Challenge the Establishment

Open Letter from Harvard Econ 10 Students

2011-11-05T04:37:00.000-07:00

The following letter was sent to Greg Mankiw by the organizers of today’s Economics 10 walkout.

Wednesday November 2, 2011

Dear Professor Mankiw—

Today, we are walking out of your class, Economics 10, in order to express our discontent with the bias inherent in this introductory economics course. We are deeply concerned about the way that this bias affects students, the University, and our greater society.

As Harvard undergraduates, we enrolled in Economics 10 hoping to gain a broad and introductory foundation of economic theory that would assist us in our various intellectual pursuits and diverse disciplines, which range from Economics, to Government, to Environmental Sciences and Public Policy, and beyond. Instead, we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today.

A legitimate academic study of economics must include a critical discussion of both the benefits and flaws of different economic simplifying models. As your class does not include primary sources and rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little access to alternative approaches to economics. There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.

Care in presenting an unbiased perspective on economics is particularly important for an introductory course of 700 students that nominally provides a sound foundation for further study in economics. Many Harvard students do not have the ability to opt out of Economics 10. This class is required for Economics and Environmental Science and Public Policy concentrators, while Social Studies concentrators must take an introductory economics course—and the only other eligible class, Professor Steven Margolin’s class Critical Perspectives on Economics, is only offered every other year (and not this year). Many other students simply desire an analytic understanding of economics as part of a quality liberal arts education. Furthermore, Economics 10 makes it difficult for subsequent economics courses to teach effectively as it offers only one heavily skewed perspective rather than a solid grounding on which other courses can expand. Students should not be expected to avoid this class—or the whole discipline of economics—as a method of expressing discontent.

Harvard graduates play major roles in the financial institutions and in shaping public policy around the world. If Harvard fails to equip its students with a broad and critical understanding of economics, their actions are likely to harm the global financial system. The last five years of economic turmoil have been proof enough of this.

We are walking out today to join a Boston-wide march protesting the corporatization of higher education as part of the global Occupy movement. Since the biased nature of Economics 10 contributes to and symbolizes the increasing economic inequality in America, we are walking out of your class today both to protest your inadequate discussion of basic economic theory and to lend our support to a movement that is changing American discourse on economic injustice. Professor Mankiw, we ask that you take our concerns and our walk-out seriously.

Sincerely,

Concerned students of Economics 10

Sources:

Thanks to William Black's Blog for the lead on this.

Murdoch Pattern of Misconduct

2011-10-15T09:42:00.000-07:00

Open Letter to the Federal Communications Commission:

Dear FCC members:

Forget the political implications for a moment and envision what you'd LIKE to do to the Murdoch media syndicate.

The Occupy movement is your signal that the time has come to act on visions like that prompted above.

Paul Krugman is right, again: Pattern of Misconduct

Now it's time for the FCC to act.

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Julius Genachowski: Julius.Genachowski@fcc.gov

Commissioner Michael J. Copps: Michael.Copps@fcc.gov

Commissioner Robert McDowell: Robert.McDowell@fcc.gov

Commissioner Mignon Clyburn: Mignon.Clyburn@fcc.gov

End Corporate Personhood

2011-10-08T09:05:00.000-07:00

Take it from a Tennis Ball, we need to end corporate personhood. This could be a tangible demand of the #Occupy movement, that is, amend the constitution to Get Corporate Money Out of our elections.

The following 4-min video is a remake of the VlogBrothers 2007 YouTube call-to-action ala the Nerdfighters "Project for Awesome".

SHAME

2011-09-21T20:13:00.000-07:00

To let Troy Anthony Davis be executed. Shame.

Banking Establishment Ripoff Exposed in MSM

2011-09-20T05:01:00.001-07:00

Thinking Americans know the sordid story:

Since the financial crisis, Bank profits are UP 136%... But Bank lending is down 9%.

Perhaps a more interesting story is that this is featured in a mainstream media article; Time Magazine, September 26, 2011, "After Three Years and Trillions of Dollars, Our Banks Still Don't Work."

I could take issue with the phrase "our banks;" yes, we should "own" them having bailed them out, but frankly, instead of we owning the banks, the banks turned the US Treasury and Federal Reserve into lending institutions for the benefit of the banks and the people reaping profits from those corporations.

But, don't let me tarnish the good news with side issues. Time Magazine deserves credit where it is due.

We Didn't See it Coming

2011-09-10T04:31:00.000-07:00

For Some reason, my comments on Paul Krugman's blog don't seem to stick. Below is my comment on his post entitled: How We Failed

The "We didn't see it coming" thing drives me crazy. My experience in seeing it [the bubble burst] coming is reflected in three clear memories.

First, The Great Unraveling by... some economist from NJ, pretty much had me change my ARM to a fixed rate mortgage a couple years before the bust.

Second, people with good jobs in my solid middle class neighborhood were saying, "If I had to buy my [modest row] house today, I couldn't afford it." I remember exactly where I was, walking my dog.

Third, it was going to by systemic: "Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFEHO," February, 2003, which lost Armamndo Falcon his job. http://www.ofheo.gov/Media/Archive/docs/reports/sysrisk.pdf

Israel's Spring

2011-09-04T19:31:00.000-07:00

Israel is a country where a tiny minority of families and individuals control a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth.

Last Saturday [Aug 6], hundreds of thousands of protesters took to the streets of a Middle Eastern city.

Demanding change, they were fed up with the ruling elite and said their government was no longer listening to its people.

Sound familiar? The protests have continued and have grown.

Source: BBC Israel's 'social protests' rattle Netanyahu government Aug, 12, 2011.

Will the US have its own version? If policy makers continue on their same path we will. An early test will be October 6, 2011 in Washington, DC.

Oct. 6
14th & Pennsylvania, Ave., NW
12 Noon

USUncut Tag Line:
Human Need, Not Corporate Greed. This is an occupation.

More on Oct. 6 DC Day 1 of the US Spring

Democracy-building in Maryland

2011-09-02T19:52:00.000-07:00

Taking Back the Budget Debate

A TOWN HALL MEETING

Tues., Sept. 20, 7:30 p.m.
Silver Spring Civic Center
One Veterans’ Place (Fenton & Ellsworth)
Silver Spring

Turn your anger and outrage over the budget deal into ACTION!

Speakers: Rep. Donna Edwards, State Senator Roger Manno, economist Heather Boushey, IPS Fellow Karen Dolan
Master of Ceremonies: The NAACP’s Elbridge James
Music: Singer/songwriter Christina Van Norman

You will have the opportunity to ask your questions and then to help us organize for real, progressive solutions.

Here’s our action agenda:

* Put America back to work
* Institute a fair tax system
* Protect Americans’ health and save the environment
* Preserve Social Security
* Bring all the troops and military contractors home

Don’t miss this important event--invite all your friends!

Our Money . . . Our Voices . . . Our Budget Priorities

Sponsored by Fund Our Communities, Bring the War Dollars Home
A Maryland Coalition
www.OurFunds.org

The Game in a Nutshell

2011-08-30T19:31:00.000-07:00

Bailouts put the private debts onto the public (tax payer) balance sheet. Now Congress and the White House are poised to finish the job by putting that debt onto the backs of America's most vulnerable people.

Who are the Tea Party Rank and File?

2011-08-23T05:22:00.001-07:00

Someone actually has data!

Beginning in 2006 we interviewed a representative sample of 3,000 Americans as part of our continuing research into national political attitudes, and we returned to interview many of the same people again this summer. As a result, we can look at what people told us, long before there was a Tea Party, to predict who would become a Tea Party supporter five years later.

They're not the mass media portrays them to be:

... while the public image of the Tea Party focuses on a desire to shrink government, concern over big government is hardly the only or even the most important predictor of Tea Party support among voters.

To that leads to the obvious question:

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

What else do they have in common?

Number 1 predictor is being Republican.
Social conservatives, who oppose abortion, for example.
Desire to see religion play a prominent role in politics.
Small Government is low on the list.

Source: David E. Campbell, an associate professor of political science at Notre Dame, and Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard. Crashing the Tea Party.

Talking Point: US Government Debt and Jobs

2011-08-17T04:44:00.000-07:00

Job, Jobs, Where are the Jobs?

The talking point is simple. Average Americans are not spending money, and the economy is stalled, because they don't have much money. It's no use giving tax breaks and low interest rates to product manufacturers, because the people who would normally buy their products don't have money. People need jobs.

It is debatable whether the American public is responsible for 70% of domestic spending on goods and services, but by sheer number their spending potential is huge. They might make up 70% of domestic spending if they had money to spend, but they don't have good jobs.

Why not? Government policies over the past several decades, supply-side (trickle-down) tax policies and corporate globalization policies, have created a record wealth gap. A study by three Citigroup analysts indicates that the top 1% of Americans earn as much annual income as the bottom 60% and the top 1% possess as much wealth as the bottom 90% of Americans. The analysts concluded “economic growth [in the US] is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few.” [1] This is borne out by recent statistics showing that growth in domestic product sales have declined at discount stores and have grown in high-end stores and luxury products.

The Solution:

The government needs to set policies to put money in the pockets of average Americans, and I'm not talking about a $600 check; it needs to be tens of thousands per year, which simply put means temporarily creating jobs. The money for these jobs needs to come from the places that it is being hoarded: The richest 1% of Americans and transnational corporations who have benefited greatly from government policies over the past few decades.

After people have had government-sponsored jobs for several years, they will have the money to buy more products and services they need. This will create a market for private sector products and, in turn, support more jobs in the private sector. Eventually, the government can get out of business of job creation.

And yes, these jobs will require more government revenue in the near-term, but will also generate new revenues. In the long run, we'll be more likely able to pay down the US Government debt.

Agree? Let policy makers know:

Sources:

1. Can the Middle Class be Saved? Atlantic Monthly, September, 2011.

Talking Point: Debt and Medicare

2011-08-13T05:20:00.000-07:00

Are Medicare & Medicade the Problem?

First, Medicare is not part of the general budget deficit & associated debt problem. That's because Medicare, like Social Security, has a dedicated fund separate from the general fund. It should be managed as a separate dedicated fund, not lumped into the general budget debate.

Second, if we spent per capita what every other industrial nation spends on health care, we would not have a long-term Medicare solvency problem. If we simply focus on cutting Medicare and Medicaid, we’re just shifting the rising costs to those least able to pay them: the elderly, the disabled and the poor, or people on their death bed. Is that the American way?

Solutions: First, we need to cut health care costs (not services). Second, in the next few decades, we all need to pay a little more out of our FICA payroll deductions to cover the fact that the baby boomers are reaching old age (maybe from 1.45% to 1.75% or something). After the wave of baby boomers passes, the deductions could decrease. Finally, if Congress insists on mixing the dedicated fund of Medicare with the general fund, then we should insist on cutting corporate welfare and increasing revenue from corporate profits to help meet Medicare's needs.

Wanna take Action? Start by calling Senator Kerry's office and tell him to get better control of his message (He is one of the super committee members). Here's a recent statement of his:

... the real problem for our country is not the short-term debt. We can deal with that. It’s the long-term debt. It’s the structural debt of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, measured against the demographics of our nation.

Unfortunately, his statements are playing into the hysteria that is enveloping the mentality that these safety nets should be cut. We need to re-frame the debate.

For Your Convenience:

Contact the US Senate

Sources:

DemocracyNow! August, 12, 2011.

Wall Street Crash

2011-08-11T06:59:00.000-07:00

"The Wall Street crash doesn't mean there will be any general or serious business depression."
-- Business Week
November 14, 1929

Sources: "The working person's history of the great depression," Show me the Money, Issue 10, Autumn 2001.

Once Upon a Time

2011-08-09T04:46:00.001-07:00

"The outlook is for the end of the decline in business during the early part of the 1931, and steady... revival for the remainder of the year."

-- The Harvard Economic Society's Weekly Letter,
November, 15, 1930

Note: In 1931, the economic squeeze of the depression forced the Harvard Economic Society to suspend publication of the Weekly Letter.

Source: "The working person's history of the great depression," Show me the Money, Issue 10, Autumn 2001.

Second Helicopter in Two Weeks

2011-08-07T18:19:00.001-07:00

I don't remember hearing about another helicopter shot down less than two weeks ago in Kunar province. A search of Google news and Google suggests it was mentioned by obscure outlets. This post, with "Kunar" and "Helicopter" in the labels list will rank high on Google 'cuz there ain't no competition.

I guess that's par for our debilitated, commercial mainstream media; a US helicopter gets shot down and it isn't news if no Americans die.

I'm reminded of Orwell and the perpetual war.

GDAE Podcast Episode 49

2011-07-31T19:27:00.001-07:00

Economist James Galbraith: Reality check on the Washington "Debt Crisis".

Journalist, media critic and political analyst John Nichols: The Unraveling Murdoch News Corp media empire. Were crimes also committed in the United States?

Ralph Nader: Common Ground with the Tea Party? This might be true for the principled libertarians within the Tea Party.

Play Episode 49 (32 min):

Sometimes it's Worth Saying the Obvious

2011-04-18T03:40:00.000-07:00

It took a while, but now it is generally accepted that the United States of America is a world Empire. There are references to "US Empire" on mainstream magazine covers, numerous books lay out the history in detail and now we even hear references to the US Empire in decline.

What isn't as widely acknowledged, but should be generally accepted is that the United States, and the World for that matter, is in the midst of a class war. Sadly, some of the inertia in the class war resides in common people who perpetuate the notions that 1) government is inherently bad and 2) that if we are going to have taxes at all, then the taxes on the wealthy class should be very low so they can invest and create jobs.

A government of the common people can be a very beneficial thing. Ask someone with Veterans medical care, someone who benefited from the GI Bill who wouldn't have been able to go to college without it, someone with a monthly social security check or someone with medicare. I could go on with the highway system, which some smart people would deride that saying the car corporations pushed the US government to fund the highways and that we should have invested in mass transit instead, but you get the idea; if we the people have a shared vision, we can efficiently and effectively use our government to pool the resources to do it. That great American "can-do" thing. So, future visions of a Utopian anarchism aside, a government of the people, as opposed to "of the corporations", is a good thing.

"But if the government spends the money it will displace it from being spent in private sector and distort the free market." Frankly, the private sector does a fine job of distorting the free market with speculations that have no connection to the real economy and do not provide jobs. The tax cuts for the rich don't just go to buying McMansions and Hummers, that money chases the next speculative bubble and distorts commodity prices in ways that make it impossible for dairy farmers to buy the grains they need. The private sector isn't investing to avoid and manage the next environmental disaster or rehabilitate our crumbling sewers, bridges and other infrastructure. Lots of money chasing the next bubble, but not investing in world class broadband digital infrastructure. Why? Investments in tangible things that affect the real economy are difficult, and many "rich people" want to get richer quicker "in the market", not get their hands dirty with long term investments difficult and risky things like developing new innovations. The magic of the "invisible hand" of wealthy people is more a myth than a reality.

So, it is becoming passe' to say that the Wall Street class caused the problem, were bailed out by middle-class tax payers, are continuing to get tax cuts and the cost is falling on middle class tax payers. We see it in "austerity" plans and "debt control" plans that are taking the form of cuts to programs that help the lower and middle class people, cuts that forestalled investment in infrastructure maintenance, environmental restoration and much more. And we're told that we cannot raise taxes on the wealthy 1% of the people who now hoard 40% of the nation's wealth.

There is a phrase that describes the struggle surrounding this situation and it's "class war."

Wealth Gap and Revolution

2011-04-12T04:33:00.000-07:00

Lately I've been dwelling on the social strains caused by the wealth gap in the US. Everyone should know the difference between "income gap" and "wealth gap;" income being the annual revenues and wealth being the accumulated revenues or savings. The wealth gap is actually more pronounced than the income gap, but both have been growing for several decades. A recent statistic on wealth gap:

The top 1% of Americans own 40% of the wealth.

The word hoarding comes to mind as does a famous quote:

There is, inherent in the capitalist system, a tendency to self-destruct. - Schumpeter, 1942.

We see it happening before our very eyes playing out in the Washington budget debate. The notion, that giving the wealthy class, or owner class, tax cuts to spur growth is a widely held belief in our society. But this simplistic rule only makes sense when money is tight and production capacity at factories is tight and in need of investment to expand, neither of which hold today; we don't need any more production capacity and even if the owner class were to produce more, the commoners don't have the money to buy the stuff.

What we face is a market that is saturated with production capacity, but no money among we the little people, because the money is being hoarded and used for non-productive speculation. Buying commodities, like grains, industrial metals, oil & gas, have become disconnected from the real economy and turned into a gambling playground for the wealthy (not just Americans).

The tendency is for this kind of hoarding to create social instability (dare I say "revolution"?).
People are catching on to this, and the big questions are 1) will we get to the point where enough people become so destitute that they don't have anything, and thus don't have anything to loose if they rise up? 2) will the honest, wise wealthy people change policies before this happens, if only to save themselves?

Stay Tuned.

Sources:

Show Me the Money, Zine, Autumn, 2001, Tony Honeycut.

Attacked by Washington Post Pop-up Ad

2011-03-28T18:02:00.000-07:00

Wow, my mac PowerBook just had a siezure, chugging and chugging, rainbow wheel, for a long time, seemingly frozen dock... barely got to my Finder file directory... then I saw a black and red Washington Post advertisement box. I clicked it off and *sigh* the chugging dissipated, rainbow wheel went away, I had my computer back.

Does the media trust do this on purpose? Was I just hacked? WTF? Just paranoid? LOL

San Jose, CA Board of Ed Stands with WI Unions

2011-03-28T04:37:00.000-07:00

Jan Jose, CA Board of Education approves resolution in support of Wisconsin public workers - MORE

Paste into Twitter: http://t.co/bufQOIM

Purpose of the Economy

2011-03-23T04:46:00.001-07:00

The field of economics is rife with bias due to powerful selfish interests that influence this social science.

Science or art or what? Henry Hazlitt, in 1946, suggested that "The whole of economics can be reduced to a single lesson, and that lesson can be reduced to a single sentence:"

The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups.

I'm not sure this encapsulates the whole of economics, but it does define what the economy should provide for society. That is, it should operate for the broader benefit of society and not merely for the minority establishment. This is the purpose of the economy and this principle should underlie the study of economics.

The Masses Know their Place

2011-03-22T04:12:00.000-07:00

From an elitist writing on "The Revolt of the Masses." He separates the elite from the masses.

There exist, then, in society, operations, activities, and functions of the most diverse order, which are of their very nature special, and which consequently cannot be properly carried out without special gifts. For example: certain pleasures of an artistic and refined character, or again the functions of government and of political judgment in public affairs.

Previously these special activities were exercised by qualified minorities, or at least by those who claimed such qualification. The mass asserted no right to intervene in them; they realised that if they wished to intervene they would necessarily have to acquire those special qualities and cease being mere mass. They recognized their place in a healthy social system.

Sources:

The Revolt of the Masses, Jose Ortega Y Gasset, original 1930, translation from Spanish, 1932. W.W. Norton & Co.

US Economy in the Pocket of 1/100th of 1 Percent

2011-03-21T19:17:00.001-07:00

This graphic is jaw-dropping. The yellow ball, representing the wealth of one one-hundredth of one percent (0.01%), doesn't even fit into the graphic. Whereas the bottom 90% of Americans is the tiny blue ball.

How Rich are the Superrich?

The top 400 of America's richest aristocrats hoard as much wealth as the bottom 155,000,000 people. - Michael Moore at a Madison, WI rally, March 5, 2011.

Sources:

Mother Jones, It's the Inequality Stupid, March/April, 2011.

GDAE Podcast - Episode 43

2011-03-13T19:45:00.000-07:00

We Are Wisconsin

Security Industrial Complex: A concern of both conservatives and progressives. Coleen Rowley, former FBI agent discusses the glut of information being collected and the needle-in-a-haystack syndrome.

Has the Sleeping Giant Awoken? Michael Moore Madison, WI speech, 3/5/11.

Selfish Interests Bias Economics

2011-03-13T07:56:00.001-07:00

An insight published in 1946 that holds true today:

Economics is haunted by more fallacies than any other study known to man. This is no accident. The inherent difficulties of the subject would be great enough in any case, but they are multiplied a thousandfold by a factor that is insignificant in say, physics, mathematics or medicine -- the special pleading of selfish interests.

Source: Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Impeach Clarence Thomas: Step 2

2011-03-06T09:35:00.000-08:00

Impeach Clarence Thomas

2nd Step: Contact Media outlets. Ask them to follow the Missouri Bar Association's investigation of Clarence Thomas.

Some of the issues regarding Clarence Thomas: Throw Clarence Thomas Off the Bench

My Message to Media Outlets:

A complaint has been filed with the Missouri Bar Association to investigate Judge Clarence Thomas for allegations regarding his taxes. Given other widely publicized partisan activities by Mr. Thomas, the association is being asked to measure the weight of broader evidence relative to rules of conduct for a lawyer.

I would like your organization to follow this news story. Please add me to an interest e-mail list for people following your future investigations into this matter.

The Missouri Bar contact information follows:

mobar@mobar.org
ph: 537 635 4281
fax: 573 635 2811

For Your Convenience:

Contact the Broadcast Media

Step 2.5, Twitter this link of the story linked above:
http://yhoo.it/gYDni2

See Step 1

Originally Posted on GDAEman Blog

Remove Clarence Thomas: Step 1

2011-03-05T07:25:00.000-08:00

Impeach Clarence Thomas

1st Step: Contact Missouri Bar Association.

Support a complaint that has been filed with the MO Bar mentioned in this piece: Throw Clarence Thomas Off the Bench

mobar@mobar.org
ph: 537 635 4281
fax: 573 635 2811

Step 1.5, Twitter this link:
http://yhoo.it/gYDni2

My Message:

I support the complaint filed with your association to investigation of Judge Clarence Thomas for allegations regarding his taxes. Given other widely publicized partisan activities by Mr. Thomas, the association has a solemn responsibility to relax the boundaries of its investigations. The Missouri bar must measure the weight of the broader evidence relative to rules of conduct for a lawyer, rules that should be more closely scrutinized for an exemplary member of society like a supreme court justice.

Thank you for considering this matter. I would like to be added to an interest e-mail list for people interested in following your future decisions and actions on this matter.

PS

Go Johnny Saunders

US Tax Payer Dollars at Work in Bahrain

2011-02-19T17:25:00.001-08:00

If you haven't seen video footage of Mideast autocratic government crack-down, you should see the following: Very Short Video Clip

Bahrain's Army Supported by US Taxpayers (45 Sec.)

Share the link with others: http://t.co/tYGONRw

Phone numbers for Embassies in WashDC:
#Libya 202 944 9601
#Bahrain 202 342 1111
#Yemen 202 965 4760

The US 5th Fleet is stationed in Bahrain. Is that why they are so afraid of popular democracy?

Stop Illegal Search and Seizures by ICE

2011-02-17T18:35:00.001-08:00

Take Action on Unconstitutional Search and Seizure.

Darrell Issa, Chair Committee on Oversight & Government Reform
Ph (202) 225-3906
Fax x3303

It is unconstitutional for ICE to copy contents of computers, cameras, phones at the US boarder w/o warrant. Arbitrary lists made by the Executive Branch do not constitute a warrant. Ask Issa to hold hearings.

Share/tweet DN! program link:
http://tinyurl.com/ICE-Search

Share w/ conservative groups. Principled conservatives are our allies on civil liberties. Local Tea Party groups, NRA, John Birch Society, Lew Rockwell, libertarian groups.

BRANDON JOURDAN: When I flew into New York from Haiti, after I’d worked for two weeks covering rebuilding projects on schools in Haiti, I had first heard on the intercom that they wanted everyone to have their passports out. I pulled my passport out. When I walked out onto the skyway, two Immigration and Customers Enforcement officers took me by the arm and led me to a Homeland Security room.

BRANDON JOURDAN: They took me to, I guess, a Homeland Security office within the JFK airport. At that point, they began looking through all of my clothes, everything. I strategically put a copy of the First and Fourth Amendment in my bags, because this has happened before, and also on my computer and my smartphone and on my hard drives. They took my journal, all my business cards, all that. They said they were going to photocopy them all. They took—

AMY GOODMAN: Did they explain why they were doing this?

BRANDON JOURDAN: I asked them, “Why are you doing this?” They basically said, “You’re on a list. We don’t know why. These are orders"—

AMY GOODMAN: You’re on a list?

BRANDON JOURDAN: Yeah. And “These are orders from Washington.” And they copied my hard drive. They copied my laptop. They copied every single one of my compact flash cards that I use for my camera, which is absurd to me, because I was documenting people building schools and a country devastated by an earthquake.

Sources:

Democracy Now! 2/15/11 "Authorities Search and Copy U.S. Journalist’s Notes, Computer and Cameras After Returning from Haiti"

Clarence Thomas is a Corporate Operative

2011-02-16T04:52:00.000-08:00

I could go on and on about Clarence Thomas, but anyone reading this already should know that he is not acting in good faith. He is not a fair judge and he needs to go. How he got on to the US Supreme Court... well, we know that story too.

So, how do we do that? We know that when right-wingers want to get rid of someone, they have an uncanny way of making it happen (add list here). Part of it is access to more accumulated money (they are staunchly capitalistic). Part of it is access to levers of "the liberal media," which is closely related to the first point. But, in the end it often comes down to rabid numbers of right wing ditto-heads who pick up the phone, write letters and e-mails to bring about a sense of pressure.

Now it's our turn with Clarence Thomas. We can contact our members of the US House of Representative for starters and call for impeachment hearings. We can also contact media outlets asking that they invest more in the back story on and current unfolding stories on Thomas.

For Your Convenience:

a href="http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2114190870103099887AjIiym">

Opinion Polls Spark Revolution

2011-02-14T04:56:00.000-08:00

Somewhere I read that one of the triggers that sparked the Egyptian uprising was on-line opinion polls. I've not looked into it, but it stands to reason that if you start asking people about their greatest concerns about the current situation and hopes for democratic change, then you begin to plant the seeds for that change.

What Does Egypt Mean for US Democracy?

2011-02-13T15:50:00.000-08:00

People have been partaking in well deserved celebrating in Egypt. The relief and joy have brought tears to many... tears and smiles.

Yet I must confess a bit of foreboding, as in a great novel, which is what we are living. Some have begun putting it into words. I paraphrase, "Egypt could move forward and simply become a liberal democracy, like the United States, dominated by corporate institutions and beholden to moneyed masters with debt and other ropes tying the hands of the people. Paying for the financial sins of past dictators."

Part of this money can be clawed back from accounts in Switzerland and via the sale of ill gotten properties. But it's not just the accumulated wealth of Mubarak's family, but of many National Democratic Party operatives AND many former military officers.

Beyond that, what occurs to me is that it doesn't stop at Egypt, or stop at the other blatant authoritarian regimes in the middle east. And in the United States we have our own privileged class that has increasingly abused wealth and the power of corporations to corrupt our electoral and legislative system. The decision making process in the United States is rigged toward those with money and positions of power.

For the revolution in Egypt to be fully successful, we must root out the undemocratic corruption in the United States. Egypt has exposed the hypocrisy and undemocratic behavior by the United States over the years regardless of political party in power. This behavior reflects the wishes of a privileged establishment that must be challenged if we are to aspire to honest democracy.

AP Removes Reference to "Establishment" from Musharraf Article

2011-02-12T12:52:00.000-08:00

I recently emailed an AP article to myself on the subject of former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf being linked to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. I was particularly interested in the following reference describing a United Nations investigation of Bhutto's killing:

The U.N. officials were not tasked with finding out who the exact culprits behind the killing were. But they identified two main threats facing Bhutto — Islamist extremists like al-Qaida and the Taliban who opposed her links to the West and secular outlook, and members of the "Pakistani Establishment," the term used locally to refer to a powerful and shady network of military, intelligence, political and business leaders said to actually control the country.

When I went back to the article the reference was gone. Of course, Musharraf was part of that "establishment." Not to loose the main point of my interest, we in the United States have our own "establishment" that strongly influences both major political parties.

It's been a preoccupation of mine very recently; as Egypt was ousting Mubarak a gnawing thought kept surfacing. The ouster of Mubarak doesn't really matter unless they also challenge the broader establishment's hold on power.

Something else that was removed from the AP article was a reference to Baitullah Mehsud, the late leader of the Pakistani Taliban:

"A joint investigation team in its report to the court has found Musharraf guilty of being involved in the conspiracy and abetting to kill Benazir Bhutto," said Zulfikar Ali Chaudhry, the lead prosecutor.

He said the probe has evidence that Musharraf was "completely involved" through Baitullah Mehsud, the late leader of the Pakistani Taliban, and that prosecutors are seeking a murder trial. He did not elaborate.

Musharraf has always denied any role in Bhutto's death and scoffed at critics who said he did not do enough to protect her. Mehsud, who was killed in a U.S. missile strike in 2009, also denied targeting Bhutto.

It struck me as convenient that Mehsud is no longer around to testify.

I found the full original article saved elsewhere (February 12, 2011):

ISLAMABAD (AP) — A Pakistani court issued an arrest warrant Saturday for former President Pervez Musharraf in connection with the assassination of ex-premier Benazir Bhutto, while government investigators accused the retired general of involvement in the slaying.

Though he does not yet face any charges, the developments mark a major escalation of legal troubles for Musharraf, a one-time U.S. ally who went into self-exile in Britain in 2008 after being forced out of the presidency he secured in a 1999 military coup.

The accusations of a role in Bhutto's death were leveled by a government now run by Musharaff's rivals. They make it nearly impossible for him to fulfill pleges to return to Pakistan and lead a new political party.

Bhutto was killed Dec. 27, 2007, in a gun and suicide bomb attack after returning to Pakistan to campaign in elections Musharraf agreed to allow after months of domestic and international pressure. Musharraf blamed the Pakistani Taliban, an al-Qaida affiliated group, for the attack, but government prosecutors now allege he was part of the plot to kill the popular former premier.

"A joint investigation team in its report to the court has found Musharraf guilty of being involved in the conspiracy and abetting to kill Benazir Bhutto," said Zulfikar Ali Chaudhry, the lead prosecutor.

He said the probe has evidence that Musharraf was "completely involved" through Baitullah Mehsud, the late leader of the Pakistani Taliban, and that prosecutors are seeking a murder trial. He did not elaborate.

Musharraf has always denied any role in Bhutto's death and scoffed at critics who said he did not do enough to protect her. Mehsud, who was killed in a U.S. missile strike in 2009, also denied targeting Bhutto.

Musharraf's lawyer, Mohammad Ali Saif, said his client was innocent of any allegations but had no plans to contest them in court, where he's been ordered to appear on Feb. 19.

"This is just a drama. It is all politics," Saif told The Associated Press. He said Pakistani investigators never tried to reach Musharraf about the case, whose proceedings are closed to the public.

The new accusations and arrest warrant stem from a case against two security officials accused of being derelict in their duties to protect Bhutto. Musharraf has not been indicted, but the court is conducting preliminary hearings about the accusations against him, and he will have an opportunity to defend himself.

A U.N. investigation into the assassination said Musharraf's government didn't do enough to ensure Bhutto's security and criticized steps taken by investigators after her death, including hosing down the crime scene and failing to perform an autopsy.

The U.N. officials were not tasked with finding out who the exact culprits behind the killing were. But they identified two main threats facing Bhutto — Islamist extremists like al-Qaida and the Taliban who opposed her links to the West and secular outlook, and members of the "Pakistani Establishment," the term used locally to refer to a powerful and shady network of military, intelligence, political and business leaders said to actually control the country.

After her death, Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party rode a wave of public sympathy to garner the most seats in the February 2008 elections. Months later, the party forced Musharraf to quit the presidency by threatening impeachment. He later left for London, and has since spent a good deal of time on the lecture circuit, including in the United States.

Britain does not have an extradition treaty with Pakistan, but the British government can decide to extradite those accused of crimes on a case by case basis.

Federal Information Minister Firdous Ashiq Awan said if the court requests it, the government will contact Interpol about bringing Musharraf in.

The U.S. backed Musharraf for much of his military rule because he was, at least officially, an ally in the American-led war on global terrorism, and provided Washington assistance in pursuing militants who used Pakistan's soil as a hideout to prepare attacks in neighboring Afghanistan.

But many in Pakistan resented his alliance with the U.S., and his domestic missteps, including attempts to fire the chief justice of the Supreme Court, pummeled his popularity, leading to mass protests that ultimately forced Musharraf to bend and allow fresh elections.

The new Pakistani president and head of the ruling People's Party is Asif Ali Zardari, Bhutto's widower. He also supports the U.S. and has backed offensives against militants on Pakistani territory.

Also Saturday, a man detonated explosives as army troops prepared to storm his hideout in northwest Pakistan, killing himself and wounding at least three soldiers, a senior army official said.

The blast occurred outside the town of Bhat Khela in Khyber Pakhtunkwa province after troops acting on a tip from residents surrounded a militant hideout, Brig. Saeed Ullah said. Soldiers killed a second militant in the shootout that followed the explosion.

Ullah said security forces detained five men from the area on suspicion of sheltering the militants, who he said were planning a suicide attack in the Swat Valley. Bhat Khela is located about 30 miles (50 kilometers) west of Mingora, the main town in Swat.

The Pakistani army launched a major anti-Taliban offensive in 2009 in Swat, a one-time tourist haven largely overrun by militants beginning in 2007.

Though the monthslong offensive was hailed a success, militant activity is still reported in the picturesque region and concerns are growing that the insurgents could rise again.

Egypt: Ghonim and Said

2011-02-08T19:26:00.000-08:00

Friends of mine, even politically aware friends, ask what's up with the Egyptian "revolution"? Why are they revolting? Most of my friends aren't aware of what is meant by "brutal dictatorship". Khaled Said is the unfortunate classic example.

Khalid Said

On June 18, 2010, the Christian Science Monitor (CSM) reported that:

Egyptian businessman Khalid Said died during what witnesses say was a brutal public beating by police officers on June 6 in Alexandria, [Egypt].

He was described as "an affable, middle-class man." The CSM reported that:

The government’s first official autopsy report claimed that Said died from asphyxiation after swallowing a plastic bag of narcotics when he was approached by police. Said’s family and witnesses at the Internet cafe where police apprehended him tell a different story, saying police began the abuse in the cafe, then dragged him outside, where they beat him to death.

Said was reportedly targeted because he intended to make public a video that allegedly shows police officers dividing the spoils of a drug bust. Graphic pictures of the injuries that killed Said, coupled with the public nature of his beating death ... have propelled his tragic case to prominence, largely through posts on social-networking sites and blogs.

The following photo of Said, prominently displayed on a Facebook site, drives home the word "brutal."

Another Facebook website entitled "We are all Khalid Said" is credited with promoting the uprisings widely said to have begun January 25, 2010. Until recently, the initiator of "We are all Khalid Said" website was unknown.

What was known, however, was that Wael Ghonim was snatched from the streets of Egypt by plain-clothed police. He was widely described on Tweets in late January as a "Google Executive"People of Egypt feared the worst as the days passed with no word on the fate of @Ghonim, as he was known on Twitter. Video of Ghonim being snatched chilled people who understood what the word "brutal" means in the phrase "brutal dictatorship".[1]

Arrest widely said to be Google Exec Wael Ghonim

Then, on February 7, 2012, Wael Ghonim was released. Egyptian blogger @Sandmonkey and @ SultanAlQassemi tweeted the some of the first translations of an interview with Wael Ghonim with Dream TV. Some of Ghonim's statements, roughly translated & tweeted by SultanAlQassemi follow (not originally tweeted in this order):

I was taking a taxi, suddenly four people surrounded the car, I yelled "Help me, Help me" I was blindfolded then taken away. [Doesn't fit with video above, but see link to video with English subscripts below]

They wanted details, information. "Are the people who planned this outsiders?" We didn't do anything wrong, this was an appeal

The interrogators wanted to know if outsiders were involved. I convinced them this was a purely Egyptian movement.

The treatment was very good, they knew I was a good Egyptian. I was blindfolded for 12 days, I didn't see their faces.

I kept thinking "are people thinking of me?" I was wondering if my family knew where I was, my wife, dad, mother.

I can't claim I know what happened when I was inside. I didn't know anything until one day before I left.

I met with the Minister of Interior today. He was sat like any other citizen. He spoke to me like an equal. I respected that

I told the Interior Minister if I stripped naked & told people that I was beaten even without marks they would believe me.

I told the Interior Minister we have two problems 1- we don't talk to each other, this must be solved, 2- There is no trust

There were several men in the room with me & the Minister of Interior. I asked him if I can speak about this he said as u wish

The youth on the streets made Dr Hossam Badrawi (General Secretary of NDP [Mubarak's political party]) drive me to my house today

I am not a hero. I was only used the keyboard, the real heroes are the ones on the ground. Those I can't name.

I spent all my time on computer working for my country. I wasn't optimistic on the 25th but now I can't believe it

The DreamTV interview with Wael Ghonim, with subtitles, the day he was released.

[1] The film repeats, the second time in slow motion. Notice a point in the film in which three police are walking @Ghonim away when fourth police comes in from the right of the screen and lifts off one of his feet as he violently grabs @Ghonim's by the hair, yanking his head down.

Egypt and Twitter

2011-02-06T05:43:00.000-08:00

I've been closely following the Egyptian revolution... mostly via Twitter.

The near-real-time information out of Egypt was almost addictive. Then there is the ability to effectively chat with people in the midst of the revolution. I've had exchanges with a hand full of people in Egypt, asking questions, sending good will, and even a get well for someone fighting the flu in the midst of it all.

Will keep this short.

Find me at http://twitter.com/GDAEman

Or if you want to start following me on Twitter, Click below:

Two Years of Bush Officials Looking Over their Shoulders

2011-01-06T18:49:00.001-08:00

Before I get started I have to say that Obama's choice of Daley for his Chief of Staff is it. $#^!& Obama. He just shot himself in the foot.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming....

Remember two years ago, when Obama was coming into office, we wondered if the new administration would hold Bush administration officials accountable for their crimes? Crimes like illegal wiretapping and surveillance, placing Republican Party operatives into US attorney positions in line for future federal judge positions, various instances of obstructing justice and misleading Congress, like intentionally under estimating the cost of the prescription drug law? Oh yea, starting a war of aggression on false pretext, again misleading Congress, renditions, torture. The only one we ever hear about these days is torture as if all the other supposedly 269 broken laws are just too petty to deal with.

All of the above citations are from the Jan/Feb 2009 issue of Mother Jones. Karen Greenberg wrote an article called "The People vs. Dick Cheney," that raised the question and the options for "bringing the Bushies to account."

Just to look back a little, here are the ways Greenberg identified Bush could be brought to account:

A Rouge District Attorney: Based on a legal strategy by the famous prosecutor, Vincent Bugliosi, any county of the approximately 2,700 district attorneys, at any time in the future (multiply 2,700 by 10 as different individuals are cycled thru over the coming years) could prosecute Bush for the deaths of soldiers in the DA's county that died in Iraq.
Ticked-off Lawyers: Bush administration lawyers, John Yoo, David Addington, Alberto Gonzolez, Jay Bybee brought shame to the profession. Many in the legal community would like to re-establish the credibility of the profession. If they can't make criminal charges stick, they can seek to have Bush lawyers de-barred, and in the case of Jay Bybee, impeached from the federal judgeship he currently holds.
The United Nations: Secretary General Kofi Annan said, explicitly, the Iraq war was illegal. The UN could find crimes were committed, as it did in the case of US dirty war against Nicaragua (mining its harbors); however, enforcement of the findings lies with the UN Security Council. Still, it's a way of bringing out the facts.
International Criminal Court: Another long shot, but it is a potential forum.
The Garzon Factor: Spanish judge Baltizar Garzon went after Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, having him arrested in Britain. The same could occur some day to various Bush officials. We saw the gears of that process start turning on CIA agents involved in renditions and Guantanamo torture, only to be stopped under intense political pressure according to recently leaked State Department cables.

Many of these avenues don't require Obama to do anything except stay out of the way. A gutsy local DA, a determined foreign judge could start a legal process. Each simple, incremental step would stand on its own merits, leading to its own logical conclusion, taking on a life of its own. Bush officials know this, which is why they've hired lawyers, bought legal insurance, etcetera. They will live the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders.

Pakistan's Inflation

2011-01-03T08:59:00.000-08:00

I'm not claiming to know enough about how Pakistan's economy is linked to the rest of the global economy to say what it's inflation problem means for the US, but it apparently has an inflation problem. According to the Associated Press:

The Muttahida Quami Movement, the second largest party in the ruling coalition, said Sunday it would join the opposition because of fuel price hikes, inflation and the Ruling Pakistan People's Party's general poor performance.

Charles Goyette, conservative libertarian noted for his strong anti-war views, has a New York Times best-selling book out now called The Dollar Meltdown. In an interview last week he said that by Spring 2011 we can expect to see TV news crews standing outside of grocery stores doing the story on how much less your dollar can buy.

Not sure I trust the timing of his prediction, but it does prompt me to get going on locking down a loan for some home improvement work I'm planning... one without an adjustable rate.

Who Rules in the World?

2011-01-01T14:47:00.000-08:00

Reading the intro to Robert McChesney's "Communications Revolution"* today I was reminded of the following quote. It's from "The Revolt of the Masses" by Ortega y Gasset*, chapter 14 entitled, "Who Rules in the World?":

"It is necessary to distinguish between a process of aggression and a state of rule. Rule is the normal exercise of authority, and is always based on public opinion, today as a thousand years ago, amongst the English as amongst the bushmen. Never has anyone ruled on this earth by basing his rule essentially on any other thing than public opinion."

Not sure I buy much else written by Ortega y Gasset, but this resonated.

McChesney observes that the communications system is going through a transition that we can influence. In simple terms, the outcome of that transition will a media system that either "emphasizes democratic values" or "corporate profits." The default will be greater corporate domination, or "rule," over every facet of our lives and the future of our republic.

McChesney calls on us to seize "an unprecedented opportunity in the coming generation..."

... to create a communication system that will be a powerful imptus to a dramatically more egalitarian, humane, sustainable, and creative society, where justice and self-government are the order of the day.

He warns that

This window of opportunity -- what I call "a critical juncture" -- will not be open for long. We will be opposed by very powerful entrenched corporate and political interests. We will need all hands on deck to win the fight.

If we fail, the outcome of "who rules in the world" is predictable.

Sources:

Communications Revolution: Critical Junctures and the Future of Media, Robert M. McChesney, the New Press, (2007).

GDAE Podcast - Episode 40

2010-12-31T13:30:00.001-08:00

Episode 40 - December 30, 2010

The Right Critiquing the Right?

Part of the series on the left and right joining forces to challenge the establishment (See Below).

Libertarian Critique of Republicans: "The Persistence of Red-State Facism," by Anthony Gregory.

Prosecute Bush: Scott Horton on State Department cables that expose US
obstruction of justice in Spain and Germany to suppress their
investigations of extraordinary rendition, torture and illegal
activities associated with the Guantanamo prisons.

Click to Download Episode 39.

Recent Series: Can the Populist Left & Right Unite to Challenge the Establishment and Regain Control of Our Republic?

The answer is "yes," as history has proven. Check out the 9-part GDAE Podcast series that explores how common people across the political spectrum can come to the aid of our democracy.

GDAE Podcast Episode 29

Motivation for reaching out to the conservatives, from a progressive perspective

GDAE Podcast Episode 30

The Power of Ordinary People

GDAE Podcast Episode 31

Left & Right Populists Working Together: to fix our flawed democracy
What is a "principled" conservative: Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine has some thoughts
Audit the Fed: Bernie Sanders leads the Left & Right to push for Senate Unanimous vote on Amendment to "audit the Fed."

GDAE Podcast Episode 32

Left & Right Populists: The American Populist movement of the 1800s with Jim Hightower (Bill Moyer's Journal).
Left & Right United: The Tenth Amendment with Michael Boldin (Mother Jones Magazine).

GDAE Podcast Episode 33

Principled and Unprincipled Conservatives: Will Bunch, Author of "The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama," on the Tea Party movement and the recent primary elections.
Principled and Unprincipled Liberals: Glenn Greenwald, former constitutional and civil rights litigator now writer and blogger.

GDAE Podcast Episode 34

Conversation with Vince Tola: Perspectives on the potential of principled people on the left and right to join forces and reassert the power of the people over our democratic institutions. Vince is a public school teacher and Maryland Green Party organizer.

GDAE Podcast Episode 35

Case-study from Electoral Politics: David Sirota on Tea-party-backed candidate for US Senate in Colorado, Ken Buck.
Shared Left/Right Populist Anger: CNN interview with David Sirota explains Bush & Obama failure on Financial Bailout.

GDAE Podcast Episode 36

Motivation for Reaching out to the Political Right on Issues of Common Concern: Preventing the Drift toward "Barbarism".
Right-Wing TV/Radio Incitement: The case of Byron Williams who attempted to murder eleven people in San Francisco after listening to Glenn Beck and others.
Walden Bello: A historical perspective on the Drift toward "Barbarism" and its relation to the Moviation to reach out to genuine conservatives.
2006 Conservative Essay: "Now Is the Time for a Left-Right Alliance: A rebel alliance already exists that could stop Bush administration attacks on the Constitution."

GDAE Podcast Episode 37

History: Demagogues take advantage of bad economic times for political gains including the use of government to enrich themselves.
Three economists see three futures: Pretty Bad, Very Bad and Absolutely Catastrophic.
Call for unity among principled conservatives and progressives: Unite to counter-act dangers of demagogues during the coming hard times.

Source:

GDAEman.Com

The Eroding Justice

2010-12-29T04:54:00.000-08:00

Many western foreign ministers, including Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, are voicing concern about the equal application of justice in Russia after the conviction of oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky. They say it's retribution for Khodorkovsky's funding of opposition political candidates to Putin and his resistance to a Russian oil pipeline monopoly, both of which are true.

But, if I'm not mistaken, Khodorkovsky gained his position through organized crime, and he is not alone. Many years ago Putin cut a deal with powerful organized crime figures; they stay out of politics and the Kremlin looks the other way. Khodorkovsky reneged on the deal and now he's paying the price. Sounds like big boy street justice to me... he could have simply been shot or blown up.

That aside, the US has an eroded moral foundation for its criticism of Russian justice. The US was just caught obstructing German and Spanish justice systems by using extortion tactics to stop their investigations into illegal renditions and torture at Guantanamo... all of this thanks to leaked State Department cables.

But we didn't need the cables to know that the US beacon of justice is eroding. Guantanamo itself is right in our faces... so big and obvious it's easy to forget. The, the irony.... Bradley Manning, the army private presumed to have leaked the cables, is being held without charge in conditions designed to erode his senses. Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, is facing very uneven treatment by the western justice system, there is even talk of retroactively creating a law to go after Assange; we've recently seen laws that retroactively erase crimes (war crimes, privacy crimes by ATT and other telecom corporations) but creating a law to make a past act illegal... that rings new to me. Meanwhile very serious criminal behavior, by George Bush and his cohorts, can't be addressed because we have to look forward, not backwards. Never mind the Wall Street tycoons who walk free and the litany of other examples.

WARNING: Step back and look at the big picture. The world is loosing its moral compass; some would say "has lost." People are now rolling their eyes at the United States' criticism of Russia and US officials will bristle at this. But over time US officials could become used to such criticisms. Given a little more time on this path of our eroding justice system and they might admit they are in no position to make such criticisms. Gradually, with only a small number of people jumping up and down waiving their arms trying to warn others, we will become an undeniable police state; some would say "have become."

January 5th Senate Rules Opportunity

2010-12-23T07:46:00.000-08:00

Due to abuse of the U.S. Senate filibuster procedure, any major issue now requires a 60% majority vote to pass (super-majority).

In the past, all Senate business would stop during a filibuster; however, some time ago the Senate adopted a two-track process that allows business to continue while a filibuster is occurring. This means that there is no price for conducting a filibuster, so it can be used willy nilly. This has to stop.

January 5th, the U.S. Senate adopts its rules for the next two years. It's critical that they fix this problem on that single day. Contact your Senators and insist that they support Colorado Sen. Mark Udall's proposed rules change, or similar measure, to fix the filibuster problem.

Thanks

For Your Convenience:

Contact the US Senate

Debate Continues on Obama Tax Deal

2010-12-20T04:53:00.000-08:00

Below is a comment of mine on the December 17 Episode of "WakeUp AM" podcast (Episode 239). Brian of WakeUp AM had taken the position that Obama's tax deal with the Republicans was effectively the only pragmatic alternative. I, and others, took an alternative view:

Good discussion on the tax legislation. Brian made an argument worth noting; if the economy continues to do poorly in two years, then the Republicans would blame it on Obama for raising taxes on upper income earners.

Brian is right that the ultimate outcome was that the Republicans would get tax cuts for the rich; however, we could have done better, both in substance and in process (MLK would argue that process matters and I'll leave it at that for process).

On substance, he didn't drive a good bargain. For example, Obama could have sought to decouple the upper and lower income tax cuts by giving a three-year cut to lower earners and two-years for upper earners. Decoupling the two taxes would allow Democrats to vote separately on extending tax cuts for high-earners. This would avoid the potential for hostage-taking.

So, it might be true that tax cuts for the rich were inevitable, but Obama caved way too early. As you alluded, Obama might have been pissed at Congressional leaders for not using the tax cut legislation as a campaign issue; he might feel this was partly to blame for the bad mid-term election results. He might be unwilling to let it happen again. However, I think he erred in judgment on this one.

GDAE Podcast - Episode 39

2010-12-19T07:29:00.000-08:00

December 18, 2010 Episode of GDAE Podcast

Episode 39 Conversation on Corporate Power

Corporate Power: Conversation on how excessive corporate power is creating dysfunctional elections, health care system, financial system, news media, and its affect on American democracy and its citizens..

Prosecute Bush: Obstruction of justice in Spain and Germany by US officials exposed by WikiLeaks. Emerging facts have a way of forcing democratically governed countries to choose between maintaining their status as democracies or admitting that they are authoritarian states. If they choose to maintain their status as democracies, they have to prosecute high officials for crimes.

Motivation for reaching out to the conservatives, from a progressive perspective

GDAE Podcast Episode 30

The Power of Ordinary People

GDAE Podcast Episode 31

Left & Right Populists Working Together: to fix our flawed democracy
What is a "principled" conservative: Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine has some thoughts
Audit the Fed: Bernie Sanders leads the Left & Right to push for Senate Unanimous vote on Amendment to "audit the Fed."

GDAE Podcast Episode 32

Left & Right Populists: The American Populist movement of the 1800s with Jim Hightower (Bill Moyer's Journal).
Left & Right United: The Tenth Amendment with Michael Boldin (Mother Jones Magazine).

GDAE Podcast Episode 33

Principled and Unprincipled Conservatives: Will Bunch, Author of "The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama," on the Tea Party movement and the recent primary elections.
Principled and Unprincipled Liberals: Glenn Greenwald, former constitutional and civil rights litigator now writer and blogger.

GDAE Podcast Episode 34

Conversation with Vince Tola: Perspectives on the potential of principled people on the left and right to join forces and reassert the power of the people over our democratic institutions. Vince is a public school teacher and Maryland Green Party organizer.

GDAE Podcast Episode 35

Case-study from Electoral Politics: David Sirota on Tea-party-backed candidate for US Senate in Colorado, Ken Buck.
Shared Left/Right Populist Anger: CNN interview with David Sirota explains Bush & Obama failure on Financial Bailout.

GDAE Podcast Episode 36

Motivation for Reaching out to the Political Right on Issues of Common Concern: Preventing the Drift toward "Barbarism".
Right-Wing TV/Radio Incitement: The case of Byron Williams who attempted to murder eleven people in San Francisco after listening to Glenn Beck and others.
Walden Bello: A historical perspective on the Drift toward "Barbarism" and its relation to the Moviation to reach out to genuine conservatives.
2006 Conservative Essay: "Now Is the Time for a Left-Right Alliance: A rebel alliance already exists that could stop Bush administration attacks on the Constitution."

GDAE Podcast Episode 37

History: Demagogues take advantage of bad economic times for political gains including the use of government to enrich themselves.
Three economists see three futures: Pretty Bad, Very Bad and Absolutely Catastrophic.
Call for unity among principled conservatives and progressives: Unite to counter-act dangers of demagogues during the coming hard times.

Source:

GDAEman.Com

Obama's Long-View on Taxes a Huge Mistake?

2010-12-16T04:44:00.000-08:00

"I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub." - Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform

Obama talks a good line about taking the long-view in defending the ransom he's willing to pay to Republican hostage takers on tax legislation.

Unfortunately, Obama's long-view is probably a huge mistake. Many of us have that gut feeling. James Kwak (real name), blogging on Simon Johnson's baseline Scenario site, explains. First, he argues that the tax cuts for the wealthy are likely to become permanent:

If you think the tax cuts were bad policy, your chances of fixing that bad policy are much worse in two years than they are now. The administration’s best card would have been a threat to veto any bill that contained an extension of the tax cuts for the rich. The House is going to pass an across-the-board permanent extension in 2012. Are the Democrats going to block it in the Senate in an election year? Is Obama going to veto it in 2012? (And even if he leaves it for a lame-duck session, he’s going to have to make a commitment during the campaign.)

He then reminds us that this permanent tax policy is a permanent redistribution of wealth upwards:

This was the best chance to kill the tax cuts once and for all. Yes, it would have been worse in the short run for the economy. But this is a huge price to pay for a modest stimulus made up entirely out of tax cuts (largely tax cuts for the rich). Instead, we are stuck with a huge reduction in the tax burden of the rich and a small reduction in the tax burden of the middle class–which, on balance, helps the rich and hurts the middle class–forever.

Then he reminds us of the Republican long-view, toward which they've been marching for decades, and are nearing the final plunge of their stake, thanks in part to this tax deal from Obama:

... the old Republican “starve the beast” strategy: cut government revenues to the point where it is unable to do anything. ... Republicans have cut revenues and continued to spend on whatever they felt like spending on. But the core of the strategy is that if you cut taxes at every possible opportunity, eventually you will force the government into a crisis where something has to give (and probably it will be a Democratic administration that takes the political hit for cleaning up the mess). And unless American public opinion does an about-face, the thing that will give will be entitlements.

In other words, don't be fooled by excessive Republican government spending, thinking that it is a contradiction to their "less government" philosophy. Rather, they want to spend our government into hoc so that it has no alternative but to cut social programs. Kwak looks into the crystal ball at how this will likely play out:

So perhaps with the best intentions, the Obama administration, by making it more likely that the Bush tax cuts will become permanent... is probably hastening the day when push will come to shove and Medicare will be gutted. The bigger the projected national debt, the more seemingly reasonable people in the middle of the ideological spectrum shake their heads sadly and say something has to be done about Medicare, as if it’s a fact of nature and not a fact of politics.

Obama's unwillingness to at least try to draw the line now makes one wonder whether he is blind to this scenario or whether he also believes in a version of the "starve the beast" strategy.

Sources:

Baseline Scenario Blog, "More on the Tax Deal," by James Kwak, December 8, 2010.

First published on GDAEman Blog.

Refrigerator Child Poetry in Late 2010

2010-12-10T05:09:00.000-08:00

I found the following written in refrigerator magnets on our fridge. I'm pretty sure it was written solely by our 10-year old daughter.

American peace harass apparatus influence death bomb against argue triumph knife enlist war chief president oppose law blood

Fortunately, she's a happy, intelligent, creative kid who, like most her age, doesn't listen very well.

WikiLeaks Mirror Sites

2010-12-06T16:28:00.001-08:00

WikiLeaks
Mirror Sites

Thankful for Social Security

2010-11-25T06:35:00.000-08:00

Thankful for the Social Security safety net that helps keep people from becoming too desperate. (And we all know that desperate people do desperate things).

THEN... there's Obama's so-called "Bipartisan" Deficit Commission, led by two people with a track record of wanting to cut Social Security, for which I'm not thankful.

Cartoonist Tom Tomorrow pokes a hole in the "we're living longer" justification for raising the retirement age. Just who are "we," people with low-paid hard-labor jobs and little or no healthcare, or people with high-paid desk jobs and good healthcare? Click Cartoon to Enlarge.

Sources:

Thankful for GLH Blog for the tip-off.

Thankful for Salon.Com for hosting Tom Tomorrow.

A Popular Post: Challenging Constitution Cheerleaders

2010-11-24T06:24:00.000-08:00

When I reviewed the stats on visitors to this blog I found that the most popular post is an open letter to cheerleaders of the US Constitution. In it I point out the similarities between legal Slavery and legal Corporate Charters.

Both slavery and corporations allow the accumulation of wealth by an individual or small group. Both have damaging effects on the fabric of a democracy. In the long run, both ills will have been resolved by amending the US Constitution.

Read More

Related....

Corporate America Reports Record Profits

New government data show U.S. corporations made record profits in the third quarter, earning at an annual rate of more than $1.6 trillion. That’s the highest figure since the government began keeping track 60 years ago. Overall corporate earnings are up 28 percent from the same time last year. Companies, however, have not been using the record profits to hire more workers. The Federal Reserve is predicting that the nation’s official unemployment rate will remain over 9 percent for at least another year. - DemocracyNow! November 24, 2010.

No recession for "corporate persons," but a vast number of real people are experiencing an economic depression. Corporations are tools of wealth accumulation, which have become so effective that there's little wealth left over for the rest of us. I always think of an hour glass with all the sand accumulated in one side... it needs to be up-ended.

Book Plug: 13 Bankers

2010-11-23T18:26:00.000-08:00

13 Bankers describes the rise of concentrated financial power and the threat it poses to our economic well-being. Over the past three decades, a handful of banks became spectacularly large and profitable and used their power and prestige to reshape the political landscape. By the late 1990s, the conventional wisdom in Washington was that what was good for Wall Street was good for America. This ideology of finance produced the excessive risk-taking of the past decade, creating an enormous bubble and ultimately leading to a devastating financial crisis and recession.

More remarkable, the responses of both the Bush and Obama administrations to the crisis–bailing out the megabanks on generous terms, without securing any meaningful reform–demonstrate the lasting political power of Wall Street. The largest banks have become more powerful and more emphatically “too big to fail,” with no incentive to change their behavior in the future. This only sets the stage for another financial crisis, another government bailout, and another increase in our national debt.

The alternative is to confront the power of Wall Street head on, which means breaking up the big banks and imposing hard limits on bank size so they can’t reassemble themselves. The good news is that America has fought this battle before in different forms, from Thomas Jefferson’s (unsuccessful) campaign against the First Bank of the United States to the trust-busting of Teddy Roosevelt and the banking regulations of the 1930s enacted under Franklin Delano Roosevelt. 13 Bankers explains why we face this latest showdown with the financial sector, and what is at stake for America.

Quantitative Easing Explained

2010-11-16T04:09:00.000-08:00

Not as nerdy as it sounds... might make you both laugh and cry. Well worth the 6 minutes.

Prosecute Bush - Audio Clip 13

2010-11-15T05:43:00.001-08:00

Michael Isikoff commentary on Justice Department release of report on an internal ethics investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility into authors of the Bush Justice Department "torture memos". Originally produced on GDAE Podcast Episode 13. Clips from Rachel Maddow 5/6/09. A call on Congress to impeach Bush era Justice Department official Jay Bybee from his current role as a federal judge.

Download mp3 File

An Invitation

2010-11-13T11:59:00.000-08:00

My next GDAE Podcast episode, Number 37, starts as follows:

On the previous episode of GDAE Podcast (36) I re-visited my original motivation for people on the political left to reach out to principled people on the political right... a concern that extreme right wing demagogues are stirring up potential violence among uninformed people who are suffering real economic hard times. My "original" motivation was to promote relationships between genuine conservatives and progressives that could either prevent right-wing populism from growing ugly or at least be a mitigating force, a buffer, if society devolves further into darkness as some economists predict is a real possibility in the coming years.

My original motivation grew in early 2010 culminating in my March 31, 2010 Episode 29, which has become the first in a series. In less than 30-minutes, before the audio program shifts to some unusual music, I initiated an exploration that has held my attention for the past eight months and promises to maintain its hold on me for a while.

We could see the dot-com bubble-burst coming. We saw the Iraq war and security state coming after 9/11. We saw the housing and financial economic bubble-bursts coming. Now we can see the potential for the predictably destructive outcomes of right-wing demagoguery coming. This is my small attempt to do something about it, if only to raise awareness. You are invited to join me by listening to the initial Episode 29 and seeing where it leads.

2010 Exit Polls Lack Progressive Voices that Stayed Home

2010-11-12T04:40:00.001-08:00

Following the recent election, the establishment narrative has been that Obama over-reached; his initiatives were too liberal and he needs to tack to the right. This view isn't based on analysis, rather it is more a matter of group-think among the punditocracy. To them it's obvious.

However, actual analyses suggest that the right-wing surge in the 2010 mid-term elections hinged on Obama not being progressive enough and thereby loosing the support of his base.

First, lets dismiss with the false common wisdom, promoted by the establishment, that presidents almost always suffer losses in the US House of Representatives during the mid-term elections. It's taken as unalterable fact. It's true that this occurred for George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, but during Franklin Roosevelt's first mid-term election, after he put forth radically progressive programs, the Democratic Party gained seats in the US House of Representatives.

Second, is the contradiction between the establishment narratives of the mid-term elections. On the one hand, losses in the US House were predicted on the basis of an "enthusiasm gap;" the narrative was that Democrats were disillusioned with Obama and thus less likely to work on the mid-term election campaign and come out to vote on election day. This narrative conflicts with the post-election interpretation that says Obama is being too liberal and needs to tack to the right.

Third, there are the numbers. Below is a comparison of exit poll information for US House vote results for 2008 and 2010, each with about 17,000 people surveyed. As a percentage, Democratic voters were a significantly smaller proportion in 2010 than in 2008.

Percentage of Turnout by Party for
US House Vote
2008 Vs 2010

Party Affiliation	2008 Percentage	2010 Percentage
Democratic	40%	35%
Republican	33%	35%
Independent	28%	29%

But percentages only tell part of the story. Did Democrats stay home, or did more Republicans come out in 2010 than 2008.

According to ABC News (Bold added),

[the] current estimate is that 90 million people voted [in 2010]. Exit poll says 45 percent were Obama voters in 2008. That’s 40.5 million voters.

In 2008, Obama won 69.5 million votes. So about 29 million Obama voters did not show up in 2010.

Exit poll also says 45 percent of people who voted yesterday were McCain voters in 2008, again 40.5 million. That, vs. his nearly 60 million in 2008, means about 19.5 million McCain voters did not show up.

So Obama had nearly 10 million more no-shows.

The following tables show that, of the Democrats that did come out to vote in 2010, they for the most part stayed with the Democratic party compared with 2008 (91-92%).

However, there were shifts in both Republican and Independent votes away from the Democrats to the Republicans. As a percentage, we see a big shift in Independents voting 51% Democratic in 2008 to only 37% Democratic in 2010.

US House Vote by Party Affiliation - 2010

Party and % of Turnout	% of Vote Dem	% of Vote Rep	% of Vote Other
Democratic 35%	91	7	2
Republican 35%	5	94	1
Independent 29%	37	56	7

US House Vote by Party Affiliation - 2008

Party and % of Turnout	% of Vote Dem	% of Vote Rep	% of Vote Other
Democratic 40%	92	7	1
Republican 33%	9	89	2
Independent 28%	51	42	6

But it's wrong to conclude that Independents simply jumped ship from Democrats to Republicans. About 48.5 million Independents voted in 2008, but only about 34 million voted in 2010, nearly a 15 million voter difference. If the "enthusiasm gap" story is correct, leading to progressive Democrats and Independents staying home, then concluding that voters seek a more "centrist" or conservative policy agenda, based on 2010 exit polls in which many "unenthused" progressive voices were absent, is in error.

Sources:

2010 Exit Polls for House voting - CNN

2008 Exit Polls for House voting - CNN

Thanks to GLH Blog for the ABC News information.

Prosecute Bush - A Podcast Drum Beat

2010-11-10T04:29:00.000-08:00

For about two years I've been producing segments for the GDAE podcast that "beat the drum on prosecuting Bush administration officials for their crimes." I've generated nearly 40 segments, each about 1-3 minutes.

Topics have included:

Law Professor Francis Boyle describes the complaint he filed in January 2010 with the International Criminal Court.
Bush war-crimes-Prosecution Theater: A Play called "In the Loop", by Armando Iannucci.
"Arrest Blair dot Com"... as in British prime minister Tony Blair?
The Chilcot Inquiry into Britain's role in the Iraq war, a window into a US inquiry.
Prosecute Bush: Evidence of 'the Possible': The Case of Peru's Alberto Fujimori.

Check them out at GDAE Podcast.

Fiscal Sanity?

2010-11-07T09:50:00.000-08:00

Dear Editor of Time Magazine,

Fareed Zakaria's article, "Restoring the American Dream" (Time, Nov. 1, 2010), revealed that "American" S&P 500 corporations generate nearly half (46%) of their profits outside of the U.S., which explains why I put the term "American" in quotation marks. He says than 80% of Coca-cola's employees are in foreign countries. Why should these U.S. corporations continue to receive the full privileges and benefits afforded by our government of the people without having to give back more? Aside from massive corporate subsidies, their off shore operations depend on U.S. foreign consulate services and benefit immensely from the U.S. military that ensures access to and stability of foreign markets.

With that in mind, consider Zakaria's advice entitled "Fiscal sanity." Zakaria has explained the structural reality that corporate profit generation has left the US along with significant tax revenues. Yet, just when Americans need social safety nets, Zakaria recommends cutting "entitlement programs", a loaded term these days*. Just when we need skilled state and local civil servants to help the ballooning population of Americans who are struggling, Zakaria recommends doing away with state pensions that attract capable people to government jobs that pay lower salaries than the private sector.

That's not a "sane" fiscal policy. It's group-think that will likely lead us further away from the American Dream. A sane policy would condition the privileges and benefits of U.S. corporate charters on supporting America; if a corporation wants to call itself "American," then it needs to support America. A sane fiscal policy must also address runaway military spending. One might ask, "Where will all of those tax-payer supported soldiers now stationed in foreign lands find work if we draw down some of the 600 foreign military bases? For starters, shift some of them, along with their federal funding, to work at home. As civil servants, they can help our communities maintain a glimmer of hope in the American Dream during these hard times while spending their income locally rather than abroad.

* Aside: Part of the "American Dream" includes feeling a sense of national and civic pride. This pride factors into the choice of many people who choose to work in state and local government despite the lower pay relative to the private sector. The choice to work in government also factors in stability summed up by the thought that, "I won't get rich, but at least I won't be destitute in my old age." Finally, the notion that government workers only soak up tax revenues is simplistic. The private sector, for instance, has little incentive to protect the environment as the Gulf disaster attests. I was in a recent meeting in which private sector participants said, "We will gladly do our part, but the government has to set up and administer a system that makes it easy for us." That takes tax-payer support, which supports the common good AND enables the private sector to thrive. Despite his broad knowledge, Mr. Zakaria appears to have some critical knowledge gaps that lead to recommendations that are more likely to do more damage than good to our society.

2010 Mid-Term Challenges Establishment

2010-11-05T04:15:00.000-07:00

The most obvious challenge to the establishment during the 2010 mid-term came from the Tea Party movement, which characterized by populist sound-bites. The impact was felt heavily by the Republican Party establishment as summed up by John Nichols [1]:

... the tea party is the best news that the Democrats had last night, because if Christine O’Donnell, Ken Buck and Joe Miller had not defeated the candidates that the Republicans in Washington wanted, those candidates almost certainly would have won Senate seats, and we would be looking now at a Republican majority in the Senate. So while the tea party brought energy and some fresh and electable candidates in some states, in other states, particularly in your more moderate states, your swing states, the tea party actually brought the only candidates who could lose on Tuesday, and they did.

Post-mid-term, Michael Moore predicts the future and the implications for the establishment political parties [1]:

So, let’s look into the crystal ball and see what 2012 looks like. If the tea party thing keeps its mojo killing, they have a very good chance of, in the primaries, nominating one of their people, Sarah Palin or others, Rand Paul maybe. It’s not unlikely. That will—if that doesn’t happen, and if a more mainstream Republican gets nominated, they will probably be so upset they will run a third party person. And somehow, there’s going to be a very strong possibility of a potential split, and there’s going to be two people from that side running for president of the United States.

Obama, if he continues this war, if he expands the war, if he doesn’t get a hold of Wall Street and wrestle them to the ground, if we have another crash in the next ten years because he didn’t do the job that he was supposed to have done—he left it up to Geithner and Summers to just take us into the next crash—it is not unlikely that there will be a Naderesque-type challenge from the left. And maybe not in the primaries, but actually an independent candidacy. So we’re going to have, for maybe, I think, the second time in the last 150 years, potentially a four-candidate race. In a four-candidate race, Abraham Lincoln—that was the first one, and that was—I think he won with thirty—thirty-some—do you know, John? [JOHN NICHOLS:] Thirty-nine.

Thirty-nine percent of the vote. And Harry Truman in '48, with Dewey, Strom Thurmond and Henry Wallace. It, first of all, presents perhaps the only opportunity in our lifetime where someone from the left could actually win the presidency with a plurality of votes. What it could do is deny Obama his second term. And I think that instead of the Democrats and President Obama taking all of us who are the base that he criticized for the last two months—you know, if he doesn't take seriously why we went out to work for him and got him elected, there’s a very strong possibility that that challenge is going to exist.

Sources:

1. Democracy Now! November 3, 2010.

GDAE Podcast - Episode 36

2010-10-31T17:26:00.001-07:00

October 31, 2010 - Released

Left / Right Populism - Part VII

Can genuine conservatives and progressives clean up our democratic institutions?

Motivation for Reaching out to the Political Right on Issues of Common Concern: Preventing the Drift toward "Barbarism".

Right-Wing TV/Radio Incitement: The case of Byron Williams who attempted to murder eleven people in San Francisco after listening to Glenn Beck and others.

Walden Bello: A historical perspective on the Drift toward "Barbarism" and its relation to the Movtiation to reach out to genuine conservatives.

2006 Conservative Essay: "Now Is the Time for a Left-Right Alliance: A rebel alliance already exists that could stop Bush administration attacks on the Constitution."

Prosecution of Bush Officials: Beating the drum with the help of revelations from WikiLeaks of US complicity with abuse and torture.

Iraqi Blogger Raed Jarrar: Personal experience with WikiLeaks revelations.

Start with Episode 29 for Full Series on Left/Right Populist Alliance
or
Start with Episode 30 for Quick 20-minute Kickoff

Play Episode 36 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 36.

Play Episode 35 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 35.

Listen to Part V in the series, Episode 34:

Listen to Part IV in the series, Episode 33:

Listen to Part III in the series, Episode 32:

Listen to Part II in the series, Episode 31:

Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:
GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 30 April 30, 2010 - Common Interests on the Right & Left
GDAE Podcast Episode 29 March 31, 2010 - Right Left Populist Unity?
GDAE Podcast Episode 28 March 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 27 February 21, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 26 February 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 25 January 19, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 24 December 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 23 November 29, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 22 November 11, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 21 October 18, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 20 October 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 19 September 27, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 18 September 16, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009

Sources:

GDAEman.Com

The Tea Party and the Fascist Impulse

2010-10-26T04:14:00.000-07:00

True, people toss around the term fascism without care. Hopefully this post isn't another such case.

An essay, Global Capitalism versus Global Community, by Walden Bello, begins with some historical background. He talks about unbridled capitalism's rise "in what is now known as the first age of globalization that spanned the ninteenth century and ended with World War I in 1914." It included the late 1800s Robber Barron era.

This "first age of globalization" saw "the emergence of sharp disparities in the distribution of income and assets." Bello then notes that this "provoked a countervailing push from society, especially the lower and middle classes", and this is where my insight begins.

At first I didn't understand why he didn't define the "first age" to continue through the 1920s to the Great Crash. Then I realized that it's central to my insight.

We on the left like to think of the "countervailing push" to re-balancing the inequities caused by unfettered capitalism to be solely our domain; the little people reasserting their say in the socio-economic system, asserting public freedom over excessive private freedom. But Bellos reminded me that this isn't the way it really works.

... not all of the responses to globalization were progressive. For example, fascism, which Karl Polanyi defined as "the reform of the market economy achieved at the price of the extirpation of all democratic institutions," was also part of this countervailing drive, one that hijacked the search for community in the service of reaction, counterrevolution and racism.

Yes. The "first age of globalization" does find a break-point at World War I, after which Hitler found a desperate populace that was itself hijacked in his service.

It's this seam of social orientation that we find the impulse for the Tea Party movement. And they are following the likes of Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Tom Delay, all of whom are very pro-corporation. It now makes more sense, particularly when one considers other definitions of fascism, like this one by FDR:

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Associated Press Blows it on Health Care Poll Reporting

2010-10-25T04:23:00.000-07:00

What's up with the Associated Press (AP)? Seems it's been captured by the transnational corporations too (like the other three branches: U.S. Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the Executive). AP has teamed up on polling with GfK Roper Public Affairs & Corporate Communications... I'm not kidding, that's their name.

I was drawn to this realization after reading a recent AP article entitled, "AP-GfK Poll: Americans Split On Health Care Repeal." Oh really? "Split" usually means 50 percent for and 50 percent against.

So, out come the latest AP corporate communications numbers on the recent health care legislation:

40% Support Health Care legislation
11% Neutral on it
51% Total

45% Oppose the Health Care legislation

45% to 51% percent is almost a "split," only six points apart, but not on "repeal" of the legislation.

32% want to repeal it completely, which isn't exactly a "split" when compared with 40% who "support."

But what really got me was that the AP article makes the lame oversight that so many polls do on this topic; it doesn't directly address the question that some people who are "opposed" to the legislation didn't feel it goes far enough to truly reform health care. Well it did, but it stacked that number up against "repeal" and called it a "split."

I went to the Oct. 13-18, 2010 corporate communications poll [PDF] to look at the numbers. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the follow-up question, "of those opposed, who wants stronger legislation?" But, you can get close to the answer of that question. Here are the numbers:

18% say leave the Health Care legislation as it is.
39% say change the Health Care legislation so it does MORE.
57% Total say keep it the same or stronger Health Care legislation

9% say change the Health Care legislation so it does LESS.
32% say completely repeal the Health Care legislation.
41% Total say make it weaker or repeal it.

41% Repeal or does LESS, 57% Keep as-is or does MORE. This should have been the headline, not a lame twisting of the number to say Americans are "split" on wanting to repeal the Health Care legislation.

Instead, AP cherry picks two numbers from "likely voters" that fit a story line: Those who want stronger health care legislation and those who want repeal it, as if that is a logical comparison.

But, the damage of the headline is done, less than two weeks before the elections. Shame on the Associated Press and its corporate communications partner. It's telling that it was AP's corporate communications partner that does the interpretation of the poll video.

Let AP Know What You Think:

Contact AP:

E-mail: info@ap.org
Phone: 212 621-1500

Contact FAIR: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting to let them know what you think.

E-mail: fair@fair.org

Where Does Boundless Economic Growth Inevitably Lead?

2010-10-24T19:06:00.001-07:00

Yesterday I explored the notion of "imperialism," that natural tendency for industrialized nations with mass production that manufactures too much to be absorbed at home and must be sold abroad... by force if necessary (the imperialism part).

OK, so lets take the long view. "Economic Growth" is actually an acceleration; it's not good enough to be stuck at x% growth... the increase needs to be increasing year after year. This raises questions about carrying capacity and the wisdom of an economic framework that demands growth for the sake of "a healthy economy."

This question is explored by William Fort, 80-year-old founder of Praxis, a transnational corporation that is on par with with large nations. Fort is a fictional character, living in 2010, but his insights are pretty real. He knows that the global carrying capacity is finite and he is smart enough to know that economic growth in today's sense isn't sustainable; the economic model must change. The setting is a discussion among a few people chosen by William Fort to think about this issue:

One morning he spend an hour talking about feudalism -- how it was the clearest political expression of primate dominance dynamics, how it had never really gone away, how transnational capitalism was feudalism writ large, how the aristocracy of the world had to figure out how to subsume capitalist growth within the steady-state stability of the feudal model.

One can debate whether or not this question should be left up to the "aristocracy of the world", but the existence of the underlying question is not open to debate.

William Fort eventually reveals his insights on the matter to his select group:

The opportunities for growth are no longer in growth.

Sounds like a puzzle stated by a martial arts instructor or something. Fort continues,

We've got to identify the new nongrowth growth markets, and get into them.

He talks about "nonmarketable capital", which he boils down infrastucture investment, a long-term investment. One of the participants in the discussion observes that such "nonmarketable capital" is publicly owned, to which William Fort responds:

Yes. Which means close cooperation of the governments involved. Praxis's gross annual product is much larger than most countries'. What we need to do is find countries with small GNPs and bad Country Future Indices [bad future prospects]. ... We identify those, go to them and offer them a massive capital investment, plus political advice, security, whatever they need. In return, we take custody of their [nonmarketable captial]. We also have access to their labor. It's an obvious partnership. I think it will be the coming thing.

It's not "coming;" it's already been here. It's "imperialism" writ large. It's privatization. A particularly insidious form is described John Perkins' "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man."

Sources:

Green Mars, by Kim Stanley Robinson.

Capitalism and Why We're Imperialists

2010-10-23T06:25:00.001-07:00

The title probably sounds like the ranting of a lefty wing-nut. But a little sober thought reveals a reality that is hard to deny.

Way back in 1902 an English economist, John A. Hobson, provided a simple explanation of the term imperialism, which holds to this day. In simple terms, mass production creates too many products for domestic consumption. This necessitates finding foreign markets, and the capitalists who make the products use the power of their government to secure those markets using military force if necessary. Hobson puts the motivation for new markets this way:

It is open to Imperialists to argue thus: "We must have markets for our growing manufactures, we must have new outlets for the investment of our surplus capital and for the energies of the adventurous surplus of our population: such expansion is a necessity of life to a nation with our great and growing powers of production."

Hobson then puts words to the next logical step: Corporations influencing government's use of the military to secure foreign markets:

After 1870 this manufacturing and trading supremacy was greatly impaired: other nations, especially Germany, the United States, and Belgium, advanced with great rapidity, and while they have not crushed or even stayed the increase of our external trade, their competition made it more and more difficult to dispose of the full surplus of our manufactures at a profit. The encroachments made by these nations upon our old markets, even in our own possessions, made it most urgent that we should take energetic means to secure new markets. These new markets had to lie in hitherto undeveloped countries, chiefly in the tropics, where vast populations lived capable of growing economic needs which our manufacturers and merchants could supply. Our rivals were seizing and annexing territories for similar purposes, and when they had annexed them closed them to our trade. The diplomacy and the arms of Great Britain had to be used in order to compel the owners of the new markets to deal with us: and experience showed that the safest means of securing and developing such markets is by establishing 'protectorates' or by annexation....

What strikes me is that the logic is so simple and it explains the corruption of our government by corporations.

Missed Opportunities

2010-10-18T17:49:00.000-07:00

Not sure it's kosher, but I'm going to re-print a Paul Krugman blog post in it's entirety:

In today’s [New York Times] report on the foreclosure mess, a revealing sentence:

As the foreclosure abuses have come to light, the Obama administration has resisted calls for a more forceful response, worried that added pressure might spook the banks and hobble the broader economy.

Surely this can serve as a generic statement:

As NAME ISSUE HERE has come to light, the Obama administration has resisted calls for a more forceful response, worried that added pressure might spook the banks and hobble the broader economy.

Stimulus, bank rescue, China, foreclosure; it applies all along. At each point there were arguments for not acting; but the cumulative effect has been drift, and a looming catastrophe in the midterms.

Or to put it another way, the administration has never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And soon there won’t be any more opportunities to miss.

===== End ====

Ouch!

GDAE Podcast - Episode 35

2010-10-09T12:07:00.001-07:00

Left / Right Populism - Part VI

Can principled people on the left and right clean up our democratic institutions?

Case-study from Electoral Politics: David Sirota on Tea-party-backed candidate for US Senate in Colorado, Ken Buck.

Shared Left/Right Populist Anger: CNN interview with David Sirota explains Bush & Obama failure on Financial Bailout.

MUSIC: Ryan Harvey, "It's Not Just Bush"

Historical Context of Tea Party: We've seen this before in past decades. Kevin Drum exposes how the Tea Party follows the same broad contours of past right-wing spasms during Democratic Party presidencies.

Prosecute Bush: An example of a "nation of laws," Iceland is holding its leaders accountable for financial meltdown.

Play Episode 35 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 35.

Listen to Part V in the series, Episode 34:

Listen to Part IV in the series, Episode 33:

Listen to Part III in the series, Episode 32:

Listen to Part II in the series, Episode 31:

Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:
GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 30 April 30, 2010 - Common Interests on the Right & Left
GDAE Podcast Episode 29 March 31, 2010 - Right Left Populist Unity?
GDAE Podcast Episode 28 March 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 27 February 21, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 26 February 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 25 January 19, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 24 December 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 23 November 29, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 22 November 11, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 21 October 18, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 20 October 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 19 September 27, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 18 September 16, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009

Sources:

GDAEman.Com

GDAE Podcast - Episode 34

2010-10-01T17:57:00.000-07:00

September 30, 2010 Posting Date

Left & Right Common Goals - Part V

Conversation with Vince Tola: Perspectives on the potential of principled people on the left and right to join forces and reassert the power of the people over our democratic institutions. Vince is a public school teacher and Maryland Green Party organizer.

Play Episode 34 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 34.

Listen to Part IV in the series, Episode 33:

Listen to Part III in the series, Episode 32:

Listen to Part II in the series, Episode 31:

Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:
GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 30 April 30, 2010 - Common Interests on the Right & Left
GDAE Podcast Episode 29 March 31, 2010 - Right Left Populist Unity?
GDAE Podcast Episode 28 March 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 27 February 21, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 26 February 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 25 January 19, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 24 December 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 23 November 29, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 22 November 11, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 21 October 18, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 20 October 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 19 September 27, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 18 September 16, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009

FBI Could Face Backlash from Right and Left

2010-09-30T05:13:00.000-07:00

The recent raids by the FBI on Chicago and Minneapolis peace and justice activists is a bad omen for everyone concerned about civil liberties. Regardless of where one stands on the political spectrum, left or right, abuse of power by the government is antithetical to the founding principles of America.

We are experiencing a teachable moment about the potential power of a left/right coalition. The time-tested technique of "divide and conquer," used by the establishment to maintain power, breaks down when they cannot divide the common interests of people on the left and right.

These recent FBI raids didn't go unnoticed by bloggers on the right, as evidenced by a post on http://conservativetimes.org/?p=6431, which displays the range of conservative views. True, you have some on the right who are partisans who can take anything, "Obama eats vanilla ice cream", and twist it into an anti-Obama conspiracy. But they aren't principled conservatives and can be dismissed. However, others on the right get it.

The calculus is simple; combine the numbers of people on the left with the numbers on the right who share principled views on limits of government power and the FBI could be facing a potent backlash.

Right Wing Establshment Looking Down on Right Wing Populists

2010-09-23T05:14:00.000-07:00

Since including some clips of Glenn Greenwald in the last GDAE Podcast I've been digging a little deeper into his work. I came across the following and, though out of context, thought it worthy of sharing:

For as long as I can remember -- decades -- I've been hearing that the new incarnation of the GOP is far more radical and dangerous than anything that preceded it, and it tragically threatens to banish the previously Reasonable, Serious, Adult version of that party. That was certainly said about Ronald Reagan, as he argued for the elimination of the Department of Education, brought in cabinet officials like Ed Meese and Jim Watt, catered to Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority, and nominated people like Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. That was certainly said about the Gingrich-led GOP of the 90s, with their Contract with America, obsessions with law-enforced morality, and impeachment of Bill Clinton. And it was said over and over about the Bush/Cheney era that ushered in the Iraq War, the torture regime, broad executive lawlessness, and an endless roster of vapid, know-nothing ideologues and religious fanatics in the highest positions.

Given all that, I'd really like to hear what it is about Christine O'Donnell, or Sharron Angle, or any of these other candidates that sets them apart from decades of radical right-wing elected officials who came before them? They seem far more similar to me than different. When was this idealized era of GOP Adult Reasonableness?

The context was a blog post, entitled "The misguided reaction to Tea Party candidates," which explores how "ruling class" conservatives look down their collective noses at the likes of Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell. These elites claim that Palin and O'Donnell are particularly "radical;" however, Greenwald exposes the hypocrisy of "radicals" from the elite class labeling "radicals" from lesser class strata.

The excerpts above seemed to sum it up for me. It seems that the right wing radicals are slinging class warfare mud, but don't even realize it. Thanks to Glenn Greenwald for pointing it out.

Sources:

Salon dot Com, Glenn Greenwald Blog

First posted on GDAEman Blog.

GDAE Podcast - Episode 33

2010-09-18T19:06:00.000-07:00

Common Interests on the Left & Right - Part IV

Principled and Unprincipled Conservatives: Will Bunch, Author of "The Backlash: Right-Wing Radicals, High-Def Hucksters, and Paranoid Politics in the Age of Obama," on the Tea Party movement and the recent primary elections.

Principled and Unprincipled Liberals: Glenn Greenwald, former constitutional and civil rights litigator now writer and blogger.

Prosecute Bush... and Obama?: Ideological consistency of "principled" people on the Left and Right should reach the same conclusion about Bush and Obama administrations; they both abuse power. Glenn Greenwald commentary.

MUSIC: "You're American" by Brian Fox .

Play Episode 33 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 33.

Listen to Part III in the series, Episode 32:

Listen to Part II in the series, Episode 31:

Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:
GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 30 April 30, 2010 - Common Interests on the Right & Left
GDAE Podcast Episode 29 March 31, 2010 - Right Left Populist Unity?
GDAE Podcast Episode 28 March 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 27 February 21, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 26 February 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 25 January 19, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 24 December 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 23 November 29, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 22 November 11, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 21 October 18, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 20 October 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 19 September 27, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 18 September 16, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009

Power of Principled People on the Left and Right

2010-09-16T17:27:00.000-07:00

I continue to explore a subject that is summed up in the question,

"Do populists on the left and right have enough in common that they could join together and challenge the status quo establishment?"

I'm not talking about political party "bi-partisianship" in Washington. I'm referring to activists who advance positive change on the basis of promoting principled values and not necessarily through party politics.

The notion of "principled" seems to be a core concept that helps define what I'm talking about above. When I say "principled" I mean that they have consistent political views. Their ideology is consistent. Because, when somebody espouses what is supposed to be a core value, like saying that "freedom means minimal government intrusion in our lives," but then turns around and supports capital punishment at the hands of the same bumbling, corrupt, excessive government they want to limit.... I see it as inconsistent at best and perhaps even hypocritical.... they certainly aren't principled in their political views, because they are flip-flopping on their principles.

Since I come at this subject from the Left, my perspective is to ask the question,

"Which people on the right could be partners with people on the left?"

and up crops the answer,

"principled people who share common concerns about abuse of power in our country. People who are concerned that our democratic ideals are being subverted."

More on this:

Examples of Left/Right Collaboration to Secure Power for the People

The Revolutionary Mood

2010-09-14T18:36:00.000-07:00

Don't ya get the feeling we're heading toward a revolution? Everything is broken and everything is connected, so the only real fixes involve fixing everything.

Only half-measures are being taken at best, and we're so deep in the hole that full-measures might actually push us over the brink.

The nation is divided and the extreme right is.... giving me the willies... how 'bout you?

Then there are the other Americans, believing the evening news and, blaming themselves for making bad financial choices as if that explains the economic predicament.

Meanwhile, those in the establishment are enriching themselves, and gathering behind the humongous security network, in preparation for the coming debacle.

What did I forget? Oh yea. The match.

Source:

These thoughts paraphrase the thoughts of Czarist Prince Peter Kropotkin's "Spirit of Revolt" 1880.

Un-Tapped Power-Block

2010-09-05T07:00:00.000-07:00

Connecting the dots back to the last post,

People are rejecting both parties. The quick reversal of public support for the Democratic Party ... reveals something deeper. ... general repulsion of the establishment political parties by a large swath of the public has not yet become an accepted part of the mainstream narrative. ... This is in part because the establishment media controls the narrative to a large extent.

Which is where we left it.

The corporate media are intertwined with the political establishment that is being rejected by more and more people. The political establishment has become impotent and people don't want half-measures. The media, drinking from the same punch bowl of celebrity and money, do a dance of poking and prodding the political establishment, but they also employ half-measures; we don't get quality news.

It seems that polls suggest people reject the media establishment too, but then it also seems that people still tune in to it and parrot it. (Is there some TV-addiction involved?). Perhaps the growing media reform movement will become more popularized and create a ground swell of the public tuning out; effectively boycotting TV.

This scenario might be more plausible than first meets the eye. One reason is that media reform is a topic that appeals to both the left and right wings; it's a cross-over subject. That means there is a natural block of people whose numbers are larger than on other issues that split the left and right.

Other examples include opposition to the financial bailouts with no strings attached, the call to audit the Federal Reserve that gained a unanimous vote in the US Senate, numerous civil liberties issues like the government spying on US citizens and the erosion of Habeas Corpus, just to name a few. On these subjects, there is a history of the left and right coming together in a power-block.

I think this power-block, despite its natural instabilities, has significant untapped potential that could be organized.

I'll leave it there for now, but if you're curious about this topic, check out More on the Left and Right Joining Forces.

Obama's Bad Numbers: Sign of Something Deeper

2010-09-04T06:49:00.001-07:00

It's true that the poll numbers about mid-term election losses could be wrong; but for argument sake, lets assume that the majority of the voting public is now leaning towards the Republicans, or more accurately, leaning away from the Democrats. That's a quick turn-around just two years after removing the Republicans from power in the White House and Congress.

The quick reversal of public support for the Democratic Party is evidence that a large portion of common people have little allegiance to either party. No news there. However, the sense that people are leaning away from the Democrats after having just rejected the Republicans in 2008 says something deeper. People are rejecting both parties.

This also isn't news. Most of the news has been about Tea Party activists rejecting establishment Republican candidates; however, it wasn't long after the 2008 election of Barack Obama that people were predicting he would loose his base of support if he took the corporate track. Obama has taken the corporate track on the bail outs, health care and financial reform. Now the predictions are coming true, including Gallup poll figures showing a lack of enthusiasm among people registered as Democrats; Obama has lost many of his ground troops for getting out the vote.

The loss of Congressional seats by the dominant party during a mid-term elections is a decades old pattern and much has been said of this. What has not been said much is that this back-and-fourth is a sign of the public rejecting both establishment political parties, but having little other choice. This insight of a general repulsion of the establishment political parties by a large swath of the public has not yet become an accepted part of the mainstream narrative. This is in part because the establishment media controls the narrative to a large extent.

That's the setting, or the political landscape. Where do things go from here? That's a topic for another post.

Progressive Broadside of Obama's Mouthpiece

2010-08-13T18:31:00.000-07:00

Yes. Obama's mouthpiece, Robert Gibbs, recently stuck his foot in his mouth, thought it's not sure he realizes or acknowledges it. I'm speaking of the following, from the GLH Blog:

The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.”

The progressive GLH Blog elaborates on why he's pissed off at

'Barack Bush's flunky Robert Gibbs'

in "Barack Bush's Toady Attacks Single Payer".

More on the Left & Right Joining Forces

2010-08-13T03:50:00.000-07:00

Maybe you've experienced this. You take interest in something you've not noticed before, say a car of a particular color. Then you start noticing this thing all over the place when you didn't before.

Maybe that's what's going on with me an the thesis I'm pursuing about the potential power of principled people on the left & right joining forces to challenge the power and policy of the establishment. I've been addressing this topic in the past few episodes of GDAE Podcast:

Part 1: (20-min abridged) - The Thesis of the Left & Right Joining Together. Motivations and Defining the Thesis. Real-world example: Challenging the Consolidation of Media Ownership.

Part 2: (30-min) - More than a Hypothesis: Real-world examples of Left/Right Joint Efforts to Challenge the Establishment. The call to "Audit the Federal Reserve."

Part 3: (30-min) - More Real-world examples. The late-1800s Populist Movement & the current movement calling for strict adherence to 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Now I'm starting to see more real-world cases and other people observing this social phenomenon. The Tea Party movement, for the most part, is NOT a part of this left/right coming together. That's in part because it's partly co opted by corporate sponsors and demagogues like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck (tho the concerns of its diverse membership are similar).

This is also not about establishment conservatives who reject the Tea Party, or , or at least hold them at a distance. Tho, there can be some intersection these principled establishment conservatives too. One example is the conservative and liberal lawyers who challenged the constitutionality of California's Anti-gay marriage Proposition 8. (The two lawyers were conservative Ted Olsen and liberal David Boies, the two of whom battled each other in the Bush v. Gore 2000 election coup). But lets face it, Olsen & Boies are part of the establishment mindset.

It's hard to pin down this phenomenon, in part because it is diverse and complex. But, when you hear the examples and discussions on the previous podcasts, it starts to take shape. I'll be expanding on more examples in the August GDAE Podcast, so stay tuned.

A Sense of Desperation

2010-08-03T01:36:00.001-07:00

As we hear that the Obama Justice Department reached settlement with Goldman Sachs there are many reactions. My reaction is that the establishment is feeling desperate, fearful of a teetering capitalist system that cannot tolerate the implications of an honest judgment.

Goldman Sachs designed an investment package of subprime mortgage loans that was highly likely to fail, invested in its failure, but sold it to others as a good investment. They get caught, and by most accounts by analysts who understand these things, the record Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) penalty of $550 million is well below the $1 Billion that was expected as a baseline for settling this fraud case. But you don't have to take the word of the analysts, the reaction of Wall Street was a sigh of relief expressed in terms of a rise in Goldman's market value that greatly exceeded the penalty amount.

This is just one example of many in which the establishment's fear of a teetering economic system has led to tepid, dishonest policy. The inability for the Washington establishment to consider a single-payer system is another example. We're told that there simply wasn't the political will, and that the insurance and other health related industries were "too strong." I suspect the real reason is that the capitalist economic system is too weak to endure a transition from the current inefficient, paper-pushing health care system to a more efficient one.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

Source:

Cross-posted at GDAE Podcast.

GDAE Podcast Episode 32

2010-07-25T14:05:00.001-07:00

Common Interests on the Left & Right - Part III

Left & Right Populists: The American Populist movement of the 1800s with Jim Hightower (Bill Moyer's Journal).
Left & Right United: The Tenth Amendment with Michael Boldin (Mother Jones Magazine).
Green Economy: Energy efficiency and jobs (Demand Side Podcast).
MUSIC: Brazilita, a sweet little version of the song Brazil.

Play Episode 32 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 32.

Listen to Part II in the series, Episode 31:

Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:
GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 30 April 30, 2010 - Common Interests on the Right & Left
GDAE Podcast Episode 29 March 31, 2010 - Right Left Populist Unity?
GDAE Podcast Episode 28 March 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 27 February 21, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 26 February 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 25 January 19, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 24 December 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 23 November 29, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 22 November 11, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 21 October 18, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 20 October 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 19 September 27, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 18 September 16, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009

A Desperate Establishment?

2010-07-22T20:31:00.000-07:00

As we hear that the Obama Justice Department reached settlement with Goldman Sachs, there are many reactions. My reaction is that the establishment is feeling desperate, fearful of a teetering capitalist system that cannot tolerate the implications of an honest judgment.

Goldman Sachs designed an investment package of subprime mortgage loans that was highly likely to fail, invested in its failure, but sold it to others as a good investment. They get caught, and by most accounts by analysts who understand these things, the record Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) penalty of $550 million is well below the $1 Billion that was expected as a baseline for settling this fraud case. But you don't have to take the word of the analysts, the reaction of Wall Street was a sigh of relief expressed in terms of a rise in Goldman's market value that greatly exceeded the penalty amount.

This is just one example of many in which the establishment's fear of a teetering economic system has led to tepid, dishonest policy. The inability for the Washington establishment to consider a single-payer system is another example. We're told that there simply wasn't the political will, and that the insurance and other health related industries were "too strong." I suspect the real reason is that the capitalist economic system is too weak to endure a transition from the current inefficient, paper-pushing health care system to a more efficient one.

I'm sure there are many other examples.

Cross-posted on GDAEman Blog

Establishment Slap-down of Torture Investigations

2010-07-21T03:19:00.001-07:00

Recently, on this blog, we've talked about the principled left and right uniting to challenge the power of the establishment. Some are wary of this notion.

However, the left & right members of the establishment do this all the time, often without being deliberate about it. A classic example is how the Democratic and Republican parties cooperate to exclude third parties by creating legal barriers to entry and other tactics, like exclusion from national presidential debates.

And, when the left and right wing establishment figures are both guilty of similar crimes, they tag-team to protect each other. I suspect we're seeing this happen with torture.

The myth is that George Bush dragged the nation across the line into the dark world of using torture. His only difference was one of degree and of admission. The reality is that torture has been used in the past under presidencies of both parties. The dirty wars of the 1970s & 1980s, for which the Salvador Option of the Iraq war is named, is a classic example; the CIA was deeply involved in those civil wars of the oligarchies against their own people who were demanding more democracy (threat of communism was mostly just an excuse for the violence against the people*).

The idea for this blog post came to me when I heard** that the Obama administration had appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate human rights lawyers who had uncovered CIA involvement in torture during the Bush administration (See: Fitzgerald "Irony" or "Poke-in-the-eye"?). Fitzgerald was made famous for investigating the Bush administration's outing of CIA asset Valerie Plame.

Can't have the rif-raf getting too close to the truth on torture.

* Side Note: Another myth about torture is that it is solely used as part of the interrogation process. The reality is that it is used to strike fear and suppress the opposition.

Source:

Mother Jones Magazine, July/Aug, 2020.

The Right, the Left and the 10th Amendment

2010-07-19T07:35:00.000-07:00

File this one under "Establishment gets Nervous when Left & Right Unite on 10th Amendment."

The July/August 2010 edition of Mother Jones magazine has a short piece entitled "If at First you Don't Secede," but what catches your eye is the cartoon graphic of three guys standing arm in arm. The guy on the far left, the placement is no mistake I'm sure, is a hippy with a head-band, long hair, goatee, rainbow tie-dyed shirt who is giving the peace sign. The guy on the right, is a jug-headed, broad-shouldered, buzz-cut with a ball cap on wearing camo pants, a T-shirt with the rattle-snake & "Don't tread on me" holding what looks like an M-16 machine gun with a scope. .... and who is that between them? A native of Wisconsin named Michael Boldin, founder of the California "Tenth Amendment Center."

OK.... A lefty peace-nic, a hard-core right-winger and this guy in the middle. LOOKs like grist for the thesis that GDAE Podcast has been exploring the past couple of months.

Mother Jones describes Boldin as being inspired by the likes of Michael Moore and a reader of .... Mother Jones magazine. He got politically active as an opponent of Bush's invasion of Iraq. Now Michael Boldin is finding common cause with people on the right.

The brief July/Aug Mother Jones piece describes Boldin giving a talk at a conservative convention in Georgia last February celebrating the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution. That's the one that simply says that if the Constitution didn't give a particular power to the federal government, then it either resides with states or the people: That is, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people."

Aside:
It's worth saying that drilling down to the US Constitution is a recurring theme of the Left/Right thesis being explored by this podcast. That's because discussions about the fundamentals often lead back to the foundational law, that is, the US Constitution or state constitutions.

So, Michael Boldin gives this speech in Georgia that exposes run-away power at the federal level, some of it wielded by corporate agents that have wrested control of the levers of government I might add.

In his talk, Boldin shares the famous story of a depression era farmer who was ordered by the US Government to destroy 12 acres of grain in violation of a federal government cap on grain production. The grain production cap was intended to help stop the plummeting grain prices by restricting supply .... that basic supply & demand economics thing. The concept was logical, but the federal government's implementation was a bit over-zealous in the case of Roscoe Filburn after whom a famous Supreme Court decision is named.

The Supreme Court sided with the federal government... Michael Boldin argues that this Supreme Court decision conflicts with the 10th Amendment. My view of this is that the Supreme Court is a creature of the elite establishment, an establishment that inclines toward both royalist and corporate elements... the contemporary term for "royalist" would be "Executivist," i.e., those who promote giving power to the executive... the president. It's the same bloodline as the people who sided with the British crown, or if not the "British" crown, an American crown rather than a president who's powers were "checked" and "balanced" by other power centers.... like the people acting through the House of Representatives.

So, as an agent of the establishment, it isn't a surprise that the the Supreme Court sided with the establishment in the Filburn Depression era case. This general insight about the Supreme Court is a shared view among the left & right wing people in the thesis I'm exploring. I wouldn't say, however, that there is agreement on this particular issue of Filburn, but it is a topic where principled people on the left and right can discuss and learn from each other in a civil way that has important connections with other issues that need to be debated.

During his talk, Michale Boldin said,

Whether it's marijuana, gay marriage, health care, the size of your toilet.... We demand adherence to the Constitution, every time, every issue, no excuses, no exceptions!

Apparently the crowed gave a nice 'round of applause for that line.

Interviewed right after his talk, Boldin was pumped-up saying,

I was actually able to say the words "gay marriage" in Georgia and no one booed.

Mother Jones reports that "A woman in a militia T-shirt came over to compliment him. After she walked away, Boldin shook his head, saying

I don't even know how to touch that one.

I know how to touch it. It's just another validation of the the left/right thesis ... there is a hunger for honesty among active Americans on the left and right... an honesty that exposes the wealth and power hoarding of a small minority of Americans... an honesty that exposes the way this minority successfully rigs the system that they like to call a democracy. That hunger for honesty is going to expose the likes of Glenn Beck and many others when the sleeping giant of the principled right and left leaning Americans re-discover that they actually have a lot of things in common.

Corporate Charters Should Not be Contracts

2010-07-08T15:49:00.000-07:00

So what? Who cares about "corporate charters" in the first place? BOOORRINGG !

True, but imagine a world in which we the people had control over corporations. Under our thumb. Whoa!

Corporations have power to literally get away with murder, because so much of their "rights" are protected by the US Constitution, among other defining laws. An example is that the US Supreme Court determined, in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), that a corporate charter is a "contract." This gives corporations contract powers that, like "property rights," are protected by the US Constitution.

The government (read "the people") are not allowed to meddle in the private affairs of contracts. This corporate contract shield is greater than the corporate shield that limits liabilities of the humans running and profitting from the corporate shell wrapped around a "business" enterprise... more likely these days a scam called a business.

Corporations are chartered to exist by states. These states, like Delaware, or some Caribbean nation, want the tax revenues that come with issuing corporate charters. That's because corporations make their headquarters in the place that issues their charter. So, to attract "business," states and Caribbean nations compete with each other to issue corporate charters. To attract wanna-be corporations, there is a race to the bottom in how lax their charters can be to benefit corporations. These states write corporate charters that are very favorable to corporations, but not favorable for we the people.

For example, lax charters can help corporations hide records from the public, making it almost impossible for the public to even know what a corporation is doing, let alone influence that activity if it is damaging to society.... like that never happens.

In sum, corporate charters, which give birth to corporations, are protected by the US Constitution as a "contract," which gives corporations way too much power. We need to re-define corporate charters to be something less than a contract.

Dismalcrats and Corupliklans

2010-07-07T04:08:00.000-07:00

The GLH Blog reminds us of Cindy Sheehan, the on-going wars, the status of the peace movement and the entrenched establishment. We're reminded of how Cindy Sheehan has been shunned by

liberals too tethered to the Democrats [who] are ignoring her or resenting her for speaking out against politicians, like President Obama, who go against the values and policies supported by grassroots Democrats.

After lamenting the way outspoken progressives are mistreated by calculating Democratic Party bloggers and others, he points out what a lot of people know, both liberal and conservative, because they are living it:

Meanwhile, the brunt of suffering under the healthcare system and the crap economy is being inflicted on the middle class and the poor. The rich are doing fabulously well. The Democratic politicians are doing precious little [to] change this.

The Dismalcrats and Corupliklans are driving the principled people from both parties. Tea party aside, I'm becoming convinced that principled people on the Left & Right are joining forces, by necessity, to challenge establishment corruption of our democratic institutions. It's already happening:

Among other things lately, I've been working on a series of audio podcasts about the Left & Right joining forces. Check'em out on "GDAE Podcast":

Part 1: (20-min abridged) Part 1: 20-min abridged podcast

Part 2: Part 2: 30-min podcast

Podcatching:

I know it's an out-moded term, "podcatching," but it captures the essence of "subscribing" to a podcast. But, there are many ways to "catch" podcast. Check out How to Subscribe to a Podcast if you're curious.

Source:

Godless Liberal Homo Blog: Cindy Sheehan Asks: Where Have All The Peaceniks Gone?

Financial Underhaul

2010-06-26T10:27:00.000-07:00

The Yahoo! News headline "Bank stocks soar on financial regulation agreement" pretty much says it all. We are a corporate state. Reclaiming the power of the people over the corporate state is the next major multi-generational struggle on par with overcoming slavery, child labor standards and women's suffrage.

"They come out of this big-time winners," Bob Froehlich, senior managing director at Hartford Financial Services, said of financial companies. "Two years later, people will look back and say 'My gosh, nothing really changed.'"

Democrats in charge... Republicans in charge... "My gosh, there's really no difference."

Revoke BP's Corporate Charter

2010-06-15T17:22:00.000-07:00

Surely you've heard about British Petroleum's track record from the British colonial days through a litany of felony crimes. Being a "corporation" a privilege, not a right.

By now you also know about corporations being defined as "persons" by a corrupt robber baron era US Supreme Court. So, if a person is a serial felon, including negligent homicide, they "go away," usually to prison. They can no long do business, or anything else in society for that matter.

It's time to seriously consider taking the corporate privilege away from BP. And, in these days of internet activism, there is a Facebook campaign to revoke BP America's corporate charter.

Details here: http://bit.ly/9djBTb

Join the "Revoke BP's corporate charter" (facebook) group .

Sources:

The Punk Patriot.

More on the Left & Right Joining Forces

2010-06-04T04:10:00.000-07:00

The following are talking points that I recently used when calling in to the radio show "WakeUp AM" on Portsmouth, NH Community Radio.

Fostering people on the left and right to work together on common interests....

It's a strategy of recognizing the power in numbers that is within grasp of "principled" people on the Left and on the right to challenge the power of the minority establishment to bring about a more perfect democracy.

This is NOT about political party politics, creating a third party, or seeking more "bi-partisanship" in Washington, which we know is hopeless. This is about populist-level advocacy, a true grass-roots demand for the ideals of democracy, ideal that are common to principled people the left and the right.

Tea Party is generally NOT where you find these principled people; they too often follow the lead of corporate-funded groups like American for Prosperity. They too often parrot the message of "government is bad," rather than the message of "Make the 'government of the people' work FOR the people" and not for the get-rich-quick crowd of Wall Street, and so-called "corporate America," with their corporate headquarters located off-shore in the Bahamas showing no allegiance to the Country.

There are exceptions in the Tea Party, of course, like the woman interviewed at a tea party rally who said she feels the government should help the less fortunate and not to cut the salaries of teachers.

There is common ground on Important subjects like protection of our privacy and civil liberties in general, solving the "too big to fail" problem that leads to tax payer bailouts of banks and insurance corporations... concerns about the excessive power of the Federal Reserve and the fiat money banking system in general... concerns about politicians and regulatory agencies that are effectively controlled by lobbyists who steer policies and campaign money while making big bucks as Washington lobbyists.

We can cite real examples of this union between populist left & right working:

- the 2003 push back against the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, attempting to allow more consolidation of media ownership among the monolithic corporations.

- the recent Senate unanimous vote for Bernie Sanders' amendment to audit the Federal Reserve Bank.

- And recently, on your last show, you mentioned the conservative bloggers, military guys I think, who are supporting the repeal of don't ask, don't tell policies regarding gays in the military.

So, this isn't simply strategic theory...

GDAE Podcast - Episode 31

2010-05-31T08:18:00.001-07:00

Second in a series.... (See link to abridged Part I below)

Common Interests on the Left & Right - Part II

Left & Right Populists Working Together: to fix our flawed democracy

What is a "principled" conservative: Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine has some thoughts

Audit the Fed: Bernie Sanders leads the Left & Right to push for Senate Unanimous vote on Amendment to "audit the Fed."

Bush war-crimes-Prosecution: Law Professor Francis Boyle describes the complaint he filed in January 2010 with the International Criminal Court

MUSIC: Yankee Network, out of Baltimore, "6 at 65".

Play Episode 31 from this page:

Click to Download Episode 31.

Listen to Part I in the series, Episode 30, (20-minute abridged version):

Previous Episodes & 60-Sec Promo:

GDAE Podcast 60-Second Promo

GDAE Podcast Episode 30 April 30, 2010 - Common Interests on the Right & Left
GDAE Podcast Episode 29 March 31, 2010 - Right Left Populist Unity?
GDAE Podcast Episode 28 March 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 27 February 21, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 26 February 7, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 25 January 19, 2010
GDAE Podcast Episode 24 December 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 23 November 29, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 22 November 11, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 21 October 18, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 20 October 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 19 September 27, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 18 September 16, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 17 August 31, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 16 July 30, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 15 June 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 14 June 10, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 13 May 22, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 12May 5, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 11 April 24, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 10 April 9, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 9March 28, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 8 March 15, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 7 March 1, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 6 February 17, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 5 February 6, 2009
GDAE Podcast Episode 4 January 24, 2009

Sources:

GDAE Podcast: www.GDAEman.com

Wikipedia and Unprincipled Right

2010-05-24T19:27:00.001-07:00

We all know some people on the "right" who we might call "principled." They hold to a value and apply it consistently, regardless of Party politics pressure. Maybe it's you, or a relative, a friend, co-workers or even someone in the corporate media. Ron Paul, a US Congressman, is a classic, if not extreme, example... and there are other less notable examples.

There is Walter B. Jones, a US congress member made famous for coining the phrase "freedom fries" as an insult to the French for not getting on board quickly with the Iraq war. He now regrets saying that.

Joness represents an area of North Carolina that has a sizable military population. His about-face reflects an undercurrent of honest feelings in the military communities. Walter Jones is now a vocal critic of the Iraq war.

The other conservative faction is the "unprincipled" right... they represent a different color in the "conservative" spectrum. We know them too: The Republican water-carriers and self-promoters like Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Bill Kristol, and Rush Limbaugh, who admits he carries water for the Republicans:

On the November 8 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh claimed to "feel liberated" by Democratic victories in the House and Senate on November 7 because he is "no longer going to have to carry the water for people who I don't think deserve having their water carried."

But this is all a long-winded way of being able to say that the vocal unprincipled right is misdirecting the conservative base when they tell the base not to use Wikipedia. We all know it can have significant flaws on a particular subject, but the majority of the time, it answers your question or directs you to the answer. Adding "wiki" to your search can be a powerful information tool that gives you an information-access advantage. Conservatives who dismiss Wikipedia might just be giving themselves a handicap.

Oxford Dictionary editors

What do you call it?

2010-05-19T04:39:00.000-07:00

"What do you call it,"

asks Miss Petowker

"when lords ... beat policmen, and play at coaches with other people's money, and all that sort of thing?... Ah! aristocratic."

From Charles Dickens's Nicholas Nickleby, originally published as a serial from 1838 to 1839.

BuBois on the Two Parties

2010-04-20T04:24:00.000-07:00

And why should we "challenge the establishment?" For the same reasons as back in 1922.

The two parties have combined against us to nullify our power by a ‘gentleman's agreement' of non-recognition, no matter how we vote ... May God write us down as asses if ever again we are found putting our trust in either the Republican or the Democratic Parties." --W.E.B. DuBois (1922)

Source:

Thanks to M. Badgett for sending me the quote.

Bruising Commentary on Obama & Dysfunctional Dems

2010-04-19T19:21:00.000-07:00

The following is a from Godless Liberal Homo Blog, word for word, I couldn't have said it better. File this one under, Doh!

Ted Rall's syndicated column on Obama out Republicaning the Goppers is one of the best summaries of what has been wrong with this administration to date. The entire column is worth a read, but the comments on the wealthcare bill are of special interest.

Obama's revamp of healthcare, on the other hand, goes too far, perverting the liberal desire to provide healthcare for all Americans into a transfer of wealth from poor to rich that the hard right never dreamed of.

Buying into the classic, flawed, American assumption that a bad system can't get worse (ask the Iraqis and Afghans), ObamaCare entrusts 30 million new customers, to the tune of roughly ten grand a year each, to the tender mercies of private insurance companies.

ObamaCare pours hundreds of billions of dollars, some from taxpayers, the rest from poor people, into the gaping coffers of giant corporations. Once people find themselves paying even more for visits to the same crappy doctors and hospitals they can't afford now, they'll hold the Dems responsible at the polls. If Republicans stopped to think, they'd love it.

And if Democrats stopped to think, they'd hate it.

Some of us have stopped to think, and we do hate it.

The rightist policies of the Obama administration are going to cause some Democrats to vote Green at least some of the time for years. However, that won't be the biggest impact on the party. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and their minions are doing a really effective job in persuading Democratic core constituencies that it doesn't matter much who you vote for. This means lower Democratic turnout and less volunteer time. The couch is a more effective rival than third parties, at least so far, and the DINOs in power are giving the couch a huge electoral advantage.

The Democrats are digging themselves in deeper and deeper, and they are too foolish and too bought to see it.

Source: Godless Liberal Homo Blog, "Ted Rall Nails it on Wealthcare", April 19, 2010.

Are we Stuck in Status Quo Due to Insanity?

2010-04-10T07:19:00.000-07:00

We all gripe about the two-party system that caters to the establishment, thereby entrenching the status quo. That is, we gripe about our pathetic system that we're told is a "democracy," or a "republic" by purists, yet the "viable" candidates are shills for the corporate establishment, regardless of Party.

I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Albert Einstein, a definition of insanity:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. -- Albert Einstein, (attributed)

It's with these thoughts that, back in 2009, I started another blog entitled, "Challenge the Establishment".

More recently, on GDAE Podcast Episode 29, and in a blog post entitled, "A New Politics", I've begun exploring the question, stated in several ways,

Can principled people on the left and right unite to recapture our democratic institutions from the minority establishment?

Many people react to this with a rolling of the eyes, and thoughts of Sarah Palin in mind... but she's not "principled."

I'm not talking about "uniting" in terms electoral party politics, e.g., a third party. Rather, uniting on issue advocacy, with the result that law makers, and administrations, that don't heed the unified voice of the people will pay a steep price.

Surely I'm not alone in this thinking. There is evidence of the left & right uniting, to greater or lesser success:

Challenging Clinton's 1995 Anti-terrorism legislation on civil liberties grounds.
Turning back 2003 media regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that would have allowed more consolidation of ownership (and power).
Challenging the recent Supreme Court decision in Citizens United? Surveys show vast majorities of the general public, left and right, oppose the decision*.

So, in an effort to break from the path of insanity, I'm engaging in this exploration. I invite others to join me, and point me to people who might be further along this path.

* A February poll by ABC News/Washington Post found that 80 percent of Americans oppose the Supreme Court ruling on Citizens United, including 73 percent of self-described conservatives. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, at 80-years of age, hit the speaking circuit to denounce the decision due in great part to concern about it's effect on State judicial elections.

Sources:

ABC News poll on Citizens United, Summary & Link to Poll Questions & Results.

Art: Break the Mould by lex-strat

Originally published on GDAEman Blog.

Same Sentiments in UK

2010-04-07T17:36:00.001-07:00

The sentiment that led me to create this blog is widely held. A recent post on Falling on a Bruise Blog provides an example.

The post kicks off with:

The Queen has spoken and the UK election is finally underway...

Of course, reality quickly sets in:

By nature i'm a Labour voter but since the Iraq War, i can't bring myself to vote for them until all remnants of that tainted cabinet have been expunged. It really irks me how they speak out afterwards but went along with it at the time.

Then, he closes with a sentiment that I felt when I started this blog:

Democracy sucks when the only choices are between continuing to get shafted by one guy or to get shafted by the new guy.

Sources:

Falling on a Bruise Blog, UK Election Decisions, April 7, 2010.

Ah Yes, Healthcare "Reform"

2010-04-06T17:23:00.000-07:00

OK, I'm not a total idiot. I know Rahm Emanuel's healthcare "reform" has some benefits, like allowing young adults to stay on their parents' plan longer, making it illegal to deny insurance on the basis of a pre-existing condition, etc. But it this healthcare "reform" is of, by and for the corporate wing of the Democratic Party. Thus I echo another take on the "sell out" that we call Obama's Healthcare Reform of 2010.

Walled-In Pond Blog itemizes the TOP 10 Ways The Parasites Will Game The Law:
(call them loop holes)

1. Raising premiums

2. Kicking people out for pre-existing conditions

3. Changing your insurance plan

4. Making life more difficult for doctors

5. Tightening up internal practices

6. Marketing only to healthy people

7. Re-label current overhead expenses as health care

8. Taking full advantage of the unhealthy behavior premium

9. Charging old people as much as they can

10. Lobbying to make the most of the loopholes that exist and create others

See Expanded Post on each of Above.

Sources:

Via Kos, and from Froomkin (HuffPost) and Meg Carpentier (WashInde)

The Downsides of Obama Healthcare "Reform"

2010-04-05T04:32:00.001-07:00

The GLH Blog has tallied the many down-sides of the recently adopted health care law, under the banner Obama Sprinkled His Iowa Wealthcare Speech With Lies.

For example, Lie #1: "If people like their plan, they will keep their plan."

First, "Medicare Advantage" (the HMO version of Medicare) will face dramatic reductions in services because of funding cuts.

Second, "People With Mediocre Plans, which the corporate media call "Cadillac Care" (they must really, really hate Cadillacs) will face cutbacks in care, higher premiums, and higher copays when the excise taxes on those plans go into effect in 2018.

Then there is Lie #2: "The days of the insurance industry running roughshod over the American people are over."

First, The insurance companies and HMOs wrote this bill. It's filled with their loopholes.

Second, ever try to sue a health care company... while you're sick? Do you think government regulators are going to do the job for you? Think again.

And there are more:

Lie #3: "And so if you already have insurance, this reform will make it more secure and more affordable."

Lie #4: "And costs will come down for families, businesses, and the federal government, reducing our deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next two decades."

Deception #5: "And I want seniors to know: despite what some have said, these reforms will not cut your guaranteed benefits."

Lies #6 & #7 in One Sentence:
"Once this reform is implemented, health insurance exchanges will be created, a competitive marketplace where uninsured people and small businesses will finally be able to purchase affordable, quality insurance."

Given the risk of the Palin wing of the Republican Party lurking in the shadows, seeking to overthrow Obama, some might bristle at a strategy of hammering on Obama's healthcare "reform." The GLH bogger sums up his view this way:

Politics isn't team sports. Policies have very real impacts on peoples' lives, and that has to be taken a lot more seriously than many blogs on the left are doing so far. We need to stop cheering on the donkeys vs. the elephants and pay attention to what's actually going on.

FULL POST

Source:

Godless Liberal Homo Blog, April 4, 2010.

GDAE Podcast - Episode 29

2010-03-31T05:06:00.000-07:00

Can Left & Right Unite?

Today's Question: Would it be possible for principled people on the left and right join forces to challenge the establishment?
Relfecting on the rising right wing populist movement that gravitated to McCain/Palin rallies in 2008, held tea bag rallies, and disrupted town hall meetings on healthcare.
Home grown Music: Voice of a nine-year-old and rough rendition of "Sliding Down"...
Prosecute Bush: "Arrest Blair dot Com"... as in British prime minister Tony Blair?

A New Politics

2010-03-29T19:51:00.000-07:00

After a discussion about commonalities on the left and right of the political spectrum, a friend of mine summed up a compelling new politics. The "party" of Principled People versus what he called demagogues... it's not about "left" and "right."

Aside: I think he used the term "demagogues" for effect and simply meant "unprincipled" people. Admittedly, on controversial issues the notion of one's "principles" breaks down; the subject of abortion is one such example. But one can recognize principled people who conduct themselves in a fair and honest way.

Today's political situation is in flux and this "new politics," were it to manifest itself in electoral party politics, would be temporary. It would be an instance of moderate elements of the populist left and right asserting control to refresh a corrupted political system. Common people on the left and right recognize the corrupting influence of big money in both legislative and judicial elections.

Other areas of common interest between common people on the left and right include:

Concern about...

Consolidation of wealth perpetuated by Wall Street's culture of anything goes .

Consolidated control of the mass media

Consolidation of corporate control ... Big Business that outsources jobs and makes it impossible for small businesses to compete fairly.... monopolies, cartels, oligopolies.

We're concerned with what some call "activist judges"... like those Supreme Court judges who recently decided that corporations should have MORE influence over the political electoral process when the Citizens United case before them should have been decided on more narrow grounds.

We share a concern about police brutality

In other words, we share concerns about the consolidation of power among a small sector of our society.

We didn't like the bank bailouts that perpetuated this power when we had a chance to put the bankers in their place.

We believe in national sovereignty, something we give up with so-called "free trade" agreements written by transnational corporate lawyers.

We share opposition to warrantless wire tapping and other privacy invasions of the USA PATRIOT Act

We're mutually concerned about the erosion of of Posse Comitatus Act, which places limits on the US military's use of police powers for domestic law enforcement.

Similarly, we share concerns about the CIA conducting domestic operations contrary to its founding charter.

We share concerns about joblessness and homelessness

We share the concern that the two major political parties are increasingly out of touch with real concerns of the people, in part because we recognize they have been captured by a dysfunctional political system corrupted by the consolidated power referenced earlier.

Sources:

GDAE Podcast Episode 29