CLASS WARFARE IN AMERICA    



 Oligarchy is a power structure in which ruling authority rests with a small number of people with wealth and corporate control. The oligarchs rule over an underclass in the U.S. often with the assistance of the underclass themselves. Why will be examined in another essay.

Republicans have won the class war. Paul Ryan’s recent budget has steep Medicaid cuts and entails the repeal of Obamacare. This would leave and additional 50 million poor or moderate-income Americans without health insurance. Ryan would impose big reductions for food stamps, college tuition aid, child nutrition programs and many other programs that help the “least among us.” (See Dion: Calling Out Paul Ryan’s Radicalism.) All of this is to provide lower taxes for the rich! If this isn’t class warfare I’d like to know what it is.

 To further document the results of class war, it should be noted that the poorest 47% of America owned zero percent of the wealth, while the richest 400 Americans own as much wealth as 62% of America. By the way, The U.S. is nearly the most wealth-unequal country in the entire world. (See March 25, Common Dreams.) According to David Clay Johnston’s study for Tax Analysis, the income growth for the bottom 90 percent of Americans averaged just $59 over four decades. The income growth, between 1979 and 2007 saw their incomes grow by 275%.

 One should mention poverty and food insecurity in the U.S.: More than one in seven people in the United States lives below the poverty line. Annual Social and Economic Supplements from the Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, 2011. 14.5 percent of American households – or nearly 49 million Americans – suffered from food insecurity in 2010

 In Summary: Today, the government is bought and controlled by the financial oligarchy. Republicans have one the class war and, in probability, nothing will dramatically change unless the underclass develops class consciousness

Political Gridlock: A Sign of a Nation in Decline?

As one who was born in the 1930's, saw the the nation develop into a major world power with tremendous industrial and military strength in the 1940's, consolidate that position of economic strength and world leadership in the 1950's, and lead the free world in resisting the expansion of communism overseas during the next few decades while at the same time expanding the economic and educational opportunities for its citizens at home, it is distressing to see what appears to be a marked decline occur in the well-being of the United States, both domestically and internationally, during the past 10 years.  While our overwhelming military strength and superiority is unquestionable, it is not ideally suited to dealing with the new form of international threat, that of terrorism.  While our culture is still generally looked up to and valued, the weaknesses and problematic aspects of democracy are becoming increasingly evident, both in our own country and in its international application.  Rapid technological, labor, and communication changes have effected the world business and trade markets in ways that have negatively impacted our economic strength and labor opportunities.  Massive amounts of money are being made through business transactions, but society as a whole is not benefiting.  Unwise wars have further decreased our economic strength and international stature. Our infrastructure needs major upgrading, and the quality of our public education system is diminishing. Poverty and crime are increasingly evident and epidemic on our decaying city streets. The decreasing size and strength of a vibrant middle class is leaving the political landscape more in the hands of those at the extreme upper end of the income scale than previously, and the negative effect this is having on the political process is all too obvious.  The political gridlock that is occuring in Washington, and in many state capitols, is the clear result, as compromise to meet the needs of the vast majority of citizens is typically not achieved, and the mounting problems the nation is facing are not being resolved.

When considering the primary ingredients of a nation's strength and effectiveness, five key qualities can readily be identified: economic and industrial strength, military power, governmental effectiveness, international stature, and well-being of its citizens.  During the past century, it was during and in the several decades following the 2nd World War, that the United States was at a peak in all these qualities--the clear leader and respected model for much of the world in these ingredients of national greatness.  The middle class was growing, our public educational system was exempliary, the political parties could actually cooperate with each other on significant  legislative issues, the Supreme Court stuck to the law and avoided partisan positioning, tax rates were high on high income earners but the society as a whole benefited through major advances to our infrastructure, educational effectiveness, and long-delayed social and human rights breakthroughs.  Militarily, while under threat of communist expansion, we avoided unwise wars.  When a popular general wanted to expand the Korean War into China, he was immediately replaced by the president. The press and media were truly independent, commentators could speak their mind without interference from corporate sponsors, and the public was well-informed on current issues.  Our democracy was working, and the nation was clearly moving in a positive direction.

Some cracks began to appear with  the Vietnamese War, which was begun on false premises, escalated repeatedly, and tragically, through lies and deceit, and ended in failure.  Domestic political foul play led to Watergate, the resignation of a president, and further tarnished our national stature.  While our economic and military strength continued to be unrivaled, several relatively weak presidents failed to deal with emerging problems, and the onset of Reaganomics and its major tax changes began a marked shift in the ownership of the nation's wealth, as the middle class and labor movement began a decline in their relative strength, and more wealth began to accumulate and be held by a small percentage of the highest income earners.  The end of the Cold War with the Soviet Union temporarily reduced military threat, but any economic advantage was offset by marked changes in the world economy, with cheap labor overseas undercutting our domestic employment opportunities.  More income was made by corporations and their executives, but middle class and labor workers were being further negatively impacted.

The 21st Century thus far has only amplified the developing problems.  The Bush tax cuts, the threat and reality of terrorist attack, a contrived and unnecessary war in Iraq, mishandling the fight against the bin Laden terrorists and theTaliban in Afghanistan, the economic collapse of 2008 and the avoidance of any real penalties for the corporate executives involved in the malfeasence leading to it are all indications of a government not functioning at high effectiveness.  The promise of hope generated by the election of Obama was immediately negated by the opposition party declaring its virtual opposition to anything he might propose, and that its main goal was to insure his defeat in four years.  The well-being of the nation was clearly secondary to their political purposes--not an indication of a well-function government.  Treasonous, in fact, to some, but an immasculated mainstream, major network media let them get away with it, unlike half a century earlier when respected commentators would often speak out openly against politicians they saw as clearly being irresponsible.

Can our nation begin to function more effectively again?  The current political gridlock warrants against it, but we are still a relatively young, vibrant nation.  Tremendous energy is expended on both sides of the political divide, but a breakthrough needs to occur in their ability to work together for the common good.  It was Obama's desire to facilitate this development, searching for a consensus to emerge.  It hasn't happened.  Until a strong, moderate political center in both parties develops again, as it did in the 1940's, '50's, and '60's, when our nation seemed to function at peak effectiveness and strength, it is not likely to develop.  As citizens, we can't expect our current politicians to markedly change their style or biases.  Any change will probably need to begin with us, and with the nature and quality of those we begin to elect.  Let's hope we have the wisdom and the energy to meet the challenge, and allow our nation to rise again to the greatness of which it is capable.

Should Low Level Drug Offenders Be Released?

Should Low Level Drug Offenders Be Released?



Clarence Aaron was no kingpin, yet he is serving a life-without-parole sentence for a first-time, non-violent drug conviction in 1993. The kingpin for Aaron's two large cocaine deals got out of prison in 2000. Another dealer is due for release next year. Yet, unless he wins a presidential commutation, Aaron alone will die an old man in prison for a crime he committed as a young man. Sadly, President Obama has used his commutation power only once, and not for Aaron. (Debra J. Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle )

Sentencing policies brought about by the "war on drugs" has resulted in a dramatic growth in incarceration for drug offenses. At the Federal level, prisoners incarcerated on a drug charge comprise half of the prison population, while the number of drug offenders in state prisons has increased thirteen-fold since 1980. Most of these people are not high-level actors in the drug trade, and most have no prior criminal record for a violent offense. (The Sentencing Project.)

A Department of Justice study states that a substantial number of drug law violators sentenced to incarceration in Bureau of Prisons custody can be classified as "low-level". Using one set of criteria which limited offenders to no current or prior violence in their records, no involvement in sophisticated criminal activity and no prior commitment, there were 16,316 Federal prisoners who could be considered low-level drug law violators. They constituted 36.1 percent of all drug law offenders in the prison system and 21.2 percent of the total sentenced Federal prison population.

Drug prohibition has largely driven America’s incarceration rate to unacceptable levels. Drug offenders comprise over 500,000 of the more than 2 million people in our nation’s prisons and jails, and drug offenses and failed drug tests account for a significant number of those returning to prison for parole and probation violations.

Turning to marijuana use, most of those incarcerated for marijuana offenses do not belong in prison, as they represent little or no risk to public safety. Removing criminal penalties for marijuana offenses will therefore reduce the U.S. prison population and more effectively protect the public and promote public health. The U.S. spends 1 billion annually incarcerating marijuana offenders.
Perhaps for the ultimate absurdity, Prof. Harry Levine reports that
"NYPD Spent 1 Million Hours Making 440,000 Marijuana Possession Arrests Over Last Decade"

This is not to argue that all aspects of the “War On Drugs” be abandoned. But research indicates that the stringent 3 strikes laws should be repealed because they fill our jails and prisons with low level offenders, with a huge number of them being low level drug offenders. Too, incarceration of low level marijuana users and other drug offenders must cease because, among other factors, it a waste of police time. Finally, the cost of low level arrests and incarceration costs the U.S. billions of dollars that could be better spent on infrastructure such as education, crumbling bridges, sewer systems, substandard roads, dams and the electrical grid.

Last month, Congressman Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced legislation, House Resolution 499, which would effectively end the federal prohibition on marijuana and allow states to set their own policies.

One action you can take is to call your congressperson and support House Resolution 499: The Ending Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2013. It would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, transfer the Drug Enforcement Administration’s authority to regulate marijuana to a newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms, require commercial marijuana producers to purchase a permit, and ensure that federal law distinguishes between individuals who grow marijuana for personal use and those involved in commercial sale and distribution.

Of course, you can call President Obama and ask him to release Clarence Aaron.

There Are Anti-Contraception Groups In The U.S.

From the Huffington Post

Reproductive Health Care Provider Uses Stork Costume To Prank Anti-Contraception Protesters 

Posted: 03/22/2013 7:36 pm EDT  |  Updated: 03/22/2013 7:48 pm EDT

A reproductive health care provider in central Wisconsin was surprisingly prepared Wednesday to be picketed by anti-contraception group 40 Days For Life.

Tiffany Bredeck, a board member of Family Planning Health Services (FPHS) in Wausau, Wis., dressed up in a stork costume, whipped out a clever sign and stood on the sidewalk outside the FPHS headquarters alongside the protesters.

The Executive Director of FPHS, Lon Newman, told The Huffington Post over the phone that 40 Days For Life has long had simple messages that are easy for many people to relate to, and that the stork idea made for a "friendly, easy-to-grasp message" for the pro-choice side.

FPHS is a non-profit organization that provides basic reproductive health care services in seven counties in Wisconsin. It does not provide abortion services, sterilizations or medical pre-natal care.

However, 40 Days For Life says on its website that it pickets FPHS because FPHS provides contraception to minors without parental consent, and because FPHS "promotes the contraceptive mentality," advocates for sex education in public schools and provides referrals for abortions.

How To Argue With A Climate Change Skeptic

What is global warming?  From the Union of

Concerned Scientists:

“When CO2 and other heat-trapping emissions are released into the air, they act like a blanket, holding heat in our atmosphere and warming the planet. 

Overloading our atmosphere with carbon has far-reaching effects for people all around the world—more extreme storms, more severe droughts, deadly heat waves, rising sea levels, and more acidic oceans, which can affect the very base of the food chain.”

What causes global warming?

The primary cause of global warming is human activity, most significantly the burning of fossil fuels to drive cars, generate electricity, and operate our homes and businesses. 

There are many web sites devoted to “how to argue with a climate change skeptic.”  Researching them leads me to conclude the following:  In our militaristic society it is best to begin with the opinions of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the pentagon.  All service top brass agree that climate change is a reality and that it is a grave threat to national security.  They agree that, in the future, it will be a leading cause of war.

The second argument I would recommend to use against climate change deniers, in our “capitalistic” society, is to point out that the vast majority of the world’s corporate CEO’s are preparing to deal with the effects of climate change in their business plans. 

The third point to be presented is against the opinion, often presented by climate change skeptics, “there is no scientific consensus” about climate change facts.  Well, there will always be “flat earthers.”   But as Grist points out -- http://grist.org/climate-energy/there-is-no-consensus/ -- “No one in the climate science community is debating whether or not changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations alter the greenhouse effect, or if the current warming trend is outside of the range of natural variability, or if sea levels have risen over the last century. “  Furthermore, 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. 

Finally, the fourth argument I would present is against the argument often stated by climate deniers, that “It’s cold today in my town.”  I actually heard this statement repeated three times by a person I debated on facebook.  The obvious answer, from Grist, is that “The chaotic nature of weather means that no conclusion about climate can ever be drawn from a single data point, hot or cold. The temperature of one place at one time is just weather, and says nothing about climate, much less climate change, much less global climate change.”

 There are many opinions expressed by climate change skeptics.  A little research on the internet will help you to refute all of them.

However, do not expect to convince the  nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of ignorant, aprioristic white evangelical Protestants, who say they think that recent storms and dramatic changes in the weather, are evidence of the "end times" as predicted by the Bible.  That’s four out of ten Americans!  God help us all!  Well, he/she hasn’t yet interfered in our collective efforts to destroy the human race through overloading the atmosphere with carbon and other heat-trapping omissions.

Does Irrationality Doom U.S.?

FROM ALTERNET

Al Jazeera / By Paul Rosenberg

 COMMENTS

Does Irrationality Doom America?

How rational problem-solving has ceased to be "serious" among US elites.

An American flag hangs over the New York Stock Exchange on October 11, 2012 in New York City. The US jobs market brightened in February as the unemployment rate tumbled and jobs growth picked up, official data released Friday showed.

March 22, 2013  |  

The United States is on the verge of committing suicide. Slow suicide, perhaps, which may take decades to fully play out, but suicide nonetheless. The proximate event is the sequester - deep across-the-board cuts to military and discretionary domestic spending, originally conceived as a Sword of Damocles, but which Tea Party-dominated Republicans now see as just the perfect budget axe. And that's just one of several successive and mostly recurring crisis points at which Republicans are obstinantly demanding deep budget cuts that will inevitably slow, if not cripple the already weak economy - as well as debilitating or destroying vital government functions in the long run.

This comes at a time when there's actually a staggering need to vastly expand the scope of government action to deal with multiple looming threats of environmental catastrophe - not to mention previously intolerable levels of unemployment, and a crumbling infrastructure. Climate change is just the most prominent of such environmental threats - not just to the United States, but to the continued existence of advanced industrial civilisation as a whole - which the US can't even begin to rationally grapple with as long as anti-government ideology blocks even the most common sense actions on well-understood problems. A super-power whose highways are cracking and bridges are falling down, and which then responds by slashing spending cannot be long for this world. If it staggers on for a few more decades, that's nothing compared to the centuries that the Roman Empire endured, much less the millenia of dynastic Egypt's glory.

If markets actually worked in practice the way that they do in the simplest of textbook examples, GOP plans to radically slash government spending might not be so problematic. But realworld markets not only go into crippling crises, like the Great Depression or its still-enduring younger brother, they also fail to meet important human needs. Indeed, as conservative German economist  Adolph Wagner noted in the late 19th century, the wealthier a nation becomes, the more it turns to non-market governmnet spending to meet needs that markets simply fail to meet. This observation was made well before the widespread rise of mass democratic government in the 20th century which underlay the rise of the modern welfare throuhgout the Western world. Thus, the practice of state spending to enhance the general welfare has deep historical and empirical foundations, and the sort of endless cutting that GOP now demands is nothing short of a suicidal policy for any would-be modern nation-state. The US already spends far less in the way of government social spending than most other advanced industrial nations - 16 percent of GDP compared to 20 percent for Norway, Britain and the Netherlands, 25 percent for Germany and Finland, 26 percent for Austria, Belgium and Denmark, 27 percent for Sweden and 28 percent for France, according to the OECD - and GOP plans would slash current spending significantly below where we are today.

'Sequestration' : A term unclear to many in US

Centrist enablers

The culprit here, however, is not just GOP extremism - which is, after all,  wildly unpopular - but rather the morally feckless elite centrists who enable them by obscuring what they're up to, and by painting the Democrats are equally to blame, no matter what the Democrats do, short of capitulating completely.

Slates's Matthew Yglesias has  recently captured the essenial cognitive trick by which centrist ideology rationalises itself by blaming the (relatively, at least) blameless:

America's Lingering "Wild West" Mentality

As our nation wrestles with the proliferation of gun violence that is causing tragedy after tragedy on city streets, on  school grounds, in theatres, and even in churches, it is amazing that it has been virtually impossible for politicans to agree on ways to reduce the availability and lethality of the weapons which can purchased by the general public.  Background checks are resisted or cursory, military-type assault weapons are available, magazine capacity limits are fought, and the existence of the 2nd amendment is interpreted as meaning there should be no controls on guns whatever.  The Domino Theory was shown to be a fallacy in Vietnam with regard to communist expansion, it is still presented as fact with gun control--if one type of gun control becomes law today, it will expand until no guns at all will be allowed.  This, of course, is nonsense, but not to NRA believers.  Why is the US the only advanced, well-developed nation with such resistence to reasonable gun control?  Is it just the political power of the NRA,  the monetary resources of the gun manufacturing industry that finance it, and the hold that they have on  political decision-makers through their lobbying and campaign funding efforts?  Or could the reasons go much more deeply into the American psyche, and trace back to that exciting time when our nation was expanding west of the Mississippi and out to the Pacific?

Following the Louisiana Purchase  in 1803, nothing was more paramount to the growth and development of the nation than the conquest of the West.  The concept of Manifest Destiny gave us license, as if mandated by God, to take over the land by any means possible.   Treaties were made with Native American tribes to give our conquest the aire of legality, but routinely broken later with little regard for the effect on those displaced.  Any newly-established local justice system was rudimentary at best, and guns were essentially the law of the land.  Sheriffs were chosen from those readily willing to risk their life, citizen posses would typically execute summary justice, entire towns and counties would often by taken over and controlled by corrupt interests.  Accomplished gunfighters gained a  lot of status in the Wild West, law-abiding citizens were often at their mercy and would seek to enlist gunfighters on their side of conflict with dishonest competitors, even notorious outlaws were often celebrated for their exploits.  In this context, all throughout the 1800's in the development of our nation, guns were absolutely essential to the preservation of life and livelihood in the 2/3rds of the country west of the Mississippi.

In the 20th century,  guns became relatively less essential in developing and maintaining some semblance of social order in the West.  Indians had been largely subdued, local justice systems that worked were being established, gunfighters either became a part of the legal system or were social pariahs.  But the memory of gunfighters lingered on,  their legacy glorified in movies  and books, many even reached hero status in the minds of nationwide admirers.  Jesse James was called by some the Robin Hood of the West, and Billy the Kid a youthful and fearless outlaw, justified in seeking revenge against a corrupt group of businessmen and law officials who had gained control of Lincoln County, New Mexico, and who had killed an honest rancher who had employed and befriended.  Movies made heroes  of many gunfighters--the likes of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, Doc Holiday, and Bonnie and Clyde among them.  While guns could no longer be brandished like in the old West, possession and skill with guns for some became a valuable and even necessary expression of manhood and survival.  And a source of entertainment for generations of youth brought up on western movies.  Frontier justice may have become a thing of the past, but the Wild West lived on in many hearts and minds throughout the 20th Century.

 Could this lingering legacy of the role of guns in the development of our nation underlie the success of the NRA in being able to defeat reasonable gun control legislation in the 21st Century, even in the face of overwhelming evidence of its need and of mounting public support demanding it?  There are some positive trends.  A smaller percentage of Americans own guns now than 50 years ago, and fewer Americans belong to the NRA now than half a century ago.  Yet, the resistence to gun control continues.  Is it just politics, the power of money in elections and of political lobbying?  Or are those forces just capitalizing on something much deeper, something that goes back to those heady times when our nation was being established, magnified by the way that time and history have captured and glorified those days?  The horrors of the way guns are frequently used these days may lessen any residual romantization associated with guns, and a new legacy for gun use may emerge, one what will allow them to be sufficiently regulated so that their misuse will be limited and contained to a degree not now possible.  One can only hope this is the outcome, before more unnecessary tragedies continue to occur.

WILL DEMOCRATS SELL US OUT?






                       Published on Thursday, March 21, 2013 by RobertReich.org

Selling the Store: Why Democrats Shouldn’t Put Social Security and Medicare on the Table

by Robert Reich

Prominent Democrats — including the President and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — are openly suggesting that Medicare be means-tested and Social Security payments be reduced by applying a lower adjustment for inflation.

This is even before they’ve started budget negotiations with Republicans — who still refuse to raise taxes on the rich, close tax loopholes the rich depend on (such as hedge-fund and private-equity managers’ “carried interest”), increase capital gains taxes on the wealthy, cap their tax deductions, or tax financial transactions.

It’s not the first time Democrats have led with a compromise, but these particular pre-concessions are especially unwise.

Harry Reid takes a dive for the NRA, without even feigning a fight

Harry Reid's resume claims that he was a boxer before turning to politics.  From his performance as Senate Majority Leader, I suspect he may have thrown a few matches in the ring without putting up that much of a fight, as that is certainly what he did in not including an assault weapons ban in the legislation that the Senate will be considering.  Diane Feinstein deserves a lot of credit for fighting for its inclusion, while Reid's decision to not even have it considered is disgraceful.  After the tragedies that have all too frequently occured, the timing could not be more ideal.  The American people by a large majority favor it.  Most Democrats in the Senate strongly support it, and Republican opposition in an insuing debate would further the alienation of most Americans from the prevaling Republican obstinance.  The NRA has their strong, well-organized support system, and the money of the gun manufacturing industry behind it, but most Americans are increasingly seeing through their ludicrous reasoning, especially in regard to assault weapons.   Their argument that when there are more people with guns, society will be safer, is so asinine it is laughable, and its corallary, the more powerful the weapons, the safer society will be, is an insult to the intelligence of the American people.  If that were true, Tombstone in old Arizona must have been the safest town in the US, and the shoot-out at OK Corral wouldn't have happened if assault rifles had only been available then.   So against the wishes of a majority of Americans, Harry Reid had the audacity to single-handedly eliminate assault weapons from consideration in the bill.  He rather likes guns himself, and guns are quite popular in his state, but in his role in the Senate he is to represent and speak for all the Senate Democrats.  The NRA is delighted, they can concentrate their efforts on other aspects of any emerging bill,  the gun industry is ecstatic, they can continue making and selling one of their highest profit margin items, Republicans have won a battle without even having to fight for the victory, and most Americans are disgusted, their preferences and pleadings are ignored, and they wait in fear of the next tragedy that will occur.  Good job, Harry Reid, you just took another shameful dive.

KIM KARDASHIAN

 KIM KARDASHIAN.                        

In a nation where the corporations and the government are increasingly indistinguishable, where the banksters, who were the primary cause of the 2007 crisis, were bailed out and hardly investigated, where war criminals Bush and Cheney are not prosecuted, where money totally corrupts politics and children go to bed at night hungry, while the middle class is disappearing, why would a political progressive write about Kim Kardashian?

I guess, that like a snake, she’s fascinating.  Of course, she’s at the center of what’s called ”Kardashian  Culture,” which some say is killing America.  For example, Jessica Chasner writes in The Washington Times, “Here’s why America should  care [about the Kardashians]:  “The Kardashian saga illustrates our nation’s moral, spiritual and cultural decay like few other media stories do.”  Seems like America might be in moral jeopardy due to Kim's abundant behind.  (It should be noted that Kim's sex tape probably does better in the Bible Belt than in other parts of our Christian Nation. Those states that do consume the most porn tend to be more conservative and religious than states with lower levels of consumption.)

Well, perhaps killing about one million Iraqis in an unnecessary, immoral, illegal war is more important but, as Chasner points out, George Washington did say that “Religion and morality are the essential pillars of American society.”   At any rate, this super hyped porn star is an object of public adulation.  And The Kardashians do dominate Reality TV.

I’m not sure if this is more a matter of taste, and opposition to repulsive vulgarity, than a question of  the moral decline of The American Empire.    For example, Kim was impregnated by rapper Kanye West,  who said to a huge crowd, at a concert, “Now you having my baby.”  He also told the assembled,  that Kim was now his “baby mom.”  (Ain’t it just swell that Kim Kardashian’s sex tape sales soared after her pregnancy announcement?)

I guess that’s celebrity news.

 The latest gossip is that Kanye West has a couple of his own sex tapes being shopped around, one of which is said to feature a Kardashian lookalike.  I guess Kim won’t do sex tapes anymore so he has to settle for a less abundant posterior.    

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

After this side trip into the realm of guilty pleasures, I’ll go back to writing about corporations, banksters, Why Christians Can’t Be Republicans and that sort of thing.  I’ll leave discussion of the Kardashians, Zombies, what's new on MTV and VH1,  and other topics of current interest, to those interested in the past and current history of human stupidity. 

I leave it to the reader to ponder if Kardashian Culture is an issue of morality or taste.

By the way, do you think Kim is planning a tummy tuck?

MASS MEDIA TAKE ON RAPE..."THOSE POOR BOYS"

www.addictinginfo.org

"We’ve got a messaging problem here in America.
After the verdict in the Steubenville rape case was announced (guilty; minimum of one year, possible incarceration until they’re 21), reactions were swift. As expected, the families of the defendants were crushed, one of the defendants, Ma’lik Richmond, appeared authentically remorseful (oh, would he have had those feelings before he raped and publicly shamed a drunk girl!), the town likely felt a mix of relief, regret and revulsion, and the girl probably felt vindicated.The greater public reaction was oddly skewed, however. In a nutshell, rather than soberly acknowledge that justice had been served and the message that raping a drunk teen will never be excusable in any court – legal or moral – CNN’s Candy Crowely started the media conversation by commiserating with remote reporter, Poppy Harlow, that 'those poor boys’ lives are ruined.' ”
CNN was not the only “rape apologist” out there in America. The Raw Story ran a piece on the issue:

1. Writer Lee Stranahan on Breitbart.com prattled that “the town’s the real victim here“…
2. Author/blogger Michael Crooke’s blog, Travesty of justice in Steubenville detailed how the victim “whined” that she was “embarrassed and scared” when, according to Crooke, she damn well needs to “examine her role” in perpetrating her own rape.
3. The Trolls on Twitter:  It’s beyond repulsive that the trolls are now tweeting death threats and calling her a “whore.” America the beautiful.

The Plague of Corporate Political Sponsorship

Corporate sponsorship as a natural and necessary part of our economic system has grown massively, and in my mind, monstrously, from when I was a pre- teenager in the 1940's.  When Weber Bread sponsored the Lone Ranger, a hero of mine who I preferred over Red Ryder, a radio competitor sponsored by Langendorf Bread, I would dutifully try to talk my mom into buying Weber Bread and make disparaging comments about Langendorf.  Sponsorship had effects, inoccuous but real.  Sponsorship magnified its role when TV came into play, entire programs and specials took on the names of the sponsor.  That Hallmark should sponsor sentimental dramas seemed natural enough, as did Colgate with their bright, smiling presentations.  And when Timex put its name on a periodic Jazz Special, fantastic! Loved the jazz performances, but Timex got a lot of credit. 

More recently sponsorship has encroached in ways that are not only much less inoccuous, but are becoming offensive and even destructive in their effects.  Sponsor naming rights in athletics I personally find offensive, though it certainly has no negative societal impact in itself.  Naming a college football bowl game for its sponsor, to me sounds ridiculous.  At something called a Chick-a-fils Bowl one might expect to see a chicken mating contest, not football teams competing.  Why not just stick with a Gator Bowl, Sun Bowl, Orange Bowl, or Rose Bowl?  But that is really petty.  A simple matter of money and economics and profit.  It's our system, just live with it.  Visibility is key to success in a thriving free enterprise system.

It is when it comes to corporate political sponsorship that the effects become detrimental, and threaten the viability of our entire democratic political system.  The role of corporate money in electing candidates can not be underestimated, nor can the open revolving door that exists between corporate CEO's, high governmental office, and paid lobbyists that keep the funds and influence peddling flowing. Political contributions coming from individual contributors, from the shrinking middle class, and from labor unions with their declining membership and power can in no way match that raised through corporate coffers.  If numerous press reports are accurate, some recent presidential candidates, elected senators, and current governors were massively bankrolled by a select individual or corporate head, and have maintained or could be expected to honor close contact with the donor on issues of significance.  Gov. Scott Walker's relationship with the Koch Bros is well reported, does their sponsorship merit his being labelled the Koch Bros Governor of Wisconsin?  Are we moving towards a WalMart Senator from Texas, or a Citibank or at&t Presidency?  We have already had a virtual Halliburton Corp Vice Presidency for 8 years during the Bush administration, and we know how that worked out for us--endless warfare in the Middle East and the worst economic decline in 70 years.  What is good for a corporation is not necessarily good for the nation as a whole. When a major corporation CEO, serving in a  high government office during the 1950's, made a statement that what was good for his company was good for the United States, he was roundly criticized.  Now, corporations can become too big to fail, the government must save them despite  their having policies that have severely damaged the economy.  Finding a way to reverse the momentum and direction of these changes involving the accumulation of corporate power is, in my mind, essential, but will be a real challenge.

 The extent and insidious effects of corporate sponsorship of candidates in our political system does threaten democracy as we know it.  Our individual votes are equal, but the capacity we as individuals have to influence government is in no way equal, and won't be until the role and influence of money becomes more balanced.  Benito Mussolini is reported to have said that facsism exists when corporatism becomes merged with democracy in the political system.  If that is true, we may  unknowingly be getting closer to that state than we realize.  Perhaps the Supreme Court should have read Mussolini's quote before rendering it's ill-considered Citizen's United decision.   Corporate sponsorship has grown immensely during the last 60 years.  When it enters the political sphere, the danger is real, it should be taken very, very seriously.

 

DEPARTMENT OF FALSEHOOD AND DECEIT

March 18, Tenth Anniversary of The Iraq war.

DEMOCRACY NOW.  ARUNDHATI ROY: " When the United States invaded Iraq, a New York Times/CBSNews survey estimated that 42 percent of the American public believed that Saddam Hussein was directly responsible for the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And an ABC News poll said that 55 percent of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein directly supported al-Qaeda. None of this opinion is based on evidence, because there isn’t any. All of it is based on insinuation or to suggestion and outright lies circulated by the U.S. corporate media, otherwise known as the "free press," that hollow pillar on which contemporary American democracy rests. Public support in the U.S. for the war against Iraq was founded on a multitiered edifice of falsehood and deceit, coordinated by the U.S. government and faithfully amplified by the corporate media."

March 16, 2012  THE LAND OF FAT HEADED, INBRED GENETIC RECESSIVES

In response to Mayor Bloomberg's failed  attempt to block the sales if super sized sodas, feeble minded Mississippi politicians have responded.  Mississipi gov. Phil Bryant is expected to sign a Anti-Bloomberg bill prohibiting local lawmakers from food portion sizes, requiring nutritional information on meals, and banning toys in meals aimed at children.

Mississippi is officially the fattest state in the country, with 34.9% of adults overweight or obese, according to the Centers For Disease Control and Prevention.

EARLY TEA PARTIERS LOOK LIKE MORONS

The Birchers Learn a Lesson.

When I was a kid, I listened on the radio to “The FBI in Peace And War.” Because of its influence, I wanted to be a G-Man. I’d forgotten about that dream until, years later, when the FBI appeared on the community college campus, in Los Angeles County, where I taught political science.

In 1968, I was a first year instructor at Citrus Community College in Glendora, CA.  I was the faculty sponsor of a group of students called the “Student Committee on Political Education.” It was our intent to provide a forum for speakers from the political left and right. Our first presenter was conservative (reactionary?) congressman John Rousselot, our second guest was neanderthal state representative Gordon Browning. The third speaker was the Black wild man, Frank Greenwood,  author of the play “Burn Baby Burn.”

I expected the local members of the John Birch Society (they’re like today’s Tea Party Express morons, if you don’t know them) as well as the patriots of the local American Legion to raise hell when Greenwood’s coming to campus was reported by the local newpapers.

Nothing happened. Silence.

Next to appear was Frank Wilkinson.

As Wikipedia reports: "[He] was a lifelong progressive political activist. Wilkinson was caught up in the McCarthy Era when he defended a major public housing project, Elysian Park Heights, for the Chávez Ravine section of Los Angeles. Instead, Dodger Stadium eventually occupied the site. Wilkinson, in 1952, was the assistant director of the Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles. Critics of the plan claimed that public housing was part of a socialist plot. Wilkinson, called before the House Un-American Activities Committee, cited the First Amendment as his reason for not answering: the Committee had no right to ask. Cited for contempt of Congress, Wilkinson, was fired from his job in connection with his unwillingness to affirm or deny his political party membership. He served a term in jail.

"After his release, Wilkinson became a leading opponent of the House Un- American Activities Committee, and, in 1960, helped form the National Committee to Abolish HUAC, which evolved into the National Committee Against Repressive Legislation."

When the word that Wilkinson was coming to the college was publicized, the American Opinion Book Store in Covina (home of Harold Teen if you have ever heard of him), opened its “subversive files” and, yes, you guessed it, the name Frank Wilkinson’s was there (Greenwood hadn’t been in the files). The American Opinion Book Store, by the way, was run by the Birchers.

The Birch Society, the local American Legion Post, The VFW Post and other local supporters of True American Values called the College President, the Board of Trustees, and their friends on the faculty. They demanded that Wilkinson’s appearance be cancelled and that I should be fired from my college teaching position.

To this day, I still can’t believe it, the College President, Glen Vaniman and the somewhat conservative Board of Trustees held firm: Wilkinson would come and make his address in the auditorium. The response of the Birchers and the Veterans was to skulk about on the Citrus College campus, appending sheets of paper to trees and garbage cans demanding that I be fired. Older guys in suits, whom I'd never seen, began coming to my classes. I let them stay, hoping they'd learn something about the American Constitution.

On the night of Wilkinson’s appearance, I walked over to the auditorium and parked directly across from the east end of the building were Legionnaires, with their uniform caps on and sitting on the hoods of their cars (in the parking lot of the local hamburger joint), began taunting me. I was soon joined by a colleague of mine, Gene Pribble, an army veteran himself, six feet one and 210 pounds of mostly muscle.

Gene went inside the Citrus Auditorium and retrieved, from the prop area, a baker’s cat and a broomstick. He marched up and down on the street in front of the vets, hat on head and broom held like a rifle. He challenged them to “come over have a talk” but no one moved. Silence.

Wilkinson arrived. We went on stage to a filled auditorium. I’d estimate that the audience was divided into thirds: Faculty and students, curious citizens from the community, and mostly fat Legionnaires and VFW folk In those days, before the adulation of the military, after 9/11, the vets were often allied with various state Un-American committees and certainly not admired by the progressive community.

Wilkinson and I came out on the stage to a chorus of boos. I, as moderator, led the Pledge amid catcalls from some in the audience, some of whom suggested that Wilkinson and I move back to the U.S.S.R. I introduced him, giving part of his biography, and stated his topic, “Why The House Un-American Committee Should Be Abolished.” Wilkinson went to the microphone and, after the catcalls and boos had diminished, suggested that anyone, who wanted to debate him on the topic, should come up on the stage and do so.

Silence. People looked at one another to see if there was a patriotic person of courage there. Finally a young man, with military posture, who later introduced himself a William G. Kirsten, strode up to the stage, grabbed the microphone, and most sincerely spoke about loving America, its values its traditions, the flag, and other true American stuff. The audience mostly loved it. Kirsten sat down.

Wilkinson, in turn, ignored his remarks and gave cogent reasons and facts as to why HUAC should be abolished. During the question and answer period, I wandered thought the audience, microphone in hand, and the audience asked questions. Then a person wondered, “Mr. Kirsten, are you a member of any political party?” I walked to the stage and gave Kirsten the mike and he announced, chest stuck out, “I’m proud to say that I am a member of the American Nazi Party!”

I looked at the audience and viewed the open mouthed faces of the crowd, many of whom had strongly cheered the Nazi.

The local American Legion Commander rushed to the stage and pronounced, “He doesn’t represent us or the way we think!”

But, of course, a lesson had been learned.

But, what about the FBI, where this story began?

Before the meeting I had told several students in SCOPE, to look for its agents and see what they were up to. I had learned from Bill Wingfield,  of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, that, wherever Wilkinson went to speak in public, he had been followed by FBI agents. And they were there at Citrus! My students in SCOPE told them that they didn’t like me, that I was way too left wing and indoctrinated them. Reportedly the G-Men’s response was to the effect that, yes, they had many complaints about my being a communist.

Supported by the Social Sciences Department and many students, some who were sons and daughters of prominent community members, I wasn’t fired and was able to corrupt the youth for the next 35 years.

Today, when I read books like “The 100 Greatest Americans of the 20th Century; A Social Justice Hall of Fame” (Peter Dreier), the antics of the FBI jump out on many of the pages. They are depicted sometimes as Keystone Kops, sometimes as agents of the worst kinds of repression.

Of course, I’m an old guy, and although, now it’s a long time ago, I see the FBI in terms of an image of its Director, Edgar J. Hoover, a transvestite, in a dress, his ghost moving furtively about Southern California campuses, searching, searching for Frank Wilkinson and his fellow subversives.

March 13, 2013.  DEPARTMENT OF SOMETIMES YOU GOTTA DEFEND THE RIGHTS OF YOUR  ASS TO BE SUPER FAT.

New York Times:   "Bottlers and Minority Groups, Soda War Allies."  The paper reports that advocacy   groups for Black and Hispanic groups, hit hardest by the effects of consuming large, sugary drinks, had joined produces and distributors of the sodas against Mayor Blumburg's attempts to regulate them.

March 12, 2013.  DEPARTMENT OF THEY'RE NOT JUST FOLKS.

"The Fed can afford to lose money because it can simply print more."--The New York Times  

WHAT GIVES IN AFGHANISTAN???

Re: our new Defense Secretary's statement in Afghanistan that he is there to find out more about why we are there, What!!!!  I give Hagel credit for being a reasonably intelligent, well-informed, qualified person to be in his position.  I take the statement more as an honest appraisal of our government's confusion about what our mission has been, and is continuing to be, in Afghanistan.  We are going on 12 years of warfare there, the longest war in which the US has ever been engaged.  And it is clearly less than clear why we are still there, and what we have a reasonable expectation of accomplishing by the time we leave.  Astonishing! If not totally repugnant!!  Good luck Chuck Hagel.  Hope you figure out something soon, which has left others scratching their heads in bewilderment for the past 11 years.  Hope we find a way to leave immediately.  Both Hagel and Kerry served in Vietnam, they should remember.  Not one more of our soldiers should be lost in an endeavor so misguided.

Mar. 11, 2013.  DEPARTMENT OF NOTHING NEW.

The BBC just reported that, in choosing the new Pope, "The Cardinals will be shut away from the world."

IT'S IMPOSSIBLE IN AMERICA TO WAKE UP IN THE MORNING, READ THE NEWSPAPERS AND NOT LAUGH YOURSELF SILLY.....
Paraphrase of H.L. Menken. In this morning's N.Y. TImes, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hegel is quoted as saying, "I'm going to Afghanistan to find out more as to why we are there."
Of course, one may cry and not laugh at this at all.