Political Footprints

Occupy LA will not Dismantle Tents

2011-11-27T00:15:00.000-08:00

Research: While the mayor of Los Angeles has decided the Occupy LA Movement tents outside City Hall must go, suggesting the Occupy LA Movement has run its course, the tent dwellers plan to stay and ignore the 12:01 AM MONDAY deadline. In this video, several occupiers read speeches to President Obama. The speakers offer the reasons behind their intent to keep the tents situated in their current public space.

What is the social psychology behind this systematic action we can call Code Dismantle? That might be the first question on the list for those not in tents to explore. Here's the link to the Occupy LA page.

China Slave Labor Camps, US-Thailand Food Chain Slaves

2011-11-23T01:15:00.000-08:00

China has the biggest penal colony in the world - a top secret network of more than 1,000 slave labour prisons and camps known collectively as "The Laogai". And the use of the inmates of these prisons - in what some experts call "state sponsored slavery" - has been credited with contributing to the country's economic boom.

In this episode, former inmates, many of whom were imprisoned for political or religious dissidence without trial, recount their daily struggles and suffering in the "dark and bitter" factories where sleep was a privilege. (Aljazeera)

The investigation begins in the poor villages of Thailand, where agents for the US slave masters trick desperate peasants with promises of well-paid jobs abroad.

But far from fulfilling their American dream, many end up in slave labour farms in Hawaii, California and Florida - unable to return home and working to pay off the debts they incurred in the pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families. (Aljazeera)

Week in Review OWS--Musing Over Highlights

2011-11-21T15:20:00.000-08:00

RESEARCH
So what's going on as we start another week? The Super Congress, another 2011 distraction against real problems and an inventive preparatory tool for cutting medicare and social security, can't agree, probably on the best tactic to cut these benefits with minimum fallout while the air of discontent in the country grows bolder. Was this simply another non-democratic and undemocratic body of time wasters whose only goal was to keep the issue alive? If true, how sinister would that be? So Main Street better think fast. How can Main Street turn this event in favor of the people? How can Main Street come up with its own tool to not only secure these benefits but also to expand them and get them out of the adversity limelight once and for all? This might be a good time for anyone about to lose benefits to join OWS. It may be a good time all of Main Street to start petitions for a single-healthcare system. It isn't enough just to keep the damage of monsters to a minimum, or to even to stop the monsters and let it hold everything at a standstill. People have to begin putting forth programs that transform their daily lives and help reshape social consciousness to benefit the greater humanity, Main Street. Main Street can no longer rely on many of their representatives to vote in its favor. I believe rising to this challenge, to create in the face of standstill, is the skill needed to meet the 21st Century in a new way.

Everyone's talking about UC Davis chancellor Linda Katehi who took action against students that led police to pepper spray students in the face. She certainly assumes a lot of ego. Now she won't resign--even though many feet are kicking her name out the door. She insists the university needs her. (Funny, but I always thought a university could run without a chancellor but not without the professors or students.) Still trying to shape public and private perceptions (and hold onto her job!) as the call for her resignation grows louder. she has now apologized. I guess that solves it. Now it's time to move on and heal, she says. How many people are in jail apologized and just wanted to move on and heal? To avoid a double-standard, it's probably a good idea to let those apologetic people out of jail, many of whom have probably caused less harm than the chancellor. A byproduct: Think of all the money California would save instead of storing prisoners in jails because the prisons are overcrowded.

The recall for Wisconsin's Governor Walker is growing very strong. Signatures by now reach or pass 100,000 on petitions, and rallies reaching 40,000 or more re-enforce the recall. Who's next? Recalling New York's Mayor Bloomberg for his role in unleashing as brutish if not illegal attacks on peaceful protesters would be a strong next step. Recalling Oakland's Mayor Quan and Portland's Mayor Sam Adams at the same time would also be a strong message. What's the message their resignation could send to other officials quick at the spray and attack buttons? Brutish compulsions and a fear of democracy --demophobia--belong in therapy. Recalling all four would send a strong message to cities attacking demonstrators exercising their right of protest. Recalling them all (and more) at the same time provides a rallying stage.

Over this past week, I watched Chris Markers A Grin Without a Cat. He's a master of montage and a terrific filmmaker. The montage from the world demonstrations during the 60s and the war footage could easily be spliced together with today's videos, and who would know the difference? That alone is something to think about. Why isn't there much of a difference in how those in power respond? And what can be done to create a difference with better outcomes for Main Street? There is a difference, however. In the 60s, most of the protesters were students. Today the protesters are made up from all segments of Main Street. Moreover, the protesters are more peaceful today.

Elizabeth Warren Surges Past Obama In?

2011-11-19T17:36:00.000-08:00

Is Elizabeth Warren Standing on the Other Side of the Mirror Obama Can't Find?

Elizabeth Warren arrives on top of America's Good Ethics List so often that people are now seeing her perhaps as not only Obama's answer to himself, but the conscience of Obama, his better self, better half, manifest hope. Should we read between the lines? Will she, won't she run for president in the near future? Didn't Hillary start as Senator? Without the pincers on the neck of Hillary as a passenger in Bill's car and now Obama's car, Warren comes to the people in her own car, at least in the driver's seat, and she's turning heads:

Even though she’s running for the Senate and not for the presidency, the early devotion to Warren recalls the ardor once felt by many for Obama. On its face, this is odd: Warren is not a world-class orator, she is not young or shiny or new, she doesn’t fizz with the promise of American possibility that made the Obama campaign pop. Instead, she’s a mild-mannered Harvard bankruptcy-law professor and a grandmother of three, a member of the older-white-lady demographic (she’s 62) that was written off in 2008 as being the antimatter of hope and change.

And yet, on a deeper level, her popularity makes perfect sense. Embracing Warren as the next “one” is, in part, a way of getting over Obama; she provides an optimistic distraction from the fact that under our current president, too little has changed, for reasons having to do both with the limitations of the political system and the limitations of the man. She makes people forget that estimations of him were too overheated, trust in his powers too fervid. As the feminist philanthropist Barbara Lee told me of Warren, “This moment of disillusion is why people find her so compelling, because she brings forth the best in people and she brings back that excitement.”

Dismantle & Re-Occupy OWS

2011-11-15T23:31:00.000-08:00

Updated video from Democracy Now!

The systematic disrespect for occupiers by mayors in cities should bring to light the need to Recall these mayors and replace them with mayors who are on the side of Main Street. With all due respect to the present mayors, they now seem outside the shifting winds that are clearing the air for the 21st century, one in which we may finally elevate and prioritize our intelligence and imagination over the accumulation of money and power, to construct a more humane and egalitarian everyday world.

The Dismantling of Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-15T00:43:00.000-08:00

For research: The dismantling of Occupy Wall Street is underway across the country. Police across the country are taking down tents and confiscating material. Everyone has to draw their own conclusions.

Notice from Mayor Bloomberg: Occupants of Zuccotti should temporarily leave and remove tents and tarps. Protestors can return after the Park is cleared. This link is a live stream as people are being removed.

The dismantling of Occupy Santa Cruz.

The dismantling of Occupy Oakland

The dismantling of Occupy Portland

The dismantling of Occupy Denver

The dismantling by al jazeera

Update November 21: Laptops smashed and books burned?

Question of the Day--Women at Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-14T16:37:00.000-08:00

What are the specific issues women should group together over in discussing, making demands or boycotting over as a group?

Here's an initial list I constructed: 1. Women's Work (pay, benefits and workplace issues). 2. Childcare for all Mothers. 3. Housing for Single Women. 4. Women's Reproductive Rights. 5. Women's Safety. 6. Women and the Arts. 7. Health Care for Women. 8. Women and Social Conventions. 9. Women in the Professions. 10. Women and Education.

occupy wall street berkeley police and protesters

2011-11-14T00:33:00.000-08:00

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Sexual Assault at Occupy Wall Street

2011-11-13T15:26:00.000-08:00

I've been having a discussion with a friend on the sexual assault at OWS. It's under Occupy Wall Street Arrests on this blog. But that discussion doesn't belong there. It belongs here under its own thread. I find it distracting to entangle the arrests of protesters with the rapes of protesters. These are two separate issues. I have moved some of my thoughts to this thread and shall move others as well. Taking my friend's advice, I have moved the solutions to the front of the musing.

Rape is a violent act against another person. It's a violation of the body.

Bringing the rapes to light is also important because it can lead us to the broader discussion of violence against women in this country.

But the real dispute appears to be how to bring the sexual assaults into the light not whether to bring into the light. And I find that discussion one worth having. It is through such a discussion that the social system regarding this issue has a chance of finding new ways to deal with the problem to help lessen it if not get rid of it. So far, we as a society are not doing too well in keeping the numbers down.

So should OWS be dismantled for attracting fringe or sick people? Only if the city of New York should be dismantled for the same reason. Have we ever heard a call or seen a petition to dismantle an entire town if a rape or murder occurs? I haven't seen that yet.

SOLUTION #1 for OWS: Daily workshops on defining and raising awareness about the dangers of rape followed by self defense workshops for women at the tents. Here's where police officers could be helpful. Imagine, women police officers taking turns training women living in OWS tents to defend themselves.

SOLUTION #2: Since Mayor Bloomberg is outraged at the rapes and even more outraged at rapes not getting reported, how about if the mayor himself go into his bank account and purchase mace for all women. That would convince parents of vulnerable young women he is really concerned with the safety of women engaged in their right of assembly. One other thing Bloomberg can do is set up shelters for the homeless to keep them out of the tent areas. At the same time, how about if Bloomberg sets up daily training workshops for rapists and men out of control to learn how to keep their penises inside their pants. That could happen at police stations or at the Mayor's office, and it could be for men from all over the city, from inside and outside of the buildings, particularly on Wall Street.

Of course, my first reaction to hearing about the rapes was alarm. And then felt equal alarm hearing women were being silenced into not reporting them. I started looking around to read about what was going on. My third reaction was first disappointment and then mistrust. My friend had been at least partially duped. Many of the reports (not of the rapes but of the framing of the rapes by news outlets) proved inaccurate. The fact--rapes occurred--was not wrong. But the framing of the rapes and the reaction to the rapes were contradictory.

First, the situation appears to be the following: rapes have occurred in New York, Dallas, and Portland, Cleveland, and Philadelphia. Mostly I'm finding one rape at each of these sites. One protester in New York, Channing Kehoe, knows of at least one rape having taken place but says several more women are complaining of groping going on by mostly "drunk guys." She said women are going to the police but the officers are refusing to intervene.

Capitalizing on Rape

I began my research as most of us do using the Internet for research by Googling sexual assaults at OWS. The list wasn't too long. At the top of the list, the loudest voices we find Fox News and the political right blogs. Why is that? What do the loudest voices have in common? They share a focus on verbal assaults against OWS. These sources call for the dismantling of OWS, which aroused my suspicion. I wasn't doubtful rapes had occurred but I was suspicious over the framing of the rapes. Does anyone really believe these news outlets feel moral outrage at the rapes of these women?

Andrew Breitbart of the Big Government blog says,

It’s time for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to pull the plug on the dangerous circus in crime zone Zuccotti Park. People have the right to protest, to assemble peaceably, to raise their voices and petition their government. They do not have the right to break the law. And Mayor Bloomberg has the duty to uphold the law.

He found his pretext. He's referring to rapes in particular. I think this non-sequitur (blaming the movement itself for the incidence of rape or other crimes, including those against the protesters themselves) is a good example of framing the crime to support a political agenda. Is Breitbart really suggesting the protest movement itself is the criminal acting out against itself? It seems so.

In criminalizing the OWS movement for crimes committed against, Breitbart and others like him frame the rapes in a sophisticated association game that circles the blame for the rapes onto the movement itself. He and others like him imply the Occupy Wall Street camps are responsible for the rapes and must thus be dismantled. No process of law here. Okay, all things being equal in terms of ethics or morals and even his law, let's continue using Breitbart's reasoning. Let's apply this reasoning about rape to the broader culture, New York City. In playing the same association game, we find rapes occurring there as well--and at quite a rate per day. Since the rapists are among the residents of New York, then it seems appropriate to blame the city of New York for the rapes. Following Breitbart's line of reasoning, the solution is simple: we must dismantle New York City. We must get rid of it since some people have raped other people within its boundaries. I hope Breibart's double-standard and irrational reasoning sparks a note.

As for Bloomberg, Mayor Bloomberg too is quick to want to close down the tent zones. He too jumped at the pretext. His complaint is that the rapes or other crimes are going unreported and this is dangerous for the rest of New York. But have we ever heard Bloomberg, since taking office, demand we shut down New York city and dismantle it because of unreported rapes or other crimes going on throughout the city? Has he ever claimed these unreported rapes or other crimes are dangerous for the rest of the city and the solution is to shut down the city? My guess is he's probably happy they go unreported. Every mayor likes less statistics in this area. It's good for re-election.

All things being equal.

That's the other twist to the framing of these rape incidents. And it is this twist that drew me into this research: The alleged claim that rapes are going unreported. I say alleged because in doing my research I have found conflicting framing on the "reporting" or "not reporting" of the rapes.

I haven't found any report on any rape incident not reported. And men are getting arrested. Not that such non-reports and non-existent.

According to one rather rude man, who appears to be using the rape incidents as a platform to vent his own his hatred of OWS and perhaps women, argues the women at OWS are not reporting rapes, and are morons. Well, I guess that's enough proof for some blogs.

But contrary to his assumptions, the OWS women are not hiding in shame or huddled in shock in the back of tents, bruised without a voice. Women are not taping their mouths shut to protect an abstraction. This guy's distortion of reality pisses me off. He is in essence pitching a tent of male hysteria and fever koutside OWS's living quarters and yelling at the women inside to follow protocol, his, to get in line, his line.

Unless women are lying and the guy in the video has the corner market on what's really going on, women are not covering up crimes against them at these tent sites. According to

Brendan Burke, 41, who helps run the security team in Zuccotti Park, says, "We always encourage victims to go through the proper channels and contact police," But he admits, "there have been times when members of the community have taken it upon themselves to chase off men who exposed themselves in the park." If there is a consensus that someone is bothering another person, the community will take care of it," he said. "Still, we always notify victims to contact police."

A few scary stories circulating are about the police encouraging homeless men to "take it" into the camps. Is this an indirect way of putting young women at jeopardy? It seems so to me. Is there a lawsuit against the police department here? I would bring it to light. Meanwhile, since the police seem reluctant to help out here, women are taking matters into their own hands.

On Friday, Occupy Wall Street created a 16-square-foot “safe house,” designed to shelter up to 30 women. This is a start. However, how about setting up “safe spaces” AND placing the onus on men to stop sexual violence? According to feminist activist, Deanna Zandt, “getting the men not to rape [the women]” is a better starting point. I concur. Columnist, Katha Pollitt, put all of this in perspective when she recently asked, “Can you imagine hetero MEN having to set up a safe space to protect them from women and LGBT?” No. Most of us can’t. Too many of us have been wired to see men as predators and women as princesses needing protection, the latter of which doesn’t always have a happy-ending. Something’s got to give. Women need safe spaces because we live in a rape culture that makes sexual occupancy permissible anywhere. (from Occupy Rape Culture)

How often do rapes occur in the United States?

According to The National Women's Study, 683,000 forcible rapes occur every year; which equals 56,916 per month; 1,871 per day; 78 per hour; and 1.3 per minute {National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 2000.}

We can thus conclude that rape is a problem of the broader culture that has infected OWS. And it's important to not lose sight of these incidents as carried into the tent arenas as infiltrators of unresolved social and psychological illnesses.

We all know the stories of women who get raped and, ashamed, believe it is their fault. We all know the unsavory stories of women who report rape and find themselves treated as criminals. We all know the stories of infiltrators who rape women in order to help dismantle a movement of dissent. We all know the stories of victims of gang rapes being further humiliated by law enforcement agencies and courts.

We all know the problems that erupt from welcoming everyone into a movement. You get a small percentage of predators looking to satisfy their perversions or to act out their neurosis or even psychosis. When you're living outside in tents, you also get homeless people, some who can help but others who can harm because they are mentally unstable. You get the dazed and confused. You get people otherwise living of the streets. Protesters have to educate themselves on these facts and develop tools to spot the predators or attackers among them. This appears to be happening.

Occupy Wall Street Arrests

2011-11-07T14:42:00.000-08:00

UPDATE:
Democracy Now! continuously updates itself.

UPDATE: NOV 20, Portland arrests and attacks

UPDATE NOVEMBER 17--OWS 2-month anniversary--Day of Action

Overview on Day of Action in The Guardian includes video on New, York Los Angeles, Portland. Day of Action Overview Common Dreams

Los Angeles arrests at least 73 arrested

Portland, Oregon at least 20 arrested

New York: scores (at least 245) arrested CNN , Brooklyn Bridge Atlantic Wire, Sit-in in lower Manhatten CNN,

---------------------------------------
UPDATE NOVEMBER 16
Dangerous 84-year old woman pepper sprayed.

Occupy San Francisco/Berkeley good photos and video -- at least 100 arrested
---------------------------------------
UPDATE NOVEMBER 15

ARREST OF JOURNALISTS: While a media blackout occurred during the raid at Zuccotti Park on Tuesday early morning, journalists are being arrested. I'm reminded of the Iraq war. Not that occupy is a war zone. But efforts as I have never seen were used to keep the press away.

Here's one person doing research on keeping the press at a distance by arresting its members. Here's a another site on journalists with broader information. Here's a Tweets tracking journalists arrested at Occupy sites. I don't know it's reliability of this last site (based on its ad). Must do more research.
--------------------------------------

On November 14: 234 people At Occupy Wall Street (NY--Zuccotti Park) arrested and go to court.
-------------------

UPDATE: NOVEMBER 12: Occupy Portland gets confronted and attacked by police. I guess the word from the city is "okay you made your point and had your fun. Now go home and obey conditions on Main Street."

Around 4 a.m., dozens of police formed a line across from demonstrators who had poured into the street. Protesters facing them appeared to be in festive spirits with some banging on drums and plastic pails, another clanging a cowbell while others danced in the streets as a man juggled nearby.

On Sunday at an impromptu news conference, the mayor defended his order to clear the park, saying it is his job to enforce the law and keep the peace. "This is not a game," Adams said.

How many arrests have been made during Occupy protests? Should any arrests have been made? I'm conflicted. I think arrest, in general, is a knee-jerk reaction. It's an easy fix. A muscle response in problem solving. Where is it written that a man can't wear two pair of pants, said my father-in-law during a seizure of alzheimers? And yet, there he was in two pair of pants. No one at the retirement home liked it or what it suggested about aging. The protester was hurried off to his room to get out of one of his pairs, so he could return presentable, get in line, follow the rules of pants wearing. In short, his removal constituted a kind of arrest.

Surely there are other ways to solve problems than arresting people or pepper spraying them. I mean, for us to live up to our humanity. How much do such arrests stem from internalized confusion and hard-to-kick barbarism? How much from a misconception of entitlement? These arrests are at the very least manifestations of our quick fix culture and our over-use of muscle. These kinds of arrests make manifest the theme, cruelty in the guise of tradition, a theme frequently explored in modern stories. To really advance, shouldn't we start by making modifications in the way we handle dissent?

On November 7, Chris Hedges writes in "Finding Freedom in Handcuffs,"

Faces appeared to me moments before the New York City police arrested us Thursday in front of Goldman Sachs. They were not the faces of the smug Goldman Sachs employees, who peered at us through the revolving glass doors and lobby windows, a pathetic collection of middle-aged fraternity and sorority members. They were not the faces of the blue-uniformed police with their dangling cords of white and black plastic handcuffs, or the thuggish Goldman Sachs security personnel, whose buzz cuts and dead eyes reminded me of the East German secret police, the Stasi.

According to Politicons, arrests topped 3,000 by November 2

Beginning Research on Arrests

New York: Nov. 6 (20 arrested): Nov. 5 (scores arrested); Oct. 16 (74 arrested);

Oakland: Nov. 3 (103 arrested); Nov. 3 (30 arrested at port); Oct. 26 (100 arrested); Oct. 25 (75 arrested);

Atlanta: Nov. 7 (5 arrested); Nov. 6: (20 arrested); Oct. 26 (53 arrested)

Denver: Oct. 30 (dozens of arrests)

Los Angeles: Oct 3 (100s arrested);

San Francisco: Oct 11 (11 arrested);

Oregon: Oct 30 (dozens arrested):

Texas: Oct 30 (dozens arrested);

Alaska: Nov. 6 (2 arrested);

Chicago: Oct. 23 (130 arrested);

Iowa: Oct. 10 (32 arrested);

San Jose: Oct. 23 (9 arrested);

Videos

March to Union Square one woman's arrest: Sept 24
One man's arrest: Sept. 24
Oakland's Mayhem: Oct. 27
San Francisco's Sleepover, Sept. 30
Two protesters threatened with arrest for trying to close BofA accounts in Santa Cruz Oct. 15

Compiled Statistics, Overviews & Patterns

According to Weasel Zippers, 2,200 arrests have been made as of October 23, 2011.
According to Politicons, arrests top 3,000 by November 2

Article on pattern of arrests as of October 14, Village Voice

Short Roundup on CNN: Atlanta, Honolulu, Oregon, Riverside, CA as of November 7

Extensive Roundup by RSN, Atlanta, Honolulu, Oakland, New York, San Francisco, and more as of November 6

Move Your Money Roundup from across the country, November 6

Roundup on Bay Area protests, Nov. 3, San Francisco Bay Guardian

Question of the Day--on Feminism in the Age of Austerity

2011-11-06T18:03:00.000-08:00

If one focuses on the issues of women within the borders of today's Age of Austerity in America, what are the specific issues and how does feminism itself fit into framing these issues?

Occupy Oakland Nov 2 2011

2011-11-02T15:59:00.000-07:00

Well, Main Street has arrived at a general strike. Peaceful demonstrators want change and they are willing to shut down the city of Oakland to prove just how serious this need for change is.

I found this powerful poster on numerous sites, including this one called neontommy.

A little overview in which Main Street holds firm.

Who's participating in the strike? Thousands of workers, students and vets from Main Street. 5% of public employees did not show up for work.

While the focus is on a system turned viral against Main Street, a steady focus is on boycotting banks as this site shows.

As the numbers of protesters grow, the chances of co-optation or corporate derailment, demonizing or reshaping of this strike decreases. With police nearly absent or peripheral, at least nearly invisible, no violence has erupted. Hopefully, individual officers will join in one day.

But where to next? Perhaps Occupy Everywhere can strengthen itself with a rotating system of general strikes daily, so that every day someplace in America Main Street closes down a city for the day--and continues this process of the rotating general strike until the necessary changes are reached.

Some of the informative links I found worth viewing:

Democracy Now!

Guardian coverage

History in video and pictures of Occupy Oakland.

The Nation

USA even gets in the picture with video. People of all ages participate. "The system just doesn't work...it hurts our working families."

Noam Chomsky speaks on Movement in Nation of Change

Clashes In and Out of Sanity--Greece October 2011

2011-10-30T20:42:00.000-07:00

While I don't support violence, I can't find value in the Austerity Measures enforced on the people of Greece. And because the people don't have a voice, they want their streets protected to make their demands on how they wish to proceed in their own country. Why would it be other than what it is? Why shouldn't people head into their own streets. What other options do people have?

One thing seems to be clear, one trick pony solutions by the state often evoke one trick pony reactions in the people in an emotional battle over survival.What else does anyone expect? For people to follow one another off cliffs in a human chain to save the controversial debt suspended in mid-air?

Perhaps there's a lesson here. Perhaps this debt will prove the opportunity for us to to re-create something new that gives the 21st century its special place in history.

I present the challenge: Who will dare to try to re-create our humanity so that our current luxury is no longer a luxury for a few but for all? And in so doing, who will do so with the backing of the people?

Unfortunately, those in power seem to want to sweep humanity into a treadmill present, one that embraces the past except for the gadgetry. Compensation: a few sparks for excitement. I guess the gadgetry makes the sparks.

Afraid of its own shadows, Big Power wants to decide the changes; it wants its privileges and its addictions intact and sacred. Afraid of its own shadows, it clings to its fabricated hierarchies and wants Main Street to maintain them at whatever the cost. Afraid of its own shadows, it calls on the cops of Main Street to beat up their own family members if necessary. Afraid of its own shadows, it refuses to make the adjustments that could turn down the volume on the growing aggression. We're not in an utopia or bust condition. We are at cliff's edge. Many are already over it. The challenge: How do we fly our metaphoric planes as our next quantum leap over to the next cliff. (How do you use this plane metaphor without unwanted associations?) Once there we can turn from the edge of the cliff and walk back to our new towns where anything can happen. Rather than? Rather than get back into the same old line to join the human chain that is right now hanging off the cliff--again--to save the debt suspended in mid-air. Over and over, Main Street's Sisyphean task. What a waste of human potential.

In the bigger picture of humanity's quest to share the planet, this debt is meaningless. Let the banks and big powers pay the debt off. They have the money. If we don't insist they cover the debts, are we enabling or giving in to infantile and pathological intent among hoarding people? And if so, what have we all internalized that has gotten us here?

Keeping the debt Main Street's debt makes it our post-modern monster, or its manifestation. It becomes, if it isn't already, humanity's greatest and saddest distraction and threat, the big one of our era, the one to siphon off our time and our imagination. We are not around for long. Do we really want to spend most of our time prioritizing this debt issue?

Well, I plan to visit some Occupy Everywhere site next weekend. That's my next entry. It's hard to believe I still haven't paid a site a visit.

Naming Names: Who's At the Top 1%

2011-10-29T23:34:00.000-07:00

I came across an interesting article in the New York Sunday Review. While the article asks the question, "who exactly are the people at the top?," it fails to do more than offer the statistics. Even thought the statistics are important, I thought I'd post an excerpt from the article and then follow that excerpt with a list of names. Here's the except of "Wall Street Protesters Hit the Bull's-Eye" by Eduardo Porter.

Occupiers of Zuccotti Park and other sites around the country have been criticized for the fuzziness of their goals. Their complaint that the privileged few in the top 1 percent are getting a disproportionate share of the nation’s prosperity, however, is spot on. And Wall Streeters are taking a bigger and bigger chunk of that income.
Graphic
Who exactly are the people at the top? They are 1.4 million families that made on average $1 million in 2009, the latest data available. They took a hit from the 2008 financial crisis, but no doubt are regaining lost ground. The rich always do: a report published last week by the Congressional Budget Office shows that the share of national income going to the top percentage of households skyrocketed over the last three decades, even as it fell for the vast majority of American families.

The Report gives some statistics but the report at this site is much more extensive. It includes so much you need to take a day with a cup of coffee or tea to sit down and look it over. I don't know how much time you need to digest it.

I found this percent breakdown easy to follow:

Top 34.73% of households: annual gross income of $65,000 +
Top 25.60% of households: annual gross income of $80,000 +
Top 20% of households: annual gross income of $91,202 +
Top 17.80% of households: annual gross income of $100,000 +
Top 10% of households: annual gross income of $118,200 +
Top 5% of households: annual gross income of $166,200+
Top 2.67% of households: annual gross income of $200,000 +
Top 1.5% of households: annual gross income of $250,000 +
Top 0.12% (or146,000 households): annual gross income of $1,600,000+ (adapted from a conservative site)

Naming Names: Of course the richest 400 people are openly published at Forbes 400, and other places, but I wanted to publish the link here as well as list the top 20 slots for my own research purposes. Who are in the bottom top twenty slot? I'd like to find that list and set the top twenty and bottom twenty side by side. My guess is that the all bottom twenty would include so many ties that the list would go on for miles.

The Walmarts have as much income as the lower 30% (income bracket) of Americas. (this statistic added on December 9)

# 1: Bill Gates; Age: 55; Residence: Medina, Wash.
Net worth: $59 billion; Source: Microsoft

#2: Warren Buffett; Age: 81; Residence: Omaha, Neb.
Net worth: $39 billion; Source: Berkshire Hathaway

#3: Larry Ellison; Age: 67; Residence: Woodside, Calif.
Net worth: $33 billion; Source: Oracle

# 4 (tie): Charles Koch; Age: 75; Residence: Wichita, Kan.
Net worth: $25 billion; Source: Koch Ind. & diversified

# 4 (tie): David Koch; Age: 71; Residence: New York
Net worth: $25 billion; Source: Koch Ind. & diversified

#5 missing or error

# 6: Christy Walton; Age: 56; Residence: Jackson, Wy.
Net worth: $24.5 billion; Source: Wal-Mart

# 7: George Soros; Age: 81; Residence: Katonah, N.Y.
Net worth: $22 billion; Source: hedge funds

# 8: Sheldon Adelson; Age: 78; Residence: Las Vegas, Nev.
Net worth: $21.5 billion; Source: casinos

# 9: Jim Walton; Age: 63; Residence: Bentonville, Ark.
Net worth: $21.1 billion; Source: Wal-Mart

# 10: Alice Walton; Age: 61; Residence: Fort Worth, Texas
Net worth: $20.9 billion; Source: Wal-Mart

# 11: S. Robson Walton; Age: 67; Residence: Bentonville, Ark.
Net worth: $20.5 billion; Source: Wal-Mart;

# 12: Michael Bloomberg; Age: 69; Source: Bloomberg LP
Net worth: $19.5 billion; Residence: New York

# 13: Jeff Bezos; Age: 47; Residence: Seattle, Wash.
Net worth: $19.1 billion; Source: Amazon.com

# 14: Mark Zuckerberg; Age: 27; Residence: Palo Alto, Calif.
Net worth: $17.5 billion; Source: Facebook

# 15: Sergey Brin; Age: 38; Residence: Los Altos, Calif.
Net worth: $16.7 billion; Source: Google

# 16: Larry Page; Age: 38; Residence: Palo Alto, Calif.
Net worth: $16.7 billion; Source: Google

# 17: John Paulson; Age: 55; Residence: New York
Net worth: $15.5 billion; Source: hedge funds

# 18: Michael Dell; Age: 46; Residence: Austin, Texas
Net worth: $15 billion; Source: Dell

# 19: Steve Ballmer; Age: 55; Residence: Hunts Point, Wash.
Net worth: $13.9 billion; Source: Microsoft

# 20 (tie): Forrest Mars; Age: 80; Residence: Big Horn, Wy.
Net worth: $13.8 billion; Source: candy

# 20 (tie): Jacqueline Mars; Age: 71; Residence: The Plains, Va.
Net worth: $13.8 billion; Source: candy

# 20 (tie): John Mars; Age: 75; Residence: Jackson, Wy.
Net worth: $13.8 billion; Source: candy and pet food

Now that was a waste of time in and for itself. Yet, I trust myself. I don't like waste much. Nor overdoses. I always try to turn even the dead leaves in rain gutters and the garbage from dinner in the sink into at least philosophical if not creative value. In this case, I'll return here from time to time, mostly in my mind, to study the connections within and to and from the data. I trust meditating on such data will lead to something of value to think about if not write about. In and of itself, the data is of little interest to me.

Occupy to Boycott

2011-10-26T16:22:00.000-07:00

Since the police are tear gassing or arresting people, attempting to exercise their right of assembly, such as in Oakland, we may see even more people pour into the Occupy sites in order to defend the right of assembly. I have always believed you don't leave. But whenever one's safety is at stake, it becomes a personal and political decision.

Video streaming by Ustream
I wonder how police determine who gets arrested and who doesn't? To follow the rule of law, shouldn't everyone get arrested? If not, are the police discriminating against those arrested? Or are they discriminating against those not arrested? What if all the protesters demanded to get arrested? All or nothing. What would happen? In any case, it does seems the arbitrary arrests fracture the right of assembly of some but not all protesters. Interestingly, about half of those arrested in New York recently, were offered freedom with a catch. Why half? Which half is being discriminated against? What kind of an arbitrary system of law is going on? How does that arbitrary system fit in with our Constitution? What if one million protesters show up and all engage in acts of civil disobedience? Shouldn't all get arrested? What about even 10,000? Shouldn't all ten thousand get arrested? If only enough get arrested to make an example of them or fit into a wagon, aren't the police going against their commitment to the law if not the law itself? These are the kind of questions that I have about the arrests. I am not promoting the arrests. I am promoting an all or nothing arrest system.

How Will the Occupy Movement Keep Its Momentum?

Practicing boycotts is not an original practice, just as strikes are not original but have often been effective . It seems boycotting is the next step to maintain the momentum of Occupy Wall Street. Already in process, boycotting banks is already expanding toward challenging insurance companies. But it's a big country. It's easy to get burned out and wander aimlessly in and out of boycotts. Perhaps to involve more people and turn up the volume on the voice of Occupy Everywhere, we might see a system in which protesters begin rotating boycotts. The boycotts might even be called Canceled Shopping Days or someone might create a logo for it, for example, a shopping cart filled with dollars signs with an X through it.

Code Pink and Other Women Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-24T16:01:00.000-07:00

Is Code Pink helping to fuel the Occupy Wall Street momentum? As a matter of fact, they are.

Follows is a little (maybe not so little) excerpt from Ms. Magazine with links to women who have occupied Wall Street.

It’s unfortunate that the mainstream media has paid so little attention to women’s voices at Occupy Wall Street and has consistently chosen white males to represent the movement. While I don’t begrudge these men for talking to major news outlets–it’s great that they’re willing articulate their concerns to a wide audience–I do fault the media for consistently choosing to interview and profile people from this same demographic. The camp is so diverse in gender, race, religion and ideological affiliation that failing to highlight this diversity is a failure to fully and accurately cover the movement.

Also, what about all the famous women leaders who have come to visit the camp and show their support? Men’s visits to the camp have been consistently reported–just perform a basic internet search for Michael Moore, Russell Simmons, Kanye West, Cornel West or Chris Hedges. But what about Naomi Klein, Barbara Ehrenreich, Eve Ensler and Susan Sarandon, to name a few? While it’s amazing that all of these people have gotten behind the movement, I do think it’s telling that, again, the mainstream media chooses to focus on men. (Women got the most attention only when they were penned up and maced early in the occupation.) The challenge is not so much to harness the power of women but to make sure their actions are given visibility.

Last Saturday in Times Square, when thousands gathered to protest the ongoing wars and the corporate interests embedded in them, I noticed women directing the march. As we all chanted together, I realized that Occupy Wall Street is galvanizing because the ire is feminist, anti-colonialist, anti-racist and anti-patriarchal. Although there have been (and will be) hiccups along the way, Occupy Wall Street will only grow in numbers and support if it continues to resist a top-down message and instead capitalizes on the urgent notion that the 99 percent is made of many diverse “percents.”

Interviews Cornell West & Michael Moore, Oct 24

2011-10-24T14:19:00.000-07:00

Here's Democracy Now! today. Much of the show is on Occupy Wall Street. Interviews with Cornell West and Michael Moore talk about the momentum of Occupy Wall Street. One thing perhaps is clear. People should not leave occupying until the end is reached. Every day those who can stay stay. How about rotating bodies. Mondays and Fridays this group of people. Tuesdays and Sunday this group of people. Etc.

It would strengthen the future of Occupy Wall Street if Occupy Wall Street had an umbrella called Main Street that organizes all the groups, provides sign up sheets, and offers shared resources and ideas. No group runs the show. But Umbrella Main Street, set up as vendors, could act as communication centers. What do people want? What do people want? Find it at your nearest Umbrella Main Street. All the demands in one place.

Elizabeth Warren Speaks On the Work Force, Families and Revolving Debt

2011-10-22T14:07:00.000-07:00

What are the ethical issues challenging the American work environment that raises the volume on voices such as Elizabeth Warren? She speaks on what she sees as the single most important economic shift in the 2nd half of the 20th century that sprang from the entry of the working mother (middle class?) into the American work force. The parenthesis because the work environment was no stranger to working class women. However, the issue involves all working families today. This video is very much worth the hour.

Naomi Wolf, Writer Arrested

2011-10-19T23:49:00.000-07:00

The latest author to put her hands behind her back at an Occupy Wall Street event, is feminist author Naomi Wolf. Urged on by the tradition of Martin Luther King jr., on the importance to engage in civil disobedience against unjust laws, Wolf joins others in an act of civil disobedience. Today, such civil disobedience rallies against the unethical practices of Wall Street and the government, economic and cultural officials who promote, participate or ignore the practices.

Links to Greece's Discontent with Austerity

2011-10-19T23:25:00.000-07:00

Greece-Oct 19

The General Strike of Greece in Pictures, from The Guardian. The Issue: Who will control the economics of Main Street in Greece? The Euro Wall Street or the Main Street of Greece? According to one protester, municipal employee Giorgos Kamkeris, "The men and women whom we elected to power were not given a mandate to reduce us to poverty." He went on to say, "this is about people power. It is about the masses persuading politicians to think again" (qtd. in Helen Smith).

This BBC article with video shows the intensity of the clash between Main Street and Euro Wall Street during Greece's General Strike going on right now. According to the article, at least 70,000 people gathered together at Syntagma Square in central Athens. But people all through Greece are part of the General Strike. According to the article, "one striker, university lecturer Yannis Zabetakis, told the BBC Greece was like 'a taxation Armageddon.'"

This blog article offers one or more videos of the crisis in Greece. The videos follow the article. Its headline reads, "Greece Braces for 'Mother Of All Strikes As Austerity Vote Nears." Further beneath the videos are "related articles" on the crisis in Greece.

After Greek Parliament votes yes, yes, make Main Street pay once more, people on Main Street say no, no, no. Yet, who's listening? Who wrote the sacred list of "Not To Be Tampered With" and how is that working out for us? Should we re-evaluate our addiction to a particular kind of governing in which unavoidable suffering and imbalances occur with such rapidity both are hard to keep up with? Should we continue obeying a small group of people who we essentially allow to write up death lists, poverty lists, and privilege lists? Main Street has to decide together. We have to examine where we've been and where we'd like to go. Whatever we do, we should really figure out a way to avoid setting up people on Main Street as tools for people on Wall Street to use for their benefit.

But what do I know about the desires of others? Maybe people just want the crumbs that usually fall from the table for us. Nothing says we should meet the demands of the 21st century for a more humane society. Nothing says we shouldn't obey people who have assumed rulership over others. We can cattle ourselves onto a very thin line, in which our major goal remains policing our own and our family's state of being to stay on that line, the thin one from which we can be easily seen by those who have drawn it or continue to alter it according to their needs. We can count on some nice person in power to change things--eventually one day, later, in some future, after we're dead even, for our children or grandchildren. It's really our choice. It always was and always will be.

Initial Demands of the 99%

2011-10-18T17:21:00.000-07:00

The following are the initial demands of one group, an unknown percentage, among the 99%:

An OWS Working Group Committed to Elect a Non-Partisan National General Assembly

WHEREAS THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION PROVIDES:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

WE, THE NINETY-NINE PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE

To continue click here.

Hillary Speaks on Citizen Political Involvement in the 21st Century

2011-10-18T11:38:00.001-07:00

Notes On Who is Capitalizing on Occupy Wall Street

2011-10-17T15:59:00.000-07:00

Who is capitalizing on the Occupy Wall Street Movement? What do news services, politicians and CEOs say in order to frame the movement to their advantage?

In doing research, I found some interesting facts. Somewhere near the end of my research, I came across Matt Taibbi, writing in Rolling Stone, who says:

beware of provocateurs on both sides of the aisle. This movement is going to attract many Breitbarts, of both the left and right variety. They're going to try to identify fake leaders, draw phony battle lines, and then herd everybody back into the same left-right cage matches of old. Whenever that happens, we just have to remember not to fall for the trap. When someone says this or that person speaks for OWS, don't believe it. This thing is bigger than one or two or a few people, and it isn't part of the same old story.

He wrote this after Breitbart's Big Government site published a bunch of stolen emails that Breitbart thought implicated some democrat politicians and public figures for aligning themselves or even helping Occupy Wall Street movement, as if any association constitutes foul play.

The importance of Taibbi's story is not about the stolen emails, it is about who is capitalizing on Occupy Wall Street instead of assisting it or who is pretending to assist it. We already know critics of the OWS will capitalize on it to get their talking points out and trash their opponents. Such behavior has become part of the status quo of political posturing and pseudo debates. But what about those allegedly favoring the movement in order to gain from it? Two groups come to mind. First are the framers, those putting a frame around the movement by defining it in their own self-interest. This group leaves a lot out, actually, it leaves out anything that doesn't fit their perception of the movement. The second group uses the word "understand"a lot. I understand or you don't understand.

I will be adding to this list over time.

NEWS SERVICES

1. Time magazine puts a frame around its list of the Top Ten American Protests Movements. It decides not only which of America's Protest Movements should be in the Top Ten, but more important also what information about the protests should be included and what should be excluded. How would you write about these movements?

The Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council blog frames the Occupy Wall Street protests through its lens. It understands the frustrations of the people in the street. It blames the governments for all the frustration. It claims government calls the shots. Exonerating Wall Street players from responsibility in the current economic mess, this Council claims the government failed to understand what the Council understands about Occupy Wall Street, especially what the Council understands about how to frame the faltering economy that led to Occupy Wall Street. Blame bailouts of Fannie and Freddie, the Council cries out. The Council exonerates Wall Street by claiming its innocence and immunity from having to understand how to fix a country's economy since it is not elected into office to act from such understanding or decision making about the economy. The Council admits Wall Street played a part in the faltering economy but only because government dragged Wall Street into the mess. In the Never Enough Land of Wall Street, the government lacked an understanding of how to bailout Wall Street with enough, I guess. Okay, maybe that part isn't in the article. The Council is not alone in this kind of thinking. Many headlines outside the Occupy Wall Street zone are pointing fingers at political deaf and dumbers with no understanding of the real cause behind the meaning of what brought about Occupy Wall Street.

Here's one reporter from CNNiReport who says he's an insider and wants a leader and he knows who it is.

POLITICIANS

Who are the politicians who say they understand the movement but do little or nothing to directly support it? The list changes daily. All this understanding sounds like a political therapy group. It reminds me of Bill Clinton when he said, "I feel your pain." On the other hand, given the chance, how many politicians want to do the ethical thing?

The Democrats

Key figures among the democrats offer their understanding.

UPDATED: OCT 18. They understand so well, this group has decided to put together its own rally (on creating jobs) in an attempt to siphon off the firefighters, police and teachers from the Occupy Wall Street movement. Okay, maybe siphon is a harsh word. Maybe borrow or maybe just invite. Maybe all along some of the top democrats have been waiting for the people to finally give them a reason to raise hell. It's hard to know. The danger? Fragmenting a movement already underway. The call: Hey, everyone, over here! Well maybe that's okay. It's just one day. An interesting paradox, however. Isn't a rally by any administration an oxymoron act? I don't know. Maybe I'm wrong. Paranoid. Cynical. But to whom are the democrats protesting? Isn't the tradition of rallying of the people against those in power? We have to see where this goes? It could turn out really well.

Have the democrats consulted with the teachers, fire fighters and police--the ones they are calling to action--over what belongs in the jobs bill? Maybe the teachers, police and fire fighters should make sure their needs are being met exactly as they want them met before grabbing that rally sign. What does the jobs bill say about unions currently under Code Dismantle? Why does this administration insist on defining itself as the underdog and oppressed? Is this some kind of code in itself, asking anyone listening for help against some shadow administration that really makes the decisions in Washington? It seems unlikely, but you never know.

Politicians say they understand. But how much of this understanding is self-serving as the Taibbi warns. He seems to share a common cynicism. We're seen the people's power co-opted so often it doesn't take much to turn someone or something into a suspect.

But wait, what might transpire if politicians who say they understand take the bold step and join the Wall Street protests?

And what about all that money on Wall Street? If there's plenty of money to go around but is stuck to 1% of the nation's fingers, wouldn't it benefit the nation for everyone to grab whatever it takes to unstick it once and for all and now? And not just loosen the crumbs under a Trickle Down economic plan that has never worked. How fastened to these few fingers can this wealth be? Certainly, if we can travel to the end of the galaxy, if we can make near fountain of youth discoveries with stems cells, if we can set off particles in accelerators, we can unstick money from a few crooked fingers, especially if it means better survival for humanity and the planet.

How can today's understanding politicians help? For starters, how about sending a lot of money to help Occupy Wall Street get elected people into office who are not dependent on Wall Street's cash? How about supporting the unions? How about refusing money from Wall Street.

The Republicans

The mantra is pervasive. It's like looking up the meaning of a word in a dictionary. They get to blame the democrats for the faltering economy. They get to blame the democrats for the frustration and anger partly fueling the Occupy Wall Street dissent. They get to remind the folks in the streets it's their own fault. Here's a typical opportunistic Cain moment: Herman Cain says if you're not rich, blame yourself. My brother has cerebral palsy and can neither walk nor talk or even use his hands effectively. He is definitely to blame for his medical condition that leads him, no matter how hard he tries to understand the stock market or find someone to hire him, to have to rely on social security to survive. My neighbor lost her house because she lost her job. She should have long ago given up food and banked that money for her rainy day. Her fault.

BUSINESSES, CORPORATIONS, CEOs

1. Warren Buffet and his son Howard, who have not donated any money or supplies to Occupy Wall Street, prefer to donate understanding and benevolent best wishes instead, which not only helps them appear sympathetic but also neutralizes their massive wealth into a no touch safety zone. These well wishers promote themselves as the good hoarders of the cash siphoned off from the 99%.

Giving these good hoarders the benefit of the doubt, let's ask them to practice their angelic compassion. How about donating at least ten million dollars to the Occupy Wall Street Movement no strings attached. This money could be used to help feed people, pay their rent while protesting and replenish medical supplies. Or how about if the good hoarders give up up 10% of their wealth to pay off the students loans of all those workers who work for them. Money left over? Pay the tuition of workers in your vast companies. Shorten the work and raise the pay, both show an appreciation of those who fill the bank accounts of the owners.

2. We all heard Ben and Jerry ice cream wants to be in the Good-Hoarder Column. This company went a step further than the Buffets and actually passed out the sweets at Occupy Wall Street to sweeten up their own image along with the protesters. To really sweeten things up, this company could look at how it treats its employees. Do they have strong benefits and retirement? Are they all earning a living wage? Are any losing their homes? How about profit sharing? Why not lead the Good Company Column by making sure employees are really sharing in the wealth they make for Ben and Jerry's bank accounts. Or rather than pass ice-cream around--all that sugar!--help pay off student loans.

3. Finally, some businesses will always find a innovative way to make money off any situation. These are most certainly the front runners in innovation. The best example so far is the Android iphone, which is advertising its phone by suggesting protesters use it after an arrest.

Three Women Share Nobel Prize!

2011-10-07T21:45:00.001-07:00

Three Women Share Nobel Prize!

Occupy Wall Street links, update Oct 17

2011-10-07T21:42:00.000-07:00

update Oct 17

Democracy Now!

UPDATED, OCT 15, earlier

Today, people from all over the world will enter the visible world of the streets and make them politically friendly for 99% of the people. Today more people are waking up from the gutters of the rich and hobbling onto the sidewalks to begin a march toward regaining their dignity, or recognizing it for the first time. Today, globally people get a chance to start the process of making their way toward health care, equity in gender and race, access to education, high paying jobs with a lower work week, the end of wars, and all of the other demands that suggest a more humane world in which everyone takes a greater part in the gains, a world in which the wealthy no longer maintain some kind of assumed divine right over the 99% who in essence keep the wealthy stable in their positions and power.

Occupy Wall Street, Oct 15

The Guardian on Global Action, Oct 15

Excellent photos from around the world, Occupy, occupy, occupy!, Oct 15

Photos from around the world: Get through the commercial ad that precedes the photos to view the 55 photos., Oct 15. Photos are worth it. Mute the sound on the ad.

Democracy Now, October 7 -- Click on main logo in left-hand corner to keep current

Occupy Wall Street, Oct 6--

Occupy San Fransisco, Oct 7-- updated daily at site itself

Occupy Santa Cruz, Oct 7, Photos from Santa Cruz, Oct 13

Occupy DC, Oct 7

Occupy Los Angeles, live streaming

Taking the Path Less Traveled to Wall Street in October 2011

2011-10-02T20:15:00.000-07:00

NOTE: SCROLL DOWN FOR OCT 8 UPDATE.

"Bring Down the Wall" reads a sign in New York on October 2, 2011. How prophetic is this sign? And what is the Wall of Wall Street that must be taken down in order to make an adjustment in the economic imbalance in America right now? How prophetic is this sign?

How prophetic is this video?

What do these arrests suggest?

The wave of the new Millennium may be doing nothing short than trying to catch up with itself, of taking the path less traveled into its own era, to make its historical mark, its advances in the history of humanity--to reach its shoreline with a more humane and wise approach to social and economic structures.

People have waited a long time for the saturated greed of the few to transform into something non-toxic. People have waited a long time for those elected into office to act responsibly and protect Main Street from the toxic accumulations. People have waited a long time to neutralize or throw out the ideological leftovers of the 17th century social and economic divisions.

It will not be easy. But if Main Street stays firm, whether on the margins of Wall Street or inside its center, and more people join in that determination, it is possible if not inevitable to bring down that Wall of Wall Street that has brought about so much unnecessary suffering, told and untold, on Main Street. At least that's what Parenti seems to thinks.

(UPDATE OCT 8: I'm not sure Main Street can break through the Wall without substantial and sustained demonstrations that are both tightly organized and well-funded along with the spontaneous gatherings. Main Street needs both. The new era calls for both, perhaps. Yet, redefining leadership makes sense. Direct democracy seems much healthier--politically, economically and socially--than representational democracy. Check out, by clicking here, how direct democracy worked in 5th century BC ancient Greece. Direct democracy involves the participation of all citizens. Is direct democracy superior to the representational democracy that began blossoming with modernity in the 17th century?Are we seeing Occupy Everything an attempt to update the practices of our earliest direct democracy and experiment with our kind of direct democracy?

And what will we find after the Wall of Wall Street collapses out of historical necessity, if it does? What will we do with America's long and powerful momentum of "Accumulitis"? What will we have learned? Maybe answering these questions should be put on hold while the momentum helps shape and frame the necessity of the moment. )

The Voice of Hillary Clinton in San Francisco

2011-09-16T15:50:00.000-07:00

Even though I now say I wish I had voted for Hillary instead of Obama, I have to say that I'd like to see her step in as president over the next four years. As it was, A large part of why I voted for Obama revolved around my fear that Bill Clinton would have been the Dick Cheney of Hillary Clinton. As it turned out, Obama has adopted Bill Clinton's ghost as his Dick Cheney.

But in rethinking Hillary, I think I might have been unfair. We all know Obama has not fought for Main Street. The tiny things for Main Street he has done have been so overblown in significance it has convinced me all the more of the error I made. You go down fighting if you have integrity. People should not be asked to wait while a leader asks his opponents if they'd be willing to give a few crumbs to Main Street, and if they are willing which ones. And what is behind giving crumbs anyway? Is it to prevent mass revolt? In fact, even Hillary's speech is a kind of plea to women to not revolt. Nevertheless, Hillary might have accomplished more for Main Street and certainly more for women if elected. She had more to prove and accounts to settle, especially around health care. Women just might have had the platform to fight more visibly. I think the Democrats could really rupture the turmoil of the next election by running Hillary in 2012 and giving her administration a shot at it. What would Hillary do? But please, let Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan rest in their political graves. Be innovative.

Here's an excerpt from a recent speech Hillary gave in San Francisco that I find encouraging:

There will be a temptation on the part of those observing or covering this summit, perhaps on the part of those of us attending it as well, to say that our purpose is chiefly to advance the rights of women -- to achieve justice and equality on their behalf. That is a noble cause, to be sure, and one close to my heart.

But at the risk of being somewhat provocative at the outset, I believe our goal is even bolder -- one that extends beyond women to all humankind. The big challenge we face in these early years of the 21st century is how to ... ensure shared prosperity for all nations and all people. We want to give every one of our citizens, men and women, young and old, greater opportunity to find work, save and spend money, pursue happiness -- and ultimately live up to their... potential. (Hillary Clinton's full article).

Now, I've excised words I find blind echoes of the status quo, damaging words, the same old same old. I removed words that act as ropes of the patriarchy (and its byproduct the class system). Ropes that entangle us into blind confusion and thereby blind order. Ropes that tie up our unpredictable imaginations and toss them overboard. Ropes that we are born hanging onto in order to survive on a day to day basis. I excised words I think Hillary might have excised if spoken from her potential. By the way, I could keep going with this rope list. These ropes get into everything.

I will say it's pretty amazing how excising just a few words can shift the conversation to a discussion on how to bring out the best in Hillary's speech, that of creating a global environment in which each individual has the opportunity to reach his or her potential. As it stands, Hillary is right. No such environment exists right now. But if language controls our era, and if all it takes is a few words to shift the conversation, then excising the words that lead to same old path is a good first step. What do we have to lose?

Not only do we need a new approach to the global economic paradigm but to the religious paradigm as well. Not the one being shaped by the Global Austerity Works Program. Let's run from that one, that same old same old. We need one free from the damaging trickle down, voodoo or shared sacrifice economic gospels. Since the current system is too inflexible to fix in order for Hillary's goal to be realized, we have no choice but to change it. It's time to let go--for good and for real. Once we find that new approach, one that focuses on egalitarian structures set up to help each person and all communities to reach their potential with or without money, we can take our leap into our new era. Until then we will most likely spin and spin and spin until we burn ourselves out. Until then, Hillary can never reach her own potential. And neither will the rest of us.

The 9/11 Obsession Revisited

2011-09-11T15:57:00.000-07:00

Updated 9:13 PM, Sept. 11

I woke up as usual ten years ago on 9/11, got ready for work, and drove off. No media. When I walked into the classroom, my students yelled out, "did you bring a radio?" As I lay my books and paraphernalia on my desk, they filled me in: planes had driven into the Twin Towers in New York. "We're under attack!! they said. "What are you doing here then?" was my first response. Some jumped up, "we can leave?"" I listened more.

After I got the details, my first reaction was dismay. More acts of violence that didn't have to happen. A lot of innocent people dead because a bunch of other people are angry at still another bunch of other people. I'm always looking at the symbols and metaphors, and since I teach critical thinking, my first impulse, which I followed, was to get to the board. I wrote down Twin Towers, Pentagon, White House. For me, the symbolism seemed simplistic. "Why these three targets at about the same time?" I asked. The students had no problem in naming what each building symbolized in positive and negative terms. Nor did they have trouble finding the reasons for pathological rage behind the attacks. Keeping everything on the symbolic and metaphoric levels, we spent the morning discussing the pathological violence, on both sides, that put innocent people in a political and an economic crossfire.

It was a 9:30 class, so I don't remember if the buildings had collapsed yet. I think they had. However, my dismay continued with the media blitz that followed. And followed. And followed. And followed. My friend, Dolly Sloan, a native New Yorker called. We had dinner and went over to a Pen event, I think the next day, in Los Angeles, where I was living at the time. About 20 of us, all writers, sat in a circle and talked about the situation. The topic: what would 9/11 mean for writers? Would writing be the same after 9/11? A lot of people grieved. My friend felt horrified. Most of the people in the room felt violated.

While I felt dismayed and horrified at the lost lives, I grieved for what was to come. "America will never be the same," Dick Cheney promised. At the pen event, I brought up George Bush's instructions that the best thing American could do, while the government reshaped America's homeland security program, was to get out and shop. I don't remember if I said I found that pretty nuts. But I do know Dolly and I had many conversations, sometimes on near opposite sides, on whether the event had the right to reshape America.

Throughout the media blitz, I felt deeply disturbed by Cheney and Bush's statements. Innocent people dead in a political and economic crossfire, and I'm to shop and to think terrorists attacks will now be a way of life unless----. The whole situation felt pretty creepy and ominous. I mean the Cheney-Bush Orders. Were these rulers really telling Americans to reshape America in the image they had in mind, which included the act of Americans willingly tossing in their keys to civil liberties in exchange for---wait a minute, is this blackmail? How pathological is that? What kind of megalomania drives the desires behind these orders? I understood right away the layers of repression and future violence built into Cheney and Bush's Orders. "America would never be the same," Cheney chanted over and over and over. I kept thinking, why shouldn't it be? As tragic as the situation was, I see no healthy reason to change the country's foundation of civil liberties over it. Talk about male hysteria! You move on. You really move on. You examine what has happened, yes. You really examine it. You make adjustments. You examine your own role in bringing about the tragedy. But you don't turn in the keys of your freedom. Yet, the media never let go of his chant. In the next century perhaps people will use it to study the art of shaping mass psychology. That chant was to be the closure of the conversation. I don't watch TV much, but the chant was everywhere. And it didn't take long before you could hear it in delis, in hallways, at beaches, and in bedrooms. Did people know what Cheney meant by those words? I wondered what he was up to.But what did my musing matter? It was too late. Social fear spread quickly. The chants about change and shopping dominated over reason in every action the government took against civil liberties. That and the reminder that terrorists were lurking in every neighborhood. I watched the media mimic Cheney and shape not just ideas but emotions. It was frightening. I kept saying to Dolly, the media blitz is shaping not just which sound bites to speak but which emotions to feel about the event and its aftermath. If I recall, Susan Sontag was one of the few who spoke early on about the agenda to reshape emotions. On September 24, 2001, she writes, "Those in public office have let us know that they consider their task to be a manipulative one: confidence-building and grief management. Politics, the politics of a democracy--which entails disagreement, which promotes candor--has been replaced by psychotherapy." We thus ended up with a unified emotional response that led us to turn in the keys of our civil liberties. Those not expressing it, were suspects, crazy, or outsiders.

One month after the tragic attacks, my students no longer saw the symbolism or the pathology inherent in power on both sides that led to innocent people killed in a crossfire. Instead, they repeated sound bites they had picked up on TV, in print, over the Internet, or on the radio. The conversation was over. Now it was just a matter of learning the right responses to the event. Now it was matter of hating Muslims. Now it came down to following orders, in unifying around giving up our civil liberties to prove to the terrorists that Americans won't be terrorized.

On September 10, 2011, President Obama said, "They wanted to terrorize us, but, as Americans, we refuse to live in fear. Yes we face a determined foe, and make no mistake — they will keep trying to hit us again. But as we are showing again this weekend, we remain vigilant. We're doing everything in our power to protect our people. And no matter what comes our way, as a resilient nation, we will carry on."

These are sentimental, hollow words, substituted sound bites for the political wisdom that America can't voice because the threads to political wisdom have been burned or buried. Political wisdom is dangerous because it challenges the status quo. Not that Obama is alone in such responses. Here are a slew of responses from people in power. Obama is simply mimicking the sound bites he's learned. His words echo Rumsfeld's, who insisted, "he did not close the Pentagon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to send a message that terrorism could not shut down the seat of American defense" (qtd. in Foley). Or, he kept the Pentagon open to show terrorists that America was not afraid. The patriarchy on both sides of this monstrous battle shows muscle but no wisdom. I wonder if Hillary would have stood up against the patriarchy in America and in the Middle East? I wonder how different America would be today if Eleanor Roosevelt had followed into the presidency? It's a thought worth a conversation. It's healthy to speculate.

So let me try to speculate. If Eleanor had become president, we would have seen the Equal Rights Amendment passed and stronger unions. By the time Hillary became First Lady, Hillary would have easily made history by getting a strong single-payer health care system in place. Because America would have had a more balanced view based on gender, it's more likely females around the globe would be in better positions by the time Hillary became president sometime after Bill. We've been stuck, spinning in the aftermath of the peak of patriarchy for a long time. If we make it to egalitarianism anytime soon, it'll be one of those accidents that get us there.

I'm reminded of that morning in my classroom when students understood the whole picture. When will America take responsibility in its part in the tragedy? What happened to that clarity as a country? Surely, my students weren't an isolated group of thinkers. They spoke of global imbalances that lead to tragedy and need to be fixed.

I don't have a conspiracy theory. Nor do I have knowledge of structural engineering. But I do have one question in response to this notion of America's anti-fear stance. Who exactly are these rulers referring to and under what conditions are they demanding this anti-fear stance and defining it? If we are refusing to live in fear, then why the elaborate and intricate system of homeland security created to spy on innocent Americas? if we are refusing to live in fear, why are people who protest wars or dangerous pipelines, or demand change or equality "watched" or jailed? If we are refusing to live in fear, then why did the government use the people's tax money to bail out the banks instead of use it to strengthen the country's infrastructures, to prevent the ruin or death of masses of people in floods or earthquakes or other disasters? Why didn't the government use the money to create high-paying jobs or a single-payer healthcare system, Why didn't it use it to prevent damage to the environment? Why didn't it use it to make all levels of education free to everyone? If the wealthy do not live in fear then why are less women and minorities in powerful positions? If those holding onto the status quo do not live in fear, then why do artists who pose challenging questions get censored or banned?

I beg to disagree with Obama. America and its leaders appear obsessed with its fears, not just from possible terrorists attacks but from financial or market disasters. Not just from political or market challenges but from disagreements, especially challenges rooted in reason. Discussions springing from these fears seem to dominate every media. This fear paradigm in maintaining order is Cheney's World. We live in what we might call Cheney's Fear Paradigm--and we can call it this simply because he lit the match to get it started, and he still fans the fire. Well the current Fear Paradigm, anyway.

I think the people who lost loved ones have every right to grieve and mourn over the tragedy. How many of us pause on the 10th anniversary of the death of a loved one? My guess many of us at least pause. And that's the way it should be. We don't throw a spectacle, hold wakes and burials all over again, bathe our homes with black ribbons over and over, or send revised obituaries to our local newspapers. We don't take off from work or school to mourn all over again. We don't as a nation mourn all of the those who have died before us. We should try unifying around establishing life-giving events: a single-payer healthcare sytem, a share in the profits for all, advancements in medicine against illnesses and for longer lives, and so on.

Debt Ceiling Coup 2011 and the Near Limericks that Fell From the Sky

2011-08-01T15:11:00.000-07:00

1. Is Paul Krugman Right, Again, Alas?

Has Obama surrendered to the Republicans, again, alas?
Or do we ache Obama surrenders to no one, alas, again?
Is there anyone to surrender to alas, alas?

None, all mirrors the same, all words without change, again,
alas and alas and alas.

Click here for Obama's speech.

I don't now who wrote the following introduction to Krugman's article:

Are people wishing they could write headlines that read Obama, the Unwise? Obama, on Call, the Server of the Hole-ly Compromise? Obama, the Great Democratic Republican Who Ended the Two-party System in a Whimper? Maybe he's right to auction off, in his own self-interest, the money and rights of Main Street . Who am I to think the people are entitled to a democratic society, or a just and decent lifestyle? Yesterday, I looked out my window. There it was rolling down the street like the Blob chasing and picking up everyone in its path, the massive new economic and political wheel. Like the Blob is was really rolling by in hunger. I couldn't believe the way it reshaped people into itself. Anyway, here's a cogent excerpt of Krugman's article:

Did the president have any alternative this time around? Yes.

First of all, he could and should have demanded an increase in the debt ceiling back in December. When asked why he didn’t, he replied that he was sure that Republicans would act responsibly. Great call.

And even now, the Obama administration could have resorted to legal maneuvering to sidestep the debt ceiling, using any of several options. In ordinary circumstances, this might have been an extreme step. But faced with the reality of what is happening, namely raw extortion on the part of a party that, after all, only controls one house of Congress, it would have been totally justifiable.

At the very least, Mr. Obama could have used the possibility of a legal end run to strengthen his bargaining position. Instead, however, he ruled all such options out from the beginning.

But wouldn’t taking a tough stance have worried markets? Probably not. In fact, if I were an investor I would be reassured, not dismayed, by a demonstration that the president is willing and able to stand up to blackmail on the part of right-wing extremists.

Instead, he has chosen to demonstrate the opposite.

Make no mistake about it, what we’re witnessing here is a catastrophe on multiple levels.
It is, of course, a political catastrophe for Democrats, who just a few weeks ago seemed to have Republicans on the run over their plan to dismantle Medicare; now Mr. Obama has thrown all that away. And the damage isn’t over: there will be more choke points where Republicans can threaten to create a crisis unless the president surrenders, and they can now act with the confident expectation that he will.

In the long run, however, Democrats won’t be the only losers. What Republicans have just gotten away with calls our whole system of government into question. After all, how can American democracy work if whichever party is most prepared to be ruthless, to threaten the nation’s economic security, gets to dictate policy? And the answer is, maybe it can’t. For full article, click here.

But it fell from the sky.

2. Less Unemployment Makes Followers Leaders

Why wouldn't unemployment extensions be tabled?
Less fat on the stats
Less truth to be had
gives illusion the hope
we'll shop till we drop
And help the one-party system grow stable.

3. America is Not Greece

Watch America set the example
of how to keep the wealthy ample
While the Greeks hit the streets
Americans stay neat

By watching themselves on the Tele.

Biodiversity Shrinkage Mirrors Economic Stasis

2011-07-30T23:49:00.000-07:00

It appears that the biodiversity on the planet is shrinking along with the diversity of ideas, attitudes, possibilities and choices instigated by our economic culture. Probably not with intent. But littered with a lot of self-righteousness mostly out of ignorance and greed. Maybe just ignorance as greed is probably more from ignorance than from evil. In fact, I'd be more than willing to argue that all evil is created or steeped in ignorance. According to a recent study on biodiversity plummeting on the planet, our societal and cultural use of the planet may be largely responsible for the shrinking biodiversity:

Overall, humans have direct effects on most of the Earth’s surface: globally, human activities affect ~83% of the land (Sanderson et al. 2002) and 100 % of the ocean, with ~41 % being strongly affected (Halpern et al. 2008). As a result of our appropriation of resources and more direct impacts, an increasing num- ber of species is threatened by extinction (Baillie et al. 2004, Hails 2008, Secretariat of the Convention on Bio- logical Diversity 2010). This loss is occurring in spite of the goods and services that biodiversity provides to humankind, valued in the order of a few trillion dollars annually (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997; the United Nations Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity project [www.teebweb.org], the United Nations – backed Prin- ciples for Responsible Investment project [www.unpri. org]). In addition, several studies indicate that main- taining biodiversity is much simpler than restoring it and that, depending on the nature and extent of our impacts, some damaged ecosystems might never return to their original states, meaning that any imper- ilment or loss could be permanent (Scheffer & Carpen- ter 2003). In the face of ongoing biodiversity loss, the recognized value of biodiversity and the need for steps to maintain or restore it have prompted a renewed effort to develop safeguarding strategies. ( Mora, Sale ).

While the statistics of the documented shrinkage of biodiversity are probably not arguable enough to change the conclusion, we might agree that the underlying complexity of the shrinkage in terms of past, present and future is probably of greater value to understand than is arguing over blame or is fighting over whether we should even care about earthly creatures, including ourselves. Some people think we shouldn't. The earth, they argue will take care of itself. I disagree. Not with the notion but with the attitude, which seems to be a red herring for "I need not take any responsibility for what happens to the planet.

Regardless of which debate takes the lead on this and confuses out the other debates, 1/4 of the earth's mammals are threatened with extinction (Conservation International).

Shrinking Diversity in Economic Culture

One could say that the documented shrinkage of economic diversity (global cost of oil or credit, for example--or general wages) is probably not arguable enough to change the conclusion, yet we might agree that the meaning of the shrinkage in terms of past, present and future is probably of greater value than is arguing over blame or is fighting over whether we should even care about the economic differences that determine a person's survival, or kind of survival, in the culture. Some people think we shouldn't. Some people think we have enough diversity to keep us busy in choosing which clothes to wear or which TV show to watch or which market to shop at. They argue that too much diversity is a pain in the ass.

As the Think In the Now While Accumulating Speed and Money Era, we go against our era the moment we began critically thinking or acting responsibly when it comes to adverse effects on the planet and the creatures that live on it, whether we cause all or any part of the adverse effects. We also go against stepping outside the borders of the notions that bind us to this era. As we can see with the current debt crisis, manufactured or not, we have been forced fed without much resistance that our current top monster combines minus signs with red numbers. Thus, our collective goal in the Think In the Now While Accumulating Speed and Money Era is to keep the government, banks and corporations as far from the minus signs with red numbers as possible. And as we carry this triad on our backs, we have room for nothing much else. Thus other activities or priorities are threatened with extinction.

So what exactly has gone extinct in our Think In the Now While Accumulating Speed and Money Era? Maybe it's better not to know. Maybe it's better to remain culturally deaf and dumb on this issue.

Our Role as Citizens

As mutes, along with prayer, I suggest we race one another to any bank as a Monday and Friday exercise. On Tuesdays, we should race one another to a government building. On Wednesdays and Thursdays, we should race one another to a corporate office. These should be our only civic obligations. Other than praying and racing, we should work at as many jobs as possible to accumulate as much money as we can. These activities, while not particularly diverse in themselves, can be made diverse. We can alter routes, for example. Change buildings. Change times. Wear different shoes. The options to choose from are plentiful. We can write up the names of the contestants on different colored or textured paper. That in itself can get us through a year. Moreover, we can leave Saturday and Sunday open for praying that our government, banks and corporations keep their distance from the minus signs with red numbers. Here too we can create diversity. We can change sites for prayers. We can change the words. We can change the prayer leaders. Thus, we can change the very nature of diversity and save ourselves from extinction unlike the other creatures on the planet who haven't a clue, it seems, to figure out their own diversity plan if the original one isn't working for them. Some argue that these extinct creatures were just not strong enough. Or they say those on the brink of extinction are genetically disadvantaged.

Racing and praying (and working) of course take nothing away from shopping, which still remains our number 1 civic activity in contributing to the maintenance of diversity within our current institutions.

Think In the Now While Accumulating Speed and Money Era

The Think In the Now while Accumulating Speed and Money Era is the pinnacle height of the me first no matter what thread of civilization woven to its heights and reached by corporate capitalism as a global phenomenon. We created it. Now we have to maintain it, diaper it, clean its ass, and give it billions of gallons of milk (money and labor) to sustain it. If we choose not to, we can probably find a river to drown it or a cancer looking for a host. We can expect to be ferreted out by a roaming clean-up crew. We can expect to spend much of our time looking over our shoulder.

On the positive side, the shrinkage in biodiversity may work toward our advantage. It will be less of the unpredictable, which might mean less surveillance on the rest of us, less turning our heads to look over our shoulder, which could result in less doctor visits for wear and tear on the neck or blood pressure.

Super Congress to the Rescue

2011-07-23T23:53:00.000-07:00

Do we always have to watch a bunch of neurotic bullies find ways to re-create the public space in their own image, and in particular, in the interests of the wealthy? And do we always have to play the role of a bunch of enablers? Will this relationship never tire? How many ways can we play this out?

When I heard that the democrat and republican leaders were seriously considering setting up a Super Congress of 12 members (6 from each party) to decide policy issues, in particular, the debt ceiling woes, I was a bit stunned. It seemed so anti-American I had to find out why the idea of a Super Congress was even a consideration. I didn't remember voting on turning the country over to 12 people.

Why a Super Congress?

First, the rationale for the establishment of a Super Congress is to break the impasse current lawmakers find themselves in finding a solution to the debt ceiling. At least in the public theater space it has created for itself. I can't find the logic in a Super Congress as the solution unless--I just can't find any justification for it. But with so few options for addressing the debt ceiling on the table, why wouldn't Congress reach an impasse? There are just so many way to rearrange the paltry options it is considering. Meanwhile, the more serious problem is either overlooked, denied or derailed. What is that more serious problem? The problem appears to be in the number of options not in the $$$$ currently associated with social security, medicare and mediCal (Medicaid outside California).

Second, a Super Congress narrows the conversation and keeps out contrary opinions on decreasing entitlements. More than twelve is a crowd, you know, whether it's a supreme court or a last supper. Twelve then is a good number. It's a number already associated with a higher authority in a lot of people's minds. It feels familiar. It must be right! Twelve works.

The Cloak of the Super Congress and Who it Rescues

Who needs all those members of Congress who are accountable to constituents who don't like the paltry options? Who needs those annoying constituents who want to keep the three entitlements intact and not connected to raising the debt ceiling? Members of Congress need to be rescued from such constituents. A Super Congress can shield all those members who might face pesty or angry voters. With only the 12 legislators accountable to their constituents, a Super Congress will let the vast majority of current members off the hook. They can go home and get some sleep, or play golf, or go on vacation. They can say, I wouldn't have voted that way. No sir. Not me.

But just what cloak of rescue does the Super Congress wear?

A little drama: The cloak of fear. If this thing isn't resolved by August 2--we all go down.

So far Congress, the administration, The Treasury, Wall Street, and even the rating agencies have tried almost every scare tactic to gain control of public sentiment on the issue. They have worked very hard to convince us all that maintaining these entitlements is so dangerous it could lead to the collapse of our economy--once again. Or is that not raising the debt ceiling that can lead to collapse with the only way out the dismantling of entitlements? Face it, these official groups are frustrated. Fear hasn't worked so far to dismantle what the wealthy want dismantled. They expected us to agree, to consider the loss of entitlement a shared sacrifice, to say, yes, yes, of course, it's the only way. We must wean ourselves off of social security, medicare and mediCal while we still can before disaster strikes! Besides, with the current goal to re-create America in the image of the wealthy, in goals, morals, ethics, economics, religions, fashion, and laws, clinging to entitlements makes no sense. The wealthy have no need for entitlements. As emulators of the wealthy, nor should we.

But we hate to give them up. We've already invested our hard-earned money in them. We're concerned about an uncertain future. Maybe if the wealthy provided us with some kind of Retirement Camps or some soft or innocuous way to die when we get sick. In exchange, we can promise to not cost too much. If they can make these promises, I'm sure we'd give up our entitlements for them.

Meanwhile, the wealthy will not let us down. They too are thinking up ways to help convince us. More fear to convince us might work. But more fear walks a delicate line. Too much fear or the "wrong" kind of casualties can backfire. Hurt profits. Cause a revolt. Cost votes. No, the wealthy still trust us. We rarely stir. They are convinced we will give up our entitlements willingly. It's only a matter of time. The deadline helps. Oh my gosh, August 2 is almost here. Thank god the Super Congress promises to rescue us all.

Of course there might be one glitch. By silencing the vast majority of members of Congress, the Super Congress of 12 silences the larger than large voice of the people. Some people could get suspicious. Cause trouble. Create doubt. They could say it sounds like the old Soviet Union or Communist China or old Fascist Italy, or Egypt or Iran, or some other totalitarian regime. No, they have to convince us that it's for our own good, that the way things are set up is just plain outdated. As George Bush said, America would be a lot easier to run as a dictatorship.

The first thing we have been told by the people who thought up the idea of a Super Congress is that a Super Congress is perfectly legal because nowhere in the Constitution does it say you cannot have a Super Congress. On that thought, the Constitution fails to say you can't create a Citizen's Congress to overrule a Super Congress. Hmmm. Now there's a novel idea. We haven't tried that one yet.

Anyway, there's my first off the top of my head thoughts on this issue.

A Solution to the Debt Problem

2011-07-22T13:10:00.000-07:00

Greece: Bailout/Blackmail June 19, 2011

2011-06-20T04:05:00.000-07:00

I won't ask the question whether Greece is being bailed out or blackmailed. I believe the answer is self-evident. I will say the stakes are high. If the people go along with the bailout/blackmail through accepting austerity measures against themselves, we all lose not win. Greece becomes the example, and its people lead the way over the bridge to a new Brave New World of acceptance. On the other side? The impenetrable economic field from which you can't escape. Settle in and get used to it. The Woman of the Dunes will hand you a shovel to do your part. Economic obedience or else expect to end up The Idiot at best in "The Penal Colony." Expect The Trial to be very black and white.

Where are a more conscious Antigone and a smarter Marlowe when you need them?

It appears that Greece has gotten itself so entangled in the blackmail/bailout scenario, it'll take more than an Oracle hint to decipher the code behind the austerity measures that are about to trick Greece into The Big Sleep, where it is destined to fall in love with its own reflection of Remembrances Past.

It's global now thanks to the rising Euro Currency Union, just another Godzilla and Dracula combo conjured up by the staged or not (it doesn't matter either way) economic crisis to suck the blood of the people's bank accounts, labor, retirement, chances at optimum living and higher principles--or stomp out their resistance-- in short, it's just another monster duo to eat much of Greece alive--slowly.

It's the same in America, Russia, Japan, Australia, Canada, and so on. And where it isn't, the conjuring is being learned. Classes are in session. Sit up straight.

How many "slanted" lights can't we see?

How long before Alice in Wonderland tumbles out of Animal Farm, through the keyhole of false consciousness, past Reality TV and finds her own Midsummer's Night Dream before she arrives in Greece as Superchild? Will we ever see the Death of a Salesman for the last time? The final act of A Doll's House? The end of Madame Bovary?

At what time of the day do we stand the best chance to outsmart ourselves out of the economic habits that have cluttered the global markets with human "perpetual motion machines": mirrored Iagos, Macbeths, Dated Kings and Red Queens, and Mephistos?

Is Wall Street just another excuse?

Which poet is reading a line from a poem that says, Catch-22 only happens to Oedipus?

I have no answers. I can never figure out why whole nations refuse to make advances in medicine, science, education, creativity, and so on just because there isn't enough money. I don't know why the people don't just Take the Money and Run Back to the Future. Maybe in a parallel universe right now Greece is posting all debts on a magnetic thing of the universe that will Burn After Reading. Maybe a parallel universe is the answer. At least no one will have to take a chance at losing a day's work or getting their cell phone taken away.

As a member of the debilitated race, the race that prefers to hang on crosses, slit one another's throats, or shove people into cages, I wish I myself would stop Waiting for Godot. I've learned through trial and error that "A Good Man is Hard to Find" in politics, religion or on Wall Street.

And now in the year 2011, it's clear going On the Road is heading toward The Road of the imagination.

Do we have other options? If we want them enough, I supposed we do. We just have to write them up. But please, no sentimentalism.

Greek Riots and a Dog Called Loukanikos

2011-06-18T01:29:00.000-07:00

Click for more on Loukanikos Click here for news on the riots

There is very little publicity on the riots in Greece. Yet, in Athens, at least 100,000 people and 1 dog are trying to get the attention of the officials who are attempting to implement deeper and deeper austerity measures against people without much to begin with. Of course there's no austerity in the use of tear gas or other measures to silence the voice of reason and the breaking hearts. No austerity in measures against bankers. It's so peculiar the entitlement of a small handful of people who have accumulated a great deal of money from consumers and workers and wish to keep it all even at the expense of the death of others.

No Dancing Just Look at Statues

2011-05-30T19:47:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure what this video means. But it does show how many people it takes to dance at the Jefferson Memorial before the free speech of dancing at the Jefferson Memorial gets booked as an assault against obedience.

I don't know anything about this new law banning dancing in front of statues. It's quite peculiar, this new law. You wonder how the law came into being? You think of Antigone. You wonder what tragedies might follow? You wonder who Creon is in this new episode of enforcement? What will become of all the contemporary Creons involved? The dancers? At first you laugh with incredulity. Not to mention you want to send both the police and the dancers to dancing school, each for different reasons. You want to send all of humanity to dancing school instead of off to war. But then it calls to mind a line of Gabriel Garcia Marquez in a well-known story featuring cruelty against the other, that "the world has been sad since Tuesday." You worry about all the chicken coops and caves people have been forced into. You worry about provincialism. You worry about flags, pollution and the vulnerability of things absent. You worry about the dead and all those who never reached their potential. You wish the protestors would dance with greater feeling and direction. You wish the pleasure of the police looked other than it does. Somewhere in between these two groups, the police and dancers, you want to go for a long walk and recall the walks of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. You want to hold everyone in your arms as you wish humanity had intersected differently with modernity.

For Video that Shows the Dancers and Police, Click Here:

Update: June 1: Why not compromise? Why not let dancers in twice a week, four hours on a Saturday or Sunday and all day on one week day?

Al Jazeera English: Live Stream on Japan's Tsunami/Nuclear Danger/Earthquake

2011-03-14T22:13:00.000-07:00

Al Jazeera English: Live Stream - Watch Now - Al Jazeera English

What's the difference in possible outcome: nuclear bombs versus nuclear plants? Our lives remain at risk as long as we store them or use them. I was listening to the Ed Show today. I will have to track down the authority being interviewed who said, essentially and with complete sincerity, that we could use solar energy to run the entire planet but don't because it's just too expensive. And that ended the conversation as if that notion settled the matter. It reminded me of religious people who say, well, we can't do it because god said so, or the Bible says so. It's incredulous, really, this rationale against ourselves as if it's a reasonable response. Are we really mad enough to put our lives at risk because it cost too much to assure our safety? It's the same argument over and over. The same limitation in thinking. The same acceptance of destruction over safety over and over. It's repetitive now. Habit.

Japan's Nuclear Situation

2011-03-14T21:51:00.000-07:00

Take the Money

2011-03-10T01:48:00.000-08:00

It's an interesting class war if we can call it that. It's very aggressive on the part of the 1% who have accumulated so much at such a terrible cost to the potential of everyone else.

The other day, someone said we are living in a misrepresentation of an illusion, so elusive it can only be momentarily viewed as a mirrored image of the real illusion, which is veiled from viewing. The best we can do is try to get a sense of the absurdity of the kind of lopsided condition sold as a social system that cannot be tampered with without grave consequences to the fabric that keeps its people alive.

The other day someone said, take back the money from the banks.
Close their doors and redistribute the money.
Pay off the global national debts.
Pay for global healthcare.
Pay for global education.
Pay for global infrastsructures.

The Daly Show Finds the Hideout of the Wisconsin 14

2011-03-09T23:51:00.000-08:00

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Punitive Shut Down of Barely Noisy Milwaukee GOP Town Hall

2011-03-08T12:27:00.000-08:00

A town hall meeting in Milwaukee County (Tosa) abruptly shut down because the organizers perceived the comments from the floor as acts of civil disobedience in need of punishment.

Here's the local news channel.

Here's the article on it at Huffington Post

Michael Moore visits Madison Wisconsin

2011-03-06T19:30:00.000-08:00

Here's the video of Micheal Moore in Madison. Everyone starts out thanking everyone. I have to say, it's very exciting to see what's happening in Madison.

Best route for people: DO NOT LEAVE

Best route for 14 Democratic Senators: DO NOT COME BACK YET

Walker and Class War in Madison

2011-03-03T20:27:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: March 5, 2011: John Stewart of teachers and their pay in Wisconsin. To add to the comedy skit on Walker with mother issues, I'd have to add a comedic skit on Walker with early elementary and high school teacher issues. Now is his chance to get even for whatever grudge he harbors.

UPDATE: March 4, 2011: A democrat congressman is wrestled to the ground inside the capital.

and here's a page at the Huffington Post with numerous articles on the Wisconsin protests.

and here's a note on the Governor Walker being ordered to reopen the state capital.

and here's a Democracy Now! video from Feb. 25 that shows the extent of issues of the protests.

UPDATE: The people in Madison are holding firm as of March 3, 2011. They are a very courageous group of people. They are a fine example of the importance and impact of staying in the streets until one's demands are met. We might even call this The Year of Staying the Streets. It's becoming clear that the protesters are starting to annoy the governor, who is starting to use force (arrests, plants, etc.) to get his way. It's important to watch his tactics. They are rather standard procedure: arrests, plants, inciting violence, lies. In addition, he's threatening to lay off 1,500 state workers if the democratic senators don't return. Not to mention, he plans to arrest them if he can catch them. Such behavior, on the part of the governor, appears to put the burden of the effects of the budget crisis on the shoulders of the senators hiding out in Illinois, the teachers, the nurses, the firefighters, the police officers and other government workers. It's interesting. The governor seems to be saying to the protesters and senators, okay, you've had enough time to express your right to disagree. That's America. You have that right. Now let's move on with my plan. Go back to work or to the unemployment line, whichever place you've been relegated to. I hope both the senators and protesters hold firm and do not give up.

Below is a quoted passage from GreenConsciousness, on Walker's Plan that everyone should be cognizant of. While I have some disagreements with an earlier section of the entry (not printed but you can link to it), I find this part of the passage extremely enlightening and important.

CLASS WAR

Included in the same bill that takes away the right to collective bargaining are measures that would both weaken the state’s “Badgercare” health care program for hundreds of thousands of residents who cannot get regular insurance; and allows the unregulated sell-off of state-owned power plants to the Governor’s corporate allies.

Walker is proposing a $1 billion cut to health care programs that serve the disabled, elderly, and low-income residents currently served through BadgerCare, the state’s Medicaid program.

He plans to weaken the BadgerCare program by reducing legislative oversight. The Governor wants to allow the Secretary of Health, who came from a recent job at the Heritage Foundation, to be able to change the requirements for enrollment, premium charges, and other basic parameters -- resulting in potential losses of coverage due to lack of affordability, loss of coverage altogether, or losing the federal matching funds that currently account for about 60% of the total funding for the program. These changes will affect approximately 700,000 Wisconsin residents.

Provision 16.896, which would allow the sale of the state’s heating, cooling, and power plants to private corporations without the solicitation of bids. Adding insult to injury, Walker also aims to strip away the ability of the Public Service Commission to approve or certify this buy-out. In other words, if this bill were to pass, state-owned utilities could easily be bought by corporations as the latter wishes.

The new governor recently proposed a wind turbine siting law that would effectively shut down most wind power production. The new law, if put into effect, would require wind turbines to be set back at least 1,800 feet from any nearby property unless all affected property owners agree to the turbine in writing.

Only one-fourth of Wisconsin’s current wind turbines would ever have been built if this rule had been in place in the past. In other words, 2,250 fewer people would have construction or maintenance jobs, over a million fewer dollars would be flowing to rural communities in the form of land leases, and the 21 manufacturing plants in the state that supply the wind industry would have far fewer orders and would likely be closing their doors.

Other policies that Gov. Walker advanced since coming to power included corporate tax giveaways, the imposition of a two-thirds legislative majority to pass tax increases, the rejection of $800 million in federal funding for high-speed rail, and a “voter ID” law.

Gov. Walker pushed through almost $140 million in corporate tax breaks and spending that benefits large businesses. The Executive Director of One Wisconsin Now, Scot Ross, commented that he was “handing out [millions] in special interest spending to his corporate pals ...

My response

Since corporations are the main beneficiaries of a student's education results, corporations should be taxed to pay for ALL institutions of education. That is, the current taxes for education should be replaced with a corporate tax. Until then, the current taxes should remain as is. We are facing a situation in which the battle for the new consciousness in the global work structure, consumer market and infrastructure are being developed. We have to decide how we wish to restructure these arenas.

I was also asked to view another blog, Clarissa's Blog, and respond to the use of the word privilege, which I do use a great deal.

Here's my response though I don't feel the need to post it on Clarissa's blog:

I use the word privilege all the time. So, no, I wouldn't say to you what Clarissa does about the use of the word. This is a crucial word in my vocabulary. Denying how it works to control social behavior might limit one's ability to see its role as an underlying inhibitor of action. Diminishing its broker role seems to suggest one has internalized the dominant view that privilege-- a culturally shaped characteristic of entitlement--plays little or no role in the stratification of classes. Denying that privilege, a recognizable and calcuable condition in the workplace, forfeits one's chance to understand its full implications as a tool in the hierarchical maintenance of the status quo and institutionalized class system can lead to stagnation. Such denial of the social pathology of privilege helps maintain the fragmentation and divisiveness of the working classes, which includes the middle class. To devalue this term thus devalues the opportunity to unite wage earners against the corporate structures of power.

In academia myself, I also now and then respond to circulating emails at the school. The latest email sent out offered sympathy to the protesters in Wisconsin
read:

Wisconsin is not just asking for wage and pension concessions from their public workers. They are using this challenging economic situation which was produced by the banks and Wall Street, as an excuse to dismantle the public worker unions. I realize that many people are facing extremely difficult times with unemployment rates high, gas and food prices high and economic clouds on every horizon. However, teachers and other public workers didn't get us into this situation. It is one thing to ask people to pitch in when we face difficult times. I think it would be totally appropriate for the government and the unions to negotiate some concessions but it is all together different to use these times for specific political agendas - the dismantling of unions. Another assault on the middle class is not what our society needs today. I urge all of us here at ------- College to stand in support of Wisconsin colleagues.

My general response:

Yes, I signed the petition. And yes,I support the workers and unions in Wisconsin. Nevertheless, I wrote the following:

The bill on the table--correct me if I'm wrong--includes making strikes illegal. That in itself should be a reason to head to the streets and an incentive to stay in the streets.Overall, the bill weakens not just union power, which we already know is pretty weak, but also chips away at a vehicle that gives workers any voice at the negotiating table.

The bill if I have this right makes an attempt to put open control of the conversation and workers pay and benefits in the hands of management. That would be okay as long as the rights, pay and benefits of management were decided by the workers.

The bill is meant to reduce the wages and benefits of public employees to the level of wages and benefits of employees in the private sector. I think I have this right. You create a sense of economic instability to unite workers into accepting their own economic derailment in the name of "we're all in this together."

And whose wages and benefits in the private sector are the architects of the bill referring to? My lawyer, also a professional, earns $300.00 an hour.

Teachers should be smarter than to internalize the desires of a governor who runs the political tables in Wisconsin to favor Wall Street and hoarders of wealth and power. Unions too should be smarter. If the unions compromise in Wisconsin, we should all be very frightened.

Isn't a better mantra for all working people as we deepen into the 21st century Catch Up not Pitch In? Shouldn't that be the example workers in the public sector set for workers in the private sector?

Perhaps a better mantra is Catch up NOT Give up.

Wisconsin Goes Corporate in Madison

2011-02-25T23:59:00.000-08:00

Update: The following quotes offered by the governor of Montana expresses why citizens should be very concerned with his view of how to govern and how to problem solve in a crisis situation, contrived or otherwise. Brian Schweitzer (D-Mont) reveals not only the myopic vision of Walker (R-Wisc), but also of Brian Schweitzer and the general rule of governance being shaped today.

"If you are a successful CEO of a company or of a state, the most important thing you can do is to build morale of the people who work for you," said Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D-Mont.), citing his experience bargaining with Montana's public-employee unions, which agreed to forgo a salary increase two and a half years ago to avoid layoffs. "It is the people that work for you that make you successful, and when you do that to morale, you are cutting your own throat."
As for Walker's management style, "Every governor has to use his own model. But I don't know how this one ends in a good way," Schweitzer said. "How long do you think that CEO would keep his job and how successful do you think that business will be?" From an article at the Huffington Post.

While Brian Schweitzer believes he is offering words of wisdom in governance, he is starting from a very skewed perspective, that a country should be run as if it were a business or corporation.

That is the error of the late 20th century. This is the inherited political myopia infecting the beginning of the 21st century and halting the real progress we could make at this historical time.

A country is not a corporation. The purpose of a corporation is to make a profit, and in our current profit-seeking climate, to do so regardless of whose body, health, soul, mind, or children you step on to do get it. Okay, okay, we all know the goals of a corporation, that profits shape and determine how and why decisions are made, how workers are treated, how management conducts itself, how consumers are treated, how research is conducted, how advertisement is shaped, and how governments are considered. A country, on the other hand, is not in the business of making a profit. It is not selling a commodity. It is not for sale on Wall Street to stockholders. A country is an organized body of citizens. The main purpose of a country is to collectively live together in a balanced manner so that the least amount of strife and greatest amount of freedom is possible for everyone. Its issues are outside profit making.

So why should we stock our political offices with those who are trained to run a corporation, are funded by those running a corporation, or believe that a country should be run like a corporation?

I can't see why it isn't obvious that if you turn the country over to the corporate mindset, the rules of governance will be those that satisfy the corporate mindset, even the liberal corporate mindset, which tends to pat itself on the back for not being as cruel to citizens as those on the conservative side. From a distance (in a future era), our limiting ourselves to a corporate worldview will probably appear stupid because of its limitations on the imagination of the entire country--of any country. You get what you vote for.

UPDATE: I find it disheartening that workers in Wisconsin so easily agreed to take on the burden of their pensions and benefits in order to keep bargaining rights as if doing so shows their willingness to pitch in is somehow in the best interests of the country. While I support their steadfastness to stay in the streets, I can't help but feel compassion and disappointment. They seem to be following the lead of Obama, who continues to, in a business-like manner, offer up the better life for the majority, whether in health care or taxes, in order to meet with Congress as if they are board members in some corporate entity whose main goal is to get along so that the corporation can maximize its profits. Meanwhile, he pushes himself into some imaginary higher realm (bringing democrats and republicans together kind of but not really) while millions of people continue to suffer and fall short of their potential. Wouldn't a country filled with people provided arenas to reach their fullest potential be a better country?

Now that's the appearance. Whether it's intentional or not, Obama's presence is raising the consciousness of the American working people. Alinksy would be on the ground standing with the people if alive.

How come we're not talking about how running America as if it were a corporation is a slap in the face of the American imagination, which keeps getting buried into advertising slogans and sound bites--and shoved or stored in the pockets of the greedy?

The very wealthy have always stepped on and over the working people in order to secure their wealth and power. The working people have always been expected to drop their hard earned labor on the doorsteps of the wealthy. This whole idea of the working classes having to carry the corporations on their labor and time is not only an outdated idea, but a tragic one that comes partly from internalizing the ideology of the wealthy and powerful, who see the common person as a tool for money making or in the way of money making.

What is particularly disturbing to me is the vast numbers of women affected by tho loss of these benefits in Wisconsin. Many single women and mothers need those benefits without having to cut into their pay. Why aren't people speaking out, demanding they not only keep their benefits and pensions as is but get a raise in salary? Where aren't the workers in the private sector demanding higher pay, pensions, benefits? Why aren't people in the streets demanding the state tax the profits of the rich to pay for universal health care and pensions? Why would anyone in Wisconsin ever leave the streets until the state changes its corporate agenda and mindset? And yet, they will. They will get a few crumbs and take their snappy shoes and go home.

The majority of Americas might want to insist they CATCH UP not PITCH IN.

Madison Rallies Over Workers Rights and Compensation

2011-02-21T14:28:00.000-08:00

UPDATE MARCH 1:
Democratic lawmakers are stating that Wall Street Governor Walker must be willing to compromise before they return from their hideout in Illinois. However, is compromise the right approach? Perhaps there have been too many compromises made by working people. Perhaps it's time to catch up not give in.

So far, as of March 1, workers may not be staying in the streets, but they are in the streets in their demand for a decent lifestyle based on fair share. Madison. Chicago.Across America

I can't help but see this as a woman's issue.

Most teachers and nurses are women, and these working professionals are among the lowest paid professionals in the workforce. If I were doing a feminist comedy skit, I might connect Walker's attitude to his having mother issues.

In another skit, we can situate Walker at the ovens of patriarchy, which must be fueled at any cost.

On the serious side, kind of, several years ago, I had the chance to sit in, as an observer, on a negotiating contract meeting, in a college in Oregon. This is true. It was my first encounter with unions and management. Management came in with no notes. Nothing. A pen, I think. Not even paper. Maybe, a small pad of blank paper that never gotten written on. The union president and chief negotiator came in with not only piles of notes but charts. Management had nothing to say. It didn't even doodle while the union built its case for a cost of living increase, etc. It was clear management planned to say no, which it did, to whatever the union people wanted.

That too deserves a comedy skit.

Progressive Spark, Feingold in Wisconsin

2011-02-18T15:00:00.000-08:00

UPDATE: POSTED A BETTER LINK ABOUT THE SITUATION IN WISCONSIN

Perhaps Egypt nudged Americans to wake up a little from their restless sleep and find the open streets forum. Perhaps it took the middle east demonstrations for Americans to finally get it that the only real platform of power for citizens under any kind of economic system is the streets.

Yet, have Americans learned from Egypt it isn't just flooding into the streets for a day or two that brings about real power and change? Have workers understood the impact of flooding into the streets in very large numbers and staying put until your demands are met? We will have to stay tuned to what happens in Madison, Wisconsin. The key is not only in numbers but, crucial, also in staying. What lasting effects can a sudden but short presence in the streets have on the comfort of the status quo or the deciders of the cash balance sheets?

Sudden but short demonstrations pass. Things return to the pathological "normal." Borders get more secured. Years pass.

Moreover, the pathological normal tends to get reactively worse. Those deciders, self-appointed through accumulated piles of money, demand casualties (deaths, incarcerations, beatings). It likes clean and orderly streets to conduct its business in.

What am I getting at here? Holding on or getting back to is our current pathological normal. While corporate profits are rising at an alarming rate, workers, public and private, for the most part, are fighting to sustain what they have.To sustain or to get back to should not be the driving issue here. To equalize should be the issue. That should be the goal of the new century. Already we are eleven years behind our potential in this. Workers and management should stand equals across the table from one another in the 21st century. Without workers, management cannot accumulate profits. Workers in fact need to catch up to management in the profits column. That should be a given by this historical time. In our "as in" work condition, that's the premise from which all workers should begin negotiating their pay and their benefits today.

I'm not sure exactly why workers continue to accept the dominant system of employer decides all, but it's apparent, by the systematic economic upheavals, that the corporate takeover of America is clearly frightened of workers. The last thing the bankers and others in power positions (See George Carlin) want is for American workers to realize their real untapped power to stand as equals and make "this is the way it is" demands over their own economic conditions. The scales have been so tipped against workers for so long that meeting in some arbitrary middle should be on hold for a very long time. It should be all catch up from this day forward. Collective bargaining does little more than afford an arena for that untapped power to come into play. It's up to the workers in their unions to make it happen. It's up for all workers to organize into collective bodies called unions in order to stand face to face with management on equal grounds at the table to determine their catch-up terms. And if you don't like the word unions, make up another name for it, or put together another collective power structure that generates a voice that lays out the terms to catch up.

While, yes, it's refreshing to see so many people at the state capital in Madison, Wisconsin, we should also note the implications. I'm 100% in support of what is taking place. But one or two days in the streets is not enough for workers to hold onto what they have. More importantly, it isn't enough for workers to finally once and for all gain control over their pay and benefit levels in exchange for their labor and time.

Egypt has now provided a fine example of how to get started.

Mubarak Resigns: Egypt Rejoices, America Watches

2011-02-12T00:40:00.000-08:00

Now that Mubarak says he's resigned and the army has stepped in to maintain order, Egypt is celebrating the exit of Mubarak. It's really uplifting to see so many people in the streets. It's quite inspiring to witness the momentous power in the single act of large numbers of people staying in the streets until their demands are met. It speaks to how real change is made. In this sense, Egypt has left President Obama, who promised real change, behind. The people of Egypt, without a leader telling them what to do, have demonstrated just how real change comes about in the people's interest, and how to bring it about quickly, during the current era, to end suffering. Staying in the streets was a heroic act on the part of the Egyptian people. Now that Mubarak has left office, President Obama said Egypt will never the same. That was the same thing that George Bush and Dick Cheney said after 9/11.

What's the difference? It may be telling.

Egypt's never the same means the promise of broader freedom and dignity, lower prices in every day necessities, and greater opportunity for more people. It means the chance for a stronger labor movement and a means to lessen the monetary gap between owners and workers. And it means a window of opportunity for women to group together and push themselves toward equality in family, state and personal matters. In fact, if women are to rise to their potential as the new arena takes shape, they must step forward together into leadership roles to lift all women up with them. America's never the same has meant the rationalization for greater restrictions on freedom and dignity, greater police surveillance, wider unchecked corruption in government, more wild west unregulated corporations, additional constriction in economic growth for most, weaker labor unions, broader freezes on opportunities, less opportunities for women, and a growing malaise in spirit in which a general citizen's identity and contribution to the greater society is primarily shaped by his or her consumerism.

Can America learn from Egypt? Perhaps. Perhaps its citizens can learn why it's important to remain peaceful in the streets if its citizens ever decide to visit Wall Street. Perhaps its citizens can learn why it's important to not leave the streets once you get there until all of your demands are met without compromise. Perhaps its citizens will come to find it important to go to Wall Street and demand Wall Street hand over the banks to the people, so the people can use the profits to build their roads, improve their schools, build rails and clean energy devices, engage in sky's the limit research in heath and science, provide no limit medical care for all, get the homeless off the streets, protect animals, end oppression against women and minorities, promote art centers, take care of its lost youths and those down on their luck, and yes, uplift all the citizens into real opportunities so they can try to reach their potentials. I'm just not sure what else we should all be doing other than living under the best conditions for each of us to reach our greatest potential. We can have that arena now. But it means engaging in actions that bring about real change.

Latest blogs on Egypt: Negotiations

2011-02-06T18:25:00.000-08:00

Update:

BBC evening news
"Egypt's opposition groups say government proposals on how to end the political crisis are not enough."

USA Today reports on Aljazeera

Best sites

CommonDreams offers several sources, including Twitter, Al Jazeera, and Democracy Now!

The Huffington Post dedicates one page to the week in review.

The Guardian in UK offers analysis beneath the video. Scroll down for the articles.

Live Al Jazeera

2011-01-31T21:09:00.000-08:00

Here's Al Jazeera's coverage at commondreams.org.

And here's Democracy Now! on the issue.

What Do Bankers Wants?

2011-01-09T23:54:00.000-08:00

Simon Johnson is the co-author of 13 Bankers, out in paperback on Monday.

As are many people, Simon Johnson is concerned with the newly appointed Bill Delay given free and unlimited access to President Obama's right ear. The disappointment is in the inevitability of the numbers--- of the large number of people who will continue to fall deeper into depression or debt, confusion or anger because of the continued concern over officials providing an arena for bankers, in particular, to sustain and increase their profits. It would be a good idea to increase the power of Elizabeth Warren instead. Freud wondered what women want. We might get further in understanding how our modern world functions by analyzing what bankers want instead. Of course, once we find out, then what? Then we know. If it turns out banks do rule America, and Bill Daley has come to ensure their ownership of the country, we have to ask ourselves if we support his task and that ownership. What comes after that answer? I'm sure the list of answers is long. But having an answer is a start to take an active role in the world we help create every day from the time we get up till the time we get up again the next day and so on. And taking an active role in helping to design one's own community as well as one's own country is a responsibility that everyone capable should participate in, in the 21st century, don't you think?

In his article "The Bill Daley Problem" Simon Johnson writes:

Bill Daley, President Obama's newly appointed chief of staff, is an experienced business executive. By all accounts, he is decisive, well-organized, and a skilled negotiator. His appointment, combined with other elements of the White House reshuffle, provides insight into how the president understands our economy -- and what is likely to happen over the next couple of years. This is a serious problem.

This is not a critique from the left or from the right. The Bill Daley Problem is completely bipartisan -- it shows us the White House fails to understand that, at the heart of our economy, we have a huge time bomb.

Until this week, Bill Daley was on the top operating committee at JP Morgan Chase. His bank -- along with the other largest U.S. banks -- have far too little equity and far too much debt relative to that thin level of equity; this makes them highly dangerous from a social point of view. These banks have captured the hearts and minds of top regulators and most of the political class (across the spectrum), most recently with completely specious arguments about why banks cannot be compelled to operate more safely. Top bankers, like Mr. Daley's former colleagues, are intent of becoming more global -- despite the fact that (or perhaps because) we cannot handle the failure of massive global banks.

The system that led to the crisis of 2008, and the recession that has so severely damaged so many Americans, encouraged excessive risk-taking by major private sector financial institutions and, yes, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other Government Sponsored Enterprises (although these were most definitely not the major drivers of the crisis).

See the link for the entire article.

American Espionage Act of 1917 and Julian Assange

2010-12-30T21:03:00.000-08:00

UPDATE on March 10, Julian Assange is concerned about getting "extradited to the United States" under the unconstitutional Espionage Act of 1917-1918. The American Rosenbergs were executed under the enforcement of this act on falsified charges. I guess the government executed the Rosenbergs to give people one more reason to fear the Russians as well as give the country a vivid lesson in how to avoid becoming a scapegoat by having ideas contrary to those in power. Not that the Russian officials weren't as crazy as the American officials. Just different approaches to enforcements against the freedom and rights of individuals. Not that the Rosenbergs gave anything to anyone or wanted America to become Russia. In the newsclip from Democracy Now!, Joe Biden accuses Julian Assange of being "closer to a high-tech terrorist" than was Daniel Ellsberg, who exposed the Pentagon Papers. What an odd statement to make. Daniel Ellsberg became a hero of the American people for his expose. I think we have to stand behind Julian Assange's expose in order to support the free speech of journalists.

We have to ask ourselves the questions that get evoked by Biden's accusations? What does the accusation mean in context of democracy? Free speech? Modern governance? Should a vice president use the word terrorism with such confidence? Should anyone in or out of government? What effects do his words have on the general population? On those who want transparency in government? In those who promote democracy? Promote free speech? Peace? We have to ask the hard questions, the ones that make us uncomfortable.

I'm not so sure the government can ethically demand secrecy under the name of national security or wars each time it gets embarrassed or angry or feels threatened by an act of free speech. But those are its buzz words during our lifetime. War. Terrorism. War. Terrorism. War. Terrorism. In engaging in a constant war on terror, the government has assumed the right to be right on any subject in the name of national security. Voicing such accusations against acts of free speech journalism is poor global leadership. It shows a lack of political wisdom. We have to move on from the habit of bullying one another into submission or obedience.

The monarchies in the past stated there existed a natural order that must never be questioned or disrupted. Of course, the kings and queens and nobles were at the top of the ruling order and determined their own privileges that included most of the money and land. What was in it for them? I mean psychologically as well as socially? We have to begin looking at all the facets of the questions and our own answers.

Colbert has the right idea in making fun of the international manhunt against Assange.

Here's the Democracy Now! video again on the latest on this situation.

Here's a series of videos again on Daniel Ellsberg's website.

Austerity of Spirit--Question of the Day 12-21-2010

2010-12-21T18:15:00.000-08:00

In the spirit of freedom and peace, and in a desire to live in a world without wars and out of control surveillance, how can we as a global humanity--if we insist on money buys all for now-- give the wealthy and powerful elite enough of their own money to live on in luxury, forfeiting only their excesses, so that the rest of us can take the excessive amounts of money and use it toward improving humanity: to end poverty, oppression, and exploitation world wide; to upgrade infrastructures, improve schools, protect animals, advance medicine and science, aid the outcasts, protect women and children, replace the prisons with centers or even hospitals and promote the arts and crafts? When are we going to find that greed and myopic terrorism on the many by the few is a dying rope of the past we have to disentangle from everyday lives, once and for all, and lay to rest?

Paul Krugman: When Zombies Win

2010-12-20T14:27:00.000-08:00

Paul Krugman says, "When historians look back at 2008-10, what will puzzle them most, I believe, is the strange triumph of failed ideas. Free-market fundamentalists have been wrong about everything — yet they now dominate the political scene more thoroughly than ever."

Musing On The Obamaesque Compromise--Obama's Tax Cut for the Rich

2010-12-20T03:21:00.000-08:00

It's true, I don't find us as a very advanced civilization. I'm talking about the contemporary world. Not just because of the never-ending wars, the cheating and slander, the cruelty, the exploitation, the greed and the body scanners at the airports. But for two even worse conditions. First, because of the irrationality that force-feeds our collective imagination. It comes in ads and in sound bites. Every time I check to see what's going on outside, I hear the same narrative: can't get a car, can't get a house, can't get groceries, can't have kids, can't fly a plane, can't go to school, can't go to the doctor, can't go on vacation, can't explore space, can't do adequate research to cure our current diseases, can't create art, can't do an archaeological dig, can't clean up the pollution, can't run for office, can't fix the economy. The repetition is driving me crazy. So is the rationale behind the can'ts. It's always the same: can't do it, not enough money.

I can't help but suspect something inherently absurd, comic and tragic, at the base for this kind of thinking.

Reductio ad Absurdum

It makes so little sense to me, I hope I'm in some other dimension looking in on a me (yes, a me) in this dimension, one doing research on the irrationality of a civilization that stubbornly forfeits benefits to itself by clinging to an arbitrarily created stop and go sign, money. I hope I never see the benefits of this kind of stop sign. It will surely mean I have gone mad. Why would any social group not want all of its members maximum security and health, education and freedom in order to explore and excel without fences or prisons? Surely doing so could only improve the society, don't you think?

Why is it we believe that without money some of us can't get cured, can't get a house, can't own a library of books? Why is it we can't conduct medical research to the edge of what is possible, we can't individually set ourselves on a life long program of study without unwanted interruptions even though the materials to do so exist, we can't devote our lives to individual creative pursuits even though the materials to do so exist?

Why is it we can't travel the world easily even though the means of transportation exist? How frustrating for us as a modern civilization to invent a system in which all but a few must hold back from pursuits because they do not have the money to go forward. It seems to take no time to put up opportunity toll booths, It seems to take no time to maintain a wide network of intersecting toll booths that require everything one owns now and in the future. We are jammed packed at the toll booths, an invention of our own making. Worse, we are crowded into hundreds of them at a time. What kind of narrative to live out is that?

I'm trying to understand the benefit to maintaining a system of toll booth just inches apart. At this stop and go rate, I'll never get out of my neighborhood.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm the odd one out here.Maybe I should figure out a way to get everyone else's money and make it mine and mine alone.

My Dream

It goes back to my frequent recurring dream as a child, perhaps. It started very early, probably around nine or ten years old. Maybe even younger. The dream continued through my late teen years. Sometimes it still returns. I find myself in the middle of a highly structured environment in which everyone in some sense, which is unclear in the dream, is the same. I think in clothes. Everyone must wear the same clothes. Or live by some code that is imprinted in their lives in some way. Meanwhile, anyone not in uniform, so to speak, is on the list of people to find and redress.  I'm one of the people on the list. Soldiers are scouring the city for people on the list. I don't think the soldiers are ordered to kill us. But to clothe us in some uniform, which then makes you passive. My first instinct is to get away, to find safety in the familiar families I know. I must get away from my parents, whom the soldiers have already clothed. I run to a friend's house for safety. But no matter whose home I run to for safety. It's always the same. The soldiers have already been there. The household is clothed in the uniform. What follows is also always the same. The families tell me the soldiers are coming for me, but I still have time to get away. So, I take provisions and leave. I go to the next place and find the same situation. My journey from family to family repeats itself until I awake. A few times I believe I was caught. But in those dreams I hesitated either out of sentimentality or out of uncertainty. Luckily, in the dream, I always manage to find a route out from captivity.

The dream now strikes me as my struggle to keep my imagination intact.

Obama's Compromise

So what does this musing have to do with Obama's latest signing, his tax cut for the rich? I'll get there by the end of this.

Like a lot of people I watched Obama's joy at being able to say he compromised in a bi-partisan manner as if the act of getting his signature on anything--a ghost pen of the health care reform--remained the goal without too much consideration for the content as long as it didn't backfire. He got his picture taken shaking hands with the republicans. The Washington Times called it a "a giant end-of-year victory." I guess when he said, during the campaign, he wasn't going to work on "Maggie's Farm no more," that he meant him personally. I thought he was talking about the country. I thought he meant the country wasn't going to work on Maggie's Farm anymore.--at least it seemed he wanted to try to swing the country in that direction.

So, now I wonder will Obama leave behind a legacy as the Compromist who Redefined Compromise?

I don't even know if we can really call the Obama compromise-like compromise Obamaesque. But I think it has something to do with the The Washington Times calling it a "giant end-of-year victory."  If I recall, the Healthcare-like healthcare bill was billed as a giant victory, too. Maybe it's the "like" part that makes it Obamaseque. With all due respect, Obama seems like a decent persona who wants to please, wants to make history as the president that got the two major parties in Washington to shake hands. It's not a very noble goal but it's a goal to give meaning to his presidency.But is that what we need right now? Aren't there more urgent matters?  That said, how can we say this tax bill is tax reform? How can we agree it's more helpful than harmful outside the chambers in Washington? Maybe the best headline we can give it goes something like Obama the Compromist Signs into Law a Very Obamaesque Compromise-like Compromise. Another Republican Victory.

I'm all for lower taxes. I'm all for less government in people's lives. I don't care about bi-partisanship. That sounds like more of a goal of a corporate board. What about balance? Movement that loosens the traffic jams at the toll booths? Most of these jams last a lifetime. It's insane. Here is another analogy. If there's too much water in one pail and not enough in the other pail, then use the water in the full pail to pour water into the near empty pail. I guess that makes me a rather simple thinker. But the truth is billionaires did not accumulate their billions alone. Moreover, most of it sits in pails being useless. Ironically, workers and consumers, jammed at the toll booths, made it possible for those fortunes. That alone should give a hint as to the best way to proceed. If the government is too timid to tax the very wealthy, then the workers and consumers should make the needed adjustment. And now I'm getting to the point about money.

The Con Job--Terms, Words, and the Quick Shift

How we define money and its value may be the greatest con job civilization has done on itself. Sometimes I wonder, is the con job abstract, out of our control, done by the vortex of history itself on the present? Or is it a con job by the few on the many? In either case, it's a disservice to the dignity of civilization. And the tax bill signed into effect sadly enables the con job. It keeps the money in the already full pail in the pail. It keeps millions of Americans unable to get through the toll booths to better their lives. Jammed at the toll booths.

Let me put this yet another way: What's the pathology of creating two pools of money in a single society in which one pool, the greater of the two, cannot be used for the betterment of the society that everyone shares--even though the money derived from the people who can't use it?

I'm talking about the massive pool (hoarded by 2% of our people). What genius came up with the notion that the money to better the society can only come from the tiny pool (held by the other 98%)? I'm trying to understand the deeply embedded irrational that governs the norm.

I thought everyone helped advance American society. I mean that in the strictest sense.

But there's something else. And here I seem to wander off again but I'll tie it in later. The passage of this particular tax bill seems very Presidentesque. It's in the word Compromise. Presidents get to redefine terms or words.  George W. Bush got to redefine safety and national security because he was the president who ruled in the name of national security once he got into office. During his campaign he got to define the term or slogan compassionate conservatism because that's what his campaign promised. Kind of an oxymoron once we start looking for compassion in the decisions made by George W. Bush. But never mind, the slogan was only meant to propel him into the White House, where he would quickly get to redefine more crucial terms such as freedom, torture, war, privacy, patriotism, terrorist, etc. Like George W. Bush, Obama gets to carry on the tradition of redefining terms on his own terms to make his agenda work in his favor. Like candidate George W. Bush, candidate Obama had a campaign slogan he got to define : "change we can believe in." Most people know the connotations associated with Obama's slogan.

Bush is gone. And the term compassionate conservatism is buried in his campaign material. I don't remember if he ever used the term once he got into office. I think not. I think it rose from the ashes of the campaign and transformed into "you're either with us or against us." That slogan allowed for the redefinition of the terms national security, freedom, war, etc. Obama is our present presidentesque figure. He too had a campaign slogan. What happened to his campaign slogan, "change you can believe in?" Has it transformed into the slogan, "this is what compromise looks like"? That slogan allows for the redefinition of tax reform.

What is the Meaning of Compromise?

I think we can safely assume that the word compromise is undergoing a Quick Shift in connotative meaning. It's very presidentesque right now. If compromise means, "a middle way between two extremes," as it is generally thought of in negotiations, then the President and Congress did not engaged in a true compromise. Instead, they engaged in a compromise-like compromise. Clearly, there is no balance in the figures themselves if you create two columns and head one the Wealthy Ones and the other the Other Ones. The Other Ones get just enough to keep them from feeling discontent to rise up and take action against the imbalance. The Wealthy Ones get what they asked for. I guess these parcels represent the value of the two groups. And that gets back to this money problem we have.

Maybe it's me. Maybe I just can't see the sanity in the division of America into two economic classes in which one class, the smaller one, has the majority of wealth and power, and the other one, the one with the majority of people in it, has the leftovers in wealth. I just can't see the benefit in that kind of system.

Under the current ill system, I don't mind political compromising if higher principles are not compromised and if it doesn't cause hardship among the general population. I don't consider financial loss among the wealthy a hardship. I once gave private lessons to someone very, very wealthy. After she was robbed for over several million dollars worth of things that she kept in an uninsured bank vault, I felt alarmed at her violation. But when I noticed nothing in her personal world or even business world had changed let alone collapsed, I learned a lesson about money. She was emotionally distraught but not thrown into financial hardship by any definition. You could even call the things stolen spare change.

If the rulers of America want these two classes (the Wealthy and the Other) to remain fixed, then they should come out and say so. You have to say, America is made up of two classes, the Wealthy (who get privileges and an open arena to excel) and the Other (everyone else who get to sink or swim). While you can't call that democracy, you can make up some other term for it and revise the Constitution to include this fixed stratification of classes. You might then redefine the pursuit of happiness or equality as the right to move from one class to the other through economic status, and leave it at that. Once out in the open, maybe we can divide up the country, so those who want to live under this two-class system can do so under their own free will. Those who don't can gather together and invent some other way of living.

On the other hand, if you want a democratic system for all, you have to get rid of the two-class system. Why not start by redefining the value and use of money. If taxes won't do it. then maybe unions can help out. Cut the work week in half while increasing salaries 500% for all workers, which will help create jobs and security for all. Think of the robberies, suicides, scandals,and murders that single act could prevent. Use a lottery system, to give bank confiscated homes to people who don't have homes or who have lost theirs. That would get the stress pockets off the books of the banks. Think of all the flags that would wave. Trust me, the banks won't notice the loss in profits.

Another good start is to practice ethical behavior, as a country, according to the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights of 1948. The United States agreed to follow the articles set forth, so I'll assume each administration knows the commitment America made.

We all know the narrative. We all know the conundrums chasing their own tails in Washington. We all know things can only get worse if we continue in the direction we are going, have been going for a very, very long time.

The Concession Compromise

But back to Obama. I regret his hope and his weakness. I regret the way he has missed the sinister motivations of the powerful group of Republicans, the ones who rule no matter which party is in office. I regret the wall he faces and can't free himself from. I keep thinking about that compromise Obama said he made. Obama made a point of saying "this is what compromise looks like." It was a very telling statement. Very presidentesque, for sure. The Republicans called it a victory, the Democrats didn't know what to call it. But for the rest of us, things aren't much different with its passage. It's true the unemployed get an extension. But the probability is high that they would have gotten it anyway--in some kind of emergency bill. If a president can send billions overnight to a war zone, it can send a few million to people who are stuck unemployed. No ruling group that wants to stay in office would allow millions of people to be thrown into the street for--yes--not having enough money.

ADDED MARCH 10: Things are getting very different since Obama decided to work with the Rupublicans. Wisconsin, for example, is now stripped, until further notice, of its union rights. In Michigan, things are worse. What does it mean to be a worker in the 21st century? Workers are the ones who should decide for themselves, and they should have the right to strike and negotiate on equal footing at the table.

The Redefiner

To say "this is what compromise looks like" is to define or redefine the term compromise to mean what you say it means and want it to mean. And to suggest that the act of compromise, even in this limitedly defined way, is good just because it exists on your terms, seems to bespeak Change without Change. Everyone must take the responsibility seriously for whatever position he or she is in at any given time. So, in presidentesque fashion, is Obama redefining the word compromise so that his change is change we can believe in? Either way, the people should be thinking about how to really restructure the money system so that we allow for, which we can today, abundance for all Americans.

EDITED FOR ERRORS 12-24-2010

Austerity of Spirit: Question of the Day (12-15-2010) on Anti-War Protest Arrests

2010-12-16T17:54:00.000-08:00

Bi-Part Question: Why is it that when anti-war demonstrators lead a peaceful protest in front of the White House or anywhere else, for that matter, people get arrested? Why is it that when anti-taxes on the rich Tea Partiers protest, even with guns at their side, they get invited a seat at the political table?

See article of latest arrest at anti-war protest that included Daniel Ellsberg.

See article in which a Tea Party protest was temporarily shut down after a package was thrown over the White House fence, but allowed to continue after a robot opened the innocuous package.

And see this article in which Tea Partiers carried guns at a protest rally.

How many Tea Partiers crying out for no taxes on the rich got seated at the political table in November, 2010? According to the Liberaland Web site,

Of nine candidates for Senate, five won their races, giving the Tea Party Senate candidates a win rate of 55.6%. Of 129 House candidates, 42 won, giving the Tea Party House candidates a win rate of just 32.5%.

How many anti-war demonstrators got seated at the political table?

0%.

Date Rape in Sweden and Julian Assange-- Illusion or Real Charges?

2010-12-15T14:51:00.000-08:00

Naomi Wolf gives an interesting argument on how governments can manipulate the crime of date rape in order to shape global perception of Julian Assange's character as someone of questionable social behavior. She gives the background on the case ( a follow-up of a previous article) as well as the background on Sweden's date rape laws and legal attitudes. In particular, she exposes the mostly inept or shoddy date rape conditions most women are subject to in Sweden. She writes,

The same Swedish prosecutors who are now claiming custody of Julian Assange are, indeed, so shamefully negligent in prosecuting Swedish rapists who did not happen to embarrass the United States government that a woman who has been raped in Sweden is ten times more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer than she is of getting any kind of legal proceeding on her behalf undertaken by Swedish prosecutors.

In the case of Assange, she argues "the State rather than the women themselves [are] bringing the charges."

Beyond the Fact of the Article

What would happen if all documents in every government were transparent? How would that change the dynamics of international relations? The need for billions spent on surveillance? The need for such extensive spy departments? The sudden disappearance or illness of those speaking or acting out against a government? How would such transparency change the nature of war?

Read Wolf's entire article.

Question for the Day: The Austerity of Spirit

2010-12-12T22:38:00.000-08:00

What is the austerity of spirit eroding the national political imagination at this time?

Kieth Olbermann's Rant on Obama's Tax Cuts

2010-12-09T12:25:00.000-08:00

Here's a rant by Kieth Olbermann that appears to encapsulate the general anger toward Obama for making what looks like a senseless deal to extend the Bush tax cuts. What I like about Obama's actions is that each time he gives away the house with our money in it to the handful of rich, in the name of some hellish possibility, the country undergoes a bit of consciousness raising. This transparency is slowly revealing how Washington operates on a system in need of repair, how most politicians are hired voices and votes of the rich whether they like it or not, how the rich feel entitled to all of our money except just enough for us to get by on, how the rich still see themselves as they did in the 17th and 18th centuries, and how the disbalance in wealth in the US is human-made and manufactured in the US. I don't know if the overwhelming disbalance in wealth and power will eventually awake a sleeping public to change the situation. I don't know if we will accept the narrative of the wealthy class, which argues anyone not rich should feel lucky enough to have a job. I don't know if we will work ourselves to death because that appears our only option. I don't know what it will take for the majority to walk through the doors of Washington with dignity and present the majority voice at the table. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

The Wrong Transparency? More on WikiLeaks Cablegate

2010-12-04T18:39:00.000-08:00

I try to keep track of how regimes redefine terms or blur contrary terms together in order to neutralize, change or demonize the connotations of the terms, in order to control public perception. [UPDATE] So when I say that America may be inadvertently putting into place the rails of totalitarism for the society to ride on, I don't do so based on the sound of a fury caused by a political whirlwind. I don't do so without having gone for long walks or without having wept at the Great Restructuring that is dawning. Noam Chomsky warns, "fascism may be coming to the United States." I've been watching the rails being laid for a time. I've been riding them and trying to keep myself intact.

To partly digress, I admit, I thought, along with others, that the Obama presidency would get us into the streets to make the great changes we needed to re-establish democracy in this country. I thought we were going to ride the train together out of Bush Cheney Rove and banks, Inc., and that Obama would not try to stop us. I thought we would rally together to push or kick in the door Obama said he was leaving open for us. I really thought we'd rush though the door and grab our rightful seat at the table. I'm talking about those of us who want social justice and economic stability for all. Those of us who want to see the end of gender and racial discrimination. Those of us want to make sure the disabled and those prone to bad luck aren't left to die in some ditch but are given the needed tools to lead lives of dignity. I have to say I'm stunned at how wrong I was. Being neither a democrat nor republican, I'm stunned all the more. The only people who got through the open door were the Tea Party crowd, with their misguided but highly crafted rants. In many case, rants against their own interests in the guise of rants against Obama. In many cases, just a bunch of disgruntled but ignorant Americans used as foils and cardboard ads to unintentionally derail humanism and democracy and rally around corporate survival. The only others getting through Obama's ajar door easily can be found on Wall Street, in private planes or giant yachts, in the beds of monarchs and dictators, and walking in from the industrial complex, which doesn't surprise me, since these particular groups either set or have memorized the passwords. While President-elect Obama promised Wall Street and Main Street must be equal partners in getting America out of the ditch, President Obama has left Main Street at the podium now stored away until the next election cycle. By the way, no excuses for Obama. I no longer consider him a friendly voice for we the people, we the crowd. [UPDATE] He's either ignorant blackmailed, scared, or a liar. Regardless, we are the losers. And there isn't much time to tear up the old or new tracks or stop the train already running at full speed.

As soon as the WikiLeaks and Julian Assange gave us Cablegate, my ears perked up. Is this for real? Or us this just another scheme to rationalize even more direct and open repression against US citizens?

Let's say the secret is out now--not in the WikiLeak documents themselves, but in the public response of government rulers to them. On the one hand, it seems to dismiss them as innocuous (Russia, Israel, Iran, Afghanistan, and Turkey) while on the other hand, it finds them less than innocuous (US, Great Britain, France). Germany regretted the publication of the documents. Even with mixed responses, the latest official response was to quickly ban the material and further curtail our civil rights. Servers are one by one disconnecting WikiLeaks from public access. Amazon leads the list. Furthermore, Today, after hearing the state department's warning, demanding students not discuss WikiLeaks, I'm convinced the global leaders are delighted the political gossip has surfaced. For all we know, they let it happen or even leaked the material themselves. Is this even legal? That's my point. Under democracy, no.

Just because you call yourself a democracy doesn't make you a democracy. A country has to abide by certain structures and make decisions according to certain underlying principles to be categorized as a democracy. A democratic government is not a corporation. It cannot be run like a corporation. It's counterproductive.

In defining America's failure at democracy I mean two things: 1. an authoritarian government in which rulers leave citizens alone, for the most part, as long as they do not really threaten the power or ideology of the rulers. 2. government subordinate to corporate rule and perceptions.

So let's say the world governments are creating distractions by keeping us in fear for our lives and pocketbooks while they meet together to reconstruct the global mindset of what it means to be human under contemporary globalism. And let's say they need us distracted because they need to do it quickly and efficiently. And let's say the image of what it means to be human in today's terms is in the corporate image of what it means to be human. [UPDATE] Let's say we are watching the remaining rails of America's failing democracy being laid for us to ride all day long, from sunrise to sunset and into our dreams.Why are we accepting it? Why don't we mind living under this kind of thumbprint in the guise of American democracy?

This is a key question for our era.

Of course, it gets very complex. No one answer exists. And no whole answer exists. Even in multiple answers we can't get to the whole truth and nothing but the truth. No one can. There will always be gaps. Even totalitarianism can't plug all of the holes or light up all the unseen. But we can start simple. We can begin by looking at the terms we use since regimes tend to redefine terms to fit their agenda and attempt to control perceptions and emotions. We have to look at how words are being redefined for us by headlines, ads, and speeches. By bosses and rulers. And we have to wake up every morning and ask why we help maintain the everyday life the regime wishes us to maintain at the cost of our own pursuit of freedom and happiness, our own security and stability, our children's futures, and humanity's past, present and future.

The Silly Health Care Reform Bill is America's Version of Healh Care Reform

2010-03-12T20:26:00.000-08:00

Now let's get serious. The current Heath Care Reform Debate and its D. Bill or R. Non-Bill we are being solemnly told to take seriously is a test crafted by the Ministry of Silly Heath Care Reform made up of members on both sides of the aisle just to see how silly America can get in framing or not framing a silly health care reform bill as a model for the rest of the world. If I have this right, the framers and non-framers got their inspiration from The Ministry of Silly Walks. The Mandate is of course the silliest part of the bill. The absence of a Medicare for anyone who wants it included in the Exchange is even sillier, and the R's No to Everything Bill is the silliest of all. Good Creative Work, Senators and Representatives. Let's give Washington credit. The framers and non-framers on both sides are some of the silliest people we have elected to public office assuring us they are capable of reaching the silliest heights in framing something or nothing that will make us feel good about them and whatever they do or don't do. See Video that inspired the Ministry of Silly Health Care Reform.

Getting to Reform of the Updated Reformed Healthcare Reform

2010-02-25T18:06:00.000-08:00

I promote Single Payer Medicare for all as an option of the Exchange.

Healthcare? A Solution?

2010-01-29T00:45:00.000-08:00

What's the minimum solution for healthcare reform? Click on the link above. Here's one solution.

Katharine Hepburn Knows How to Speak

2009-12-27T12:29:00.000-08:00

We could use more voices like Hepburn in her 1947 Speech. Too many voices are anesthetized either consequentially or through deliberate manipulations by those whose capital depends on silencing such voices. Yesterday, I was looking up at the sky. Several streaks of jet vapor trails, or more specifically, contrails, laced the sky. I watched one jet leave a continuous streak of vapor that must have gone on for miles and miles, without a break, until the contrail slowly dissolved downward, into the air we breathe. What a metaphor for our time! What political vapor, out of our control, gets pumped into our air, our consciousness, our desires, our waters, our art, our perceptions? Do we do enough to find out? What coats our skin, our emotions, our thoughts? What cultural contrails keeps people politically timid or asleep? Rather than more reality shows, we need more community forums for our emotions, our ideas and our bodies to come together, in real buildings, without the leadership of the status quo manipulating the conversation. We need to break down the "chemistry" of the cultural, or political, air we breathe and analyze it. These are my last words of the year.

Greece Goes Socialist

2009-10-04T13:30:00.001-07:00

The Socialist Party in Greece wins.

More to come.

Here are Some Important Goldman Sachs Tactics

2009-07-03T00:16:00.000-07:00

Here's Another Reason America Needs a General Strike

2009-06-01T10:06:00.000-07:00

Grand Theft Auto: How Stevie the Rat bankrupted GM
by Greg Palast
Monday, June 1, 2009

Screw the autoworkers.

They may be crying about General Motors' bankruptcy today. But dumping 40,000 of the last 60,000 union jobs into a mass grave won't spoil Jamie Dimon's day.

Dimon is the CEO of JP Morgan Chase bank. While GM workers are losing their retirement health benefits, their jobs, their life savings; while shareholders are getting zilch and many creditors getting hosed, a few privileged GM lenders - led by Morgan and Citibank - expect to get back 100% of their loans to GM, a stunning $6 billion.

The way these banks are getting their $6 billion bonanza is stone cold illegal.

I smell a rat.

Stevie the Rat, to be precise. Steven Rattner, Barack Obama's 'Car Czar' - the man who essentially ordered GM into bankruptcy this morning.

When a company goes bankrupt, everyone takes a hit: fair or not, workers lose some contract wages, stockholders get wiped out and creditors get fragments of what's left. That's the law. What workers don't lose are their pensions (including old-age health funds) already taken from their wages and held in their name.

But not this time. Stevie the Rat has a different plan for GM: grab the pension funds to pay off Morgan and Citi.

Here's the scheme: Rattner is demanding the bankruptcy court simply wipe away the money GM owes workers for their retirement health insurance. Cash in the insurance fund would be replace by GM stock. The percentage may be 17% of GM's stock - or 25%. Whatever, 17% or 25% is worth, well ... just try paying for your dialysis with 50 shares of bankrupt auto stock.

Yet Citibank and Morgan, says Rattner, should get their whole enchilada - $6 billion right now and in cash - from a company that can't pay for auto parts or worker eye exams.

Preventive Detention for Pensions

So what's wrong with seizing workers' pension fund money in a bankruptcy? The answer, Mr. Obama, Mr. Law Professor, is that it's illegal.

In 1974, after a series of scandalous take-downs of pension and retirement funds during the Nixon era, Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. ERISA says you can't seize workers' pension funds (whether monthly payments or health insurance) any more than you can seize their private bank accounts. And that's because they are the same thing: workers give up wages in return for retirement benefits.

The law is darn explicit that grabbing pension money is a no-no. Company executives must hold these retirement funds as "fiduciaries." Here's the law, Professor Obama, as described on the government's own web site under the heading, "Health Plans and Benefits."

"The primary responsibility of fiduciaries is to run the plan solely in the interest of participants and beneficiaries and for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits."

Every business in America that runs short of cash would love to dip into retirement kitties, but it's not their money any more than a banker can seize your account when the bank's a little short. A plan's assets are for the plan's members only, not for Mr. Dimon nor Mr. Rubin.

Yet, in effect, the Obama Administration is demanding that money for an elderly auto worker's spleen should be siphoned off to feed the TARP babies. Workers go without lung transplants so Dimon and Rubin can pimp out their ride. This is another "Guantanamo" moment for the Obama Administration - channeling Nixon to endorse the preventive detention of retiree health insurance.

Filching GM's pension assets doesn't become legal because the cash due the fund is replaced with GM stock. Congress saw through that switch-a-roo by requiring that companies, as fiduciaries, must

"...act prudently and must diversify the plan's investments in order to minimize the risk of large losses."

By "diversify" for safety, the law does not mean put 100% of worker funds into a single busted company's stock.

This is dangerous business: The Rattner plan opens the floodgate to every politically-connected or down-on-their-luck company seeking to drain health care retirement funds.

House of Rubin

Pensions are wiped away and two connected banks don't even get a haircut? How come Citi and Morgan aren't asked, like workers and other creditors, to take stock in GM?

As Butch said to Sundance, who ARE these guys? You remember Morgan and Citi. These are the corporate Welfare Queens who've already sucked up over a third of a trillion dollars in aid from the US Treasury and Federal Reserve. Not coincidentally, Citi, the big winner, has paid over $100 million to Robert Rubin, the former US Treasury Secretary. Rubin was Obama's point-man in winning banks' endorsement and campaign donations (by far, his largest source of his corporate funding).

With GM's last dying dimes about to fall into one pocket, and the Obama Treasury in his other pocket, Morgan's Jamie Dimon is correct in saying that the last twelve months will prove to be the bank's "finest year ever."

Which leaves us to ask the question: is the forced bankruptcy of GM, the elimination of tens of thousands of jobs, just a collection action for favored financiers?

And it's been a good year for Señor Rattner. While the Obama Administration made a big deal out of Rattner's youth spent working for the Steelworkers Union, they tried to sweep under the chassis that Rattner was one of the privileged, select group of investors in Cerberus Capital, the owners of Chrysler. "Owning" is a loose term. Cerberus "owned" Chrysler the way a cannibal "hosts" you for dinner. Cerberus paid nothing for Chrysler - indeed, they were paid billions by Germany's Daimler Corporation to haul it away. Cerberus kept the cash, then dumped Chrysler's bankrupt corpse on the US taxpayer.

("Cerberus," by the way, named itself after the Roman's mythical three-headed dog guarding the gates Hell. Subtle these guys are not.)

While Stevie the Rat sold his interest in the Dog from Hell when he became Car Czar, he never relinquished his post at the shop of vultures called Quadrangle Hedge Fund. Rattner's personal net worth stands at roughly half a billion dollars. This is Obama's working class hero.

If you ran a business and played fast and loose with your workers' funds, you could land in prison. Stevie the Rat's plan is nothing less than Grand Theft Auto Pension.

It doesn't make it any less of a crime if the President drives the getaway car.

******

Economist and journalist Greg Palast, a former trade union contract negotiator, is author of the New York Times bestsellers The Best Democracy Money Can Buy and Armed Madhouse. He is a GM bondholder and card-carrying member of United Automobile Workers Local 1981.

Palast's latest reports for BBC Television and Democracy Now! are collected on the newly released DVD, "Palast Investigates: from 8-Mile to the Amazon - on the trail of the financial marauders." Watch the trailer here.

The Psychology of the Global Economic Crisis in Greece

2008-12-12T15:23:00.000-08:00

In refusing to resign in the midst of the riots against brutality, corruption and greed, the Prime Minister Karamanlis in Greece says that Greece needs to focus instead on the global financial crisis.

Why is that? What's in it for Karamanlis if Greek citizens spend the next fifty years trying to make the financial markets work well for corporations and wealthy investors? What's in it for those power holders if Greek citizens join hands to secure and expand the power and wealth of the few at the expense of the many? What's in it for Karamanlis's government if he convinces Greek citizens to think globally instead of nationally? And what's in it for the citizens if he convinces them of all of the above?

The most crucial question people have to ask themselves about Karamanlis's statement: Why, in the midst of the riots, is he asking citizens to address the global financial crisis and not Greece's financial crisis? In examining Karamanlis's statement, we can learn a great deal about the alleged global economic crisis and its proposed solutions.

Even if we don't have access to the details, we can look at the psychological haze and the organized "webbing" effects such a statement generates.

The Psychological Haze

Karamanlis's extraordinary manipulative statement weaves together diversion, falsehoods and truth as it manipulates to help shape the growing cultural myth that we are one global economic system and all countries must join hands to maintain this system. The phrase creates a psychological haze around Greece's national economy, as if it's no longer relevant beyond its statistics.

Make no mistake, Greece is not alone. The "global economic crisis" is the new cosmopolitan buzz concept made up of underlying sinister webs. Across continents citizens in its grips are being quickly hurdled into psychological camps and force fed on the new perceptions that go along with this fashionable buzz word. Guided by fear and uncertainty, ordinary people are being asked to passively, willingly, and quickly put aside desires for justice, equity and freedom to help the power holders restructure national economies into a new global economy and make it strong. Ethics is put on hold.

For what purpose?

In Greece, is the concept hurled at the people just to divert from the horror of a single incident of police brutality by a weak government? In America, is the statement used by its elite rulers just to get the citizens to go along with the massive bailouts to banks and insurance companies? In Japan and England, is it used to make the stock exchange the binding quantifier between countries? To know we have to consider the psychological effects.

The list is long. Many reasons will get discovered as we slip deeper into this crisis. Tami Luhby at CNNmoney paraphrases George W. Bush as saying, "it is vital that countries work together so that their actions don't undermine others." But under the surface, the loaded statement seems designed to delude ordinary citizens into a web of global consumerism in which they are asked to spend money and take out loans. To accept finanacial hardship. We can't rule out an attempt to garnish obedience by shaping perceptions so that citizens believe the functionality of the world is dependent on ordinary citizens holding up the ship, with the very wealthy deciders inside eating ten-course meals, getting the best health care and education, and creating and maintaining self-created privileges.

To clear up the psychological haze, we have to understand we have many options to fix the crisis. We don't have to go along with the current system the wealthy group are trying to force on middle and working class people. We are smart and educated now. Not peasants who swear by superstitions and cower in the face of a demented hierarchy of power and privilege. The streets of Greece are showing a lot of people there understand government officials are managers and not rulers. They can be hired and fired for corruption and incompetence. The streets are showing many Greeks are not fooled by Karamanlis and what he represents. It doesn't take an anarchist to fight back.

What about the rest of the world caught up in this psychological web of staged hysteria on the part of world officials and wealthy corporate hounds? What will it take to root out the imbalances? Will consumers globally have to stop making their credit card payments to lower interest rates to 2 or 3%? Will unions have to call a general strike to demand higher wages, a lower work week, better working conditions and benefits? Who sane really believes today that one person's time is of more value than another's? That's a cultural myth that finds its roots in feudalism, which found its roots in slavery. Speaking of global togetherness, we could use a global think tank made up of extraordinary ordinary people who want to really balance the global economy.

Riots in Greece

2008-12-11T14:31:00.000-08:00

"The riots that have ravaged Greece's big cities - especially Athens - the last three days testify to the disequilibria of a society that over several years only went from being part of the Balkans to part of Europe. The December 6 death of a fifteen-year-old, Andreas Grigoropoulos, from police fire was the spark thrown into a powder keg primed to explode. Faced with thousands of young people who are conducting a veritable urban guerilla action - burning shops and cars, stoning the forces of order - the government seems incapable of restoring the peace.

"It is impotent because it is in decay, undermined for a long time by pork, corruption and cronyism. It had already demonstrated its incompetence during the wave of fires that enflamed the Peloponnesus and Attica during the summer of 2007."
Read the full post at Truthout, Greece Without a State, Le Monde Editorial.

A Great Loss

2008-11-16T02:50:00.000-08:00

The Amazing Miriam Makeba has died. Those who know her music or even just came in contact with it are sending condolences and celebrating her rich life. Some may remember her performances with Paul Simon.

Soweto Blues: live performance

Khawuleza 1966: live performance

The Click Song: live performance

Paul Simon: Diamonds on the Soles of Her Shoes

Listen to Guns and Butter, the New Kleptocracy

2008-11-12T22:59:00.000-08:00

Vote and Make Sure Your Vote Counts

2008-11-02T13:47:00.001-08:00

Check out this video: Whomever you vote for, make sure your vote counts:

Steal Back Your Vote

2008-10-20T12:45:00.000-07:00

Watch the film

Read the article in Rolling Stone

Read the Comic Book.

Excerpt from comic book:

In 2008, they’ll be handing out provisional
ballots like candy, especially to
Hispanic voters. If your right to vote is
challenged, don’t accept a provisional ballot
that will likely not get counted no
matter what the sweet little lady at the
table tells you. She won’t decide; partisan
sharks will. Demand adjudication from
poll judges on the spot; demand a call to
the supervisor of elections; or return with
acceptable ID if possible. And be a champ:
defend the rights of others.
If you’ve taken Step 1 above and voted
early, you have Election Day free to be
a poll watcher. Run into trouble—
you’ve been caged or purged or challenged—call
Election Protection at 1-(866) OURVOTE.
Then challenge the challengers, the
weird guys with Blackberrys containing lists.

Bailouts: Another Rush to Nowhere

2008-09-23T15:06:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: SEPT 25, 7:15 PM

It's true that my first reaction to anything coming out of the Bush administration is to mistrust it. I always start with the premise that Bush has an agenda of multiple wants, most hidden. That's Bush. As the son of an ex CIA head, he's comfortable with the covert.

That being said, Bush has tossed the public a new unsolved mystery. And here we go again. We are off. The new Bush crisis has as much urgency to solve as bombing Iraq--at least that's the alarm. We are doomed if we don't act immediately. That's Bush. Using reason seems to be for elite squares. Being a dude bully gets people's attention. I guess your approach depends on your motive. You can move faster in carting off the goods and eroding the Constitution (a elitist document that's boring to read) if you're a dude bully.

It's true the Paulson plan to get the economy moving is an outrageous attention getter. But why not? You go for the big catch. If you get 1/2 of what you're asking, you've come out well. If you get it all, you call yourself a god. Gee what a deal for us. For the next x amount of years, we'll hear the excuse we have to sacrifice to pay off this debt. There goes the neighborhood! There goes our children's college education! There go our roads and bridges! There goes health care. Thus at the foundation Paulson's plan is extraordinary unpatriotic to America but extremely loyal to Bush and the very wealthy class.

This condition is a real test for the American citizens. Are we going for a business takes all approach to solve the problem or are going for a we the people approach to solve the problem? Who comes first? It's really our call in the end. Do we want to be peasants carrying our bags of gold to the castle, or do we want to continue our work toward creating a true participatory democracy?

We have several options that aren't on the open table right now. Let's pause and take a look at the various solutions. There is never just one even if Paulson wants us to think it's his way or the toilet. We don't have to flush more money, more rights and more power. We should be protesting in the streets by now. We should be marching in Washington. We should be clogging the phones and emails of those in office.

Our first option: We could Just Say No. This is as much of an attention getter as Paulson's plan. And it's an excellent place to negotiate from. Saying no to the plan outright gives us position and opens up a lot of options between Paulson and we the people.

The economy isn't going to collapse in five days if we don't give up our hard-earned money for our schools, health care, parks and roads, medical research, science research, etc. It isn't even going to collapse by the next election cycle. And what if it did? In the worst case scenario, we would come to a short-lived standstill. We're a nation of smart people. We'd get up very fast. Keep in mind up to $100,000 in the bank are insured no matter what happens to the economy. Let the wealthy cut their profits and savings. Let them sell some of their gold seated toilets and some of those extra homes they own. Let them cut back on their vacations and get rid of a few zeros in their personal bank accounts. Put the entire burden on those who caused it and those who have made a fortune off the rest of us. Let the wealthy make the sacrifice this time. Let's consider people first. We need massive and continuous protests to get heard. Otherwise, we have been duped into acting like peasants: simply doing as we are told.

Our second option: We could go into the real estate market. Sweden did it in 1992 and succeeded. We could own those companies and not just their debt. We could own everything we buy. That means absolutely no bailout money to the current owners.

A Variation of this Option: In 1992 Sweden took a more rationale approach and tried to put taxpayers and not the CEOs of banks first.

That strategy held banks responsible and turned the government into an owner. When distressed assets were sold, the profits flowed to taxpayers, and the government was able to recoup more money later by selling its shares in the companies as well.

“If I go into a bank,” said Bo Lundgren, who was Sweden’s finance minister at the time, “I’d rather get equity so that there is some upside for the taxpayer.”

Sweden spent 4 percent of its gross domestic product, or 65 billion kronor, the equivalent of $11.7 billion at the time, or $18.3 billion in today’s dollars, to rescue ailing banks. That is slightly less, proportionate to the national economy, than the $700 billion, or roughly 5 percent of gross domestic product, that the Bush administration estimates its own move will cost in the United States.

See complete article.

Our third option: We could demand a severe drop in all interest rates (that includes credit cards) to try to get people to stay in their homes. And we could demand banks sell foreclosed homes back to the people who lost them with a one year "return" plan and a locked in rate. In offering people the same interest rates they bought at, the economy might start to stabilize. At the same time, we can demand a patriotic drop in oil prices, food prices, and other stuff prices. Let's see business roll up its sleeves and show their support for country first and not profits first.

The Bush administration wants to inject the credit system, so we will feel good again about shopping--on credit. But is more credit really the answer? I can't help but think a part of Paulson's deal has come about because the banks want to increase interest rates--a lot--right now but can't because of all the foreclosed homes and other unpaid debt. That is not our problem. It is not our problem that CEOs can 't make as much money as they would like to.

How about removing the temptation to raise interest rates today? How about putting a moratorium on interest rate increases across the board no matter which plan is finally adopted? How about a ten-year plan? That should lift confidence among consumers.

Such a plan should demand a severe decrease in credit card interest rates and a decrease in home mortgage and home equity interest rates to what they were in 2004-2005. With lower interest rates, people would have money to pump back into the economy. How's that for unclogging a market stuffed with an abundance of credit debt.

And let's not forget that people can't pay these outrageous credit debts because of their low wages. Credit is not a substitute for decent wages. Credit is not a second income.

There are multiple solutions to this problem. The knee-jerking solution is not the only one and rarely the best one. It's the quick fix one, the one that hides the real problem in hopes it will go away. It's a kind of cover up approach in itself. While the Bush administration seems hopelessly addicted to these kind of behavior, Congress should pause and let the next administration deal with the issue.

And then there's the timing of this crisis. It's so clearly a planned crisis event for reasons having nothing to do with what we think that we really should stall this one out. First, Lehman Brothers pretends to be going down at the time of sale to another company. Second--oh wait this was first--the government tests the waters to see how the public will react to Freddie and Fannie. When that seems to be okay, it lets the AIG lord demand its gold bag from us. Is Wall Street the New Feudalism? Is this how Feudalism gets transformed in a democracy? Our the enormous corporations our lords? And are we the peasants whose only duty to the lords is to work and hand over our gold in the form of wages to the markets?

The Bush/Paulson plan is destined to fail because it doesn't address the real issue. It skirts it and hides it. Moreover, it gives Wall Street another drug injection to continue its lordship role and demands we the people wait for another eight years for our services while the next administration tries to pay off the debt created by the current administration. Perhaps we need to empty part of the bank accounts of the corporations to pay off the debt. Now that's something of value they could produce.

Tell me, when the Bush/Paulson plan fails, who will be asked to foot the bill to save the next crisis the wealthy class gets themselves into because of the addiction to power, money and lordshipness?

Let's prove Abraham Lincoln right when he said, "Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail. Without it, nothing can succeed."

Gloria Steinem speaks on McCain

2008-09-05T16:52:00.000-07:00

Gloria Stienem's perspective on Palin. Steinam gives an excellent analysis of Palin as a female candidate.

It's the Constitution, Stupid!

2008-09-02T20:14:00.000-07:00

UPDATED
Let's not buy the Republican's lie that Joe Biden fills gaps in Barack Obama's resume. Let's get the Obama-Biden partnership right. Biden seems decent enough as a public servant. He has foreign affairs experience, and he has a list of stories about inside Washington to tell. He's got the ambition to rally voters to bring the troops home from Iraq and excite voters enough to vote. But let's not overdo it. Obama doesn't have gaps in his resume. Voters trust he has the ability and knowledge to pinpoint and fix what's broken in Washington, to strengthen America's international dealings and its posture, and to repair the decay in our cities and rural communities.

So as Democrats let's not be so quick to push Biden into imaginary holes in Obama's resume to appease voters who might turn and run. Let's have more confidence in our own ability to decode distortions and misrepresentations about Obama's credentials and make them public. Let's dig out and expose the Rovish tactics of projection, empty one-liners, faulty conclusions, ads full of hype, and deliberate misinterpretations.

So what about Biden? What is his most promising role as vice president?

It's the Constitution, stupid! Biden's previous experience as head of the Judiciary Committee is pretty priceless. Not because of anything he introduced, but because he knows his way around the Constitution. And, he did a few good things: he kept Bork away, for example. Another plus, like Obama, Biden is an adjunct law professor of Constitutional law. His teaching keeps him up-to-date on the Constitution.

Why is extensive knowledge of the Constitution important? Every decision made to fix this country must get filtered through the Constitution if the solution is to be representative of America's principles and ideals. To be an effective president of change, Obama must begin with examining each change made under Bush. The damage caused by Bush has to be reversed before it spreads deeper into our economy, educational system, political system, international relations, and our public and personal lives. Obama, with the help of Biden, will have to make sure that our Constitution is the Constitution of "We the People" and not the Bush-Cheney Constitution of "We the Wealthy." Obama has promised to take a look at the changes made by Bush.

Obama's choice of Biden should tell us that Obama is not just determined to recover America, but that he also understands the path to do it -- through the Constitution. As experts in Constitutional law, they can work together as a team to restore, elevate, and maintain America's finest principles. As part of the team, Biden can revisit some of his anti-privacy legislation. Now hungering to change Washington and the county's direction under the inspiration of Obama's vision, Biden, who has a lot to give as a public servant, can start by re-examining his positions on surveillance.

Now imagine the McCain-Palin ticket in the Oval Office with the Constitution nearby. Imagine the candidates in a conversation about the Constitution. How knowledgeable are McCain and Palin? During the Republican convention the Constitution was never brought up. At the Democratic convention, Bill Clinton and Joe Biden brought up the responsiblity of upholding it and protecting it during a term of governance. What little do we know about John McCain's attitude toward the Constitution? We can get an idea from Conservative George Will, who thinks he knows.

He quotes John McCain:

``I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government.''

See full article.

I guess we know John McCain at least knows of the First Amendment. We can also infer if it stands in his way or if actions falls under his definition of corruption, he'll ignore it. Sound like someone else we know. That someone also thinks laws are meant to revised to fit his needs. And Sarah Palin? What's her position on the Constitution? We know she is against Roe vs. Wade. We also know she believes the war in Iraq is God's will and so is drilling in Alaska. Both candidates emphasis corruption in money matters. But the Constitution is much, much bigger than a vehicle to protect people's money.

There is no indicated that McCain in power will not continue the Bush-Cheney pactice of treating the Constitution of the United States as if it were a corporate handbook open to revision by executive privilege. We can even call the document the "Constitution of Convenience in Progress.

I don't know if Nancy Pelosi had it right in saying that McCain has the wrong experiences. But I do believe that what's wrong with McCain's experiences are McCain's perceptions of his experiences. What's wrong with his perceptions of his experiences is they extend to world affairs, women's rights, union rights, the economy, the war in Iraq, civil rights, and the Constitution. This is a man over 70 without political wisdom. He's worn down by ambition and wrong turns not a wise politician.

Should Hillary be VP

2008-08-19T12:10:00.000-07:00

Based on the available choices, why shouldn't she be Obama's VP?

Is Hillary the only candidate who can help Obama turn the corner? Not at all. But who else on the shortlist is better to pressure? Picking a candidate to win a state belongs to the old way of doing politics. Choosing a candidate that deflates or challenges the platform of change seems regressive. Candidates such as Daschle, Nunn, Bayh, Kaine and even Biden and Sebelius have not excited the ticket. In the course of her primary campaign, Hillary Clinton transformed into a better politician, a woman who seemed to grow a small third ear that heard the needs of the average American, especially of women. Her problem was reaching that stage too late. She needs a position to grow her new ear.

See the full article on this at the Huffington post.

Not in the Huffington artcile are the additional ideas in italics.

General Election

2008-08-13T19:43:00.000-07:00

I'm a registered democrat for this election cycle and will probably stay one, but I consider myself an independent. Why? Candidates from the major parties always emerge from a broken system; they spin their wheels trying to fix that which cannot be fixed with solutions that forefront the maintenance of big business practices. Thus, I did not have a political crush on Hillary Clinton or on Barack Obama during the democratic primary.

A friend said, so, who did you vote for in the primary? Most people I know thought I rallied behind Hillary Clinton because I think it's critical that the female voice, even if it's a significantly mute female voice or a male centered voice, get heard through the political microphones. A woman who has been silenced by men can still evoke the desire in other women to rediscover themselves and their sense of selfhood. An absent voice can still stimulate the imagination and fill in the gaps or, even better, began the search. One day, a woman will, in fact, emerge with a voice that comes out of female political wisdom.

In the end, I supported Barack just a little more. It was based on at first a feeling that his administration would clean up the mess of the current administration a lot faster. Such speed would alleviate suffering for a much larger group of people. And I felt that it would be easier for the voters to pressure him because he stated he wanted to open the doors to we the people and keep the doors open. Hillary never offered that option. She still showed the same timidity she did when she gave up on her national health plan as First Lady. But she did grow a third ear, or half ear--and that's the main reason I now support her as Obama's running mate, especially since his other chocies will have little impact on the lives of voters. Better choices? Hundreds. How about Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nadar or even Barbara Boxer or Bill Richardson.

I was taken by Barack Obama's promise to include the voters and the needs of the middle and lower economic classes in decision-making. He has opened the door to the voice of the voters, and I think we should push that door open until we can get through it. Of all the candidates, he seems the one most desiring to make history by rearranging America's political molecules so less people are suffering.

Coming Soon: General Election
Why Hillary should be Obama's running mate

Credit and Interest Rate Issue for the Election 08

2008-04-19T20:38:00.000-07:00

This marks a very different election year because of the Internet. Never have voters been more involved in voicing their ideas, emotions, preferences and shared information about the issues or the candidates. Not all candidates were prepared for this kind of voter participation. Some of them have been left behind because dated approaches.

While several issues have been circulating, credit and interest issues have not been given the kind of attention needed. Many of us are overspent and underpaid. The government tells us to go shopping as an act of patriotism. No comment on such orders. I think it's more important to look at the credit card and interest rate as a failed substitution system for real income. While credit has helped many of us buy homes, cars, college classes, clothes and even our food; in the long term, credit has led many of us into serious problems, including financial instability, physical illness, or mental stress. It's clear that we need each candidate to address how he or she plans to force a dramatic increase in wages, so we can go shopping without relying on credit cards, so we can buy homes without falling victim to loan sharks, so we can take a vacation without the stress of financial burdens.

We also need commitments from each of the candidates on what each plans to do about the runaway interest rate. Some of us are locked into 30% interest rates on our credit cards. These rates must be lowered to 3-4%, so people are not paying mostly interest only each month. Some of us will never catch up at this rate.

Finally, we need the government to bail out homeowners who can still get back into their homes. And we need banks to lower all mortgage interest rates to below 5%.

If America is going to follow its Constitution, which includes the right of each of us to pursue happiness, the basic criteria for doing so must not be legally stolen from the people whom the Constitution is designed to protect.

Vote for Clinton and for Obama

2008-03-28T14:53:00.000-07:00

None of my friends, family or associates knows who I voted for in the race for the democratic nomination, and I plan to keep it that way—at least until after the election. In an open world of constant surveillance, in which the government can’t trust you unless it can see inside your armpits and underwear, my silence in this seems anti-present, anti-social, anti-friendly, and anti-American. So be it. Most of the time my cell phone is shut off as well. I like what my silence says about me and others. The truth is it’s enough I’m supporting the democratic party at all, and am doing so only because the election and political coup by the republicans changed America’s political vocabulary so that words such as freedom, votes, torture, profits-making, ethics, news, enemy, citizens, friend, credit, terrorist, and rights took on new connotations, maybe even new denotations. The Constitution itself lost power and was redefined as an enabler of terrorism.

What I would like to talk about on this blog are the issues we so desperately need to talk about: election fraud, political coup, health care, women’s equality and safety, children’s opportunities, education, corporate power and profits, homeland security, the environment, the high cost of credit, the loss of dignity among young and old alike.

Before I set up the issues, I would like to give initial reasons why I would vote for and accept either democratic candidate as the nominee. Feel free to respond with your own reasoning and intuition. This is not a dissertation. I’ve kept it short. I think.

Why I Vote for Hillary

First, I don’t believe a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for Bill Clinton. If I thought this were true, I wouldn’t vote for Hillary as the nominee. I didn’t vote for Bill Clinton when he ran for office, and, in retrospect, I find his presidency pretty ordinary. He ruled in the interests of the rich. Most presidencies have. It takes a lot of backbone to stand up to money entitlement. That is, all presidencies of the 20th and 21st centuries have been continuations and maintenance driven; and maintenance of the status quo in favor of the rich, I believe, is one reason a lot of people have fallen asleep before reaching the voting booths. Of these two centuries, only two presidents—Roosevelt and Johnson—have bent the system somewhat to extend our country’s obligations to a larger people. Limitely. Let's not get carried away. Both the New Deal with Public Works Program and the Great Society were good enough bends. Neither went far enough. Now there’s a chance for a woman to do a little bending. The Internet, in particular, has forced voters to shake themselves awake a little and take a second look and pay attention. A feminist is running for office.

Do I think Hillary will swing in a different direction from previous presidents? In broad fundamentals, I’m a skeptic. She’s pretty embedded in Washington. But I will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, and because we have to start someplace. This primary season has pushed her to find a voice within her that pressures her to pay better attention to voters or to face historical humiliation. That’s the way it is with minorities and women; they have to come through on promises more because they aren’t given as many chances to make mistakes. The public is more eager to turn on them for errors. I do believe she will address some of the needs of women and allow other women to stand on her shoulders. How strong those shoulders will be will depend on many factors, including on Clinton’s awareness level, on the goals of women themselves and on which doors get opened (forced or not) in communities. The good news, Hillary is no Thatcher, who I find as hollow a historical political figure as is George H. Bush. Hillary still breathes out the words that she will fight for people with little power—such as single mothers—even if the initial words are stated to enhance her image. But it won’t be anything she says. I think that just the presence of a feminist in the White House will make a difference in women’s lives. As a feminist, Hillary will take women to the next step in terms of opportunity and in terms of image. As a First Lady, she was beaten into silence. As a senator, she coaled forward the status quo to build up power and trust. That’s what she had to do. Do I agree with her political positions? Not many. She doesn’t go far enough in any direction for me. Do I agree with how she’s running her campaign? Not much. She’s got poor advisers and I see a lot of temper tantrums. But I do think once she’s in office, she will attempt to curtail the standard practice of herding Americans into befuddled conformity in the name of patriotism. I think she wants to fill a void in history as someone breaking with the mold. Do I think she’s redefining her level of experience to her advantage? Well, yes. She’s still trying to shape her accomplishments in terms of patriarchal values. She’ll get to her own kind of problem solving experience in time. Besides, no one person runs a government. It’s a start. If she is elected and doesn’t come through in reversing the extensive damage caused by the republicans, we’ll be in the streets making our demands or back in the voting booths in four years. It’s a process. We must start someplace.

Why I Vote for Barack Obama

First, I believe Barack Obama if elected faces the same dilemma Hillary Clinton faces: if he doesn’t come through on the changes he proposes on his platform, he will face public humiliation. His can’t be just another presidency designed solely for political maintenance of the status quo. Does he embrace the status quo? Too much for me. His plans don’t yet go far enough to make significant dents. He risks the humiliation of skating on the ice of the issues until his next term. In this sense, he needs atypical experience, and he seems to have it. And he’s a newcomer, which works to his advantage. He will have to stand up against entitlements. Not easy. Better not to have strong bonds. His proposed changes must start the day he arrives. What attracts me to Obama is probably what attracts a lot of people: his approach to making the needed changes in government include his demand people participate in their own change. This shows great judgment. Obama can right the priorities of this government with the right advisers as well as the continued support and involvement of ordinary citizens. In fact, it is the only way a president can do so. His campaign slogans suggest a debt of citizen participation collectable during his entire term. We will ask him to pay up. And I believe Obama wants a popular presidency more than he wants a historical presidency.

So, do I think Barack will be able to disentangle and free democratic principles from the web of deceit and manipulation set in motion by the insane and incredulous “so’s” of Cheney and the political sadism of George Bush? It is not as hard as it looks. Supported or pressured by the people, a definite yes. Unpressured, probably not. No one person can. Do I think he can put an end to the wars in the Middle East while promoting human rights and helping to create safety for women and children in these countries? If he unites other countries to join in this cause, a big yes. Feminists in and out of office can also help here. Do I think he will take racial and ethnic difference to the next level of acceptance? His biracial presence in the office will do so. Do I think he’s experienced enough? In the kind he needs, yes. No one person runs a government. I’m willing to give Obama the chance to try it. It’s a start. If it doesn’t work, we can head into the streets or back to the voting booths in four years and make another choice.

Let’s not forget McCain. One of these two will run against him. Let’s not unleash the extension of McCain’s kind of experience in the Oval Office. Let loose, his policies on war and on economics could easily lead the country into bankruptcy.

So am I fence sitter in the nomination process? We can only support one candidate in November. I will vote for the democrat. Don’t ask me to do more. I like both Obama and Clinton enough. And I do respect everyone’s right to fight for his or her candidate for nominee.

AN EXPERIMENT IN POLITICAL BLOGGING

I undertook a little experiment to get a better understanding of the fight and the frenzy over one political candidate or the other and to get a better feel for blog writing. How? I decided to venture out into the Blogosphere anonymously and participate. I’m pretty private, so the anonymity helped me jump into the fire of discourse. The anonymity was the key. You get to see your spontaneous reactions and even flawed reasoning without too much shame because your name isn’t attached. I can’t say enough how valuable this experience of blogging anonymously was in trying to understand not only blogging and the ideas of the campaigns, but seeing the direction my own voice took in joining public discourse.

The experiment gave me the opportunity to think through how to approach this blog. It took a little getting used to the anonymous vitriolic yelling on these public blogs, but in the end I appreciated and embraced it rather than discounted it or cried foul—even though I think I succumbed a little to the crying foul. We are our discourse. In any case, I will talk further about that invaluable experiment after the general election.

Welcome to my blog—where we journey through culture revisited.

2008-03-15T23:15:00.000-07:00

Political campaign for president
I published the following on the presidential elections at the Feministe site:

LD JANAKOS says: January 30th, 2008 at 3:42 am -
I’d like to see Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama run on the same ticket. Now that’s a ticket that has the potential to break down a lot of walls and ceilings. Kick through a few doors.
I don’t stand by any of the mainstream candidates enough, but I believe you have to start someplace. Who can beat that ticket? It’s the kind of surprise that comes with a pause, the right kind, the opposite kind of pause you stand together in just before the storm breaks or you’re waiting for the bombs to drop. I trust my feeling that this duet in office will turn the corner.
( With these two candidates on the same ticket, we will all get universal health care within a short time. With these two candidates, we will put borders around the power of some of the major corporations. With these two candidates, we will increase the chances of women and minorities here and in different parts of the world to gain a better lifestyle or access to freedom. This list of our demands is long and we must start someplace. )
Here’s the real two for one: Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
What a fine ticket for the Democratic party, a place for it to turn a corner, to get out of this treacherously predictable time in history when assassins run the world; and yes, with all due respect, the chance for the new face of the Democratic Party to poddy train itself in harnessing its political shit and piss, so it can be recycled as rich fertilizer on the fields of We the People.
This ticket may double the chances that the Democratic Party can provide us the momentum to get away fast from the Republican’s pursuing car of accumulation about to run over us on its way to its next conquest: our homes, paychecks or savings accounts. Not to mention those of persons living or dying in other countries. Who can fight against the current monstrous momentum sucking us dry of our money and our imaginations? We should hire these two to cultivate the voices of the people long repressed in this country, We the People, who are capable of taking back our country.
In fact, we ought to demand they run together, whichever way it goes at the end. That’s my ticket. Which one heads the ticket is up to the election process. I have my favorite but I can go either way.