedom” and “more civil liberties.”  Well, if you were to compare countries by GINI coefficients (where 0 is no disparity and 100 is total disparity) there is a different picture.  Hong Kong’s GINI is 53.3, there is high economic freedom but the wealth disparity is more similar to Haiti (59.2) or Guatemala (55.1) than to France(32.7), Germany (27), Ghana (39.4), Italy (32), Israel (39.2), Ireland (30.7), Sweden (23), and the UK (34).  The United States is higher than ALL of these Western Counrtries, at 45.  China is listed as 41.5.  (GINI coefficients via CIA)

This is just one area in this propaganda that is problematic.  The sad thing is that people are blindly following it as gospel.  They are not asking questions.  They are just saying, “Oh, yeah.  I like that.  Greater economic freedom means more freedom for everyone.”  They don’t even seem to care what that means.  A study proved it, so it must be true . . . of course, if a study contradicts it, it must be biased.  The reality is that it is not even nearly that simple.  Of course Koch Industries wants “less regulations” and “smaller government.”  They want to get rid of regulations that prevent monopoly, environmental regulations, workplace regulations . . . and so on.

This cultural war is probably the most important, pivotal point in United States history since the Civil Rights movement.  Definitely since the labor movements at the beginning of the 20th century.  We are going to decide now, do we want a wealthy aristocratic ruling class and a majority of the population as working class?  Or do we want a country that strives for a better tomorrow?  Are we going to learn from other cultures and polities?  Or are we going to repeat their mistakes?

What we see in China, through the Dynastic Cycle, is restlessness in the population when the government is no longer seen as effective.  The XinHai Revolution was not different in that regard.  Where China took a new, unforeseen course, was in establishing a nation of popular sovereignty, rather than an Imperial Dynasty.  Let’s be clear on one thing… the XinHai Revolution was not the technical start of the People’s Republic, just the end of the Qing Dynasty.  This also fits in the Dynastic Cycle… the period of anarchy that proceeds the period of dynasty.  The XinHai Revolution opened the doors to a series of revolutions and attempts to grab power.  The two factions that wanted to “reform” China were the Nationalist movement and the Marxist movement. Mao’s Communist forces defeated the Kuomingtan in 1949, shortly after WWII.  This followed a series of movements by the Maoist government, that continued a lot of the cultural struggles against the nationalist movement.

Ok, I started to digress.

[I cannot demonstrably argue that time moves forward.  I suck at advanced math and cannot even begin to formulate time into a physics equation.  But, I do know that our perception of time moves forward... so, whenever I state that time moves forward... that is the intent.  It's a metaphorical movement of time based on our perception.]

Time moves forward, whether you like it or not.  Who has not been in a position where things are good and we want to stay at that moment in time forever?  Or go back to a specific period.  You know that guy from high school that still talks about his champion football game and how he got “lucky” at the Prom? He probably still has a music library that encircles that time period.  All he talks about is things that happened in high school, because nothing has happened since. Maybe he is still even wearing the same clothes he had back then.  Time moved forward, that guy did not.

A reactionary is a person who wishes things to go back to a previous state, status quo ante.  The problem with this, is that time does not move in that direction.  Still, this is the logic being deployed by the American Conservatives.  The claim is that prosperity will return if we go back to a previous state.  The problem is that the Universe is not going to go back with the United States.

Back to the first half of the 20th Century -

In the first half of the 20th Century, we see a few ways to deal with proletarian rage, the rage of the working class.  China and Russia directed this rage at deposing the autocratic monarchy in favor of a government that was supposedly more open to individual representation.  (The goal and the results may not have been the same, but the selling point for Soviet and Maoist Communism was that these were to be “People’s” governments.)

The other method of dealing with proletarian rage is misdirection.  In Germany and Italy, this was highly effective.  (We’ll not discuss Italy right now, because the nuance is more significant.)  In Germany, nobody was angry with the aristocracy, they were busy blaming everyone else.  They raged against everyone except the wealthy aristocracy.  And we see how disastrous this was . . . the Nazi Party and WWII Germany are not very popular today, with anyone.

This is not meant to be hyperbole.  I’m not extolling Godwin’s Law.  I’m not claiming that the new Nazi Party is going to rise out of the current global situation.  (I’m not excluding it as a possibility, though.)  And I’m not claiming that a Maoist Revolution is going to solve anything.  I’m simply pointing out a perspective of a current situation.  (I believe it is more likely a difference between a return to the Gilded Age, or a return to the Clinton Age.)  But these options are still on the table, with the Tea Party and New Right screaming about “Taking America Back” (from whom?) and the Left talking about some Utopian resolution.

We see that people are angry and scared.  Out of these emotions, people are questioning the current status quo.  We also see that very wealthy individuals are distorting the situation to their own ends.  It amazes me that so many people really believe that increasing taxes on the wealthy would be problematic.  And there are these tidbits of information out there that boil down every concept into a bumper sticker:  ”Smaller government,”  ”Big government is the problem,” “No socialism.”

It is not all of the wealthy that are doing this.  Warren Buffet stated that we should tax the rich.  Quite a few wealthy people have spoken up in defense of the rest of America.  Why are we allowing the few, wealthy individuals to create class warfare?  Why are we repeating the same problems of the past?

And I see a lot of economists, many of whom I really like, such as Robert Reich, stating that if we do not increase employment, we cannot increase consumption, and everyone loses.  This is not necessarily true.  Many industries are now outsourcing consumers.  GM now sells more vehicles to China than to the United States.  They don’t even need Americans as consumers anymore… the American population is effectively becoming a massive, desperate labor pool.

I do not believe that a majority of Americans accept this situation.  And I do not believe that a majority of Americans agree with the loudest of Americans.  The Tea Party espouses this Libertarian, Far Right propaganda about “small government” and “less entitlements” and “less restrictions” and “less taxes on the wealthy.”  They are the loudest, but are they the most correct?  Or the most popular?

Quite simply, a country is a geographical entity that contains a sovereign state, or polity.  Defining what is a state, or society, can be complicated in itself… but I really just want to point out that the United States is a country that contains 99% of its population… and the population needs to speak up.  The loudest voice in the room cannot continue to be the voice that is purchased by Koch Industries, or Americans for Prosperity, or FreedomWorks, or The Charles Koch Foundation, or Bank of America, or Exxon Mobile… the loudest voice needs to be the voice of reason.

As the GOP primaries gain more and more attention, it is critical that these voices to not become the most prominent voices in America.  It is crucial that discussions do not waiver on how much debt the working class should shoulder, but on what direction the United States is going to head.  This is a Call To Arms for every thinking person to speak up and oppose oligarchy, plutocracy and aristocracy.  We need you now more than ever… to stop allowing “democracy” to be co-opted and purchased.  Stop allowing the Reactionary Conservatives to frame their stance as one that is “for the working class” when it is everything except that.  They attack Unions and Labor, and claim it is “for the working class” – they attack public assistance, and claim it is for the “common American” – they attack environmental regulations, and claim it is for the general welfare of the average American.  This is bullshit and it has to stop.

Too many people are perfectly healthy physically, but broken spiritually.  Especially since we had a whirlwind campaign of a different Presidential candidate that had people all over the world chanting “Yes, We Can” and promoting “Hope” and “Change.”  And now, everyone pretty much feels like, “Oh, No we didn’t.”  We cannot let this break our spirits.  We can continue to hope for change… and work for a decrease in oligarchy… but we have to speak up.  We have to fight this ideological war with reason, compassion and logic.  We have to work together to find new perspectives that offer new solutions.

When I searched for Imogen Lloyd Webber, I did not find much of what I was seeking.  I did find a little factual information from Wikipedia and such.  It was a bit impressive… she went to Queen’s College, London and Girton College, Cambridge.  She runs a theatre production company, she is an author, and appears regularly on MSNBC and Fox News.

Majority of what I found were YouTube clips of “Imogen Lloyd Webber’s legs.  Long clips of sliced up segments of Fox News’ Red Eye, to the point where there is no coherent dialogue, just clips stitched together to show her legs.  I found a ton of images of her.  On clip I saw, another co-host on Red Eye made some sexist joke about Virgin Airlines and Imogen that I found completely distasteful.  The only other piece I found with views of what Imogen actually has to say, was on her own website/blog.

Imogen Lloyd Webber’s website defines her as:  “your typical “liberal” modern woman – never knowingly short of an opinion on everything from deficit reduction to Kim Kardashian!“  That’s the only place I could find any of her opinions.  I guess it is a good thing that I had to actually find her actual words to make a judgement on her perspective.  But, sometimes, that is tedious.  If a person did not know who Glenn Beck was, today, they could Google him and ascertain from others if they are even interested in hearing what Beck has to say.  No such luxury with Imogen.

Imogen Lloyd Webber is an attractive woman.  (And an attractive British woman is news, I will agree.)  But, I don’t really care.  I care about what she has to say.  I’m writing about this because I find that it is distressing.  Why are we so focused on appearance?  Rachel Maddow has a more masculine haircut than I do, but I don’t care.  What she has to say has put her near the top of my favorite, public personalities.  I love Rachel Maddow… and that type of intrinsic and beautiful love that a child has for a puppy, or a cowboy has for his horse, or a gorilla has for a kitten.  Melissa Harris-Perry is happily married.  She also has a lisp that, sometimes, drives me mad.  But what Harris-Perry also has is a mind that has some of the most beautiful thoughts in the world.

Michelle Malkin is an attractive woman, to me.  I hate her.  Not just what she says.  I really hate her.  On the list of people I hate, Michelle Malkin is on that list.  I loathe her.  I have contempt for her.  Anne Coulter is another woman that I loathe.  I don’t think Coulter is hideous, and I don’t think Coulter is stupid.  Quite the contrary, Coulter is an intelligent and accomplished woman.  She also spreads a message of hate, fear, and ignorance.  I hate her for that.

I just find it so concerning that, in this day and age, women are still subjected to this double set of standards.  Not only are they to be held accountable for their statements and actions, but they are objectified.  We do not do this to men.  I am not assaulted with opinions of the physical appeal of Glenn Beck, Chris Mathews, Joe Madison, Pat Buchanan, Rick Perry, Jesse Jackson, George W. Bush, Chris Christie, Al Sharpton, or Bill O’Reilly.   (I’m thankful for that, too.)  There is the occasional comparison to Gov. Christie to Ralph Cramden, or to Tim Pawlenty to Droopy Dog… but that is not the same thing.

I do not consider myself a feminist.  I know feminists.  We disagree on many things.  A short personal anecdote:

I had to drop a class once on Political Theory due to a schedule conflict.  I asked my friend, who stayed in the class, how she enjoyed it.  She told me, after I left the class, she hated it.  As a Japanese female, she really disliked discussions on Women’s Rights in the United States.  She felt that the views of Feminists in America were very short-sighted and ethnocentric.

I have also made the same claims about feminism.  I find that it is too rigid.  (I also really enjoy Internet pornography.)  This is probably because I am more of a perspectivist…but that is another issue.  What I cannot avoid is the truth behind the feminist claim that women are still unfairly unequal in our society.  We continue to hold women to these double standards that are completely unfair.

When I see a woman such as Kim Kardashian or Snookie, I don’t care what she has to say.  They really have very little to say.  They are pop-cultural eye candy.  It’s fine that they litter Perez Hilton’s website and Google images.  And I also do not see a problem with pointing out that Imogen Lloyd Webber is attractive.  But this is a woman that has studied and worked to coordinate deep thoughts on issues.  To turn her into a piece of eye-candy is demeaning.

I realize, that by writing an entire entry about this topic, I have contributed to this topic and the paradox is one that could eventually make one have a seizure if it is too deeply focused upon.  By complaining that too much attention is paid to the appearance of Imogen Lloyd Webber, I am writing an article about the appearance of Imogen Lloyd Webber, and placing focus on the very issue that I think should not have any attention… and then… I have run out of words to complete this thought, but it has a wormhole in it, somewhere.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that I don’t see why an attractive woman can be more attractive by having a decent mind.  It is almost as if a woman can be attractive, or intelligent, but not both.

The Corporate supported GOP and Tea Party are playing a dangerous game, with the United States, and the world.  The only thing more disturbing is how the American Democrats, the American Left and the International Left are refusing to stand up and speak against this massive bowel movement.  It is revolting.  I guess it is safe to say, “The Tea Party is revolting.“  It can mean any number of things.

We keep hearing the same talking points from the ideological Right with little evidence to support any of their claims.  “Big government is the problem,” they say.  They keep claiming that increasing taxes for the wealthy will “destroy the American economy.”  They keep claiming that the debt of the United States is far too massive.  They keep claiming that the problem is Unions, benefits, and pensions.  Clinging to the claim that “Trickle Down Economics” are the final solution for everything.  And they keep insinuating that “entitlements” are the problem.  They also have this infusion of racism and ethnocentrism that run through the middle of their claims.  The claim that drives me nuts is the claim that we need to “share in the responsibility.”  Funny, these are the same people that call taxes on the wealthy “socialist wealth distribution,”  but distributing debt on all of us – is just “the free market.”

Since 1979, the American worker has seen a 0% to 11% increase in wages.  The wealthy have seen a 200% to 300% increase in compensation.  (The wealthy do not have ‘wages.’)  How long do we have to wait for this “trickle down” effect of Supply-Side economics?  8 years of Reagan, 4 years of Bush, and then another 8 years of another Bush were not enough?  The wealthy are inordinately wealthy . . . how much more wealthy do they need to be before it trickles down?  The only thing that is trickling down now is typically in a colostomy bag.

In 1979 the American worker’s average hourly wage was equal to $15.91 (adjusted for inflation in 2001 dollars). By 1989 it had reached only $16.63/hour. That’s a gain of only 7 cents a year for the entire Reagan decade.

But wait. Things get worse! By 1995 it had risen to only $16.71, or virtually no gain whatsoever over the 6 years between 1989 and 1995. During the great ‘boom years’ between 1995 and 2000 it rose briefly to $18.33 per hour. In other words, from 1979 to 2000, even before the most recent Bush recession, after more than two decades the American worker’s average wages increased on average only 11.5 cents per hour per year! With nearly all of that coming in the five so-called ‘boom’ years of 1995-2000, and most of that lost once again in the last three years. And that includes for all workers, even those with college degrees.

The picture is worse for workers who had no college degree. That’s more than 100 million workers, or 72.1% of the workforce. For them there was no ‘boom of 1995-2000′ whatsoever. Their average real hourly wages were less at the end of 2000 than they were in 1979! And since 2000 their wages have continued to slide further.

http://www.kyklosproductions.com/articles/wages.html

And the Tea Party is claiming that the debt “crisis” is imminent… I guess, because they are more concerned with maintaining a Sarah Palin educational system:  One where pesky facts do not get in the way of “common sense.”

United States Debt

Well, let’s look at the debt… and what it means.  First of all, for time’s sake, we will just look at the public debt.  And it is apparently true that the United States public debt has increased steadily since the 1980′s.  If we look at the whole chart to the Left, we see that the debt spiked during WWII and then dipped down.  It began to rise again during the 1980′s.

What happened in these times?  Well, after World War II, Europe was decimated and the United States was the top producer in the world.  So, all other arguments aside, we can just ascribe that to the dip in debt.  And in the 1980′s, Ronald Reagan was president of the United States.

If we look at graph 2, we see the Debt in relation to Gross Domestic Product.  The amount of current debt in relation to GDP is about equal to 1950.  Why is that so urgent?  The reality is that it is not.  This is a completely false crisis.  THERE IS NO DEBT CRISIS!

There is a crisis in America.  There is a lack of employment.  There is an unemployment crisis.  Right now.  And the GOP and Tea Party turned the attention towards the debt.  They also turned the debt level in an excuse to cut public funding.  But have adamantly refused to even discuss tax increases (revenue increases).

What this false debt crisis has done is create a situation where government employees and civil servants are losing ANY bargaining power as a labor force.  Pensions are being cut.  Benefits are being cut.  Salaries and wages are being cut.  Jobs are being cut.  These are jobs being cut!  During an unemployment crisis.  And these are jobs for police officers, firemen, EMTs, court clerks, social security clerical workers, social workers, and many more public services.  And funding is being cut from help the poor receive minimal standards.

On top of this, the GOP and Tea Party wants us to “share in the responsibility.”  They are afraid that the wealthy will have to shoulder most of the debt.  So, let’s see… those that have seen a 200 to 300 percent increase in wealth, shouldn’t shoulder in a majority of the debt?  Those who have had a 0% increase in wealth are just as responsible?  This is bullshit.  Most of the citizens in the United States are just renters.  The landlords are forcing the renters to maintain their own buildings?  In some places, these are called Slumlords.

Sometimes I wonder, though.  Are the Tea Party leaders and majority of the GOP this dishonest?  Or are they this daft?  Are they this easy to manipulate?  It is really one or the other.  They are either dishonest or stupid.  The rest of us are stupid, for allowing this nonsense to spread.  We are as bad as those in Germany that did nothing as Hitler’s forces seized power and sat idly until it was too late.

These people are destroying the working class – while claiming to be for the working class.  They are creating a climate where the wealthy continue to increase wealth and the middle class is being destroyed.  All while claiming to be for the middle class.  They fan the flames of religious intolerance, while claiming to be standing for freedom of religion.  They continue to espouse condemnation of ideology, while they espouse pure ideology.

This talk about “big government is the problem.”  Can any of them tell us why?  Why is big government the problem?  What problems does a big government cause that a small government can resolve?  To be a bit pragmatic…

Big government can be the result of an extensive system of checks and balances.  Checks and balances are the result of safeguards against corruption and authoritarianism.  This is how we prevent exploitation and abuse.  Small governments are typically ill-equipped to deal with such issues, unless they are completely autocratic.  This is not to say all big governments exist for reasons of checks and balances… just the opposite:  that the more checks and balances, the larger the bureaucracy.

To pull from Wikipedia (i still hate doing it, but am feeling lazy):

The economy of Japan is the third largest in the world[10] after the United States and the People’s Republic of China, and ahead of Germany at 4th. According to the International Monetary Fund, the country’s per capita GDP（PPP）was at $33,805 or the 24th highest in 2010.

So.  Why do we assume that big government is the problem?  Because The People’s Republic of China and Germany have such small governments?  Of those four countries, the United States has the highest GINI coefficient.  (GINI coefficient measures disparity in wealth, where higher coefficients mean, basically, that more of the wealth is owned by fewer people.)

HOW IS BIG GOVERNMENT THE PROBLEM?

They talk about “responsible government.”  But they couldn’t want this any less.  They want to government to sit on its hands while people go hungry, cannot find employment, cannot get proper medical care… how is that responsible?  HOW COULD ANYTHING ELSE BE MORE IRRESPONSIBLE?  What responsible government lets the conditions of revolution foment?  And lets the population become more and more disenfranchised?  And how is that democracy?

Like I said, the real crisis is the unemployment situation.  And the GOP and Tea Party effectively increased the problem.  President Obama and the majority of Democrats in Congress allowed this to happen.  And it will happen again.  Now they know it will work… what is the incentive to not hold the welfare of the nation hostage again?  They, more or less, held the entire world hostage.  The global economy is tied to the United States economy.  The whole world was watching this “crisis” unfold, with baited breath.  And the hostage takers won.  They have repeatedly held our economy hostage until they get what they want.  “No more jobs until we get to keep the Bush tax cuts.”  They got to keep the Bush tax cuts.  So, why not hold the national credit rating and global economy hostage until they get to reduce government spending, to keep taxes low on the wealthy?

“Patriotism is the last refuse of the scoundrel.”  These are scoundrels, every last one of them.  They are willing to let the United States be destroyed to follow some ideological principles.  What could be worse?  They oppose populous desires when they disagree with them.  (Not when they violate the rights of the minority.)  The only time, in a democratic polity, that the will of the majority should be violated, is to protect the rights of the minority.  (And, no, the wealthy are not a minority.  Minorities are those who do not compose the dominant voting majority.)  They claim to want what is best for the nation, but they want what is best for themselves and their corporate sponsors.

They do not care about the pensions and benefits of people who have devoted their lives to serving the United States.  We are seeing police and firemen pensions being cut.  They do not care about the working class, we are seeing Unions being literally destroyed.  They do not care about the poor, we are seeing them be blamed for every ail of our society.  They want to cut medical care for the elderly.  Really… this should be an outrage.

This repeated claim that, somehow, making the climate more hospitable to the wealthy will miraculously create more jobs… has no substantial basis.  I understand the claim.  I see no basis.  The wealthy have already seen an extremely pleasant situation in America.  They continue to increase their revenue… and we do not see them creating jobs.  What we do see… is a reduction in wages, an increase in work loads, a decrease in benefits… the climate is so friendly to corporations and businesses, they will do anything they can to keep the situation the way it is… they do not need to outsource labor now, because they can outsource consumers.  The GOP and Tea Party… they want to keep this going.

I implore everyone who understands how detrimental this is… please be outraged.  Vocalized your outrage.  Ignore the patriotism they blanket themselves in… and call these people what they are… either dishonest or stupid.  Call them anti-American.  Call them anything…and tell the government we want politicians that will stand up and fight for the working class, the average person… we want politicians that will not let the elite blackmail the nation into giving them what they want… lower taxes for the wealthy and more debt on the working class.

PLEASE!  BE OUTRAGED!

I have to also admit, I have become increasingly disenchanted with American politics.  Look at what’s been going on and there’s really nothing constructive to say.  I could write about how Donald Trump is a racist asshole, but who cares?  Anyone from the tri-state area already knows this is true.  Newt Gingrich?  I have had nothing but utter contempt for this man for majority of my life… I really have little to say about him.  Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are still idiots.  Michelle Bachmann issues her utterances of innanity here and there…

There is a Presidential election coming up in 2012 and no one seems to care.  Reports of the Rapture by Harold Camping have been taking headline news, as well as Arnold’s love child… because there really is no news.  I do not care about Arnold’s child out of wedlock…and nothing that I can imagine will make me care.  I don’t care about Newt Gringrich, at all.

I am a bit amused there is a For Profit school named UTI.  But really, there is not much amusing about For Profit schools.

So, I have been around, but not updating entries.  I actually have been a bit busy… but I don’t put my personal business on this site much, so I’ll leave it at that.

I was thinking about how the United States has the largest prison population in the world.  And how it is disproportionately minority.  And then I was thinking about how people just accept that as “normal.”  And, without going into a dialectical analysis of false consciousness and use of history by dominants, I was also thinking about why people think this is normal.  There is a simple concept which I find often overlooked.

People are often confused between who is arrested for committing crimes, who is observed committing crimes and who is actually committing the crimes.  I decided to make a Venn Diagram.. and then I realized it is pretty sad that when I get bored, or stressed, I make a Venn Diagram.

Anyway, here it is:

Venn Diagram of Theft Observations

I guess I should explain a bit, just to fill this post out… and prevent myself from beating my head against the wall.  (I will also point out the one, inadvertent point that I made in this graph, and should probably change.)

We see here that there are White People, Black People and Other People.  This was really because having too many segments will just make it look like polka dots and become even more confusing.

We also see that a segment of all of these populations commit acts of theft.

And then We see that it is White People that commit most acts of theft.  Followed by Black People and Other People.

We also see that Black People are the most observed in total.  When looking at those observed in acts of theft, there are a lot more Black People observed committing acts of theft than White People.

Also, I did not mean to make it so that all of the White People observed committed acts of theft… but it is interesting to make it that way.  I might leave it, or maybe not.  The implications are pretty interesting if I leave it.

*edit*(Also, where the White People and Black People overlap… everyone is a thief.  I guess that is pretty bad… I should remove the overlap, I guess… or it states that all mixed-race offspring are thieves.  This was NOT intended!  It was a mistake due to carelessness on my behalf.)*edit*

So, do we now understand that the perception of who is stealing is not necessarily the reality of who is stealing?  Of course, people cannot be arrested committing a crime if no one knows they committed it, so arrest rates would fall into a similar diagram… but would also have to take into account police procedure and court procedures.

I will also try to put up more entries more often.  I have actually been a little busy lately… sorry for the few and the faithful.

I have been meaning to comment on the events in Wisconsin for quite some time.  As well as Egypt and Libya.

“Right here, right now, watching the world wake up from history.”

I have had a problem figuring out where to begin with the situation in Wisconsin (that has, since, spread to several other states).  A few nights ago, I was able to find a jumping off point.

I was discussing the massive disparities in wealth inequalities in America.  Most especially, how the wealthy, top 2% are increasing in wealth, and the other 98% of the United States are depreciating in wealth.  The comment that was returned to me was:

Here’s a revolutionary thought:  How about people make their own money and then they can do with it as they see fit.

My response was:  “Did Paris Hilton earn all of her wealth?“  The response to this was:  “Her grandparents made that money and gave it to her, as they saw fit.  They earned it.  They can spend it on their granddaughter’s dogs and cats if they want.“

This is not a heinous attitude.  It is not a terribly disturbing view.  It is rather honest.  If people earn their money, they should do whatever they want to do with it.  That does seem fair.  But is it really?

I have to be honest.  I only picked Paris Hilton because she is probably the most famous American socialite.  I have no problem with Ms. Hilton personally.  She actually is not even relevant to the discussion.  I also think she is not the best possible example… there are people who are many generations farther from the origin of their wealth, who have much larger amounts of wealth, that was obtained through much less acceptable means.  But, the overall situation does not change much:  Her grandfather generated the largest real estate deal in America and now she is exorbitantly wealthy.  “She can spend that money on her dogs and cats if she wants.“

Really?  So, children are homeless.  People are losing their homes left and right.  People are lacking basic health care.  And she can spend millions of dollars on dog food?  Meanwhile, the American economy is slumping and degrading… there are several issues at play here.  I will try to break them down as best I can.

Collapse of the US Economy

The United States economy collapsed.  The stock markets crashed and the economy declined exponentially.  We know now that there were several causes to this financial collapse.  Most of the burden lies with the housing/real estate market.  Wall Street (Bankers, financiers, stock traders, et al.) knowingly packaged bad mortgages, inflated stocks and generated unprecedented wealth through less than honest procedures.  This created a bubble of wealth creation that eventually burst.  As stocks depreciated, companies downsized and laid off large numbers of employees.  As more employees lost their jobs, more homes went into foreclosure, sending more stocks down, and a downward spiral ensued.

Meanwhile, the United States is fighting a war in Iraq and a war in Afghanistan.  China is rising as a global economic power.

This is a very general overview.  It is not terribly accurate and does not do a good job describing the current economic situation, but I did not want to spend much time on this.

Deficit Reduction/Limited Government

The United States has technically “recovered” from the financial collapse, but remains heavily in debt.  Job creation has been slow and many states are severely lacking in revenue.  (Really, ALL states are lacking in revenue.)  There has been a huge call for “deficit reduction” and “decreasing the size of government.“

The other day, someone said to me, “We all know that lower taxes and smaller government stimulate the economy.”  My response was, “How do we know this when all of the evidence suggests the opposite?“  There is really a plethora of evidence that higher tax rates on the top marginal percent and expanded government programs actually stimulate economies.  The last time the United States had a tax rate below 50% for the top marginal percent, before Reagan, was preceding/during the Great Depression.  During the 1950′s it was at 90%.  Government was also expanded to the largest extent ever during the 1950s and 1960s.

Still, the demand is for “reducing the deficit.”  There is little talk of investment in the future.  Even the Democrats are reducing spending.  President Obama has put forth plans to reduce government spending on many programs to help the less fortunate, but has also proposed government plans to invest in infrastructure, such as high speed rails.

As states are desperate to balance their state budgets, they need to make cuts.  The last thing any state wants to do is drive away existing business, which depreciates income substantially.  The government has basically decided that letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire is not an option and that we are keeping the taxes for the top marginal percent at 30%.  So, where are we going to get money to balance budgets?  Well, from the other 98%, of course.

My problem with this from the start is that the people who created this financial mess are not the ones responsible for correcting it.  Why is this?  How is it that the teachers, police, fire fighters, and other government employees are going to have their pensions cut, their benefits cut, and their bargaining ability for better work conditions decimated, while Wall Street gets bail outs and tax cuts?  And why are so many people so adamant on supporting the wealthy?

It is true that the wealthiest Americans have their own security forces, their own teachers and academic institutions, and many other services.  But, who are the police that keep the rest of the nation in “order”?  Who are the teachers that make the rest of the country good consumers and labor for the top 2%?  The same people that are being forced to give up their benefits so that their taxes are not increased.

U.S. Debt

What I have failed to even understand at this point, is why deficit reduction is so important.  The United States has run at a deficit for quite some time.  Looking at the following graph, several things appear.

Although the Net Public debt has increased about six trillion dollars since 1940; the amount of Net Public debt as part of the GDP is actually lower now than since 1950.

Aren’t we constantly looking at the 1950′s and 1960′s as the economic “golden age” of America?  Why are we so concerned about the debt, then?  If the percent of GDP as debt is actually lower now than in the post War era, why is it such a pressing concern?

The short answer really is:  It actually is not a pressing concern.

But politicians repeatedly state that it is a concern.  If you repeat something enough, people will believe it.  This is the case in the situation of the concern over the deficit.  Of course, we should demand “fiscal responsibility” from our government.  I am suggesting nothing less.  But we also should be investing in our futures.

So this commotion over the Unions has come up and come to a head in Wisconsin.  People are outraged at the teachers make so much money and have such great benefits, due to collective bargaining.  What many people forget is that many of the benefits workers receive, they get from forgoing raises in a particular year.

There are two issues about Unions that are not making headlines in the media.  One is what working conditions were like before Unions.

I have to say here:  I grew up in New Jersey.  My opinion of Unions is actually complicated.  I have seen, firsthand, how Unions manipulate situations for personal benefit of select individuals.  I have seen how Unions bully and extort from the same workers they claim to be protecting.  Basically, I think most of us have seen The Sopranos.  We know how Union corruption can manifest.

On the same hand, I have worked Union jobs.  (And some non-Union, labor related positions.)  I also know a bit about the history of how American (and other) workers have been treated without Union representation.  The problem I have with all of this anti-Union propaganda is that it is not aimed at curbing Union corruption, or protecting workers… it is aimed at benefiting employers and farther exploiting workers.

The Ludlow Massacre is an example of employer exploitation of workers without Unions.  In almost every case, employees without collective bargaining power have been in terrible situations.  And today, we see some employers that treat their workers extremely well, partly to avoid the need for Unions.  Examples that I know personally are:  Whole Foods, Costco, Apple, and Google.

As George Santayana so notably stated:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

What we are seeing in Wisconsin is what we have seen in Egypt.  It is what we are seeing in Libya.  It is what we are going to see in other states and places, as well.  It is when the tipping point is reached.

The story I told earlier, about Paris Hilton and the comment that she can spend her fortune on dog or cat food.  It reminds me of the story written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century.  When “a great princess” was informed the peasants did not have enough bread, she responded by saying, “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.”

(There is a similar phrase in Chinese culture, where the Emperor was informed that the people had no rice to eat, and he stated, “Let them eat meat.”)

And now, the wealthy are able to spend their millions on their pets if they wish.  And when they are told, “People are losing their homes.  People cannot afford medical care.  People are losing their pensions.”  They respond with, “Let them eat cheese.”

The people on the top keep increasing in luxury.  The masses are constantly being told things will get better when those at the top are happy with their increases.  The masses are constantly having to fix everything while the top, marginal percent benefit.  Eventually, people have enough.

Fork in the Road

This can really go one of two ways, as far as I can tell.

One option is that the masses begin to get more frustrated and start demanding a more equitable situation.  Politicians will be brave enough to stand up and say as much.  When this happens, people will begin to realize that investing in the future will create just about everything that we desire.  Investing in alternative energy sources will create numerous jobs and decrease dependence on foreign oil.  Investing in infrastructure (roads, trains, etc) will create many jobs and decrease costs of shipping.  Investing in education will increase productivity of the population.  Increasing these things will increase the GDP.  As the percent of debt is relatively low compared to the total GDP, an increase in GDP will result in deficit reduction.

The other option I see is that America no longer remains competitive.  They become embroiled in reactionary thinking and consumed with reducing debt and government on principle.  Meanwhile, China, Germany and a whole slew of other polities will continue to invest in the future and increase productivity.  The United States’ will eventually lose the edge it has in the world market and become nominal in the global perspective.

I guess, there is another option, that is in between those two.  When the French Aristocracy said, “Let them eat cake,” they followed the second path.  But this reached a tipping point that resulted in the French Revolution… to which, today, we owe much of our concepts of citizenship and inalienable rights.

A Warning

My overall point here is that Wisconsin, Egypt and Libya are warnings.  Egypt showed that reasonable debate and reasonable demands can result in a peaceful revolution.  Libya showed the opposite path results in tragedy.  Wisconsin is still undecided at this moment, but the hope is that reasonable discussion and debate will prevail.

I really wanted to go into detail on The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, as I have just begun a reread of this text and find it highly relevant… but maybe I will do that on another day.

Other Thoughts

I did not get to fit into this entry:  That I am really tired of conventional wisdom analogies for the current situation.  The US Economy is not a family’s checkbook.  The United States is not a corporation.  I recently read an op-ed piece saying a similar thing…  I’ll post a link if I can recall where I read it.  A business’s bottom line is to return a profit; a family’s job is to provide for its children and survive;  a government’s job is to benefit/protect its citizenry.  No… It is not “common sense.” (Whatever anyone was going to say, please do not make this claim.)

Glenn Beck’s xenophobia and ultra-nationalism is nothing new.  About a year ago, he went on some rant about India that was just ludicrous (and offensive).

As Cenk points out, there’s nothing wrong with pointing out the differences in divested costs, or cost of living in different nations.  But why the need for constant disparaging remarks about India?  India has the worlds largest democracy.  There are over 1 trillion people in India.

Recently, Beck has been claiming that the protests in Egypt have been a product of some bizarre combination of Islamic extremists and Communists (among a host of other groups and persons) that want to destroy capitalism… really?

GLENN BECK IS CRAZY.

CRAZY AS CAT SHIT.

What is concerning to me is that, these rants should be relegated to guys that wear foil hats in a mobile home in the middle of the woods, printing underground newspapers about alien conspiracies.  Instead, he has airtime on a major network to espouse these lunatic rants.

I have to say, as a personal feeling, when he goes to that chalk board with his indignant, self-righteous scribbling, I really want to take the chalk from him and shove it up his nose.  I realize this is much like the way I dislike corn and it is something I have to deal with in my own head.

The way he pulls apart the words from President Obama is juvenile and a bit pathological.  it’s like: “ZOMG!  He said ‘change’!  That word is Obama’s platform!”  And talk about the younger generation demanding freedom, education and equality is so terrible!  It is also concerning how these double-standards are quite hypocritical.  When the Tea Party demands “Change” – they are “Patriots.”  When anyone Left of Timothy McVeigh asks for “Change,” – it is a “Communist plot to destroy the West.”

The first, and biggest, problem with this ideology is the concept that any Communists have an allegiance with fundamental Islamic extremists.  I have a feeling that this is part of the trope of “everything different is aligned against us.”  The reality is quite opposite. Most of any forms of political ideology that are associated with Marx (Communism, Socialism, et al.) are against any theocratic rule above just about any other concern.  The belief is that religion is utilized as a means of control.  Religion is used to maintain conformity and impose rule.

Beck seems to really not understand anything about real Leftist ideology.  He has always had this tendency to lump together anything that is not American Conservative as “Leftist.”  Everything from Fascism, Monarchy, Communism, Theocracy… and everything else.

Here is a bit more detail on Beck’s ideological slant on the situation:

Beck begins with a premise of facts that are pretty well accepted and true.  He then combines them with selected quotations from persons that he finds objectionable.  He then jumps to these conclusions that are just so far beyond what he has presented that they almost make no sense.  They make sense, but not with the reality of the world.

In the previous clip, Beck states:

I want the Left to know, I plant my flag in this soil. If I’m wrong, so be it.  So be it, that I am wrong. And you can discredit me all you want for the end of time, but I’m telling you, I’m not wrong on this one. And there are three points that I want to make sure are very clear.  This is what I’m telling you.  These are the things that I believe.

One:  Groups from the hardcore socialist and communist left and extreme Islam will work together because they are both a common enemy of Israel and the Jew.

Two:  Groups from the hardcore socialist and communist left and extreme Islam will work together because of the common enemy of capitalism and the Western way of life.

Three:  Groups from the hardcore socialist and communist left and extreme Islam will work together to overturn relative stability, because, in the status quo, they are both ostracized from power and the mainstream in most of the world.

Ya got it?

He also states, “they will both work together because they both want chaos.  Period.“

Is that so?  Who really wants chaos?  Let’s go back to Beck’s claims about Van Jones and STORM and Beck’s Claims.

First of all, Van Jones started Police Watch, not COP Watch.  The first Cop Watch was started in Berkeley in 1990.  Their website is here:  http://www.berkeleycopwatch.org/

Cop Watch was started as a means to assure that police were not overstepping their authority and following procedure.  There is a lot of tension in the Bay Area, as well as most of the United States, between the Police and many of the communities they patrol.  This is nothing new.  In the 1960s, one of the primary roles of the Black Panther Party was to observe police during stops and arrests, to protect citizens (who are “innocent until proven guilty.”)

Police Watch was similar to Cop Watch, and was started in large part as a result of the Rodney King debacle in Los Angeles.  Police Watch was free legal services for people who have been the victims of police abuse.

(Please be sure to note that nowhere in those passages were any police accused of doing anything wrong.)

STORM was the anagram for Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement.  These are Revolutionaries.  What surprises me is that Beck has such a negative view of Revolutionaries.  The way he dotes on about the “Founding Fathers” and others of their period, you would think he was quite fond of Revolutionaries.  The fact remains that the drafters and signers of the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution were all Revolutionaries.

The Ella Baker Center for Human Rights was co-founded by Van Jones.  It has a goal of “Working for justice in the system, opportunity in our cities, and peace on our streets.”  The ideology is that many “urban” residents are disenfranchised and just need an opportunity.  The Ella Baker Center attempts to provide this opportunity.  Of course, they also pursue a “Green” agenda, which may be what makes conservatives so uneasy… as environmentalism is often thought to be some sinister plot of Communists to destroy Capitalism… or something, I really don’t feel like going too deep into it.

I just really fail to see how an organization that states:  “Instead of communities with more prisons and more police, the Ella Baker Center calls for better schools, cleaner environment, and more opportunities for young people and working people.”  Is an organization that “hates Jews” or Israel or wants to “Destroy capitalism” or any of the fantastic claims that Beck has made.

Beck seems to be caught up in the rhetoric of a group such as storm.  The reality is that this was a group that wanted to protect minorities (mostly Black Americans and Women) from being abused by the dominants.  They tried to protect housing and labor for minorities and had a goal of such standards.  I’m really not placing a value judgment either way on this group.  Beck not only placed many value judgments, but placed them on misrepresented facts, as his is typical objective.

What I think makes Beck crazy is his tendencies to be a paranoid schizophrenic.  He believes that everyone is out to destroy everything that he reportedly cares about.  The Muslims want to destroy the West and Capitalism and America and Israel.  The Communists want to do the same.  Everyone is out to get him.  This is “crazy” behavior.

The reality is that there are people that have these goals.  It would be foolish to claim they do not exist.  But there are many more people who just want to be treated fairly.  They just want to live their lives the best way that they can and provide for themselves and their families.

I am really surprised that Beck does not rail against China more.  (Or maybe he does, I just do not hear about it.  As I have stated in the past, I do not even have cable.)  I tend to get these value judgments from people regarding the People’s Republic of China quite often.  I also have to repeatedly point out that China does not really care what the United States is doing, until they feel it effects them.

What is ever concerning is how many people believe that Beck’s paranoid rantings are valid.  Even more concerning is the amount of people who take these rants to heart.  Just like with Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck has the right to espouse anything he wishes to espouse.  And just like Palin, he needs to accept consequences for the things he states.  If Ice T, Chuck D, Ice Cube, The Coup, and any host of others are to be held to high standards for their political statements, so, too, should Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.

This man is crazy.  If not for the fact that he has the ability to coerce others into his paranoid delusions, I would actually feel sorry for him.

Gets Rich Betting with Leftists says:

February 6, 2011 at 1:55 am

For the failure of your comment section to support paragraphs I have inserted dashes between areas.

Adam said:
“are you not supportive of Liberalism?”

As you know, a non-liberal to day means one who is against modern liberalism. Modern liberalism has not a whit to do with individual liberty and equal rights. It is all about FDR’s positive rights, LBJ’s “equality of result”, and being anti-traditional Western civilization – which leads to the opposite of individual liberty and equal rights. Remember where those rights came from? Obama omitted saying from where they came from a couple times and then reread the the Declaration of Independence and corrected himself. So no, you can’t go back to rightfully calling us fascists but that won’t deter you — you will call us fascists regardless. Ad hominem is is the left’s final refuge.
———————————————————-
Adam said:
“as I have stated, the Amish have set legal precedence… and every American has the right to not pay taxes into services they will never use.”
——————————————————–
That is a falsehood… or as you call it – a false meme. As I wrote before and you didn’t respond, in the early 80′s, two Texas counties offered to permanently divest themselves from these benefits and the courts ruled that the laws only apply to the Amish.
——————————————————-
“I think the problem is that the Left in America is not very left.”
Do you imagine that those words are a relevant response to the idea of conservatives wanting to separate from those who embrace either modern liberalism, socialism, Marxism, trade unionism, Hegelism, or any of the flavors of the above.
——————————————————–
Who cares how left you all are? You’re all in favor of ‘economic/social justice’, aka confiscating what half of us work for to provide for the ‘decent’ welfare of others.
———————————————————–
Complaining about the right you say, “It is my way or no way”. Hmmm, kinda’ like reinterpreting the Constitution to mean that ALL states must be coerced into accepting the murder of the unborn (and also demanding that we pay for the murder with our taxes).———————— ——————————- “my way or no way” is your motto not ours; we want the kind of State’s rights that the founders envisioned 200 years ago. Since you aren’t willing to return to that version of State’s rights nor are you willing to let us secede peacefully, you leave us little choice but to remove your yoke from our necks by killing, via another civil war, as many of you as is necessary for us to re-establish our right to live under the ‘consent of the governed’.
——————————————————–
Are you personally willing to die to maintain imposing your values on the half of us who have a very different set of values? Ones that even Krugman realizes are irreconcilable with yours.
———————————————————
You want us both to compromise? Just how do you exactly expect that to happen? Are you willing to give up on ‘social justice’? Are you willing to give up on homosexual marriage? Are you willing to deligitiimize government unions? Are you willing to let states decide the abortion issue? Are you willing to reinstate the death penalty? Are you willing to put up the wall and make the illegals leave? Are you willing to call affirmative action racism? Are you willing to let us begin drilling again? Are you willing to let us build nuclear plants? Obviously not. And there’s no reason that you should – just as there’s no reason for us to not live apart from you having the opposite values.
——————————————————–
Adam said:
“As far as what I read… this claim [that 2/3 the stimulus going to Blue States?] is constantly made in your comments, irregardless of how many times I point out the inaccuracy of it.

http://biggovernment.com/vderugy/2010/03/26/politics-democratic-stimulus-haul-is-almost-double-republicans/

That one was free. The next one– the one that is so inconceivable to dispute- is not free.
———————————————————-
Adam said:
“As for the claim of the exorbitant amount of money spent on minorities – this is a false meme”

So when LBJ in one political breath demanded that the only equality that mattered was the one of results (a.k.a. equality of outcome)……………………..

And in the next political breath created the ‘Great Society’ committing unlimited billions towards that end – just exactly what did you think happened (other than virtually ending Black marriage, creating generations of fatherless, thus forever to be poverty-stricken Blacks)?
——————————————————-
So shall we bet on your quote? Don’t get in a panic. You’ve already made it clear you won’t put your money where your mouth is. And of course that too is a lie because you once made the mistake of offering to bet me. It was on an item that you were just so sure of you couldn’t prevent yourself from reacting in the manner of a human.

Of course since you have zero confidence in your quote above, in this case, you will of course decline my offer and I should expect all nature of dissembling and diversionary tactics to begin – like threatening me, as you once did, with expulsion from your site.

First:  I will work on the paragraph thing.  It is problematic.

As you know, a non-liberal to day means one who is against modern liberalism.

Correct.

Modern liberalism has not a whit to do with individual liberty and equal rights.

Incorrect.

[Modern liberalism] is all about FDR’s positive rights, LBJ’s “equality of result”, and being anti-traditional Western civilization – which leads to the opposite of individual liberty and equal rights.

No.  Liberalism is just the theory of individual liberty and egalitarian governance/equal rights.  The use of “Liberal” in the pejorative, as shown, has recently been replaced with “progressive” by many, because the counter to a Liberal is illiberal – or basically any system that does not promote both individual liberties and equal rights.  There are various forms of liberal democracy, but all of the proponents of these systems are liberals (lower case L).

The abuse of the term Liberal as a pejorative has been a bit ineffective.  It really shows just how similar Conservatives and Liberals are in the United States.

I have no problems saying “where those rights came from,” unlike many Conservatives, including those who decided to remove Thomas Jefferson from school textbooks.

I also think there is some confusion about not following tradition for the sake of tradition and being “anti-traditional.”  But that is neither here, nor there.

Ad hominem is is the left’s final refuge.

I had no idea this was exclusive.  Especially considering all of the ad hominem statements that you have made about me on these comments… claims that have no basis, other than pure speculation.  Yet, these claims are often repeated.

“I think the problem is that the Left in America is not very left.”
Do you imagine that those words are a relevant response to the idea of conservatives wanting to separate from those who embrace either modern liberalism, socialism, Marxism, trade unionism, Hegelism, or any of the flavors of the above.

This would be very similar to me putting Fascism, Monarchism, Apartheid and other various forms of governance in the same category as Conservatism.  In reality, this is not true.  Maybe the various forms of Leftist ideology are too nuanced to be understood, I don’t know.  But… I don’t even know what Hegelism is… I assume it has to do with the 18th century German philosopher Hegel, which is actually Hegelianism.  I do not see how this really relates to trade unionism or modern liberalism.

Adam said:
“as I have stated, the Amish have set legal precedence… and every American has the right to not pay taxes into services they will never use.”
——————————————————–
That is a falsehood… or as you call it – a false meme. As I wrote before and you didn’t respond, in the early 80′s, two Texas counties offered to permanently divest themselves from these benefits and the courts ruled that the laws only apply to the Amish.

This is not a simple answer.  I will try to be as simple as possible.

First, this was not a false meme.  It was a legal precedence that I had found myself.  I was doing personal research into Amish society, culture and governance.  What I found was the ruling that stated the claims I have made.  I think any lawyer could reasonably argue the same for any other group, or group of individuals, utilizing the Equal Protection Clause and the First Amendment.

Second, what courts made this ruling?  Was it taken to the United States Supreme Court after appeal?  What was the legal standing?  And, correct me if I am wrong, but you are now talking about local governments?  Local governments that are already a part of the United States?  This is a different situation completely.  This is secession, or even treason.  For a strict Constitutionalist, it should be enough that the Constitution itself says this is a violation.  The Supremacy Clause states as much in pretty simple terms.

In short:  Individuals can make this claim.  Government entities cannot (cities, counties, states, municipalities, townships, etc.).

Who cares how left you all are? You’re all in favor of ‘economic/social justice’, aka confiscating what half of us work for to provide for the ‘decent’ welfare of others.

I’m sorry.  I forgot that you previously stated that only the Right can be nuanced.  The Left has one collective mind without any variation of thought… is that correct?    (Do you detect my pretentious snark?  I meant for it.  I also rolled my eyes, but I had no idea how to do that in text other than to describe it.)

Complaining about the right you say, “It is my way or no way”. Hmmm, kinda’ like reinterpreting the Constitution to mean that ALL states must be coerced into accepting the murder of the unborn (and also demanding that we pay for the murder with our taxes).

This is another misrepresentation on so many levels.  Primarily a misrepresentation of my own words and ideals.  I never stated any support for any murder.  Abortion is not murder.  (Neither is manslaughter.)  Murder has a legal definition.

Also, I have pointed out many times previously that there are very coherent arguments against abortion.  I rarely see them utilized by Pro-Life supporters.  Instead there is a religious mantra cited, or catch phrase.  Instead, it may be better to point out that we cannot state definitively when consciousness develops, therefore we cannot state definitively at what point a human being becomes a human being.

But when you take the religious argument:  This cannot be used as justification to limit access of an American citizen to any medical procedure.  This is not much different then all of the concern raised by Sarah Palin in her “death panel” comments.  When does the government get to decide when it is your body and when it is not?

I have also pointed out many times in this discussion that I have no hard-line stance on abortion.  I see it as a highly complicated issue.  I also will never be pregnant, so I am not even sure I can make any claim on the issue.

“my way or no way” is your motto not ours; we want the kind of State’s rights that the founders envisioned 200 years ago. Since you aren’t willing to return to that version of State’s rights nor are you willing to let us secede peacefully, you leave us little choice but to remove your yoke from our necks by killing, via another civil war, as many of you as is necessary for us to re-establish our right to live under the ‘consent of the governed’.

This concerns me, if for no other reason, for the violent implications of the statement.  It is really on the borderline, so I won’t make much of a fuss… but violence will never be tolerated on this site.  Any threats, veiled or direct, will be directly reported to the authorities.  Sorry I have to make that statement.

Farther, I am concerned at this comment about wanting the kind of states’ rights that the founders envisioned 200 years ago.  This is called reactionary.  Judging from the other comments, it also seems to be utopian, to some extent.  Are you well aware that several of the Founders were Atheists?  That many of them were inspired by Voltaire?  (Among many others that would be considered “Liberal Communists” by Protestant Americans today… Voltaire quite frequently used satire to criticize intolerance and religious dogma… many of the same points I try to elaborate, as well.)

You are right, though… I do not want to live in a state the Founders envisioned 200 years ago.  I like having cars, trains, buses, airplanes, cancer treatment, smart phones, internet access, vaccines, antibiotics, and free pornography.

Also, I am highly allergic to horses.  Which means, 200 years ago, I would have had to do a lot of walking.

Are you personally willing to die to maintain imposing your values on the half of us who have a very different set of values? Ones that even Krugman realizes are irreconcilable with yours.

No.

I am willing to take all of my gay, black and married friends (but only if they are gay, black and married – no two out of three) with me when I flea persecution from the fascists that want to violently seize power and impose a nationalistic ethnic majority and dictate a theocratic government.

You want us both to compromise? Just how do you exactly expect that to happen?

Well.  The first step is to find common ground.  Then you discuss the things you disagree on and find out why.  Then you find out what would be acceptable to all sides involved and what is not acceptable.  Then . . . oh, hell . . . let us just move on . . .

Are you willing to give up on ‘social justice’?

I stopped watching Judge Judy like four months ago.

Are you willing to give up on homosexual marriage?

Never.  I still want ONE reason that gays cannot get married that is not religious.  I want to know one reason we should violate the equal protection clause and the separation of church and state.

Are you willing to deligitiimize government unions?

When they are no longer necessary, sure.  But, only as long as the threat of government unions is a real enough threat to keep labor laws fair and equitable.  I guess.  I’m not really even clear on the question, honestly.

Are you willing to let states decide the abortion issue?

Same as same sex marriage – only when there is a compelling reason to violate the constitutional rights of citizens.  I would say I am more inclined to concede this issue, but probably not – because where does it stop?  Do women go to jail for taking Plan B, or other contraception?

Are you willing to reinstate the death penalty?

Unfortunately, the United States already has the death penalty.  Even though it has been proven to not deter crime, but increase levels of violent crime, it is not cost effective, and no other developed country in the West has capital punishment.

Not to mention, executing a murderer legitimizes the crime of murder more than anything.  It sends a message that “it is ok to kill as long as you find it justifiable.”

Are you willing to put up the wall and make the illegals leave?

Yes… the same day you are willing to pay $50 for a pint of strawberries, $100 to use a clean bathroom, and all of the other high costs of products that corporations claim will have to be charged to make up for the divested cost in not using illegal labor.

It may be surprising, but many Conservatives support amnesty for illegals.  Probably as many as there are Liberals.  Most people on the Far Left resent illegal immigrant labor quite a bit, for usurping Union bargaining power.

Are you willing to call affirmative action racism?

Yes.  The same day that all minorities (including women) face no more discrimination for their race, ethnicity, color, gender, national origin, et al – basically, the day that there are no more minorities.  (Please do not cloud this to mean anything other than a legitimately equal system for all people, regardless of their skin color, ethnicity, religion, gender, et al.)

Are you willing to let us begin drilling again?

Really depends.

Does it not bother you that the last oil spill was from a British petroleum company that was going to sell the oil to another country?  The entire Gulf Coast was destroyed for oil that the United States would never have seen, nor profited from…. what is the point?

Are you willing to let us build nuclear plants?

Definitely, especially if they are cold fusion plants.  Even more especially if they find of better ways of disposing of the waste.

Obviously not.

Huh?

I said Yes to several statements.

And there’s no reason that you should – just as there’s no reason for us to not live apart from you having the opposite values.

I do not understand.  Especially, I do not understand why you care about my values.  I thought the Founders, the Tea Party, Libertarians, and everyone else that you propose to support valued individual liberty.  Why then does it matter what my personal values are?

Because, majority of my arguments have been from the vantage of not caring another person’s values; as long as another person’s rights are not violated.

Adam said:
“As far as what I read… this claim [that 2/3 the stimulus going to Blue States?] is constantly made in your comments, irregardless of how many times I point out the inaccuracy of it.

NO.

And this is the last time I am leaving a misquote of myself on this site.  If you do not use parentheticals in quotations correctly, do not use them.

Your statement was: “I can’t blame you for not knowing that since it never saw the light of day in any of publications you read.”

My response was: “As far as what I read… this claim is constantly made in your comments, irregardless of how many times I point out the inaccuracy of it. How would I know I disagree with someone, or something, until I understand them/it? It is not enough for me to just accept that I disagree…I want to know why.”

Maybe I should have stated:  “Pertaining to what I read, you constantly make these claims to know what I read and they are often false.  I cite plenty of references outside of my personal inclinations.”

Then you put a link to an internet article from a Conservative blog site.  What is really interesting was that I actually stated that every president has done this…and that because I saw no outrage from the Right about Former President George W. Bush doing this, I would not even discuss President Obama doing it.

Adam said:
“As for the claim of the exorbitant amount of money spent on minorities – this is a false meme”

So when LBJ in one political breath demanded that the only equality that mattered was the one of results (a.k.a. equality of outcome)……………………..

And in the next political breath created the ‘Great Society’ committing unlimited billions towards that end – just exactly what did you think happened (other than virtually ending Black marriage, creating generations of fatherless, thus forever to be poverty-stricken Blacks)?

Yeah, I’m not going into this one tonight.  But really, because I plan on doing an entry or two about it.  I have actually done the research and the gruelling math… from primary and secondary sources.  The results were… I know that less then 12% of all tax money is spent on minorities.  I also know that single mothers collect welfare for 2 years or less.  The amount that stay on welfare more than two years is marginal (like a single digit percent).  And of those that stay more than two years, majority of them are White.

So shall we bet on your quote?

Like I said… another time, I will discuss it.

Don’t get in a panic. You’ve already made it clear you won’t put your money where your mouth is.  And of course that too is a lie because you once made the mistake of offering to bet me. It was on an item that you were just so sure of you couldn’t prevent yourself from reacting in the manner of a human.

I simply used a turn of phrase.  I never insinuating to bet money on anything on this website, ever.  It would be extremely odd if I did – consider I do not gamble, or make bets.

Of course since you have zero confidence in your quote above, in this case, you will of course decline my offer and I should expect all nature of dissembling and diversionary tactics to begin – like threatening me, as you once did, with expulsion from your site.

I only ask that you follow the rules that I apply to everyone.  Although, I have removed a few people from this site without giving a warning.

But, don’t worry – like I have stated previously – I have plenty of primary and secondary evidence to support my claim.  I will get around to it eventually.  It is not a priority for me at this moment.  My apologies.

And if I bet, it will not be for any gains, other than bragging rights.

I tried to respond to the comments as entirely as possible… and directly as possible, as I always attempt to do.