Challenge the Establishment: establishment

Showing posts with label establishment. Show all posts

Monday, June 8, 2015

George Carlin Challenged the Establishment

A reflection on comedian George Carlin challenging the establishment, brought to you by Kingdom Economics blog.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Purpose of the Economy

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.

Saturday, February 12, 2011

AP Removes Reference to "Establishment" from Musharraf Article

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.

Friday, November 5, 2010

2010 Mid-Term Challenges Establishment

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.

Friday, October 1, 2010

GDAE Podcast - Episode 34

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):

Sunday, September 5, 2010

Un-Tapped Power-Block

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.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Obama's Bad Numbers: Sign of Something Deeper

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.

Friday, August 13, 2010

More on the Left & Right Joining Forces

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.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

A Sense of Desperation

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.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Establishment Slap-down of Torture Investigations

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.

Saturday, April 10, 2010

Are we Stuck in Status Quo Due to Insanity?

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.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Michael Moore St. Patrick's Day Broadside

The working class people who believe the propaganda against Michael Moore should examine the source of that propaganda... fact is, Michael Moore is on our side, the side of working people.

This is a long one from Michael, so I'll skip to the end in the spirit of this blog, which challenges both the Democratic and Republican establishment, among other status quo elites.

Thank you, Democrats. I'll sleep better knowing that you're looking out for all of us.

Yea, right. He's being facetious here.

The Green They Steal, The Greed They Wear

By Michael Moore

March 17, 2010

Friends,

It was amazing. Every story on the front page of Monday's New York Times told the story of the Age of Greed during which a system known as capitalism is slowly, but surely, killing us:

Insurance company greed: "Millions Spent to Sway Democrats on Health Care"

War profiteers: "Contractors Tied to Effort to Track and Kill Militants"

There's no profit in repairing our infrastructure: "Repair Costs Daunting as Water Lines Crumble"

China, the bank: "China Uses Rules on Global Trade to Its Advantage"

You mean NAFTA didn't improve life in Mexico: "Two Drug Slayings in Mexico Rock US Consulate"

What happens when Big Food profits from hurting kids: "Forget Goofing Around: Recess Has New Boss"

There's now a daily parade of news like this -- well, not really "news," more like the media division of large corporations shoving your face into the dirt that is your life. You already know the schools are a disaster and the war is a boon for the Halliburtons and a bust for you. You don't need a newspaper to tell you the roads and electrical lines and the local sewage plant is in miserable disrepair.

And by now you've figured out that you don't really have any say in this, that what we call the "democratic process" is mostly a sham, pretty words that get repeated in the hopes we will all still fall for it. But the fix is in and we don't fall for it anymore. Admit it: Wall Street owns "our" Congress lock, stock and big barrel o' campaign cash. You want a say in this? Well, I don't see you on the Forbes 400, so shut the f@*& up and go fetch me another bottle of bubbly.

Within days, the House of Representatives will vote to pass the Senate health care "reform" bill. This bill is a joke. It has NOTHING to do with "health care reform." It has EVERYTHING to do with lining the pockets of the health insurance industry. It forces, by law, every American who isn't old or destitute to buy health insurance if their boss doesn't provide it. What company wouldn't love the government forcing the public to buy that company's product?! Imagine a bill that ordered every citizen to buy the extended warranty on all their appliances? Imagine a law that made it illegal not to own an iPhone? Or how 'bout I get a law passed that makes it compulsory for every American to go see my next movie? Woo-hoo! Who wouldn't love a sweet set-up like this windfall?

Well, the insurance companies -- get this -- don't like the Democrats' bill! That alone should be reason enough to vote for it.

Now, you would think these thieves would love this bill -- but they are actually fighting it. Why? Because it doesn't give them ONE HUNDRED PERCENT of the what they want. It only gives them... 90%! YOU SEE, pure greed demands all or nothing.

The insurance industry hates this bill because it puts a few minor restrictions on them. Six months after its passage they won't be able to deny children coverage if they have a pre-existing condition. How awful! Government interference! SOCIALISM!

But, hey, they'll still be able to deny these children's parents coverage until 2014! So if a parent gets sick and dies in the next four years, I'm sure someone will step in and raise these already-insured orphans.

And how big will the fines be if the insurance companies do deny someone coverage for having a pre-existing condition? Are you sitting down? A hundred dollars a day! That's it! So if you're the insurance company, and Judy is a customer of yours, and Judy needs an operation that will cost $100,000, what do you do? You take the fine! Let's say Judy lives another year after you've sentenced her to death, your $100-a-day fine will only cost you $36,500! That's a savings of $63,500! And trust me, my friends, that's EXACTLY what's going to happen.

There are some good things in this bill. Parents will be able to keep their children on their policy until the kids turn 26. A few things like that. So, yes, pass that.

But don't insult me and 300 million Americans by calling this "health care reform." At least you've stopped calling it "universal health care." We will not have universal health care or anything close to it. I wish the president and the Democratic leadership would just stand up and say, "We're sorry, America. We didn't get the job done you sent us here to do. We're weak and scared and unable to communicate the simplest of messages to the American people. Therefore, our bill will guarantee that 12 million of you will still have NO health insurance. And that's because we have decided to leave the greedy, private insurance industry in charge of our system. Forgive us for this and for continuing to allow profit to be the determining factor as to whether a patient gets the help she or he needs."

Please, Democrats -- just say that -- then pass this poor excuse of a bill. Pass it because, if President Obama takes a fall on this one, I don't know if he'll be able to get back up. And then NOTHING will get done. We can't have that. (And thank you Dennis Kucinich for hanging in there right up to the end and being the only one out of the 435 members to speak the awful truth.)

On the front page of yesterday's New York Times, the dateline was, sadly, once again, "Flint, Michigan." The story was about how doctors are no longer accepting Medicaid patients. Which means tens of thousands of poor can no longer go to the doctor. Last year, the State of Michigan also prohibited doctors from accepting Medicaid patients who had anything wrong with their vision, their hearing, their feet or their teeth. In a 16-county area northwest of Flint, there will soon be not one single hospital that will allow you to give birth there if you're on Medicaid. The official unemployment rate in Flint is 27% (unofficially, closer to 40%).

This is an American tragedy. And, as I've warned you for years, this tsunami is heading your way -- if it's not there already.

I've just turned on my new iPhone and it informs me that it has "apps" it would like to suggest I buy. One is called "Scanner." It will allow me to listen in on police scanners anywhere across the country. I buy the app. I see that the Flint police scanner is part of this. I turn it on out of curiosity. And this is what I hear, at one in the morning: A woman is being beaten by her husband... A home invasion is taking place ("16-year-old black male, wearing a white skull cap")... A child has been missing since noon today... Another woman is being beaten by her boyfriend... A diabetic, obese man is having trouble breathing and needs to be rushed to the hospital (there will be three more of these obese diabetics in the hours to come; the entire town is ill)... One more woman calling, screaming for help, "officers urged to use caution..."

...And on and on and on. This is what I have listened to before going to bed. I am filled with despair and helplessness as I hear my former neighbors crying out for help. I hate it. I have to turn it off. I start to cry. Thank you, iPhone. Thank you, Democrats. I'll sleep better knowing that you're looking out for all of us.

Bastards.

Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

P.S. I'll continue my jihad today on Dylan Ratigan (MSNBC, 4pm ET) and, for the first time together in the same studio since our, um, 2007 debate, I'll join Wolf Blitzer live in his CNN Studio (5-8pm, ET). I'll also be on live for the entire 11am hour this morning on the wonderful Diane Rehm Show on NPR. You can listen live online here.

The rest of the day I'll spend wandering the halls of Congress with my shillelagh and shamrocks, doing my best impersonation of St. Patrick as I try to drive the snakes out of Capitol Hill. Wish me luck...

Source: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mikes-letter/green-they-steal-greed-they-wear-st-patricks-day-lament-michael-moore

Friday, January 29, 2010

Cornell West to Obama

Cornell West to Obama: Take a Stand. Have the courage to Challenge the Establishment.

Cornel West's note to Obama - January 20, 2010
Uploaded by Ladypolitik. - Watch the latest news videos.

Thanks to Anderson @ Shockfront and Ladypolitik for this tid bit.

Saturday, January 9, 2010

Random Thoughts Spawned by Truth

The following was triggered by a post at Truth 101 blog:

We can understand Obama's behavior if we view him as a prisoner of the wealthy establishment. The aristocracy is loosing its grip, papering over the financial mess for instance. While that teeters, we need to be engaged in diffusing the fringe right wing.

The last line is motivated by my current reading of Gathering Storm: America's Militia Threat by Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

Night Before Christmas Debacle

'Twas the night before Christmas and all through the Senate
Evidence was mounting of democracy's limit.

The People dismayed by what they were seeing
Sixty votes it takes to do just about anything.

The Constitution took care to protect the minority
A wealthy elite exploiting the majority.

Obama a prisoner of establishment power
Claims "victory" with words that surely taste sour.

As the healthcare battle appears to be done
the people are told, "Go to sleep now, you've won!"

The dejected masses comply and act tame
While Obama unabashedly calls out some names

Now Geithner, Now Orszag, Emanual, and Baucus
On DePearle, On Lieberman, Nelson and Sebelius

A man with a smile audaciously says, "hope"
surrounded by insiders who think I'm a dope.

"We stood up to special interests," he says as he winks
But his words are cheap, this deal really stinks.

The man with a smile says "The struggle is on"
More people look askance as they detect a con.

And when the dust settles the people will see
No healthcare reform from the powers that be.

Though believers continue to heap on their praise
Their numbers dwindle with the passing of days.

The media, corporate owned, just plays along
while the people say, "something's terribly wrong."

The Empire teeters, the establishment takes fright
But with happy faces say, 'To all a good night."

Sources:

GDAEman

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Hope for the Establishment?

Well, the World Bank is a dirty word in some circles. But I've recently had some experiences that suggest the Global Justice Movement might have influenced The Bank.

Perhaps, the cynic would say, the following statistic is just the Bank engaging in self-promotion the justify their own existence.

According to the World Bank, 75-80 of the effects of climate change are being felt in the developing world. So, you have this inverse relationship between cause and effect.

But another take is that the Bank is, 1) acknowledging the existence of climate change, something the Palinistas won't do, and 2) providing evidence for a legal challenge with reparations as the remedy.

By chance I discussed the changes at the World Bank with someone who is #2 for a particular geographic region. In response to a question about changes at the Bank over the past decade, he said that the Bank has deeply changed it's perspective on two things. First, the Bank recognizes the use of "structural adjustments" as a condition of loans was bad policy, in part because it was coercive. Thus, nations would do what was necessary to secure the loans, but were not really committed to the changes.

Second, and related to the first, was to take a more holistic view of the loans, recognizing distribution issues and social issues. In other words, recognizing that the results of the loans need to affect a broader spectrum of people in the recipient country, with particular attention on impacts of the poorest people.

The purpose here isn't to praise the World Bank as much as it is to point to the success of the Global Justice Movement in helping raise the consciousness of an institution like the World Bank.

Monday, November 23, 2009

Bogus Wall Street Profits Attract Investors

Trust your instincts on your reaction to the following:

Wall Street Headed for Record Profits in 2009

New government figures show Wall Street is on pace to have its most profitable year to date. On Tuesday, the New York Comptroller Office said Wall Street profits are set to exceed the record set three years ago, before the onset of the nation’s financial meltdown. The four largest firms—Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and JPMorgan Chase—took in $22.5 billion in profits through September. The top six banks set aside $112 billion for salaries and bonuses over the same period. In a statement, New York Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli said, “The national economy is slowly improving, but Wall Street has recovered much faster than anyone had envisioned.” [1]

My take on this is that the Obama administration knows the following and hopes you don't:

1. These too-big-to-fail financial institutions are insolvent, probably even despite the trillions in tax-payer bailouts.

2.The establishment, including the Obama administration, cannot expose this insolvency because they are trying to attract private capital (investors) to overcome the insolvency.

3. Investors need to see the too-big-to-fail financial institutions as "good investments," therefore these institutions need to be seen making profits.

4. The "profits" of these financial institutions are founded on complex accounting gimmicks.

5. This is all being done for one basic reason: To avoid the social chaos that would follow if the bottom were allowed to drop out of these financial institutions, which would lead to loss of power among many in the establishment.

Source:

1. Democracty Now Headlines, November 18, 2009.

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Let Down by Obama? Steps you can Take

So the Obama afterglow is fading and the word "establishment" is starting to look like both major parties? No need to hyperventilate; you're not alone. There is support among like minded people.

One of those like minded people has taken the time to consolidate some advice for doing something about it. I don't agree with it all*, but you can be the decider.

Check out the recent post: "What to Do If You Are Disatisfied with Obama and Bush" at the Godless Liberal Homo blog.

Aside:

* One of the "action items" is to "Stay a Registered Democrat." This can be argued both ways.

An alternative perspective is to "Register Green." In doing so, you cast a vote that will be recorded for all to see in the County Election Board tables of registered voters, including Democratic Party operatives.

As the numbers in the Green Party column grow, the Democrats will realize that they are actually to the right of a growing group of people... this will help pull the Dems back to the left. True, you give up your primary vote, so be sure to convince at least one friend who would NOT have voted in the primary to do so... now you've offset the minor benefit of remaining registered Dem and you still have your number reflected in the County Election Board's tally of registered voters for all to see. Simple.

Final Note: Is it only me, or when you first glance at the photo in the upper right, doesn't it look like "Change Label"?

Saturday, November 7, 2009

Clinton Link to Italian Cleric Rendition Conviction

As all should already know:

In a landmark case, twenty-three Americans, mostly CIA operatives, have been convicted in Italy for kidnapping a Muslim cleric from the streets of Milan in 2003.... The case marks the first time any American has been convicted for taking part in a so-called “extraordinary rendition.” [1]

The 2003 operation has been described in terms of the "Keystone Cops," ridiculed as inept and corrupted by by excesses:

CIA people had stayed, in five-star hotels, eating expensive meals with vintage wines, rented luxury automobiles—all at taxpayers’ expense. [1]

It's true that this particular operation was conducted on the watch of George W. Bush, and it might be tempting to for liberals to point out this conviction as another strike against Bush administration excesses. Sure, there's some truth in that; however, the reality is that this behavior is indicative of an establishment orientation that goes beyond Bush:

The case marks the first time any American has been convicted for taking part in a so-called “extraordinary rendition,” a practice the CIA has used, dating back to the Clinton administration, to kidnap wanted individuals anywhere in the world. [1]

Sources:

1. DemocracyNow!, "Italian Prosecutor in Case Against CIA Operatives Hails Convictions for ’03 Kidnapping of Egyptian Cleric," November 6, 2009.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Dispossessed People and the Rise of the Security State

Both Repbulican and Democrat alike seem to acknowledge, and fund, the rise of a security state, spurred in great part by 9/11. More electronic equipment and other hardware, more trained staff, more joint task force committees and "centers", etc.

At the same time, Connecting the Dots, we are witnessing a growing number of dispossessed people, the "jobless" in the "jobless recovery." Detroit and many unnamed towns and cities, like Flint, MI, have had former factory workers sitting on their porches now since the 1980s. (As an aside, the parents of these people sitting on the porches, many of whom have now passed on, got slammed by the Savings and Loan crisis/heist; an "economic failure" not too unlike the sub-prime loan debacle. But I digress....)

The establishment seems blind to the realities of families and individuals who must cope with ... no money... no health care... Where do they go? In the case of Brazil:

These dispossessed people have only two places to flee to: the shantytowns or the Amazon.

We're talking about formerly "lower-to-middle class" becoming destitute. These people "seem" to "go away," and some do, pushed to death. Those who live chop at the edge of rain forests or do whatever it takes to survive.

A glaring image of the dispossessed closer to home (the US) was splashed all over establishment media when Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans.

The rise of Security State was seen in New Orleans during Katrina; something new was a heavy presence of privatized security, Blackwater being most notable because of reports of their abusive behavior. The key word is "private;" as soon as disasters become profitable, be the natural or man-made, the security industry benefits... disaster capitalism as described by Naomi Klein.

I could go on, but my only point is to connect-the-triangle-of-dots between the growing dispossessed, the rise of the security state and the bi-partisan support of the latter in the face of the former... the establishment fears the unwashed masses, nothing new there.