Sharp Eyed Chicken Network

Terrorists and Hostages

2011-08-04T22:39:00.000-07:00

Terrorists and hostages: Since 2008, we have all been held hostage by financial terrorists, whose power derives from a combination of our dependence on financial markets and the instability and herd behavior of the stock and bond traders who run those markets. Everything that has been done by the President, the Federal Reserve Board and the Congress has been necessary to coddle and mollify those traders, lest they repeat the precipitous drop from 14,000+ Dow points to 7,000 following the demise of Lehman Brothers and the collapse of the credit markets. Bailouts, QE I and II, the failure to pursue and prosecute the perpetrators, the tolerance of their almost instant return to obscene profits and bonuses – all necessary to pump up the markets and pamper the traders. And all were successful for a while.

Until, that is, another group of terrorists emerged, political terrorists who call themselves the Tea Party. Angry at these policies and either ignorant of their purpose or not caring about the consequences, these terrorists, spurred on by sociopathic oligarchs like the Koch Brothers and political whores like Dick Armey, the founder and leader of Freedom Now, set out exploit the Debt Ceiling deadline in order to sabotage the government's strategy, regardless of the ultimate outcome. And they have succeeded, thanks largely to Obama”s inability/unwillingness to negotiate from strength. Besides which, as many columnists have been noting, he is well to the right of some elected Republicans.

Well, the Market and its traders responded as one might easily have anticipated. They hit the panic button. For those who may not be sufficiently informed about the modern financial marketplace, those same traders can make just as much money riding the market down as they do riding it up. They are essentially pimps, just carving out their piece of the action. Amoral at best; predatory at worst.

To summarize, we have two groups of terrorists, fighting over a corpse. And, by the way, nowhere in this scenario is there any strategy to resuscitate the real economy. Unemployment is actually beneficial for the business sector – much less likelihood of dangerous inflation – frightened, insecure workers don't dare even beg for higher wages to offset higher energy and food prices. Profits are up almost everywhere as automation, globalization and outsourcing enable higher “productivity,” which is really just more profit from less workers. Human labor is expensive and problematic. Intelligent people with serious money have no motivation to hire workers. There is no demand, anyway, because even those who have jobs are afraid to buy anything they don't need.

Let us pray that, as the pundits are finally acknowledging, next year's election will be about the true nature of this conflict: not the size of government, but its appropriate role. Many of us believe that an institution as powerful as government can only be justified if it serves to protect the powerless from powerful predators. Others have a medieval idea of government, that it should only protect the wealth and power of a privileged few at the expense of a desperate many. Those who are unwilling to pay the taxes necessary to maintain the first kind of government must be assumed to favor the second.

Four Parties?

2010-12-15T20:30:00.000-08:00

If you are frustrated by our traditional two-party system, just wait. Change may be coming sooner than you think. Take a good look at the two parties that have dominated American politics for more than a century. They have never been more fragmented.

The Democratic Party is divided: what I call “lace-curtain liberals” – the Tea Party calls them the educated elite – Obama is the quintessential example; and the Progressives, some (like me!) more radical than others. Trust me, those two groups have only one thing in common: relative levels of concern for those being left behind.

The Republicans have the Country Club set, exemplified by John Boehner, and then they have the lunatic libertarians, most of whom have embraced the Tea Party. The only thing they have in common is their determination to dethrone Obama.

One interesting aspect of this is that educated elite Democrats and Country Club Republicans have one common goal – the maintenance of “business as usual,” no matter the long-term consequences. And, of course, the Progressives and the Tea Party have one common belief – that the government does not now and has not for some time represented anything but money. It has become tiresomely repetitive to say that we have created a Plutocracy.

The context of this is gradually becoming more evident, though only Obama and his advisors seem fully aware of it. We are held hostage by stock and bond traders and the markets they manage. The motivation behind the various stimulus programs is to soothe the fragile nerves of those traders and their customers. When the dam broke a couple of years ago, the market dropped by 50% almost overnight, inundating the retirement hopes of most Americans. Now that defined pension plans are exclusive to public employees, the rest of us are using IRA's and other tax-deferred programs to supplement the niggardly (and possibly illusory) Social Security benefits.

The jury is still out on whether or not these stimuli will succeed in getting our economy out of the trough we're wallowing in now. The Republicans have decided that their best hope of regaining complete control of the government is to stonewall and keep the economy (and unemployment) at present levels or worse, so they can blame it on Obama. But, one thing is painfully evident – unemployment will stay at unconscionable levels for the foreseeable future. Worse yet, the markets obviously like it. There is an economic principle known as the Phillips Curve that explains why. It states quite simply that unemployment and wage inflation are inversely proportional. The logic behind this is not obscure – the longer people are unemployed the more likely they are to accept lousy jobs at lousy wages, with no benefits. The result is more “productivity” (one of the ugliest words in the language), which means more goods and services from fewer workers. Lower labor costs mean higher profits. Add automation and globalization and it's easy to see why the stock market keeps going up in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Is that ugly enough for you?

So don't be surprised if we see four serious candidates for President in 2012, running on four different parties: Democrats, Progressives, Republicans and the Tea Party. Wonder what that will do to our nervous markets. If there is no electoral college majority the President will be chosen by the House of Representatives. There's no guarantee that they will be able to muster a majority in the House for anyone. Maybe that's the “apocalypse” predicted for the end of the Mayan calendar in December 2012. Stay tuned.

Nonviolent Resistance

2010-10-29T13:17:00.000-07:00

Nonviolent Resistance

I just finished reading Jim Wallis's God's Politics, which was published in 2005. It's hard to articulate my response, which ranged from highly positive to deep despair. On the one hand, the book provided irrefutable evidence that a large number of influential religious leaders, especially Christians, have, in fact, been actively attempting to stem the descent of our culture into savage social and economic injustice; on the other hand, current reality provides overwhelming evidence that their efforts have not only been ineffective, but apparently counter-productive, since things just keep getting worse.

These efforts chronicled by Wallis date back to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s, and extend right up to the time the book was published. One must assume that they have continued since. Yet, to reiterate, things just keep getting worse. As Frank Rich recently wrote in The New York Times Week in Review (“What Happened to Change We Can Believe In?” 10/24/10), the election of Obama has not created the “Change” we were expecting: if anything, it has exacerbated the downslide, fueling ignorance and demagoguery.

The obvious question is: what, if anything, can be done? Is the march of injustice unstoppable, inevitable? I'm not particularly sanguine that any of you who receive this message will even trouble to acknowledge it, much less respond. To be honest, I have been complaining to anyone who will listen since the election of Ronald Reagan made it clear to anyone with eyes to see, ears to hear, and a brain to understand, that Reactionary elements had assumed control and were unlikely to relinquish it, ever, unless forced to. Except for a few published letters and one essay in The Progressive Christian (asking the rhetorical question, What Would Martin Luther King, Jr. Do?) my repeated efforts to communicate with all of you have elicited a profound silence. And we know what Martin would be doing: he would be organizing massive nonviolent civil disobedience.

Now, lest there be any confusion, I have never and will not ever advocate violent force. But Wallis did include in his book a quote from, A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict, by Peter Ackerman and Jack Duvall. It's rather long, but defines “nonviolent resistance” better than anything I have ever seen. I am including it because it would seem, based on the rest of his book that neither he nor other advocates for social and economic justice (except for MLK Jr!) have ever taken it seriously. Here it is:

“The reality is that history-making nonviolent resistance is not usually taken as an act of moral display; it does not typically begin by putting flowers in gun barrels and it does not end when protesters disperse to go home. It involves the use of a panoply of forceful sanctions – strikes, boycotts, civil disobedience, disrupting the functions of government, even nonviolent sabotage – in accordance with a strategy for undermining an oppressor's pillars of support. It is not about making a point, it's about taking power.

'“Regimes have been overthrown that had no compunction about brutalizing their opponents and denying them the right to speak their minds. How? By first demonstrating that opposition is possible, peeling away the regime's residual public and outside support, quashing its legitimacy, driving up the costs of maintaining control, and over-extending its repressive apparatus. Strategic nonviolent action is not about being nice to our oppressor, much less having to rely on his niceness. It's about dissolving the foundations of his power and forcing him out.”'

My purpose in writing this is to learn if there is anyone else out there who cares about stopping this juggernaut enough to join me in organizing the kind of civil disobedience just described. The key phrase, which exposes the ultimate failure of “liberal” attempts to stop in-justice throughout human history, is the next-to-last sentence in the quote. We have to stop projecting our own “niceness” onto those who are anything but “nice,” those for whom enough is never enough, whose existential cowardice leads them to espouse “conservative” authoritarian models about our personal behavior while simultaneously doing their best to create and preserve economic anarchy (under the false rubric of the “Free, Unregulated Marketplace”).

Sooner or later, it must become obvious to the Liberal Establishment that articles, books, documentary movies and TV programs not only fail to create significant change, they actually seem to provide a moral relief valve: well, we've done what we could, we've explained the problems so that anyone should be able to understand them, certainly “reasonable people” should respond eventually with the necessary reforms. I'm sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but we are not dealing with “reasonable people.” We are dealing with people who are mentally ill behind money and power. Lao Tse said it best a few millennia ago: “One who knows that enough is enough always has enough.” As I noted earlier, those who do not know that enough is enough, never have enough. And they take our good nature for weakness and stupidity, as a green light for continued predation.

If any of you actually take the trouble to read this and wish to establish a dialogue about how we can organize, just hit “reply” and acknowledge your agreement. As you may imagine, over the last 40+ years, I have prepared myself to contribute to this effort.

I will close this as I always do, by asking: How bad does it have to get?

A Call To Action

2010-02-12T13:10:00.002-08:00

A Call To Action

Wake up, America! How bad does it have to get before people who do know better come out of where ever they have been hiding, rise up and demand meaningful change? Fear not, you cowards and malingerers, if you continue to do nothing (talking, writing, presenting clever arguments, and other typical “Liberal” tactics are a waste of time – only organized action has any chance of making a difference) I can assure you that things are going to get worse. A lot worse.

First, there will never be enough good jobs again. Never! The economic models that got us into this mess will never get us out of it. As Einstein said, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity. More about new economic models later.

Second, the opposition is getting organized, and is taking action. The Tea Party is only the beginning. As history has demonstrated repeatedly, ignorance and insecurity are exceptionally fertile ground for the worst kind of demagoguery. And both are pandemic in America right now. Frightened, angry children everywhere in apparently adult bodies. And no dearth of dangerous demagogues eager to exploit them.

So far, they are still a minority, no matter how they may dominate the 24-hour News Media. But the absence of strong, motivated, organized opposition portends disaster, for our country, if not for the planet. Our Founding Fathers, and the Philosophers who inspired them, recognized the risks inherent in democracy. They tried, while creating our Constitution, to prevent the two greatest risks: the tyranny of an unenlightened majority, and the corruption of our Representatives by a Commercial Society. Their worst fears have been realized. Our putative democracy is on life support, and there is no “Living Will.”

The last time we were in the throes of a crisis like this one, in the 1930's, during the Great Depression, we had the exceptionally good fortune to be in the hands of a leader who was prepared to do whatever was necessary to get us out of it. FDR was not a “small d” democrat. He was a benevolent dictator, right out of Plato's Republic, and his goal was to save Capitalism from its own stupidity. And he succeeded. He did it by using his powers of persuasion, his eloquence, and the new technology provided by the wireless radio to galvanize the American people, by saying, in effect, “You know what we need, and we're going to do it together, whether they like it or not.” Lest there be any doubt, “they” were Congress and the Supreme Court, and the Federal Reserve, and the Financial Titans who got us into the mess.

Let's look honestly at our present predicament. If your family or mine could not provide basic necessities nor pay our debts, we would be forced to file for Bankruptcy. Well, my city of San Francisco (and many others around the country), the state of California (and many other states), and the United States of America have been starved by the anti-tax policies of the last three decades into a state that can only be described as Bankruptcy. All that is missing is the resolution. And, how is Bankruptcy “resolved?” By wiping out debt. Period. The result is that usurious creditors end up holding toilet paper. Then maybe they can try to find a job. Clipping coupons and living off interest is not a “job.” It is parasitic behavior. The truth is that the whole world would be better off if all debt, personal, corporate and public, were summarily eradicated. What a relief! You mean our income can be used to meet basic human needs? Now there's a concept! Of course, the consequence is that no new debt can be created, if not forever, at least for a good many years.

If this seems a little drastic, consider this: we are also morally bankrupt. Millions of people, including children, for God's sake, in the world's richest country go to bed hungry every night.Millions more have little or no access to even minimal healthcare. Our educational system has been cut to the bone, teachers must spend all of their time teaching children how to take uniform tests of math and reading abilities, subjects like history, social studies, art and music get short shrift. Ladies and Gentlemen, the business if education is not to shove facts down the throats of children so they can spit them up on command, it is to teach them how to think, how to develop and use intelligent judgement.

So, ultimately, we are both economically and morally bankrupt. Is there anyone else out there ready to do something? If you are, let me know.

A Call to

2010-02-12T13:10:00.001-08:00

The Real State of the Union

2010-02-12T13:09:00.000-08:00

The Real State of the Union

My fellow Americans, I must begin by apologizing to you for failing to keep my promises to you, and for choosing the wrong people to lead us out of the disaster I inherited from my predecessor. While I have no excuse, you should understand that my elitist education and recent political career have unfortunately isolated me from the realities plaguing the lives of ordinary Americans. My task this evening is to assure you the I have gotten the message – that I will henceforth dedicate my life and my presidency to the task of restoring our democracy and the quality of life for everyone, not just for the privileged few.

I am sure you realize that this will not be easy, for either of us. For openers, though, I must insist, in the strongest possible terms, that it is time for the American public to stop acting and thinking like frightened, angry children. We can only find our way out of this dilemma as adults. Adults understand that they are responsible for cleaning up their own messes; they understand that risk is a part of life, that no government can guarantee that they will always be protected from the determined efforts of suicidal enemies; they understand that freedom carries awesome responsibilities, including the need to be fully informed and rationally motivated by that knowledge; they understand that liberty can never be license to do whatever one wishes without proper concern for the consequences of our behavior on others.

Most of you know that I worked for some time in Community Organizing. One of the fundamental tenets of that activity is that we are always trying to construct a type of social structure; like most structures, this one has a front door and a back door. We might say that, in Community Organizing, people with needs (some quite urgent and even desperate) come in through the front door and people with values (primarily, those which result in economic and social justice) come in through the back door. Now, my personal belief is that, when we strip away misinformation and fearful generalizations, we will find that a very large majority of Americans can be counted in one or both of those two groups. Again, those with needs and those with human values constitute a large majority. Lest there be any doubt, however, there are Americans who are not in either group. Since I have no concern about offending them, I will categorically state right now that those people have social values that would embarrass a hyena, and there is no need to include them in our discussion. They need to be marginalized and rendered powerless, one way or another, if our beloved country, humanity itself and even the planet are to have any future worth contemplating.

All of which begs the question: what should we be doing? If we can galvanize and organize this majority, what might we ask them to support? For openers, we need to understand that the economic models that got us into this condition will never get us out of it. I began by apologizing for choosing the wrong people to lead us back from the brink of disaster. The reason they are the “wrong people” is that they have spent their lives operating in a system which has outlived its usefulness. You might say, if you'll forgive the bad pun, that they were and are invested in it. If you look at that word, it's obvious that someone who is “in a vest' might well have difficulty “seeing” well. We have a saying, “he was invested in the idea, couldn't see the adverse consequences.” Yet, as Einstein once noted, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

So, the first thing we need is new economic models. Interestingly enough, the field of Economics has recently (finally!) been expanding its vision, having less emphasis on the “rational actor” and the self-regulating nature of unregulated markets, and spending more time and attention on the irrational, emotional elements of economic behavior that don't submit so easily to reductionist formulas. Now, remember, I am talking about new economic models, which excludes old ideas like communism and socialism. Big anything is potentially bad news. Big government is as vulnerable to corruption and incompetence as big business.

Speaking of Big Government, the issue is not, and should never be the size of government. What we should be debating is the proper role of government, its function. For the last thirty years, thanks to the demagoguery of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, we have been devolving back to a medieval concept of government – that it exists only to protect and enhance the wealth and privileges of the few at the expense of the many. Feudalism, if you will. Until 1980, our idea of the function of government had been evolving toward its proper role – to protect the weak and helpless from the predations of the powerful – to promote and facilitate economic and social justice. Like any large, powerful institution, government must be transparent and responsive to the people. Not to money, or the economic elite, or to any “special interests,” but to the people. As I noted earlier, this can only be accomplished by an intelligent, well-educated, well-informed, politically active electorate. If you look around you, the absence of such an electorate can only have disastrous results. We are living with those results.

There is plenty of room for a vigorous national discussion about what the new economic models might look like, but the first thing we have to recognize is that there will never be enough good jobs again. Never. Automation, outsourcing, and especially the need to cut back on consumption and environmental degradation – no amount of educational reform can create jobs where they don't exist. Moreover, in a world of rising population and diminishing resources we should be rewarding those who are willing to lead a simpler lifestyle, not punishing them. Up until now, we have based our economic system on an egregious extortion: work or die. We have refused, from its inception to endorse the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, precisely because it mandates economic Human Rights (food, clothing, shelter, education and healthcare) whether one can pay the market price or not. If we had followed the lead of Franklin Roosevelt, who was preparing before his untimely death to propose an economic Bill of Rights (freedom from want, among others), we would have removed the power of the extortion.

The time has come to join the civilized world and recognize these basic rights/needs. As I noted earlier, this need not be accomplished with Socialism, a term which is bandied about by ignorant people who don't seem to understand that Socialism was conceived as a means of providing universal access to basic necessities, not as the end. It is an economic model that proposes to transfer control of “the means of production” from private ownership to the government in order to prevent oligarchs from taking more than their fair share of the profits. You may have noticed that most of the “means of production” are no longer located in America, and that recent events have required the government to assume effective control, if not outright ownership of a large portion of the means that are still here to prevent them from self-destructing.

Yet, despite government ownership, there is no citizen participation in that ownership. I would like to suggest here that our discussion of new economic models should start with the idea of People's Capitalism, with citizen participation in the ownership of our mutual assets. We have the necessary technology, we have a precedent provided by a Republican Administration, we lack only the willingness to implement the program. If every citizen owned minimal shares in a national Mutual Fund (something like the CalPers program that invests for many California Public Employees), we could provide basic necessities as dividend distributions from that
Fund. Then, work could be chosen as a means of providing a better life for oneself or ones family, or even as a means of creating a better world. Work chosen is life enhancing. America is already heaven for those who work because they want to not because they have to.

In conclusion, then, I ask you to consider carefully what I have proposed. Those who are old enough will remember that Reagan and his advisors promoted the idea of a “Silent Majority” (most of whom were silent because they were ashamed of their racism, misogyny and resentment toward those who were unwilling or unable to “play the game”), and rode it into the White House and set in motion thirty years of social devolution. Recently we have learned that they are not so “silent.” Even the possibility of restoring government to its rightful role has frightened and angered them, as well it might. Ignorance and fear are the ultimate “potting soil” for the worst kind of demagoguery. The last time the world was brought to its knees by the titans of finance, only Roosevelt saved us from the Fascism that seized much of the developed world.

Regarding my previous comments about the potential majority of those with needs and those with values, I would like to suggest that it is time to galvanize and organize a Decent Majority, composed of those who know that a better world is possible if we are willing to work to create it. Will you join me?

A New Progressive Agenda

2010-02-12T13:08:00.000-08:00

A New Progressive Agenda
“…Never Waste A Good Crisis”

“This is, or should be, the guiding principle of all social reform – to organize the economic, practical and social relationships between human beings in such a way that there shall be, for any individual or group within that society, a minimum of temptations to covetousness, pride, cruelty and lust for power.”

-Aldous Huxley-
The Perennial Philosophy

When I was a student, in the late 1950’s, we were repeatedly warned about the potential for dire consequences in three emerging marketing concepts: planned obsolescence, artificial demand and excess consumption. Welcome to a world beset by dire consequences. The piper is here, demanding his payment. Not only are we spiraling into economic chaos, we have despoiled our world, perhaps beyond recovery. The climate is on a deathwatch; we are running out of potable water; our air is fouled with toxic chemicals; our population is exploding, even as our resources are in precipitous decline.

The most alarming aspect of this calamity is the nearly unanimous response of our clueless leaders, whose solution is to resume, as quickly as possible, the very practices that got us here. Governments everywhere are desperately “stimulating” their economies, hoping (and “hope” is the only “hope”) to resuscitate the old economic system by encouraging a return to foolish and wasteful production and consumption.

Of course, we do hear voices of reason, advocates of “voluntary simplicity” and sustainable agriculture and environmental sanity, but they are a relatively minor and thoroughly powerless group: “Idealists,” we are told; “dreamers,” even “utopians,” or, worst, “anarchists.” Where is John Lennon when we need him (“Imagine”), or Martin Luther King, Jr. (“I Have A Dream”)? What happened to all the 60’s radicals and their communal, ecological ideas? When did we stop evolving as a society and start devolving?

The turning point, for me, was the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan, aided and abetted by Margaret Thatcher and the Ayn Rand clones at the Chicago School of Economics and the Hoover Institute and similar “Conservative Think Tanks” (an oxymoron, in my opinion). Sensing our collective fear of radical change, they rode to power by rolling back the clock, year by year, until, by the early 21st Century, we had regressed, in America and around much of the world, to a medieval concept of government: protect and enhance the wealth and power of the privileged few, at the expense of the powerless many, the illusion of “democracy” notwithstanding.

Which brings us to the most important issue: the role of government in society. We can all agree that government, at all levels, has the potential for considerable harm, both within a given society and around the world, representing, as it does, such a concentration of power. For the last three or four hundred years, this awareness has been modified, however haltingly, by an evolving realization that government is at least capable of reversing its medieval role, and being organized and implemented primarily to protect and enhance the welfare of the least powerful citizens from the inevitable predations of those for whom enough power and money is never enough.

The present economic crisis inevitably evokes the memory of Franklin Roosevelt. One of his most important issues is rarely, if ever, discussed. In his State of the Union message delivered January 6, 1941, known as the “Four Freedoms Speech,” he outlined four “fundamental” freedoms, the third of which was “Freedom from want.” It is not so well known that in 1944, shortly before his death, he was preparing to introduce one or more new amendments to the “Bill of Rights,” elucidating and mandating certain economic Human Rights, to supplement the political rights already guaranteed therein. After his death, his wife, Eleanor, continued this campaign, ultimately playing a leading role in the passage of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Ironically, the United States has never signed that document, largely because it includes things like food, clothing, shelter, healthcare and education. The rest of the world responds with appropriate contempt when we lecture others on the subject of Human Rights.

“Economic injustice will stop the moment we want it to stop, and no sooner.”

-George Orwell-

When discussing economic Human Rights, it is necessary to point out a glaring inconsistency in our legal system: lawmakers, lawyers, enforcers, judges, all the way up to the Supreme Court are ready to go to the wall, pay any price, to protect the economic rights of the individuals and corporations that dominate and control our economy, yet the vast majority manifest open contempt for the economic right of those whose needs are greatest.

One man’s utopia is often another’s dystopia. Tragically, every attempt to ensure economic Human Rights in the 20th Century ended up restricting, if not eliminating, the political Human Rights of those who opposed these efforts, if not their very lives. The main cause of this is that, with few exceptions, those who love the Market hate the Poor (“Get out of the way! You’re holding us back! Get back to work!), while those who love the Poor hate the Market (“Give us all your wealth, you greedy oligarch! Nationalize the means of production! Outlaw private property!). Is there no middle ground in this conflict? Of course there is. We can start the discussion with a few basic suggestions.

First, we need to resume the evolutionary development of government: not only should its primary purpose be the protection of the relatively powerless from human predators (at home or abroad), the cost must be borne disproportionately by those who have the most to give (however that wealth may have been accrued). We could begin by reinstating the Progressive tax system we had in the US before the Reagan devolution: up to 70% of ordinary income and as much as 90% of “excess” income (you could look it up). The economic elite would rather consume sold waste material than give money to the government, so they would inevitably find more socially constructive means of creating wealth.

Next, we have to recognize that Representative Democracy, as it was envisioned by our founding fathers, has outgrown its relevance and has been co-opted by those whose “covetousness” and “lust for power” knows no reasonable bounds. Again, there is a simple solution: a tax reform which eliminates all deductions and includes a form reading, “Please spend my taxes as follows: do spend it for these programs, and do not spend it for these other programs.” In a true democracy, spending must reflect the desires of its citizens, not those of “special interests.”

There is at least one excellent model for this process: Working Assets, which provides telephone service and credit cards, distributed more than $3.5 million to nonprofit groups “working to change the world” (for which we can all be thankful). Those funds were allocated according to preferences of customers, who vote each year for their favorite causes. Maybe Working Assets would be willing to donate the software to our government tax agencies..

Think of it – if those special interests wanted to corrupt someone, they’d have to do it by treating us right. If you don’t think the government should support abortion, fine, your money will not be used for that purpose. If you want the government to protect your private wealth, you can pay for it. If a program lacks public support, it should be discontinued. Our “representatives” would allocate the resources according to our instructions. No need to lobby or otherwise corrupt them.

Finally, and here is where the present “crisis” provides a golden opportunity, as banks or auto companies or other “too big to fail” institutions come calling with their begging bowls in hand, we can have our economic “cake” and eat it too: instead of “nationalizing” them, we should collectively take ownership of them, creating a Citizens’ Mutual Fund, with shares and any subsequent profits distributed to all (with the possible exception of those who have way more than they need). People’s Capitalism! Talk about an “ownership society!” There is a precedent: Alaska already does this with a percentage of its oil income. While we’re at it, the Citizens Mutual Fund should also receive shares in the many private companies that will be profiting handsomely from the stimulus funds designated for restoring and expanding our decrepit infrastructure. Seems like simple justice to deal us all in on the game. After all, it will be our money paying for everything.

Similarly, we must resolve the threat of insolvency in Social Security and Medicare (and other Safety Net programs) by returning to the original intent of these programs, and making them available only to those who actually need them. A simple means test would suffice. Social Security was never meant to be a private retirement fund, or a return of your personal investment. Look at the name. It is supposed to be a Safety Net for those who have little or no other means of surviving in old age. By the same token, Medicare and other types of public healthcare should be reserved for those who would otherwise not have access to something that is one of the most basic Human Rights.

To summarize, the new Progressive agenda needs to reflect reality. There will never be enough good jobs again. Returning to our old economic models is nothing less than species suicide. Certainly, work can be ennobling and personally rewarding. Too much work for not enough compensation is a form of living death. Excessive, wasteful production and consumption in order to keep people working forty hours a week or more just to make ends meet is not only immoral, it is economically and ecologically unsustainable. We have to stop talking about more jobs and start demanding economic justice.

It will never be easy to implement such radical changes. Less work for more pay requires new economic models. Substantially contracting the Gross National Product will involve dislocation and discomfort, especially for those who have been the biggest beneficiaries of the old system. But we will never have a better opportunity than we do now. The last Great Depression was also the last time we acted like a “civilization,” paying artists to create art and writers to write. The forty-hour week, overtime, Social Security and many other humane programs were initiated. Surely, we can use the present crisis to develop even more “civilized” solutions. But, it will not happen unless Progressives organize and manifest our power. There really are a lot more of “us” than there are of “them.” Reactionary forces are well financed, well organized and motivated by their addiction to power and money. They will only be overcome by organization and effort.

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

-Frederick Douglas-

Health Care Deform

2009-08-13T20:49:00.001-07:00

Health Care Deform

The Republican Party and its allies, the Health Insurance Companies and the Drug Industry are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to derail ANY reform of our healthcare system. They have two goals in mind:

(1) They want, desperately, to prevent the re-election of Obama by discrediting him and preventing him from keeping any of his campaign promises. Their desire is to see Sarah Palin, or someone like her, in the White House, and to regain control of the Congress.
(2) They also want to protect the profits of the Insurance and Drug companies, and to keep as many people as possible uninsured, insecure, and frightened, so they can
(3) appeal to the worst aspects of human nature: fear, selfishness and greed, now and in future elections.

Anyone who buys into their lies or passes them on to others is complicit in the ongoing destruction of our terminally ill “democracy.”

What Safety net?

2009-07-12T21:28:00.000-07:00

Trying again to post the link to Ehrenreich's article.

"Jobless Recovery"

2009-07-12T21:08:00.000-07:00

The next person that uses the term "jobless recovery" in public needs to be remanded to a re-education camp. Where is Mao when we need him? It is hard to imagine a more damning indictment of the economics "profession" than their glib reminders (repeated regularly by our befuddled/brainwashed President) that "unemployment always lags behind an economic recovery. Hey idiots! When there are 16 -20 million jobless and who knows how many "uneremployed," THERE IS NO RECOVERY!

Those who have access to Harper's Magazine should check out an article in the latest issue by Kevin Baker, titled "Barack Hoover Obama. He seems to have been reading my mail. Instead of channeling FDR (as I suggested a year and a half ago in a letter published in the Progressive Populist), Obama is channeling Hoover! As Baker notes, "This approach looks like an exercise in democracy drawn from his hays as a community organizer, the sort of strategy that helps a neighborhood to decide whether it wnats, say, a health clinic or a youth center. What he doesn't care to acknowledge is that, in the case of the US Congess, he is dealing with a neighborhood where maybe half want a health clinic and the rest are holding out for grenade launchers and crystal meth." There is no middle gtround. He needs to use his manifest charisma to reach out to the American public and DEMAND that they DEMAND that Congress do its duty.

Today's Times has a piece by Barabara Ehrenreich that epitomizes the heartlessness and cruelty of our society. I have linked it, but not sure it will show up.

Conspiracy???

2009-06-25T21:39:00.001-07:00

One of the most basic axioms of conspiracy theory is that a newly elected President is taken into a secure room, handed a large book and told to read it in order to find out the real job requirements. Lest there be any confusion about “conspiracy theory,” please note that the definition of a conspiracy theorist is “someone who believes that undemocratic people are trying to influence events behind the scene.” If you don’t believe that, you are a foolish simpleton. We can argue over who they may be and how successful they may have been, but it should be obvious to anyone that those who are mentally ill behind money and power will do anything to feed their addiction.

Which brings us to our new President. Apparently, Barack Obama was initiated almost immediately after his election, because his first response to the economic crisis was to gather around him a group of “economic advisors” who were the very people who led us into the mess in the first place.

Now that he has been in office for a while, we have two choices: either he was lying to us during his campaign for office, or that “book” left him no choice but to renege on all of his promises. The second choice does allow for the possibility that his “initiation” convinced him that failure to continue with business as usual would lead to a catastrophe such that history would remember him as the Captain when the ship of state hit the iceberg and sank to the bottom. Recent interviews with Bernanke (on “60 minutes”) and Geithner (on PBS News) made it clear that they have been telling him that all along.

There is no doubt whatsoever, though, that he has reneged on all of his promises. If you bother to follow the news, you know I’m right. If you don’t, then you don’t deserve to live in a putative democracy.

Symptoms vs. Causes

2007-11-01T19:27:00.000-07:00

This is a comment I posted on the Truthdig site, in response to a column by Robert Scheer in today's SF Chronicle:

My fervent wish is that Mr. Scheer and other "liberal" columnists and pundits would stop whining about symptoms and start writing and talking about the actual causes of our present dilemma. To wit: The largest crime family in the history of the world, headed by Bush Sr. (aka: George I), primarily through the Carlisle Group (a holding company which owns large stakes in Halliburton, Bechtel, and hundreds if not thousands of the companies reaping huge profits nowadays), has succeeded in brainwashing (perhaps it should be called "brain-dirtying") the American public and much of the rest of the world into accepting an ideology that is nothing less than a Social Darwinist eugenics scheme.

This ideology "went public" via Ronald Reagan in 1980, but has been nurtured continuously since the Robber Baron era in the late Nineteenth Century. Most, if not all of its major adherents are devoted disciples of Ayn Rand's philosophy of pathological individualism. I like to call them "Econopaths." Their primary tools are tax cuts for the oligarchs and their "dogs in the manger," de-regulation (economic anarchy!), privatization (a euphemism for institutionalized white collar crime - the systematic theft of our common wealth by greedy oligarchs) and excessive military adventurism (thus justifying massive handouts to the Military/Industrial complex).

Anyone who thinks this juggernaught can be stopped by clever arguments, columns or books is not paying attention. What is desperately needed is a new incarnation of Gandhi/Martin Luther King Jr. to mobilize those who feel powerless (despite their substantial numbers), and those who know in their hearts that we are on an immoral, impractical path to ruin, to generate non-violent civil disobedience sufficient to bring this cabal to its knees. As the world's (supposedy) premier democracy, we should expect nothing less.

Is it too much to ask, Mr. Scheer, for a few columns on what we might DO to effect meaningful change? You must know that our so-called "Representative" government has been hijacked by this evil ideology, Democrats no less than Republicans, so voting has become a futile exercise. Is there no hope at all?

Partisanship

2007-10-19T23:00:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to Rep. Pete Starks. Finally, a Democrat with the courage to call a spade a spade. Respect and authority should never be considered "rights" of any office, even the Presidency. They must be earned by appropriate behavior, something George Bush has rarely manifested.

Ultimately, using the word "partisan" as a pejorative derives from a major flaw in our decidedly dysfunctional democracy: namely, the idea that freedom of speech means that different viewpoints are all equally worthy. Some issues are, of course, open to compromise. Others, including lying to justify war, torturing and spying on American citizens are contemptible, and should be condemned and prosecuted, as provided by the constitution. The failure of Democratic leadership to do their duty is inexcusable. Starks' frustration is entirely understandable.

Adequate healthcare is a basic human right. Denying it to children in order to demonstrate his "relevance" is just one more demonstration by Bush of his unsuitability for office. Thank God at least one Democrat has given voice to the feelings of many, if not most Americans.

Apology

2007-10-07T21:08:00.000-07:00

Just got another letter published in the Progressive Populist, 10/15 issue. My fourth in four months; every other issue!!! The text of the letter follows:

My friend Mick Finn (his real name), a disabled Vietnam vet, has an idea that seems well worth sharing with as many others as possible. He notes that a certain percentage of us knew with considerable certainty that Bush’s War on Iraq was a lousy idea from the beginning. Let’s be conservative and say we were 15% of the country. The polls now tell us that around 70% agree with us.

Mick’s idea is that the 55% or so who have finally gotten the message should acknowledge that they were wrong and then offer their humble apologies for questioning our patriotism at the time. Ok, we know a couple of the Democratic candidates for President have done so already, but that still leaves a lot of folks with egg on their faces. Why not emulate South Africa and begin the process of reconciliation with heartfelt apologies?

While we’re at it, maybe we could get the same consideration from those who bought Reagan’s Social Darwinist scheme a quarter century ago and bequeathed us a horrifically dysfunctional society. Many of us were immediately crying “wolf” at the prospect of trashing the Progressive Tax laws, deregulation, cowboy militarism and shredding the social safety net. By now, anyone who thinks any of that was ever a good idea is either mentally challenged or consciously evil. These so-called “Conservative” ideas were and are both impractical and immoral. The unregulated marketplace will always yield the worst kind of Social Darwinism, by maximizing its rewards to those who need and deserve them least. The result is nothing less than a Eugenics scheme, designed to give an insensitive and uncaring minority an enormous advantage over the rest of us through as many generations as possible. Their attempt to repeal the Inheritance Tax speaks for itself.

Privatization

2007-10-02T21:02:00.000-07:00

Testimony today from Eric Prince, the founder and CEO of Blackwater: chilling, disturbing, but hardly surprising. Bush's Privte army, his Janissary (go ahead and look it up!), is but a single instance of an extremely dangerous phenomenon that is a cornerstone of the Class War the economic elite have been perpetrating on the rest of us for nearly three decades. Privatization is a euphemism for instiitutionalized white collar crime. And it is hardly limited to our beloved country. Post-communist Russia and China have set all-time world records for theft of public assets. Multi-nationals have bought and privatized water companies and other public utilities around the world. Privatization of Iraq's oil wealth was one of, if not the only motivation for the War on Iraq in the first place, and only a complete fool could believe that Rumsfeld and his fellow Neo-cons were unaware (despite their public pronouncements about a new, streamlined, hi-tech army) that the lion's share of the war's expenses would have to be paid, with minimal accountability, to private corporations.

History will note that the current era makes the Teapot Dome scandals look like chump change; only the late Nineteenth Century privatization of the National Railroad system and the monopolization of the Industrial Revolution by a handful of rapacious "robber barons" (with the support of well-paid Government officials) provides a historical comparison to the present transfer of public wealth to a privileged few. And history will be almost as critical of the failure of those who knew and know better and have failed to make ANY effort to fight back. What opposition? Don't know about you, but I have not been "represented" by ANYONE in our so-called Representative Government for many years.

Time for real change! Not just more articles and books (Fantasy Baseball), because one cannot reason with those who are mentally ill behind money and power. Again, if Martin Luther king Jr were still here, he would be organizing massive civil disobedience, no matter the consequences. Enough is enough!

The Big Con

2007-09-28T22:23:00.000-07:00

I subscribe to and read the Washington Monthly magazine and would highly recommend it as well. The latest issue includes a review of a new book by Jonathan Chait (a senior editor at the New Republic magazine), titled "The Big Con: The True Story fo How Washington Got Hoodwinked and Hijacked by Crackpot Economics." The review features the following quote from the book:
“American politics has been hijacked by a tiny coterie of right-wing economic extremists, some of them ideological zealots, others merely greedy, a few of them possibly insane… The scope of their triumph is breathtaking. Over the course of the last three decades, they have moved from the right-wing fringe to the commanding heights of the national agenda.”

Welcome to the party, Jonathan. I couldn't agree more, though I have to note that some of us have been saying exactly this for almost thirty years now. Nice to know that eventually a few of the Washinton elite get to see the light. Too bad it took so long. My own summary has always been that anyone who ever thought "supply-side" economics, inverting the progressive tax, and unleashing economic anarchy (the unregulated marketplace) was and is either mentally challenged or consciously evil. What's really too bad is that no amount of brilliant books and/or arguments will derrail this "Big Con." We are stuck with it now, until it crashes, which it always does. I'm just trying to do my best to hang around long enough to be here when that happens. Meanwhile, God help us all.

The Courts - Our Injustice system

2007-09-28T21:54:00.000-07:00

As promised, a follow up to the last post, which characterised "Legalism" as a mental illness. There is no better illustration of this than the courts, at all levels. Judges often seem oblivious to common sense and reality, if they conflict with "the letter of the law." Prosecutors seek their job because they enjoy bullying the facts of a case in order to achieve as many convictions as possible. Some are just human pit bulls, some are hoping to become judges, some are just amoral and mean-spirited. When a trial requires a jury, the process becomes truly bizzare, as the judge and the lawyers conspire to empanel a group of airheads who have no opinions, don't read the papers or watch the news on TV, becausse otherwise "they may prejudge the case." The concept of a "jury of one's peers" was abandoned by English jurisprudence a few centuries ago, because they couldn't trust "peers" to be "objective." The result is a kind of chess game, in which prosecutors and defense attorneys do their level best to manipulate the jury with every trick they can muster. In ancient Greece this was known as Sophistry, and it was the primary reason early attempts at democracy failed utterly.

A recent Bizzaro cartoon summed up the inherent dishonesty of our court system as follows: When asked if he would swear "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," he replied, "Only if the lawyers do the same." Badda-boom! End of discussion. I keep praying that I'm never forced to stand in that jury box during the empaneling process, because I could easily end up in jail for contempt of court. They say that Shakespearre was only "kidding" when he wrote "Kill all the lawyers." You think?

Equal justice under the law? Whether or not you can afford to hire the "best" lawyers? Don't insult my intellligence.

Of course, we have courts of appeal, all the way up to the Supremes. Good luck there if you're not a right-wing Republican Corporation. The current Supreme Court acts like a board of directors; that's exactly how they came to subvert our democracy in 2000 and APPOINT George II as President. Even if the spineless Democrats actually held him and his criminal cohorts responsible for their lies and malfeasance (not likely), you can be sure that this Court would uphold his monarchial privileges.

Police or Gangsters?

2007-09-27T12:35:00.000-07:00

Every day there seems to be a new story in the media about a policeman killing someone "in the line of duty." Am I the only one who's noticed that this always seems to be happening in response to someone rrefusing to obey the officer's order? Since when is "failure to obey the order of a police officer" a capital crime? And where is it written that the officer who has been "dissed" is immediately empowered to act as judge, jury and executioner? Check it out if you doubt me. Even the most notorious examples of abuse involve someone running away, driving away, or otherwise refusing to obey an order. I thought only gangsters and punks were so worried about being "dissed" that they had to respond with violence. From personal experience, I can testify that too many SF Police have a giant chip on their shoulder about not being "respected." Well, respect and authority have to be EARNED. They are not automatically issued with a badge. Of course, the same is true and more so in Iraq, where our private mercenaries are usually the most violent and insecure "authorities."

Neither at home nor in Iraq is there anything like serious oversight of these abuses of authority, much less actual consequences. Our fear of "anarchy" interferes with our sense of justice. Not to strectch the analogy too far, but the same is true of umpires and referees in professional sports, especially Baseball and Basketball. There is no recourse to their errors, no matter how egregious, and the consequences of public disagreement, while not as draconian as summary execution, are always way out of proportiont to the behavior.

I am implacably and unalterably opposed to capricious and arbitrary "justice." Whether we are talking about immigration, traffic laws, street crime or even "bread and circuses." if we must have laws, they have to apply on both sides of the "badge" and they must be enforced consistently and responsibly. The Law is already primarily designed to protect the predator class and keep the rest of us in our place (the real Golden Rule is that whoever has the golf makes the rules), and they sure as hell don't make them for OUR benefit.

No, I'm not an "anarchist," we do need rules and the rules must be enforced, but someone needs to remove the blindfold from the eyes of Justice. Later, I'll address the problem of justice in the courts, now for sale to the highest bidder and the most sophistical lawyer. For now, I'll just note that "Legalism" is a mental illness.

Another Rat Deserts The Sinking Ship

2007-08-27T21:26:00.000-07:00

So long, Alberto. Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out. First the neocons fled (Wolfowitz, Rumsey et al) now the Texas cadre is out (Rove, Gonzales, etc). Will Cheney be next? We can only dream. We need a new scorecard to recognize the new players. Is it possible that George II is going to have to think for himself? Don't hold your breath. Even Condaleesa is being written off as ineffective and irrelevant. The Economist magazine did a devastating hit piece on her earlier this month.

Lest we get too carried away, though, all these departures do nothing to serve justice, which is even blinder than usual these days. I had been hoping, however forlornly, that a Democratic President would pursue criminal prosecutions in 2009, when ALL of the rats have been thrown off the ship, but as the candidacy of Hillary the DINO becomes more likely every day, we are unlikely to see any justice whatsoever, despite the most egregious list of high crimes and treason in American history. As I have been noting for many years, the so-called opposition party is much too interested in their own re-election and much too frightened of overturning the ship of state (they are all up there in the first class section, while the rest of us are shoveling coal down in the engine room).

Unless the economy collapses completely (which is still possible but unlikely), there is no hope whatsoever of meaningful change. There are just too many comfortable folks, who go to Michael Moore's movies and read the right books, and salve their consciences with charity and clever articles in "liberal" publications, but they will do just about anything to hold onto their own privileges and advantages.

And, speaking of privileges, don't waste any time worrying about the welfare of those discredited rats as they bail out. One of the unwritten rules on the upper deck is that they take care of each other. When they lose one fat paycheck, they get handed another one as soon as the vacation is over. There is always a Commission, or a lobbying job, or a CEO vacancy. Everybody up there owes everybody else for their success, so there is always payback waiting. In this White House, there is also the threat of exposure, which can be used as blackmail if another cushy job (or Presidential pardon) is not immediately available. The name Scooter Libby comes to mind. Coincidence?

We need a combination of Tom Paine and Martin Luther King Jr., and there are no applicants for the job. God help us.

US News & World Reort College Ratings Issue

2007-08-20T19:39:00.000-07:00

Got my copy of the latest US News & World Report today, the annual college ratings issue. This afternoon, The PBS News featured an interview with Brian Kelly, the Editor of the mag and a talking head from a think tank called the Education Conservancy (?). Kelly was defiantly defensive (his lead editorial in the magazine has a headline "We've taken some criticism lately, but...") and the other guy was equally adamant that the ratings do both colleges and students a disservice by trying to quantify a "good" education and by indirectly discrediting colleges and universities which are not highly rated. The PBS interviewer was appropriately suspicious of the magazine's motives and the consequences, intened or otherwise, of publishing these ratings every year. I was struck by the fact that the interview pretty much re-hashed the contents of a letter I wrote last year, which they actually published. to my utter amazement. The letter follows:

U.S. News & World Report 08/21/06 (Published!)
“College Ratings”

Editor:

Contrary to appearances, your college ratings are an egregious disservice to High School Seniors, most of whom are already facing almost unbearable pressure from parents and others to overcome lottery-like odds by gaining acceptance into one of these "elite" institutions.

College education is overrated as it is. Even advanced degrees no longer assure one of economic security, much less a meaningful and self-fulfilling career.

Obviously, graduating from a "highly rated" college or university confers advantages to young job seekers. What's not so obvious is that a dedicated and conscientious student can get an excellent education from almost any accredited school. In the long run, satisfying and remunerative employment depend much more on good habits than simply graduating from the "right school." Ironically, "grade inflation" in many of these "better" schools is unlikely to stimulate serious study habits.

Hoffa in Iran?

2007-08-19T17:17:00.000-07:00

Today's post is another of my Don Quixote letters, this time to the Insight section of today's SF Chronicle, in response to an article about efforts by Hoffa Jr. to promote unions in Iran. The letter speaks for itself.

Editor:

There is something painfully ironic about Mahtaub Hojjati's article ("Why Hoffa may worry Iran's mullahs") in today's Insight section (8/19/07) given the savage assault on American Unions for the last 27 years, including the pseudo-Democratic Clinton administration. Reagan sounded the trumpet by busting the Air Traffic Controllers' union, without regard to possible safety consequences; the attack continued with Republican "Right To Work" laws, Clinton's unseemly endorsement of NAFTA. Nowadays, unions are largely irrelevant and impotent.

Of course, corruption in the unions took a fearful toll as well, as leaders began wearing the same suits, driving the same cars and living in the same neighborhoods as management. Featuring Hoffa in this look at the tenuous hold of Iran's theocracy on its populace only adds to the irony.

The most egregious insult to our intelligence is the reference to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the United States has refused to sign for more than half a century, largely because it includes (in addition to the "right to form and join labor unions") such "economic" rights as food, clothing, shelter, education, and adequate medical care, regardless of one's ability to pay.! No matter how much hypocritical lip service we give to these principles, our economic system depends on the concept of "Work or Die."

Back when the unions were a meaningful force in our economy, there was a much healthier balance between workers and owners. It would be ironic indeed if that balance were achieved in Iran and lost here.

Healthcare and Social Security

2007-08-16T20:34:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter written tonight to the SF Chronicle, soon to join a long list of unpublished letters (I have a rather long manuscript entitled "...Does It Make A Sound?" As in, "If tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it..." - 74 pages and more than 26,00 words - all the letters I have written to various publications since my near-death experience 3 1/2 years ago).

My inspiration, as indicated in the letter, was the juxtaposition of an OpEd piece by Bruce Bodaker, the chairman, CEO and president of Blu Shield of California, a not-for-profit health plan serving 3.3 million Californians, and a Crhonicle editorial decrying the failure of those in Washington to address the inadequate funding of Social Security.

As the letter implies, but does not explicitly state, those who need Social Security the least get by far the most, despite the fact that most of their income (I believe after $90 thousand a year) is not even subject to Social Security withholding. One of these days I'm going to do some serious research on where and when we lost sight of the original purpose of the program.

Per my previous post on "Therapy," the most important thing for me is having an experience of speaking my mind. If someone other than a lowly intern actually reads it, so much the better. When one actually does get published, it's a bonus!

Editor:

Kudos to you for publishing "The key to healthcare affordability - everybody pays," and to Bruce Bodaken for writing it. Those of us who are pushing hard for Universal Healthcare in California have dubbed it "The Universal Mandate," and Bodaken is spot on in comparing it to Social Security, which would be in even deeper trouble if young people could choose whether or not to pay into it. That was just one more reason to reject the Rove/Bush plan to privatize Social Security.

Interesting to note that you also feature a long editorial on the failure of "Washington" (could we call that a Universal Indictment?) to provide a secure future for Social Security. One of the most obvious, if rarely mentioned solutions would be to get back to the original intention of the Social Security program. Just look at the name. It was never intended to be an investment program for everyone's retirement. It is wrong to call it an "entitlement." It was meant to provide for the retirement needs of those who have little or no additional source of income. It is a travesty give it to those who manifestly do not need it. The entire society has a moral obligation to contribute to the needs of indigent elderly (who used to be sent to "the poor farm" when I was young).

And the entire society has a similar moral obligation to contribute their fair share to ensure that everyone has access to adequate healthcare. In my lifetime, our country has become a moral cesspool.

A Turn To The Left?

2007-08-12T20:02:00.000-07:00

A recent issue of The Economist (8/11/07), a determinedly conservative British magazine, features a cover article entitled, “Is America Turning Left?” Interestingly, they devote only one page to this story, then spend three pages (“Under the Weather”) decrying the perilous state of the Republican Party and its so-called “Conservative” mandate.

After asserting that the Republicans are ”better organized and more intellectually inventive than their ‘liberal’ [sic] rivals,” they point out that the manifest failures and misdeeds of the Bush Administration are being blamed for the ascendancy of the Democrats and the decline of Republican popularity with voters, yet insist that “this President Bush is not a good scapegoat,” because he has given his party “virtually everything it craved, from humungous tax cuts to conservative judges.” Under the heading “Be careful what you wish for,” they conclude that most Americans urgently want a change of direction.

The issue’s second, longer piece is something of an obituary for the Republic Party as it is presently organized and represented. While correctly distinguishing between “paleo-conservatves” (small-government Libertarians), neo-conservatives (we know what they are) and social conservatives, they fail to realize that the only correct designation for all of those who now call themselves “Conservatives” is Radical Reactionaries! There is nothing conservative about them. Most don’t care about conserving our natural resources, or even the planet itself. They have advocated and implemented extremely radical policies designed to drag us back at least 150 years if not a millennium. I prefer to dub them “neo-feudalists,” because they actually believe that government exists only to protect and enhance the wealth, power and privileges of the few, at the expense of the many.

My response is to call myself a “radical progressive,” since the “liberal” opposition seems incapable of or unwilling to respond appropriately to this devolutionary ideology. They are content to address only symptoms and fail to deal with the cause, which is nothing less than stealth Social Darwinism, disguised as the unseemly worship of the unregulated marketplace. Our precious democracy has been hijacked.

Enough is enough

2007-08-05T10:23:00.000-07:00

Today's post is a response to an especially irritating article in today's NY Times, as referenced below. Those who have the Times online can access the entire article (I"m still not up to posting direct links on this blog - maybe later). The article, which runs three pages on line is a "heart-rending" account of the misery of mere millionaires who are still working themselves into an early grave, "because their neighbors are even richer." This is nothing less than a sociopatic mental illness. The only cure is a severe progressive tax, like the one we had in this country before the Reagan devolution. Failing that, an eighty percent reduction in the Dow would go a long way. As I have been saying and writing for many years, the last time we acted like a civilization was during the last Great Depression, when we knew that the common enemy was the failed economic system and that only cooperation would be capable of defeating that enemy. As long as so many minimal humans have so much money, what Michael Moore calls the Horatio Alger myth (Hey! I might be rich someday too! God forbid we should put limits on personal wealth!) prevents us from addressing the common needs, which can only be met by limiting greed.

I am well aware of the long odds against getting a letter published in the NY Times, but, as indicated in the previous post ("Therapy"), I maintain what remains of my sanity by having an experience of myself DOING something, even when the results are problematic at best. Today's letter follows:

Editor:

It's hard to imagine a more telling indictment of our grievously divided society than Gary Rivilin's article (In Silicon Valley, Millionaires Who Don't Feel Rich" - 8/5/07). About three thousand years ago, a Taoist sage said it best: "Those who know that enough is enough, always have enough." To which I can only add, those who don't, don't. When enough is never enough, those who do have enough to influence if not dictate the policies of our government will be rewarded endlessly while the rest of us struggle to get by with much less than enough. For shame!

Therapy

2007-07-30T19:05:00.000-07:00

First, a note to readers: yes, it is true that comments require a gmail (google email) address. It is really easy to get one, it can exist along with your regular email address and, most importantly, it serves as a screen to prevent spam and irrationanl, random responses. I hope that readers who do want to post comments will take the trouble to get a gmail address. Thanks

That said, the following is the third in a series of letters I have submitted to the Progressive Populist, trying to convince the editor to give me a regular column. The first two were published as letters to the editor, and they have published several more recently. Today, I got an email from the editor, suggesting that he was open to giving me some space for a column. Negotiations are continuing, As this following letter notes, one of the best therapies for feelings of powerlessness and despair is to have an experience of oneself actually DOING something about it, without excessive concern about optimal results. The process, in other words, is at least as important as the outcome. As I just wrote in another context, all of this is really just the ravings of an old man who has seen too much and is too stubborn too give up trying tomake a difference.

As soon as I get this blog thing up and running and get more accustomed to doing it, I will be posting it on sites that enjoy widespread attention, like Politico, Daily Kos, Tom Paine.com and others. Enough!!! Today's post:

Editor:

Regular readers of this publication may have noticed my recent letter asking whether our democracy is dying and suggesting that it is definitely on life support. What follows is a prescription for a therapy that might well rouse our ailing patient to at least a semblance of its former self.

One of the most effective techniques for ameliorating symptoms such as depression, loss of self-respect and a feeling of helplessness is to encourage behavior which gives one an experience of doing something about the situation that is or seems to be a primary cause of his or her distress, whether or not there is any chance of significant success. There is almost always something profoundly therapeutic about simply making the effort.

All of which brings us back to the thorny issue of what can be done about the manifest high crimes and misdemeanors of the Bush Administration. Despite the growing national outcry for prosecution and/or impeachment of most if not all of the members of this Administration, the Democratic leadership and a many of their supporters, in and out of government, keep telling us that there is no point in pursuing justice because “there is just not enough time,” or “the Supreme Court will ultimately disallow it,” or “we have to concentrate on doing whatever is necessary to assure the election of a Democrat in the upcoming Presidential election,” or similar dismissals.

Well, I must insist on taking strong exception to this line of reasoning. If there is any chance of revitalizing our moribund democracy, it has to begin with a clear, unequivocal demonstration that desecrating our Constitution by establishing an Imperial Presidency will not be tolerated, no matter the short-term discomfort or disruption. The electorate are demoralized and cynical. They have no evidence whatsoever that there are serious consequences for defying the will of the people, much less for lying to us and to Congress about everything from an illegal war to their frantic subsequent attempts to justify it. For heaven’s sake, even the Attorney General is a serial perjurer. Incompetence can be corrected by means of the ballot. Malfeasance must be dealt with more severely.

The people of America desperately need an experience of our system working the way it is supposed to. If time runs out, so be it. At least we will have tried. Continuing to shine it on is a recipe for disaster. Failure to act is nearly as treasonous as the behavior we should be prosecuting.

The Saudis are not our friends?

2007-07-27T11:49:00.000-07:00

Today's NY Times includes an article (linked below) about the growing "impatience" of the Bush Administration with our "friends" in Saudi Arabia, whose Sunni preferences make them uncomfortable with our Shiite puppet government in Iraq. DUH!!!!! Anyone who has read Greg Palast's book, "Armend Madhouse," which provides chilling detail on the decades of Bush family infatuation with the Saudis, has to be amazed at the level of cognitive dissonance if not downright schizophrenia in a "Bush" administration which has pursued a war and a foreign policy that virtually guarantees a Shiite hegemony between Iraq and Iran. Never mind that all but one or two of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, nor that bin Ladin himself is the scion of one of Saudi Arabia's wealthiest and most influential famillies, etc. etc.

I have had a similar letter printed in both the SF Chronicle and US News and World Report, which suggessts that "moderate" Moslems who want to prove their peaceful intent must begin by regaining control of their holiest site.Mecca, from Wahabi (Sunni) Fundamentalists who are the principal sponsors of madrassas (schools) determined to create an endless supply of jihadists and suicide bombers against anyone who does not agree with their fanatical beliefs, Wahabi's who would welcome bin Ladin and his ilk as conquering heroes if they decided to go on the hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca.

I am by no means the only person who sees this dichotomy in our National policy. Nice to see that the NY Times, which originally cooperated outrageously in promoting the Neocon Crusade against Islam, is finally beginning to see the light.

Here is the link to today's article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?th&emc=th

Looks like this medium won't provide an easy link (I'm still getting used to the territory), but those who have an on-line connection to the Times can click on it there.

Fantasy Baseball

2007-07-26T22:35:00.000-07:00

The following is a letter I just got published in the Progressive Populist (8/1/07 Vol. 13 No. 13) I will be posting more of my letters, published and ignored, as I go along:

Editor:

As one who subscribes to nearly all of the so-called Progressive publications, I am in deep despair over the lack of meaningful influence we have on real life. The precipitous decline of our putative democracy is accelerating despite the plethora of well-written, brilliantly reasoned criticism being published these days. Demonstrations are essentially irrelevant. It is no exaggeration to compare our oppositional activity to participation in a baseball (or football) fantasy league - a certain amount of ego satisfaction, but no real world results. We are "out of the loop."

The list of grievances is virtually endless: spineless Democrats, a bonehead President, his treasonous Regent (aka Vice-President Cheney), an unwinnable, seemingly endless war, a clueless Supreme Court that is hell-bent on reversing a half-century of legal precedent for the benefit of powerful interests at the expense of basic human rights, a morally and economically bankrupt Healthcare system; well, I could go on a lot longer, but we all know too much already about what has gone wrong with our beloved country.

Impeachment is off the table. Even the subpoenas being issued by a few insistent Congressional Democrats will wend their way interminably through our turgid legal system and are likely to be disallowed by this Supreme Court in any event. Bush's commutation of Libby's prison sentence makes it clear that even criminal convictions will be moot as long as he is in charge.

To make matters worse, except for Dennis Kucinich (who has no chance) and John Edwards (who has virtually no chance), the candidates for the 2008 Presidential election (in both parties) have "business as usual" written all over them.

Again, I feel impelled to evoke Martin Luther King, who once observed: "Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' Vanity comes along and asks the question, 'Is it popular?'" "But, King added, "Conscience comes along and asks the question, 'Is it right?'"

Do we really want to keep playing Fantasy Baseball, or are we finally ready to do something about the mess we are in? Just asking.

test message

2007-07-10T10:47:00.000-07:00

testing