American Espionage Act of 1917 and Julian Assange

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

Kieth Olbermann's Rant on Obama's Tax Cuts

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

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

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

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

Healthcare? A Solution?

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

Katharine Hepburn Knows How to Speak

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

The Socialist Party in Greece wins.

More to come.

Here are Some Important Goldman Sachs Tactics

Here's Another Reason America Needs a General Strike

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

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

"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

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

Vote and Make Sure Your Vote Counts

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

Steal Back Your Vote

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

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

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

It's the Constitution, Stupid!

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

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

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

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

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.

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.