I spent my time on July Fourth in several different places. I was at a farmer's market in the morning and left from there to my office to finish up some bookkeeping. I rode my motorcycle up to Lake George and put in an appearance at a gathering in Usher's Park that my friend Dave had invited me to. There were about twenty people there eating and talking and I hung out for a while.
At one point, I walked over to another gazebo to catch up with a hockey friend spending the day with his family. When I returned, there was a vaguely familiar gentleman holding court with a small group who seemed attuned to his every word. It hit me that this was, "tax protester" and "Obama citizenship guy", Bob Schultz. I had read stories about him and seen his picture in the papers before. I had also seen more than a few interviews with him, most notably the one in Aaron Russo's brave film, "From Freedom to Fascism". I have no problem with the taxing of my income to aid the collective but I share many of Mr. Schultz's assertions that the way in which it is done is unconstitutional (at best).
Lately, I see much convergence between Libertarian and Green ideals; the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act, the Federal Reserve, Ballot Access. We sound so much alike on so many issues of which Schultz has clearly been a fighter and a spearhead. His efforts to dump the Patriot Act, end foreign wars entirely and provide a proper audit of the Federal Reserve are legend.
Many Americans do not realize that the "Federal Reserve" is actually a privately-owned bank from which our government borrows its money (with interest) to pay for 100% of our federal programs. So, every cent of your federal tax dollar is actually paying off debt to bankers, not funding programs. Also, during the Bush/Obama nightmare, roughly 2 trillion dollars has gone missing and is totally unaccounted for. I know plenty of people from all sides of the political spectrum who want to know where the hell it went!
Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich have sponsored a bill (HR 1207) demanding a proper audit of the Fed and 55% of congresspeople have signed on. Bernie Sanders has introduced a companion bill in the Senate called the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act (S 6o4), as well. I recently got to ask my district's new Congressman, Scott Murphy, whether he would support HR 1207. He maintained that he felt the GAO (General Accounting Office) was taking care of it and that the Fed was already being audited by an "independent firm like Price-Waterhouse" but he also said that he would not be against more oversight.
I have kept abreast of some of Bob Schultz's many activities since he ran for Governor on the Libertarian ticket in 1994 and while I may not agree with everything he does, I have always thought him someone who seems dreadfully misunderstood (and vilified) by the corporate media. They are so quick to ridicule him for his legal challenges against the IRS and other entities that have so obviously taken on powers which most Americans agree are beyond their right. Many would agree with Schultz that these entities are, in fact, unconstitutional. I wanted to speak with him and measure him up for myself. He, and his wife, Judy, were very gracious with their time. We spoke for about two hours. I learned a lot.
Bob explained that most of his activities through his foundations (We The People Foundation, We The People Congress) are geared toward preserving a person's right to petition for redress of grievances. This right was first conveyed by King John as outlined in the Magna Carta and (more recently) in the United States Constitution.
The First Amendment to our Constitution clearly states, "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."
Now, what good would a "petition for redress of grievances" be if it was to go unanswered? Schultz explained that he has, for over 20 years, been documenting all of the "unanswered petitions" he and others have made to members of our government asking them to explain behaviors, procedures, institutions and decisions that are clearly not constitutional. It should be noted that, in the Magna Carta, the King only had 40 days to respond to such a petition before he was assumed a tyrant and could be stripped of all his belongings (with the noted exception of his life). If our government has not responded to literally 100's of Bob's requests over two decades what should they have to give up?
He told me about the Constitutional Congress he has planned for this fall. Delegates from around the country will meet to decide what to do about our tyrants and their lack of response. I'm considering going.
Unfortunately, I enjoyed my conversation with Schultz so much that I forgot to talk to him about the whole embarrassing issue of the Obama "citizenship campaign". I couldn't believe that he was really the guy behind what was so obviously a frivolous (maybe even a racist) campaign. As I was riding home, I thought to myself that there had to be more to it.
I remember speaking with Ralph Nader after the Democrats took over the house in 2006. He was on the warpath at the time, pushing for the impeachment of Bush and Cheney for their war crimes. Pelosi and Conyers had just, insanely, stated that impeachment was "off the table". I asked Ralph if he really thought that the Democrats would show any stomach for prosecuting these war criminals when their party was so on board with both resource wars and all the lies that led to them?
I remember his reply well. He said that this went far beyond the sad farce of corporate politics. "We, as citizens cannot let this go unanswered. It is of vital importance that we set an example of Bush and Cheney so that their predecessors will not continue degrading the rule of law. They have to know that there will be very severe consequences for violating our Constitution and that we, the citizenry, will hold them accountable!"
I understood where Ralph was coming from then (and I still await some substantive action from the Democrats - ha ha ha). On my motorcycle ride home, I began to see this whole Obama citizenship thing as important for exactly the same reason (constitutional precedent).
Now, there is no question that I am not personally a fan of Mr. Obama's. In fact, I see him as nothing more than the newest "Sales Rep" for the military-industrial-congressional complex and I think his cowardly stance on most majoritarian issues proves me correct in this. He is quite obviously beholden to a different set of corporate vultures than his predecessor but it seems this set wants basically the same things the previous one did.
In my heart of hearts, I probably don't agree with our constitution's "natural born" citizen requirement. I think the country of one's birth should be irrelevant in judging who is best to govern (it wouldn't even be on a list of things that matter to me) but Schultz, like Nader, seems pretty concerned about this casual setting of an unconstitutional precedent and I can agree fully with that thought process. I decided, based on my face-to-face assessment of Schultz, that he must have some reasonably solid basis for this citizenship accusation and decided to spend some time reading his propaganda on the matter upon my return home.
Now, I would ask that you be as open-minded as you can about this question I will ask.
Would it be all right if Arnold Schwarzenegger ran for President even though we all KNOW that he is not a "natural born citizen"?
I can see the lines splitting along the fake ideological divide already.
I like to think that most independently-minded folk would say that he obviously could not run for president because he is not a natural-born citizen.
Some Republicans might find a way to rationalize a YES answer but I think that most would say the answer is NO.
Democrats will have likely have a tougher job with their answer. To say, "NO, of course Arnold can't run", is to legitimize a discussion of whether or not Obama is actually a citizen by birth and if he's not ... well, he has no business being President, right?
I can only say that our Constitution is not a popularity poll. It is our law and there is a mechanism to amend or alter it. Unless it is actually properly changed, my opinion about it, and yours, are totally irrelevant. We are simply to observe the law as it is written until it is amended.
Having read what Bob has posted about Obama's birthplace and what Salon has to say and Snopes and the Washington Post and the NY Times and Keith Olbermann and too many others to mention, I would say there are legitimate grounds for concern. The law, as it currently stands, says very clearly that you must be a "natural-born citizen" to become president and it does seem that Obama (who has consistently refused to release the same documentation any American would need to secure something as routine as a passport or a driver's license) may not be a "natural-born" citizen.
The most compelling evidence is that he would only allow Hawaii to release a copy of a "Certification of Live Birth" (which is a computer-generated piece of paper and not an original document). He has refused to release a copy of his actual "Birth Certificate" that would clear up this whole mess instantly. Is that because it is easy to forge a document that is merely printed out of a computer database today, but would be much harder to forge a document, like a proper Birth Certificate, that experts could easily look at and test the age and authenticity of? Is it not being "released" because it does not, in fact, exist at all? I mean, let face it. If the man was born in Hawaii, where is the birth certificate to back it up and why is he being sketchy about it?
A "Birth Certificate" is what you or I would need to use as proof of identification in any practical application. It has hospital name, full information about parents, occupations, addresses, a raised seal from the state in question and the attending physician's signature, among others.
The "Certification of Birth" Obama has released is a whole different animal. It would not be usable as an original piece of ID by any of us. Anyone who has traveled between even just the US and Canada knows the difference between these two documents. How is it possible that our standards of ID are so much lower than for someone who has access to the "big red phone"?
An American parent may certainly confer status to his or her child but immigration law at that time makes it clear that there is a gray area where Obama's mother was concerned. She was 18 when he was born and may not have lived there long enough to qualify as someone able to confer "natural-born" status to Barack.
Anecdotally, to compound all of this, there is a transcript of an interview with Obama's paternal grandmother which has her saying that she was present when Barack was born ... in Kenya. The woman is apparently still alive and I have to wonder if we, in fact, live in a free country, where the corporate media interview is in which they follow up with her to clarify her misstatement? Have you seen that interview? Neither have I.
So, maybe, Bob Schultz isn't just some crazy, xenophobic, white guy trying to implement a racist (or Republican) agenda. Maybe he is, instead, an uber-concerned citizen incensed at the constant degradation of our Constitution.
Read through his arguments for yourself. Most of those I read label Schultz a "conspiracy theorist" because the courts have all been very quick to dismiss the many cases brought before them concerning Obama's citizenship. What I find very interesting is that I did not come across a single case that was dismissed for lack of merit or evidence. They were all dismissed because the citizen bringing the suit was not seen as being "personally injured" by Obama's natural-born status (or lack thereof). That throws up some red flags for me as well.
It reminded me of all those crazy conspiracy theorists back in 2000 who were so enraged when the Supreme Court decided not to allow a recount and anointed King George. Should we be any more trusting of the judges who so casually dismiss the discussion of Obama's citizenship? Let me know what you think.
When you're done checking out the Obama situation, you might want to check this out for balance. John McCain was more definitely unqualified to run as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone a full year before the law that would allow his parents to confer "natural-born" status to him.
Does this mean that Ralph Nader was actually the winner? He did come in third. ;-) That would certainly be cool! Man, I would sleep so much better at night knowing that we were really getting out of Iraq AND Afghanistan, that we were burning the Patriot Act, ending extraordinary rendition and torture, re-instituting Habeus Corpus, asking the world to forgive us for letting everything get so damn crazy after WWII, ending corporate personhood, instituting fair federal ballot access rules and public campaign finance for ALL candidates, proportional representation, an end to the electoral college, funding of real clean energy and the incentivizing of electric cars, solar panels, wind and hydro power, setting up single-payer health care just like our veterans have ... I could go on all day but that's all just a dream.
We would have to actually want those things to vote for them. Eugene V. Debs was once asked if he had any regrets and he answered thusly; "The Constitution of this country pretty much guarantees the people that they can have almost anything that they want. But they don't seem to really want much of anything at all, do they?"
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Scott Murphy Comes To Town
I went to visit Scott Murphy on Tuesday morning. The new Congressman was opening the doors of his new congressional office in Glens Falls, N.Y. Located at 136 Glen Street, it is just around the corner from my own cafe. About 65 people were gathered to voice concerns and ask questions of the 20th District's newest representative. Murphy appeared calm and thoughtful as he answered all the questions asked of him for about 45 minutes.
He first spent twenty minutes talking about his initial 7 weeks in the House and extolling the virtues of the Credit Card Reform bill and the Mortgage Reform bill which he voted for. He also spoke at length about his support of the recent (and controversial) Energy Independence bill. One citizen critic opined that the bill was a boondoggle designed to put carbon-trading credits under the control of Wall Street bankers.
Murphy noted that there were pluses and minuses to the bill and pointed out that, in New York state, we spend far more for power than other states because we have already done so much to clean up our power sources. He cited, as well, the credits that were negotiated right before the bill passed concerning "woody biomass". These credits, he said, will favor pulp and paper mills like Finch-Pruyn, located in Glens Falls, which he specifically mentioned.
Although many questions were asked, a reasonably large number of people were in the crowd to voice their support for a Single-Payer Health Care plan (HR 676, Improved and Expanded Medicare For All). We were there to ask Mr. Murphy why he has not signed on as a sponsor to the bill. John Thomas, from Hartford, asked him to define single-payer as he saw it and Peter Lavenia, co-chair of New York state's Green Party asked why he would not sign on as a sponsor.
Murphy said that, "I haven't decided which of the various bills that I am going to vote in favor of or against." He went on to say that he was looking at access to health care for those who don't currently have it but also the retention of "choice" for those who do. Further, he said that Americans "have the most expensive system with the most mediocre result."
David Nicholson, a Vietnam Veteran, was holding a sign that read, "Rub Out The Two Party Mafia" and a compatriot of his had one that said, "Washington. You're fired!" I spoke to Nicholson prior to the event and he said that he wanted to ask about whether or not Murphy would support the HR 1207, the bill Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich have sponsored which would allow for proper auditing of the Federal Reserve. They did not have a chance to speak directly with Murphy before he took the event indoors, so after pledging my support (as a businessman, an employer and a person who grew up under a single-payer system) to HR 676 and urging him to consider supporting it, I asked if he would support Ron Paul's bill.
He maintained, as many elected officials have, that an independent firm already audit's the nation's bank, but he also said that he would not be against further auditing being done directly by the General Accounting Office to allow for better oversight of the privately-held bank that has literally made $2 trillion disappear right in front of lawmakers' eyes.
He had made an earlier statement about troop withdrawals from Iraq under Obama and I asked how he felt about the historical number of mercenaries that were being deployed to replace the soldiers now headed from Iraq to Afghanistan. I asked if this switch, along with our 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, could really be looked at as any sort of meaningful "withdrawal"?
Murphy responded, "As we are bringing our troops back, there are also people that are hired by the U.S. and by Iraqi Security Forces to provide security and, my hope is that, over time, we're drawing that (number) down as well."
Lastly, I asked him why our state's dairy farmers are still being forced to deal with subsidies and price controls in an age when people are starting to eat real food and are getting used to paying what it is actually worth. I also asked his position on N.A.I.S. (the National Animal I.D. system which would have every farm animal tagged and coded for federal oversight).
Murphy said he has spoken with many dairy farmers and that he spent several days trying to figure out all the nuances involved in our "anachronistic" system of dairy pricing. He said that he was working towards answers but that it was a very complicated issue.
As for the tagging of every egg, chicken, cow and piglet, he said that it is not something "the agricultural community is very excited about" and that
he would not support it "at the current time".
He first spent twenty minutes talking about his initial 7 weeks in the House and extolling the virtues of the Credit Card Reform bill and the Mortgage Reform bill which he voted for. He also spoke at length about his support of the recent (and controversial) Energy Independence bill. One citizen critic opined that the bill was a boondoggle designed to put carbon-trading credits under the control of Wall Street bankers.
Murphy noted that there were pluses and minuses to the bill and pointed out that, in New York state, we spend far more for power than other states because we have already done so much to clean up our power sources. He cited, as well, the credits that were negotiated right before the bill passed concerning "woody biomass". These credits, he said, will favor pulp and paper mills like Finch-Pruyn, located in Glens Falls, which he specifically mentioned.
Although many questions were asked, a reasonably large number of people were in the crowd to voice their support for a Single-Payer Health Care plan (HR 676, Improved and Expanded Medicare For All). We were there to ask Mr. Murphy why he has not signed on as a sponsor to the bill. John Thomas, from Hartford, asked him to define single-payer as he saw it and Peter Lavenia, co-chair of New York state's Green Party asked why he would not sign on as a sponsor.
Murphy said that, "I haven't decided which of the various bills that I am going to vote in favor of or against." He went on to say that he was looking at access to health care for those who don't currently have it but also the retention of "choice" for those who do. Further, he said that Americans "have the most expensive system with the most mediocre result."
David Nicholson, a Vietnam Veteran, was holding a sign that read, "Rub Out The Two Party Mafia" and a compatriot of his had one that said, "Washington. You're fired!" I spoke to Nicholson prior to the event and he said that he wanted to ask about whether or not Murphy would support the HR 1207, the bill Ron Paul and Denis Kucinich have sponsored which would allow for proper auditing of the Federal Reserve. They did not have a chance to speak directly with Murphy before he took the event indoors, so after pledging my support (as a businessman, an employer and a person who grew up under a single-payer system) to HR 676 and urging him to consider supporting it, I asked if he would support Ron Paul's bill.
He maintained, as many elected officials have, that an independent firm already audit's the nation's bank, but he also said that he would not be against further auditing being done directly by the General Accounting Office to allow for better oversight of the privately-held bank that has literally made $2 trillion disappear right in front of lawmakers' eyes.
He had made an earlier statement about troop withdrawals from Iraq under Obama and I asked how he felt about the historical number of mercenaries that were being deployed to replace the soldiers now headed from Iraq to Afghanistan. I asked if this switch, along with our 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, could really be looked at as any sort of meaningful "withdrawal"?
Murphy responded, "As we are bringing our troops back, there are also people that are hired by the U.S. and by Iraqi Security Forces to provide security and, my hope is that, over time, we're drawing that (number) down as well."
Lastly, I asked him why our state's dairy farmers are still being forced to deal with subsidies and price controls in an age when people are starting to eat real food and are getting used to paying what it is actually worth. I also asked his position on N.A.I.S. (the National Animal I.D. system which would have every farm animal tagged and coded for federal oversight).
Murphy said he has spoken with many dairy farmers and that he spent several days trying to figure out all the nuances involved in our "anachronistic" system of dairy pricing. He said that he was working towards answers but that it was a very complicated issue.
As for the tagging of every egg, chicken, cow and piglet, he said that it is not something "the agricultural community is very excited about" and that
he would not support it "at the current time".
Monday, June 29, 2009
Who Cares About Michael Jackson?
I do not have cable nor do I have access to network TV. I read a few different newspapers and blogs online. I listen primarily to public radio and CBC and, as such, I am less bombarded with diversionary tripe than the average American but the media circus surrounding the death of a celebrity (even one so tragically weird as Michael Jackson) still finds its way in to my circle no matter how hard I try to shut it out.
We do not stop often enough to contemplate the damage it must do to our ability to reason to have our heads filled with such useless information day and night even when we do nothing whatsoever to seek it out. While I have never actually seen a program with Paris Hilton in it, I know that she is blond, that she has a sister named Nicole, that she made an “accidental” porn video, that she is heir to the Hilton hotel throne, and that she has done several reality shows. I don’t want to know any of this but it is pervasive. Our media, as our culture, seems to revel in such irrelevant gossip.
A few days ago a friend sent me the following quote from one of Noam Chomsky’s books.
“Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns.”
I have read a few of Chomsky’s books, most notably “Manufacturing Consent”, and I have always appreciated his wisdom but I was particularly impressed by this statement. The man has such a keen ability to identify truths about the systems used to control us and is able to articulate them with such precision and economy of language it is truly awe-inspiring.
Understanding that meaningful debate is simply not happening in our corporate media and that we are only having the “debate” it allows us to have is absolutely crucial to understanding how the status quo machine functions. With far too many topics, it seems that the media controversy generated is just such a framed diversion and that the substantive matter is left unexplored. I thought it might be beneficial to share some examples of items the media is buzzing about, how the discussion or debate has been framed and what I actually wish was being discussed instead.
The Deaths of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett & Ed McMahon - I’m very sorry to be so callous about all three of them but … who cares? A million Iraqi children were starved to death and denied treatment under Bill Clinton and the United Nations. Then, Bush killed a million more Iraqi civilians and thousands of our soldiers as well. Now, Obama will accelerate these wars and employ more mercenaries to carry out the killing. The media debate should not be about how we should properly mourn three celebrities and what their accomplishments were. Instead, we might better explore why we are so damned shallow as to publicly grieve for pop stars while millions of regular folk die specifically because we are so apathetic about the conditions of their lives (and their deaths).
The Senate Coup - Framed as a war between Republicans and Democrats. Was the “coup” warranted? Who is to blame ? With perhaps the most dysfunctional state senate in the country on a paid leave, shouldn’t the media focus instead on how that inaction actually impacts the electorate? Lets talk about whether or not we still feel like employing these “servants”. Can we manage without them? Should we clean house and start all over again? Lets talk about that!
Iran - The discussion is about America’s stance with Iran. Is it “tough” enough? Is the Iranian government in the right unleashing lethal force on its “protesters”? This looks an awful lot like a revolution by a civilian populace against a theocracy that refuses to obey the will of its people (and not a riot or a protest as it is often portrayed on TV). With our invasion of Iraq revealing us as “democracy-bringers extraordinaire”, shouldn’t the media be discussing why we stand idly by in some instances (like this one)? Perhaps we should be helping those who are actually fighting and dying to be free instead of trying to force “democracy” on people who have have shown no desire to have it? What should our role be in the world? Should our warriors be used to aid in our own organized theft or should we use them instead to help civilians throw off the shackles of oppression?
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor - While the media would debate her appointment on a narrow ideological scale, pitting Rush Limbaugh ideology against Al Franken ideology, I just don’t see it. They argue amongst themselves that she is a “reverse racist” or a “minority feminist” but, as usual, they are totally missing the boat. Sotomayor served as a corporate lawyer for almost a full decade before becoming a judge and can the peoples’ interests ever really be served by yet one more corporate-thinking justice on our Supreme Court? I’m sure the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Monsanto and Halliburton are all happy but what about their victims?
President Obama - The debate rages. The fake right argues that he is a socialist. The fake left says he is a patient progressive tactician who is using incremental strategy to win small political battles. The real debate should be about whether or not it is even possible any longer to run actual human beings for office in our republic! This new president is beholden to the coal lobbies and big corn and the HMO’s and the banksters. They all have their hooks in him. Is it even possible for a president to have his own ideology and thought process in this day and age or is Obama proof that we are finally doomed to just having puppets and puppet-masters from here on in?
The War on Terror, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - The question always seems to be whether or not we are fighting these wars “intelligently”? The question we should really be asking (of course) is who the heck are we actually fighting and why are we doing it at all?
Torture - Corporate media debate is framed thusly, “Does water-boarding constitute torture? Should we close Guantanamo Bay?” How about we discuss instead whether we are okay with improper confinement, beatings, kidnappings and the suspension of Habeus Corpus anywhere, at any time, in any place?! Is this really acceptable to the electorate? Is it Constitutional? Is this really what America has become?
9/11 - The corporate debate was, “Which country should we destroy now that we’ve been attacked?” The debate should have been over who really did it and why the government has consistently lied to us about pretty much everything that occurred on that day. Who blew up Tower 7? Why are we not investigating the Put Options placed on United and American Airlines that clearly indicate foreknowledge? If the towers weren’t a planned demolition, then why were there incredibly high concentrations of thermite found in all independent dust samples taken at Ground Zero? How could an airliner have flown into the Pentagon (and completely disappeared) leaving a hole far too small to fit such a plane?
Bailouts and Stimulus - Will our corporate welfare programs work? That’s what’s being debated by most media outlets. Lets talk instead about why we would even think, in a capitalist economy, about adding over $3 TRILLION to our national debt by shoveling money towards Wall Street’s gaping maw? Don’t we live in a capitalist system where dog eats dog and only the strong survive? Why all the aid for these vultures? Do we really want a federal government that feels duty bound to run our economic systems instead of sticking to the paving of roads and delivering of mail? Is it their job to economically indenture our grandchildren to China?
Lastly, what about the “debate” over what (nowadays) passes for political debate? The corporate media chats on endlessly about who “won” each televised photo-op while spending nary a moment on those excluded from both corporate campaign coverage and the corporate “debates”. Shouldn’t our media instead be discussing the fact that we are all being denied any other choice but Democrat or Republican in every single election cycle at every single level!? We are consistently presented with two terrible choices for almost every open office. Instead of revolution, we are acclimating ourselves to accepting the “lesser evil” every time (a choice that seems less relevant or intelligent with each passing cycle). How about a discussion of whether or not it is possible to have a true debate when both sides are in basic agreement about everything?
I could go on and on but I bet that you guys have plenty of other framed or boundaried discussions to add to my litany and I look forward to hearing about them.
We do not stop often enough to contemplate the damage it must do to our ability to reason to have our heads filled with such useless information day and night even when we do nothing whatsoever to seek it out. While I have never actually seen a program with Paris Hilton in it, I know that she is blond, that she has a sister named Nicole, that she made an “accidental” porn video, that she is heir to the Hilton hotel throne, and that she has done several reality shows. I don’t want to know any of this but it is pervasive. Our media, as our culture, seems to revel in such irrelevant gossip.
A few days ago a friend sent me the following quote from one of Noam Chomsky’s books.
“Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns.”
I have read a few of Chomsky’s books, most notably “Manufacturing Consent”, and I have always appreciated his wisdom but I was particularly impressed by this statement. The man has such a keen ability to identify truths about the systems used to control us and is able to articulate them with such precision and economy of language it is truly awe-inspiring.
Understanding that meaningful debate is simply not happening in our corporate media and that we are only having the “debate” it allows us to have is absolutely crucial to understanding how the status quo machine functions. With far too many topics, it seems that the media controversy generated is just such a framed diversion and that the substantive matter is left unexplored. I thought it might be beneficial to share some examples of items the media is buzzing about, how the discussion or debate has been framed and what I actually wish was being discussed instead.
The Deaths of Michael Jackson, Farrah Fawcett & Ed McMahon - I’m very sorry to be so callous about all three of them but … who cares? A million Iraqi children were starved to death and denied treatment under Bill Clinton and the United Nations. Then, Bush killed a million more Iraqi civilians and thousands of our soldiers as well. Now, Obama will accelerate these wars and employ more mercenaries to carry out the killing. The media debate should not be about how we should properly mourn three celebrities and what their accomplishments were. Instead, we might better explore why we are so damned shallow as to publicly grieve for pop stars while millions of regular folk die specifically because we are so apathetic about the conditions of their lives (and their deaths).
The Senate Coup - Framed as a war between Republicans and Democrats. Was the “coup” warranted? Who is to blame ? With perhaps the most dysfunctional state senate in the country on a paid leave, shouldn’t the media focus instead on how that inaction actually impacts the electorate? Lets talk about whether or not we still feel like employing these “servants”. Can we manage without them? Should we clean house and start all over again? Lets talk about that!
Iran - The discussion is about America’s stance with Iran. Is it “tough” enough? Is the Iranian government in the right unleashing lethal force on its “protesters”? This looks an awful lot like a revolution by a civilian populace against a theocracy that refuses to obey the will of its people (and not a riot or a protest as it is often portrayed on TV). With our invasion of Iraq revealing us as “democracy-bringers extraordinaire”, shouldn’t the media be discussing why we stand idly by in some instances (like this one)? Perhaps we should be helping those who are actually fighting and dying to be free instead of trying to force “democracy” on people who have have shown no desire to have it? What should our role be in the world? Should our warriors be used to aid in our own organized theft or should we use them instead to help civilians throw off the shackles of oppression?
Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor - While the media would debate her appointment on a narrow ideological scale, pitting Rush Limbaugh ideology against Al Franken ideology, I just don’t see it. They argue amongst themselves that she is a “reverse racist” or a “minority feminist” but, as usual, they are totally missing the boat. Sotomayor served as a corporate lawyer for almost a full decade before becoming a judge and can the peoples’ interests ever really be served by yet one more corporate-thinking justice on our Supreme Court? I’m sure the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Monsanto and Halliburton are all happy but what about their victims?
President Obama - The debate rages. The fake right argues that he is a socialist. The fake left says he is a patient progressive tactician who is using incremental strategy to win small political battles. The real debate should be about whether or not it is even possible any longer to run actual human beings for office in our republic! This new president is beholden to the coal lobbies and big corn and the HMO’s and the banksters. They all have their hooks in him. Is it even possible for a president to have his own ideology and thought process in this day and age or is Obama proof that we are finally doomed to just having puppets and puppet-masters from here on in?
The War on Terror, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq - The question always seems to be whether or not we are fighting these wars “intelligently”? The question we should really be asking (of course) is who the heck are we actually fighting and why are we doing it at all?
Torture - Corporate media debate is framed thusly, “Does water-boarding constitute torture? Should we close Guantanamo Bay?” How about we discuss instead whether we are okay with improper confinement, beatings, kidnappings and the suspension of Habeus Corpus anywhere, at any time, in any place?! Is this really acceptable to the electorate? Is it Constitutional? Is this really what America has become?
9/11 - The corporate debate was, “Which country should we destroy now that we’ve been attacked?” The debate should have been over who really did it and why the government has consistently lied to us about pretty much everything that occurred on that day. Who blew up Tower 7? Why are we not investigating the Put Options placed on United and American Airlines that clearly indicate foreknowledge? If the towers weren’t a planned demolition, then why were there incredibly high concentrations of thermite found in all independent dust samples taken at Ground Zero? How could an airliner have flown into the Pentagon (and completely disappeared) leaving a hole far too small to fit such a plane?
Bailouts and Stimulus - Will our corporate welfare programs work? That’s what’s being debated by most media outlets. Lets talk instead about why we would even think, in a capitalist economy, about adding over $3 TRILLION to our national debt by shoveling money towards Wall Street’s gaping maw? Don’t we live in a capitalist system where dog eats dog and only the strong survive? Why all the aid for these vultures? Do we really want a federal government that feels duty bound to run our economic systems instead of sticking to the paving of roads and delivering of mail? Is it their job to economically indenture our grandchildren to China?
Lastly, what about the “debate” over what (nowadays) passes for political debate? The corporate media chats on endlessly about who “won” each televised photo-op while spending nary a moment on those excluded from both corporate campaign coverage and the corporate “debates”. Shouldn’t our media instead be discussing the fact that we are all being denied any other choice but Democrat or Republican in every single election cycle at every single level!? We are consistently presented with two terrible choices for almost every open office. Instead of revolution, we are acclimating ourselves to accepting the “lesser evil” every time (a choice that seems less relevant or intelligent with each passing cycle). How about a discussion of whether or not it is possible to have a true debate when both sides are in basic agreement about everything?
I could go on and on but I bet that you guys have plenty of other framed or boundaried discussions to add to my litany and I look forward to hearing about them.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Union Schmunion
Michael Douglas’ infamous character in the movie “Wall Street” (Gordon Gekko) said, “Greed, for lack of a better word, is good.” Then, I was pretty sure that this was empty-headed, bovine, fecal matter. Twenty years later, I am that much more certain. It is wonderful that more and more of us are beginning to see endless growth and non-sustainable business practices for what they are … a lie.
I know the people I work with and they know me. We live under a system of shared misery. I work for a living under circumstances remarkably similar to those of a worker. I do not own a house. I do not have a retirement fund. I am not rich. I do not take six-week ski vacations in the Alps. In fact, I rarely take vacations of any sort at all nor do I have time to ski.
I cannot afford many of the “finer things” in life nor do I wish to. I live simply. Like the majority of my workers, I do not have health insurance nor any other reasonable safety net. We are all in the same boat together and there is a mutual respect in that which helps us all to weather whatever conditions the world may throw at us. People often casually label me a “businessman” but I tell them that the term “empowered worker” is a far more accurate description of who I am.
The Times Union’s management undoubtedly has many decent people in it who truly care about the people who work under them but there’s a very important distinction to be made between having someone work under you and working with someone. The corporate “ladder” is used as a motivational tool to maintain healthy profit margins. What happens when the business model changes and the corporate template fails to deliver elevation of the few at the expense of the many is something we are all beginning to understand (some of us firsthand).
There are very few major daily newspapers that do not see themselves, first and foremost, as businesses. The corporate structure allows them to create, print, market and distribute massive quantities of newsprint that smaller media outlets could not even begin to contemplate. While efficiencies of production allow a relatively small number of workers to elevate themselves solidly into our dwindling middle class, the process of big volume and centralization of resource necessarily excludes many workers from said elevation.
In fact, in order to maintain profitability at margins acceptable to the ever-hungry shareholder, the corporate business model has to shake the tree on a fairly regular basis. It has to grind up and spit out a few workers every now and then in order to cut expenses and motivate those who are retained to even higher levels of efficiency and productivity. This creates an “us versus them” culture of loss and competition in the workplace. Our society has steeled itself to these losses and often turns a blind eye to those who are cast away.
It is strange to me, given this cycle of loss that so many workers seem to resent unions and union workers. Basically, unions are the only mechanism that has ever protected workers or attempted to limit the whims of corporations that seek to purge, grind and squeeze us. Why would we, their fellow workers, ever begrudge our fellow workers the right to organize and fight for things like a safe workplace, seniority, a living wage, health insurance, and paid vacations? We all must know that we all benefit by having that bar set higher. Every single one of us.
How any worker could be upset that some of their fellow workers have decided to stand up for their rights and demand a better share of the immodest proceeds of the corporate model (which, in its essence, seems designed specifically to get rid of as many of us as it can)? Why are union workers viewed with scorn by so many? Jealousy is perhaps the answer, but I think it runs even deeper than that. I think the mainstream media has given us all a terribly false picture of unions and the workers who have endured through a struggle that is, ultimately, the very history of our country.
The Time Union, for all intents and purposes, just canceled its union contract in April. It looks like this was a pretty purposeful move to rid itself of The Newspaper Guild once and for all. Everyone is saying that the changing “newspaper model” and the Internet are to blame but is this really what’s going on?
Knowing that the Hearst Corporation just finished construction of a $500 million dollar corporate headquarters in 2006 might lead a critical thinker to believe that the privately-held company is not doing so poorly after all but, without access to the books, we just don’t know. We are simply asked to take George Hearst III’s word for it that layoffs and the end of the Guild are necessary. This is, we are told, what every good media company has to do to survive.
When George’s great, great, grandfather was around, he was no doubt a hard man. He did not likely place a whole lot of importance on the plight of those outside his immediate circle. From what I have read, this amazing Hearst was kind of like Daniel Day Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” (except that he was a miner, not an oil man). He was a self-made millionaire at a time when that was an awful lot of money. He was also seen by many as nothing short of ruthless in his pursuit of both money and power. He died a U.S. Senator.
In settling a gambling debt, Hearst ended up owning the San Francisco Examiner and he turned it over to his son, William Randolph, who became a media mogul. William is arguably the most famous of the Hearst clan mostly for turning the acquisition of that one newspaper into a large, privately-held, media empire that still exists to this day.
Forbes estimates that the current incarnation of the Hearst Corp. grossed about 4.4 billion dollars in 2007 and had about 17,000 employees. To hear Steven Swartz tell it (now President of Hearst Newspapers), you’d think that Hearst and its subsidiaries were rolling in the dough. More specifically, in the piece cited above, he says that “targeted distribution” in 2008 saved the Times Union about $750,000 with no adverse impact on its advertising revenue. Does that sound to you like the kind of financial doom and gloom that signals imminent financial disaster?
Now, we all know we are in a recession and we’ve all heard the newspapers’ talk about the web-related “changing business model” and how it negatively impacts them all but we are at a severe disadvantage. Without examining Hearst’s books, how can we determine whether George III’s actions in trying to kill the Guild are self preservation or just greed? Lets explore those changing conditions a little bit.
Statistically, papers make about 15-20% of their gross revenue from actual subscribers. The rest is actually ad revenue. So, if the T.U. lost even half of its paid subscribers to its free internet site, it wouldn’t even lose 10% of its gross revenue. While that’s not a good thing, it’s also not the end of the world. While there might well be a corresponding loss of ad revenue, there would also be a massive savings, I have to imagine, in not having to print or deliver half of the physical papers which were delivered previous.
And, lets not forget that newspaper advertisers really have nowhere else to go in this market except the web (and who is selling that ad space?). When you are the area’s paper of record, I find it awfully hard to believe that the negative impact of lost subscribers or advertisers could really be anywhere near as terrible for you as it’s made out to be. The Times Union has not lost half its subscribers and, like every other paper, it now sells tons of additional ad space on the web (just look at this site). It doesn’t take much imagination to see that this new model should actually be a boon for newspapers, not their death knell.
For most papers, I have to imagine that the enhanced revenue stream has quickly offset the slight loss of revenue from decreasing subscriptions. This should yield the T.U. at least as healthy a bottom line as it has for many other papers, our town’s little corporate daily included. The Glens Falls Post-Star is certainly not doing well because it is a great paper. It is doing well because it is the only daily paper in town. They claim to be the most profitable paper in the Lee Enterprises chain (with more than 50 dailies across the country). Much of this “success” has been attributed to their web advertising and the ads they sell in the many little weeklies and magazines they also print.
While I am constantly amazed at how much smaller and more centralized my “local” newspaper becomes every year, it’s never enough for them. They regularly use outside sources to trim local expense. They killed their union decades ago so that they could lay off good people and great writers. This is a huge mistake in my view. While it is not, in any way, sustainable, it seems to be their actual business model. It is all about short-term gain simply because a company has a monopoly and the public has nowhere else to turn for its “news product”. My question to these titans of industry is what happens when the media consumer just turns you “off”? What happens when you devalue your product to the point that the “consumer” simply stops looking to you as a viable media source? The corporate media seems to really believe that people will just continue to read their papers no matter how bad they get. I don’t share their “optimism”.
Maybe I’m not seeing the bigger picture but it seems to me that the Times Union’s refusal to settle with the Newspaper Guild is not indicative of the maneuvering of an industry that is struggling to survive but is simply the squeezing of workers by an entity that, by all rights, should be doing just fine.
I am very interested to know what others think about this dispute and I very much appreciate, in advance, the Times Union being principled enough to allow me, and others, to voice our opinion on this matter.
I know the people I work with and they know me. We live under a system of shared misery. I work for a living under circumstances remarkably similar to those of a worker. I do not own a house. I do not have a retirement fund. I am not rich. I do not take six-week ski vacations in the Alps. In fact, I rarely take vacations of any sort at all nor do I have time to ski.
I cannot afford many of the “finer things” in life nor do I wish to. I live simply. Like the majority of my workers, I do not have health insurance nor any other reasonable safety net. We are all in the same boat together and there is a mutual respect in that which helps us all to weather whatever conditions the world may throw at us. People often casually label me a “businessman” but I tell them that the term “empowered worker” is a far more accurate description of who I am.
The Times Union’s management undoubtedly has many decent people in it who truly care about the people who work under them but there’s a very important distinction to be made between having someone work under you and working with someone. The corporate “ladder” is used as a motivational tool to maintain healthy profit margins. What happens when the business model changes and the corporate template fails to deliver elevation of the few at the expense of the many is something we are all beginning to understand (some of us firsthand).
There are very few major daily newspapers that do not see themselves, first and foremost, as businesses. The corporate structure allows them to create, print, market and distribute massive quantities of newsprint that smaller media outlets could not even begin to contemplate. While efficiencies of production allow a relatively small number of workers to elevate themselves solidly into our dwindling middle class, the process of big volume and centralization of resource necessarily excludes many workers from said elevation.
In fact, in order to maintain profitability at margins acceptable to the ever-hungry shareholder, the corporate business model has to shake the tree on a fairly regular basis. It has to grind up and spit out a few workers every now and then in order to cut expenses and motivate those who are retained to even higher levels of efficiency and productivity. This creates an “us versus them” culture of loss and competition in the workplace. Our society has steeled itself to these losses and often turns a blind eye to those who are cast away.
It is strange to me, given this cycle of loss that so many workers seem to resent unions and union workers. Basically, unions are the only mechanism that has ever protected workers or attempted to limit the whims of corporations that seek to purge, grind and squeeze us. Why would we, their fellow workers, ever begrudge our fellow workers the right to organize and fight for things like a safe workplace, seniority, a living wage, health insurance, and paid vacations? We all must know that we all benefit by having that bar set higher. Every single one of us.
How any worker could be upset that some of their fellow workers have decided to stand up for their rights and demand a better share of the immodest proceeds of the corporate model (which, in its essence, seems designed specifically to get rid of as many of us as it can)? Why are union workers viewed with scorn by so many? Jealousy is perhaps the answer, but I think it runs even deeper than that. I think the mainstream media has given us all a terribly false picture of unions and the workers who have endured through a struggle that is, ultimately, the very history of our country.
The Time Union, for all intents and purposes, just canceled its union contract in April. It looks like this was a pretty purposeful move to rid itself of The Newspaper Guild once and for all. Everyone is saying that the changing “newspaper model” and the Internet are to blame but is this really what’s going on?
Knowing that the Hearst Corporation just finished construction of a $500 million dollar corporate headquarters in 2006 might lead a critical thinker to believe that the privately-held company is not doing so poorly after all but, without access to the books, we just don’t know. We are simply asked to take George Hearst III’s word for it that layoffs and the end of the Guild are necessary. This is, we are told, what every good media company has to do to survive.
When George’s great, great, grandfather was around, he was no doubt a hard man. He did not likely place a whole lot of importance on the plight of those outside his immediate circle. From what I have read, this amazing Hearst was kind of like Daniel Day Lewis in “There Will Be Blood” (except that he was a miner, not an oil man). He was a self-made millionaire at a time when that was an awful lot of money. He was also seen by many as nothing short of ruthless in his pursuit of both money and power. He died a U.S. Senator.
In settling a gambling debt, Hearst ended up owning the San Francisco Examiner and he turned it over to his son, William Randolph, who became a media mogul. William is arguably the most famous of the Hearst clan mostly for turning the acquisition of that one newspaper into a large, privately-held, media empire that still exists to this day.
Forbes estimates that the current incarnation of the Hearst Corp. grossed about 4.4 billion dollars in 2007 and had about 17,000 employees. To hear Steven Swartz tell it (now President of Hearst Newspapers), you’d think that Hearst and its subsidiaries were rolling in the dough. More specifically, in the piece cited above, he says that “targeted distribution” in 2008 saved the Times Union about $750,000 with no adverse impact on its advertising revenue. Does that sound to you like the kind of financial doom and gloom that signals imminent financial disaster?
Now, we all know we are in a recession and we’ve all heard the newspapers’ talk about the web-related “changing business model” and how it negatively impacts them all but we are at a severe disadvantage. Without examining Hearst’s books, how can we determine whether George III’s actions in trying to kill the Guild are self preservation or just greed? Lets explore those changing conditions a little bit.
Statistically, papers make about 15-20% of their gross revenue from actual subscribers. The rest is actually ad revenue. So, if the T.U. lost even half of its paid subscribers to its free internet site, it wouldn’t even lose 10% of its gross revenue. While that’s not a good thing, it’s also not the end of the world. While there might well be a corresponding loss of ad revenue, there would also be a massive savings, I have to imagine, in not having to print or deliver half of the physical papers which were delivered previous.
And, lets not forget that newspaper advertisers really have nowhere else to go in this market except the web (and who is selling that ad space?). When you are the area’s paper of record, I find it awfully hard to believe that the negative impact of lost subscribers or advertisers could really be anywhere near as terrible for you as it’s made out to be. The Times Union has not lost half its subscribers and, like every other paper, it now sells tons of additional ad space on the web (just look at this site). It doesn’t take much imagination to see that this new model should actually be a boon for newspapers, not their death knell.
For most papers, I have to imagine that the enhanced revenue stream has quickly offset the slight loss of revenue from decreasing subscriptions. This should yield the T.U. at least as healthy a bottom line as it has for many other papers, our town’s little corporate daily included. The Glens Falls Post-Star is certainly not doing well because it is a great paper. It is doing well because it is the only daily paper in town. They claim to be the most profitable paper in the Lee Enterprises chain (with more than 50 dailies across the country). Much of this “success” has been attributed to their web advertising and the ads they sell in the many little weeklies and magazines they also print.
While I am constantly amazed at how much smaller and more centralized my “local” newspaper becomes every year, it’s never enough for them. They regularly use outside sources to trim local expense. They killed their union decades ago so that they could lay off good people and great writers. This is a huge mistake in my view. While it is not, in any way, sustainable, it seems to be their actual business model. It is all about short-term gain simply because a company has a monopoly and the public has nowhere else to turn for its “news product”. My question to these titans of industry is what happens when the media consumer just turns you “off”? What happens when you devalue your product to the point that the “consumer” simply stops looking to you as a viable media source? The corporate media seems to really believe that people will just continue to read their papers no matter how bad they get. I don’t share their “optimism”.
Maybe I’m not seeing the bigger picture but it seems to me that the Times Union’s refusal to settle with the Newspaper Guild is not indicative of the maneuvering of an industry that is struggling to survive but is simply the squeezing of workers by an entity that, by all rights, should be doing just fine.
I am very interested to know what others think about this dispute and I very much appreciate, in advance, the Times Union being principled enough to allow me, and others, to voice our opinion on this matter.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
General Motors Should Be Worker Owned
I am just as outraged about Obama’s bailouts as I was about Bush’s wars and his stimulus packages. They are expensive. They are of questionable value. They seem designed to benefit only the richest in our society. I am for a hybrid of the GM bailouts, though, and let me tell you why.
Whether you are anti-worker or pro-worker, we are all aware that unions have set the bar for all American workers for the better part of a century. As unions have weakened and membership has declined, benefits and wages for all have followed suit. The Big Three are one of the last powerful bastions of union manufacturing in our country. If we allow them to be killed off, it will just facilitate a quicker end to the American standard of living as we know it. That standard is the result of well over 100 years of struggle by workers and those concerned with their plight.
I see the previous bailouts (and most of the ones in the planning stages) as nothing more than corporate welfare, handouts for the ruling class. They will greatly increase the national debt. They will falsely elevate stock values. They have allowed bonuses for rich people who don’t, in any way, deserve them. I know trickle-downers who are actually prone to believe that this type of activity will eventually benefit those of us in the working class but they must not ever check. We’ve never seen a dime down here.
Reaganomics has never worked regardless of which corporate party runs the printing press. If you print money to give to big corporations, they just keep it. Their officers may vacation longer or they may buy more land in Costa Rica but we don’t ever get any of the pennies we’re supposed to get down here. Never happens.
GM is not an AIG or a CitiBank, though. It is subtly different than these other obscenely corrupt mechanisms in one major regard. It is a real employer of real workers. I read once that 1/12 of the jobs in our economy are dependent on some facet of the automotive industry. Imagine what would happen to our real economy if 1/12 of our jobs just “left the building”?
If allowed to, you can be sure that GM (and our other “patriotic” auto manufacturers) would run happily to China to reap the benefits of Clinton’s terrible legacy of globalization. They will simply move themselves and their parts operations to any place in the world where labor is cheap (or even free) and where steel and energy are cheaper, as well. GM has already been doing exactly this for several decades now.
So, I am for preventing the terrible blood loss that will ensue should we allow GM to fail but I am not for the Fed running our automotive companies. Nor am I for giving GM a blank check and simply letting them do whatever they wish (although that does seem to be the deal most of the banks are getting). But, if we really wish to know what this administration’s goals are in relation to GM, we need look no further than Obama’s Wall Street whiz kid, Brian Deese, who was just put in charge of dismantling GM. The guy has never even set foot in an auto plant. Having some 31 year old rainmaker ship all of our union jobs to China is not my own personal vision of fixing a serious problem. Its likely not yours, either.
The bailouts, as currently structured, leave the government in control of about 60% of GM’s stock and that is just not acceptable. The federal government is beholden to the wrong people and we cannot allow them access to 1/12 of our job base. Enough with the corporate welfare already!
GM doesn’t need a bailout. It needs a huge low-interest loan that will allow it to become a worker-owned company with a new agenda. Perhaps, it could once again make energy-efficient electric cars like the EV1?! It could get rid of the corporate fat-cats who ran it into the ground in the first place. Then, the collective could decide what their fate will be together without Wall Street dictating any of the terms. Look what Wall Street did to our economy (real and imagined). Do we really want these idiots put in charge of anything we have such a huge stake in? Really?
Whether you are anti-worker or pro-worker, we are all aware that unions have set the bar for all American workers for the better part of a century. As unions have weakened and membership has declined, benefits and wages for all have followed suit. The Big Three are one of the last powerful bastions of union manufacturing in our country. If we allow them to be killed off, it will just facilitate a quicker end to the American standard of living as we know it. That standard is the result of well over 100 years of struggle by workers and those concerned with their plight.
I see the previous bailouts (and most of the ones in the planning stages) as nothing more than corporate welfare, handouts for the ruling class. They will greatly increase the national debt. They will falsely elevate stock values. They have allowed bonuses for rich people who don’t, in any way, deserve them. I know trickle-downers who are actually prone to believe that this type of activity will eventually benefit those of us in the working class but they must not ever check. We’ve never seen a dime down here.
Reaganomics has never worked regardless of which corporate party runs the printing press. If you print money to give to big corporations, they just keep it. Their officers may vacation longer or they may buy more land in Costa Rica but we don’t ever get any of the pennies we’re supposed to get down here. Never happens.
GM is not an AIG or a CitiBank, though. It is subtly different than these other obscenely corrupt mechanisms in one major regard. It is a real employer of real workers. I read once that 1/12 of the jobs in our economy are dependent on some facet of the automotive industry. Imagine what would happen to our real economy if 1/12 of our jobs just “left the building”?
If allowed to, you can be sure that GM (and our other “patriotic” auto manufacturers) would run happily to China to reap the benefits of Clinton’s terrible legacy of globalization. They will simply move themselves and their parts operations to any place in the world where labor is cheap (or even free) and where steel and energy are cheaper, as well. GM has already been doing exactly this for several decades now.
So, I am for preventing the terrible blood loss that will ensue should we allow GM to fail but I am not for the Fed running our automotive companies. Nor am I for giving GM a blank check and simply letting them do whatever they wish (although that does seem to be the deal most of the banks are getting). But, if we really wish to know what this administration’s goals are in relation to GM, we need look no further than Obama’s Wall Street whiz kid, Brian Deese, who was just put in charge of dismantling GM. The guy has never even set foot in an auto plant. Having some 31 year old rainmaker ship all of our union jobs to China is not my own personal vision of fixing a serious problem. Its likely not yours, either.
The bailouts, as currently structured, leave the government in control of about 60% of GM’s stock and that is just not acceptable. The federal government is beholden to the wrong people and we cannot allow them access to 1/12 of our job base. Enough with the corporate welfare already!
GM doesn’t need a bailout. It needs a huge low-interest loan that will allow it to become a worker-owned company with a new agenda. Perhaps, it could once again make energy-efficient electric cars like the EV1?! It could get rid of the corporate fat-cats who ran it into the ground in the first place. Then, the collective could decide what their fate will be together without Wall Street dictating any of the terms. Look what Wall Street did to our economy (real and imagined). Do we really want these idiots put in charge of anything we have such a huge stake in? Really?
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Who Should The Next Supreme Court Justice Be?
Intellectuals seem to view each national horse race as important for many reasons but the one most often cited would have to be the possibility that a new president will be in a position to nominate justices to the Supreme Court.
People suffering from “two-party-itis” regularly tell deluded, independent, naifs like myself, that we simply must choose between Democrat and Republican because our single vote may well decide Roe v. Wade all over again!
Electoral college and safe states arguments aside, this discussion would almost be funny. If people could just lift themselves out of their illogical reveries and hover for a moment of quiet reflection, they might see what I see. I always relish the expression on an insistent Democrat’s face when I ask if they know how many Senators opposed Antonin Scalia’s appointment to the court? Scalia was, and is, seen widely as one of the most conservative justices we have had. Many thought that his appointment to the bench could signal the end of abortion rights as we know them.
The answer, in case you’re not aware of it, is none. Not a single Senator stepped forward to oppose Scalia’s confirmation. Not one single Democrat came out swinging or said, “Hey! That’s not a good idea!” Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by the U.S. Senate. Apparently, the same Democratic Party that insists we choose our presidents based on potential court picks were (unanimously) willing to risk overturning Roe v. Wade. Almost 25 years after Scalia’s appointment, abortion rights are still intact.
This should tell us at least two things.
One, that neither corporate political party is even slightly concerned about the Supreme Court changing our abortion laws.
Two, that Supreme Court justices often seem to change (or, at least, defy expectations) after their ascension to the bench.
Given that it really doesn’t seem to matter all that much who is picked for the court, perhaps, its also not so intelligent to make our presidential picks based on our fears about the Supreme Court?
I know it’s a pretty broad brush I’m painting with so, lets get to a finer point. There’s an issue beside abortion that all the justices seem to be on the same page about which, in the end, is probably far more important to us than any other single issue … corporate power.
Did you know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has an office in D.C. which devotes much of its time to aiding Corporate America in its fight against the people of our country? It also spends a fair amount of its time vetting potential nominees to the court and lobbying for those who are most likely to support corporate interest and agenda.
Did you know that the single greatest trend on the court over the last several decades is that decisions in favor of actual human beings have become more and more infrequent every time corporate power is challenged? This tells me that the biggest concern workers and citizens should have when nominations are being made is the court’s continued subordination to corporate power. Like our government, the court seems to have become just one more hammer in the corporate toolbox. Just one more mechanism designed to represent those who need it least and to crush justice wherever profit is concerned.
There is a great piece on this very topic written by noted author and lawyer, Jeffrey Rosen, in the New York Times (March 2008). Its called “Supreme Court Inc” and every American who cares about justice and law and the little guy should give it a perusal.
President Obama has to come up with some appointees for the Chamber and the Senate to look at. I have a suggestion that seems politically expedient while also addressing the court’s demonstrably corporate bias.
One thing we all seem to be in agreement about is that Obama has made some absolutely terrible choices for his cabinet. He could now throw a bone to those of us in the working class to ensure that textbooks mark him as a president who (at least) tried to do one thing right. He has made it abundantly clear as he’s filled his cabinet that the interests he serves are not ours. Regardless of your political perspective, these appointments have been business as usual and show him to be every bit the sellout independents said he was all along.
In particular, if Obama wants to reverse the sting caused when he invited Tim “The Fox” Geithner to guard our economic hen-house, he needs to send Tim Geithner a clear message to those of us who work for a living that he really does want us to have a seat at the table. For those of who know that a Single-Payer health care system is the optimal replacement for our for-profit nightmare, an intelligent court pick could help remove the stinger Obama sets by refusing to even say the words, “single-payer”. Like the Clintons before him, Obama is totally in bed with the HMO’s and refuses to discuss the most rational solution.
Obama can keep being such a disappointment because, at the very least, he’s not George W. Bush. But, if he were to chose an American icon to serve on our nation’s highest court, it might go a long way towards redeeming his, so far, unimpressive (and similar) governance. It might help the many who feel betrayed to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Where might we find someone truly principled who has always stuck up for the little guy? Someone who has always understood that deregulation is only beneficial to those seeking to rob and steal. Somebody who has fought the good fight all of his life.
The person I have in mind is a veteran, a lawyer, a professor, an author, a lecturer and a full-time American citizen. He is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard and he has left an indelible mark on populist politics in this era of big business and corporate power. For over forty years, he has been a tireless champion of every important social justice issue.
Here is an opportunity for Obama to prove that his “talk” has a little bit of “walk” in it, as well. The President could put a well-armed “hen” in our judicial “fox-house” and reassure us all that there is a tiny little piece of justice to be found somewhere in the halls of power in this beleaguered democracy of ours.
Supreme Court Justice Ralph Nader. Let that sink in.
Justice R. Nader
Just think about all the positives for a moment before your knee jerks …
Mainstream Democrats could all breathe a collective sigh of relief as Ralph would be unlikely to run in 2012. They could start to set aside their mathematically-challenged (and terribly misplaced) anger at Ralph for 2000 and start to set their own party back on a path that values democracy instead of thwarting and co-opting the growth of alternative parties. Thoughtful Democrats could finally admit in polite company that they agree with Nader on most every single issue without being excoriated.
Mainstream Republicans could rest assured that while Ralph is against corporate power, he’s also only one judge out of nine. How much damage to corporate control could he possibly do? Thoughtful Republicans could rest secure in the knowledge that very few people in our country have shown a more principled or consistent respect and defense of our laws and founding documents than Ralph Nader.
Workers and independents alike would be inspired. They could look to at least one nationally prominent figure who never forgets where he came from and who can always be counted on to do what is right in the face of enormous adversity.
What, if any, are the negatives?
People suffering from “two-party-itis” regularly tell deluded, independent, naifs like myself, that we simply must choose between Democrat and Republican because our single vote may well decide Roe v. Wade all over again!
Electoral college and safe states arguments aside, this discussion would almost be funny. If people could just lift themselves out of their illogical reveries and hover for a moment of quiet reflection, they might see what I see. I always relish the expression on an insistent Democrat’s face when I ask if they know how many Senators opposed Antonin Scalia’s appointment to the court? Scalia was, and is, seen widely as one of the most conservative justices we have had. Many thought that his appointment to the bench could signal the end of abortion rights as we know them.
The answer, in case you’re not aware of it, is none. Not a single Senator stepped forward to oppose Scalia’s confirmation. Not one single Democrat came out swinging or said, “Hey! That’s not a good idea!” Scalia was confirmed 98-0 by the U.S. Senate. Apparently, the same Democratic Party that insists we choose our presidents based on potential court picks were (unanimously) willing to risk overturning Roe v. Wade. Almost 25 years after Scalia’s appointment, abortion rights are still intact.
This should tell us at least two things.
One, that neither corporate political party is even slightly concerned about the Supreme Court changing our abortion laws.
Two, that Supreme Court justices often seem to change (or, at least, defy expectations) after their ascension to the bench.
Given that it really doesn’t seem to matter all that much who is picked for the court, perhaps, its also not so intelligent to make our presidential picks based on our fears about the Supreme Court?
I know it’s a pretty broad brush I’m painting with so, lets get to a finer point. There’s an issue beside abortion that all the justices seem to be on the same page about which, in the end, is probably far more important to us than any other single issue … corporate power.
Did you know that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has an office in D.C. which devotes much of its time to aiding Corporate America in its fight against the people of our country? It also spends a fair amount of its time vetting potential nominees to the court and lobbying for those who are most likely to support corporate interest and agenda.
Did you know that the single greatest trend on the court over the last several decades is that decisions in favor of actual human beings have become more and more infrequent every time corporate power is challenged? This tells me that the biggest concern workers and citizens should have when nominations are being made is the court’s continued subordination to corporate power. Like our government, the court seems to have become just one more hammer in the corporate toolbox. Just one more mechanism designed to represent those who need it least and to crush justice wherever profit is concerned.
There is a great piece on this very topic written by noted author and lawyer, Jeffrey Rosen, in the New York Times (March 2008). Its called “Supreme Court Inc” and every American who cares about justice and law and the little guy should give it a perusal.
President Obama has to come up with some appointees for the Chamber and the Senate to look at. I have a suggestion that seems politically expedient while also addressing the court’s demonstrably corporate bias.
One thing we all seem to be in agreement about is that Obama has made some absolutely terrible choices for his cabinet. He could now throw a bone to those of us in the working class to ensure that textbooks mark him as a president who (at least) tried to do one thing right. He has made it abundantly clear as he’s filled his cabinet that the interests he serves are not ours. Regardless of your political perspective, these appointments have been business as usual and show him to be every bit the sellout independents said he was all along.
In particular, if Obama wants to reverse the sting caused when he invited Tim “The Fox” Geithner to guard our economic hen-house, he needs to send Tim Geithner a clear message to those of us who work for a living that he really does want us to have a seat at the table. For those of who know that a Single-Payer health care system is the optimal replacement for our for-profit nightmare, an intelligent court pick could help remove the stinger Obama sets by refusing to even say the words, “single-payer”. Like the Clintons before him, Obama is totally in bed with the HMO’s and refuses to discuss the most rational solution.
Obama can keep being such a disappointment because, at the very least, he’s not George W. Bush. But, if he were to chose an American icon to serve on our nation’s highest court, it might go a long way towards redeeming his, so far, unimpressive (and similar) governance. It might help the many who feel betrayed to see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Where might we find someone truly principled who has always stuck up for the little guy? Someone who has always understood that deregulation is only beneficial to those seeking to rob and steal. Somebody who has fought the good fight all of his life.
The person I have in mind is a veteran, a lawyer, a professor, an author, a lecturer and a full-time American citizen. He is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard and he has left an indelible mark on populist politics in this era of big business and corporate power. For over forty years, he has been a tireless champion of every important social justice issue.
Here is an opportunity for Obama to prove that his “talk” has a little bit of “walk” in it, as well. The President could put a well-armed “hen” in our judicial “fox-house” and reassure us all that there is a tiny little piece of justice to be found somewhere in the halls of power in this beleaguered democracy of ours.
Supreme Court Justice Ralph Nader. Let that sink in.
Justice R. Nader
Just think about all the positives for a moment before your knee jerks …
Mainstream Democrats could all breathe a collective sigh of relief as Ralph would be unlikely to run in 2012. They could start to set aside their mathematically-challenged (and terribly misplaced) anger at Ralph for 2000 and start to set their own party back on a path that values democracy instead of thwarting and co-opting the growth of alternative parties. Thoughtful Democrats could finally admit in polite company that they agree with Nader on most every single issue without being excoriated.
Mainstream Republicans could rest assured that while Ralph is against corporate power, he’s also only one judge out of nine. How much damage to corporate control could he possibly do? Thoughtful Republicans could rest secure in the knowledge that very few people in our country have shown a more principled or consistent respect and defense of our laws and founding documents than Ralph Nader.
Workers and independents alike would be inspired. They could look to at least one nationally prominent figure who never forgets where he came from and who can always be counted on to do what is right in the face of enormous adversity.
What, if any, are the negatives?
Friday, May 8, 2009
What Next?
You have spent much of the past two decades of your life being told where to go, how to think, what to read, what to watch, how to behave. Far be it from me to add to the cacophony of advice that will almost certainly accompany your latest achievement but I do have one piece of advice …
You’ve done what everyone has told you was wise and reasonable and intelligent and forward-thinking and strategic. Might I humbly suggest that you consider the possibility that your happiness should be the most important factor when deciding what comes next? How many decisions leading up to today have frankly had anything at all to do with your happiness?
Its no surprise that you may be uncertain about what you want to do next. You’ve been following society’s clear cut path for over twenty years. If you are able, I suggest that you take some time off and travel a bit. Leave society briefly. Go hiking. Be in a play. Write some songs. Volunteer. Work as a dishwasher. Live with some buddies. Join the Peace Corps. Strum a guitar. Ride your bike. Watch an ant cross a field. Take the time to really kiss someone you love. Do a triathlon. Live life for just a little while before you commit yourself to any one course or path.
Don’t worry. While you may actually learn to enjoy being only marginally productive, I can almost guarantee that you will tire of it, eventually. When you do, I’m pretty sure that something will be calling you and that you will be in a uniquely receptive frame of mind to hear it when it does. I’m pretty sure that what you are supposed to do next will make itself known to you if you’re open to it.
It might be a job. It might a dream. It might be further education. It might be a talent. It might be a person or a place. But, whatever it turns out to be, you will have become self-aware enough to really know when it dawns on you. Knowing yourself outside your normal comfort zones and having an adventure or two can really help you see more clearly what it is that you truly value and what it is that you truly want. Despite what many people may tell you, what you want in this life is very important.
The happiest, most balanced people that I know are often those who say they let destiny have a place at the table when they were deciding their futures. These are usually those rare people we all know who are not stuck doing things they hate for a living. They enjoy their work. They enjoy their families. They are creative. They are passionate. I think these things are far more important than success by almost any other yardstick.
If, after some reasonable frittering, you are still unsure about what to do next, just go ahead and make a decision and start moving in a direction (any direction). I always remember my mother asking me when I was at a crossroads in my own life, “Don’t you think it is better to go in the wrong direction than in no direction at all?”
After more than twenty years of contemplating that question, I can honestly answer … “Yes, Mom. I think that it is … but I am definitely not sure.” ;-)
You’ve done what everyone has told you was wise and reasonable and intelligent and forward-thinking and strategic. Might I humbly suggest that you consider the possibility that your happiness should be the most important factor when deciding what comes next? How many decisions leading up to today have frankly had anything at all to do with your happiness?
Its no surprise that you may be uncertain about what you want to do next. You’ve been following society’s clear cut path for over twenty years. If you are able, I suggest that you take some time off and travel a bit. Leave society briefly. Go hiking. Be in a play. Write some songs. Volunteer. Work as a dishwasher. Live with some buddies. Join the Peace Corps. Strum a guitar. Ride your bike. Watch an ant cross a field. Take the time to really kiss someone you love. Do a triathlon. Live life for just a little while before you commit yourself to any one course or path.
Don’t worry. While you may actually learn to enjoy being only marginally productive, I can almost guarantee that you will tire of it, eventually. When you do, I’m pretty sure that something will be calling you and that you will be in a uniquely receptive frame of mind to hear it when it does. I’m pretty sure that what you are supposed to do next will make itself known to you if you’re open to it.
It might be a job. It might a dream. It might be further education. It might be a talent. It might be a person or a place. But, whatever it turns out to be, you will have become self-aware enough to really know when it dawns on you. Knowing yourself outside your normal comfort zones and having an adventure or two can really help you see more clearly what it is that you truly value and what it is that you truly want. Despite what many people may tell you, what you want in this life is very important.
The happiest, most balanced people that I know are often those who say they let destiny have a place at the table when they were deciding their futures. These are usually those rare people we all know who are not stuck doing things they hate for a living. They enjoy their work. They enjoy their families. They are creative. They are passionate. I think these things are far more important than success by almost any other yardstick.
If, after some reasonable frittering, you are still unsure about what to do next, just go ahead and make a decision and start moving in a direction (any direction). I always remember my mother asking me when I was at a crossroads in my own life, “Don’t you think it is better to go in the wrong direction than in no direction at all?”
After more than twenty years of contemplating that question, I can honestly answer … “Yes, Mom. I think that it is … but I am definitely not sure.” ;-)
Saturday, May 2, 2009
A Warrior Resists Deployment
If we are getting out of Iraq, why were more American soldiers killed in April than in any month since the presidential election? We actually seem to be accelerating the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan! We are constantly told that the number of actual troops in Iraq will be down to about 50,000 within the next few months but this says nothing of the “stability contractors” employed in our empire’s latest quagmire (that’s “mercenaries” for those of you who don’t like idiotic euphemisms). Currently, the U.S. has about 150,000 mercs on the payroll in Iraq.
So, given that we are escalating our resource wars, what should the peace movement be doing right now? Well, for starters, I think we should be celebrating a huge victory very few of us are even aware of.
Sergeant Mathis Chiroux, a young reservist who spent five years serving in Afghanistan, Japan and Germany refused to deploy to Iraq about a year ago. He has been waiting since for some resolution with the Army. He was told by people in the know that he could receive anywhere from a year of incarceration right on up to the death penalty if they really wanted to make an example of him.
On April 21st, he appeared before a board of Army officers in St. Louis, Missouri to explain his refusal to deploy. He told the truth. He said he felt that he was being called on to commit war crimes and that he could not participate. He also said that he could not participate in an illegal and unconstitutional war.
The hearing resulted in Chiroux being honorably discharged from the United States Army and the board allowed him to keep his G.I. Bill benefits. Did you hear about this big news?! I can only imagine that many will now also refuse to deploy (or re-deploy).
I find it amazing that this could happen with nary a peep from the mainstream media. This is a great example of the kind of information we are regularly being denied by the mainstream media. A whole lot of someones had to decide not to write about this and not to cover it on TV. That’s pretty scary to contemplate.
Chiroux is quite well-known within the peace movement for his work with IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War) and VFP (Veterans For Peace). Especially interesting was his testimony at the Winter Soldier hearings held in March of 2008 which were also ignored by the media.
These modern hearings were meant to emulate the “Winter Soldier Investigations” that took place in Detroit in January of 1971 at which a sizable group of Vietnam combat veterans, flying the VVAW banner (Vietnam Veterans Against War), spoke on camera for two days about the atrocities they had both witnessed and committed in Vietnam.
If you have never seen the film “Winter Soldier”, it has been out on DVD now for several years winter-soldier and I can’t recommend it enough. It’s simply phenomenal.
I also strongly urge you to read the powerful words that Mathis wrote about his trials and tribulations. His is not a typical war story. It is a very well-written description of the terribly dehumanizing effects of military training and culture and how it impacts human beings on all sides of the conflicts we are involved in.
Lets hope that the peace movement regroups and stops playing politics (Bush war bad, Obama war good). We are still very much involved in two wars and ramping up both. There are plenty of other soldiers out there standing up to the military-industrial-congressional complex who really need our help. G.I. resistance to the war in Vietnam was absolutely crucial to ending it. Please contact IVAW and make a donation today!
So, given that we are escalating our resource wars, what should the peace movement be doing right now? Well, for starters, I think we should be celebrating a huge victory very few of us are even aware of.
Sergeant Mathis Chiroux, a young reservist who spent five years serving in Afghanistan, Japan and Germany refused to deploy to Iraq about a year ago. He has been waiting since for some resolution with the Army. He was told by people in the know that he could receive anywhere from a year of incarceration right on up to the death penalty if they really wanted to make an example of him.
On April 21st, he appeared before a board of Army officers in St. Louis, Missouri to explain his refusal to deploy. He told the truth. He said he felt that he was being called on to commit war crimes and that he could not participate. He also said that he could not participate in an illegal and unconstitutional war.
The hearing resulted in Chiroux being honorably discharged from the United States Army and the board allowed him to keep his G.I. Bill benefits. Did you hear about this big news?! I can only imagine that many will now also refuse to deploy (or re-deploy).
I find it amazing that this could happen with nary a peep from the mainstream media. This is a great example of the kind of information we are regularly being denied by the mainstream media. A whole lot of someones had to decide not to write about this and not to cover it on TV. That’s pretty scary to contemplate.
Chiroux is quite well-known within the peace movement for his work with IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War) and VFP (Veterans For Peace). Especially interesting was his testimony at the Winter Soldier hearings held in March of 2008 which were also ignored by the media.
These modern hearings were meant to emulate the “Winter Soldier Investigations” that took place in Detroit in January of 1971 at which a sizable group of Vietnam combat veterans, flying the VVAW banner (Vietnam Veterans Against War), spoke on camera for two days about the atrocities they had both witnessed and committed in Vietnam.
If you have never seen the film “Winter Soldier”, it has been out on DVD now for several years winter-soldier and I can’t recommend it enough. It’s simply phenomenal.
I also strongly urge you to read the powerful words that Mathis wrote about his trials and tribulations. His is not a typical war story. It is a very well-written description of the terribly dehumanizing effects of military training and culture and how it impacts human beings on all sides of the conflicts we are involved in.
Lets hope that the peace movement regroups and stops playing politics (Bush war bad, Obama war good). We are still very much involved in two wars and ramping up both. There are plenty of other soldiers out there standing up to the military-industrial-congressional complex who really need our help. G.I. resistance to the war in Vietnam was absolutely crucial to ending it. Please contact IVAW and make a donation today!
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Mr. Murphy Goes To Washington
We all know that Scott Murphy is now the “decisive” winner of CD 20’s recent special election but we still have no idea who he is. I suspect we are about to find out.
Now, I’m no fan of Jim Tedisco. In fact, if I voted for evil of any kind (lesser or otherwise), Murphy might well have had my vote this time around. But, as I always do, I wrote in an independent. I’ve learned that it really doesn’t matter which two corporate felons the machine tells me I have to choose between. I don’t have to do what they tell me to. I am free. They’re not the boss of me. Either felon they want me to pick will inevitably do the same damage while they’re in office (which makes total sense if you stop to look at which lobby groups each candidate is indentured to).
After the Democrats in Pennsylvania hired Ken Starr’s old law firm to sue my fellow Green, Carl Romanelli, I swore that I would never again even consider voting for a corporate party candidate (never mind secretly hope that one would win seeing them as the “lesser evil”). I really don’t care anymore. Carl’s crime was that he had the testicular fortitude to run for a seat in the U.S. Senate. For that, the Democrats tried to totally destroy the man.
If you have ever met Carl and understand just what a wonderful and good soul he is, you would share my ire. The Pennsylvania Dems used House employees on the taxpayer dole to tamper with Carl’s campaign. Then, they sued him for legal fees because they brought him into court to have his signatures wiped out! Some of them have now been charged and convicted but not before they got a successful judgment against him for the legal fees … $80,000! Even with three Democrats in jail, this fight is still going on.
I will never look at the Democrats as the “lesser” evil party again. They’re evil “identical twins” from here on in and that’s that.
I made a lot of people angry telling them that Obama would just be another Gee Dubya (with, of course, an enhanced ability to speak and relate to others). I was right … the killing has become much more civilized! Obama’s use of predator drones, his many lies about ending torture and rendition and shutting down Gitmo, the acceleration of our two most obvious wars, his seeming inability to sputter the words “single-payer” even once (never mind in a complete sentence) … all this would seem to confirm my diagnosis.
You vote two-party. You get the same result. Every time. Period. This congressional election may be an excellent learning opportunity for those Democrats open to the idea that their behavior is the textbook definition of insanity (”doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result”).
Murphy was “chosen” through an arduous selection process. I imagine the county chairs lined everybody up and said, “All right, youse mugs! How much ya got?” They then picked the guy who had lots of it. I have lived in Glens Falls for about ten years and I was born in Saratoga. While I love Glens Falls, I don’t consider myself a “local”. I wasn’t raised here. No one who grew up here would consider me a local, either. I’m, more correctly, a transplant.
Murphy is not a “local” businessman. He is from Missouri and Manhattan and India. Now, I hate to say “carpetbagger”, but if the shoe fits ...
The old farmer was asked by the city slicker, “My daughter just had a baby. Is my new grandson finally a ‘local’?” Without missing a beat, the farmer replied, “Boy, if a dog gives birth to puppies in an oven, do you call ‘em ‘biscuits’?”
Murphy is not a local. As such, will he understand our CD’s needs? Does he even care to? He is also not a transplant who has embraced the community. He has not been involved enough in it for anyone to even know who he is (never mind what he thinks about the issues).
I have conversed with many of my friends and neighbors about this. Most of them have never even heard of Murphy outside of his TV commercials. Murphy claims to be local and no one’s even heard of him? I’m sure there are plenty of people in our town who don’t care for my politics (or don’t care for what they think my politics are) but we all get along pretty well, nonetheless, and that’s one of the reasons I love Glens Falls so much. That’s why when Murphy decided to run and no one knew who he was, my ’spider sense’ started tingling. We ALL know each other here. I was genuinely surprised that such a wealthy businessman could fly so low under the radar.
The local power structure seemed pretty happy to have “one of their own” running but they also seemed absolutely clueless about where he had suddenly come from. Does this mean “outside agenda”? Probably.
Murphy married into one of the most powerful Republican families in the area, the Hogans (these are State Senator Betty Little’s people). I can imagine that Little was pretty upset that the Republicans didn’t choose her to run in CD 20. If they had wanted to win, they certainly would have chosen her instead of Coach Jimmy. Does this mean that Murphy’s a D.I.N.O. (Democrat In Name Only) prompted to run by the same business interests Betty Little supports? Probably.
The local progressive Democrats were angry and felt betrayed when Murphy was chosen. Their committee chairs chose Scott for them, then he proceeded to avoid them all studiously. Many refused to go door to door for him, but he had more than enough money from his various jimmy“businesses” to run without their help. They all knew it and, more importantly, they all knew that not one of them had the chutzpah to cross the line and vote for a … gasp! … Republican, especially the hated Tedisco.
Murphy didn’t need to reach out to his own flock at all. the little (d) after his name means 1/3 of the vote, no matter what. It is a guarantee up here. You just need to work on the other 1/6th. Apparently, Murphy was aware of this.
He announced his intent to join the pro-war Blue Dogs almost right off the bat. Talk about spitting in their collective progressive face but, as I said, Murphy knew they would vote Democrat no matter what he did and no matter how much they disagreed with his basic positions. They will simply refuse to vote for an independent or a Republican who agrees with them on their issues, no matter what. Blind loyalty.
I asked a local organizer who he thought this Murphy guy was. He said, “We have no idea. He basically bought the candidacy. He’s never voted here. He’s never given money to any Democrat group or candidate. We’re totally in the dark.”
I asked if the fact that Murphy was being backed by Mark Behan and John Davidson bothered the Dems at all. Behan Communications serves as a mouthpiece for GE and local Republicans like Betty Little and Kate Hogan. Davidson is a VP at Jointa-Galusha, a cement company owned by DA Collins, a major contractor much involved in the AMD fiasco.
He was unaware on both counts. Could the Dems really be this excited about having put one more person in office whose basic aim is to funnel more pork into his buddies’ coffers? I guess they are all answering this question as we speak running around all excited about their “win”.
I have a simple question for you.
Aside from bringing home the bacon, all congress people need to vote on important national issues that are, likely, more broad-reaching than their acts of petty larceny at home.
Murphy is pro-war, pro-corporation in economic matters and anti-single payer health care.
Jimmy is pro-war, pro-corporation in economic matters and anti-single payer health care.
On the three issues a majority of Americans see as the most important of the day, these guys are in perfect lockstep with each other and with the corporate agenda.
So, why did it matter which of these “evils” was the victor? Please let me know why you’re happy about this. Who actually sees these guys as different and why?
Now, I’m no fan of Jim Tedisco. In fact, if I voted for evil of any kind (lesser or otherwise), Murphy might well have had my vote this time around. But, as I always do, I wrote in an independent. I’ve learned that it really doesn’t matter which two corporate felons the machine tells me I have to choose between. I don’t have to do what they tell me to. I am free. They’re not the boss of me. Either felon they want me to pick will inevitably do the same damage while they’re in office (which makes total sense if you stop to look at which lobby groups each candidate is indentured to).
After the Democrats in Pennsylvania hired Ken Starr’s old law firm to sue my fellow Green, Carl Romanelli, I swore that I would never again even consider voting for a corporate party candidate (never mind secretly hope that one would win seeing them as the “lesser evil”). I really don’t care anymore. Carl’s crime was that he had the testicular fortitude to run for a seat in the U.S. Senate. For that, the Democrats tried to totally destroy the man.
If you have ever met Carl and understand just what a wonderful and good soul he is, you would share my ire. The Pennsylvania Dems used House employees on the taxpayer dole to tamper with Carl’s campaign. Then, they sued him for legal fees because they brought him into court to have his signatures wiped out! Some of them have now been charged and convicted but not before they got a successful judgment against him for the legal fees … $80,000! Even with three Democrats in jail, this fight is still going on.
I will never look at the Democrats as the “lesser” evil party again. They’re evil “identical twins” from here on in and that’s that.
I made a lot of people angry telling them that Obama would just be another Gee Dubya (with, of course, an enhanced ability to speak and relate to others). I was right … the killing has become much more civilized! Obama’s use of predator drones, his many lies about ending torture and rendition and shutting down Gitmo, the acceleration of our two most obvious wars, his seeming inability to sputter the words “single-payer” even once (never mind in a complete sentence) … all this would seem to confirm my diagnosis.
You vote two-party. You get the same result. Every time. Period. This congressional election may be an excellent learning opportunity for those Democrats open to the idea that their behavior is the textbook definition of insanity (”doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result”).
Murphy was “chosen” through an arduous selection process. I imagine the county chairs lined everybody up and said, “All right, youse mugs! How much ya got?” They then picked the guy who had lots of it. I have lived in Glens Falls for about ten years and I was born in Saratoga. While I love Glens Falls, I don’t consider myself a “local”. I wasn’t raised here. No one who grew up here would consider me a local, either. I’m, more correctly, a transplant.
Murphy is not a “local” businessman. He is from Missouri and Manhattan and India. Now, I hate to say “carpetbagger”, but if the shoe fits ...
The old farmer was asked by the city slicker, “My daughter just had a baby. Is my new grandson finally a ‘local’?” Without missing a beat, the farmer replied, “Boy, if a dog gives birth to puppies in an oven, do you call ‘em ‘biscuits’?”
Murphy is not a local. As such, will he understand our CD’s needs? Does he even care to? He is also not a transplant who has embraced the community. He has not been involved enough in it for anyone to even know who he is (never mind what he thinks about the issues).
I have conversed with many of my friends and neighbors about this. Most of them have never even heard of Murphy outside of his TV commercials. Murphy claims to be local and no one’s even heard of him? I’m sure there are plenty of people in our town who don’t care for my politics (or don’t care for what they think my politics are) but we all get along pretty well, nonetheless, and that’s one of the reasons I love Glens Falls so much. That’s why when Murphy decided to run and no one knew who he was, my ’spider sense’ started tingling. We ALL know each other here. I was genuinely surprised that such a wealthy businessman could fly so low under the radar.
The local power structure seemed pretty happy to have “one of their own” running but they also seemed absolutely clueless about where he had suddenly come from. Does this mean “outside agenda”? Probably.
Murphy married into one of the most powerful Republican families in the area, the Hogans (these are State Senator Betty Little’s people). I can imagine that Little was pretty upset that the Republicans didn’t choose her to run in CD 20. If they had wanted to win, they certainly would have chosen her instead of Coach Jimmy. Does this mean that Murphy’s a D.I.N.O. (Democrat In Name Only) prompted to run by the same business interests Betty Little supports? Probably.
The local progressive Democrats were angry and felt betrayed when Murphy was chosen. Their committee chairs chose Scott for them, then he proceeded to avoid them all studiously. Many refused to go door to door for him, but he had more than enough money from his various jimmy“businesses” to run without their help. They all knew it and, more importantly, they all knew that not one of them had the chutzpah to cross the line and vote for a … gasp! … Republican, especially the hated Tedisco.
Murphy didn’t need to reach out to his own flock at all. the little (d) after his name means 1/3 of the vote, no matter what. It is a guarantee up here. You just need to work on the other 1/6th. Apparently, Murphy was aware of this.
He announced his intent to join the pro-war Blue Dogs almost right off the bat. Talk about spitting in their collective progressive face but, as I said, Murphy knew they would vote Democrat no matter what he did and no matter how much they disagreed with his basic positions. They will simply refuse to vote for an independent or a Republican who agrees with them on their issues, no matter what. Blind loyalty.
I asked a local organizer who he thought this Murphy guy was. He said, “We have no idea. He basically bought the candidacy. He’s never voted here. He’s never given money to any Democrat group or candidate. We’re totally in the dark.”
I asked if the fact that Murphy was being backed by Mark Behan and John Davidson bothered the Dems at all. Behan Communications serves as a mouthpiece for GE and local Republicans like Betty Little and Kate Hogan. Davidson is a VP at Jointa-Galusha, a cement company owned by DA Collins, a major contractor much involved in the AMD fiasco.
He was unaware on both counts. Could the Dems really be this excited about having put one more person in office whose basic aim is to funnel more pork into his buddies’ coffers? I guess they are all answering this question as we speak running around all excited about their “win”.
I have a simple question for you.
Aside from bringing home the bacon, all congress people need to vote on important national issues that are, likely, more broad-reaching than their acts of petty larceny at home.
Murphy is pro-war, pro-corporation in economic matters and anti-single payer health care.
Jimmy is pro-war, pro-corporation in economic matters and anti-single payer health care.
On the three issues a majority of Americans see as the most important of the day, these guys are in perfect lockstep with each other and with the corporate agenda.
So, why did it matter which of these “evils” was the victor? Please let me know why you’re happy about this. Who actually sees these guys as different and why?
Monday, April 20, 2009
$5,000 Bullets?
I love Chris Rock. He does a great piece on gun control. He says that we should not be worried about it, that we should instead seriously consider “bullet control”. He says if bullets cost 5,000 dollars apiece, we would never again hear the words “innocent bystander”. He goes on to say that if someone got shot and bullets were that expensive, they “must have done something!” You gotta chuckle. He has a gift.
That said, its awfully hard to laugh about gun control in the wake of the shootings in Binghamton. A lone gunman, alienated, upset and laid off, took out his frustrations on innocent people at the American Civic Association, killing 13 of them before turning his weapon on himself. How many times are we going to hear terrible, heart-wrenching stories like this before it ends? This seemingly random, angry, slaughter scares us all. While we empathize with the victims and their families, I think it is the fear that this could happen to us or a loved one that makes us feel we must do something to prevent it ever happening again.
I think a few things should be fairly obvious to us all. Someone who decides to kill people at random (especially people he doesn’t even know) must be severely ill. This was a disturbed and isolated individual, not someone who, by any stretch of the imagination could be considered a stable or responsible gun owner. Most of us are (stable and responsible). While most people I know have gone through trying times and jokingly contemplated destructive behavior on one level or other, it is our very ability to reason our way past these frustrations, without acting out in a homicidal way, that renders us civilized or stable.
Those without any direct knowledge of guns often scream loudly for tighter gun control anytime a shooting like this occurs. At first this seems like a reasonable reaction but after a while all I can think about incidents like Binghamton is what would have happened if there had been a licensed gun owner with a carry permit in the midst of all this?
It would be far better if unstable people had access to no weaponry or that we could somehow restrict them to less lethal weapons (knives, baseball bats, karate lessons). The problem is that, most shooters, this guy included, are highly unlikely to get their guns legally. That means, regardless of legislation, we are likely to see more of these mass shootings in the future and that the underlying reasons for the shooting have little or nothing to do with gun legislation.
There were 3,000 people who did not survive the fall of the three towers on 9/11 and based on those deaths shouldn’t we be freaking out about box cutters and legislating against those? Outside of the machinery of war, box cutters have, statistically, killed more Americans at one time than any other implement in this past century. Please know that I do not invoke the memory of the victims of 9/11 casually but I have to wonder if any of those people would see gun control as a logical and relevant response to the largest mass murder in American history? We have very tight rules about the use of airplanes and thermite and that didn’t stop those who did it. Not in the least.
I have to ask those who are freaking out what logical good it would do to register all our guns? It seems that this is what the public is screaming for in the wake of Binghamton but registration is, historically, just the first act of a government wishing to end private gun ownership. It is also how the Nazis eliminated those who might have opposed them before they could properly organize. In a country in which the government has killed many innocents (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Amadou Diallo), letting only the government have arms seems pretty foolhardy to me. I think that our government frequently kills people who have broken no laws and who do not deserve to die. How can we protect ourselves if they legislate away our right to bear arms?
People all over the country use guns to put food on their families’ tables and our government has spent the better part of a century clamping down on and restricting and licensing our right to do that. For those of us who eat meat, hunting is a far healthier and humane way of feeding our families’ than buying meat from feedlots and factory farms.
So, what should we do about gun violence?
Well, contrary to my own, rather peaceful, individual behavior, I might suggest that we allow our citizens to be armed as our Constitution states they have a right to be. I have two friends who have carry permits and who use them and I promise you that if either of them were at that center, I know the news headline would have been markedly different. They are well-trained, responsible, serious marksmen and the gunman may have gotten a few shots off first but, trust me, he would have been down and out long before he killed 13 people!
I can understand the hue and cry from those who are shocked by this type of violence. We all are. But please don’t use it as an excuse to allow the government and other criminals to become the only armed entities. That is a serious mistake. We need guns to hunt. We need them for self defense. We need them to protect against tyranny. They are a part of our country’s history and its future. They’re not going anywhere.
I am pretty sure that registering legal guns is highly unlikely to stop a single instance of violence. While limiting gun ownership and registering legal guns may not be the end of our right to bear arms, many of us see it as the top of a very slippery slope.
If ever I was in a place where someone was running amok with a gun or a knife or a box cutter, I would want to be able to protect my children or myself or others. I’m a big guy and I don’t scare easy but we all know that the odds are likely to favor the guy wielding a gun. Put yourself in the shoes of those who just died in Binghamton. Without a gun to protect themselves, the victims were all at the mercy of someone who was obviously desperate, ill and violent. They were sitting ducks. Without a gun, they had no choice but to wait and pray that there wouldn’t be a bullet for them. If someone there had a gun, I am positive that many more of them would have survived. Isn’t it really just that simple?
That said, its awfully hard to laugh about gun control in the wake of the shootings in Binghamton. A lone gunman, alienated, upset and laid off, took out his frustrations on innocent people at the American Civic Association, killing 13 of them before turning his weapon on himself. How many times are we going to hear terrible, heart-wrenching stories like this before it ends? This seemingly random, angry, slaughter scares us all. While we empathize with the victims and their families, I think it is the fear that this could happen to us or a loved one that makes us feel we must do something to prevent it ever happening again.
I think a few things should be fairly obvious to us all. Someone who decides to kill people at random (especially people he doesn’t even know) must be severely ill. This was a disturbed and isolated individual, not someone who, by any stretch of the imagination could be considered a stable or responsible gun owner. Most of us are (stable and responsible). While most people I know have gone through trying times and jokingly contemplated destructive behavior on one level or other, it is our very ability to reason our way past these frustrations, without acting out in a homicidal way, that renders us civilized or stable.
Those without any direct knowledge of guns often scream loudly for tighter gun control anytime a shooting like this occurs. At first this seems like a reasonable reaction but after a while all I can think about incidents like Binghamton is what would have happened if there had been a licensed gun owner with a carry permit in the midst of all this?
It would be far better if unstable people had access to no weaponry or that we could somehow restrict them to less lethal weapons (knives, baseball bats, karate lessons). The problem is that, most shooters, this guy included, are highly unlikely to get their guns legally. That means, regardless of legislation, we are likely to see more of these mass shootings in the future and that the underlying reasons for the shooting have little or nothing to do with gun legislation.
There were 3,000 people who did not survive the fall of the three towers on 9/11 and based on those deaths shouldn’t we be freaking out about box cutters and legislating against those? Outside of the machinery of war, box cutters have, statistically, killed more Americans at one time than any other implement in this past century. Please know that I do not invoke the memory of the victims of 9/11 casually but I have to wonder if any of those people would see gun control as a logical and relevant response to the largest mass murder in American history? We have very tight rules about the use of airplanes and thermite and that didn’t stop those who did it. Not in the least.
I have to ask those who are freaking out what logical good it would do to register all our guns? It seems that this is what the public is screaming for in the wake of Binghamton but registration is, historically, just the first act of a government wishing to end private gun ownership. It is also how the Nazis eliminated those who might have opposed them before they could properly organize. In a country in which the government has killed many innocents (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Amadou Diallo), letting only the government have arms seems pretty foolhardy to me. I think that our government frequently kills people who have broken no laws and who do not deserve to die. How can we protect ourselves if they legislate away our right to bear arms?
People all over the country use guns to put food on their families’ tables and our government has spent the better part of a century clamping down on and restricting and licensing our right to do that. For those of us who eat meat, hunting is a far healthier and humane way of feeding our families’ than buying meat from feedlots and factory farms.
So, what should we do about gun violence?
Well, contrary to my own, rather peaceful, individual behavior, I might suggest that we allow our citizens to be armed as our Constitution states they have a right to be. I have two friends who have carry permits and who use them and I promise you that if either of them were at that center, I know the news headline would have been markedly different. They are well-trained, responsible, serious marksmen and the gunman may have gotten a few shots off first but, trust me, he would have been down and out long before he killed 13 people!
I can understand the hue and cry from those who are shocked by this type of violence. We all are. But please don’t use it as an excuse to allow the government and other criminals to become the only armed entities. That is a serious mistake. We need guns to hunt. We need them for self defense. We need them to protect against tyranny. They are a part of our country’s history and its future. They’re not going anywhere.
I am pretty sure that registering legal guns is highly unlikely to stop a single instance of violence. While limiting gun ownership and registering legal guns may not be the end of our right to bear arms, many of us see it as the top of a very slippery slope.
If ever I was in a place where someone was running amok with a gun or a knife or a box cutter, I would want to be able to protect my children or myself or others. I’m a big guy and I don’t scare easy but we all know that the odds are likely to favor the guy wielding a gun. Put yourself in the shoes of those who just died in Binghamton. Without a gun to protect themselves, the victims were all at the mercy of someone who was obviously desperate, ill and violent. They were sitting ducks. Without a gun, they had no choice but to wait and pray that there wouldn’t be a bullet for them. If someone there had a gun, I am positive that many more of them would have survived. Isn’t it really just that simple?
Friday, April 17, 2009
George Washington Would Have Been At The Cannabis Rally
“Make the most you can of the Indian hemp seed. Sow it everywhere."
- George Washington -
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”
- Thomas Jefferson -
It is well-known (within my circles, anyway) that Washington and Jefferson were both promoters of hemp and its many uses. They both articulated an excellent case for this “weed” because they saw it as a way to create some agrarian self-sufficiency for our fledgling republic. Specifically, from what I have read on the subject, they saw it as a way to reduce our dependence on foreign goods and trade.
Back then, hemp was widely used by small farmers as a food and as a natural fiber with which one could make cloth, rope and paper. The oil from its seed could be used to fuel lamps or a torch. Its slightly different cousin, Marijuana, could also be used to aid those in pain (not to mention providing one with a ’sunnier’ disposition). Hemp and pot, today, are no less useful with the noted exception that, growing either will get you sent to prison. How is it we got to this point? How did we go from our founding fathers expounding the virtues of this miraculous ‘weed’ to a puritanical society in which it growers are jailed?
If you do not know about how slavery and industrial agriculture and Dupont (and many other various and sundry catalysts) lead to hemp and marijuana prohibition, I would humbly suggest that you have some reading to do. Suffice it to say that most reasonably informed individuals can agree that the real reasons for this prohibition had very little to do with marijuana usage and any negative impact said usage may have had upon society.
There are lots of marijuana reform advocates who feel compelled to isolate discussion of these multiple issues to “medical marijuana” instead of speaking about the broader subjects of marijuana and hemp reform. While they are all inter-twined, it does hemp a great disservice to let the medical marijuana issue speak for it. While all prohibitions on these plants are immensely unjust, they are not all the same issue. As such, I’m not going to speak about medical marijuana. If Ed Dague and his brave and frank public discussion of pain and relief have not melted our regional resolve where this cruel prohibition is concerned, I really can’t imagine what else might.
I think that the quotes from the two iconic figures from American history that began this piece sum it all up quite nicely. Hemp (and pot) being illegal is an anti-farmer, anti-citizen issue and Jefferson and Washington knew that so lets keep it that simple as well. They were pretty smart guys, right?
Instead of “medical marijuana”, lets instead openly discuss the more prevalent use for marijuana. About 70% of Americans have admitted to engaging, at least once, in the smoking of marijuana to … get high … as a way to relax or just for kicks. Most of us have smoked pot. As a thinking individual who has performed this heinous act many different times in my life, I know from personal experience that it is far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco can be (and, arguably, far more amusing, as well). But, the government has made me so paranoid about occasionally blowing off steam in this manner, that I long ago switched over to working out or having a few glasses of wine or beer, instead.
Over 16,000 people are killed every year in the United States in alcohol-related vehicular accidents. Add this to the massive number of people who die every year from alcohol and tobacco use (85,000 and 435,000) and we’re looking at a death toll of over 536,000 people in the U.S. alone from alcohol and tobacco. How many people does pot kill?
Well, this evil, terrible, ‘gateway drug’ featured so honestly in classic films like ‘Reefer Madness’ has resulted in not one single documented case of death … ever, in the history of the universe. That’s the actual number … ZERO. Think about that for a second … 536,000 per year versus Zero.
Now, if you explain this to the average third grader … Substances A and B kill 536,000 people every year and Substance C kills no one. Then you ask them which substance should people be put in jail for using, what do you think they would say? Why is society’s answer to this question any different? Why do we prohibit the use of the substance with the zero death rate and legitimize and tax and regulate and encourage to use of the substances that kill so many of us? Are we complete and total idiots?
To put it simply, those who know these truths understand that pot and hemp must be illegal for reasons other than the propaganda calling pot a ‘gateway drug’ or a ‘dangerous substance’ because it is truly neither. The first reason is that big cotton growers did not want to see a developing crop that was easier to pick than theirs (hemp could be easily harvested with a machine while cotton needed to be picked by hand). Secondly, blacks and Mexicans were the primary users of Marijuana when it was criminalized which helped to provide a steady flow of inmates during the advent of our racist industrial prison system. Third, Dupont didn’t want its newly-emerging, petrol-based, technology (plastic) to have to compete with a better, cheaper, cleaner, natural product that could be used in almost every application with as good or better results. Lastly, the CIA needs a way to fund its illegal and covert operations.
So we deny ourselves access to a natural product that truly could be ours. A product that can be grown domestically and made into composites harder and lighter than most carbon fiber resins. We deny ourselves a clean fuel source that can be burned in any diesel engine. We prevent the growth of a cash crop that can be eaten at our breakfast tables and worn on our backs. We say no to rejuvenating small family farms in America by allowing them to grow a crop that is 100% usable and that will flourish pretty much anywhere and with far less impact than wheat, corn and most other subsidized commodity crops. Why? Because our government does not do things that benefit us unless we force it to do so.
Today (Friday April 17th) on the East Capital Lawn in Albany, from 2pm to 6pm, there will be a “Rally To Restore Your Rights Ending Cannabis Prohibition”. Its organizers say there will be live bands, activist speakers and hemp products for sale. We should all be there.
I know that if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were around today, not only would they be speaking at the rally, they probably would have been the ones to call me and ask if I would be attending, in place of the current organizers, N.Y.C.A.M.P. (New York Citizens Against Marijuana Prohibition).
Would George and Tom have been heading over to the Dead show at the Times Union Center afterwards? Of that, I can’t be certain.
- George Washington -
“If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”
- Thomas Jefferson -
It is well-known (within my circles, anyway) that Washington and Jefferson were both promoters of hemp and its many uses. They both articulated an excellent case for this “weed” because they saw it as a way to create some agrarian self-sufficiency for our fledgling republic. Specifically, from what I have read on the subject, they saw it as a way to reduce our dependence on foreign goods and trade.
Back then, hemp was widely used by small farmers as a food and as a natural fiber with which one could make cloth, rope and paper. The oil from its seed could be used to fuel lamps or a torch. Its slightly different cousin, Marijuana, could also be used to aid those in pain (not to mention providing one with a ’sunnier’ disposition). Hemp and pot, today, are no less useful with the noted exception that, growing either will get you sent to prison. How is it we got to this point? How did we go from our founding fathers expounding the virtues of this miraculous ‘weed’ to a puritanical society in which it growers are jailed?
If you do not know about how slavery and industrial agriculture and Dupont (and many other various and sundry catalysts) lead to hemp and marijuana prohibition, I would humbly suggest that you have some reading to do. Suffice it to say that most reasonably informed individuals can agree that the real reasons for this prohibition had very little to do with marijuana usage and any negative impact said usage may have had upon society.
There are lots of marijuana reform advocates who feel compelled to isolate discussion of these multiple issues to “medical marijuana” instead of speaking about the broader subjects of marijuana and hemp reform. While they are all inter-twined, it does hemp a great disservice to let the medical marijuana issue speak for it. While all prohibitions on these plants are immensely unjust, they are not all the same issue. As such, I’m not going to speak about medical marijuana. If Ed Dague and his brave and frank public discussion of pain and relief have not melted our regional resolve where this cruel prohibition is concerned, I really can’t imagine what else might.
I think that the quotes from the two iconic figures from American history that began this piece sum it all up quite nicely. Hemp (and pot) being illegal is an anti-farmer, anti-citizen issue and Jefferson and Washington knew that so lets keep it that simple as well. They were pretty smart guys, right?
Instead of “medical marijuana”, lets instead openly discuss the more prevalent use for marijuana. About 70% of Americans have admitted to engaging, at least once, in the smoking of marijuana to … get high … as a way to relax or just for kicks. Most of us have smoked pot. As a thinking individual who has performed this heinous act many different times in my life, I know from personal experience that it is far less harmful than alcohol or tobacco can be (and, arguably, far more amusing, as well). But, the government has made me so paranoid about occasionally blowing off steam in this manner, that I long ago switched over to working out or having a few glasses of wine or beer, instead.
Over 16,000 people are killed every year in the United States in alcohol-related vehicular accidents. Add this to the massive number of people who die every year from alcohol and tobacco use (85,000 and 435,000) and we’re looking at a death toll of over 536,000 people in the U.S. alone from alcohol and tobacco. How many people does pot kill?
Well, this evil, terrible, ‘gateway drug’ featured so honestly in classic films like ‘Reefer Madness’ has resulted in not one single documented case of death … ever, in the history of the universe. That’s the actual number … ZERO. Think about that for a second … 536,000 per year versus Zero.
Now, if you explain this to the average third grader … Substances A and B kill 536,000 people every year and Substance C kills no one. Then you ask them which substance should people be put in jail for using, what do you think they would say? Why is society’s answer to this question any different? Why do we prohibit the use of the substance with the zero death rate and legitimize and tax and regulate and encourage to use of the substances that kill so many of us? Are we complete and total idiots?
To put it simply, those who know these truths understand that pot and hemp must be illegal for reasons other than the propaganda calling pot a ‘gateway drug’ or a ‘dangerous substance’ because it is truly neither. The first reason is that big cotton growers did not want to see a developing crop that was easier to pick than theirs (hemp could be easily harvested with a machine while cotton needed to be picked by hand). Secondly, blacks and Mexicans were the primary users of Marijuana when it was criminalized which helped to provide a steady flow of inmates during the advent of our racist industrial prison system. Third, Dupont didn’t want its newly-emerging, petrol-based, technology (plastic) to have to compete with a better, cheaper, cleaner, natural product that could be used in almost every application with as good or better results. Lastly, the CIA needs a way to fund its illegal and covert operations.
So we deny ourselves access to a natural product that truly could be ours. A product that can be grown domestically and made into composites harder and lighter than most carbon fiber resins. We deny ourselves a clean fuel source that can be burned in any diesel engine. We prevent the growth of a cash crop that can be eaten at our breakfast tables and worn on our backs. We say no to rejuvenating small family farms in America by allowing them to grow a crop that is 100% usable and that will flourish pretty much anywhere and with far less impact than wheat, corn and most other subsidized commodity crops. Why? Because our government does not do things that benefit us unless we force it to do so.
Today (Friday April 17th) on the East Capital Lawn in Albany, from 2pm to 6pm, there will be a “Rally To Restore Your Rights Ending Cannabis Prohibition”. Its organizers say there will be live bands, activist speakers and hemp products for sale. We should all be there.
I know that if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were around today, not only would they be speaking at the rally, they probably would have been the ones to call me and ask if I would be attending, in place of the current organizers, N.Y.C.A.M.P. (New York Citizens Against Marijuana Prohibition).
Would George and Tom have been heading over to the Dead show at the Times Union Center afterwards? Of that, I can’t be certain.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The New Tea(bag) Party
Today, many lunatics from the Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Fox TV camps will be protesting our “tax and spend” federal government at various public places around the country. They will do this by bringing tea (bags) to the steps of post offices, City Halls and legislatures and other governmental buildings and by mailing tea bags to their elected officials. These crazy people will be lured by various extremist ideologies, including the wacky Libertarian belief that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to collect a tax on wages.
I spent a large part of my day yesterday listening to disparaging comments directed at these “tea-partiers” by many in the media, some made by my own friends and political compatriots. Many right wing pundits have latched onto this protest idea as if it is their own and many on the perceived left now see this action as a brazen, corporate attack on their shiny new president. With a Democrat now firmly ensconced in office, its easy for them to imagine that all of the people who will be involved today are Republicans or right-wingers or racists.
Well, I’ll be one of those “lunatics” and I am not a Republican, a right-winger or a racist. I know many others who will be out there as well who are not so easily or accurately defined by these labels. In fact, the organizer of our local protest is a Vietnam veteran who has been fairly active in the peace movement for years. He does not belong to either major political party (he dismisses them both as “War, Inc.”).
While he may not share many of my more progressive views, he is a good and respectful man and he is also a successful tax resistor. It is pretty clear to me that he is not lead by people like Beck or Hannity (or by anyone else, for that matter). He seems to be a pretty well-read guy who figures things out for himself.
To me, this situation is similar to how all the peace vigils suddenly ended once Obama was elected. Why did this happen? The wars certainly aren’t over! Guantanamo certainly isn’t closed. There are currently more mercenaries in Iraq than at any point previous. Extraordinary rendition has continued. Why then, don’t the peace vigils continue? Were they really just anti-Bush vigils?
Many would level this accusation at the whole anti-war movement. They would say that we were just working with moveon.org to protest Bush in order to get a Democrat elected. Well, I was definitely not out there for those reasons. I was out there to protest a war for resource that we didn’t need to be involved in. The lack of a substantial peace movement today makes me scratch the old noggin, though. Were the right-wing pundits correct about the bulk of us?
I have finally realized that many in the Peace movement really do only object to war when it is clear that the war in question is a Republican war. But the criticism concerning ulterior motive was regularly leveled at all of us by conservative pundits and this is unfair. Many people did only fill the streets because moveon.org told them to but it is of vital importance to know that there were also many of us who were not there merely to support corporate machine politics.
While there is no doubt that some among us may have been wearing Democratic Party T-shirts under their anti-war uniforms and while they may have put those uniforms up on that shelf in the back of their closet (at least until the next “changing of the guard”), these people are not the whole peace movement. Not by a long stretch.
In my world, being an advocate for peace is still absolutely necessary, especially now that the Democrats are running the show. When a “bad” war falls under the jurisdiction of the Democratic Party, it doesn’t, all of a sudden, become a “good”war. The death toll (of both American soldiers and Middle Eastern civilians) doesn’t suddenly become a necessary and incremental step towards the peace. It is still a terrible waste of human life perpetrated by resource-hungry corporations and our military industrial complex. It still needs to be opposed!
During the Bush regime, many in the right-wing media excoriated anyone who was seen as supporting moveon.org or UFPJ or Code Pink, all of whom were involved in organizing protests and vigils. I never went to a single protest or rally coerced to do so by any of these groups (though one or more of them may have had their hand in the planning or promotion). To paint me as a Democrat and a follower just because I was there, rather than a principled peace advocate, is entirely unfair.
Now that the fake corporate party shoe is on the other fake corporate-party foot, I feel it is equally incorrect to say that everyone out there today opposing the collection and expenditure of taxes by our federal government is automatically being lead by right wing pundits and the Republican Party. Not correct! Some may well be there for these reasons, but not all of us. Don’t forget that. I will be at a tax protest today for several reasons …
1) I am no lawyer but I believe that it is unconstitutional to collect taxes on wages. Prior to interpretation by the courts, this actually seems pretty obvious and is stated quite clearly in our founding documents.
2) Based on what I have read, it does seem that the 16th amendment (the one allowing the eventual birth of the federal income tax) was never properly ratified. The court that finally claimed it to be properly ratified was stating this in relation to its use in collecting income made by sale of property and not income derived from a person’s labor.
3) I can’t think of too many things I like that the federal government (run by either major party) has done with my tax money in pretty much all of my adult years and I am very happy to have one more way to protest it.
4) Some members of my local community share my upset about how our taxes are collected and abused and I wish to show them support in expressing our collective frustration.
I will not be there because Glen Beck or Sean Hannity (or even Alex Jones) told me to be … no matter how badly some folk want to believe this is so.
I spent a large part of my day yesterday listening to disparaging comments directed at these “tea-partiers” by many in the media, some made by my own friends and political compatriots. Many right wing pundits have latched onto this protest idea as if it is their own and many on the perceived left now see this action as a brazen, corporate attack on their shiny new president. With a Democrat now firmly ensconced in office, its easy for them to imagine that all of the people who will be involved today are Republicans or right-wingers or racists.
Well, I’ll be one of those “lunatics” and I am not a Republican, a right-winger or a racist. I know many others who will be out there as well who are not so easily or accurately defined by these labels. In fact, the organizer of our local protest is a Vietnam veteran who has been fairly active in the peace movement for years. He does not belong to either major political party (he dismisses them both as “War, Inc.”).
While he may not share many of my more progressive views, he is a good and respectful man and he is also a successful tax resistor. It is pretty clear to me that he is not lead by people like Beck or Hannity (or by anyone else, for that matter). He seems to be a pretty well-read guy who figures things out for himself.
To me, this situation is similar to how all the peace vigils suddenly ended once Obama was elected. Why did this happen? The wars certainly aren’t over! Guantanamo certainly isn’t closed. There are currently more mercenaries in Iraq than at any point previous. Extraordinary rendition has continued. Why then, don’t the peace vigils continue? Were they really just anti-Bush vigils?
Many would level this accusation at the whole anti-war movement. They would say that we were just working with moveon.org to protest Bush in order to get a Democrat elected. Well, I was definitely not out there for those reasons. I was out there to protest a war for resource that we didn’t need to be involved in. The lack of a substantial peace movement today makes me scratch the old noggin, though. Were the right-wing pundits correct about the bulk of us?
I have finally realized that many in the Peace movement really do only object to war when it is clear that the war in question is a Republican war. But the criticism concerning ulterior motive was regularly leveled at all of us by conservative pundits and this is unfair. Many people did only fill the streets because moveon.org told them to but it is of vital importance to know that there were also many of us who were not there merely to support corporate machine politics.
While there is no doubt that some among us may have been wearing Democratic Party T-shirts under their anti-war uniforms and while they may have put those uniforms up on that shelf in the back of their closet (at least until the next “changing of the guard”), these people are not the whole peace movement. Not by a long stretch.
In my world, being an advocate for peace is still absolutely necessary, especially now that the Democrats are running the show. When a “bad” war falls under the jurisdiction of the Democratic Party, it doesn’t, all of a sudden, become a “good”war. The death toll (of both American soldiers and Middle Eastern civilians) doesn’t suddenly become a necessary and incremental step towards the peace. It is still a terrible waste of human life perpetrated by resource-hungry corporations and our military industrial complex. It still needs to be opposed!
During the Bush regime, many in the right-wing media excoriated anyone who was seen as supporting moveon.org or UFPJ or Code Pink, all of whom were involved in organizing protests and vigils. I never went to a single protest or rally coerced to do so by any of these groups (though one or more of them may have had their hand in the planning or promotion). To paint me as a Democrat and a follower just because I was there, rather than a principled peace advocate, is entirely unfair.
Now that the fake corporate party shoe is on the other fake corporate-party foot, I feel it is equally incorrect to say that everyone out there today opposing the collection and expenditure of taxes by our federal government is automatically being lead by right wing pundits and the Republican Party. Not correct! Some may well be there for these reasons, but not all of us. Don’t forget that. I will be at a tax protest today for several reasons …
1) I am no lawyer but I believe that it is unconstitutional to collect taxes on wages. Prior to interpretation by the courts, this actually seems pretty obvious and is stated quite clearly in our founding documents.
2) Based on what I have read, it does seem that the 16th amendment (the one allowing the eventual birth of the federal income tax) was never properly ratified. The court that finally claimed it to be properly ratified was stating this in relation to its use in collecting income made by sale of property and not income derived from a person’s labor.
3) I can’t think of too many things I like that the federal government (run by either major party) has done with my tax money in pretty much all of my adult years and I am very happy to have one more way to protest it.
4) Some members of my local community share my upset about how our taxes are collected and abused and I wish to show them support in expressing our collective frustration.
I will not be there because Glen Beck or Sean Hannity (or even Alex Jones) told me to be … no matter how badly some folk want to believe this is so.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Global Foundries - Economic Development?
Wearing my business owner’s hat, I just have to ask … “How can I get me some of that free taxpayer money that AMD/Global Foundries is getting from New York State?” They are receiving a cash and pilot subsidy package amounting to between $800,000 and $1,500,000 per job (depending on which job projections you feel are most accurate).
I’m just kidding, of course. I don’t actually desire public money to run my private business. In fact, as with most business owners, I would never even think of demanding that the public support my for-profit business. That’s the very nature of being in business; you ask the public to support you by voting with their dollars, buying your product or service but I see it as completely indefensible to force the public to support you no matter how prevalent the practice or how acceptable your golfing buddies may find it to be.
Is there really no pride left in corporate America at all?
There are services our government is supposed to perform. They are supposed to do things like fix roads and make sure our elections are fair (and I think many of us see them as being incapable of handling these relatively simple tasks at times). Should they really also be deciding for us which entities are worthy of massive corporate welfare benefits and which are not? I feel that business has absolutely no right to suckle at the public’s teat, especially without said public’s permission.
These lines have been seriously muddied over the last several decades as occasional, support-oriented, economic aid has given way to massive and regular entitlement. The welfare recipient corporations have attuned themselves to a system requiring them to compete with each for “economic development” packages on one level or another. We citizens have to start putting our collective foot down. The time for such nonsense is over. We are in a serious recession. We do need jobs but we need sustainable jobs, not ones paid for with the equivalent of counterfeit money, money we will be expected to pay back with interest.
Simple math dictates that AMD’s original projection of 800 jobs divided into a $1.2 billion dollar subsidy equals over a million and a half dollars per job and that is just ridiculous! I have some questions for the conspirators in our state government who are intending to get away with this.
1. AMD is losing substantial money every quarter. Given that, would any bank in the world lend them this kind of money, never mind just give it to them with basically no strings attached?
2. Even considering secondary and tertiary development, what exact formula has been used to determine that this plant will be worth $1.5 million per projected job? While others may trust what consultants have to say on the matter, I want to see the actual numbers that lowed our elected officials to see this “investment” as justifiable.
3. This entire deal is based on microchips made in the USA competing successfully against similar chips being produced in China and India. How will AMD be competitive, post-NAFTA, against what amounts to wage slavery in the developing world?
When these questions are answered perhaps I can stop being such a Pollyanna. Until then, I will continue to see this as yet one more egregious cash grab made by people who obviously don’t care who they hurt, using taxpayer funds to enrich themselves and their cronies.
I’m just kidding, of course. I don’t actually desire public money to run my private business. In fact, as with most business owners, I would never even think of demanding that the public support my for-profit business. That’s the very nature of being in business; you ask the public to support you by voting with their dollars, buying your product or service but I see it as completely indefensible to force the public to support you no matter how prevalent the practice or how acceptable your golfing buddies may find it to be.
Is there really no pride left in corporate America at all?
There are services our government is supposed to perform. They are supposed to do things like fix roads and make sure our elections are fair (and I think many of us see them as being incapable of handling these relatively simple tasks at times). Should they really also be deciding for us which entities are worthy of massive corporate welfare benefits and which are not? I feel that business has absolutely no right to suckle at the public’s teat, especially without said public’s permission.
These lines have been seriously muddied over the last several decades as occasional, support-oriented, economic aid has given way to massive and regular entitlement. The welfare recipient corporations have attuned themselves to a system requiring them to compete with each for “economic development” packages on one level or another. We citizens have to start putting our collective foot down. The time for such nonsense is over. We are in a serious recession. We do need jobs but we need sustainable jobs, not ones paid for with the equivalent of counterfeit money, money we will be expected to pay back with interest.
Simple math dictates that AMD’s original projection of 800 jobs divided into a $1.2 billion dollar subsidy equals over a million and a half dollars per job and that is just ridiculous! I have some questions for the conspirators in our state government who are intending to get away with this.
1. AMD is losing substantial money every quarter. Given that, would any bank in the world lend them this kind of money, never mind just give it to them with basically no strings attached?
2. Even considering secondary and tertiary development, what exact formula has been used to determine that this plant will be worth $1.5 million per projected job? While others may trust what consultants have to say on the matter, I want to see the actual numbers that lowed our elected officials to see this “investment” as justifiable.
3. This entire deal is based on microchips made in the USA competing successfully against similar chips being produced in China and India. How will AMD be competitive, post-NAFTA, against what amounts to wage slavery in the developing world?
When these questions are answered perhaps I can stop being such a Pollyanna. Until then, I will continue to see this as yet one more egregious cash grab made by people who obviously don’t care who they hurt, using taxpayer funds to enrich themselves and their cronies.
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Adirondack Phantoms?
Glens Falls is my home. It has been for many years now. Our little city famously lost its AHL franchise, the mighty Adirondack Red Wings, in 1999. That’s when the league decided that two of its franchises could survive just 50 miles away from each other. They gave the River Rats the go ahead to set up shop at the Knick and the rest is history.
They were wrong and both hockey markets have suffered many seasons of low turnout and disappointed fans ever since. In Glens Falls, this has meant that we, the taxpayers, have been left to foot the bill for a 5,000 seat arena with a population of just over 14,000 people.
Since the Wings left home, two UHL franchises have tried their luck and failed; the Icehawks and the Frostbite. While those of us who love hockey latched right on to both, we all knew that this new hockey was not the same as the old hockey. Many came to see an occasional game but few religiously marked their calendars and made a serious effort the way they did when the Wings were here.
There are many in our community who just want to throw in the towel. They are sick and tired of hearing about how badly the hockey community wants to see AHL level play again. I am an absolute believer, though. I know there is a stalwart community of hockey fans here that will pony up the money to buy season tickets when the AHL returns.
Last year, the city signed a deal with Global Spectrum, a private management company from Philadelphia, and they now handle booking, scheduling and promotion for all events at the Civic Center. It just so happens that Global Spectrum is also employed by an AHL team called the Philadelphia Phantoms and, it just so happens that the Phantoms will be homeless for about three or four years as their new arena is being built back home. Can anyone say, “Welcome back, great hockey, to Glens Falls?” I would be lying if I said I was not excited at the idea of having truly great hockey played here again a mere stone’s throw away from my home and business.
That said, it was recently reported that Glens Falls suffered the highest unemployment spike in New York State and most of us are eager to see some relief. A badly made deal with big subsidies given to a sports team (which most taxpayers rightly view as a diversion, at best) would be a huge mistake.
I attended the final River Rats game in Glens Falls this past weekend and there were notices taped to the seats that warmed my heart. They were letting hockey fans know that the Phantoms are seriously considering coming to town and spelling out that the magic number is 2500 season tickets for them to see Glens Falls as a viable option. That’s a lot of tickets … but that’s also refreshingly direct.
As a business owner, I see most subsidies as little more than corporate welfare thinly-disguised as economic development and I love that this team is being so up front about their actual financial needs. I would have seen this as a respectable move in the best of economic times but, in a recession, this was, unquestionably, taking the high road. The Phantoms definitely have earned my respect for not pushing our community hard to make the many pay for the enjoyment of the few. That would not be fair and I am glad that they know this.
If the hockey community is really big enough and enthusiastic enough to support an AHL team here, then we need to sell those season tickets and we will have ourselves a team. If we don’t sell them, the Phantoms will (sadly) go somewhere else but, at least, the taxpayers won’t be saddled with yet one more burden.
The Phantoms are already proving themselves to be a class act. As far as I’m concerned, they’re already my team!
They were wrong and both hockey markets have suffered many seasons of low turnout and disappointed fans ever since. In Glens Falls, this has meant that we, the taxpayers, have been left to foot the bill for a 5,000 seat arena with a population of just over 14,000 people.
Since the Wings left home, two UHL franchises have tried their luck and failed; the Icehawks and the Frostbite. While those of us who love hockey latched right on to both, we all knew that this new hockey was not the same as the old hockey. Many came to see an occasional game but few religiously marked their calendars and made a serious effort the way they did when the Wings were here.
There are many in our community who just want to throw in the towel. They are sick and tired of hearing about how badly the hockey community wants to see AHL level play again. I am an absolute believer, though. I know there is a stalwart community of hockey fans here that will pony up the money to buy season tickets when the AHL returns.
Last year, the city signed a deal with Global Spectrum, a private management company from Philadelphia, and they now handle booking, scheduling and promotion for all events at the Civic Center. It just so happens that Global Spectrum is also employed by an AHL team called the Philadelphia Phantoms and, it just so happens that the Phantoms will be homeless for about three or four years as their new arena is being built back home. Can anyone say, “Welcome back, great hockey, to Glens Falls?” I would be lying if I said I was not excited at the idea of having truly great hockey played here again a mere stone’s throw away from my home and business.
That said, it was recently reported that Glens Falls suffered the highest unemployment spike in New York State and most of us are eager to see some relief. A badly made deal with big subsidies given to a sports team (which most taxpayers rightly view as a diversion, at best) would be a huge mistake.
I attended the final River Rats game in Glens Falls this past weekend and there were notices taped to the seats that warmed my heart. They were letting hockey fans know that the Phantoms are seriously considering coming to town and spelling out that the magic number is 2500 season tickets for them to see Glens Falls as a viable option. That’s a lot of tickets … but that’s also refreshingly direct.
As a business owner, I see most subsidies as little more than corporate welfare thinly-disguised as economic development and I love that this team is being so up front about their actual financial needs. I would have seen this as a respectable move in the best of economic times but, in a recession, this was, unquestionably, taking the high road. The Phantoms definitely have earned my respect for not pushing our community hard to make the many pay for the enjoyment of the few. That would not be fair and I am glad that they know this.
If the hockey community is really big enough and enthusiastic enough to support an AHL team here, then we need to sell those season tickets and we will have ourselves a team. If we don’t sell them, the Phantoms will (sadly) go somewhere else but, at least, the taxpayers won’t be saddled with yet one more burden.
The Phantoms are already proving themselves to be a class act. As far as I’m concerned, they’re already my team!
Friday, April 10, 2009
Finally, A Progressive President
Obama is unable to say the words “single-payer health care.”
Some of you reading this are saying, “Yeah? So? What’s that, anyway … single-payer health care?” Well, simply put, its a health care system very similar to the Canadian system. It’s pretty much the same as HR 676, sponsored by John Conyers in Congress and it’s a lot like like the new bill (S.703) put forward by Senator Bernie Sanders. Basically, its new and improved Medicare for all.
Imagine there’s no HMO-style delivery system sitting right smack in the middle of your health care dollar, siphoning off 25-35% of your premium! The savings would be intense, as you might imagine. Imagine also that doctors are able to just treat you without ever having to wonder what level of care your insurance company will allow them to employ. Imagine that there are no forms to fill out and that you can go anywhere you like to seek treatment without any co-pays.
What’s the trick? No trick. I went to school in Canada and have ex-pat relatives who live there and the Canadian system is absolutely amazing. I could relate personal anecdotes all day about how terrible the American health care system can be and how great the Canadian system can be by comparison but, for the moment, lets just stick to the objective part of the equation.
It costs Canadians about $5200 per person for their single-payer health care system and this is about $2700 less per person than we will spend this year, per capita, in the United States. This means that we already spend more than enough to cover everybody. That’s the dirty little secret of corporate health care propaganda. It would actually be cheaper to cover everybody. Canadians also live a full year longer than we do. That’s another dirty little secret. You can do the math.
If, as the Rush Limbaugh crowd would attest, our new president is such a “socialist”, I have to wonder why he is not trumpeting this (seemingly, Communist) conspiracy that would make us all healthy while saving us money? Why are Democratic apologists falling all over each other trying to explain to us about “political feasibility” and achieving “the possible”.
“After all”, they say, “the guy’s only been in office for a few months. Give him a break. He’s got to work on these things one small step at a time.” He is currently advocating a forced HMO plan that would be no more effective or affordable than asking Dow Chemical to grow our food and his party is telling us he has a plan.
You’d think that this guy who just land-slided the election on a campaign of hope and change would be a far better strategist than these apologists are claiming. He just told his supporters that we are in desperate economic straits and that he would need to print several trillion dollars and give it out to people (mostly to people other than those who are actually hurting) and … everyone is actually buying it! They say, “Well, he’s got to do something, right?” Congress debates for about fourteen minutes and then says, “Okay, Barack. We trust you. You got to do what you got to do.”
We all know that Obama is riding a very short wave. It will end soon and now is probably the only time during his first four years that he might be able to approach congress with something this important and actually expect to get it passed. Even so, he’s pulling a Hillary Clinton on us instead and everyone seems to be buying it!
If Obama was really a socially-conscious guy, he would go on TV tomorrow and he would say, “Almost 20,000 Americans are dying every year because they lack access to health care and I can’t stand it anymore! Not on my watch! It’s a crisis and I’m going to fix it. I have a plan and it will save us money and it will also cover everyone. Similar models are being used in dozens of other countries around the world and it would simply be stupid not to follow their lead just because the HMO lobbies tell us we have to.”
But, he’s not going to do this and I don’t actually blame him. I blame you, the Obama voter. It’s your fault. You voted for him and you did so in a safe state where it made no difference at all. I told you he didn’t have a progressive bone in his body and you said, “That’s okay, Matt. We’ll hold his feet to the fire. Look at the movement! Look at all the young people! Look at all the excitement Obama generates.”
I’ll believe the “feet to the fire” rhetoric works when I see some evidence of it. Go ahead and pressure him like you all said you would. Please prove me wrong! I would really, honestly, love for you to do so. Please do so! Every day that you wait, about 50 more Americans will die. That’s more than six 9/11’s every year and you could prevent them all by simply making good on your campaign promise.
Some of you reading this are saying, “Yeah? So? What’s that, anyway … single-payer health care?” Well, simply put, its a health care system very similar to the Canadian system. It’s pretty much the same as HR 676, sponsored by John Conyers in Congress and it’s a lot like like the new bill (S.703) put forward by Senator Bernie Sanders. Basically, its new and improved Medicare for all.
Imagine there’s no HMO-style delivery system sitting right smack in the middle of your health care dollar, siphoning off 25-35% of your premium! The savings would be intense, as you might imagine. Imagine also that doctors are able to just treat you without ever having to wonder what level of care your insurance company will allow them to employ. Imagine that there are no forms to fill out and that you can go anywhere you like to seek treatment without any co-pays.
What’s the trick? No trick. I went to school in Canada and have ex-pat relatives who live there and the Canadian system is absolutely amazing. I could relate personal anecdotes all day about how terrible the American health care system can be and how great the Canadian system can be by comparison but, for the moment, lets just stick to the objective part of the equation.
It costs Canadians about $5200 per person for their single-payer health care system and this is about $2700 less per person than we will spend this year, per capita, in the United States. This means that we already spend more than enough to cover everybody. That’s the dirty little secret of corporate health care propaganda. It would actually be cheaper to cover everybody. Canadians also live a full year longer than we do. That’s another dirty little secret. You can do the math.
If, as the Rush Limbaugh crowd would attest, our new president is such a “socialist”, I have to wonder why he is not trumpeting this (seemingly, Communist) conspiracy that would make us all healthy while saving us money? Why are Democratic apologists falling all over each other trying to explain to us about “political feasibility” and achieving “the possible”.
“After all”, they say, “the guy’s only been in office for a few months. Give him a break. He’s got to work on these things one small step at a time.” He is currently advocating a forced HMO plan that would be no more effective or affordable than asking Dow Chemical to grow our food and his party is telling us he has a plan.
You’d think that this guy who just land-slided the election on a campaign of hope and change would be a far better strategist than these apologists are claiming. He just told his supporters that we are in desperate economic straits and that he would need to print several trillion dollars and give it out to people (mostly to people other than those who are actually hurting) and … everyone is actually buying it! They say, “Well, he’s got to do something, right?” Congress debates for about fourteen minutes and then says, “Okay, Barack. We trust you. You got to do what you got to do.”
We all know that Obama is riding a very short wave. It will end soon and now is probably the only time during his first four years that he might be able to approach congress with something this important and actually expect to get it passed. Even so, he’s pulling a Hillary Clinton on us instead and everyone seems to be buying it!
If Obama was really a socially-conscious guy, he would go on TV tomorrow and he would say, “Almost 20,000 Americans are dying every year because they lack access to health care and I can’t stand it anymore! Not on my watch! It’s a crisis and I’m going to fix it. I have a plan and it will save us money and it will also cover everyone. Similar models are being used in dozens of other countries around the world and it would simply be stupid not to follow their lead just because the HMO lobbies tell us we have to.”
But, he’s not going to do this and I don’t actually blame him. I blame you, the Obama voter. It’s your fault. You voted for him and you did so in a safe state where it made no difference at all. I told you he didn’t have a progressive bone in his body and you said, “That’s okay, Matt. We’ll hold his feet to the fire. Look at the movement! Look at all the young people! Look at all the excitement Obama generates.”
I’ll believe the “feet to the fire” rhetoric works when I see some evidence of it. Go ahead and pressure him like you all said you would. Please prove me wrong! I would really, honestly, love for you to do so. Please do so! Every day that you wait, about 50 more Americans will die. That’s more than six 9/11’s every year and you could prevent them all by simply making good on your campaign promise.
Friday, March 27, 2009
The Tax Freedom Challenge
SAT APR 11 7:00 pm Rock Hill Cafe 19 Exchange St. Glens Falls, NY
THE TAX FREEDOM CHALLENGE
Local Veteran and Patriot, David Nicholson, offers us a film (The Truth Behind The Income Tax) which speaks to the legality of collecting income tax in our Republic. Dave will also be offering up a $1,000 reward to anyone who brings proof of an actual law requiring U.S. citizens to pay income tax to the federal government.
THE TAX FREEDOM CHALLENGE
Local Veteran and Patriot, David Nicholson, offers us a film (The Truth Behind The Income Tax) which speaks to the legality of collecting income tax in our Republic. Dave will also be offering up a $1,000 reward to anyone who brings proof of an actual law requiring U.S. citizens to pay income tax to the federal government.
Monday, March 16, 2009
New York Now - IDA Reform
Last week, I had the opportunity to provide an alternative small business perspective on IDA reform at the Legislature. As a result, Susan Arbetter invited me to appear on her program, New York Now, on WMHT (PBS). The link is below but they only post the past week's show so if you want to see it you must do so quickly. Mine is a 4 minute interview to close out the show.
http://www.wmht.org/index.php?s=3
http://www.wmht.org/index.php?s=3
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
My Testimony Before NYS Assembly Chair Sam Hoyt on IDA Reform
Testimony to the Assembly Standing Committee on Local Governments
Public Hearing on Industrial Development Agencies
March 4, 2009
My name is Matt Funiciello. I live in Queensbury, N.Y. and I own and run Rock Hill Bakehouse, a bread bakery in Moreau, New York with a café in Glens Falls. We sell our European breads and biscotti from Manhattan all the way up into the northern Adirondack Park and we regularly employ about 35-40 people. I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to “throw my two cents in” where IDA reform is concerned.
I am here today to speak as a small business owner in New York State. I work for a living as do all my employees and we cannot afford a lobby group nor do we participate in the collective efforts of groups like the Chamber of Commerce or the NFIB whose agendas too frequently are tied to that of large businesses like big-box stores and fast food franchises and local manufacturers and not from a place where the best interests of whole communities are the priority.
In this exceedingly poor national economy, it seems that these “small business” lobby groups are not the only ones forgetting their mandate to represent all the people. Our government is racking up record taxpayer debt printing money left and right and handing it out to companies that have never, historically, passed any benefit derived on to their workers or customers.
Bailouts and “stimulus packages” aside, we need to fight these giveaways wherever and whenever possible. It is my feeling that Industrial Development Agencies are an excellent place to start. We need to take a good look at what exactly these groups are doing and how to strengthen oversight and ensure that there is transparency of process.
A great example of the overall ineffectiveness of governmental economic development lies just 15 miles north of here in Malta. New York State has promised Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) a package of benefits that is about 1.2 billion dollars to build a micro-processor plant. I almost feel silly complaining about the much smaller amount given to AMD in sales tax breaks by our local IDA but it certainly seems superfluous (even ridiculous) given the totality of the package. According to a recent article in the Schenectady Gazette, the Saratoga County IDA will be giving what amounts to a 27 million dollar break on sales tax for AMD’s building materials.
Now, let’s think about this for a minute. AMD has lost money three quarters in a row, losing almost as much money as they will be spending to build this new facility. If you were a bank and an entity that is clearly struggling and is clearly not profitable came to you for a loan, what would you do? As a representative of a business that has been steadily struggling to survive for over twenty years, I can tell you what the bank would do.
What if, to compound this company’s undesirability, they are also in direct competition with overseas companies whose costs of production are exceedingly low? Thanks to NAFTA and our ensuing trade agreements, our hard-fought American labor and environmental standards now stand solidly in the way of a company like AMD being competitive against international manufacturers and, to my knowledge, no AMD representative has yet explained how they plan to compete against workers in Asia and India where micro-chips are made for a mere fraction of the cost stateside. What would a bank do?
Now, unlike a bank, our state, facing serious economic times, seems to have left common sense behind and joined hands with the first major player to come along and ask for a handout in a desperate attempt to jump start our economy and create some new jobs. That’s simply not what any responsible business entity would have done. This is far too great a risk and it’s hardly an effective business plan for New York.
The saving grace of such one-sided deals is supposed to be job creation. Our 1.2 billion dollar gift is to be balanced by AMD’s creation of somewhere between 800 and 1465 new jobs in our area. I think that the rare point on which we can all agree (where corporate welfare projects are concerned) is that the development of new jobs is a good thing. But, are all these jobs actually created? Are these always good jobs? Sustainable jobs? When we give IDA breaks to WalMart, what kinds of jobs are we creating? Are these full-time, well-paying jobs or part-time, minimum wage jobs? Many times these “new” jobs are actually just the rehiring of workers whose jobs have been lost when their area’s new WalMart squeezes their employer out. Again, this displacement is hardly a recipe for success by any reasonable measure.
Let’s get out our calculators and do some simple math where AMD is concerned. How much is each of these 800-1465 jobs going to cost us? That’s the simple formula we taxpayers use to determine if a giveaway like this has some merit or amounts to more graft. Now, let’s see … 1.2 billion dollars divided by 800 jobs equals approximately … 1.5 million dollars per job! And, if AMD were able to meet its most recent (higher) estimate of 1465 new jobs, these jobs would drop down to a mere subsidy of $800,000 per job.
Now, you’ll forgive me if, as a business owner, I have to wonder just how good these jobs are going to be? How could anyone with elementary school math skills see this handout as being worth an investment even approaching these amounts?! As a taxpayer, I have to wonder where everyone’s calculators were the day these decisions were made?
Does New York State really feel that these jobs, which might pay, on average, in the low $40,000’s, are actually worth between $800,000 and $1.5 million apiece? If we really do feel that this is the case, can all businesses that have created jobs in the past ten years stand in the same line as AMD and collect our checks for job creation? I think I can speak for the whole small business community in saying that we are more than amenable to bargaining and I’m pretty sure we would ask far less for our services than you’re offering AMD in this instance.
Now, the absolutely incredible amount being offered is the entire package being given to AMD (or the Foundry Company or ATI or whatever you’d like to call them), but we are not here today to talk specifically about that huge amount. We are here instead to discuss IDA reform in our state. How does AMD’s deal tie in to this, mister business owner, you may ask? Well, there’s plenty of IDA money in this deal. It is just so dwarfed by the massive handout package that it easy to forget about it. I simply wanted to preface my remarks about the IDA portion of this contribution with an entire understanding that this company is already getting what most would call an insane amount of support from taxpayers. The IDA money seems to be adding insult to injury. This case makes obvious the need for reform for exactly that reason.
The IDA money being offered in this case is small but, in its own right, it’s still an amount that is pretty hard to justify. That’s exactly why I quoted the whole amount first … so that we can put this whole thing in perspective. The Saratoga County IDA is giving 27 million dollars in sales tax relief to this project. That amounts to about $18,000 - $34,000 per job depending on which of the job projections prove most accurate. The same question applies. Why? And, what jobs could possibly be worth even these lesser amounts given the entirety of the deal the state has handed out?
As a business owner, I have watched for over twenty years as tax money is regularly doled out mostly to the local businesses that seem to need it least. Some of these companies actually seem to exist solely because of the support extended them by the taxpayers through our elected officials.
The AMD case is simple. When you are giving someone 1.2 billion dollars, is it really necessary to rub the taxpayer’s nose in it by taking another 27 million dollars that could go to develop small or sustainable businesses instead? Isn’t that the mandate of the IDA? Why then, do so many projects that involve IDA seem to fail or never meet their forecasted projections for revenue or job creation? There is no end to the number of cases of flagrant abuse by IDA’s across the state. We all know the ones in our own area. AMD is not the only one in mine. There are two more great examples.
Perhaps, the most flagrant abuse of IDA funds in my back yard is the case of the Hudson Falls trash plant in 1991. Now, I know what you’re saying. How could that be a loser? How could anyone lose money by burning garbage and reselling the power it generates to National Grid? Well, to find a case in point, we need look no further than the $86 million in IDA bonds used to build this incinerator in Hudson Falls that was meant to serve Saratoga, Washington, Warren and Essex counties.
Opposition to the plant was loud and articulate and continuous. Now, to a layman like me, this is simple ... burning garbage is frowned upon not only because releasing unknown toxins into the atmosphere, filtered or not, is quite likely unhealthy for the environment. In fact, this is the main reason why it is illegal! But that’s a common sense argument and I am certainly not a corporate scientist trying to justify building a burn plant so I claim no expertise. That said, the studies are still a long way off that will show the cumulative negative impacts of having allowed this project to happen in my backyard so, let’s pretend for a moment that we can’t with any degree of certainty determine that there are increased rates of cancer and water and air pollution in our area as a result of burning garbage. Let’s pretend that there’s no environmental issue here and let’s stick to matters financial in nature (no pun intended).
Critics of the “burn plant” stated loudly and clearly that a garbage incinerator of similar size anywhere else in the country could be built for about 1/3 of the $100 million being floated as necessary. They were ignored and reviled and many of them were even slapped with lawsuits.
Critics also said that there was nowhere near enough garbage being produced in these four counties to allow a burn plant to ever be profitable. They said that it would never be at capacity nor would it be ever be able to meet its job projections. Therefore, they said, it would need constant taxpayer support to survive. As it turns out, these critics were absolutely right. Essex and Saratoga counties refused to play ball and wouldn't sign contracts to use the plant.
According to a recent story in the Glens Falls Post-Star by Blake Jones, Wheeler Foster, the previous operator of the burn plant, regularly saw a $7 million shortfall in revenue which is passed along to “We, the people” (taxpayers). This reporter also wrote that even though last year’s tonnage was a record number, thus far, the trash plant has yet to see a profitable year. The current operator, Wheelabrator, said that in this time of recession it is highly likely that they will see an overall decrease in tonnage next year.
So, in short, everybody knew what a boondoggle this project was except those who were on the Warren/Washington County IDA board at the time. They simply refused to listen to reason and they have cost the taxpayers literally tens of millions of dollars. This lack of common sense and the abundance of ulterior motive to be seen in this case simply beg us to reform the process so that other communities can be spared the kind of pain this entity has wrought.
Another example of abuse in our area is Six Flags. Storytown (aka “The Great Escape”) was purchase by Six Flags in 1994 from its founder, noted philanthropist, Charles R. Wood. He was certainly considered by most to be the very definition of a good neighbor. There is a theater and a hospital wing and a camp for sick children and more than a few museums and charities that owe their very existence to him and his vision of community.
When Six Flags entered the picture, this changed dramatically. For over two years, the theme park collected sales tax only on its admission fee (which it set at a nominal amount, several dollars if memory serves). Its ride fee was tax-free (this amount was over $30). The catch was that you can only collect sales tax this way if the two fees are kept separate and if the admission ticket may be purchased alone. This was not the case. You could only buy the two tickets in concert. By NYS tax code, that makes the whole amount taxable. For two years, the Great Escape only collected pennies when it should have been collecting dollars. It is likely that their little shell game cost Warren County and the state millions of dollars in sales tax revenue.
Eventually, prompted by a very persistent local activist, our state Senator and the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance stepped in to investigate the matter. In the end, they decided not to pursue the sales tax that had gone uncollected and I had to wonder … if I purposely under-collected sales tax for two years on coffee to make my prices seem lower, would the state of New York have forgiven me this transgression as well?
I relate this again as mere background. How does this involve the IDA? Well, my point is that this is a bad neighbor. This is not someone who deserves to be rewarded with taxpayer handouts. Nonetheless, what comes next in my little diatribe is that the Warren County IDA helped this bad neighbor, Six Flags, by using a $1.2 million IDA bond to help Six Flags refinance their mortgage on a brand new water-park! Can you imagine how upset taxpayers are who are paying attention? How could the IDA even consider allowing this corporation to benefit from a taxpayer subsidy? Can you imagine how upset other hotels and parks in the area are that this huge corporation is being given all this free money while the rest of them struggle to survive? Is this fair?
To sum up, based only on the three cases I have outlined, there is an absolutely desperate need to reform the way IDA's function within our state and I urge you to support said reform.
We need to use common sense when handing out IDA assistance and when deciding who gets said support. We need better accountability and more transparency in the process. Without these things, the IDA in New York is just an easy way to funnel taxpayer money into the hands of people who do not truly deserve it.
If we want a stronger and better economy, we do need new jobs but we can’t be so quick to take whatever comes our way. We have to discriminate and we have to set standards for wages and working conditions and the purchase of materials to ensure that the projects in question benefit our state. We need better accountability. If an entity does not meet its agreed job creation goals after receiving an IDA incentive package, there needs to be transparency and enforcement and recourse. Too often, it seems that oversight is lacking and boondoggles like those I’ve referenced are the norm.
Thank you,
Matt Funiciello
Owner / Baker
Rock Hill Bakehouse
Public Hearing on Industrial Development Agencies
March 4, 2009
My name is Matt Funiciello. I live in Queensbury, N.Y. and I own and run Rock Hill Bakehouse, a bread bakery in Moreau, New York with a café in Glens Falls. We sell our European breads and biscotti from Manhattan all the way up into the northern Adirondack Park and we regularly employ about 35-40 people. I would like to thank the Committee for this opportunity to “throw my two cents in” where IDA reform is concerned.
I am here today to speak as a small business owner in New York State. I work for a living as do all my employees and we cannot afford a lobby group nor do we participate in the collective efforts of groups like the Chamber of Commerce or the NFIB whose agendas too frequently are tied to that of large businesses like big-box stores and fast food franchises and local manufacturers and not from a place where the best interests of whole communities are the priority.
In this exceedingly poor national economy, it seems that these “small business” lobby groups are not the only ones forgetting their mandate to represent all the people. Our government is racking up record taxpayer debt printing money left and right and handing it out to companies that have never, historically, passed any benefit derived on to their workers or customers.
Bailouts and “stimulus packages” aside, we need to fight these giveaways wherever and whenever possible. It is my feeling that Industrial Development Agencies are an excellent place to start. We need to take a good look at what exactly these groups are doing and how to strengthen oversight and ensure that there is transparency of process.
A great example of the overall ineffectiveness of governmental economic development lies just 15 miles north of here in Malta. New York State has promised Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) a package of benefits that is about 1.2 billion dollars to build a micro-processor plant. I almost feel silly complaining about the much smaller amount given to AMD in sales tax breaks by our local IDA but it certainly seems superfluous (even ridiculous) given the totality of the package. According to a recent article in the Schenectady Gazette, the Saratoga County IDA will be giving what amounts to a 27 million dollar break on sales tax for AMD’s building materials.
Now, let’s think about this for a minute. AMD has lost money three quarters in a row, losing almost as much money as they will be spending to build this new facility. If you were a bank and an entity that is clearly struggling and is clearly not profitable came to you for a loan, what would you do? As a representative of a business that has been steadily struggling to survive for over twenty years, I can tell you what the bank would do.
What if, to compound this company’s undesirability, they are also in direct competition with overseas companies whose costs of production are exceedingly low? Thanks to NAFTA and our ensuing trade agreements, our hard-fought American labor and environmental standards now stand solidly in the way of a company like AMD being competitive against international manufacturers and, to my knowledge, no AMD representative has yet explained how they plan to compete against workers in Asia and India where micro-chips are made for a mere fraction of the cost stateside. What would a bank do?
Now, unlike a bank, our state, facing serious economic times, seems to have left common sense behind and joined hands with the first major player to come along and ask for a handout in a desperate attempt to jump start our economy and create some new jobs. That’s simply not what any responsible business entity would have done. This is far too great a risk and it’s hardly an effective business plan for New York.
The saving grace of such one-sided deals is supposed to be job creation. Our 1.2 billion dollar gift is to be balanced by AMD’s creation of somewhere between 800 and 1465 new jobs in our area. I think that the rare point on which we can all agree (where corporate welfare projects are concerned) is that the development of new jobs is a good thing. But, are all these jobs actually created? Are these always good jobs? Sustainable jobs? When we give IDA breaks to WalMart, what kinds of jobs are we creating? Are these full-time, well-paying jobs or part-time, minimum wage jobs? Many times these “new” jobs are actually just the rehiring of workers whose jobs have been lost when their area’s new WalMart squeezes their employer out. Again, this displacement is hardly a recipe for success by any reasonable measure.
Let’s get out our calculators and do some simple math where AMD is concerned. How much is each of these 800-1465 jobs going to cost us? That’s the simple formula we taxpayers use to determine if a giveaway like this has some merit or amounts to more graft. Now, let’s see … 1.2 billion dollars divided by 800 jobs equals approximately … 1.5 million dollars per job! And, if AMD were able to meet its most recent (higher) estimate of 1465 new jobs, these jobs would drop down to a mere subsidy of $800,000 per job.
Now, you’ll forgive me if, as a business owner, I have to wonder just how good these jobs are going to be? How could anyone with elementary school math skills see this handout as being worth an investment even approaching these amounts?! As a taxpayer, I have to wonder where everyone’s calculators were the day these decisions were made?
Does New York State really feel that these jobs, which might pay, on average, in the low $40,000’s, are actually worth between $800,000 and $1.5 million apiece? If we really do feel that this is the case, can all businesses that have created jobs in the past ten years stand in the same line as AMD and collect our checks for job creation? I think I can speak for the whole small business community in saying that we are more than amenable to bargaining and I’m pretty sure we would ask far less for our services than you’re offering AMD in this instance.
Now, the absolutely incredible amount being offered is the entire package being given to AMD (or the Foundry Company or ATI or whatever you’d like to call them), but we are not here today to talk specifically about that huge amount. We are here instead to discuss IDA reform in our state. How does AMD’s deal tie in to this, mister business owner, you may ask? Well, there’s plenty of IDA money in this deal. It is just so dwarfed by the massive handout package that it easy to forget about it. I simply wanted to preface my remarks about the IDA portion of this contribution with an entire understanding that this company is already getting what most would call an insane amount of support from taxpayers. The IDA money seems to be adding insult to injury. This case makes obvious the need for reform for exactly that reason.
The IDA money being offered in this case is small but, in its own right, it’s still an amount that is pretty hard to justify. That’s exactly why I quoted the whole amount first … so that we can put this whole thing in perspective. The Saratoga County IDA is giving 27 million dollars in sales tax relief to this project. That amounts to about $18,000 - $34,000 per job depending on which of the job projections prove most accurate. The same question applies. Why? And, what jobs could possibly be worth even these lesser amounts given the entirety of the deal the state has handed out?
As a business owner, I have watched for over twenty years as tax money is regularly doled out mostly to the local businesses that seem to need it least. Some of these companies actually seem to exist solely because of the support extended them by the taxpayers through our elected officials.
The AMD case is simple. When you are giving someone 1.2 billion dollars, is it really necessary to rub the taxpayer’s nose in it by taking another 27 million dollars that could go to develop small or sustainable businesses instead? Isn’t that the mandate of the IDA? Why then, do so many projects that involve IDA seem to fail or never meet their forecasted projections for revenue or job creation? There is no end to the number of cases of flagrant abuse by IDA’s across the state. We all know the ones in our own area. AMD is not the only one in mine. There are two more great examples.
Perhaps, the most flagrant abuse of IDA funds in my back yard is the case of the Hudson Falls trash plant in 1991. Now, I know what you’re saying. How could that be a loser? How could anyone lose money by burning garbage and reselling the power it generates to National Grid? Well, to find a case in point, we need look no further than the $86 million in IDA bonds used to build this incinerator in Hudson Falls that was meant to serve Saratoga, Washington, Warren and Essex counties.
Opposition to the plant was loud and articulate and continuous. Now, to a layman like me, this is simple ... burning garbage is frowned upon not only because releasing unknown toxins into the atmosphere, filtered or not, is quite likely unhealthy for the environment. In fact, this is the main reason why it is illegal! But that’s a common sense argument and I am certainly not a corporate scientist trying to justify building a burn plant so I claim no expertise. That said, the studies are still a long way off that will show the cumulative negative impacts of having allowed this project to happen in my backyard so, let’s pretend for a moment that we can’t with any degree of certainty determine that there are increased rates of cancer and water and air pollution in our area as a result of burning garbage. Let’s pretend that there’s no environmental issue here and let’s stick to matters financial in nature (no pun intended).
Critics of the “burn plant” stated loudly and clearly that a garbage incinerator of similar size anywhere else in the country could be built for about 1/3 of the $100 million being floated as necessary. They were ignored and reviled and many of them were even slapped with lawsuits.
Critics also said that there was nowhere near enough garbage being produced in these four counties to allow a burn plant to ever be profitable. They said that it would never be at capacity nor would it be ever be able to meet its job projections. Therefore, they said, it would need constant taxpayer support to survive. As it turns out, these critics were absolutely right. Essex and Saratoga counties refused to play ball and wouldn't sign contracts to use the plant.
According to a recent story in the Glens Falls Post-Star by Blake Jones, Wheeler Foster, the previous operator of the burn plant, regularly saw a $7 million shortfall in revenue which is passed along to “We, the people” (taxpayers). This reporter also wrote that even though last year’s tonnage was a record number, thus far, the trash plant has yet to see a profitable year. The current operator, Wheelabrator, said that in this time of recession it is highly likely that they will see an overall decrease in tonnage next year.
So, in short, everybody knew what a boondoggle this project was except those who were on the Warren/Washington County IDA board at the time. They simply refused to listen to reason and they have cost the taxpayers literally tens of millions of dollars. This lack of common sense and the abundance of ulterior motive to be seen in this case simply beg us to reform the process so that other communities can be spared the kind of pain this entity has wrought.
Another example of abuse in our area is Six Flags. Storytown (aka “The Great Escape”) was purchase by Six Flags in 1994 from its founder, noted philanthropist, Charles R. Wood. He was certainly considered by most to be the very definition of a good neighbor. There is a theater and a hospital wing and a camp for sick children and more than a few museums and charities that owe their very existence to him and his vision of community.
When Six Flags entered the picture, this changed dramatically. For over two years, the theme park collected sales tax only on its admission fee (which it set at a nominal amount, several dollars if memory serves). Its ride fee was tax-free (this amount was over $30). The catch was that you can only collect sales tax this way if the two fees are kept separate and if the admission ticket may be purchased alone. This was not the case. You could only buy the two tickets in concert. By NYS tax code, that makes the whole amount taxable. For two years, the Great Escape only collected pennies when it should have been collecting dollars. It is likely that their little shell game cost Warren County and the state millions of dollars in sales tax revenue.
Eventually, prompted by a very persistent local activist, our state Senator and the NYS Department of Taxation and Finance stepped in to investigate the matter. In the end, they decided not to pursue the sales tax that had gone uncollected and I had to wonder … if I purposely under-collected sales tax for two years on coffee to make my prices seem lower, would the state of New York have forgiven me this transgression as well?
I relate this again as mere background. How does this involve the IDA? Well, my point is that this is a bad neighbor. This is not someone who deserves to be rewarded with taxpayer handouts. Nonetheless, what comes next in my little diatribe is that the Warren County IDA helped this bad neighbor, Six Flags, by using a $1.2 million IDA bond to help Six Flags refinance their mortgage on a brand new water-park! Can you imagine how upset taxpayers are who are paying attention? How could the IDA even consider allowing this corporation to benefit from a taxpayer subsidy? Can you imagine how upset other hotels and parks in the area are that this huge corporation is being given all this free money while the rest of them struggle to survive? Is this fair?
To sum up, based only on the three cases I have outlined, there is an absolutely desperate need to reform the way IDA's function within our state and I urge you to support said reform.
We need to use common sense when handing out IDA assistance and when deciding who gets said support. We need better accountability and more transparency in the process. Without these things, the IDA in New York is just an easy way to funnel taxpayer money into the hands of people who do not truly deserve it.
If we want a stronger and better economy, we do need new jobs but we can’t be so quick to take whatever comes our way. We have to discriminate and we have to set standards for wages and working conditions and the purchase of materials to ensure that the projects in question benefit our state. We need better accountability. If an entity does not meet its agreed job creation goals after receiving an IDA incentive package, there needs to be transparency and enforcement and recourse. Too often, it seems that oversight is lacking and boondoggles like those I’ve referenced are the norm.
Thank you,
Matt Funiciello
Owner / Baker
Rock Hill Bakehouse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
