Class war? Game over: "The rich won that struggle."

Masaccio:

A recent paper shows the complete victory of the rich in the class war. If you had any doubt, consider these facts. In 1983, the 838,900 households comprising the top 1% in wealth held $6.6 trillion in financial assets (constant 2007 dollars). In 2007, the 1,161,200 households in the top 1% held $19.9 trillion. The average for each household went from $7,870,000 to $17,116,000.

To put this in perspective, in 1983, the middle quintile, the 16,779,000 households 10% on either side of the middle, held $261.7 billion, an average of $15,600 per household. That rose to $603 billion in 2007, when there were 23,224,000 households in that quintile. Each household in the middle quintile had an average of $26,000 in financial wealth. If just half of the gains to the top 20% were divided evenly among the other 80% of 2007 households, their average wealth would rise $157,776.

This and other equally astonishing facts appear in a paper written by Edward Wolff (pdf).

[...]

One form of class war is the struggle over the allocation of the gains created by society. The rich won that struggle.

From p. 35 of the Wolff paper:

...the average wealth of the poorest 40 percent declined by 63 percent between 1983 and 2007 and, by 2007, had fallen to only $2,200. All in all, the greatest gains in wealth and income were enjoyed by the upper 20 percent, particularly the top 1 percent, of the respective distributions. Between 1983 and 2007, the top 1 percent received 35 percent of the total growth in net worth, 43 percent of the total growth in non-home wealth, and 44 percent of the total increase in income. The figures for the top 20 percent are 89 percent, 94 percent, and 87 percent, respectively.

So how's that hopey-changey thing workin' out for ya?

N.Y. Times:

The Obama administration is proposing to open vast expanses of water along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling, much of it for the first time, officials said Tuesday.

"It's his analysis of capitalism that people are interested in."

(h/t Existentialist Cowboy)

Who Rules Cincinnati? Who Rules America?

Dan La Botz (Socialist Senate candidate in Ohio) and George Carlin on the rulers who rule us.



“I believe we need an alternative to the Republican and Democratic Parties. We have to stop the banks and corporations from controlling our political system."
- Dan La Botz

"It's a big club and you ain't in it."

Info on the book La Botz refers to, Who Rules America? by G. William Domhoff, is here.

(h/t Rustbelt Radical)

"Tell me how the church is a source of morality, again. I have forgotten."

[source]

His job is to wear pointy hats, to wave and to smile, to spout nonsense and bigotry, and to ignore "petty gossip" (which the real world calls child molestation).

Steve Likes to Curse:

Most of the attention attracted by this story has focused on Pope Benedict. I get that. He’s the leader of the oldest and largest Christian denomination, not to mention a head of state, and he took no action to protect the most innocent and powerless members of his church against a man who had been raping them since the 1950s. But Ratzinger isn’t the only one at fault in this case. Let’s not forget every other single member of the church who knew about Lawrence Murphy and did absolutely nothing to stop him.

[...]

When the Vatican does decide to discipline one of its priests (and what do you have to be accused of doing, I wonder, to warrant such discipline, when dozens and dozens of charges of child sex abuse are apparently insufficient), it does it in the form of a closed, secret trial. When our flawed, morally inferior, man-made justice system decides to discipline someone, we do it in the form of an open, public trial by a jury of the peers of the accused. Even if Murphy had been convicted in a secret Vatican trial, the worst thing that could have happened to him was losing his job as a priest. When someone is convicted of raping children in our criminal courts, they get sent someplace where they can’t continue to rape people.

Tell me how the church is a source of morality, again. I have forgotten.

Militarism, America's preferred high

"Addicted to War is a witty and devastating portrait of U.S. military policy, a fine example of art serving society." - Howard Zinn

Joel Andreas' excellent comic-format book can be read in its entirety online here.

P.S. A memorial for Howard Zinn was held in Boston yesterday. Wish I could have been there (and I hope it was filmed!).

Anok:

Most of the speakers urged us to remember his humility, outspokenness, friendship, calm demeanor, and desire to change things for the better. Almost every speaker mentioned how he never lost hope, and always continued to fight for progress in the face of failure or cynicism.
[...]
Like the song appropriately sung today "Joe Hill" - Zinn will never truly die. You cannot kill his ideas, his words, and his influence on people. His is a legacy that should be honored with continual work, support and hope from us, the people he sought to reach and for whom to make the world a better place.

Another Edward Abbey moment: "The trouble with technology is..."

As a lot of enviros go pro-nuke, it's worthwhile to remember what Edward Abbey had to say about nuclear power.

Edward Abbey in 1984 (interviewed by Mother Earth News):

The trouble with technology is that it encourages an oversimplified view of life and the world. To reduce everything to technological problems, to engineering problems, is insulting to human nature. Life is more complicated than anything mathematics or engineering or technology can handle.

And technology also tends to promote the centralization of power. Technology gives a few the means, the instruments, to dominate the many. For example, one man with a machine gun has as much power, surely, as a hundred or maybe even a thousand men with sticks and stones. So, in general, the tendency of technology is to encourage and promote hierarchical, authoritarian social structures equipped with tyrannical tools—fighter planes, bombers, tanks, artillery—that give a few people great power over the many. I'm in favor of democracy. I'm opposed to privilege and undue power for a few.

One of the reasons I oppose nuclear power—in addition to the fact that I'm convinced that it's more dangerous to human health and more damaging to the environment than all other ways of generating energy—is that it's so undemocratic. It's another means of centralizing power, of making the majority of us dependent on a few politicians and engineers and administrators in the public utility system.

Solar power, on the other hand, is a highly decentralized and therefore democratic form of technology. In most applications, the apparatus necessary to harness solar power can be maintained within a household. Each home could heat and illuminate itself by solar power alone, thereby requiring no connection with a grid system controlled from some central source. So solar power is an example of good technology, appropriate technology, democratic technology . . . technology serving people, instead of the other way around.

If I can sum it up, I think technology is good when it gives more power to the public and bad when it gives more power to the few . . . to the powerful few at the center of the social/political/economic/military system. Also, technology is slowly but surely destroying the very earth that nurtures us.

A great Abbey talk, from the 1986 Telluride Ideas Festival, can be heard at Monkey Wrench Info.

There are eight zillion quotations (maybe) on the blogosphere; these have been three of them.

"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson."
— Franklin D. Roosevelt

"The salary of the chief executive of the large corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself."
— J. K. Galbraith

"Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us?"
— Justice William O. Douglas

Monkey Wrench Info has a lot more nice quotations.

First shoe dropped.Second will drop soon.Third is the Big One.

The First Shoe was the health insur­ance indus­try. As the econ­omy nose­dived it dug into their prof­its. Employ­ers either cut back on group plans or laid off employ­ees, either case affect­ing the cash flow. Plus more and more young healthy peo­ple, prized by the health insur­ers due to the loss ratio, were elect­ing to be unin­sured. Hence the HIBOB (health insur­ance bail out bill) man­dat­ing peo­ple to pur­chase their prod­uct, in exchange for which they will now offer insur­ance to pre­vi­ously unin­sured peo­ple. With high deductibles/premiums/copays plus words like “unrea­son­able” inserted into bills to negate the life­time and yearly caps, these peo­ple may not receive any actual care but the indus­try will receive the pre­mi­ums. First Shoe to fall, and a very pop­u­lar one with Democrats.

Shoe num­ber two is finan­cial reform. Bush offi­cially endorsed TBTF (Too Big To Fail ) which Obama con­tin­ued. As the call from Main St for reform reached a fever pitch the pres­i­dent sent mes­sages to the finan­cial sec­tor that he was on board. Reap­point­ing Bernanke and cab­i­net posi­tions for Sum­mers and Gei­th­ner brought com­fort to Wall St. Obama has shown occa­sional blus­ter but water­ing down deriv­a­tives reform and head­quar­ter­ing the Con­sumer Finan­cial Pro­tec­tion Act within the Fed as well as lan­guage in Dodd’s bill cement­ing TBTF show this round too will go to the finan­cial guys. Sec­ond Shoe and likely pop­u­lar with Democ­rats too.

Ah but now we come to the Third Shoe and it’s a big one. Andre the Giant might not have fit into this one. Our Third Shoe is Social Secu­rity. The New Deal leg­is­la­tion which has kept many a fam­ily afloat. It saved my family’s ass when my dad passed away. The Right has demo­nized SS for years with lit­tle luck. Fol­low­ing the tech bub­ble they pushed hard for “own­er­ship” count­ing on the fact that most Amer­i­cans don’t under­stand SS is social insur­ance, not some kind of sav­ings plan. Bush tried to pri­va­tize it but was opposed by Democ­rats, AARP and even much of his own party. Keep in mind the econ­omy was boom­ing. Also keep in mind had he won, the pri­va­tized accounts he pushed for would be dig­its in some vir­tual dump­ster in cyberspace.

Things are dif­fer­ent now. The economy’s in the tank and peo­ple are being fright­ened by fears of deficits and unfunded lia­bil­i­ties. They’re unfunded because the time hasn’t come to pay them yet. Think of your house payment-if inter­est and prin­ci­pal are 500,000.00 over 30 years-that’s a 500,000.00 unfunded lia­bil­ity. Cause it isn’t time to pay it yet. If you keep mak­ing your monthly house pay­ment you’ll be fine. SS is the same. The most recent Trustee report shows it fully funded for 27 more years. No need to panic.

But that’s what the politi­cians and Wall St are count­ing on. Panic and greed and peo­ple not under­stand­ing that SS is OK. Obama’s posi­tion in 2008 was against pri­va­ti­za­tion. He also favored a pub­lic option at that time too which went out the win­dow once elected so Caveat Emptor.

The TBTF banks will con­tinue to do what they’ve always done thanks to the com­ing industry-friendly finance reform bill. But this is key-because they still hold bil­lions in toxic assets off their bal­ance sheets they are effec­tively insol­vent. If you forced them to declare those assets at true mar­ket value they would prove to be broke-in spite of the Bailout. So they NEED the SS money. The Repub­li­cans already stand for pri­va­ti­za­tion, Bush Style. Fun­nel­ing increas­ing per­cent­ages of FICA wages to Wall St for invest­ment in equity and bonds. Some Democ­rats echo the talk of “Fix­ing” SS. It isn’t broke. When they say “Fix­ing” they mean give it to Wall St. So watch your pres­i­dent. Watch the Democ­rats. Third Shoe. It’s the big one.

"The jackals are a permanent fixture of global life now..."

A new Joe Bageant piece (always a pleasure to read):

Besides the aquarium window onto the plaza, the other brightly lit thing in the Tolteca is the TV screen above the bar, which is tuned to English language CNN, apparently as a courtesy to us gringos. The news today is the murder of U.S. consulate employees up in Ciudad Juarez, which everyone at the bar agrees is drug related. Onscreen, Obama is declaring that he is "outraged," but also "saddened." Apparently, the previous 45,000 cartel related murders right next door were insufficient to produce either outrage or sadness in the president. In any case, with these two carefully chosen words, he strokes both the conservatives, whose appetite for outrage is limitless, and the liberals, who in their gutless impotency, must be content with being saddened.

Money, violence and politics, the three jackals that hunt together, and feast on society's craving for prohibited commodities, alcohol in the thirties and cocaine today. The politicians run the perimeter of the human herd, guiding it this way and that through speeches and legislation, providing distraction, the killers enforce the code of the pack, assuring that the money always flows in the direction of the jackal pack. The jackals are a permanent fixture of global life now, whether the commodity is crude oil under indigenous people's soil, or soil itself upon which to grow palm oil trees in Indonesia.

Izzy fabulous or what? Jeremy Scahill wins an Izzy!

Ithaca College:

ITHACA, NY — The Park Center for Independent Media (PCIM) at Ithaca College has announced that its second annual Izzy Award for special achievement in independent media will go to investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill, whose work in 2009 helped elevate the issue of abuse by military contractors to front-page news.

Scahill is the author of the international best-seller “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.” He will appear on campus to accept the award on Monday, April 19. Details of the event, which is free and open to the public, will be announced at a later date.

The Izzy Award is named after the legendary dissident journalist I.F. “Izzy” Stone, who launched his muckraking newsletter “I.F. Stone’s Weekly” in 1953 during the height of the McCarthy witch hunts. Stone, who died in 1989, exposed government deceit and corruption while championing civil liberties, racial justice and international diplomacy.

An interview is available on AlterNet:

Jeremy Scahill: I would define an independent journalist as someone that's totally un-embedded when it comes to their relationship with the powerful. In other words, you don't get into bed with any political party. I'm not a Democrat; I'm not a Republican. I'm a journalist. It means that you don't get in bed with the military, with the CIA, or wealthy corporations, and you don't compromise your journalistic or your personal integrity in the pursuit of anything, including a story.

I believe that the way independent journalists are most effectively able to conduct their work is by maintaining their independence from the powerful. I don't hob-nob with the powerful. I don't count among my friends executives or other powerful people. I think it's important for independent journalists to not be beholden to any special interests whatsoever.

"It’s much easier keeping track of the promises he’s kept."

Confluence:

"The president supports abortion rights."

We know this because he said so. So what if his record shows he has never actually done anything to support abortion rights, he says he supports them and that’s what matters. Imagine if wasn’t such a militant feminist. Or worse, what if that Alaskan chillbilly had won?

Obama also says he is a “fierce advocate” for LGBT rights. That’s why DADT and DOMA are still with us. Gitmo is still open for business, we’re still in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they just renewed the Patriot Act.

I could go on, but Arthur Silber advised not wasting time trying to keep track of all of Obama’s broken promises. He says it’s much easier keeping track of the promises he’s kept.

That would be . . . uh . . . help me out here.

P.S. I was unfamiliar with Arthur Silber's blog until this morning. It is very much worth checking out. There are so many good blogs out there waiting to be discovered!

Meg Whitman's obscene spending spree

Raw Story:

After lagging heavily in the polls behind her Republican and Democratic opponents, former EBay chief Meg Whitman paid $27.2 million between Jan. 1 and March 17 to businesses and people. In that time, she doubled her lead over Republican opponent Steve Poizner and made a narrow one over Democrat Jerry Brown, according to a poll from last week.

Broken down over time, that comes down to $249 a minute in campaign spending. But that's only for the last two and a half months. Overall, Whitman has spent $46 million, the most ever for a candidate in a statewide California primary.

Almost all of the money came directly from Whitman, who made billions running popular auction site EBay. Almost $21 million went to television and radio ads that Whitman began airing last fall.

[...]

Democrat Jerry Brown isn't happy either, and said Whitman is destroying the democratic process.

"She has ... outspent me 190 to 1," Brown told KCRA 3. "What is my reaction? I don't think it's democratic. I think it's corrupting the political process. It's buying the airwaves, and it is really hostile to the notion of people-to-people democracy."

$46 million could help a lot of desperate Californians. Instead, it is being used to seek an office that will be exploited to further enrich the rich and screw the average Californian.

"...they asked people to rise for the playing of the anthem."

A group I admire, Jesus Radicals, yesterday lost a battle to prevent Goshen College from playing the National Anthem. The president of Goshen College declared jubilantly: "the national anthem was played before two sports events for the first time since intercollegiate athletics began at the college in 1957."

With media from all over the U.S. in attendance, Goshen College played the national anthem for the first time today. Before playing the anthem they announced that Goshen is a “Christ-centered” institution which believes in peace. Then, after several statements about the college’s core identity, hospitality and welcome, and respect for people’s differing opinions, they asked people to rise for the playing of the anthem. The baseball players lined up on the field and faced the flag, which a handful of students stood underneath, perhaps in fear that someone might try to take it down. Many of the people in attendance stood while several of us sat in protest.

[...]

Today was one of the saddest days in my time as a Mennonite. An official institution of Mennonite Church U.S.A. bowed to the golden calf when the music was played. They now have a thin peace that cannot recognize idolatry in the modern world.

–Andy Alexis-Baker

"At the heart of the national anthem is a message that glorifies war and violence for one nation’s benefit. These themes are inherent in the words themselves—”the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air”— and they are inherent to the ways in which the anthem is used to inspire patriotic fervor.
[...]
The national anthem also promotes the United States over and against other nations, violating Christian internationalism and worldwide fellowship. In an attempt to be 'hospitable' to American patriots, we believe Goshen College’s decision rejects a higher call to be a transnational body that resists the boundaries set by nations. Furthermore, the institution is compromising its witness to the world by intentionally aligning itself with an entity that has engaged in militarism, oppression and imperialism since its inception."
- from Resistance to the National Anthem at Goshen College

"...the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago."

I harp a lot on inequality on this blog. The N.Y. Times has an article today on the health care bill and how it will reduce inequality.

For all the political and economic uncertainties about health reform, at least one thing seems clear: The bill that President Obama signed on Tuesday is the federal government’s biggest attack on economic inequality since inequality began rising more than three decades ago.

As usual, the comments are more interesting than the article. Here's one of the more depressing ones:

God Bless inequality!!! That's what this country is all about! Why should some lazy person waiting for a govt handout be considered my 'equal'. Guess what? You're not... and from now on I'm going to treat you like it. Hey, if I have to foot the bill for some deadbeat to lay in govt safety hammock at least I can some smack right? Haven't I earned that since I am in the 1% who pays more than 50% of the taxes.

If supporting inequality is wrong then being American is wrong.

In fact I think inequality is so important to American society that I think only people who pay federal taxes should be allowed to vote in presidential elections. Why should those who contribute nothing have a say? I don't believe in charity that isn't voluntary.

This bill will only increase class warfare. The fact is that everyone should chip in for this ridiculous disgrace of a bill. Not those who are already squeezed the most.

And from someone more sensible:

The growth of income inequality has been a serious problem. It is very hard to imagine a truly democratic government continuing, in any but mere name, when the access to power provided by wealth is so unequal.

Some have claimed that differences in wealth are merely the result of differences in effort but that is not well supported by the data. People who start out from wealthier homes consistantly end up in higher income jobs, and it seems implausable that could be the result of either effort or ability. In my own career it seems clear that rewards on the job are frequently the result of chance events that have no basis in either ability or effort.

If we are to have a country that offers equality of opportunity we need to try to create a more equitable distribution of wealth.

The sensible ones are few and far between.

Yoo Fucker, interrupted.

Less than just deserts but satisfying nonetheless. Most incredible is that most of the people in the room actually care about what he has to say.

Tolstoy believed...

[source]

"No, this world is not a joke, and not a vale of trials or a transition to a better, everlasting world, but this world here is one of the eternal worlds that is beautiful, joyous, which we can and must make more beautiful and more joyous for those living with us and for those who will live in it after us."
- Leo Tolstoy

Ernest J. Simmons:

Tolstoy believed that the whole history of the last two thousand years had consisted essentially in the moral development of the masses and the demoralization of governments. He placed his faith in the moral development of the masses as a final answer to the universal oppression of the many by the few. For him, the progressive movement toward a classless and stateless condition of mankind depended upon the growing moral perfection of every individual through strict observance of the supreme law of love and the consequent repudiation of every form of violence. The West, with its incomplete liberalism today, condemns Soviet Marxism, but it has also decided that Tolstoy, though he may have diagnosed the disease of society correctly, has prescribed a kind of incantation for a cure. His way of love and moral perfection, we say, is impractical. On the other hand, we must now decide how practical is a hydrogen-bomb war to end all wars— or civilization.

However much of an incantation his remedy may have been, nevertheless there was a certain strength in Tolstoy's unworld-liness from which we can perhaps learn something, for it enabled him to stand above the turmoil of everyday life and reach beyond history, beyond time itself, to find universal answers to the problems of living which are not conditioned by materialistic factors of human existence. Nor did the seer of Yasnaya Polyana ever lose his wonderful optimism. Returning home one day after seeing a beautiful sunset, he wrote in his diary: "No, this world is not a joke, and not a vale of trials or a transition to a better, everlasting world, but this world here is one of the eternal worlds that is beautiful, joyous, which we can and must make more beautiful and more joyous for those living with us and for those who will live in it after us."

“When evidence is available to be tested, it is criminal and unconstitutional not to test it.”

Why would a state put someone to death (a barbaric practice) without doing DNA tests that almost certainly would shed light on the crime that was committed? Are we to regard the state as uninterested in facts? What does the state gain by its intransigence?

This Can't Be Happening!:

The bloody-minded, death-obsessed state of Texas, which has already demonstrably executed at least one innocent man, Cameron Todd Willingham (who was falsely accused and ultimately killed by the state for the alleged arson “murder” of his two little children when in fact they’d died because of a fire caused by an electrical fault), may be about to execute yet another innocent man.

This time it’s Hank Skinner, 47, a man who has spent 16 years on the state’s busy death row protesting his innocence in the 1993 New Year’s Eve murder of his girlfriend, Twila Busby, and her two sons, aged 20 and 22.

The thing about Skinner’s case is it would be relatively easy to prove whether or not he was really the killer of the three. There are two bloody knives that have never been tested for Skinner’s DNA--or for the DNA of Twila’s uncle, the man who had reportedly made several unwanted sexual advances at her earlier that evening, leading her to leave a party early, and who Skinner claims is the real killer. Nor was semen that was found on Twila Busby, who was raped, or skin found under her fingernails, ever DNA tested to see who they belonged to.

[...]

Skinner’s execution is set for Wednesday, March 24. He and attorney Owen have asked the US Supreme Court to block the execution and to order testing. As Owen told the Los Angeles Times, “In any investigation today, all of this evidence would have been tested for DNA. But why not do the testing now?" As of Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court had not responded to the urgent last-ditch appeal.

On March 19, six men who had spent a collective 67 years on death rows for crimes they were later able to prove they did not commit gathered to call on Texas to do the right thing, and allow time for DNA testing of the evidence in Skinner’s case.

Curtis McCarty, who himself spent 21 years on Oklahoma’s death row waiting to die, only to finally get DNA testing of evidence that finally proved his innocence, says, “When evidence is available to be tested, it is criminal and unconstitutional not to test it.”

"...attacked by a boy on her way to school; she's undergone some 30 reconstructive surgeries."

Eyeteeth:

A former fashion photographer now doing documentary work, Izabella Demavlys writes in her artist's statement that "to illustrate a deeper definition of female beauty, I photograph women whose pictorial beauty radiates from their accomplishment, character and personal struggles." Her latest series, "Without a Face," offers a direct and profoundly affecting kind of beauty: portraits of Pakistani women healing after attacks by men wielding kerosene oil or battery acid. One, 20-year-old Memona, was attacked by a boy on her way to school; she's undergone some 30 reconstructive surgeries.

Doomsteader Arsenal

[source]

Loaded up, ready to shoot. From a blog focused on "Doomsteading, Prepping, Stockpiling, Caching, Pack Ratting. Whatever you may call the process of storing goods, the idea and motivation are the same; To prepare oneself for times when things may be non-existent or scarce."

Had a heated discussion with a friend yesterday about my selection of “gear”. For some reason it must have been Kick-the-shit-out-of-Crowley-Day, because it seemed like I couldn’t get anything right.

First it was guns:

Rifles: I like the M4, I like the 5.56mm (.223) NATO round. It’s what I know, it’s what I am comfortable with. I know the round doesn’t have as much stopping power as the 7.62 (.308) but ya know what, my shoulder doesn’t get sore after 3,000 rounds either. My Deer Rifle is a .308 I’ll be fine.

Pistols: I like my XDm .40 S&W. I don’t want a .45. I like 1911’s but I am more accurate with the .40. I also like the PT-92 in 9mm, it’s familiar, it’s what I know, but I also have come to know the .40. If I had to chose I would pick my .40 in a fight any night.

Shotguns: It’s hard to find anything bad to say about an 870 but I can. I don’t like where the slide release is. my stubby little fingers are a little too short for it to be comfortable. That is why I have a Mosseburg 500. I have both short and long barrel, 12 gauge, obviously. I’ve never had it jam on me, unlike some 870’s when I was at the qual range. And here is my load. 2 slugs, 3 00 buck, all Hornandy of course.

My Theory: I keep the .40, locked and loaded, within arms reach at all times. I keep everything else, locked up. I use the pistol to fight my to the safe, where I grab the Mossburg, which is already loaded in the safe. I fire the 5 rounds that are in said shotgun, center mass, into the bad guy. I then grab the magazines and the M4 (actually AP-4 but not much difference), clear the room, clear the floor, grab my family, get them outside, call 911, wait for the police to come arrest me, while defending my family. Mission over.

One more thing: I believe in stockpiling. I also believe that you can never have too many guns, but I also believe that when TSHTF, we will probably be able to find as many as we want for free. What you want to do, is take an inventory of the rounds most commonly used by your local LEO’s and outfit yourself and your family to fire those rounds. I know it’s fun to go out and buy a $15,000 .50 BMG sniper rifle, but unless you plan on carrying all the rounds that you will ever need for it, just stick with what you know.

Later on, I will get to the fight about my hiking gear.

"If it is to be taken seriously again, the Left must find its voice."

Tony Judt:

For thirty years students have been complaining to me that ‘it was easy for you’: your generation had ideals and ideas, you believed in something, you were able to change things. ‘We’ (the children of the ’80s, the ’90s, the ‘aughts’) have nothing. In many respects my students are right. It was easy for us — just as it was easy, at least in this sense, for the generations who came before us. The last time a cohort of young people expressed comparable frustration at the emptiness of their lives and the dispiriting purposelessness of their world was in the 1920s: it is not by chance that historians speak of a ‘lost generation’.

If young people today are at a loss, it is not for want of targets. Any conversation with students or schoolchildren will produce a startling checklist of anxieties. Indeed, the rising generation is acutely worried about the world it is to inherit. But accompanying these fears there is a general sentiment of frustration: ‘we’ know something is wrong and there are many things we don’t like. But what can we believe in? What should we do?

[...]

If it is to be taken seriously again, the Left must find its voice. There is much to be angry about: growing inequalities of wealth and opportunity; injustices of class and caste; economic exploitation at home and abroad; corruption and money and privilege occluding the arteries of democracy. But it will no longer suffice to identify the shortcomings of ‘the system’ and then retreat, Pilate-like: indifferent to consequences. The irresponsible rhetorical grandstanding of decades past did not serve the Left well.

We have entered an age of insecurity — economic insecurity, physical insecurity, political insecurity. The fact that we are largely unaware of this is small comfort: few in 1914 predicted the utter collapse of their world and the economic and political catastrophes that followed. Insecurity breeds fear. And fear — fear of change, fear of decline, fear of strangers and an unfamiliar world — is corroding the trust and interdependence on which civil societies rest.

All change is disruptive. We have seen that the specter of terrorism is enough to cast stable democracies into turmoil. Climate change will have even more dramatic consequences. Men and women will be thrown back upon the resources of the state. They will look to their political leaders and representatives to protect them: open societies will once again be urged to close in upon themselves, sacrificing freedom for ‘security’. The choice will no longer be between the state and the market, but between two sorts of state. It is thus incumbent upon us to reconceive the role of government. If we do not, others will.

"Conventional wisdom says you need to save $1 million for retirement."

Conventional wisdom is wrong. Scary stuff.

Yahoo! Finance:

Conventional wisdom says you need to save $1 million for retirement.

That target may be easy to remember, but it falls short of the true cost of what's required for post-career comfort. Longer life spans, the threat of inflation and the uncertain future of Social Security benefits make this long-touted savings advice inadequate for most, advisers say.

Scottrade recently polled 226 registered investment advisers on the topic and found that 71% don't believe $1 million is enough for the average American family. Most said families need to save double, or more than triple, the amount.

"Younger generations, especially, need to set their retirement goals higher than other generations and start saving as early as possible," says Craig Hogan, Scottrade's director of customer-relationship management and reporting.

The survey solicited opinions about the current investment habits of Americans. Questions were broken down by generations to determine advisers' opinions on average investment goals in today's dollars for various groups.

Generation Y (ages 18 to 26) needs to save at least $2 million, according to 77% of advisers. Forty percent put the figure at $3 million.

Nearly half of advisers (46%) said Generation X (ages 27 to 42) should at least double the $1 million goal. Twenty-two percent suggested more than $3 million.

For Boomers (ages 43 to 64), 35% recommended $2 million to $3 million. Thirty percent suggested $1.5 million to $2 million.

According to Scottrade's analysis, seniors are the only generation that may come close to needing only $1 million. Forty-four percent of advisers said $500,000 to $1.5 million is sufficient for average families in that age bracket.

"No longer is there a degree of separation between the parties when it comes to choice."

[source]

Pat Johnson (Wired Left):

What has happened to us as women that we have allowed our rights to be diluted in the matter of choice that we no longer have a safe and consistent voice in congress to argue on our behalf for equality and fairness when it comes to rulings that will affect our existence? What has happened to our sense of outrage that we sit back and permit our bodies to be “negotiated and bartered” for the sake of a “reform” package as we sit by and watch these legislators scurry back and forth holding our lives in their hands by insisting we “toe the line” when it comes to a medical procedure that has no bearing whatsoever on their personal lives? And how do those women legislators allow this to happen by “challenging” this hateful legislation but vowing to vote in favor? What is going on here?

The insertion of religious doctrine into the public forum, the definite dissolution of church and state, has become the norm in political dialogue. Make no mistake, this is an agenda long in the making and has been pushed primarily by the Right which has not hidden the intent but has written it into their platform for decades but has now found purchase within the Democratic Party that has supposedly opposed it from the beginning.

Female Democratic legislators who have cried out against this abomination have now promised to vote in favor of this law by siding with Obama in order to give him a “win” on this front due more in part to partisan affiliation instead of the fundamental rights of control over one’s body. Equal rights have been diluted in place of common sense and we can thank many of the female office holders who have decided it is best to “go along” than to muddy the waters surrounding President I Don’t Give a Damn.

[...]

No longer is there a degree of separation between the parties when it comes to choice. Both sides now have shown that this issue is up for grabs. The religious beliefs of individual candidates have trumped to a large degree the participation of those who seek to maintain the common good.

[...]

There will be no justice for women until women themselves understand the role they play in this democracy. There will be no equality for women until they seize the opportunities of this inequity and make it their own. There will be less freedom for women until they recognize that their bodies are not to be bargained away for the sake of one man who honestly has no interest beyond himself.

"Equal rights have been diluted in place of common sense and we can thank many of the female office holders who have decided it is best to 'go along' than to muddy the waters surrounding President I Don’t Give a Damn."

"If they don’t stick up for women ... their identity as a party is meaningless. We will turn our backs on the Democrats and walk away."

riverdaughter (The Confluence):

When we are considered at all, our reproductive health seems to be in a special category, one where a bunch of old guys in red beanies and pointy hats, have the final say as to what is or isn’t acceptable. If the Senate bill passes, it will perfectly acceptable to force women to identify themselves as considering abortion as a healthcare option when they sign up for insurance. It’s to shame them. No, no, don’t try to sugar coat this. That is the intention. To keep abortion as a shameful procedure.

I can just hear the anti-choice crowd now. “Why should we pay for something that’s going to offend our consciences?” Jeez, I dunno. Why do I have to pay for faith based initiatives? How about we pass a separate bill that requires all of the religious people out there to write separate checks to cover church based charities that discriminate against the gay community or actively practice discrimination in their church hierarchy? That kind of crap really frosts my crockies and offends my conscience down to the quick but I still have to pay for it. There is no little box on the tax return form that says, “Would you like to make a donation to faith based initiatives? Or war in Iraq? Or TARP?” No, all of the stupid laws and bills and war resolutions that have passed in the past decade because it was possible to fool enough of the people most of the time have cost me and my cohort and we have had very little choice in the matter.

[...]

Young women should not kid themselves into thinking that Roe v. Wade means you’re equal. Gender equity was not something Democrats promised in 2008. But they did promise to protect reproductive rights on nearly every blog the Obama trolls invaded. Isn’t that what the Democrats promised? Or is it what we *thought* they promised? What if they didn’t promise anything? What if all they really did was turn up to 11 the fear of Sarah Palin and her anti-choice crusaders? What if they had no intention of protecting your rights?

[...]

Maybe they didn’t promise us gender equity, but they made enough noise about reproductive rights that women who voted for Democratic Congress members will be righteously indignant if those rights are not preserved and reproductive choice and care is not covered fully in the health care reform bill at a price that does not discriminate against women. A Congress person who holds firm in their unwavering support for women will get our unwavering support in return. But the Democratic party as a whole should tread very carefully in this area because if they don’t do health care reform right the first time, women will walk. The Democrats premised their whole party identity on protecting the rights of women. If they don’t do that, they have no credibilty.

If they don’t stick up for women and working class people in general, their identity as a party is meaningless.

We will turn our backs on the Democrats and walk away.

"The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more."

NOW:

"The National Organization for Women is incensed that President Barack Obama agreed today to issue an executive order designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women's access to abortion. Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass.

"President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law - it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill. NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more."

Ian Welsh:

Lots of crying amongst women about how their abortion rights are being sold down the line to get this lousy health care bill passed.

I’ll say publicly what I have said privately: start a serious Draft Clinton movement, start it now. (Her denials of interest won’t matter).

Nothing will change unless Obama personally thinks his own reelection is on the line. Sitting president’s don’t survive serious challenges from within their own party.

Hillary Clinton in 2009:

"You created all the wealth towering over you, don’t beg for your right to live, take it!"

Chris Hutchinson is a Socialist from Connecticut running for Congress:

The gap between rich and poor has widened beyond comprehension. There are a few pockets of wealth surrounded by both urban and rural poverty. Hartford is not an isolated case of mismanagement by local officials. This traumatic recession unfolding across Connecticut and all over the country is teaching us how deeply unstable and destructive this economic system really is.

I spent at least one day every week this summer speaking with individual’s as they entered and left here at the CT Works center, better known as the unemployment office. People here were very clear about what they wanted. They wanted to bailout the people, not the failed banks! Although it was their money which went to prop up a collapsing system, it was not their decision to spend it.

Despite this multi-trillion-dollar robbery, the condition of working people continues to deteriorate at a break-neck pace. While we create all the wealth, working people have no say in what is done with it or how our society is run.

Socialist Action is organizing this campaign to embolden working and oppressed people to take action in their own names, and build a fight-back against the corporate and government attacks we are all enduring.

We say:

No more money for the banks who caused the economic crisis! We demand money for healthcare, education, jobs and housing for all, and for life!

The last thing we would ever want people to take away from this campaign is the notion that we can make everything alright by dropping a piece of paper in a box with the name of some benevolent statesmen.

The corporate Democratic and Republican parties want you to believe this because they want you to stay on the sidelines. They want you to be spectators who at most cheer for one team or the other.

You created all the wealth towering over you, don’t beg for your right to live, take it!

(Cross-posted at Slumming with Socialists)

Socialists supports women, Democrats don't.

The Socialists unequivocally support a woman's right to choose. Today, with passage of an anti-abortion heath care bill that will be topped by an executive order supporting the Hyde Amendment (and saying "Fuck You" to Planned Parenthood), the Democrats will seriously compromise that right.

Tina Phillips:

The Socialist Party's platform demands full support for every woman's right to choose when, if, and how to have children, including the right to free abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy, without interference or coercion. We demand clinics providing abortion services must have the full protection of the law. We also oppose any law that denies "the right to choose" to millions of women, particularly low-income women, women of color, and young women.

We demand full reproductive freedom for all women by removing all discriminating barriers to reproductive rights and reproductive health care.

The Socialist Party supports a social transformation in the United States that would not only preserve and restore fully women's reproductive rights, but one that would allow a fundamental shift to a democratic society based on compassion, empathy, and respect. We believe the fight for this new society is ongoing and call people to join us in this struggle for justice based on socialist feminist principles. We believe that we must get out in the streets and in our communities and organize for the society we deserve.

"Obama does not support the Hyde amendment." And yet he does?

RH Reality Check question to Obama Campaign Staff, December 2007:

Does Sen. Obama support the Hyde amendment? Under what circumstances does he believe that Medicaid should cover abortions (all pregnancies, life- or health-threatening pregnancies, pregnancies that are a result of rape or incest, extreme fetal malformation)?

Obama does not support the Hyde amendment. He believes that the federal government should not use its dollars to intrude on a poor woman’s decision whether to carry to term or to terminate her pregnancy and selectively withhold benefits because she seeks to exercise her right of reproductive choice in a manner the government disfavors.

He does not support the Hyde amendment and yet, to pass health care, he will likely issue an executive order upholding the Hyde amendment. Nice.

Lighting out for an unknown, un-Democratic territory.

"...and so when I couldn't stand it no longer, I lit out. I ... was free and satisfied."
- Huckleberry Finn

Clancy Sigal:

I want a divorce from the Democrats, the “party of the people” versus the Republicans who with a few honorable exceptions are the party of cruelty. Are there some good Democrats? You bet. Are they outnumbered by callow, fearful Democrats? You bet.

I don’t care that at the moment there’s nowhere to go and hardly anybody to cheer for.

Like the Tea Partiers I’ve had it up to here. But as a taker of GI Bill, social security and Medicare benefits, and as a child of the New Deal which put my unemployed mother and father to work, I know that only big government, as dangerous as it can be, can help pull us all out of the shit – yes, the same government that by deregulating and bailouts pushed us into it. (I wonder how many populists, screaming about “socialist” government, are only too happy to take their portion of federal money as I am.)

I wish I could get behind Ralph Nader or the Green party or Cynthia McKinney or even Ron Paul for his antiwar stance. But having just split from my heart’s desire – the Democrats – I’m in no mood to marry up again. I’m caught in a vise between a lingering wish to be “effective”, not “waste my vote”, and a Huckleberry Finn itch to light out for unknown territory.

"If you're a progressive ... you should probably be a semi-vegetarian."

Keye Commentary:

The first rule has to be, do what is necessary yourself. The second, inform and educate those around you. The third, demand of collective entities that they behave responsibly. Unless you are actively reducing your ecological footprint, learning about the chemistry of pollution, discovering effective solutions to your own consumption and making an active effort to model a way of life that respects and allows all life a place on this planet, then you have no moral authority, on the one hand, and you will not offer a source of expertise when it is needed, on the other.

With that in mind, watch (and act upon) this excellent Mark Bittman TED Talk, please!



Socialist TV offers some very good advice:

It's so simple. Don't eat anything that comes from a factory - and that includes meat.

The food industry is bigger than the oil industry and every bit as corrupt and manipulative. If they had their way, all food would come in a box, filled with low-cost garbage ingredients, and marked up to the moon.

Thanks to their bribery and bullying that already describes the federal school lunch program. They stand ready to legally attack anyone who speaks the truth, even deep pockets celebrities like Oprah Winfrey who declared on her show she would never eat another hamburger and was sued by the cattle ranching industry for defamation.

It's remarkably easy to avoid the personal health catastrophe that factory foods lead to: don't eat them! It's that simple.

"A woman’s right to have safe and legal abortion is about to be traded away."

[source]

Marcia Pappas calls for every woman to walk out of Congress. Every man should walk out as well. Nice letter but she does not understand the utter spinelessness of the party whose M.O. is letting us down. "Democrat" used to stand for something. Shoulder to shoulder with labor, regulation of business, defense of minority, immigrant and women's rights, and protection of our civil rights. Not anymore.

March 19, 2010

An open letter to every woman in Congress:

Today, women in the United States are fighting for their lives. You must fight too! A woman’s right to have safe and legal abortion is about to be traded away.

We are asking all of you fight like you have never fought before. Tonight, It has become clear that the our Democratic President Obama, Democratic Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi) and Democratic Leader (Harry Reid) are trading away women’s lives.

Every woman in Congress should MAKE HISTORY AND WALK OUT ! This is your chance to stand up for what is right! Forget politics, forget saving your seat! You must take a chance!

If you sit back and allow the passage of the health care bill with “Stupak,” women in America will not vote for another Democrat…..myself included. Because there will essentially be no difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

What will it be? Will you all go down in history following the boys, or will you finally stand up for what is right? It’s up to all of you. We elected you because we believed that having women at the table would make a difference. Don’t let us down.

Marcia A. Pappas
President
NOW NYS

"They want us to believe we're 'all in this together' when really they're parasites living off our sweat."

Some soothing music (Mirah, Shells) to go with the wonderfully concise and to the point Graeme Anfinson. Have a nice weekend.

It's definitely in the interest of the people who collect profit off of other people's work to assure us we all share the same set of "American values." They want us to believe we're "all in this together" when really they're parasites living off our sweat. They will gladly sacrifice a few of their own ( the Bernie Madoffs — the "bad apples") in order to keep alive the economic system that favors them. Almost every law they pass is intended to do so as well. This doesn't mean, however, that we workers share anything other than basic human emotions with this section of society. We are, in fact, their historical grave diggers. We have much more in common with workers from any other country in the world than we do with any American CEO.

When all is said and done, it's both the development of industry and technology, and who controls that development, that moves history. Right now industry is controlled by a small group of individuals who use that power to run America (and most of the world) in their interest. They hire elegant speakers like Obama to fill us full of platitudes so we will continue to literally work ourselves to death while they continue their lives of privilege. But just as tribal, slave, and feudal societies passed from the historical scene, so too will capitalism fall and democracy finally enter the realm of economics. But it won't fall automatically. As the recent crisis shows, they will use their State to prop up their dying economic system.

This is why we must organize politically independent of the two parties of business. This is why we need a mass party of labor, based on the unions. Obviously it will take much more than this to build a new society, but that first, historically necessary step of breaking with the Democrats, will have an enormous impact on the consciousness of American workers.

(h/t Left in East Dakota)

Obama's Private Reason for Killing the Public Option

He really is a shitty person.

Miles Mogulescu:

Even while President Obama was saying that he thought a public option was a good idea and encouraging supporters to believe his healthcare plan would include one, he had promised for-profit hospital lobbyists that there would be no public option in the final bill.

The media should be digging deeper into this story. Washington reporters should be asking Robert Gibbs if President Obama is still honoring this deal. They should be calling Jim Messina and hospital lobbyist Chip Kahn to confirm the specifics of the deal. They should be asking Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leaders Dick Durbin and Harry Reid the extent of their knowledge of this deal. They should be asking Pelosi if the reason she's refusing to include a public option in the House reconciliation bill to be sent to the Senate is that there are at least 51 Senate Democrats who would vote for it and she needs to insure that a final bill with a public option does not end up on President Obama's desk where he would then have to break his deal with the hospital lobbyists and sign it, or veto it to honor his deal.

No struggle, no progress

"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without demand. It never did and it never will."
- Frederick Douglass, 1849

Scahill and Taibbi on Citizen Radio LIVE!

Features a couple of great stories from Jeremy Scahill about reporting with Amy Goodman for Democracy Now! Sound is erratic.

"In this world of skillfully crafted illusions, rags-to-riches stories are like gold to those who own the mines."

Beautifully concise, Roy Eidelson, Ph.D. It's worth reading the whole thing.

"We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all." These are the words of Lord Brian Griffiths, Goldman Sachs international adviser.

Scientific research reveals a sharply different reality: inequality is a driving force behind many of our most profound social ills. ... Inequality is associated with diminished levels of physical and mental health, child well-being, educational achievement, social mobility, trust, and community life. And it is linked to increased levels of violence, drug use, imprisonment, obesity, and teenage births.

In short, Lord Griffiths' claim was a self-serving fiction. Many of those perched atop the social and economic ladder, accustomed to the access and resources entrenched power bestows, have little interest in climbing down a rung or two. For them, preserving the inequality they welcome depends upon suppressing shared outrage. This is routinely accomplished by promoting an alternative narrative that supports and glorifies the current system. "The world is the way it should be." "Claims of injustice, illegitimacy, or wrongdoing are unfounded; they overlook a deeper logic and necessity." "Inequality is a good thing."

In this world of skillfully crafted illusions, rags-to-riches stories are like gold to those who own the mines. When they are sufficiently persuasive, we're inclined to overlook the words of people such as Bangladeshi Nobel Laureate and micro-lender Muhammad Yunus, who explained, "Poverty is not created by poor people. It has been created and sustained by the economic and social system that we have designed for ourselves; the institutions and concepts that make up that system; the policies that we pursue." Those who defend current structures of inequality--whether their status derives from political power, outsized salaries, or inherited wealth--have many other tactics at their disposal. Sometimes the disadvantaged are blamed, ridiculed, and reprimanded for the adversity they face. When the victims accept these false accusations as true, their outrage is smothered and their disempowerment is nearly complete. Sometimes powerful elites overburden potential allies of the underprivileged with obstacles and worries that prevent them from looking beyond their own circumstances and joining cause with those who are even worse off. And sometimes the status quo's winners conspire to pit everyone else against each other, thereby extinguishing the possibility that shared outrage might unseat them.

[...]

Regrettably, the barriers to justice are further strengthened by the well-intentioned and risk-averse when they fail to become partners in moral outrage with the worst victims of an inequality-perpetuating system. When such sympathizers take to the sidelines and become mere bystanders, they tragically help society's wealthiest and most powerful avoid the full force of broadly-supported and insistent demands for meaningful change. For a movement working to build momentum, apathy and indecision from prospective allies can be as destructive as outright opposition.

(h/t Socialism or Your Money Back)

"Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Progressive Powerlessness

Glenn Greenwald:

What's not debatable is that this process highlighted -- and worsened -- the virtually complete powerlessness of the Left and progressives generally in Washington. If you were in Washington negotiating a bill, would you take seriously the threats of progressive House members in the future that they will withhold support for a Party-endorsed bill if their demands for improvements are not met? Of course not. No rational person would.

Moreover, everyone who has ever been involved in negotiations knows that those who did what most progressive DC pundits did here from the start -- namely, announce: we have certain things we'd like you to change in this bill, but we'll go along with this even if you give us nothing -- are making themselves completely irrelevant in the negotiating progress. People who signal in advance that they will accept a deal even if all of their demands are rejected will always be completely impotent, for reasons too obvious to explain.

Way to go, Dennis & Co.!

"The most important time of all is the present, because there is no other time exactly like it."

A nice, very short story from a Tolstoy letter written in 1887.

I would like to write a fairy story like this. There was a tsar, and nothing ever went right for him, and he went to ask some wise men why he wasn't successful. One wise man said: because he didn't know the right time to do things. Another said: because he didn't know the man most necessary to him. A third said: because he didn't know what task was the most valuable of all tasks. And the tsar sent someone to ask these wise men and others: what time is the most important, what man is the most necessary, and what task is the most valuable. And nobody could answer the riddle. And the tsar kept thinking about it and asking everybody. And then a young girl answered the riddle for him. She said that the most important time of all is the present, because there is no other time exactly like it. And the most necessary man of all is the one you are now dealing with, because he is the only man you actually know. And the most valuable task of all is to do good to this man, because this is the only task that will certainly be of advantage to you.

Tolstoy's story, "Three Questions," explores the same theme.

"The coup is over. They won. We lost."

Chris Hedges:

We stand on the cusp of one of the bleakest periods in human history when the bright lights of a civilization blink out and we will descend for decades, if not centuries, into barbarity. The elites have successfully convinced us that we no longer have the capacity to understand the revealed truths presented before us or to fight back against the chaos caused by economic and environmental catastrophe. As long as the mass of bewildered and frightened people, fed images that permit them to perpetually hallucinate, exist in this state of barbarism, they may periodically strike out with a blind fury against increased state repression, widespread poverty and food shortages. But they will lack the ability and self-confidence to challenge in big and small ways the structures of control. The fantasy of widespread popular revolts and mass movements breaking the hegemony of the corporate state is just that – a fantasy.

[...]

Democracy, a system ideally designed to challenge the status quo, has been corrupted and tamed to slavishly serve the status quo. We have undergone, as John Ralston Saul writes, a coup d’état in slow motion. And the coup is over. They won. We lost. The abject failure of activists to push corporate, industrialized states toward serious environmental reform, to thwart imperial adventurism or to build a humane policy toward the masses of the world’s poor stems from an inability to recognize the new realities of power. The paradigm of power has irrevocably altered and so must the paradigm of resistance alter.

[...]

Our mediocre and bankrupt elite is desperately trying to save a system that cannot be saved. More importantly, they are trying to save themselves. All attempts to work within this decayed system and this class of power brokers will prove useless. And resistance must respond to the harsh new reality of a global, capitalist order that will cling to power through ever-mounting forms of brutal and overt repression.

[...]

The philosopher Theodor Adorno wrote that the exclusive preoccupation with personal concerns and indifference to the suffering of others beyond the self-identified group is what ultimately made fascism and the Holocaust possible: “The inability to identify with others was unquestionably the most important psychological condition for the fact that something like Auschwitz could have occurred in the midst of more or less civilized and innocent people.”

The indifference to the plight of others and the supreme elevation of the self is what the corporate state seeks to instill in us. It uses fear, as well as hedonism, to thwart human compassion. We will have to continue to battle the mechanisms of the dominant culture, if for no other reason than to preserve through small, even tiny acts, our common humanity. We will have to resist the temptation to fold in on ourselves and to ignore the cruelty outside our door. Hope endures in these often imperceptible acts of defiance. This defiance, this capacity to say no, is what the psychopathic forces in control of our power systems seek to eradicate. As long as we are willing to defy these forces we have a chance, if not for ourselves, then at least for those who follow. As long as we defy these forces we remain alive. And for now this is the only victory possible.

In honor of St. Patrick's Day...

Samuel Beckett dispensing with the hell of adultery in Play. Alan Rickman, Juliet Stevenson, and Kristen Scott-Tomas.

"Are you listening to me?
Is anyone listening to me?
Is anyone looking at me?
Is anyone bothering about me at all?"

Plastering Pigeons in the Pennsylvania Park

Bored, rich, white men get their ya-yas out killing pigeons.

"Wellstone Action is a national center for training and leadership development in the progressive movement."

"Wellstone Action's mission is ignite leadership in people and power in communities to win change in the progressive tradition of Paul and Sheila Wellstone."

I wonder if they train politicians how not to cave and to stick by one's principles in the face of immense political pressure? Probably not. Camp Republican would be the place to go for that.

They want all of the profit and none of the loss

N.Y. Times:

Wynn Bloch has always dutifully paid her bills and socked away money for retirement. But in December she defaulted on the mortgage on her Palm Desert home, even though she could afford the payments.

Bloch paid $385,000 for the two-bedroom in 2006, when prices were still surging. Comparable homes are now selling in the low-$200,000s. At 66, the retired psychologist doubted she'd see her investment rebound in her lifetime. Plus, she said she was duped into an expensive loan.

The way she sees it, big banks that helped fuel the mess all got bailouts while small fry like her are left holding the bag. No more.

"There was not a chance that house was ever going to be worth anywhere near what my mortgage was," said Bloch, who is now renting a few miles away after defaulting on the $310,000 loan. "I haven't cheated or stolen."

Recovering Kucinich Booster

I adored Dennis but
I'm on the road to a full recovery,
thank you very much.
It was fun while it lasted.
He proved he was a true Democrat today.

Rustbelt Radical is way ahead of me:

I’d call him a sell-out, but once a pattern is established….Principled peacenik and pacifist extraordinaire supports pro-war candidate Kerry and then drone-war candidate Obama (and urges others to do likewise). Principled supporter of single-payer and previous denouncer of corporate evil supports Obama’s Health Care Industry Promotion Package (and urges others to do likewise). My guess is that even without the attention lavished and the Air Force One jaunts Dennis would have found his way to the corporate bed, he just wanted the romance of a little dance first. Remember 2004? He danced all the way until the eve of the convention before laying down. It’s his M.O. Once again (and as predicted on this blog), Dennis Kucinich proves his role as the “progressive” who corrals lefties into supporting the neo-liberal, imperialist Democrats and the political prison of the two-party system. Let’s hope this time he is ruined by his game. Boo. Hiss. Boo.

"Dennis Kucinich proves his role as the 'progressive' who corrals lefties into supporting the neo-liberal, imperialist Democrats and the political prison of the two-party system."

"One of our members had a fifty dollar ticket and tried to get in dressed as a lump of coal but was forcibly denied entrance..."

One of our members had a fifty dollar ticket and tried to get in dressed as a lump of coal but was forcibly denied entrance and the lack of press made arrest seem valueless. We ended with a delicious "democracy dinner" in the freezing rain (thanks Suzie for the beet soup and salad) where we didn't have to listen to a clown governor give corporate apologies for planet rape.

What's that all about? Visit thoughtstreaming to read the rest of the thought stream. Sure beats reading about health care and endless Democratic caving. It's also a great blog for archives surfing.

...he would eat spoonfuls of DDT to prove it's harmlessness. Now that I think back on it, there may have been a more subtle message attached to this demonstration, something like: Prepare to do Anything for Money Kids. This is the World You Will Live In!

No one left to believe in.

Jane Hamsher:

Dennis Kucinich has called a press conference for tomorrow. Howard Fineman is reporting that Kucinich will vote “yes” on health care.

Kucinich told Obama that he wants a full ERISA waver and a public option in exchange for his vote. And if he actually gets an ERISA waver, it will be the biggest victory of the entire health care debate. As Jon Walker says, “ERISA is the 900 pound Gorilla that has fucked up America’s health care system something good.”

If on the other hand he settles for some worthless reassurances that “Obama will work toward it in the future” (which nobody but Lynn Woolsey is dumb enough to actually believe), or a meaningless symbolic vote that achieves little more than 15 minutes of futile grandstanding, good luck to him. A thousand people have donated over $16,000 to Dennis since yesterday to thank him for standing up for what he believes in. We’ll be asking him to return it.

The last of the politicians with some integrity has been beaten into corporate submission.

No public option? No problem!

The won't fight for progressive principles and they fold on a dime but they do excel at something: ignoring or attacking those who have a conscience. Who are they? The vast majority of Democrats, of course. This time, it's Dennis K. who's getting the treatment. Michael Moore comments on the last principled Democrat.

Thank you, Teabaggers, for utterly failing to understand health care reform

[source]

You are too fucking stupid to know what is good for you. With your help, we could have gotten real reform. Without it, we will be stuck with Obama's corporate-controlled, nightmarishly bureaucratic, entirely inadequate health insurance system for the foreseeable future. So fuck you all. Fuck your misplaced government paranoia, your fake populism, and your democracy-destroying cluelessness.

Before you fade into history as a stupid movement of stupid people, you could wake the fuck up, do the right thing, and support the emerging state-by-state, single-payer reforms. Yeah, well, I'm not holding my breath for a bunch of fucking idiots.

Daily Censored:

Universal health care would eliminate the conflict of interest we currently suffer from, as “health” companies maximize their profit by denying physician-directed health care. In typical Orwellian propaganda, the argument against universal health care is that government will take-over your health care when it’s just the opposite: under our current system corporate agents approve or deny services while under universal health care physicians would make their best calls in consultation with you. Government would have the role of insurance and regulation, just as they currently regulate health and safety industries.

Quality would remain unaffected as physicians could choose to accept or reject government sponsored insurance as they do today. ... From the savings of eliminating the “middle man” of insurance companies, part could be directed to health care professionals so they could receive a raise while consumers lower their costs.

Tea? Blah. Coffee? Meh. Try the Cocktail Party.

Bully Bloggers:

Join The Cocktail Party, a barstool-roots movement for left wing urban homosexuals and the people who love us. The major planks of this new movement’s platform include:

*Nationalize the banks
*Soak the rich with high taxes
*Abolish the Senate
*Abolish the Electoral College
*Free public education through college for all
*Free day care for elders and children
*National health care
*Universal accessibility
*Abolish all student loan, credit card and mortgage debt
*Withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, shift resources to the Arts, and to an independent Haiti
*Forgiveness of all debt of developing countries
*Outlaw invidious discrimination
*Abolish prisons for all non violent crime, prioritize community rehabilitation for all crime
*Decriminalize sex work and drugs
*Open borders
*Abolish marriage

This platform is a work in progress. We seek additional ideas from all leftist urban homosexuals and their comrades. We acknowledge that this platform will take some time to implement. We crafted this list of policy goals with the intention, minimally, of driving the Tea Partiers crazy with rage. Because we are exactly who they think we are–a motley crew of miscegenated sex crazed lushes who read Marx and Fanon, seeking to support our lifestyles by taking resources from the rich and powerful and redistributing them with abandon.

(h/t at home she feels like a tourist)

"From our childhood, we are indoctrinated to be cowards..."

Do you live in a theoretical America or the America that actually exists?

Francois Tremblay:

There are always two ideologies: that which is theoretical and that which actually exists. There is theoretical capitalism (“you are free to prosper like everyone else”) and there is actually existing capitalism. There is theoretical democracy (“everyone gets a say”) and there is actually existing democracy. There is theoretical failure (“we are all equal, so if you fail it’s your fault”) and there is actually existing failure. There is theoretical globalism (“making the world better”) and there is actually existing neo-liberalism. There is theoretical law enforcement (“stopping people from hurting others”) and actually existing law enforcement.

We are indoctrinated with a theoretical understanding of reality which goes beyond what is directly observable. This theoretical understanding is used to rationalize the injustices of what actually exists, it serves both as an idealization and as a justification. The Ayn Rands and the George Reismans are the ideological stormtroopers for the George Bushes and the Sam Waltons.

There are actually two separate mechanisms used to accomplish this dichotomy. The first is thought-stopping, where a mantra is used to prevent doubt from flourishing (“we live in a class-less society, we are really all equal”), and the second is the separation of people in “us” and “them” (“poor people are lazy, that’s why they’re poor; if they worked as hard as the rest of us, they’d have the same outcomes”).

After a while on this regimen, the laws, policies, commandments, rules and regulations become the shortcuts we use so we don’t have to think. It is a simple logical fact that people who are discouraged from using their own ethical standards will have to rely on some other standards exterior to themselves. The end result is a cowardly populace which cannot defend what’s right, not because they don’t want to, but because they cannot conceive of the laws, policies, commandments, rules or regulations being wrong in themselves and in need of abolition.

From our childhood, we are indoctrinated to be cowards, to not speak up, to refrain from contradicting.

"Property has more rights than people ... Democracy is communism."

Manuel Garcia, Jr.:

When you hear people say "I don't want to pay for somebody else's..." "problems" (welfare), "kids" (public schools), "medical" (health care), you hear the internalized programming. With blissful obliviousness these political automatons will allow their economy to wither, and dispatch their tax dollars to fund the gold-plated war-waste of the Pentagon system and the many outrageous corporate subsidies ("bonuses") that remain protected by the "tax cuts" that are so liberal to corporate wealth, so measly for the suckers, but do bump those "welfare cheats" off the dole most satisfactorily to both the duped and the malevolent.

The great con-job here is in training a large population into accepting that property has more rights than people. Since under democracy there is always the threat that popular consensus could place some restrictions on "property" (the "right" of money to do as it pleases), then property -- as it is understood today: wealth protected by the legalistic über-persona of corporate structure -- must destroy democracy. Democracy is communism.