The state of the union

I dropped by Michael Offutt's blog today and read his post on the "Pixação" (you should go check it out if you haven't yet) which brought up some rather interesting discussion on political protests. Then I stopped by Rusty's over at The Blutonian Death Egg and he said, "I’m pretty sure that upper management types at large corporations and people that hold high ranking political positions (Senators, Congressmen, etc) are sociopaths." Which reminded me of a song that seems more relevant today than it was when it was originally recorded. Anyway, thought I would post it, along with the words and let you say what you have to say.

Padded with power here they come 

International loan sharks backed by the guns 

Of market hungry military profiteers 

Whose word is a swamp and whose brow is smeared 

With the blood of the poor
 

Who rob life of its quality 

Who render rage a necessity 

By turning countries into labour camps 

Modern slavers in drag as 

champions of freedom
 

Sinister cynical instrument 

Who makes the gun into a sacrament -- 

The only response to the deification 

Of tyranny by so-called "developed" nations' 

Idolatry of ideology

North South East West 

Kill the best and buy the rest 

It's just spend a buck to make a buck 

You don't really give a flying fuck 

About the people in misery

IMF dirty MF 

Takes away everything it can get 

Always making certain that there's one thing left 

Keep them on the hook 

with insupportable debt

See the paid-off local bottom feeders 

Passing themselves off as leaders 

Kiss the ladies shake hands with the fellows 

Open for business like a cheap bordello

And they call it democracy And they call it democracy 

And they call it democracy And they call it democracy

See the loaded eyes of the children too 

Trying to make the best of it the way kids do 

One day you're going to rise from your habitual feast 

To find yourself staring down the throat of the beast 

They call the revolution

IMF dirty MF
Takes away everything it can get 

Always making certain that there's one thing left 

Keep them on the hook with insupportable debt  

Truly scary

According to the National Coalition for the Homeless' website "approximately 3.5 million people, 1.35 million of them children, are likely to experience homelessness in a given year (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2007)." While there are many, many reasons people are homeless (mental illness, eroding working opportunities, foreclosures, decline in public housing, lack of affordable healthcare) the problem is nevertheless a visible reminder of America's shame. The wealthiest country in the world and yet we continue to have people sleeping on the streets, in the alleys and under our overpasses. In Key West, the weather is generally balmy and pleasant for outdoor living. In Colorado, people die each year from the bitter cold. 

Women of world unite?

In the October edition of Harper's magazine in an essay called "American Electra: feminism's ritual matricide", Susan Faludi attempts to address the ongoing antagonisms within the feminist movement. Using examples from recent events she's participated in as well as including her attendance at the National Organization for Women (a.k.a. NOW) in 2009, she shows the rift at it's most raw. The power struggle between young and old (2nd & 3rd wave feminists) brings the organization to the brink of disruption and it remains unclear if the younger generation, who lost the battle at the 2009 convention, will remain with the organization. At the root of the problem, according to Faludi, is the loss of respect that women held in the home prior to the 20th century. Looking back over the history of the women's role in the home, she claims that as advertising and mass media begin an assault on motherhood at the beginning of the 1900s, the mother's role as authority over her children was disrupted, and the place she held as guide and role model, particularly with her daughters, was broken. 

Citing Life Magazine covers from the 1920s, one from October 28 (above & right) juxtaposed by the "new woman" that was displayed six years later on New Years Eve (left), she shows the shifting images women were seeing around them. In addition to the flap over flappers, 1921 introduced American women to the Miss America pageant. Here she says, "the prevailing pageantry of the 1920s wasn't simply an infantilization of the girl. It was, more ominously, an eviction of the mother." She goes on to detail how this eviction resulted in an ongoing dispute between mother and daughter that continues to march on through time bringing us back to the NOW conference where the younger generation is in an uproar and part of that uproar is essentially, or ostensibly, all about sex. But the older generation is not about to give in to a generation that is ungrateful and all about "girl power" and the younger generation is not about to stand down when they are used to having things go their way (we are nothing if not predisposed to letting youth lead the way) so the fight seems predestined to continue on toward future conflict. "So what is the answer to this quandary?" One is left wondering. Faludi's answer is a resounding Education. Women's history and studies, she claims are the answer to the problem while admitting that fewer and fewer programs are being run in higher institutions as the essay concludes with a resounding jingle.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.
co.uk/USAsuffrage.htm

It was at this point that my opinion diverged like the path in the proverbial wood from that of Ms. Faludi. While I will never disagree with the need to remind our children, 3rd, 4th, or indeed 5th wave, and for that matter male or female, of history and the struggles that have come before. It is an  American flaw that is as wide as the Grand Canyon itself that fails to grasp the importance of history, to treasure it, to own it and indeed LEARN from it. No indeed, I would never disagree for the call for higher education of the youth of America especially where it comes to relearning the truth about our history. However I would like to add that this  younger generation of women do indeed have a point in claiming that sexuality is part of the problem. The older generation of feminists have fallen prey to the puritanistic roots of our past and too often made the younger generation feel ashamed of their sexuality rather than powerful and beautiful and sexual. In search of this beauty and sensuality, younger women have exchanged a tawdry bawdiness perhaps as a result of youth and a lack of guidance from mothers who might have been better prepared in other times. In other cultures women worshipped the Moon goddess and weren't afraid of their sexuality or sensuality. But in American in the 1800s mothers were a reflection of a deeply embedded puritanism that arrived on our shores at its inception and was only reinforced with witch burnings. It is no surprise that as the doors opened to the wilder sexuality of the 1900s, that this younger generation was anxious to leave their corseted pasts behind them. No, I would say, it was not as a result of the mass media as much as a opening of long locked doors that could simply not remain locked any longer. 

But my disagreement doesn't end here. Christopher HItchens, in his memoir, Hitch 22 recalls to readers his disgust at finding the feminist movement and the Civil rights movement (or any movement for that matter) breaking into splinter groups -finding separate identities that could only be spoken for by members of the group itself. He doesn't address the result of this fracturing but it was a poignant reminder that at one time the woman's movement was a powerful force in the abolitionist movement and at one time black and white marched together to bring civil rights to this country. (Small aside: highly recommended reading)

A few weeks after reading the Hitchen's quote, I was moved by a dramatic presentation now on video inspired by Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States and Voices of a People's History of the United States. As I watched the struggles of the different  groups spring to life through the different readings, I was struck  by how our history in the United States has been one long struggle to obtain the rights of one group or another. But what was impressed upon me was that it was not Black rights nor Women's history but The People's History.  The unions changed things. The women who fought for our right to vote changed things. African Americans who stood locked arms when water was fired at them changed things. And it was people- men, women, children, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, standing together who changed things.


The NOW organization may fall apart and Feminism itself may become extinct because the older generation has been a leading generation of voices to say that only women can speak for women. Is it any wonder that their younger counterparts refuse to listen to them? Many African-American groups see a similar division in their groups and hear similar complaints. Will they stand? It seems most likely that sub groups that focus on individual needs or complaints will form leaving the whole weaker than it was. It appears, at this point in history, that it will take some time for the people to remember that we are a People and not simply a group of specialized interests. We are all in this together and if we will not link arms to stand together-- then as a wise sheriff once said, "We are all interdependent. One falls, many fall." 

    

Death and Politics at the end of our world

Look at what mankind has wrought...

Amidst the mighty works of flight to the moon and explorations to the deep...

are the remains of the carcasses that were left behind while you gloried in you excesses.

Now death has come and with all your technology and marvels, you are unable to solve your own complications, unable to fathom the depths to which you will sink.

And there is always a helpless creature who will suffer the greatest- always the vulnerable who are mauled. 

By showing these images this afternoon on her television program on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow got it right. She's doing the reporting that needs to be done on the Oil disaster along the Gulf Coast. She's out there showing what the mainstream press is not going to show middle America and she needs to be applauded. You can watch the show at: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/37500762#37500762

Matt Taibbi is G-O-D

 In another brilliant expose on the state of the Union, Matt Taibbi in his most recent article Rolling Stone Magazine gives John Madden a run for his commentator-money with his play-by-play description of the 'Restoring American Financial Stability Act' that was recently weaving it's way through Washington. 

 

Wall Street's War by Matt Taibbi

 Opening in the early months of May when the legislation was heading toward the finish line, Taibbi is astonished to discover the bill contains aggressive measures to rein in Wall Street's rodeoesque wild west show.  As Washington barrel races toward the finish line, Taibbi not only learns a lesson that schools Schoolhouse rock (well duh, we always knew the little song was too simplistic and overly optimistic, but it still did more to teach the route a bill has to take that is more educational and no less optimistic than most  civics classes) but reveals the real problem in Washington- which is that a SMALL(say, three of four) number of (corrupt) men hold all the power over whether a bill or amendment will even get a vote, let alone pass and the representation we all assume we're getting when we vote for our representatives in the Senate and the House is virtually nonexistent.  This article along with the blog entry he wrote in response to reader reaction and as a follow-up to what has happened since writing his article are a must read and a reference point for everything we see (or think we see) going on in politics today. CHEERS MATT! 

http://www.rollingstone.com:80/politics/news/;kw=[36899,157778]


See his blog at:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/taibbiblog/;kw=[blog,58584]

The war on education

I sometimes become less aggravated by the Obama administration when I read articles like this one by Paul Krugman  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/opinion/24krugman.html In his Sunday NY Times Op-Ed he reports that while many progressives are unhappy with how conservative (read: right-winged) and corporate the Obama administration is, the corporations are actively supporting any and all opposition to the Obama administration and are throwing money at Republicans who are willing to take them on. It's not surprising that the corporations are unhappy with this administration because the banks and oil industry are the spoiled children in this country. They believe they call the shots-- and they aren't far from the truth. That they have to lose anything (like conceding to any Healthcare bill or even 1 cent in higher taxes) is pissing them off and they are, frankly, tantrumming. And perhaps the worst thing about this is what it actually says about the United States today and it's leadership--  we are so far from any kind of governing that provides actual protections for the people that we don't even recognize conservative politics when they aren't radically far right (i.e. the Bushies). It should apparently, according to the right, be the norm for corporations to set their own standards of what they consider safe. 

But then I read an article like the series in the New York Times Magazine this weekend and I am ready to impeach the bastard. The front page reads: "Are Teachers' Unions the enemy to reform?" The magazine talks about Obama's new "Race to the Top" Program. The theme is clearly anti-teacher and aimed at holding teachers responsible for their students (poor) performance. One of the "reformers" is Jon Schnur, who " . . .runs a Manhattan-based school-reform group called New Leaders for New Schools, sits informally at the center of a network of self-styled reformers dedicated to overhauling public education in the United States. Schnur, who is 44, became interested in education when, as an editor of his high-school newspaper, he read a draft of an article from a student who had transferred from a Milwaukee public school to his school in the suburbs. “She was savvier than any of us on the editorial board, but the draft was just so terribly written,” he told me. Schnur added that “the more I got to know her, the more I became obsessed with why public education hadn’t reached people like her.” After graduating from Princeton, he worked in the Clinton campaign and then landed an education-policy job in the Clinton administration."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23Race-t.html?scp=1&sq=teachers%20unions&st=cse

For more on the Race to the Top program:

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2010/05/18/32race-judges.h29.html?tkn=SUSFlYb7SleV%2BGWwu7vg3FWogJauXXaKIhMW&cmp=clp-edweek

I'll be writing more on this topic in my education pages linked at the top.

Thumb's down for the NBC anchor

A few weeks ago, while perusing the television dreck (i.e. channel surfing), I paused a moment to watch Rachel Maddow- one of the newsy type shows that I will watch and even then I watch it knowing she is subject to corporate censorship as she depends on sponsors to stay on the air. This particular day Rachel was in Louisiana doing the journalism gig on the oil volcano that was just making it into the public eye although it had been spewing with ferocity since the 20th of April. (note: since the first days of the spill the numbers went from 42,000 gallons of oil per day to 200,000 gallons per day to the most current lowballed estimate of 56,000  BARRELS of oil per day and that assumes that April 20th was indeed the day the leak began). In an attempt to fill in time Brian Williams News anchor and managing editor of one of the Big Three mainstream news shows- NBC Nightly News. As Rachel spoke with him about the disaster, he gave his cheerleady comment that the experts that were on the field leading the cleanup efforts knew the most about the problem- that's why they're doing the job they are doing- because they are the experts.

Just makes me want to weep! They know best! They are so good that we should be happy they are the ones in charge- even though they are the ones who caused this in the first place.

But that wasn't the end of his words of wisdom to the peons who were watching the destruction of the gulf, he went on to add in his rivaling a Buffalo Jill tone (paraphrased) "The men who are hired by the White House to advise the president on financial matters are often criticized for having come from the banks but these are the men that KNOW- these are the men that understand the financial institutions from the INSIDE."

OMG! So you, Brian Williams, are going to sit there in that seat of honor as a guest for Ms. Maddow  and advocate for the men who have aided and abetted the financial sting of the century- and made sure it was legal while at the same time praising the people who are destroying the gulf coast? Mind boggling. You, Mr. Williams, are either as dumb as the people you generally talk to (and you might recall you are on the Rachel Maddow show NOT on NBC nightly news when you speak to people like their television numbed robots who barely know how to use their remotes) or you think you are as smart as the crooks that committed these crimes --and I am inclined to think that is the case. 

But here is the Big Problem with Mr. Williams little hypothesis that the oil volcano and the financial meltdown can only be handled by those who understand "The Business"-- they, the bankers and the oil industry and big business..., have gamed the system. They have made the rules and they made them so that they will benefit from them. They are like the cheaters we all remember from when we were kids-- you know That Kid? The one who got all the kids in the neighborhood gathered round to play his new game and then he gave his lengthy specifications until the disgruntled parishioners finally jeered, "Ah come on, let's just play the game." So the game is afoot and the future Monopoly creator watches over the game like a Hawk after dinner. Sensing the possibility of losing the game a New Rule is suddenly shouted out. There is some disgruntlement but the game continues until yet another... and another... new Moment of Concern causes That Kid to call out a new rule to adjust the game back in his favor. It's not that the game is so complicated or requires only the smartest kids to understand them, it's simply that That Kid adjusts the "rules" so that he is always going to win.

When we were kids we all knew what this was: It was called CHEATING.

And cheaters are not going to do anything but continue cheating until they are shut down. The way to solve the problems on Wall Street and with the Oil industry is to clean up the rules and enforce them- we will never figure out how to play their game because they will keep changing the rules so they will win.

The interesting difference between the game That Kid, the neighborhood cheater, developed is that eventually the kids in the neighborhood figure out they can't win and quit playing. We just keep playing...

From Lawrence Lessig. . .

Today, FixCongressFirst.org is launching an effort to build the biggest lobby in the history of American politics -- one that will beat out Exxon Mobile, SEIU, and the NRA for influence and remake Washington in its own image.

Who are these shadowy powerbrokers going to be, exactly?

You and me -- we the people.

In Washington, they say, money talks. Today, we're starting a movement of citizens prepared to speak Congress' language.

Join us by taking the Funders Pledge now:

http://fixcongressfirst.org/pledge

By taking the pledge, you'll commit to stop contributing to the campaign of any member of Congress who opposes the Fair Elections Now Act.

When thousands of ordinary citizens join the lobbying game -- by committing as a bloc to withhold our donations until they cater to our interests -- we'll show Congress that the cost of opposing election reform is more than it can bear.

Here's how it works:

• Visit fixcongressfirst.org/pledge to add your name to the pledge.
• We'll automatically check the records to find the contributions you've made of more than $200. All you have to do is enter an estimate of your campaign contributions from the last two election cycles of less than $200 (the government doesn't keep records of contributions of that size).
• Your total will be added to the amounts entered by everyone else, showing just how much campaign cash Congress members forfeit by opposing the Fair Elections Now Act.

Once the pledges start rolling in, you'll be able to view the amount of contributions lost by every member of Congress on our "Whip" page:

http://fixcongressfirst.org/Whip

Last year, tens of thousands of people supported the beta run of this pledge effort. This year, we're looking to top that figure -- and we've already got the ball rolling, with a collection of major political donors on board and enthusiastically recruiting their friends and colleagues to join us. The more pledges we get now, the more powerful our citizen lobby will become.

Take the Funders Pledge now:

http://fixcongressfirst.org/pledge

If all of us become lobbyists, we can make lobbying extinct -- and show Congress that corporate interests can't match the power of millions of Americans acting as one.

I hope you'll sign on to this campaign now -- and invite your friends to join us.

-- Lawrence Lessig

Death and Politics at the end of the world

In my "spare" time, I continue to work on my long term project "Death and Politics at the End of the World"-- it's slow going and at times I wonder just what the point is. After all, when I write on my blog, I post it and it's there for all to see for all who care to see. Blogging is simpler- an essay here, a picture there- a public journal if you will. Hours are not spent choosing distinct phrasing or lyrical description- it is a quick way to communicate the blurbs of the mind and if one is a decent writer, it will appear somewhat thought out even when it isn't. My larger project, in contrast, can take me hours or even the entire day to work out a sentence, or a paragraph, if I am having a wildly prolific day. If I so chose, I could network and attempt to gather readers- twitter my day at work with tidbits of my witty wit to entice readers to the larger task that is call My Blog. Alas, I have none of the ambitions to be a blogging star nor is the limited format of daily posts really adequate to inspire my creative juices. But it is useful and fun and provides a format for topics which I am not really interested in writing an article about let alone a book. The title of my fiction piece however has a tone to it that relates to events that I felt compelled to comment on here on my blog-- even if it's posterity remains only in the Blogoverse.

In my fictional piece, death and politics meet the end of the world in a sometimes hilarious, other times dark and confusing, romp through Key West. The underlying thread that holds the pieces together is a Quantum gaze at what reality might look like IF Quantum physics were relateable in the non-quantum world. Metaphorically, that is. It is not, in any way, and attempt to recreate the scientific world of the quantum wildness. And to define what is being done in D & P is to put it in too a limited a sphere or in a defineable space. I am not sure I do it justice in the explanation. But to move on to the "real" world, death (or life or humanity) and politics combine to create a whole new weirdness that seems as unstable and undefinable as the quantum world itself.

Having worked in public schools, we talk at length about the education and the problems therein in our house. I have an In Progress blog that is linked at the top of the page that is dedicated to the subject of The Problems in Education. It will take some time to complete the essay because the problems are vast and deep and there are no simple solutions though we often try to say there is. I also spend some time writing and following the political landscape where healthcare and finance reform are the topics of the day. I occasionally dip a toe into pointing out headlines of abuse such as the headline about the elderly gay couple. But these topics seem to move past pale to white then luminesce when placed alongside the the issue of Global chaos and our environmental destruction.

As scientists continue to reveal data they've collected and the results they've obtained, it's clear that our planet is on a trajectory that is inconsistent with the Business As Usual attitude that continues to prevail. In fact it is inconsistent with the ongoing habitation of humanity in general. As water levels rise (one island has already made like the Titanic) and snow caps disappear, Earth Day and the modest changes that accompany it (for the day) seems like a dram of water offered to the beached whale. Way too little way too late. And proposals that are coming from Washington and the private sector (read: the All Good, All Loving, Corporate Hierarchy) continues to be largely symbolic over substantive change.

So on we go, sliding down the slippery slopes of no baby to throw out with any bathwater, our planet reminding us as often as possible that change is imminent and we are mere travelers here who may be cast aside and as extinct as Homo rhodesiensis at any moment. Add to that the compelling evidence that we are using up our planets resources (at least the ones we are capable of consuming). A military think tank has just released it's biannual report called the Joint Operation Environment (JOE) in which they discuss security threats on every level. In the report there is no doubt that we are headed toward an energy shortage. In fact it is a given that shortages are inevitable. Much of the information was, by all accounts, largely the same as the last report in 2008 EXCEPT the role that energy will play in defining how the military will plan for future operations. 

Energy fuels more than our cars. We ship food, clothes, toys, makeup, materials for our homes, etc. As prices go up, we will have less and less. And all this coming at a time when Americans are making less and more of us are unemployed with no job creation anywhere near the horizon. In fact it seems that job creation is part of the civilian casualty in a changing economy. The report goes on to say,“A severe energy crunch is inevitable without a massive expansion of production and refining capacity” (p. 28). To add to the urgency, it restates its 2008 warning, “By 2012, surplus oil production capacity could entirely disappear, and as early as 2015, the shortfall in output could reach nearly 10 MBD” (p. 29). This warning is consistent with others which have been issued during the past 18 months" The author of the review goes on to point out, the "two “next questions” which are as obvious as they are vital:- How might a global supply crunch affect oil exports? and- How can governments best prepare for and administer a liquid fuel emergency? Both issues require immediate and thorough examination, regardless of how close we are to peak oil."

Unaddressed by the reviewer but the basic point of the JOE in the first place is the dangling question of how the military will respond, both in preparation for such shortages and as shortages occur. It dawns on me, as I consider the very purpose of this document, that the military feels it is necessary to prepare for action on those fields which they feel might threaten American interests- whether foreign or domestic. American interests are deeply entrenched with where oil is and who might be competing with us for these Resources whether they be Iraq, Iran, Russia, China.... The initial plan will undoubtedly be to keep the baby fed. In other words, the plan will be to keep control of the oil for American consumption and I might add for the military. It is estimated that the military itself uses 30% of oil consumption in the U.S. Eventually, demand will exceed production and the reality IS that Americans are accustomed to consuming. We have become spoiled with a gluttony of just about everything we think we want. When shortages come, the disgruntlement we see among Tea-Partiers and the Militia of discontent will amount to more than a hill of beans to stir up further antagonisms among those who are less involved with politics but are more involved with their familial economics. 

It seems that troubled times lay ahead and unfortunately most of us are ill prepared for the difficulties which lie in front of us- let alone the end of the world (at least as we know it). 

For more info on this topic see: http://www.energybulletin.net/node/52029

Shocking and sad... really sad

Elderly Gay Couple Forcibly Separated, Abused, Robbed By County Officials in California

Posted by Dan Savage on Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:09 AM

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2010/04/18/elderly-california-gay-couple-forcibly-separated-abused-robbed-by-county-officials 

"In these times" by Christopher Malone

original story featured on AlterNet

http://www.alternet.org/story/146346/the_tea_parties_bring_back_social_darwinism?page=entire

The Tea Parties Bring Back Social Darwinism

The right-wing populism manifested in the movement is essentially the same old Social Darwinism that appeared in U.S. society in the nineteenth century.

April 10, 2010  |  

Photo Credit: ajagendorf25

One thing is certain about this fall’s election: The field upon which American politics will play out is a populist one.

Populism has long been part of the American political tradition, dating at least to the political ascent of Andrew Jackson in the 1820s. Its appeal is deceptively simple. The details vary but populism’s basic, urgent message remains the same: The game has been rigged by a small group of powerful people, and something must be done. Now.

What makes the current moment so rare is that both left- and right-wing populism have surfaced at the same time. Which side’s message wins out may determine the trajectory of the next era in American political life.

With its recent national convention and the emergence of a de facto leader in Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement has sent waves of populist energy through the American electorate. The movement’s agenda is not yet fully formed, and it consists mostly of a vitriolic disdain for the Obama administration. Much work lies ahead in terms of developing its message, logic, strategy, tactics and constituency.

But if the Tea Party is a young movement finding its footing, its ideological underpinning is old indeed. The right-wing populism manifested in the movement is essentially the same old Social Darwinism that became a kind of sacred truth in American society in the second half of the nineteenth century.

Father of modern conservatism

Modern American conservatism formed in the early years of the Cold War, when New Deal liberalism seemed triumphant. Though it has many tributaries, the mainstream movement consists of several core ideas: that societies are ordered in classes based on divine intent and/or personal responsibility; that property and freedom are inseparable; that markets should be unfettered from government regulation; that traditions must be adhered to for social stability; and that societies should evolve slowly.

All of modern conservatism’s founders articulated these principles in their writings. Perhaps the most influential work in conservatism’s late-twentieth-century ascent was Barry Goldwater’s The Conscience of a Conservative, published in 1960. But one of the original progenitors of contemporary social and political conservative thought—William Graham Sumner (1840-1910)—is nowhere to be found in lists of modern conservatism’s canonical texts. The reason is simple. His philosophy is so harsh and reactionary that to embrace it openly would be political suicide. Nonetheless, his ideas are everywhere in the right-wing populism that has gained ground during the last year.

Sumner believed that the fundamental law of the universe was survival of the fittest. So progressivism or socialism or any ideology that aimed to “save individuals from any of the difficulties or hardships of the struggle for existence” was pure folly. Like today’s right-wing populist revolt, Sumner’s brand of Social Darwinism propagated an unabashed but seamless defense of two groups that would seem to be at odds: the Captain of Industry and the Forgotten Man.

For Sumner, both of these figurative “men” had more to fear from the paternal state than they did from each other. Take the Captain of Industry. For Sumner, society depended on the creation of individual wealth; thus, social advancement for all depended on the financial abilities of the few. “If we should set a limit to the accumulation of wealth,” he wrote, “we should say to our most valued producers, ‘We do not want you to do us the services which you best understand how to perform, beyond a certain point.’ It would be like killing off our generals in a war.”

Sumner believed hereditary wealth was a product of the laws of nature as well, and he defended it vigorously. Since the millionaire and his offspring were responsible for enriching their communities through their wealth production, personal wealth had to stay in the family. To do otherwise was a state-sponsored assault on personal liberty.

But if Sumner strongly defended the wealthy, his defense of the Forgotten Man—who prizes liberty, not wealth, above all—was equally fervent. “It is plain enough that the Forgotten Man and the Forgotten Woman are the very life and substance of society,” he wrote. “They are the ones who ought to be first and always remembered. They are always forgotten by sentimentalists, philanthropists, reformers, enthusiasts, and every description of speculator in sociology, political economy or political science.”

A free man in a free state had only one major duty, according to Sumner: “to take care of his or her own self. That is a social duty.” If one could not take care of oneself, that was of no consequence to others.

Sumner believed that the causes of poverty were misunderstood and the policy of state intervention was deeply misguided. Social welfare through state intervention replaced the survival of the fittest with the survival of the unfit. And that was disastrous for civilization.

The road to Sarah Palin

The New Deal was about many things, but at its core it sought to rearrange the relationship—formed in the Gilded Age of the late-nineteenth century—between the government, the Forgotten Man, and the Captain of Industry. With the help of an economic crisis, Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans that government intervention was necessary to curb the Captain of Industry’s greed and irresponsibility.

Over the last four decades, conservatives have successfully mounted a counter-argument to this New Deal narrative. The key to their success has been Sumner’s Forgotten Man, the same mythical figure that Tea Partiers have been fighting for. The left underestimates the power of their grievances at its peril.

In the world according to Tea Party protesters, poverty is not about the structural deficiencies of capitalism; it is about personal idleness and extravagance. Welfare is not about alleviating poverty; it is about doing away with a government handout that breeds dependency. Gay marriage is not about “equal rights”; it is about government telling you what values you should be compelled to uphold. The estate tax on the super-rich is not about the fair redistribution of wealth; it is a final assault—a “death tax”—on the liberty of the dearly departed.

In their world, the Forgotten Man and Woman are constantly (in Sumner’s words) “threatened by every extension of the paternal theory of government.” This is the logic of Sumner’s Social Darwinism. Its broad appeal lies in an elegant simplicity: government always crushes the individual’s liberty.

Combating Social Darwinism

Conventional wisdom holds that Barack Obama is not a natural populist, that this cerebral former law professor doesn’t know how to push populist buttons. That may be true. But Obama understands that for decades the American public has been fed a steady diet of Sumner’s Social Darwinism. Today, fewer Americans trust government than at any point in modern history—and this is after a financial meltdown. Making the case that government can be trusted to stand between the Forgotten Man and the corporate raiders who caused this mess is not easy. After a year in which the discussion turned on government intervention in many aspects of American society, it was only a matter of time before we saw the return of Social Darwinism.

Despite Americans’ lack of trust in government, Obama and his supporters should take comfort in two things. First, whether or not they believe that government actually works, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that government should solve big problems. The doctrine of “mind your own business” is so far out of the mainstream today that few could imagine government not involved in social welfare programs like education and healthcare. The era of big government is here to stay.

Second, those New Deal policies that were directed at FDR’s “forgotten” men and women eventually created the biggest middle class in the history of human civilization. Though it has lost ground, the middle class is also here to stay. Defeating Social Darwinism means framing every policy decision around that class. Doing so will require more left-leaning populism from this president. (emphasis mine) He must persuade Americans that all the taken-for-granted fundamentals of modern middle-class life—healthcare, home mortgages, college education for the kids, etc.—are jeopardized by the power and greed of the new Captains of Industry.

To move the country forward, in other words, Obama must learn from the battles that FDR fought in the 1930s. Today, the stakes are just as high and the challenges are just as great. There is hope to be found in this fact: FDR’s successes created the most prosperous three decades in American history. Obama can do the same. But where there is a way, there isn’t necessarily a will. Time will tell.

The Fed in Hot Water

Robert Reich wrote on his blog @ http://robertreich.org/:
"The Fed has finally came clean. It now admits it bailed out Bear Stearns – taking on tens of billions of dollars of the bank’s bad loans – in order to smooth Bear Stearns’ takeover by JPMorgan Chase. The secret Fed bailout came months before Congress authorized the government to spend up to $700 billion of taxpayer dollars bailing out the banks, even months before Lehman Brothers collapsed. The Fed also took on billions of dollars worth of AIG securities, also before the official government-sanctioned bailout.

The losses from those deals still total tens of billions, and taxpayers are ultimately on the hook. But the public never knew. There was no congressional oversight. It was all done behind closed doors. And the New York Fed – then run by Tim Geithner – was very much in the center of the action.

This raises three issues.
First, only Congress is supposed to risk taxpayer dollars. The Fed is not part of the legislative branch. Its secret deals, announced almost two years after they were done, violate the democratic process, if not the Constitution itself. Thomas Jefferson put a stop to Alexander Hamilton’s idea of a powerful central bank out of fear it would be unaccountable to the public. The Fed has just proven Jefferson’s point.

Second, if the Fed can secretly bail out big banks, the problem of “moral hazard” – bankers taking irresponsible risks because they know they’ll be rescued – is far greater than anyone assumed after Congress and the Bush and Obama administrations bailed out the banks. Big banks will always be too big to fail because they know the Fed will secretly back them up if they get into trouble, even if Congress won’t do it openly.

Third, the announcement throws a monkey wrench into the financial reform bill now on Capitol Hill, which gives the Fed additional authority by, for example, creating a consumer protection bureau inside it. Only yesterday, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) blasted the Dodd bill for expanding the Fed’s authority “even as it remains shrouded in secrecy.”

The Fed has a big problem. It acts in secret. That makes it an odd duck in a democracy. As long as it’s merely setting interest rates, its secrecy and political independence can be justified. But once it departs from that role and begins putting billions of dollars of taxpayer money at risk — choosing winners and losers in the capitalist system — its legitimacy is questionable.

That it chose to reveal the truth about its activities during a week when Congress is out of town, when much of official Washington and the Washington media have gone on vacation, and only after several federal courts have held that the Fed must release documents related to its bailout of Bear Stearns, suggests it would rather remain secret than become transparent.

Much of what Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner did (when Geithner was at the New York Fed) in 2008 was presumably necessary. But the public has no way of knowing. The public doesn’t even know who else the Fed has bailed out, or what entities it will bail out in the future. All we know is the Fed secretly bailed out Bear Stearns and AIG and thereby subjected taxpayers to risks that remain even today, without informing the public. That’s not a record on which to build public trust."

Can anyone say "Corporate Control" or "Who really writes the rules?" This isn't an April Fool's joke either sadly.

Hullo, Job Seekers!

Some days the library is... some might say, "Exciting." But they would be wrong. Others might say "Interesting" But they also would be wrong. A more accurate description might be Aggravating or a Lesson in just how dumb and selfish people can be. I mean after all, how much of a fit do you really need to throw over a couple of dollars of fines for your free DVD rentals?    

Frequent flyers in the library are generally only interested in a couple of things, and one of them is generally not books. But public computers at the library are a heavily trafficked area that people will wait in the cold for. And that is even more true in the difficult times we are currently facing with the official unemployment numbers still just under 10% (which doesn't account for those who have given up trying to find a job or college grads who have never found a job or are taking a job that they are overqualified for or those who are being underpaid for their jobs). So the library sees a lot of computer non-users who are trying to find a job. (I say non-users because most of the job seekers in the library are unfamiliar with computers and yet are forced to apply for even the simplest positions online because even Courtesy Clerks at King Soopers (i.e. Baggers) have to fill out their applications online.)

Occasionally, the job seeker is more literate on the computer but has been unemployed for some time and simply can't afford a computer or perhaps has disconnected the internet in an attempt to trim the household budget. Such a person approached the circulation desk today. 

His initial request was for more time as the application process was taking more than the allotted hour. I added a half hour only to later find out he'd given me the wrong computer number and his time had expired while he was filling out the digital forms. Later, as he explained the whole problem he began expressing his frustration with his job search and added complaints about unemployment, how demeaning the whole process is, how long it takes to get a hold of the people in the unemployment office, etc, etc.. His attention then turned like a dog after a squirrel onto the current healthcare (non) reform bill that was passed Sunday by the corporately owned democrats in Washington. He was agitated that the government was interfering with insurance and forcing states to foot some of the bill- irritated that the government was interfering in people's private lives, for daring to curb the unfettered greed of the Insurance companies (as if...).

As he stood in front of me, taking advantage of the FREE computer usage and FREE DVD rental courtesy of  the taxpayers of Denver Co, complaining about the governmentally run Unemployment Office which he is having to deal with because he lost his job-- and lost his job, I might add, because of the poor economy which was driven into depression by the right wing policies of both parties, a system he apparently voted for he is then going to bitch about the healthcare bill??? The sheath of irony that swirled around his head was like a blizzard and visibility was apparently zero.

I wriggled uncomfortably in my comfy desk chair (which I covet for home use!) knowing that I was gagged from offering the answer he rightly deserved-- which was, "If you like this system and you want to continue to vote for the politicians who are mere puppets for the corporate hacks, who protect business interests while denying healthcare then I am for your right to starve to death!" 

Healthcare...

I wasn't going to write on politics on this blog anymore-- It was depressing and didn't seem to get me anywhere. But today healthcare passed in Washington and while I am thrilled that we have actually turned our trajectory in a new direction, I am also despairing of a society that can't seem to grasp the great need to adjust the direction we are currently headed. It's as though we were headed into the perfect storm and yet we're so intent on getting all the profits we can out of this voyage that we won't look at the weather report. It would be easier to remove myself- to pretend that I can't change anything so what is the point. I might be happier- more content. I'd have a sort of "Don't worry, Be Happy" kind of life. A life that would amble along, perhaps responsibly (because I would not accept the BAU kind of don't worry lifestyle that they want us to have, of course) but somehow I can't quite come to grips with that. So on I press...

The long and the short of it is this: some Americans crazily think it's okay to give tax breaks to the wealthy and that corporate wealthfare is just peachy- However! any wealth redistributed to the poor is simply outrageous.

I personally think the rich do just fine for themselves- they can buy the healthcare they need and they can hire the lawyers they need when the healthcare they have is not adequate (and that applies to pretty much anything else they need). They can also buy the security they need against any uprisings that might eventually occur (but that is another story).

Unfortunately they can also game the system. And that is where we are.

The rich are not victims. They are using the rest of us to get rich. They do not work or labor- they gather the fruits of other people's labor, sell it and then watch as the rest of us are buried in debt from the system they put in place. Republicans might say "they put it in banks and other investments that make up the capital used to make loans and run other businesses?" That is a laugh. They are apparently unaware that small business loans are down-- ordinary, main street America is having a hard time getting loans for their businesses or for new businesses. That money is not trickling down! They are buying out smaller businesses so that they can become bigger and make more money and they are buying up their own stocks.(see: http://robertreich.org/)

I don't care that the government might redistribute the wealth of the wealthiest-- I don't care one wit. I think it is the right thing to do. We have a responsibility to each other as human beings. And aiding and abetting the ongoing redistribution of wealth to the upper 1% of Americans is wrong. While helping the lower (and higher!) percentage of Americans who cannot help themselves, even if the government has to force it, is right. And it is something I am prepared to fight for (and pay for if necessary- I have a city job where I get pretty good health insurance). As for waiting for "voluntary altruism"-- that grand old American Tradition-- (not just dripping with sarcasm!) well, there has been time for all that altruism to reveal itself and yet... Waiting for the wealthy to decide they want to help the children on the posters that are nailed onto the corner light posts is obviously a failed policy.

Our government should be (and I say "should be" because that is NOT what they are doing today) offering more to the sick and dying in this country.


A diary on Firedoglake had this subject, "Corporate power must not be challenged" http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/36617/

Open letter to my senators

Misters Bennett and Udall,

While many democrats see the current health care "reform" as the best we can get and appear to jump on this bandwagon without looking over the song, the so-called reform that is currently being talked about is far from reforming anything. And if it makes health insurance mandatory, then the insurance companies have won-- big time. Even if the bill tries to force insurance companies to offer a lower costing insurance, they will still be the ones to profit from the added customer base while having the additional benefit of not having to cover as many people over the age of 55! And medicare costs will go through the roof with the weight of the additional numbers of older customers. This is a pro-business bill and is apparently all we can expect from Washington anymore but I for one am sick of corporate interests always coming out on top.

Vote no on this bill if there is no way to cut costs for medical care and if there is no reasonable option for healthcare for the working middle class.

(I posted this to their websites-- I don't expect them to read my blog.)