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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
